Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
323150964
label
Regional Media Luncheon 3/23/90 [OA 4727]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
323150964
contentType
document
title
Regional Media Luncheon 3/23/90 [OA 4727]
citationUrl
identifierLocal
13524-009
collections
Records of the White House Office of Speechwriting (George H. W. Bush Administration)
Speech Draft Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
323150964
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
ef45617b778e0e21
ocrText
Originally Processed With FOIA(s):
FOIA Number:
S
S
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the George Bush Presidential
Library Staff.
Record Group/Collection:
George H.W. Bush Presidential Records
Collection/Office of Origin:
Speechwriting, White House Office of
Series:
Speech File Draft Files
Subseries:
Chron File, 1989-1993
OA/ID Number:
13524
Folder ID Number:
13524-009
Folder Title:
Regional Media Luncheon 3/23/90 [OA 4727]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
G
26
16
2
2
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
March 23, 1990
PRESS CONFERENCE BY THE PRESIDENT
WITH REGIONAL MEDIA
The East Room
1:06 P.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: Well, once again, let me say welcome to
the White House. I'm delighted you all are here. Sometimes I'm
asked about traveling, why I do it so much, and I must tell you that
I really do like to travel outside of the beltway to the rest of this
country. And I'm delighted that all of you have traveled here to the
White House.
I'm pleased to meet with such a broad cross-section of
journalists. Wherever you're from -- whether you came all the way in
from the West Coast -- and some did -- or whether your organization
is based right here in Washington, I'm just delighted that you're
here. The organizations you represent are part of a proud
journalistic tradition, serving every state, every city, community
across this country. In a moment, I'll be glad to take some
questions, but just a brief statement.
I'll begin with a matter critical to the future of
democracy in this hemisphere. All of us have followed the unfolding
of freedom in Eastern Europe, and together with Congress, we've moved
to offer American assistance to support those emergency* democracies
in the East. Now, that assistance is crucial; it will continue. But
there's work to be done -- work that I feel is every bit as important
in support of democracy right here in our own hemisphere.
Panama and Nicaragua stand at a historic moment -- on the
threshold of democracy. In both nations, the people have spoken in
favor of freedom, but the difficult work of democracy building
remains. This hemisphere -- the Americas -- can become the first
where democracy prevails from north to south. But it cannot happen
if we in the United States fail to add our strength and support to
the forces of democracy.
I'm pleased you're here today because this is a matter of
tremendous interest to all Americans. Whether it's out in El Paso,
or Paducah, Kentucky; or Rochester, New York; or Jackson Hole,
Wyoming, Angus -- the American people believe that what this nation
stands for depends on whether we stand with people who seek freedom
and democracy.
Last week, I asked the Congress to act, and act quickly,
on the aid package that I've proposed to Nicaragua and Panama. I
renew that call today. And let me say to Congress: if agreement
cannot be reached on finding the money that is needed for this "Fund
for Democracy, I am ready to make the hard choices. With Congress'
authorization -- and it would require that -- I am ready to select
offsets from the defense budget, break the logjam and get these much
needed resources moving into the region. With democracy at stake, we
really cannot afford delay.
* emerging
MORE
- 2 -
Let me turn now just briefly to another part of the world
I know you all are interested in -- Lithuania. The brave men and
women of Lithuania have made known their desire to reestablish the
sovereignty of the Republic of Lithuania. The United States stands
with them and supports their right to self-determination. This is a
complex and sensitive time when realistic, level-headed leadership is
required on all sides. Lithuanian leaders have consistently
demonstrated their capacity in this regard, and the United States
will do nothing that will make their task more difficult.
We've repeatedly urged the Soviet Union -- Soviet
government -- to enter into immediate negotiations with the
Lithuanian government, which has itself called for those talks. We
know that the Soviet Union has a long-standing interest in Lithuania,
but those interests can only be addressed through dialogue and
negotiation. Any attempt to coerce, or intimidate, or forcibly
intervene against the Lithuanian people is bound to backfire. That
is inevitable.
