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
323154734
label
Regional Media 9/89 [OA 4422]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
323154734
contentType
document
title
Regional Media 9/89 [OA 4422]
citationUrl
identifierLocal
13883-017
collections
Records of the White House Office of Speechwriting (George H. W. Bush Administration)
Mary Kate Grant Subject Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
323154734
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
966427858a70c500
ocrText
Originally Processed With FOIA(s):
FOIA Number:
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:
Grant, Mary Kate, Files
Subseries:
Subject File, 1988-1991
OA/ID Number:
13883
Folder ID Number:
13883-017
Folder Title:
Regional Media, 9/89
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
G
18
29
1
1
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
September 15, 1989
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
AT REGIONAL MEDIA LUNCHEON
The State Dining Room
12:57 P.M. EDT
before taking your questions, which I'll be glad to receive, I just And
THE PRESIDENT: Well, welcome to the White House.
wanted to say welcome. I hope that your briefings this morning were
interesting and I'm delighted to follow on. I brought some experts
along in case I stumble and fall; not an unlikely happening in this
highly complicated world we're living in. But I'm pleased to have
several of our very top advisors with me at this lunch.
Two areas, two items of immediate administration
interests -- and hopefully national interest -- drugs and education
have the highest priorities as issues of concern to the American
people. And we've laid out a national drug strategy. We had a
chance to talk about it a little at our table here, to deal with the
scourge of drugs over the long term. And it's a complex strategy in
which all pieces fit together in a reinforcing way. We're attacking
the use of drugs, the supply of drugs, the law enforcement problems,
and then the international aspects of this question.
In addition, we've suggested a funding program of about
$8 billion -- making it an $8 billion effort. And we believe that
we've accommodated this kind of spending, which incidentally is a
substantial increase, without jeopardizing either the national
security interests or without having to raise taxes on the working
men and women of this country.
Under Bob Dole's leadership up in the Senate, we are
about to engage in detailed discussions with the Democratic
leadership in the Congress. And as I said earlier, we're flexible in
terms of the funding method, but I strongly believe that we must
retain the integrated elements of this drug strategy, which took more
than six months to develop. And we can't afford to sacrifice our
military preparedness. And you know what I mean by that. Whenever
there's a demand for more funds, somebody says we'll simply take it
out of the Defense budget. And we're in complicated times. We're in
interesting times vis-a-vis the Soviet Union. And we've got a good
national security budget and we've got a good national security
strategy, and I view protecting that as a prime responsibility of the
President of the United States. So our military, incidentally, is an
integral part of this drug strategy -- drug effort.
The other issue is this education summit that will be
convened on September 27th and 28th in Charlottesville. We've
invited the nation's governors to come together for a two-day period
to focus on the educational system, a system which is not, in spite
of the money being spent per capita, is not making the grade. And in
a recent comparison of 13-year-old students in the United States and
11 other countries, the United States placed last in math and near
the bottom in science. And we're spending more money on education
than investment. most other countries, and frankly getting less in terms of our
So in summary, the results are not there, and the
educational system is basically well-fed, but it's undernourished.
And we must find innovative, accountable ways to improve performance.
MORE
2 -
The governors -- I was asked here why the governors and what about
the role of these professionals that are quite knowledgeable -- but
in my view, the governors are the most knowledgeable political
leadership in terms of education experience. And I am looking to
share new ideas in a number of areas, including teacher recruitment
and retention; how to instill a drug-free and crime-free environment
in our schools; increasing choice -- I'm a great believer in
increased choice for parents and students and the role of the
federal, state and local governments in meeting the educational
needs. All these topics will, I'm sure, be discussed. And we're
going to have some roll-up-your-sleeve meetings. Hopefully, the
outcome will be new ideas that can help us develop national
before. educational goals and objectives. I'm not sure we've had that
don't know that you -- maybe you've been briefed on these. There
And let me just say that before coming over here -- and I
were some new economic statistics released today -- good news.
Producer prices declined in August for the third month in a row. The
principal reason was a decline in energy prices. And the PPI dropped
.4 percent in July, .1 percent in June. Industrial production rose
.3 percent in August -- some rebound in the coal and auto industries.
but And then the merchandise trade deficit, which continues to plague
that deficit declined in July to $7.6 billion -- and that was the us,
while exports were off .6 percent.
smallest deficit since December of 1984. Imports fell $1 billion
So on the net basis, the situation was improved. And I
would add that the economy continues to go forward. I think in
of October it will be the longest expansion, if you will, in the history
the United States. And so I'm not totally relaxed on all corners
of the economy, on all quarters, but basically, why, it continues to
produce jobs for the American people.
Now, I'll be glad to take questions.
Q
us that they developed good working relationships in the fight
Street agents in the DEA, FBI, ATF and so forth tell
against drugs, but that frequently their efforts, to do a combined
effort, are hampered by the conflicting investigative priorities of
done to try to pull that effort together on a policy level among
the various federal law enforcement agencies. What do you see being
various federal law enforcement agencies?
Bennett, is coordination. And we have had meetings around our
THE PRESIDENT: One of the roles of the Drug Czar, Bill
Cabinet table to try to cope with these -- bureaucratic competition
that exists. I can't tell you we've got it whipped. I can tell you
we've made progress. But I think from a management standpoint, the
Drug Czar, with the full confidence of the President, offers the best
hope to be able to have us minimize, if not eliminate, the rivalries
that sometimes have adversely affected the concerted effort.
But I do think it's a little better. I know it's not
solved, because even in my line of work you hear directly from some
of the various agents in the various departments, so I know we've
still got some work ahead. But the answer would be the Drug Czar
the Cabinet he has to have the full support of the President.
office. But to get that to work -- because he is not statutorily in
Q
anxious about this money -- if and when, assuming it does come
We have treatment programs in Colombus who are very
through, for treatment programs. But some of them are worried about
the, future. Will this money actually come through? If the nation,
as you say, is SO concerned about drugs, why wouldn't the people be
willing to go for a tax increase to pay for this, to know that the
money is going to come year after year?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I touched on that a little bit
because of my desire to see the economy continue, and to have more
and more jobs for people. And I think a tax increase would be
counterproductive in that objective.
MORE
4 -
If you have somebody that is deranged -- and I don't want
to prejudge this poor soul -- but if he was deranged, I'm afraid
you're going to have incidents like this. And it is terrible, and
the loss of human life is horrible. But I have seen no evidence that
a it. law would -- banning a specific weapon is going to guard against
So my view is, do everything you can in terms of
education, do everything you can in terms of enforcing your laws that
are on the handbooks. And let me diverge for one minute, because I
remember back in the '60s, when I was a member of Congress, and I
took my arsenal down to be registered down here at the D.C. Police
Headquarters, and the guy looked at me like I'd lost my mind. And it
was the second-to-last day of registration, and I had a .22 and .410
and I'm a hunter, and I like that. And I gave them the serial
numbers and I said, how many people have registered? He said about
-- we estimate about 11 percent. This was the day before, and I
said, well, are you getting a lot of criminals to turn their guns in?
He said, no, it's a bunch of suckers like you from Northwest
Washington. And it made a profound impression on me.
Q
Mr. President, speaking of finding funds for the
drug war, an independent group of the National Governors Association
and the National Conference of State Legislatures just reported that
primarily, that money is coming from -- as a diversion from other
grants to states and localities for public housing, immigrant
training -- programs and juvenile justice. If that's the case, then
aren't we essentially paying for the drug war by taking money away
from other important needs?
