[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 34, Number 15 (Monday, April 13, 1998)]
[Pages 612-619]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Remarks in a Roundtable Discussion on Tobacco in Carrollton, Kentucky

April 9, 1998

    The President, Well, good morning, everybody. The first thing I'd 
like to do is thank Mr. Lyons for hosting us, and thank all of you for 
being here. I thank the members of the panel and also I'd also like to 
thank Governor Patton and Senator Ford and Congressman Baesler for being 
here and riding down with me from the airport. And I thank Lieutenant 
Governor Henry, your State Auditor Edward Hatchett, Senate President 
Saunders, Senator Blevins, Speaker Richards. And I want to thank County 
Judge McMurry and Mayor Welty, who came to meet me as well. And again, 
I'd like to thank Melvin and Brett Lyons for hosting us here. And I 
thank all of you for being here on the panel.
    I know Secretary Glickman has already been down this way and been 
doing some work, but I'd like to make a few comments about where we are 
now in the evolution of this tobacco legislation. The first thing I'd 
like to do is to say a special word of appreciation to Wendell Ford. His 
work on the tobacco bill that's now moving through the Senate I think 
has been very valuable in trying to provide clear and certain protection 
to tobacco farmers, to warehouses, to communities without compromising 
our long-term goal of reducing teen smoking. And I really want to say 
that he's been talking to me about this for years. He and Congressman 
Baesler have done a very good job of pushing your interests there in a 
way that is consistent with what we're trying to do in reducing teen 
smoking.
    I also ought to say that while I'm here, Governor, I think it's only 
fitting that I begin these remarks by congratulating the University of 
Kentucky for winning the basketball tournament. As you know, Hillary and 
I were in Africa and I was getting up at amazing hours in the morning to 
watch these games. I had to watch the championship game on a tape, but 
that was really good.
    Let me also say to those of you who are here and to the many 
thousands of people outside this warehouse that are listening to us or 
will be watching this, I am well aware that the people who farm tobacco 
and who work in this whole area have difficult jobs. I know that it's 
family work, small farms, hand work, that there was a flood in '97 and, 
the year before, blue mold which made the work more difficult, and that 
there is a lot of uncertainty now among people in this community, as I 
saw up and down the road all the way in here.
    Last year, a settlement was announced between the tobacco companies 
and the State attorneys general to try to settle all their lawsuits with 
a set of agreements which would dramatically reduce teen smoking and 
provide some reimbursement to the State governments and to the Federal 
Government for the public health. But when that settlement was 
announced, there was absolutely nothing in there that would protect 
farmers in the event the overall volume of tobacco sales went down. And 
so, when I announced my reaction to their proposed settlement and what 
kind of legislation I would support in the Congress, I said that we had 
forgotten that and that tobacco farmers deserve protection and that I 
would not sign legislation that didn't have it in there. And I want to 
reaffirm that to you today.
    Yesterday, some tobacco executives indicated that they were going to 
withdraw from the discussions with the Congress about legislation, but, 
despite that, I want to tell you

[[Page 613]]

that I believe there's still a good chance we can get comprehensive 
legislation this year that will not leave the farmers behind. And again 
I want to say to them, we have no interest, whatever, in putting the 
tobacco companies out of business. I just want to get them out of the 
business of selling tobacco to children.
    And I think it's important--I think every American recognizes that 
the tobacco farmers have not done anything wrong. You grow a legal crop, 
you're not doing the marketing of the tobacco to children, and you're 
doing your part as citizens. So what I want to hear from you today is 
about what you have to say to me that you want me and every member of 
our administration, every Member of Congress, and the country to know 
about this issue and where we go.
    But let me just clearly state again what my concern is. We know that 
even though it's against the law in every State, 3,000 children a day 
start smoking and 1,000 of them will have their lives shortened because 
of it. That's my concern, overwhelmingly. But I do not want to do 
anything in dealing with that concern which will not honestly take 
account of the communities and the people and the families that are 
involved in tobacco farming.
    It seems to me that you have a big interest in actually seeing 
legislation enacted as soon as possible if it provides adequate 
protection for the farmers because then we'll be helping the children, 
which I know you all want to do anyway, and we'll be doing it under 
terms where you'll actually have some certainty there--where you'll 
actually know what is going to happen, and you'll feel some level of 
security. And if the structure of Senator Ford's proposal prevails, then 
it would, as I understand it, would be consistent with the wishes of 
over 97 percent of the farmers in this area which voted in the 
referendum that's required every 3 years to keep the tobacco program 
intact.
    So I've tried to get prepared, and I got an earful on the way down 
here, as I always do, from Wendell and Scotty and Paul, and I thank them 
for that. So I'd rather spend the rest of the time just listening to 
you. And I'd like to ask our host to open and maybe explain--keep in 
mind, you've got several members of the national press here, too, and 
they will be reporting this to the country as a whole. And maybe, Mr. 
Lyons, it would be helpful if you could just very briefly explain what 
goes on in this warehouse, as if none of us knew anything about it, and 
how that fits with the tobacco farmers and what your concerns are with 
the legislation now pending in Congress.
    There's a microphone. I think we can turn it up so you can speak 
into it. If you want to sit, you can; if you want to stand, you can. Do 
whatever makes you feel most comfortable.