The Soviet leadership has said again and again that it
will not use force. And we welcome that. And let me repeat, we have
made clear to the Soviet Union that the situation in Lithuania can
only be solved peacefully.
Now I'll be glad to take some questions. Right here.
Q
Mr. President, we've read your lips and we've heard
your words, no new taxes. Back home in Western Pennsylvania, our
government leaders are saying no new taxes that you want to be blamed
for. For example, your new transportation policy would cause taxes
to go up in our area, would cause transit fares to go up in our area,
and our government leaders say it's a disaster. The government --
the federal government doesn't want to take any -- share any more
credit in this, but they want the local governments to take more of a
burden and, therefore, local taxes will have to raise -- therefore,
if you can fulfill your promise.
THE PRESIDENT: And they feel if the federal government
spent it all, why, then it wouldn't cost anybody at home -- is that
right? They're wrong. They're just as wrong as they can be. And I
was very pleased that our transportation policy was endorsed by the
National Association -- I believe it was -- State Legislators.
Wasn't it, John? So there's a difference. I mean, I know some take
the line that you asked about, but we don't feel that way at all.
We think that by removing some of the impediments to
development and leaving some of the financial responsibility in the
hands of the states, that's the way to go. That's the federal
system. There is a good deal of federal money involved in our
national transportation program.
Q
You mentioned Lithuania and Eastern Europe. I want
to go back to the South African question, especially considering
Secretary Baker's travels there. A lot of people now are comparing
de Klerk to Gorbachev in terms of reform, but they're still concerned
about the position on sanctions. Could you address that in terms of
whether --
THE PRESIDENT: Position on what, sir?
2
Position on sanctions.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
Q
Are we going to hold the line and keep them?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, our law requires holding the line.
We've made this very clear to the South Africans. I've invited both
Mr. de Klerk and Mr. Mandela to come here. We have no dates set for
either one. I strongly support the Secretary of State in the
MORE
- 3 -
dialogue he has established, not only with Mandela and other leaders
of the ANC, but with Mr. de Klerk. But I don't think this is the
time to change the policy on sanctions.
There's some legislation in the Congress introduced by
Ron Dellums which would add to the sanction base, and I don't believe
that he's going to press that legislation at all. I met with him and
Bill Gray and Dean Gallo and a bipartisan delegation that was in
South Africa. All of them -- and they presented this to me as a
unanimous view -- were impressed with what they heard from
Mr. de Klerk, certainly impressed with what they heard from
Mr. Mandela. So I don't think this is a time to change in either
direction. But I want to see more progress.
Q
Mr. President, on the local level, in New York
State, Mario Cuomo is running for election this year. The Republican
Party, your party, can't even find a candidate to go up against him
THE PRESIDENT: This is depressing me. (Laughter.)
Q
Is Mario Cuomo that unbeatable? Can you give your
assessment of this man and do you have any plans to help out your
party in New York State?
THE PRESIDENT: I will certainly try to help out the
party in the state. I hope we can find a good, strong candidate.
And, yes, the man is a formidable political opponent -- there's no
question about that. So I'm not standing up here to knock Mario
Cuomo.
But I'd like to have the party find a strong opponent for
him and have competitive races, not just in New York State, but in
every state. But I think you've got it sized up just about where it
stands right now. I'd like to think that there would be a strong
opponent for him.
Q
-- would you be willing to help? Do you have any
suggestions --
THE PRESIDENT: No, I don't. I've got all the problems
that I can handle right here, without trying to second-guess the
party in New York. But it is something that I'm interested in, of
course. These gubernatorial races have a tremendous impact on my
line of work the federal government -- because of the
redistricting that will take place after the '90 elections. So there
are some key governors races across this country to which I will
devote attention and time in the fall.
Q
Mr. President, I'm from Miami so my question has to
do about Cuba. Tell us the policy of the United States as of now
toward Cuba as the last military regime in this hemisphere? And also
if the United States would be willing to help the new Cuban
government after Castro is gone like it's helping Panama and
Nicaragua.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, your question implies that Castro
will be gone, but clearly the United States would rejoice in being
able to help a democratically-elected government in Cuba. I am
convinced that the people of Cuba want the same thing that the people
of Nicaragua demonstrated that they wanted, the people of Panama
demonstrated that they wanted and the rest of the countries in the
hemisphere have demonstrated that they want -- democracy and freedom.
