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
415892703
label
[Press Releases, 3/90-9/90]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
415892703
contentType
document
title
[Press Releases, 3/90-9/90]
citationUrl
identifierLocal
13898-005
collections
Records of the White House Office of Speechwriting (George H. W. Bush Administration)
Tony Snow Subject Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
415892703
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
5a598ab25e655b75
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:
Snow, Tony, Files
Subseries:
Subject File, 1988-1993
OA/ID Number:
13898
Folder ID Number:
13898-005
Folder Title:
[Press Releases, 3/90-9/90]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
G
18
29
2
6
OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT
Embargoed until delivered -- 1:00 PM CDT, July 13, 1990
PREPARED TEXT OF REMARKS BY THE VICE PRESIDENT
THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE MEETING
Chicago, Illinois
Thank you very much, Jeannie Austin. It's great to be here
at the RNC meeting.
Let me begin with a few simple truths. I am proud to be
here with you today. I am proud to be a Republican. I am proud
to be George Bush's Vice President, and I am proud to be here to
tell you that the Republican Party is truly the party of the
future.
You know, I will always have a special place in my heart for
the RNC. I talked to you the day after George Bush named me to
be his Vice President. As a matter of fact, you were the first
group I talked to after my graceful and noncontroversial entrance
into national politics.
Remember New Orleans? -- August, 1988? I do -- vaguely. We
went into New Orleans about 17 points down. Thanks to you and
lots of others, George Bush won forty states and the Presidency.
That was 1988. Now let's pledge ourselves to complete the
unfinished political business of the past decade: and that's to
give President Bush a partner in Congress -- rather than a
Congress that refuses to advance the George Bush agenda.
2
Before I turn to the challenges facing us, let me once again
congratulate Jeannie Austin, Mary Matalin, Larry Bathgate and the
whole RNC team for your outstanding work and dedication. I also
want to pay special tribute to our terrific national chairman,
Lee Atwater, who I know has talked to many of you this past week
by phone.
When I spoke with Lee, I asked him if he had a message for
me to deliver. He said: Win. Let's win big in November, and
start the 90's off right. For one thing, let's start the 90's
off by once again making Bob Dole Senate majority leader.
We've got the candidates to take back the Senate this year.
Senator Don Nickles and the Senate Campaign Committee have done a
great job in candidate recruitment. We have six Congressmen, a
Lieutenant Governor and several other strong candidates going
after incumbent Democrats. Meanwhile, the Democrats have not
been able to get any of their House members to challenge our
Senate incumbents. The reason our people are taking the risk is
that they feel the Republicans can win, and that a majority is
within reach. We've got a good shot at picking up Senate seats
in Rhode Island, Nebraska, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan,
Alabama, Montana, and several other states.
With victories in six of these states, we would win control
of the Senate. But, there is also the chance that we'll pick up
5- seats this fall, which would give us a 50-50 tie.
Let me tell you this: there is nothing that would make me
happier than to spend the next 2 years of my life presiding over
3
the Senate, casting tie-breaking vote after tie-breaking vote to
help put George Bush's agenda into action!
Now let's get down to the state of affairs in our nation.
As you know, President Bush just completed two successful
summits. The NATO Summit saw this President lead 16 European
nations in an historic NATO meeting which, for the first time,
produced a positive response from the Soviet Union. President
Bush again drew on his foreign policy expertise, and achieved a
new vision of NATO with the support of our Allies.
In his hometown, Houston, at the Economic Summit, we once
again saw our President taking the lead and dealing successfully
with important and controversial issues, like trade.
George Bush has established himself as the leader of the
free world, and his respect and his prestige continue to grow
throughout the world. His success should make us all feel proud.
His success is good for our nation, for our party, and for
our party's agenda. For as many of you have heard me say before,
as outstanding as our candidates are -- this fall's campaign is
about more than individual candidates running against each other.