[Melvin Lyons, owner of the warehouse, thanked the President and gave a 
brief description of the warehouse and the process for moving tobacco 
from farms to manufacturers.]

    The President. I want to ask Mr. Kuegel to talk next, but I want to 
point out because this is one of the things that's important for the 
American people to understand why we need the kind of approach that 
Senator Ford has recommended that Mr. Baesler has a bill on in the House 
of Representatives.
    You say that this will bring the farmers approximately $5,000 an 
acre.
    Mr. Lyons. Approximately.
    The President. And what will be the net income to the farmer out of 
that $5,000?
    Mr. Lyons. It would vary. Some people are more efficient than 
others--probably $2,000, $2,500.
    The President. Now, Mr. Kuegel, you're the president of the Burley 
Tobacco Growers Cooperative, and yet you've also been involved with the 
Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. So why don't you just comment--and bring 
that microphone over closer to you--why don't you tell us a little bit 
about the economics of tobacco, what you're trying to do, and how you 
believe that we can vigorously pursue this Campaign for Tobacco-Free 
Kids and protect the interests of people whom you are elected to 
represent.

[Mr. Kuegel described efforts to work with health groups to find common 
ground and describe how Senator Ford's ``Leaf Act'' would advance 
agricultural and economic development in Carrollton and protect the 
farmers from the tobacco companies.]

[[Page 614]]

    The President. And basically, it protects you by preserving the 
structure of the program you now have, so that when the co-ops buys the 
tobacco, the farmers get the income immediately. The co-op holds the 
tobacco in storage until market conditions support the release of 
tobacco, its sale at an acceptable market price. Isn't that right?

[Mr. Kuegel concurred with the President's summary and expressed concern 
about some of the other proposals in Congress.]

    The President. Well, based on what I understand--and I agree with 
you about that--I want to just make sure everyone understands this--the 
way the Ford bill works--and Wendell, if I make a mistake, pipe in 
here----
    Senator Ford. You can bet on it. [Laughter]
    The President. Poor, shy man. [Laughter]
    The bill offers an up-front, generous buy-out proposal to people who 
want to get out, and the assumption is that there will be some, older 
people or others, who want to get out and that would, therefore, reduce 
the total number of producers. Then it keeps the program in place. Then 
if at some future date the demand goes even below that, there are 
substantial transition payments and assistance payments offered to 
communities, warehouses, and farmers.
    And along the way, there are the kind of education and training 
benefits offered that we provide, for example, to people that are 
displaced when there are trade changes, changes in the American economy 
caused by trading flows that may benefit the overall economy but 
disadvantage people, so we owe them an extra bit of help to get started.
    And I think there are two points to make here to those who would be 
skeptical about the approach that is being advocated. The first and the 
most important one is the one you've already said: At least to date, no 
one has figured out how to tell a tobacco farmer with a straight face 
that you should produce another crop and we will facilitate you getting 
into alternative crop production. The average farm in Kentucky is how 
big? Four acres, five acres?
    Mr. Kuegel. Average tobacco production.
    The President. Tobacco production, not farm but tobacco production. 
There is no known crop with the same income per acre. So if you were 
going to pay somebody to transition, one of the things you'd have to do 
is buy them all a whole lot more land. And I think that's a very 
important point to make.
    The second point that needs to be made is, if you dismantle this 
program, you would not end the production of tobacco. You would end the 
ability of all these family farmers to produce tobacco, and you would 
probably create a structure more like what you see in some parts of 
California, where the ultimate processor in California, food processor--
in this case the processor would be the cigarette companies--would 
control the farming and everybody would be a hired hand. And the income 
would all flow up except for a salary.
    Isn't that basically your conclusion of what would happen?
    Mr. Kuegel. I don't think there is any question that's what would 
happen. And it would be inevitable with Senator Lugar's bill if it does 
away with our tobacco program.
    The President. So I think it's very important for the Members of the 
Congress, the members of the press, and people out in the country to 
understand that we don't want to be guilty of the law of unintended 
consequences here. What we're trying to do is improve the public health, 
cut teen smoking, get enough money into this program to deal with some 
of the larger health consequences in our society that have already 
developed. But we need to think a long time before we break down the 
structure that you see from the Cincinnati airport--which is in 
Kentucky--all the way driving here. And I think it's very, very 
important because I think this is a not very well-understood point.
    I'd like to call on Amy Barkley next, who is the director of the 
Coalition for Health and Agricultural Development and involves public 
advocates actually working with farmers to address both the health and 
the economic issues. Amy, would you like to say anything about what 
we're discussing here?