And Castro has not changed. Indeed, he's swimming
against the tide. And I don't believe there would be any resistance
from any quarter to helping the people of Cuba once they had the
right to express themselves in free and fair elections.
I don't think it will do much good, but I would encourage
Castro to move toward free and fair elections. I would encourage him
to lighten up on the question of human rights, where he's been
MORE
- 4 -
unwilling to even welcome the U.N. back to take a look again. And I
am not going to change the policy of the United States government
towards Mr. Castro. We're going to continue to try to bring the
truth to Cuba, just as we did to Czechoslovakia and Poland and other
countries.
Q
Your administration is opposed to a provision in the
Rural Economic Development Act that would provide $30 million in
loans to people living in along the Texas-Mexico border. These loans
would be used to install indoor plumbing. The Texas Senate is taking
up the resolution today, a plea for the administration to reconsider
its opposition. These people, about 300,000, live without running
water and sewage facilities -- (inaudible.) If the administration
won't make available loans, is there any other help that you might be
able to offer these people?
THE PRESIDENT: I know of the problem. I must say, with
some embarrassment, I don't know of exactly where that provision
stands in terms of support or not support from the administration.
But it is a serious problem, and it concerns people on both sides of
our border, and it's a health question. And I will try to get back
to you, in El Paso, with an answer to what we might do if this
provision is not supported for budgetary reasons.
Q
We asked our readers to bring their questions to
you, and the question that seemed to come up most was -- you referred
to it today -- in the face of all the problems the United States
faces, homelessness, et cetera, why are we spending so much money
overseas? Why don't we spend some of that money at home? Secondly,
many also asked if you want to fight the war on drugs and be the
environment president and the education president, where do you plan
to find the money to do that and is it time to start reading their
lips and think about raising taxes?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I've had very few people writing in
to say, please raise my taxes. But nevertheless, on why do we
establish the priorities the way we do -- I think it is in our own
national interest to see the fledgling democracies of Eastern Europe
and of this hemisphere prevail. I think in a final analysis, it will
be to our financial interest as well because we will help create
stable democracies that will actively trade with the United States.
Secondly, I realize, having been a member of Congress,
that foreign aid is not the most popular account to vote for. I
understand that. Never has been. In terms of the total percentage
of the budget, it still remains a relatively small percent.
What was the other part of it?
Q
The idea that you want to --
THE PRESIDENT: Why don't we raise -- yes. Well, I think
Q
I don't think they were asking specifically for
taxes, but they are questioning where you plan to get --
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Well, I believe that our National
Strategy II -- and I see Bill Bennett here -- is receiving very
strong support. We've had a tremendous increase in the amount of
federal funds that are going into the drug fight. It's close to $10
billion. What is the exact increase?
MR. BENNETT: A 70-percent increase since you took
office.
THE PRESIDENT: Since I've taken office. People don't
realize this. But the exciting thing on the drug fight -- I salute
Bill Bennett and his efforts for what we are doing -- but I honestly
can say to the American people I think we are beginning to make
significant progress. And I'm not simply pointing to the decline in
high school senior use of cocaine. That's an important figure --
MORE
- 5 -
down by one-third. But we're beginning -- I think there's an
awareness, a national awareness now that is going to inevitably lead
to success in the war against drugs. There is certainly an
international awareness that we didn't have a couple of years ago.
And I was involved in it a couple of years ago -- the fight.
We're getting strong cooperation from countries around
the world. We are trying to encourage the Congress to go forward
with a strong law enforcement package. But I will take this
opportunity to say I really do believe in my heart of hearts that we
are starting to make significant progress and we are going to keep
the pressure on.
But the money that's spent by the federal government is a
tiny percentage of the work that is being done at the state, at the
local level, and also at what I think is the "points of light" level.