This fall's campaign is truly a test of the national agenda for
the 1990's. For there is a clear line that distinguishes
Republicans from Democrats; and when voters recognize those
differences, we win. So it's our job to make sure the voters
know the differences. Let's start with the federal budget and
the economy.
4
I say the budget and the economy, because if we are to
reignite our economy, we have to reduce the federal budget
deficit. We have got to reduce the deficit to get interest rates
down, and we have got to get interest rates down in order to
create opportunities, new jobs and a robust economy.
Our record speaks for itself. We Republicans are the party
of economic growth. We have proven this with an unprecedented
92 months of peacetime economic expansion and the creation of
some 20 million new jobs. That expansion did not happen by
accident, or as a result of Democratic policies. It happened
because of Reagan-Bush economic policies -- policies of
deregulation, fostering entrepreneurship, fiscal
responsibility -- and yes, emphatically and above all, low tax
rates. Republicans know that low taxes are key to economic
growth. We want American workers to be able to keep their hard-
earned dollars at home. We are proud that, in the 1980's, under
Republican Administrations, tax rates were cut, jobs were created
and hope was reborn in America.
These results were produced by Presidential leadership, and
once again, this President has taken the lead. The American
people have given us a divided government. This means we have to
negotiate with a Democratic Congress. To allow the deficit to
balloon by waiving Gramm-Rudman would threaten the confidence of
those savers and investors on whom economic growth depends. But
applying Gramm-Rudman would result in automatic, across-the-
board budget cuts of up to $100 billion. These cuts would hit
5
programs that are critical to the Republican agenda for the
1990's -- programs like law enforcement and national security.
The President has acted responsibly. He has taken the first
step -- in calling the budget summit. He has gone the extra mile
-- in announcing his willingness to consider tax revenue
increases. Now it is time for some action in return from the
Democratic leadership in Congress.
Here is what we expect: we expect any budget agreement to
preserve the single most important key to economic growth -- low
taxes. The reaction of some Democrats to the President's June 26
announcement was a useful reminder of this fundamental difference
between the two parties: the President reluctantly announced
that he would consider tax revenue increases to get the
negotiations going -- as one of six elements of a budget deal.
But many Democrats made it clear that their first and only
priority is to raise taxes. Well, raising taxes may be others'
agenda, but the George Bush agenda is to reduce the budget
deficit.
We don't have a budget deficit because Americans are taxed
too little. We have a deficit because the government spends too
much. During the 1980's, Congress increased federal spending by
30% in real dollars. As a matter of fact, this year alone the
federal government will raise an additional $70 billion without
raising taxes. If Congress has proven anything in the Reagan and
Bush years, it is that they will not voluntarily cut government
spending. That is why the President has brought Congress to the
6
table -- to get a budget deal that will force Congress to control
spending.
But cutting spending isn't enough. We also need real reform
in the budget process, which is why the President insisted that
budget reform be on the table, too.
The current situation is disgraceful. Earlier this year,
when the President asked Congress to approve $800 million in
emergency supplemental spending to aid the fledgling democracies
of Panama and Nicaragua, the Congress waited weeks to act. When
they finally did, they added an extra, unrelated, three billion
dollars in new spending, much of it for their own pet projects.
Ladies and gentlemen, these unchecked Congressional spending
sprees have got to end. Congress isn't concerned about excessive
federal spending. They have fought against the reforms that
would give the President the power to limit needless government
spending. It's time for Congress to give the President tools he
needs, like the line item veto, so he can get the job done.
Finally, the President has said that "growth incentives"
must be part of the budget negotiations -- and by that we mean
real growth incentives, like the capital gains tax cut.