[Ms. Barkley thanked the President and stated that health advocates had 
supported the tobacco program because they did not want

[[Page 615]]

tobacco farmers to become employees of tobacco companies. She stated 
that while she was a firm supporter of stopping teen smoking, she 
believed both goals should be reconciled to protect both the health of 
our youth and the future of the tobacco farmer.]

    The President. Let me ask you a question that I didn't ask Rod, and 
may be anybody feel free to comment. One of the things that occurs to me 
is, if we allow this program to lapse--let's suppose we have some 
version of the McCain bill. Now, the fight is going on now in Washington 
with tobacco companies as they say that it raises a lot more money from 
them than we had estimated. They say it will raise the price of 
cigarettes even more than we had estimated. They say it will cut 
consumption more than we had estimated. Therefore, they say they will be 
at great risk, and it's inconsistent with the original agreement.
    And so we've got to work through all that. But one of the things 
that--the provisions for the tobacco farmers get almost no notice, but 
it occurs to me that if we were to abolish the program altogether, give 
everybody some sort of a cash payment for their allocation, and then 
just abolish the program, then what you think would happen I think would 
happen--first of all, that there would be no restrictions on production. 
And what I think would likely happen is there would be more tobacco 
grown at a lower price, which would make it uneconomical for you so the 
companies would take it over directly.
    But from the point of view of our public health objective, if more 
tobacco is grown at a lower price, that undermines our desire to make a 
pack of cigarettes high enough in price that it will be part of what 
discourages children from smoking.
    It seems to me that that's the public health angle here that someone 
like you, Amy--we need this highlighted from a public health point of 
view so that people in the vast, vast majority of our country that don't 
know anything about tobacco farming, don't have a dog in this hunt, and 
don't understand it, and don't want to make sure we're not doing 
something funny here--they need to understand that, ironically, if we 
dismantle this program, we might undermine the goals of reducing teen 
smoking.
    I'd like to call on Mattie Mack now to talk a little bit about this 
from the point of view of an individual farmer. She's had an interesting 
family history on her farm, and I think I'll let her tell it to you, 
especially since we've apparently gotten her a local reporter in here. I 
hope we have. [Laughter]

[Ms. Mack stated that the tobacco farmer should not be penalized because 
of children smoking and suggested that parents must play a greater role 
in keeping children from smoking. She described her life as a tobacco 
farmer, the economic struggles and benefits, and how she had raised her 
four children and 38 foster children on the farm, concluding that 
tobacco had made some good things possible.]

    The President. You guys didn't oversell her. [Laughter] It was just 
like you said it would be.
    Let me call next on Karen Armstrong Cummings, because she's the 
managing director of the Commodity Growers Cooperative, which develops 
markets for family farm products. And they're interested in preserving 
the future of small farms.
    So how are we going to preserve the small farms and do something 
about teen smoking? What options are there?
    Could you give the microphone back, Rod?

[Ms. Cummings described her participation in the Agriculture 
Department's National Commission on Small Farms which developed over 140 
recommendations to get USDA's policies focused on the family farm and 
insofar as tobacco was concerned, the tobacco program was essential to 
continued existence of family farms in the Southeast.]

