 But it is a pleasure, ladies and gentlemen, to introduce to you the man who needs no introduction to the President of the United States. Oh, thank you. Please sit down. Well, thank all of you. It's wonderful to have you here in the Executive Office building. Actually, this is the old EOB. There's a new one across the street. This is called the OEOB. It's quite a mouthful. But you know the folks who work here have solved that problem. They call this the White House. I know you've already been briefed by Ron Perlman, Don Regan, Pat Buchanan, Beryl Sprinkle. And since I know them all well, I know they had some very specific and convincing arguments on why our fair share tax proposal should be adopted. And I know they told you how much we need your help. But I just want to mention here the philosophical underpinnings, if I could for a minute or two of tax reform, the philosophy that guided us as we were putting the plan together. We didn't worry too much about the special interest groups and the special interest pleading. We didn't worry about pressure groups and such. We were concerned about the interest of all working Americans, starting with one central entity, an entity that is itself central to the interests of the entire nation, the family. And so we created a tax reform proposal that puts the family first, because there's nothing more important to all of us and nothing more important to our society, our nation, and our future than the family. That's where our children learn a moral view. It's where the values of personal responsibility and loyalty and kindness are taught. It's not exaggerating to say it as the family goes, so goes the nation. Now, there are many people who share this view. It isn't exactly revolutionary. But in spite of our agreement in this country that the family counts, in spite of that, too many policies of our nation have, for decades, worked against the interest of the family. You know the facts and I'm sure you've heard them repeated today, one of the clearest evidences of how careless we've been in our support of the family is the personal tax exemption for each child and dependent. In 1948, that exemption was $600. And if we'd kept up with inflation, the exemption today would be $2,700. Well, as you know, it hasn't nearly kept up. Administration after administration failed to increase the exemption. They devoted more time to finding new ways to spend the family's earnings. And I'm tired of that kind of behavior, and I think most of the people are. Tired of those who put the family at the end of the line. In 1981, we indexed the personal exemption to inflation so that it's now $1040. And in our tax reform proposal, we've raised that exemption to $2,000. That's a big step in the right direction. It doesn't completely index it to match what inflation has done. But you know about the other parts of the plan that benefit the family, reducing tax rates, extending the full IRA benefits to those who work in the home and the earned income tax credit. We're proud of all this, and that's why I consider this a family first bill. And I intend to watch over the provisions of that bill, just like I used to watch over my own children. As I'm sure many of you know recently, the House Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families reported that our tax reform plan was the most pro-family of all the major tax proposals before the Congress. The committee said it's fair to low-income working families. It's fair to large families, single-parent families, and average income families. Now that assessment of our reforms didn't just come from some Republicans on that committee, because on that House committee, the Republicans are in the minority. It came from the Democrat majority as well. So I hope you'll conclude that our tax proposal deserves your support. We'd like your support, and I'm not embarrassed to ask for it. If you have any nagging questions or doubts, please talk to the members of the staff here, and they'll do whatever they can. But again, I thank you for coming here today and taking part in this debate on this issue. That's what democracy is, and it's good. And now I know I've got a few minutes left, and maybe there's some questions. Yes. Mr. President, I came today in the capacity to schedule for the regular report. And I wonder, do you remember when you made the 25 percent call? The people said that did not benefit the truly needed. However, this proposal benefits those people. They will be taken out for the run, and on the middle ground. Do you feel when the people know this fact, will put some pressure and hit in the company in order to enact this legislation by October 15th? How do you respond? Well, I think that this is where you can all be of such help that when the facts are understood, that the people that are at or below the poverty line are virtually free of all tax. We say there are three brackets, 15, 25, and 35, instead of the present 14 brackets. But there is a fourth bracket. It's zero, and it's going to apply to a lot of people who today are being taxed. My name is Karen Lawan from San Juan. Sorry, I'll get you there. Some of the Caribbean leaders have complained that the Caribbean Basement Initiative has not lived up to its promise. The leader of Puerto Rico, Governor