During the 1988 election, President Bush and I campaigned
across the country to reduce the capital gains tax to 15%,
because we believe that small businesses and risk-taking
entrepreneurs are the motor of economic growth. Meanwhile,
Governor Dukakis argued the case for income redistribution. The
American people rejected that argument and gave us a resounding
7
mandate. But, today, nearly two years later, the Democrats'
Congressional leadership has denied the voters' mandate. In
fact, Congress' failure to pass the President's capital gains
proposal last year is partly responsible for the current slowdown
in economic growth. The fact is, ladies and gentlemen, contrary
to what Democrats may believe, a tax cut -- the capital gains cut
-- not a tax increase, is the single most important thing we
could do for economic growth.
As I've said, the President is willing to go the extra mile
in seeking to forge a budget agreement that would be good for
America. He is even willing to consider tax revenue increases.
But tax revenue increases will only be one element of a budget
deal. Regardless of what some Democrats and pundits may think,
these negotiations are not a one way street. We have put
revenues on the table. Today, I call on the Congressional
Democrats to come forth with their proposed spending cuts. Their
silence on this issue -- as usual -- is deafening.
Let me assure you of this: this President will insist on a
good deal -- one that is good for our economy and good for our
country. He will not accept a bad deal. His position is simple:
a good deal -- or no deal at all.
Ladies and gentlemen, time and time again, we have seen the
effects of Democratic tax and spend policies in our states. In
the past few months, we have seen leading Democrats reassert
their old tax and spend policies. In January, New Jersey got a
new Democratic governor. He had barely moved into the State
8
House when he raised taxes. The tax increase wasn't his last
resort, it was his first. Across the Hudson, the Governor of New
York applauded what the Governor of New Jersey had done. He said
it was so good that the Governor of New Jersey should consider
running for President.
Meanwhile, the Governor of New York was going for a tax
increase himself. Never mind that, since 1983, New York's
spending has grown more than twice as fast as the national
average. Finally, a little further east lies the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. You all know what's happened there.
Friends, we cannot let the Democrats do to America what they
have done to these states. Nor can we let the Democrats do to
America in the Nineties what they did to us in the Seventies. Do
I need to remind this audience of the Democrats' last performance
in the White House -- 20% interest rates, 13% inflation, 7%
unemployment? That's their legacy. Ours is: 20 million new
jobs, 92 months of economic growth, and tax cuts for the American
people.
Now let me turn briefly to some other issues that divide our
two parties. Crime: our crime rate is too high. There are more
crime victims each year than victims of traffic accidents. But
most Democrats still think the death penalty doesn't work, and
that the exclusionary rule does. We Republicans believe it's
time to put tough laws on the books, more tough judges on the
courts, and the rights of law-abiding citizens ahead of the
rights of criminals.
9
The parties are also divided on education. Many Democrats
say that all it takes to have better schools is to spend more tax
dollars. We say: we all know money is important -- but it
cannot make up for low standards; it cannot make up for
bureaucratic dead wood; and it cannot make up for a lack of
choice and competition. We Republicans stand for basic
educational reform because we do not accept a 25% drop out rate
for our high school students. We know a child without an
education is a child without hope. We must get Congress to pass
the President's education reforms, so we can have more
accountability, more parental involvement, more choice in our
school systems, and the best schools in the world once again.
The parties also differ on national defense. The Democrats
want to slash our defense budget by billions. After all, they
say, the Cold War is over -- no need to worry about national
security any more.
We say -- the reason the Cold War is ending is because
Ronald Reagan and George Bush worked to restore our national
strength. We say that the "peace dividend" we've earned from
our investment in security is peace itself, and we say that the
freedom that has come to Eastern Europe and to Latin America is
no accident. We invested in national security, and we now have
freedom and democracy spreading throughout the world.
But the world remains a dangerous place. Fifteen nations
will have ballistic missile capability by the end of the century
-- yet the United States remains defenseless. And so, though
10
great gains have been made, we have got to continue to invest in
national security and in new programs like SDI -- because a
strong America is a safe America.
Since I've been Vice President, I have travelled to 42
states and 25 countries. I have seen first hand what the
Republican dream is all about. It is about freedom, family and
faith. These are the principles that bring us together -- and
hold us together.