The dynamism of individuals participating is fantastic.
Q
Hi, I'm from California, from Los Angeles. And
tomorrow, Saturday, is the first-year anniversary of the nation's
worst oil spill, and just last month we in California averted what
could have been a disaster in Huntington Beach. And experts are
telling us that another one is inevitable -- What is the federal
government doing to guarantee the people of Southern California that
their beaches are going to be protected?
THE PRESIDENT: I think the federal government with the
Coast Guard and our Department of Energy are working very
cooperatively with the environmental -- and our EPA -- working
closely with the environmental officials in the State of California.
But may I answer your question by a question? Is it proposed that we
have no more tankers going into California? And if the answer to
that is, yes, do we then -- how do you get heat? How do you get
energy?
And so what we're trying to do in this regard is to have
a whole new look in the Coast Guard, Department of Transportation,
EPA looking at it as to shipping lanes to see what is the best --
whether there's a way to shift the shipping lanes to avert proximity
to the beaches as much as possible.
It isn't going to be possible to deny access to tankers.
And we don't want that. So what the answer is, make it as safe as
possible. But if you're saying to me, can the federal government
guarantee that no tanker will ever again have a leak or spill oil,
no, I can't do that. And I don't think any reasonable person can
suggest that be done. But we can go the extra mile in terms of
environmental protection, safeguarding the sea lanes and all of that.
Q
What about double-hulled tankers and --
THE PRESIDENT: They're moving towards that, yes. But
everything we do has a price tag, and you have to look at every
suggestion -- the cost benefit. Fortunately, the most recent spill I
am told does not appear to have lasting environmental damage, and I
hope that proves to be right for the people of Huntington Beach.
I'm watching very closely the situation in Alaska because
I think we would all agree that the reports at this time last year
were total disaster to the environment in Alaska. Now we're
beginning to get a little different view of that, and I hope there's
reason to be somewhat more optimistic, although there is still --
that was an unacceptable incident. And that is in the courts right
now, so I guess I shouldn't say too much more about it.
But we will try, because I am committed to a sensitivity
in anything that has to do with the environment. But I'm not going
to throw everybody in America out of work. P.S., please support the
compromise -- the clean air bill that's up before the Senate.
Q
Mr. President, as you're developing your
administration's responses to the emerging democracies in Eastern
MORE
- 6 -
Europe, how much of a help or hindrance has the activities of Senator
Helms been on Capitol Hill?
THE PRESIDENT: I have great respect for Senator Helms,
as you know, and I will add friendship, as well. And in terms of
Eastern Europe, Jesse Helms has been out in front for a long time as
a proponent of democracy in Eastern Europe. And I don't expect he's
going to change his view, and I hope he doesn't.
Q
Mr. President, I'm from Rochester, New York, and one
of the issues that came up in your last visit was promotion of Kodak
for its involvement in the relationship between the private sector,
school boards, and the public sector. Is your administration making
progress with getting enough companies directly involved in the
public-private partnership, and what kind of progress have you had so
far?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, we are. And, again, it's
exhortation. There is an example of what I talk about when I talk
about involvement, private company being involved in helping others,
or an individual being helped -- those monitors or those people that
Kodak lends to the school community out there on their own helping
others. And we are seeing progress being made -- another example I
could cite to you that I've seen personally is Procter & Gamble's
efforts in that regard in the city of Cincinnati, and we're seeing it
happen in Kansas city.
So it's breaking out all across this country. And Kodak,
to its credit, through that marvelous program of almost a magnet
school concept, went into a place -- what he's talking about -- went
into a place where the school was just -- people were fleeing it,
they were escaping. Not only was it -- they weren't performing
academically, but the whole environment was one of fear for the kids.
And this company, along with, I might add, an enlightened school
board approach, decided to do something about it. Rolled up their
sleeves. They didn't come up to Washington and say, "please pay for
it all," and it was good. It's worked just beautifully.
Yes, right here, and then I'm told we've got three or
four -- let's take five more. This is one. Then I'll go peacefully.