    The President. Thank you. This is really not exactly the time or 
place for this, but if you get beyond tobacco and you look at other 
small farm issues, the reason this program has worked for small farmers 
is that you've had--first of all, you've had an allocation system which 
keeps the price within some bonds, although it varies still quite a bit 
as all of you know, depending on weather conditions and other things.
    And because you've got this co-op system that really works to give 
the farmer cash

[[Page 616]]

money on the front end, even if the big tobacco companies, cigarette 
companies, don't pay you right away, the co-op will. And I think we 
really need to look at this again. It's off the subject we're here to 
meet about today but before I leave office in 2001, I really hope that 
we will have been able to set up an alternative framework of policies 
that will enable family farmers who live in places where this is not 
even an optional crop, where they've got to do something else, and where 
they're doing what most tobacco farmers do--they have some income from 
off the farm and some income from on the farm to be able to continue to 
do that.
    The whole theory behind this whole--going to a completely free 
market in agriculture was that you would get more efficient production. 
But the truth is the family farmers that have been put out of business, 
by and large, have not been put out of business from inefficiency of 
production, they have been put out of business because they didn't have 
enough cash to stand the bad years. At least that is my belief. That is 
what I think based on my experience in a totally different agricultural 
environment.

[Ms. Cummings stated that whole issue of access to capital and the 
lending system needed to be reviewed. One of her organization's 
recommendations was for a Presidential commission to look at market 
concentrations in the agricultural sector.]

    The President. If you look at how you sell cattle or, especially, 
how increasingly hog operations are going and you compare that to how 
the tobacco co-op works as a buyer of last resort, so that the cash is 
transferred to the farmer immediately and someone else basically is 
holding the crop until it can be sold and paying the price of holding 
the crop--I mean, it gives you some idea of what--it would be good if we 
could figure out a way to do.
    Now, it's very different with live animals. You still have to feed, 
you still have to--they don't warehouse too well, and you still have to 
feed them. So I don't--none of these issues are simple. If they were 
simple we wouldn't have to worry about them. But I do think you made a 
good point.
    And I want to get back to the subject at hand, but I promise you 
I'll spend some time on this because it's very important to me to see 
that we don't lose every small farmer in America just because of the 
structure of the money economy, the finance economy, as opposed to the 
efficiency of the operation. I'm not interested in protecting any 
inefficient operators who can't compete, but I have seen enough crops 
come in now over the course of my life in enough different areas to 
believe that it's more the way the money economy is structured and the 
way the products are brought to market than the efficiency of the farmer 
that's changed the structure of farming.
    The reason you've got all these small farmers here is you've got the 
allocation, the limited production, and the cooperative buyer. I believe 
that.
    Mr. Sprague, do you want to go next? You're the president of the 
Kentucky Farm Bureau, and I understand you're a fifth generation farmer. 
And you have 3,000 acres of crop; that makes you a big tobacco farmer--
it makes you a small rice farmer in Arkansas and a big tobacco farmer in 
Kentucky. [Laughter]

[Mr. Sprague, stated that the tobacco generated $1 billion worth of 
income for Kentucky farmers and that it generated 3 or 4 times as it 
goes through the economy. He indicated that the present situation 
regarding tobacco created uncertainty in the whole tobacco industry and 
said that the Nation needed a policy at the national level that would 
give stability to the industry.]

    The President. Let me, if I could--and I would invite--I know I've 
got two more panelists I want to call on, and I would invite any of you 
to kick in. You have stated a sort of summary of where you are and where 
you think the farmers are so well, I think it might be worthwhile to go 
back to the beginning here.
    Let's remember how this whole thing came up. There were two things 
going on. First of all, the Federal Food and Drug Administration opened 
an inquiry and found, as a factual matter, that there was an effort made 
to market tobacco products to young people, that it was not only against 
the law

[[Page 617]]