Many Americans take freedom for granted. Well, we
shouldn't. I will never forget attending church in Panama City
with President Endarra. People with tears in their eyes came up
and embraced me. They said, "Thank you for giving us freedom;
thank you George Bush." In Managua, Nicaragua, I represented our
country when democracy triumphed, and I saw Mrs. Chamorro replace
the communist Sandinistas. I saw how precious freedom is.
Here at home, where freedom is well established, our dream
of the American family is being challenged as never before. 15
million children in America do not have a father at home. 25% of
our children are born our of wedlock. Our families need to be
strengthened.
As I travel to schools throughout the country, I am reminded
again and again of the importance of a family, the importance of
a mother, of a father in caring for a child. Too many of our
children are neglected. We cannot and shall not neglect the
American family. The family is the nucleus of our society. If
we lose our families, we will never recover.
11
Finally, our faith brings us together -- our faith in God,
our faith in our people, our faith in our great President. Faith
is believing, and there are certain fundamental principles in
which we must believe -- the principles that distinguish right
from wrong, freedom from slavery.
My grandfather always told me, and he printed in his
newspapers, something that is simple but true. He said, "America
is great because America is free." That is what we believe.
Thank you and God bless you.
###
PAGE.001
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(London, England)
For Immediate Release
July 6, 1990
NEWS CONFERENCE OF THE PRESIDENT
Queen Elizabeth II Conference Center
London, England
12:18 P.M. (L)
THE PRESIDENT: I'd like to begin by thanking Prime
Minister Margaret Thatcher for hosting this splendid meeting. And I
want to express my appreciation also to Manfred Woerner not only for
his kind remarks just now, but for his outstanding leadership in NATO
and in this Alliance which is at a turning point in its history.
I'm pleased to announce that my colleagues and 1 have
begun a major transformation of the North Atlantic Alliance, and we
view it as an historic turning point. NATO has set a new path for
peace. It's kept the peace for 40 years, and today charted a new
course for stability and cooperation in Europe.
We, as you know, are issuing a document, the London
Declaration, and it makes specific proposals and establishes
directions for the future in four key areas. First, the London
Declaration transforms our relationship with old adversaries. To
those governments who confronted us in the Cold War, our Alliance
extends the hand of friendship.
We reaffirm that we shall never be the first to use force
against other states in Europe. And we propose a joint declaration
between members of the Alliance and member states of the Warsaw Pact
which other CSCE states could join in, making a solemn commitment to
nonaggression. We say to President Gorbachev, come to NATO. We say
to all the member states of the Warsaw Pacts, come to NATO and
establish regular diplomatic liaison with the Alliance.
And second, the London Declaration transforms the
character of NATO's conventional defenses. We can start, and must
start, by finishing the current CFE talks this year. Once CFE is
signed, we would begin follow-on negotiations to adopt additional
measures, including measures to limit manpower in Europe. With this
goal in mind, a commitment will be given when the CFE treaty is
Germany. signed concerning the manpower levels of the armed forces of a united
We will also seek in the '90s to achieve further
far-reaching measures to limit the offensive capability of
conventional armed forces. We'll change our strategy for a
conventional defense. We agreed to move away from NATO's current
strategy of forward defense to a reduced forward presence. We
agreed, in addition, to make the principle of collective defense even
more evident by organizing NATO troops into multinational corps.
And third, the London Declaration transforms NATO's
nuclear strategy. For 23 years wa've had a nuclear strategy called
flexible response, developed to meet a danger of sudden overwhelming
conventional attack. As that danger recedes, we've agreed to modify
flexible response.
of peace and it will remain fundamental to our strategy. But by
Nuclear deterrence has given us an unprecedented period
reducing it's reliance on nuclear weapons, NATO in the new Europe
will adopt a new strategy making it's nuclear forces truly weapons of
MORE
JUL 6 '90 14:06 F YL 'DON UK PRESS OFC
PAGE.002
- 2 -
last resort.