THE PRESIDENT: I don't think it is the case, and I don't
think we're paying for it by other important needs. You see, I still
am of conviction that there are ways to make the government more
efficient in terms of spending, and we spend a tremendous percentage
of our Gross National Product -- a high percentage of our GNP on
federal, and I think it is much less productive spending in terms of
enriching the lives of people, so what we tried to do is suggest
certain offsets, and some of them we said we're flexible on this.
We're very flexible on how you, the Congress, decide you want to pay
for this, but here's our suggestions, and I don't think any one of
them would have decimated the quality of life of the individuals in
this country.
Q
Mr. President, the Mayor of Philadelphia and other
local elected officials are facing a possible $80 million deficit
within a budget they already slashed by $70 million. They took a
look at your drug war and said, "It's a great plan, but if you're
counting on us for any money, this plan cannot work." Many other
good city mayors facing similar budget problems have expressed the
same concern. How much of this is going to be passed on to the
states and the cities, and if it's a good chunk, as the local
officials are saying, how can it work when they have no money?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you're talking to a president who's
facing a rather substantial federal deficit too, so tell the mayor
we're in this thing together; we both have enormous deficits. And I
am bound under the law to reduce the deficit, the law being
Gramm-Rudman-Hollings. And I can't give you the specific figure --
maybe somebody can help me with it -- that's to be passed on to the
states. But there are funds to go to the states and municipalities.
But it isn't going to be solved by the federal government alone. It
is the first time we have had a national strategy. It is aimed at
the four categories I told you about. We will do everything we
possibly can to help, but the message is, everybody has to be in this
deficit. together. And the federal government is facing an enormous budget
Q
But their answer to that is, "This can't work. If Do
you
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that's the answer of the cynics.
MORE
- 5 -
That is the answer of some of the cynics -- the reflex critics that
to say the first time out of the box, raise taxes. That's what some
every problem we face in this country. And I took the case to the say
American people last year on that, and I don't think the American
taxpayer is undertaxed. And we made a proposal that was received
supported this national strategy. And so we can't do everything we'd
enormously well by the American people -- some 70 percent saying they
like to do. I'm going to protect the interests of the working man
and woman in this country by not going out and raising his taxes, and
still having a strategy that I think is unique and imaginative and
will problem. take us an enormous way down the road to solving this drug
Q Mr. President, in the state of Illinois, they have
spent a half a billion dollars to build 11 prisons, four more under
construction. for The county jail in Cook County is fined $1,000 a day
overcrowding. Aren't you saying, sir, that we're going to have
raising taxes in Illinois and in Cook County?
to build more jails out in Illinois, but it will have to be paid by
who incidentally, signed a rather comprehensive drug bill the day
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I've talked to Governor Thompson,
after I announced our strategy. And to me, they dovetail rather
nicely. But as you know, the federal government has certain
responsibilities for federal prisons. And included in our
recommendation are substantial amounts of money for increased prison
themselves and do stuff.
capacity. And, yes, the states and localities are having to step up
Q Raise taxes to do it?
to criticize a governor or a municipality that has to do something on
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that's up to them. I'm not going
the United States on federal taxes.
the revenue side. I'm going to try to hold the line as President of
Q
paying $150 billion to $170 trillion a year to defend Europe. And
Mr. President, on drugs and taxes, we're currently
the Congressional panel estimates that's a lot more than the other 15
NATO countries put together. Since the standard of living is higher
in other countries and in Europe than it is here now, and since
Gorbachev is offering deep cuts in the Warsaw armed forces, why not
halve our contribution to the NATO forces and put that money in on
the drug war?
THE PRESIDENT: Because we have a very realistic approach
to the Soviet Union, and I am delighted to see the changes that are
taking place there. And I've heard a lot of rhetoric and I welcome
it. And I hope we can move forward on strategic arms and chemical
weapon reductions in accord with the innovative proposal that we made
and that NATO supported for conventional forces. But I'm like the
guy from Missouri: Show me and take your time and do it right. And
Europe has had peace for some 40 years now, and if you look at your
textbooks, why, you'll see that that's a long, long time in an area
of the world that has been troubled by conflict, in an area of the
world that has involved us in this century in two -- where we've been
involved in two massive wars that in a -- overnight, expenditures
money. went right through the roof, if we're talking about it in terms of
the Alliance strong. Secondly, prudently deal with the Soviet
So what I want to do is work -- in the first place, keep
leadership. And I'm looking forward to sitting down with Mr.
Shevardnadze next week. I'm looking forward to the substance that
will be talked by Jim Baker and Shevardnadze out in Wyoming following
the meeting with me. But not taking gambles and gambling on the come
by making universal cuts in our commitment to a strong NATO. We have
got to keep that Alliance strong.
And I know there's almost a euphoria in some quarters
that they're no risks in the world anymore. Well, I don't believe
that. And if you look at the Soviet Union modernizing its nuclear
MORE
- 6 -
What's happening here? Why are they doing this? Why, if it's all
arsenal at a rather ferocious pace, I'm prudent enough to saym "Why?
euphoria and everything is rosy, nobody has anything to worry any
more about, how come?" And so, let's not let down our Alliance
guarantees because we are more optimistic about peace.
I can look at my grandkids today and say I am much more
optimistic about their growing up in a world where they don't go to
school worried about nuclear conflict -- much more, but that -- how
we handle our end of the equation, I think has a lot to do with that.
Q
But the American taxpayer, sir, is paying twice as
much as the European taxpayer to defend Europe.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I'm not sure of your numbers. I've
never heard that statistic before. But I'm doing what I think is in
the national interest of the United States. And part of that is our
participation in an Alliance that has kept the peace for 40 years,
me is would I welcome any country in the Alliance doing more, the answer
and so that's the way I would look at it. And look, if you're asking
be every alliance we have.
yes. And that wouldn't extend just to the NATO Alliance, it would
2
Mr. President, there have been many great efforts
through the years to interdict drugs and solve our drug problem that
way. Do you envision a day when we might throw in the towel and
treat it like we did prohibition and say let's shift our money from
law enforcement back toward education, accept the legalization of
drugs and try to fight in a more academic way?
THE PRESIDENT: No, no. I don't visualize such a day.
Q
A local question: You recently nominated St. Louis
County Executive Gene McNary to be the Director of Immigration and
Naturalization. There are some people, even some admirers of Mr.
McNary, who say there doesn't seem to be anything in his background
that shows a sensitivity, perhaps, to work with minorities and so
forth in that job. What did you see in Mr. McNary that led you to
make responsibility? the appointment to what is a growing -- a job that has a growing
THE PRESIDENT: Extraordinarily capable manager. And
that job is a major management job, and Gene McNary will do a
first-class job in it.