but it was likely to become more addictive to them if kids started 
smoking when they were young rather than if they started after they were 
adults when they might use it more in moderation and all that, and that 
the health consequences were considerable. That was the finding.
    Simultaneously, they had a number of States that filed suits against 
the tobacco companies, claiming that they had marketed cigarettes to 
children in violation of the law all these years, and that that had led 
to not only injury to the individuals, but vast costs to the States 
through their medical programs. And then there were the private 
lawsuits, the people that got lung cancer and all.
    And all these things came together, and the tobacco companies and 
basically the State attorneys general and the representatives of the 
private plaintiffs came up with their proposed settlement in which they 
agreed, among other things, to pay more money to defray some of the 
health care costs, to run up the price of cigarettes some to make it 
less attractive, and to reduce--change their advertising practices.
    But in order to get all that done, comprehensively they had to pass 
a bill through Congress because they also have to deal with the Federal 
Food and Drug Administration program. So now we're in a situation where, 
as you pointed out, there are lots of different agendas here and lots of 
different things going on.
    I do believe, however, that there is a bipartisan majority of people 
in the Congress in both Houses, in both parties, who honestly just want 
to do as much as they reasonably can to reduce smoking by young people 
as quickly as they reasonably can, in a way that does not put the 
tobacco companies out of business, and even more important to most of 
us, is not really unduly unfair to you.
    So what you're saying to me is that right now the uncertainty is the 
worse enemy you have, and what we need is to get this thing done in 
Congress this year, do it in a way that achieves our goal of driving 
down teen smoking as much as we can, as fast as we can, and let you know 
what the rules are.
    Now, let me ask you just specifically--I mean, I assume you believe 
this, but you didn't say it explicitly--it seems to me that the greatest 
balance of certainty for the farmers in our efforts to reduce teen 
smoking is in some version of what Senator Ford has proposed. That is, 
if you assume that--let's just assume that through whatever means--the 
American Medical Association, for example, says that because there are 
so many kids out there more or less on their own, that the advertising 
has a bigger impact on inducing kids to start smoking even than peer 
pressure does. So if you assume all that, then it seems to me the best 
proposal is something like--something that would offer a buy-out that is 
generous and fair and adequate to people that want to get out because 
there is no easy substitution, as all of you have said.
    Then for all those that don't get out--because you assume that if 
all the kids start--if you cut teen smoking in half, then, within some 
number of years, the aggregate demand for tobacco in America will go 
down. So some people get out, and you pay them a legitimate price to get 
out; then the other people who are still in, operate under a program 
that controls production and gives the family farmers a chance to 
survive. That's basically what Wendell wants to do.
    And in addition to that, since maybe there won't be enough people 
get out for the market reduction--we don't know that--it also provides a 
structure within which you get aid to warehouses, aid to communities, 
and aid to individuals for continuing education and training, as I've 
said, just the same way we would with people that are dislocated from 
trade. If we pass something like that, is that the best thing to do? I 
mean, is that basically what you would recommend that we do?

[Mr. Sprague said that he believed so but indicated that about half the 
tobacco grown was for export and that efforts to reduce exports would be 
detrimental to farmers. He indicated he would like to see the exports 
continue.]

    The President. Okay. Marissa, would you like to talk a little bit 
about how you view this issue?

[Marissa Vaught, whose grandmother died of cancer, expressed her 
opposition to youth smoking but said raising taxes on cigarettes would 
make it harder for people from Kentucky to put food on the table.]

[[Page 618]]

    The President. What do you think the most effective--I should say 
that Marissa is, I think, a junior at Carroll County High School--is 
that right? What do you think the most effective thing we could do to 
reduce teen smoking? Let me just say, there are lots of people who think 
the most effective thing you could do is just make cigarettes a lot more 
expensive. There are other people who think the most effective thing you 
can do is to stop the cigarette companies from doing any advertising 
that could be specifically or extra appealing to young people. Then 
there are people who think that there is nothing you can do except to 
try to get the parents and the religious leaders and the community 
leaders to try to teach kids not to do it in the first place.
    What is your sense of what the most effective thing that we could do 
to discourage your peers from beginning to smoke?

[Ms. Vaught indicated that she thought it would be helpful to show the 
positive side on not smoking rather than to stress punishment.]

    The President. Do you believe that most teenagers actually do know 
and believe that it is dangerous?
    Ms. Vaught. I do believe that they actually do. But sometimes people 
really don't care.
    The President. When you're 16 you think you're going to live 
forever, don't you?
    Ms. Vaught. Exactly. They don't know----
    The President. I did. [Laughter]
    Ms. Vaught. ----that it's going to hit you. Consequences are hard, 
and they do come fast and slow. They think they're going to live 
forever, and I'm going to die anyway. But it's how you die that is 
important. I think that your health and safety is important, especially 
on teens.
    The President. So you think if we could--that's what Bill said. He 
said, if his daddy gave him $1,000 if he didn't smoke by the time he was 
21----
    Ms. Vaught. Yes, that's positive incentive.
    The President. So you think a positive--some sort of positive 
incentive program would be effective?
    Ms. Vaught. Exactly. I do think that. It worked for you, obviously. 
It works for teens.
    The President. Thank you.
    Dr. William Goatley is the pastor of the First Baptist Church in 
Eminence, Kentucky. I thought we ought to give him a chance to say 
whether he thinks the religious community should have any role in this 
whole issue.
    Doctor?