This new strategy will require different forces. We've
decided that once negotiations begin on short-range nuclear forces,
we are prepared to eliminate all NATO nuclear artillery shells from
Europe in return for reciprocal action by the Soviet Union. We
agreed that this review should report its conclusions as soon as
possible.
And fourth, the London Declaration transforms the
Alliance's vision for the CSCE and the structure for building. a
Europe whole and free. We know the CSCE process, bringing together
North America and all of Europe, can provide a structure for Europe's
continued political development. And that means new standards for
free elections, the rule of law, economic liberty and environmental
cooperation. And we agreed today on six initiatives to give life to
CSCE's principles and realize its potential.
As you can see, the London Declaration will bring
fundamental change to every aspect of the Alliance's work. This is
indeed a day of renewal for the Atlantic Community. For more than 40
years we've looked for this day; a day when we have already moved
beyond containment, with unity on this continent overcoming division.
And now that day is here, and all peoples from the Atlantic to the
Urals, from the Baltic to the Adriatic can share in its promise.
I'd be glad to take some questions. Helen.
or
Mr. President, with the end of the Cold War, the
draw-down in forces, and eventual denuclearization of Europe, are you
now ready to give some economic help, as other allies want, to
include the Soviet Union and Eastern Burope so that they can get back
on their feet, as we did after World War II with Germany and Japan -
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we have given substantial help to
certain countries in Eastern Europe. I have had a discussion, not
here at NATO, but with Mr. Gorbachev and others at different times,
about support for the Soviet Union. We are most interested in
helping them go. forward with their reforms.
But there was no decision taken, certainly, to send money
to the Soviet Union. I have some big. problems with that one. I
think the American people do. But there are ways that we can assist
in this transformation, in this reform that is taking place in the
Soviet Union.
0 Well, you're not opposed to other countries giving
it?
THE PRESIDENT: If the Germans decide they want to do
that, that's their business. But I have made very clear to those who
have spoken to me about this that at this juncture we have some
serious problems. And I've not been under any false colors about
that at all.
D
President Gorbachev has imposed a two-year deadline
on himself and the communist leaders for reversing their country's
economic tailspin. Does your reluctance to give the Soviets any
financial aid complicate his chances for success in meeting that
deadline?
THE PRESIDENT: I hope not, because, as you know, not
only have I spoken very fondly of and enthusiastically about what
he's trying to do in terms of reform, but I've spoken about him
personally and about our interest in seeing him succeed. And he's
got some extraordinarily difficult problems, but I don't think our
position on financial aid at this time should hopefully, it will
not complicate his standing. He deserves support for this reform.
2
DO you view Western aid for the Soviet Union now as
a subsidy for its military machine -
MORE
JUL
6
'90
14:06
ML
NDON
UK
PRESS
OHC
PAGE.003
- 3 -
THE PRESIDENT: I'll tell you, we've got some problems
that L've been vuly Lianh will. conserning the Deviets. And one of
them is a great percentage of their GNP going into the military.
Another is some regional problems that perhaps are unique to the
United States, but things that concern me -- spending $5 billion a
year in Cuba, for example, to sustain a totalitarian regime that is
highly critical of the Soviet Union from time to time. So we have
some regional problems. We have some reform problems that should
take place before financial support can be given. But perhaps there
are ways that we can assist them as we go forward with credit or
other matters before we go to direct government loans.
of Mr. President, with the threat receding in the way
your communique describes, do you think it's inevitable that at some
point in the next few years the Europeans will decide it's better
that American troops just go home? And what do you say to American
taxpayers to convince them that it's worth continuing to pay the bill
to have them in Europe?