Q
Mr. President, today, at this very hour, there are
three candidates for mayor of Cleveland taking urinalysis tests to
prove that they do not have a drug problem. Has our drug problem in
America gotten to that extent where even elected officials now have
solution? to prove that they're not a part of the problem, but part of the
THE PRESIDENT: No, I don't know that it's gotten to that
case. I am one who favors testing in certain categories. And
there's a certain lack of dignity that goes, I guess, with that in
some ways. Having said all that, I guess you'll remember that a
couple of years ago President Reagan and I submitted ourselves to
that -- what some thought was indignity. But if you believe in a
drug-free workplace or the drug-free armed forces, certain testing is
involved in that. I don't know the context of the Cleveland race, so
how much of it is -- I just leave to others to assess how much of
it's political and how much of it sets a pattern or sets a standard
for others. But I think we've come to the point in this fight on
than they have in the past.
drugs that people should be a little less concerned about testing
And again, I don't live and die by polls if I did I
wouldn't be standing here as President; we all remember that from
about a year ago. But I would say that I think there is a shift in
public opinion and people are much more serious about this fight on
drugs. And I think there's much more support for a drug-free
workplace, and I think there is much more support for testing.
MORE
- 7 -
Q
I'd like to talk about a chemical of a different
sort. You campaigned as an environmental candidate. Agricultural
chemicals are more and more being discussed now as a major pollutant
and a major concern. I'm wondering how aggressive your
Congress to reduce chemical use?
administration is prepared to be in either helping or pressuring
MR. PRESIDENT: I think we have a responsibility to --
under our Environmental Protection Agency -- to look carefully at the
realities of agricultural chemicals, because it does get into the
food chain and -- if there's abuse. But I also think that you need a
balance in it and EPA's looking at it right now. So I'd have to wait
and see what recommendations they make and try to do our best. But
we can't overlook that because of the controversy that it's caused in
the agricultural community. And that's a little broad in general but
that's the only way I know to respond to that one.
Q
Your drug strategy is often seen as an urban
inner-city initiative. How pervasive do you feel the drug problem is
-- I come from rural Minnesota -- and how much of a priority is
dealing with drug education and interdiction and helping law
enforcement in rural areas?
it's national and the effect of it is national. In terms of the
MR. PRESIDENT: Well, I think in terms of interdiction,
international affairs component, for example, support for Colombia
and what they're trying to do, it will impact favorably if we can
encourage them on rural America and on city America.
I think you have to look in terms of treatment and in
terms of impact of federal money for education on those areas that
are where the most heavy use is. And I think we have to do some
vectoring of funds to the highest impact areas. And I think you'll
see that when the program goes forward. But in terms of education
and the need to have kids understand the risk, it is totally national
and it cannot be confined just to metropolitan areas.
Q
I've been in Washington a few days. There's two
things that seem to be on people's minds. The first one is why Joe
Gibbs (Laughter.) went for "Pass the ball" in the third in two situation.
The second thing that comes to mind is the drug issue.
We all come from across the country, but in our Nation's Capitol,
it's a pervasive problem that has intensified for the past four
years. Coming from across the country, we sometimes look to D.C. as
a symbol of what's going to happen. What do you see your drug plan
doing for the people of the Nation's Capitol and the inner city?
MR. PRESIDENT: You mean with --
Q
in the inner city -- D.C.
What the drug plan in doing for the people who live
if we follow through, helping solve the problem. It isn't going to
MR. PRESIDENT: Raising hope. I see it raising hope and
solve it alone. It's going to need those 10 black mothers in the
D.C. Ward. It's going to need the schools involved with their local
control and their local ability to go into their communities with a
sensitivity that the Federal Government will never have.
But I see it -- I see the Presidency using the -- the
President using the bully pulpit of the Presidency to stay on it --
to encourage and to exhort and to help financially through this
national strategy where we can. But I got to keep making the point,
the Federal Government isn't going to solve it. But you're asking
about inner cities? But you can get the job done and do it in a lot
others. of different ways, including involving ourselves in the lives of
And I don't care how much grief I get -- and it's not so
MORE
- 8 -
much anymore because people are beginning to understand it -- about
the thousand points of light. But it is one American helping
another. It's a teacher who cares. It's a foster parent. It's
on. those ten black mothers in the D.C. Hospital. And it's on and on and
And that is how the problem, along with the
municipalities and the state governments and the federal government
are going to solve this problem. But the President, I think, has a
disproportionate responsibility to have a strategy which we now have
and then to -- not forget it, to follow-up on it.
the problem. I was encouraged, and I expect others were here, too,
And I do believe that in the final analysis we can whip
that's a good sign.
about the decline in casual use of cocaine. Off 30 percent. And
Now, how do we do the same thing for the crack user --
instead of having it go the wrong way? And I don't see as much on
the media, for example, and the entertainment media in terms of
condoning that which we now condemn. You don't see that much about
without prejudice -- the scene in Crocodile Dundee with the in
it any more. It used to be the joke. And I keep citing -- I hope
his tuxedo and it was humorous, the use of cocaine. Today you guy don't
see that. It's because the industry itself has moved in.
I cited in my drug speech the efforts of a man named Jim
Burke who was the former chairman of Johnson & Johnson. He's
be guaranteeing, to the best of his ability, that $1 million a day will
in education -- you know, changing a whole condoning culture into a
spent -- $1 billion over the next three years -- on reaching out
condemning culture.
And so it's -- I am excited about the potential provided
everybody pitches in together. And so what do you say to a kid in
the it. city? There's something better for you, and we've got to prove
Q
Your last question -- you mentioned your
grandchildren a while ago, and this is kind of a personal question,
maybe putting this in perspective for us. How do you feel as a human
being and as a grandfather about the drug scourge? Are you afraid
that your family members, your grandchildren, your friends,
relatives, the people in the White House family are going to be
nation? seduced by drugs? Do you identify with the grandparents across the
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I worry about it -- of course I do
hope, but enormous. And so when I stand out there in the garden with
-- about these kids. Peer group pressure -- enormous. Declining, I
the DARE program that teaches these kids out of the efforts by police
officers all across this country to turn their back and how to resist
peer pressure, I can identify with that -- perhaps more than if I
didn't have these 11 grandchildren.
But I'm not pessimistic about it. I think America is
waking up, and we are beginning to condemn that which, let's face it,
we've condoned. We condoned it in my theory in a kind of a
post-Vietnam period, or even in the Vietnam War period. We have got
to understand the pressures that lead one that wants to escape. Now
we see that it was wrong. We see that in condoning it, for whatever
the reason, should have been condemned. And I think as that national
more changes -- those national mores change, then I think you're
going to find that the future of not just my 11 grandchildren, but
the others, is far brighter. And mine, you know, are blessed with
not having some of the pressures of a neighborhood where there are
high incidences of cocaine use.
But, now we've got to take this changing mores -- these
changing mores and have inner city America, highly-impacted America
understand. And of course that has to, in my view, be coupled with
opportunity -- opportunity to work, have an honest living instead of
MORE
- 9 -
one where you're a lookout at $100 a crack for some drug addict. And
so we've got a big educational job to do.
But I do worry about it, and I don't think any kid is
immune from this peer pressure. But I'm absolutely convinced it's
changing. You know, you can bark on something like a war on drugs
and people say, yes, yet another war, and you have your cynics out
there. And I can understand it because there have been efforts made
go off the radar screen.
and they've gone off the radar screen. But this one isn't going to
And what I've got working for me in this time frame in
which I'm serving as President is this changing feeling in the
country that we've got to do something about it. It's not just the
administration, it's not just a handful of teachers or some parents
that is working for us.
group. It's the country itself. And that is very different, and
And so this gentleman doesn't feel I'm giving him the
brush-off. You see, I think if we then go out and legalize drugs, we
work just the opposite from what I'm saying are the changed -- the
appropriately changing mores in this country, and that's why I
strongly oppose it. And as long as I'm President, there will not be
any federal-level consideration given to -- federal government-level
consideration given to the legalization of narcotics. It simply --
education. it's counterproductive as we try to help in this whole field of
Q
In Detroit we have severe drug problems, but we also
have other problems: Blight, abandoned housing, and decay. UDAG
monies and block grant monies have been decreased significantly over
the past few years. Will those monies be returned in some capacity,
and how does the Bush administration propose rebuilding America's
inner cities, including Detroit?