[Dr. Goatley said that tobacco was a way of life and a type of 
livelihood for people in Kentucky and that there had to be an 
alternative livelihood as part of the solution. He said the President 
should continue his crusade against youth smoking.]

    The President. Thank you very much. That was a very moving statement 
to me. No one knows exactly why, but, for whatever reason, we know that 
teen smoking has, in fact, been on the rise. And the overwhelming--I say 
again, we can't lose sight of the big issue--the overwhelming evidence 
is that 3,000 children begin to smoke every day, and 1,000 of them will 
have their life shortened because of it, and that the rest of us as 
taxpayers will pay enormously for them. But the most important cost is 
human, not economic.
    And the question is whether we can pursue a reasonable course to 
deal with that and deal with the human reality of the livelihood and the 
life and the structure of life that all of these fine people have been 
talking around the table and have described today.
    I think the answer is yes. And as I said, I think, ironically, 
trying to preserve the structure will actually--since no one suggested 
tobacco is not a legal crop and that adults should not be free to buy 
it, that that is not a position advocated by anybody--nobody's 
advocating prohibition here--ironically, it seems to me, that our 
objectives in reducing teen smoking by making it both more expensive and 
less attractive in other ways, and dealing with the advertising is 
actually furthered by preserving this program because it will reduce 
production and keep the price up.
    If you abolish the program, you put a lot of these folks out of 
business, but you will not reduce production. You'll probably increase 
production, lower the price of tobacco and, therefore, make cigarettes 
cheaper, notwithstanding whatever we do with the tax or

[[Page 619]]

a voluntary payment or whatever we wind up calling it when Congress 
acts.
    So anyway, I thank you for that. Secretary Glickman, would you like 
to say anything?

[Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman described his visits to Kentucky and 
efforts underway to deal with the situation and closed by saying that he 
was looking to economic development options rather than alternative 
crops programs as a significant part of the solution.]

    The President. Let me just make one other request of all of you. I 
will certainly try to do what you've asked me to do; that is, I'm going 
to do my dead-level best to get the legislation passed this year that 
will not only dramatically reduce teen smoking, but will provide some 
certainty to you and some legitimate protection for the tobacco farmers 
and the warehouses and their communities. So I will try to do that.
    But let me ask you to do something, because you've really piqued my 
interest here, both what our pastor said and what Marissa said, what you 
said, Bill, what you said, Mattie, about parents' responsibility. I have 
spent quite a bit of time with young people's groups, the youth 
organizations all over the country, from New York City to small towns in 
California, of young people who are organized to try to get their peers 
not to smoke and who also often go from store to store to store to test 
whether the sellers of cigarettes are actually even making modest 
efforts to do anything about it.
    And I respect that because I think it's wrong to put all the 
responsibility here on the manufacturers. It's not like these children 
and their parents and their families and their schools and their 
churches are just ciphers that have no will, have no knowledge, have no 
nothing. I mean, they get up every day and go through life, too. And I 
wish you would get some thought to--as a practical matter, I don't know 
that the Government could offer every 18-year-old $1,000 on their 18th 
birthday if they could prove they never smoked a cigarette, but there 
may be some other things we could do in the area of getting young people 
to assume more responsibility and providing some rewards and doing some 
things that we haven't thought.
    And Marissa, the other thing, we may not have been as creative about 
that whole element of this as we can be, and I'd be willing to think 
about that.
    Ms. Vaught. There is a teacher who talked to me about this, and he 
said maybe college scholarships for nonsmokers, maybe a non-smoking 
scholarship for students who happen to do well in school and are non-
smokers.
    The President. We'll look at that. We'll figure out what the cost of 
that would be. You may be right; it may be cheaper than some of the 
other stuff we're doing. [Laughter] I'll do that, I'll look into that.
    You were great all of you. Thank you very much. Let's give them a 
hand. Weren't they great? [Applause] Very impressive. Thanks.

Note: The discussion began at 11:08 a.m. at the Kentuckiana Warehouse. 
In his remarks, he referred to Gov. Paul E. Patton and Lt. Gov. Stephen 
L. Henry of Kentucky; State Auditor Edward B. Hatchett, Jr., State 
Senator Larry Saunders, president, and State Senator Walter Blevins, 
Jr., president pro tempore, Kentucky Senate; State Representative Jody 
Richards, speaker, Kentucky House of Representatives; Judge Gene 
McMurry, Carroll County; Mayor Bill Welty of Carrollton; and Melvin and 
Brett Lyons, owners, Kentuckiana Warehouse.