THE PRESIDENT: I don't think the American troops will
stay against the will of the host country. I don't want to see
American forces deployed where American forces are not wanted. I
don't want to see Soviet forces deployed where Soviet forces are not
wanted. And I expect the same would be true of other nationalities'
forces as well. But I don't foresee that day because I think the
Alliance has spoken rather eloquently about the need for a common
defense. And all the members of the Alliance are united in their
view that a U.S. force presence in Europe is stabilising and very,
very important. So I don't see that day looming up on the horizon.
a
But do you fear that American taxpayers' support for
that continuation might be eroding?
THE PRESIDENT: 1 see some attacks on this. And I think
this NATO declaration should help in that regard. But I view it as
my responsibility to make clear to the American taxpayer why it is in
our interest to help keep the peace. And that's exactly what these
forces are engaged in.
0
Mr. President, in light of the stress that's been
placed here on the continued cohesion within this Alliance, sir,
would it not be a major breach of that cohesion if a country like
West Germany were to provide direct aid to the Soviet Union in light
of the deep concerns which you have expressed about such aid from the
West?
THE PRESIDENT: No. I don't feel that that's a breach of
Alliance cohesion. The Germans have their own bilateral relationship
with the Soviet Union, and it doesn't concern me one bit. I've not
made one single effort to try to have the Germans look differently at
that question.
Q
Mr. President, would it not then be possible that
aid from our ally, West Germany would at least, arguably or
indirectly, flow to a country like Cuba?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, if you want to say that anything
that goes to the Soviet Union facilitates aid to Cuba I suppose we
could say the same about our trade. But that isn't -- I don't think
that would be a fair charge to make against the Germans.
0 Tonight in an interview to be broadcast in the
United States, Fang Lishi, the recently released Chinese dissident,
says you owe him a dinner. He couldn't make it to the one you threw
in Beijing, and he would like to be invited to the White House for
dinner. Would you do that? I have a follow-up.
THE PRESIDENT: Well he's here in this country. I
thought he wanted to stay out of the public eye. I thought he
himself said so. So you've got a little different information than
that. We'll just defer the rest of your question. What's your
follow-up?
MORE
JUL
6
'90
14:07
F
L
DON
UK
PRESS
OFC
PAGE 004
- 4 -
0
If I can follow-up. If you do meet him, he is going
to complain that you have a double standard for human rights. That
you have one standard for the Soviet Union where you complain about
human rights violations or have in the past -- at least pre-Gorbachev
-- and that you don't complain so much about human rights violations,
you're not as tough with the Chinese. He complains about sending
Brent Scowcroft and Larry Eagleburger, et cetera. What would you say
to him?
little
time warp THE PRESIDENT: Here because we BOX Spoke that out YES He's got a
indeed, I think we took the lead at a meeting in Europe -- I guess it
was the G-7 meeting, not NATO -- where we took the lead in expressing
our joint indignation in terms of the abuses of human rights at
Tiananmen Square. We've kept certain sanctions on China. I am
heartened that Fang Lizhi is free and free now to say what's on his
mind like this. So I would say that if he feels that way, he's
simply not expressing the facts as they are. I don't agree with
that. I notice some of my critics in the United States Congress say
that, and I think they're just as wrong as they can be.
Q
Mr. President, back to the declaration. You're
inviting the Warsaw Pact countries to come to NATO as observers.
What if they want to become members of NATO -- Hungary, for instance,
or even Poland? Are you saying by inviting them to just be observers
that you do not look favorably on them becoming full members?
THE PRESIDENT: I'm saying NATO views this as an open
invitation, and who knows what will happen in terms of membership
down the line? That's not in the cards right this minute. We're
just coming out of an adversarial environment of varying -- I think
there's varying degrees of enthusiasm for what you're talking about
amongst the members of the Warsaw Pact at this juncture, so I'd say
it's premature.
0
Would you oppose any country - for instance,
Hungary - becoming a member of NATO?