THE PRESIDENT: We've got a brand new Secretary of
Housing who is aggressively going after tenant ownership and changes
in the housing programs. I don't want to mislead you. I don't think
you'll see a change soon on revenue-sharing or increased UDAGs, for
example, you asked about. But I think we've got a program that
emphasizes ownership and tenant ownership, helping to clean the
existing projects from narcotics reach, and then I come back to jobs
-- jobs. And it's got to be the economy that is going to lift people
up. A job in the private sector is the best poverty program.
And you look at the demographics -- and we again bored
you all at lunch about this -- but their changing. And in the year
to be more jobs than there are people looking for jobs. And that
2000 -- and what -- Roger, somebody help me -- 2010 there are going
says then to the federal government, the state government, the
government in Detroit -- train people, job retraining -- training
them for jobs that will exist. And that, of course, gets back into
what we were talking about at our table, about educational
excellence. So it's education, job retraining, all of which impact
in this question of housing. If a person has a job and a reasonable
salary, he hopefully can afford to have an apartment or have a --
make a down payment on a house.
in outrage because I boycotted the table. This is the last one.
All right, she was very persistent, over here, screaming
Q Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: I'll say ahead of her question that I've
always learned that the last question is the one that gets you in
trouble. So let me see the seams on this one. (Laughter.)
Q
In Pittsburgh, we are arresting drug suspects and
they're being turned loose from the Allegheny County Jail because of
overcrowding. Federal court ordering has mandated a certain
population cap. Across the river -- Pittsburgh, our state prison
facility has been ruled an overcrowded fire trap by another federal
MORE
- 10 -
judge. My question is, our Allegheny County Commissioner has written
you asking you for permission to open military bases, underused or
closed military facilities, to house some of these prisoners,
respond to --
especially the drug suspects that we're letting go. How will you
base serious and active consideration. You talk about closing a military
THE PRESIDENT: I'll respond to this as being given
there law prescribes it, and even though we have a sound program up
the now, come on out and try it sometime. (Laughter.) Even though
right now in the Senate, some people are challenging the
closing of these bases. And it isn't much fun to have to go to a
close your base.
community that's been dependent on a base and say we're going to
district -- or every senator, but in someone else's state. And we
Every congressman wants to close bases in somebody else's
have a program to do this, and part of it might well be active
that. There's some trading where you take prisoners from one
jail space. There's some existing bases where we might be able to do
consideration being given to a concept of using these facilities for
jurisdiction and boarding them in somebody else's jail. They're
innovative programs in terms of jail construction of lease backs.
And so there's a lot of new thinking going on, including the
directly to your question -- of more federal prisons.
proposals that are in our strategy of -- and this doesn't get
this -- is on to something, and we will try to be very cooperative in
But I think the man, whoever -- this fellow suggested
that regard.
Q
about a week or two ago?
How soon might you respond to him if he's written
about 100 -- let's see, how many -- I'll tell you, one of the
THE PRESIDENT: Well, tell him to get in line -- I get
-- they were asking me the joys of this job at the table. One great of the
frustrations is the mail, and the volume is horrendous. But
him having raised it, I trust somebody will -- he will be hearing your from
sooner than he might of. But we've got to be responsive on these
asks. And I would simply take this opportunity to ask for
-- (laughter) -- it's an understandable frustration when somebody
forbearance and to say we will endeavor to do our very best.
When I left for summer vacation, the backlog on our mail
do -- somebody else doing all the heavy lifting, obviously. But got we
back was something like 100,000 letters. It was down to 9,000 when we
from want to do better on it. And especially when somebody is crying
the heart for help on a problem of this sensitivity. But we'll
positive response. I expect your having brought it up, he will.
look into that one and see when he -- and hope he gets a very
Listen, thank you all very, very much. (Applause.)
END
1:38 P.M. EDT
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
September 6, 1989
PRESS CONFERENCE BY THE PRESIDENT
TO DRUG AND CRIME REPORTERS
Room 450
Old Executive Office Building
11:37 A.M. EDT
the delighted first that Dr. Sullivan and Bill Bennett are with me Well,
THE PRESIDENT: Hello, everybody. Please sit. I'm
-- our team in to respond to questions, too. I'm pleased -- brought with the
announcement on drugs.
been little, if any, substantive criticism about this
There has been -- as I've listened carefully, there has
you strategy. don't And listen to the critics, if you will, but national
is how hear much substance. What you're hearing the recognize debate that
or another. one pays for it or whether it needs to be more in one about
of Bill I say that because I think that is a tribute to the category work
first-in-a-lifetime national strategy.
Bennett and the others who helped formulate this
fully touch a couple of points and then respond to your questions. me just
Now, you're familiar with the strategy, but let
an effective integrated approach. We address all the elements necessary It's to a
treatment, laws and criminal justice system, and foreign programs, policy.
strategy -- school and drug prevention
prisons package and up to the Congress several months ago on anticrime, sent a
On the laws and criminal justice system, we
understand matters of that nature. And some of our critics including
national one ties in, as I tried to point out last night, to our
but that that that is already up there as a very separate program, fail to
strategy.
turf as head of a task force. We had some problems role in the
think, interdiction as I look back over my shoulder -- and I had some problems. I
I'm determined that there will be no turf
those that working shoulder to shoulder, that we can eliminate leadership
he and problems. I I think with Bill's -- Bill Bennett's with and --
And it's might still be lingering. But we've got to work any of
not just federal. It's got to be state and local, as together. well.
There's a bipartisan consensus in this
the important if you want to get something done. I'm And
that's think there's any disagreement about the gravity of country. the threat. I don't
America's strategy. And I'm looking to the grass roots support of
this Congress to give us bipartisan support in the implementation challenging of
communities in the fight against drugs.
use. won't And repeat it -- the good news being the decline in casual night,
The evidence -- I tried to point it out last so I
individuals. make a big impact on the drug market and on the of
it will that's a significant point. If we can continue that drug trend,
crack. the hard users and, of course, the insidious effects of of
cocaine, The bad news, of course, being the persistence lives
We're funding to states and localities for street-level law federal
The criminal justice system -- we're increasing
and providing federal funding to states for planning, enforcement.
implementing alternative sentencing programs for nonviolent developing drug
MORE
- 2 -
offenders, including house arrests and this boot camp concept. Boot
camp concept -- I don't know, Bill, whether you discussed that here
this morning or not.
We're tightening bail and probation, parole and
sentencing. Again, I touched on that last night. Requiring drug
testing of prisoners. It's interesting how the country has changed
its view on testing and I think there's far more support now for drug
testing than existed before. We're encouraging the states to
vigorously prosecute misdemeanor drug offenses. We've got to go
after users. This idea of turning the other way on that one is over
concerned. as far as I'm concerned and as far as Bill Bennett and the others are
We're expanding programs to eradicate the domestic
marijuana crops. Some of your areas are somehow affected by that.
We're providing funding, as I mentioned last night I believe, to HUD
to help kick the drug dealers out of the public housing programs.