Q
Mr. President, I understand from your National
Security Advisor there are rumors of a possible event tomorrow in
Lithuania. Is the potential for Soviet activity in Lithuania over
this weekend of particular concern right now, having seen that
intelligence?
THE PRESIDENT: I see a lot of the intelligence on this.
I know of no -- at this moment, I can't say I'm predicting some kind
of conflagration over the weekend. And I hope not. And that's why I
will continue to urge, through any forum possible, a peaceful
resolution to this question. I am somewhat heartened by
Shevardnadze's statement to Jim Baker just the other day in that
regard. But it is a matter of considerable tension, and I hope those
tensions can be released through negotiation.
Q
Mr. President, you talk a lot about support for
democracies around the world. There are people who think the
District of Columbia ought to be one of those democracies receiving
your support. There are signs that have gone up, pointing out that
D.C. is the last colony. How far is your administration willing to
go in supporting full voting representation for the Nation's Capitol
in Congress, or even statehood?
THE PRESIDENT: I'm opposed to it.
Q
Even any further voting representation?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I'd be willing to discuss something
of that nature. But I am opposed to statehood. This is a federal
city, and in my view it should remain that. Its funds come almost
exclusively from the federal government. And so put me down as
MORE
- 7 -
unsympathetic to that particular case.
Q Mr. President, there's been a lot of flack lately
about the National Endowment for the Arts and its grants to numerous
groups that rile some conservatives. Your administration apparently
is not proposing any direct specific standards on content for future
NEA grants, and I'd like you to explain that, if possible.
THE PRESIDENT: I will. I'd be glad to. First place, I
have full confidence in John Frohnmayer, whom I've appointed -- came
here from Oregon to run the NEA. That's number one. Two, I am
deeply offended by some of the filth that I see and to which federal
money has gone. And some of the sacriligious, blasphemous depictions
that are portrayed by some to be art. And so I will speak strongly
out opposed to that.
But I would prefer to have this matter handled by a very
sensitive, knowledgeable man of the arts, John Frohnmayer, than risk
censorship, or getting the federal government into telling every
artist what he or she can paint, or how he or she might express
themselves. So I am against censorship, but I will try to convince
those who feel differently in terms of legislation that we will do
everything in our power to stop pure blasphemy. And I don't want to
offend the American people by citing two horrendous examples of what
I would call blasphemous material that has no business getting one
cent of the taxpayers' money.
Having said that, I don't know of anybody in the
government or goverment agency that should be set up to censor what
you write, or what you paint, or how you express yourself.
Q
This is a local issue involving a lot of jobs in
Philadelphia. There's a major effort underway right now to save the
Philadelphia Navy Yard, which is apparently on the Pentagon hit list
of base closings. Do you get involved with those kinds of decisions?
Will you?
THE PRESIDENT: I get involved in them by recognizing
that when you're trying to curtail spending and to protect the
American taxpayer across this country, there are going to be some
tough decisions. The adage remains the same: Cut spending, but cut
it in the other guy's congressional district. Be sure to cut it in
somebody else's state. Don't cut it here. So I get into it in a
broad sense of saying to the Secretary of Defense, you make the tough
calls; you go to the military and work with our able Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs General Powell, and you come with a list of where you
can save the taxpayers money, given the changed requirements for
defense around the world. You make the list, and I will support you.
And I will support them, and we'll see how it works out.
Now -- Congress -- they have a major say in all of this.
But I must say, I am not sympathetic with the concept that some of
our severest dove critics suddenly turn out to be tremendous hawks if
you try to curtail expenditure in their own districts. And I'm not
talking about the Philadelphia Navy Yard.
Q
Mr. President, on a quite different topic, the
Oscars are this Monday, and I'm wondering if you think "Driving Miss
Daisy" will win Best Picture?
THE PRESIDENT: Now we're talking about some hard balls.