Puerto Rico came here last week to present a proposal that he felt would create new investment in the Caribbean by tying tax exempt funds that corporations now receive to new investments between tax concepts he calls it. Can you tell me how you respond to the governors? Now, if I understand correctly, because I missed and didn't hear the first part of what you were saying, this is with regard to the pension plans. The Caribbean Basement Initiative. Caribbean leaders have said that it has not lived up to its promise. The governor of Puerto Rico has proposed a plan that would stimulate new investment in the area. What I want to know is how you respond to the governor's plan to put Puerto Rico in a leadership role to tie funds that corporations now are getting. Well, I haven't seen that proposal or had it brought to my attention as yet. I'd like to see it. If the plan that we put in, the Caribbean plan isn't doing all that we had hoped that it would do, I'd like to also then see where that has failed or where it has failed to meet the hopes that we had for it. But I couldn't answer until I see what it is that he's proposing. And as I say, see where also the present plan is not working now. It's the present. My name is Martin Byrne. I'm from the Iron Workers International Union. One of the largest obstacles that I can see with the reform tax bill passed in the Congress is the taxing of medical benefits for workers. Just thinking out loud to myself, wouldn't it be wise rather than inhibit the possibility of the package passing? Wouldn't it be wise to eliminate the taxing of fringe benefits? Well, actually what we've done is cap, put a cap that above a certain amount is taxable. On the other hand, if we're going to have this simplified tax plan and lower the rates, there are some things in the area, many things in the area of present deductions that we're going to have to eliminate. And all we have to look at is putting them in context. And if by taxing some fringe benefits, which were not taxed before simply because, again, this was part of that whole attempt at trying to get around the excessively high tax rates was to get some income, not in cash, but in those fringe benefits. But if we can show and we can that the rates that we're proposing will leave the individual paying a lower tax even without some of those present tax-free benefits. And if we start saying here and there that we can't do that, pretty soon we're back to the same kind of tax system we have now and we can't reduce the rates. Sir, Ricardo Alonso Salivar with the Miami Herald. I'd like to ask you a question on a different subject, sir, if I may. The immigration bill, Chairman Rodino in the House has said that to get action on this this year, Congress needs a demonstration of your personal commitment to immigration reform, sir, and your political leadership to get this measure through Congress. Are you prepared to take any steps in this regard and if so, what steps, sir? We supported the previous bill. I'm sure that we'll be supporting this one. And if there hasn't been any sign of us moving on that as yet, we still believe that our immigration needs reform. If there hasn't been any sign, it's because there's so much on the plate and these immediate things such as trying to get the tax reform passed before the end of this year. And remember, our fiscal year actually ends in another month, the end of this month. But that, the deficit problem, all of these things, we've just been pushing on those. It was only a few weeks ago that I heard or read in a number of publications that I was so talking about tax reform so much that I wasn't paying any attention to the deficit or balancing the budget or anything of that kind. We are paying attention to it. But yes, we intend to support. We must have reform of our immigration laws. We've lost control of our own borders and we have to do something about it. Thank you, Mr. President. Charles Green with the Library of Newspapers. How do you account for the criticism that your executive order on South Africa has received from some of the people that it's supposed to help, namely Bishop Tutankham in South Africa, responded by calling you a racist. And the reaction from the American black leaders has been almost uniformly negative. I have to say that this is one of those times in which I think I'm standing against a cellophane wall and being shot at on both sides. And there must be something right about our executive order to have found that both sides are finding things or saying they should have a debate because they can't both be right. I know that they're... And I was surprised at the intemperate remarks of Bishop Tutu. I have met him. I'm sure he's sincere in what he's trying to achieve. But I have to point one thing out. Of all of the people that are talking, our constructive engagement program over these past few years has achieved more improvement than anyone else has achieved in the South African situation. Not nearly enough. But such things as the strides that were made with regard to desegregation in public places, labor rights and union rights and so forth with regard to the black employees, the black ownership of businesses that were permitted to establish themselves in some 40 districts here to four