And Jack Kemp was at the speech last night, and he feels that this is
programs. adequate funding to make a real impact in the public housing
We encourage states to adopt policies that revoke the
driver's licenses of those convicted of a drug offense. That isn't
mandated; we're not requiring that or tying it in, but we are
action in that regard.
encouraging the states to do it. Some I think have already taken
Treatment -- we're increasing the federal spending by
some 53 percent, to $321 million. We're expanding the availability
of drug treatment by increasing treatment capacity and the range of
treatment methods that are available. Outreach and treatment efforts
there. for pregnant women and newborn babies -- we're going to be more help
have a broken heart and feel something in your heart, go and see
I've just come from D.C. General. And you want to really
these little kids, some of whom are abandoned, some of whom are --
many of whom are born from -- given birth to by mothers who are
addicted to cocaine. And we've got to help in that area and I
believe we can do a job there.
it is vitally important, especially when you see the problem of
Education and prevention. I won't dwell on that one, but
mentioned last night, we're going to try to get into the classrooms I
teenage pregnancy and then the abandonment of these kids. So
next week on a specially televised national hookup to the schools.
On the budget recommendations, I know some in Congress
are calling for a tax increase. I'd like to identify myself with
what Secretary Bennett said this morning -- I don't believe we have a
drug problem because we aren't paying enough in taxes. And that's
where some of this logic leads you to.
this program to the Hill and it does not require additional taxes.
We have sent specific suggestions as to how to pay for
And I've been in this town long enough to know that there are always
going to be people out there who are saying more taxes. If it's not
for this subject, it will be for something else. And that isn't
that I unveiled last night.
necessary to fully fund the national strategy that we came up with --
So with those comments, I'm wanting to get on to the
questioning. I'd be glad -- oh, I didn't touch on the international
aspects, but you're familiar with our commitment to interdiction;
you're familiar with our Andean strategy. I hope the country is
familiar with my respect for what the Colombians are trying to do.
Why don't we start right here.
Q
Mr. President, no area suffers more from drugs than
South Florida. Are you convinced that the people who lives in these
MORE
- 3 -
their crack-infested homes again neighborhoods and feel safe? will very soon be able to walk out of
program, suggest to they'll have a much better chance to do that. this
THE PRESIDENT: If we get the proper support for
solution going to bring instant relief to that -- instant way
suggested it you is that fully funding this program exactly the And I can't we've
to that problem. It should bring instant relief.
particularly, regional but I would not, recognizing the fact that is
And I know how heavily impacted South Florida
from Chicago press or corps here, suggest that you could convince we the have a
will be of So it is a national problem. But, yes, I hope they that are this
impacted. New York or some rural communities that people less
some relief to an overburdened South Florida.
2
higher 300 murders this year. While most of them involve drugs, been a
than drugs here in the District of Columbia is that there have about more
One of the reasons that we're so concerned
proportion of them are with guns -- handguns.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
Q
weapons, address which we heard about earlier this year, does
Besides the ban on importing some types of automatic
handguns -- out or of what drug can dealers' we do about hands, the off tremendous the street? problem your of plan keeping
THE PRESIDENT: We do support local law
registrations, as you're familiar with, there are very strong laws enforcement, in the books on. and
that nationally -- D.C. And part of our backing up law -- not so
domestically -- I mean in D.C. itself
to acquire laws and, regrettably, these criminals seem to there are
plenty they of can enforce local laws, and this is one. enforcement And is
is very strong weapons against even it. though the law in the District, for have example, a way
Q
years approaching the tax structure if, by chance, within two you
Mr. President, do you feel -- would reconsider
-- would you you see consider no relief raising with this taxes problem at that through point? your drug or three strategy
program. And not the only way to get money for solving the would
But solve that the is drug problem was through increasing taxes, I get do money that. to
THE PRESIDENT: If I thought the only way to
billions we have made proposals that are well drug
in existence somebody could convince me that all the federal anymore. But
if that don't require socking it to the taxpayer up into the
no way to are perfect and need not be eliminated, programs or that that are
drugs, I was still suffering from this malaise, this years,
the country move funds from one account to another in three there's and
it won't be certainly the case would in three be open-minded. years. But that isn't sickness the case of and
taxes. somebody I jump in up and say raise taxes. So I am not in mode you have
Every program -- every time you make a proposal
for it in the am way a we mode have to move suggested. this national strategy forward a to and raise pay
strategy for Q this I strategy have a follow in case up, -- sir. Do you have a backup
We're and we selling want it this to work. one; we don't need backup. It's a good to strategy succeed.
THE PRESIDENT: No, I think this one's going
Q
made across it the quite board clear -- that they don't think your plan is have
Mr. President, the Democrats, nevertheless,
moves that not in terms of money, but in terms strong enough
The question you're proposing -- and they pledge now to of all the it.
flexibility on your part to strengthen what you've already there given? any
is, will you resist their efforts and is strengthen
MORE
- 4 -
THE PRESIDENT: It's $2 billion higher than the House
level -- that they're talking about in the House. They're carping --
those partisan comments. Now, if somebody has a real sincere belief
that you need more in treatment and less in something, of course,
we're -- the process will work this out. But this is $2 billion more
than the House level. And for a man to come to a meeting -- one of
the congressmen yesterday -- and he couldn't wait to get out on the
lawn of the White House and say raise taxes. I'm not going to do
that. We don't have to do it.
And this gentleman asked a very good question. But
nobody is going to convince me that the people are paying too little
in taxes. And it came up in the campaign -- we just have differences
with some of our political opponents. So what I'm going to try to do
is say, look, let's work together on this strategy. Give it a try
like this, see if it won't make an impact. There is some encouraging
news. What's happening south of our border is encouraging.
Q
Mr. President, yesterday your Czar and Dar briefed
us.
THE PRESIDENT: What is my Dar? Deputy --
Q
Darman.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, Darman. Excuse me. (Laughter.)
or
According to your Czar. They, in briefing us, they
gave us the list of a number of items that they, and we believe you,
are recommending might be taken off of other appropriations.
THE PRESIDENT: Good.
Q
What are your thoughts on other things that are a
these funds?
little weak in appropriations, that could be taken off to replace
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think they gave you a list
probably of eight categories or something of that nature, and that
takes care of it.
Q
Just wondered what your thoughts are.
sense and let's try it.
THE PRESIDENT: My, thoughts are that this makes good
Q
receive X amounts of federal money?
Mr. President, how will it be decided which states
THE PRESIDENT: Bill, can you help me on that? I don't
know the answer to that question. Which states get what for certain
of these programs?
block grants, you've got grants go out by formula with some amount of
DIRECTOR BENNETT: Most of it is by formula. You've got
discretionary funds. It's the general programmatic rules and
regulations. Dr. Sullivan can explain the detail to you -- how the
money goes out through at HHS, and Dick Thornburgh can explain how it
that -- a few changes --
works in Justice. They're are not going to be radical changes in
Q
yesterday as you were speaking there were new bombings in Medellin.
In talking about south of the border, Mr. President,
You've been offering the use of our military in Colombia, Peru and
Bolivia, and yet those countries have not been asking for it.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, no, I beg your pardon.
Q
and how desirable is it to involve our military there?
What discussions have you held with the presidents
MORE
- 5
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we are involving military assets.
As you know, there were some $67 million worth of assets already
there or in the delivery process. Maybe you're talking about troops.