I'll tell you this -- and I'm going to get into trouble because --
maybe I'd better not inject myself into this. But I will just -- you
asked about one movie. I saw it and I enjoyed it. But the thing
that interests me -- and please, Academy of Sciences, or Arts
wherever you are, discount this -- I have a lot of respect for Morgan
Freeman, and he came here the other night, right in this room -- and
in a very emotional presentation, gave of his time one of the
"thousand points of light," to help kids in this country be inspired
to learn to read. And that made a profound impression on me that
somebody with this notoriety, this fame, this acclaim as one of the
great actors of our time, was willing to take his time to help some
MORE
- 8 -
little kid somewhere out across this country.
Last one. Right here.
Q
Mr. President, residents of coastlands are concerned
about the pollution that has washed up on their shores. Your budget
cuts the reconstruction plans and states say they can't make up the
difference. What assurance can you give them that that --
THE PRESIDENT: My answer is we're doing far better in
terms of maritime pollution than I had thought we would after one
year. And don't cite -- don't take my word for it, talk to the EPA
Administrator Bill Reilly, because I read a report card -- this one
from environmentalists, objectively critiquing my record -- and in it
they were knocking, with a low mark, the progress -- the marine
pollution and pollution of the waters. And so I said to Bill Reilly,
what is this? I thought we were doing better in this field. And he
gave me a very stirring advocacy of the program that is doing a lot
better. So I can't address myself in terms of dollars to your
question -- we've got a big, fat budget and I don't know the numbers
-- but I do think it's a very important area and, I think, we've made
dramatic progress.
And thank you all very much. I hate to cut it out here,
with all these questions left, but I really do have to push on. And
thank you for coming to the White House.
One more -- we have what is known as the shouted question
as I go by. (Laughter.)
END
1:34 P.M. EST
REGIONAL MEDIA LUNCHEON / STATE DINING ROOM
MARCH 23, 1990 / 12:00 NOON
WELCOME TO THE WHITE HOUSE. // You KNOW, AS OFTEN
AS I CAN, I TRAVEL OUT BEYOND THE BELTWAY, TO THE REST
OF AMERICA -- THE REAL AMERICA -- I'M TEMPTED TO SAY.
AND I'M DELIGHTED THAT TODAY ALL OF YOU HAVE TRAVELED
HERE TO THE WHITE HOUSE.
I'M ALWAYS PLEASED TO MEET WITH SUCH A BROAD
CROSS-SECTION OF OUR NATION'S JOURNALISTS.
- 2 -
WHEREVER YOU'RE FROM -- WHETHER YOU CAME IN ALL THE WAY
FROM THE WEST COAST, OR WHETHER YOUR ORGANIZATION IS
BASED RIGHT HERE IN WASHINGTON -- I'M DELIGHTED TO HAVE
YOU HERE. THE ORGANIZATIONS YOU REPRESENT ARE PART OF
A PROUD JOURNALISTIC TRADITION, SERVING EVERY STATE,
EVERY CITY AND COMMUNITY ACROSS THIS COUNTRY.
IN A MOMENT, WE'LL OPEN THINGS UP FOR Q&A. BUT
BEFORE I DO, I WANT TO MAKE A BRIEF STATEMENT.
- 3 -
I'LL BEGIN WITH A MATTER CRITICAL TO THE FUTURE OF
DEMOCRACY IN THIS HEMISPHERE. ALL OF US HAVE FOLLOWED
THE UNFOLDING OF FREEDOM IN EASTERN EUROPE -- AND
TOGETHER WITH CONGRESS, WE'VE MOVED TO OFFER AMERICAN
ASSISTANCE TO SUPPORT THOSE EMERGING DEMOCRACIES IN THE
EAST. // THAT ASSISTANCE IS CRUCIAL -- AND IT WILL
CONTINUE. BUT THERE IS WORK TO BE DONE -- WORK EVERY
BIT AS IMPORTANT -- IN SUPPORT OF DEMOCRACY RIGHT HERE
IN OUR OWN HEMISPHERE.