restricted to the white only. As I say, not nearly enough, but at least there were steps going in that way and we're going to continue. And the reason for my executive order was because with the violence and the crisis situation that is there, we felt we needed to do a little more than we've been doing with regard to pressing and having influence on the South African government. They're a sovereign state. We can't just move in and order them to do something any more than we would allow someone to order us to do something. We can influence them and we've proved it in the past. And I believe that these things that we've put in that order, I think that we should give a little while to see how they're going to work out. Remember that in South Africa you have a tribal situation with ten divisions among the black tribes. A lot of the problem that has been shown in the violence so far has been conflict between those groups, not just between the two races. You also have a division in the white community. You have a large segment of the population that has been working and against odds and has been trying to get improvement and once the system changed, you have another hard-nosed faction that doesn't want any change whatsoever. Now, with all of this in mind, I'd like to point out that some of the things that were being proposed, for example, those on the more liberal side who criticized me because they think we should do something much more forceful than has been done, those people are taking no position with regard or against the violence that's going on and they, at the same time, are not taking the position that some of the other responsible leaders, Bhutlazi, who is the leader of the largest tribal group in South Africa, who has pointed out that economically American investment and so forth has been responsible for the black community there having the highest standard of living in almost all of the black states where it isn't a racial problem but where it is a tribal problem. And so I'm just... I can't take seriously the criticisms. I haven't seen anyone pick out something and say, well, you shouldn't have done this or should have done something else. We're trying to influence that government and be of help in finding a nonviolent solution. We only have time for one more question. Oh, dear. Ed Barling, the editor of the Catholic University of Louisville, Cleveland. This is on a different subject for his economics and that is our most pressing problem today, is post-it rates. And the postal board of governors says it plans to increase our post-it rates around 31% October the 1st. This is going to be a crucial item for many people here from the nonprofit press. And I wonder if you could use your influence with Congress to give us some relief. My influence with Congress. I'll have to tell a tip about that. Well, I think once again we're seeing another example. I know that I've been hung out to dry a number of times because of my supposed ideology with regard to government doing things that maybe government was not the proper agent for doing them. And I think the postal service is an example of that. I remember some years ago the figures wouldn't be appropriate now, but they were then that I was pointing out an example of government and its invasion of the private sector and so forth. And I pointed out that at that time, or there was a time about then, 25 years ago before, when you could make a telephone call from San Francisco to New York and it cost about $25.70, I remember. And for that amount of money, that time of the postage rate, you could send 1,300 letters from San Francisco to New York. And at the time I was stating these figures from a speaking platform, I then said at that present time you could now make that telephone call for some 50 odd cents from San Francisco to New York and for that amount of money you could only send three letters. And at the time I said, and so the government is trying to do something to the bell system. I think the situation still prevails. Maybe the answer would be with the postal service is to do anything we can to free up the private delivery of mail in competition with the government and see which one could come out on top. I think there's already evidence that there are some that can do better. There was a cartoon the other day that illustrated that. It showed an executive in our postal department who had a rushed letter and was saying to his secretary, this has to get there by tomorrow. Send it Federal Express. Well, they tell me that I've used up all my time. I'm sorry, there are more hands than... I can't do it, but I know that there are others here that perhaps can. I'm optimistic about it for the simple reason that it is by the approach is bipartisan. We haven't found anything of a party lineup on this and Danny Rastinkowski is swearing that he can get this bill out of the Ways and Means Committee in the House I guess before the end of this month or no. Next month. Next month. In October. So I have to believe that this is one in which maybe we won't be Democrats and Republicans, we'll just be Americans that want a tax cut. Better escape fast. Thank you very much. He says I can't. Alright, thank you all very much. Thank you all very much ladies and gentlemen. Please be careful.