Mr. Barco -- President Barco, a courageous man, has made clear to me
that they don't want American troops. And what I do not want to do,
and what I will not do as President, is to take public opinion in a
country that is now supporting their President -- Colombia --- in
Colombia -- and turn it around by raising the old time-worn spector
of American military intervention in Colombia.
As I said last night, if requested, we'd take a very
different look at this. But they're making a move, they're doing
what's right, they are taking courageous steps. These cartel cowards
are fighting back by killing the wives of police officers and taking
just firm. brutal steps of that nature. But President Barco is staying
So the United States cannot and should not impose a
military armed solution into some sovereign country. And so that's
the way I view this. There is a lot of interest in our G-7 partners
on an international force. And that's a new concept. It's a concept
I addressed myself to, I believe, in the campaign. But 1 don't think
you want to risk turning around public opinion in a country that's
struggling to do something now by the intervention -- unilateral
intervention of U.S. force into the area.
Q
in the drug summit that you are proposing, and how far away are we
To follow up, sir, what about bringing this subject
from a drug summit?
THE PRESIDENT: I'm not sure. We haven't set a date on
the drug summit. I think it makes good sense. I did talk to
President Barco about that. He is certainly enthusiastic about it.
And I think in a summit of that nature there should be an open
this nature.
agenda, all ideas on the table, an open discussion of questions of
Q
Mr. President, Mr. Bennett has written that the
choice to do drugs is one of a national crisis in character. I want
with some of the penalties you're proposing -- denial of housing
to ask you two things: why do you think people do drugs? And also,
two programs that might convince someone to avoid a life of drugs?
loans and college loans and so forth -- won't you just be eliminating
college loans you ought to know better than to use drugs. We've had
THE PRESIDENT: No, I think by the time you get up into
a tolerant attitude in the past; we've condoned those things we
to fight this war on all fronts, to use a cliche, this makes
should have condemned in the past. And now, if, indeed, we're going
eminently good sense. I don't think it's fair to go after the street
the proposal.
no damage to society. And so I strongly support what -- this part of
hood and let the casual, university, hip user think that he's doing
Was there another part of it I didn't --
Q
Why do you think people do drugs?
THE PRESIDENT: Why do I think they do? Some of it's
addictive, some of it is that the whole national attitude hasn't
changed properly yet. We're seeing it change now in casual use. We
have a much bigger assignment now in education in the neighborhoods
and in the communities that are adversely impacted by poverty and
ignorance. And so there's a wide array of reasons that people use
drugs. Some do it because their peers do it. Some do it because
they're in told it will make them feel good or that they can make money
it. And there's a wide variety of reasons why people use drugs.
We should not have a media -- entertainment media that makes fun and
But we should never again as a nation look the other way.
laughter out of something that is this serious. So I have great
confidence in the American people in turning something around -- an
MORE
- 6 -
ethic, turning it around, making it more sensible and up-to-date.
2
skeptical of the other wars that were waged on drugs. Is there
Mr. President, much of the black community has been
skepticism? something that you can say to them specifically that might ease that
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think there is skepticism. And I
would simply say to them, this is the first coordinated national
strategy, the first time we've approached this problem on all fronts
in a coordinated way. So give us your cooperation. Your own
communities are being wiped out by this -- adversely impacted,
heavily impacted adversely. More of the pain being right there. And
so give this a try. Work with us on prevention and on education and
and don't look away.
on treatment and help us in terms of law enforcement and be involved
making clear that we do care about those areas that are most heavily
And so I think that -- I hope we can help the skeptic by
impacted by narcotics.
stand firm against the cartel for very long. If the Colombian
Q Mr. President, In the past, Colombia was not able to
government's current effort falters, what is your plan?
THE PRESIDENT: My plan is to work with them to see that
they don't falter, and to give them the support they need and the
support they have requested, and encourage our allies to do that.
And that's why I was on the telephone yesterday with Margaret
Thatcher and Helmut Kohl. And that's why I'm encouraged when the G-7
meeting in Paris says they are going to help these countries.
Many countries have felt up till now, well, this is
So impacted much more heavily than they were, say, five or 10 years
someone else's problem. A lot of countries in Europe now being
I am not buying into the hypothetical question that what President ago.
work to help him succeed.
Barco is going to do should fail. We want him to succeed and we'll
Q
There have been some suggestions in Detroit that
National Guard troops be brought into control areas. Would part of
your program foresee using National Guard troops or federalized
troops in designated areas to combat rampant drug sales and --
envisioned here or not.
and I'd like to defer it to him. I don't know whether that's
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I haven't discussed that with Bill,
DIRECTOR BENNETT: Well, that, obviously, in most
situations would be left up to governors. We've seen some action in
up police, doing office and clerical work. But we'd like to
this the regard in Oregon. Some of the National Guard troops are backing
the marijuana eradication.
consider the use of the National Guard in some other areas, such as
National Guard people on the street in a direct line rather than in a
2 Would you like to see -- or would you support
staff support situation?
DIRECTOR BENNETT: No, generally not. And what we've
found in most cities such as Detroit is that, in most cases, the
police are adequate to the job. The problem is after the police make
the arrest -- the system doesn't have enough resources to support the
arrests through prosecution, conviction, and imprisonment.
Thatcher and Mr. Kohl about? And how close are you to a G-7 task
Q Sir, what exactly did you ask -- or talk to Mrs.
force? Is that still something that's close to reality?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the -- discussed with her
follow-on to what we discussed in Paris, and that was G-7 united a
support for Colombia. And she is enthusiastic about this, and
MORE
- 7 -
Chancellor Kohl was enthusiastic about this. The ball, in a sense
really, the leadership of the G-7 is still in the French court,
President Mitterrand. Chancellor Kohl is visiting with him this
week. And so I'm hopeful and very much encouraged by this united
response.
Q
Mr. President, our Lieutenant Governor in New York,
where I'm from, says that the increases you've given toward treatment
and law enforcement and, in fact, the whole budget don't add up to
the cost of one B-2 bomber. And people back home want to know, even
though your commitment toward drug fighting is strong, why your
financial priorities aren't toward trying to support the drug fight
instead toward military.
THE PRESIDENT: This is Lieutenant Governor who?
Q
Stan Lundine, the state of --
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, Lundine. Well, it's not surprising
that some think the only way to solve the problem is by greater
taxes. I don't know how Mr. Lundine is proposing the federal
government pay for the program, but we've made suggestions here that
I fully support. But, you know, yes, the B-2 bomber is expensive
and, yes, it is important to the national security of this country.
And, yes, it's easy for a Lieutenant Governor to make an analogy of
that nature. But a President has a responsibility for both -- the
national strategy on fighting drugs and the national security of the
United States that hopefully will encourage the Soviet Union to move
forward productively towards even more arms control.
And so I can understand that; that's a good free one out
there, a big target. But I don't know whether this Lieutenant
Governor is proposing the elimination of the Stealth technology
bomber or not. I don't know where he's coming from. But I think he
was using it as a dramatic example. And I am saying to him, we have
stepped up by $2 billion over the House level the resources for the
fight against drugs.
And SO -- you see, let me go back to the basic point, and
then I notice Marlin's restlessness here. The basic point is this --
nobody is criticizing the strategy. No one is coming at us and
saying you've left this out or left that out. And I'm very
encouraged by that. I think that means that if we do our job
properly in selling, we can get support from Democrats as well as
Republicans. We've got to do it. The country is fed up. They don't
want it to be a Republican answer or a Democratic answer or a liberal
or a conservative answer.