- 4 -
PANAMA AND NICARAGUA STAND AT A HISTORIC MOMENT --
ON THE THRESHOLD OF DEMOCRACY. IN BOTH NATIONS, THE
PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN IN FAVOR OF FREEDOM -- BUT THE
DIFFICULT WORK OF DEMOCRACY BUILDING REMAINS. THIS
HEMISPHERE -- THE AMERICAS -- CAN BECOME THE FIRST
WHERE DEMOCRACY PREVAILS FROM NORTH TO SOUTH. BUT IT
CANNOT HAPPEN IF WE IN THE UNITED STATES FAIL TO ADD
OUR STRENGTH AND SUPPORT TO THE FORCES OF DEMOCRACY.
- 5 -
I'M PLEASED YOU'RE HERE TODAY -- BECAUSE THIS IS A
MATTER OF TREMENDOUS INTEREST TO ALL AMERICANS.
WHETHER ITS OUT IN EL PASO. OR PADUCAH, KENTUCKY.
ROCHESTER, NEW YORK, OR JACKSON HOLE, WYOMING -- THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT WHAT THIS NATION STANDS
FOR DEPENDS ON WHETHER WE STAND WITH PEOPLE WHO SEEK
FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY.
- 6 -
LAST WEEK, I ASKED THE CONGRESS TO ACT -- AND ACT
QUICKLY -- ON THE AID PACKAGE I'VE PROPOSED TO
NICARAGUA AND PANAMA. I RENEW THAT CALL TODAY. //
AND LET ME SAY TO CONGRESS: IF AGREEMENT CANNOT BE
REACHED ON FINDING THE MONEY NEEDED FOR THIS FUND FOR
DEMOCRACY, I AM READY TO MAKE THE HARD CHOICES. WITH
CONGRESS'S AUTHORIZATION, I AM READY TO SELECT OFFSETS
FROM THE DEFENSE BUDGET -- BREAK THE LOGJAM -- AND GET
THESE MUCH NEEDED RESOURCES MOVING INTO THE REGION.
- 7 -
WITH DEMOCRACY AT STAKE -- WE CAN'T AFFORD TO
DELAY. //
LET ME TURN NOW TO ANOTHER PART OF THE WORLD, WHERE
WE ARE ALL FOLLOWING EVENTS WITH GREAT INTEREST.
LITHUANIA. //
THE BRAVE MEN AND WOMEN OF LITHUANIA HAVE MADE
KNOWN THEIR DESIRE TO REESTABLISH THE SOVEREIGNTY OF
THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA. THE UNITED STATES STANDS
WITH THEM AND SUPPORTS THEIR RIGHT TO SELF-
DETERMINATION.
- 8 -
THIS IS A COMPLEX AND SENSITIVE TIME -- WHEN REALISTIC,
LEVEL-HEADED LEADERSHIP IS REQUIRED ON ALL SIDES.
LITHUANIAN LEADERS HAVE CONSISTENTLY DEMONSTRATED THEIR
CAPACITY IN THIS REGARD -- AND THE UNITED STATES WILL
DO NOTHING THAT WILL MAKE THEIR TASK MORE
DIFFICULT. //
WE HAVE REPEATEDLY URGED THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT TO
ENTER INTO IMMEDIATE NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE LITHUANIAN
GOVERNMENT -- WHICH HAS ITSELF CALLED FOR THOSE TALKS.
- 9 -
WE KNOW THAT THE SOVIET UNION HAS LONG-STANDING
INTERESTS IN LITHUANIA -- BUT THOSE INTERESTS CAN ONLY
BE ADDRESSED THROUGH DIALOGUE AND NEGOTIATION. // ANY
ATTEMPT TO COERCE, OR INTIMIDATE, OR FORCIBLY INTERVENE
AGAINST THE LITHUANIAN PEOPLE IS BOUND To
BACK-FIRE. //
- 10 -
THE SOVIET LEADERSHIP HAS SAID AGAIN AND AGAIN THAT
IT WILL NOT USE FORCE. // AND LET ME REPEAT: WE HAVE
MADE CLEAR TO THE SOVIET UNION THAT THE SITUATION IN
LITHUANIA CAN ONLY BE SOLVED PEACEFULLY. //
I'LL STOP THERE, AND TAKE YOUR QUESTIONS.
# # #