So the fact that he -- maybe he is attacking the strategy
-- and if so, I'd have to take it back -- but I haven't heard any
real substantive attack on the strategy itself. So then you come to
the question of whether it's enough or how are you going to pay for
it? And there's a wide array of reflexive people up there who say
more taxes for anything, and I don't think that's what the American
people want. I have a funny feeling that something about the last
said, hey, please me more.
election was, are we being taxed too little, and nobody jumped up and
And I think we can do this significant increase without
raising taxes. And I'm certainly going to do it without diminishing
the fundamental national security requirements of the United States.
And that's my responsibility, and I'm proud to shoulder it and I
think we've come up with a very good answer. And so please -- it's
not your obligation, but we will try hard to convince your able
Lieutenant Governor that the program we have makes good sense.
Q
Mr. President, regarding the outreach issue in
education, what role will community-based organizations and national
organizations that already are involved in related programs such as
AIDS education, drug and tobacco education, play in your program?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, last night I tried to make clear
MORE
- 8 -
that they play a significant role, and we are -- we have funds in
there to support certain kinds of educational programs. But, as you
know, seven percent of the total funds for education come from the
federal government. Ninety three percent -- I've got the Secretary
-- oops, he's gone. Good -- I won't be corrected. (Laughter.)
Ninety three percent come from state and local.
So these entities have an inordinately important
responsibility in the whole education process. And nothing in a
federal strategy on drugs -- a national strategy -- should diminish
the responsibility, if you will, of the local and state educational
entities. We'll try to give them the financial support we can in the
program here, but -- in treatment and things of this nature -- but in
terms of the overall education, it has got to be done through state
and local as well as federal support. But, remember, the totals put
the responsibility on state and local to even do a better job in
terms of education.
I was just out -- again, I don't want to burden you with
the emotion of my visit to D.C. General Hospital, but I was deeply
touched by seeing these abandoned babies -- they' called boarder
babies in this particular hospital -- and the mother comes in, has
the baby and takes off.
And there has got to be an educational role here.
There's got to be a better chance for kids through education of
parents, whether it's about pregnancy itself, or whether it's on the
need for a little kid to have love, or whatever it is. And so
education is going to be a key here and the local and state role will
not be diminished. I hope it will be supplemented a little bit, but
will not certainly be diminished by a federal education program.
And I don't get teased as much as I used to about my
concept of a thousand points of light. But it's a valid concept.
When I talked about what Jim Burke was doing last night, encouraging
his associates to come up with a million dollars a day in education
money that will be on public television -- I mean, on regular network
television, that's a contribution to education. And there are other
999 points of light out there -- in teachers and in parents and in
others who are involving themselves in the lives of other people.
And so to really solve this problem, we owe the American
people a national strategy and we've come up with it. And I want to
work my hardest to see that it is implemented. But it cannot usurp
the function of these thousand points of light. It's there. It's at
the level of love; the level of local education; parental concern;
neighbor involving with neighbor; one's involving himself or herself
in the life of another that this problem is going to be solved. And
I'm absolutely convinced of it. And I'm more convinced of it than
ever after holding in my arms one of those abandoned babies. You
guys are reporters, but go out there and try it on for size. And
you'll understand why I feel as strongly as I do about the
involvement of people.
And I might say to those in the D.C. area -- the
commitment of these nurses and these doctors to these kids that are
born without hope is so encouraging. The only love they may ever get
in their lives is when they are a month old, and we've got to change
that. We've got to change it through education. The ethic has got
to change. Too late now to condone those things we should have been
condemning and drug use -- casual drug use is one of them.
Thank you all very much.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
END
12:09 P.M. EDT
ANTICIPATED QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
MIDWESTERN PRESS BRIEFING
FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 1989
records
DRUG STRATEGY
Many previous Administrations have launched anti-dru
&
For your
Why do you think this particular Strategy will work?
Unlike past anti-drug efforts, this strategy will work
because it is a truly coordinated national effort. This means
federal, state and local levels must work together. In fact, at
the federal level, Director Bennett's leadership has already
brought about strong interagency cooperation. We're urging the
state and local levels to follow this lead, and join us in this
coordinated strategy.
If you could name the one distinguishing strength of this
Strategy above all others, what would it be?
The Strategy's biggest strength is this: it is
comprehensive. This is the first such national strategy designed
to end drug use and drug trafficking, a fully integrated approach
that is an assault on every front. Our plan addresses all the
elements necessary to an effective strategy: school and drug
prevention programs, our treatment system, our laws and criminal
justice system, and our foreign policy. In short, it is just as
comprehensive as the problem. With this strategy, we now have a
plan that coordinates our resources, our programs and the people
who run them.
2
Exactly what will your Strategy mean for my community?
Keep in mind that this is a national, not a federal
strategy. And while Washington cannot solve this problem alone,
Washington will have a role to play. For example, in communities
across the country, we will work through HUD to kick drug dealers
out of public housing, and the Department of Education will
spearhead the Drug Free Schools and Communities program. As far
as actual dollars are concerned, we'll be increasing Federal
support of local treatment programs by $321 million, increasing
assistance to State and local law enforcement by $200 million,
and expanding education and prevention programs in local schools
and communities by $233 million.
Communities, too, have just as big a role to play. The
Administration is urging State and local governments to enact
tougher laws, and increase their funding of local anti-drug
most
efforts. And importantly of all, increased community involvement
is key. We are calling on every school, college, university, and
workplace to adopt tough, fair anti-drug policies.
How are you going to pay for everything you've proposed?
Realistically, don't you think we're going to have to raise
taxes?
No, I don't think we have to raise taxes. If we can
formulate a strategy that works without raising taxes, why not
give it a try? The American people simply do not want higher
taxes, and said so during the last Presidential election. I
3
heard Bill Bennett put it this way the other day: Low taxes did
not cause the drug problem, and high taxes are not going to solve
it.
The Director of the Office of Management and Budget has
transmitted a letter to the Appropriations Committee yesterday
recommending funding levels and areas where money can be offset.
The Congress helped formulate this Strategy, and I am looking to
the Congressional leadership for bipartisan support in its
funding and implementation.
Do you really think the money is enough?
There isn't enough money in the Treasury to pay for
everything everyone would like to do. However, this proposal --
at nearly $8 billion -- is the single largest drug budget
increase ever.
But as I said in my national address, those who judge our
strategy only by its price tag simply don't understand the
problem. We all know that money alone won't solve our problems -
- so we're looking at a coordinated national strategy that unites
the American people at the grassroots level in this difficult
fight.
People in my community believe that we could solve the drug
problem if people just stopped buying drugs. Why spend large
sums on police and interdiction when we could just stop the
problem through prevention and treatment plans?
4
We need to deal with both the supply and demand side of the
equation. It is harder for users to stop while drugs are easily
available. We must attempt to reduce the supply because fewer
people will be able to use drugs when drugs are less available.
Good law enforcement deters demand. By making it harder to
obtain drugs, we increase the effectiveness of prevention
programs.
Second, when users seeking help can't physically get to a
treatment program because dealers are on the streets and in the
hallways intimidating them, then enforcement is the first step to
treatment. For both these reasons, we are stepping up our
enforcement and interdiction measures.
AGRICULTURE AND TRADE
How big a role do you envision for agriculture in correcting the
trade imbalance?
Agriculture is a major player in the U.S. economy because it
accounts for 16 percent of the U.S. GNP. Agriculture does its
part in reducing the trade deficit by providing a constant
positive trade balance.
as exports over lust years up
%
are
What do you think the most important issues in agriculture are
facing the Administration now?
I know Secretary Yeutter is spending a lot of time on the
1990 Farm Bill, the Uruguay Round of agricultural trade
5
we will are well important.
negotiations, food safety, and environmental issues. The next
four years at the Department will probably be the busiest in its
history. In the next 15 months, for example, Secretary Yeutter
and his team will negotiate with Congress on the Farm Bill,
attend talks with the 96 GATT-members on new rules of the road
for international agriculture trade, and then have to modify the
farm legislation to make it consistent with the ending results of
the GATT talks.
In fact, my Trade Representative, Carla Hills, has been in
Europe this week with a simple -- and urgent -- message. We need
ambitious results in these trade talks. For too long, we have
only reacted to changes in global trade. The Uruguay Round is
this century's last, best change to act. (The final session of
the Uruguay Round has been set for the first week in December of
1990.)
What is the status of the extension of the steel VRAs and the
negotiation of the international consensus on the elimination of
unfair trade practices?
We have had several rounds of negotiations with each of our
major steel trading partners on the extension of the steel VRAs.
I expect these negotiations to intensify in the next two weeks.
It is our expectation that we will conclude new steel agreements
with these countries by September 30.
I am equally optimistic about the success of the
international consensus on the elimination of unfair trade
6
practices in the steel sector. The negotiation of such a
consensus is critical. We must get to the root cause of the
steel problem -- pervasive unfair trade and closed markets -- if
we are to have a long-term solution for steel. Based on the
results of our discussions with our trading partners to date, I
can tell you that many of them share our concerns. I believe we
can work together to address unfair trade in this sector in a
positive way.
Is the U.S. already extending the economic assistance to Poland
and Hungary that you announced in Warsaw and Budapest, and are we
doing anything more now that a Solidarity government has been
installed in Poland?
Yes, we are moving quickly ahead on all the announced
tacking with
programs. Secretary Mosbacher will be informing the Polish and
our steps
Hungarian governments about these when he visits Budapest and
Warsaw September 17 - 20. Secretary Mosbacher is taking a group
of distinguished American businessmen with him to each country to
intensify the pace of private sector involvement in these
countries. We have already met with other Western countries to
coordinate assistance, and additional food aid is already on its
way to Poland.
The Administration has sent a request to Congress for
legislation to establish Enterprise Funds for Poland and Hungary,
and to give us authority to extend OPIC, GSP, environmental and
labor programs. The Congress has promised quick consideration.
7
What is the current status of our trade relationship with Japan?
As you know, I recently had the pleasure of meeting with the
new Prime Minister on his first visit to Washington. Trade was
an important part of our agenda. A substantial increase in
Japan's imports, especially of manufactured goods, is a key
element in clearing up our trade problems. The Japanese
government has pledged to make Japan an importing "superpower." "
I told the Prime Minister I supported this pledge. I urged that
prompt and effective measures be taken to make that goal a
reality.
And in order to reduce our bilateral trade deficit, we have
launched new initiatives to increase market access in Japan for
U.S. exports of satellites, supercomputers and wood products, and
have engaged the Japanese Government in talks aimed at a mutual
elimination of structural barriers to trade and payments
adjustments.
Japan is already our major market for agricultural products
and a key consumer of many semi-processed exports. Our goal is
to greatly increase sales of U.S. manufactured goods in Japan, in
addition to these more traditional sales. We seek to increase
U.S. exports to Japan, not restrict Japanese sales here.
Last week, an extensive exchange with the Japanese was held
in the U.S. -Japan Trade Committee to address these and other
market access problems.
8
What will EC 1992 mean for U.S. business and U.S. exporters, and
what is the Administration doing to help U.S. business adjust to
EC 1992?
The EC will not be a fragmented market consisting of 12
countries anymore. Although their Governments will remain
separate, the EC will become a "single internal" market of 320
million people worth over $4 trillion.
The EC 1992 program should benefit U.S. business, as long as
the EC internal market is completed in an open manner. For
example, EC 1992 will mean harmonization of industrial standards
and the opening of markets in traditionally state-dominated
fields such as telecommunications and broadcasting. These should
benefit U.S. exporters.
Our sole concern is that when trade barriers are lowered
within Europe, new barriers are not raised between Europe and the
rest of the world. Our aspiration -- and expectation -- is that
in removing internal barriers, EC 1992 will not result in higher
external barriers to the rest of the world. My Administration is
making every effort to work with the Europeans to ensure this
outcome.
The Commerce Department has negotiated or helped negotiate
important agreements with the EC on both industrial standards and
financial services. The Commerce Department has also set up an
office to inform businesses of key developments on the EC 1992
program, helping businesses take advantage of the market
opportunities.
9
10
EDUCATION
What is realistically going to be the result of the Education
Summit? Do you really think that by your sitting down with the
Governors we can expect any improvement in education to result?
What do you hope to accomplish?
the
report
If we examine what has happened across the country since "A
Nation At Risk we are aware know that although a number of states
Wissened
adopted comprehensive reforms, many others did not. It is also
true that elements of long-lasting reform, such as providing more parental
for
in
for their children
choice among the schools students attend, are not yet pervasive
in America. It is clear that we need a mechanism for obtaining a
national consensus on what must be done across the entire country
to improve education. Building that national consensus begins
with collectively determining what our national aspirations are
and how we are going to assure that we achieve them. Sitting
down with the governors begins that process.
Why are all the education leaders being excluded from the
Education Summit?
They are not. The summit process begins with a number of
I will be holding with education leaders
small-group meetings with me prior to the Charlottesville
with
Infoct,
meeting Education leaders will attend one of those meetings,
These meedings give them the
I
and will have an opportunity to discuss their concerns and advise
one held week. this
we
me on what avenues I should pursue at the summit. The conference
itself is just that -- a summit meeting of all of the chief
11
executives in the nation with the President of the United States.
Only
will
It has only the governors in attendance for two reasons.
First, the fact that on two prior occasions of great national
importance the President met with the governors as a group (Teddy
Roosevelt on conservation and Franklin Roosevelt on matters
related to the Great Depression) lends an important level of
symbolic significance to a a meeting with governors it places 149
the
by
our
crisis
visible
while the
the educational emergency on a very high plane. Secondly, it is
federal Sovernment solving our role to play in helping solve our
very clear that our attack on educational problems, to this point
Amust WE
in
10
has depended very heavily on governors to lead the way
the
way
education is, after all, a state responsibility and maintaining
that focus, along with a bipartisan political orientation, is
extremely important.
What topics are going to be discussed?
Revitalizing the teaching profession; improving learning
among students; the responsibilities and authority of various
levels of government; restructuring education and providing more
choice; achieving a competitive workforce and providing for
lifelong learning in our society; and issues related to
postsecondary education.
What is the role of the Secretary of Education in the Education
Summit? Is he being left out of the planning process? Will he
be at your side during the Summit?
12
The Secretary of Education has been intimately involved in
the planning of the summit and will play a significant role in
its program.
Will you be making a major announcement at the Education Summit?
I will deliver a major address as part of the summit.
# # #