THE PRESIDENT: Not forever. But at this juncture, I
support the NATO doctrine.
or
Mr. President, in your communique you talk about
nuclear weapons becoming truly weapons of last resort. You say the
fundamental strategy of the Alliance is being transformed here. As
part of this review, are you considering going back home and taking
another look at some of the strategic nuclear modernization programs
that you have supported -- looking at some of the very expensive
weapons programs that some say should be a bonus, a part of the peace
dividend?
THE PRESIDENT: Not as a result of anything that's
transpired here in NATO, no. We are interested in strategic arms
agreements with the Soviets. The Soviets, as we all know, have
indeed modernized their forces. We're on the horns of a dilemma in
that question, you might say, because we have not to the degree they
have. But that was not a consideration here at NATO. Nor has
anything transpired here that will make me go home with a different
approach to strategic arms.
Q
If I may follow up -- so you'll proceed across the
board with strategic modernization? Your commitment to that -
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. I will proceed in negotiating with
the Soviets to achieve a strategic arms agreement.
!
Mr. President, how much did threats to perestroika
and reforms in the Soviet Union play in changes you've announced
today at NATO?
THE PRESIDENT: You mean, what's going on at the
Congress? None, in my view. I mean, I think what's contributed to
MORE
JUL 6 '90 14:08 F IL DON UK PRESS OFC
PAGE.005
- 5 -
the changes in our approach, NATO, are. the changes. that bave. taten
place, particularly since or last meeting, in terms of Bastern Burope
and in terms of the Soviets' willingness to withdraw forces,
hopefully, through a CFE agreement. So I don't think anything was
short -- that there was short-term thinking as a result of the
debates that are going on in Moscow this very day.
O Well, if I can follow up then, what kind of messages
do the changes announced today send to Gorbachev?
THE PRESIDENT: They send to him that here's an alliance
that is purely -- that you should view, Mr. Gorbachev, as defensive
and not threatening. And please convince your military and others in
the Soviet Union of this fact.
You see, from my discussions with Mr. Gorbachev and
others I've had the feeling that they have viewed NATO as much more
threatening to them than the way in which I've looked at NATO. But
now as a result of the actions that we've taken here, I think it
should be clear to the Soviet military, to Mr. Gorbachev, to his
adversaries and to his friends inside the Soviet Union that NATO is
changing. And to the degree they had seen it as a threat to their
chases .. be their hundaws, 61.13 whowe11 100h mL 16 sowl -- - illent to
their borders or to their people.
Anytime you sit down with people from the Soviet Union,
they tell you of the fact that they lost from 20 million to 27
million lives. It's ingrained in them. They do it not as a
defensive mechanism, but they do it because they feel very strongly
about that. I hope that they will look at the changes that NATO has
taken and say, well, if NATO had been a threat to us, it no longer is
a threat to us. And then I hope we can go forward to further
document that spirit by mutual agreements on arms control.
1
2 How are you going to communicate what's in this
document to Mr. Gorbachev and the people there? Are you going to .
talk with him personally? Did the NATO leaders decide on some other
method of communication with him to let him know what it means, what
the communique means?
THE PRESIDENT: The NATO leaders have decided that the
Secretary General will be going there, and that will be a very good
face-to-face chance to discuss these matters. I believe our
Secretary of State is meeting soon with Mr. Shevardnadze, and you can
be sure the matters will be discussed then. And then, in all
Gorbachev. likelihood, I will discuss it personally by telephone with Mr.
I think it's very important that the leader of the United
States and the leader of the Soviet Union stay in touch. In fact,
when he was here in Washington, we talked about more such contacts.
So perhaps within the next couple of weeks I will be talking to him
here again, particularly that they ought not to view NATO as a threat
about what transpired. Because I want to make some of these points
and certainly ought not to view it as a roadblock to progress in arms
control or withdrawal of conventional forces or whatever it might be.
you like to see from President Gorbachev now to this? And I'm
0 Mr. President, what kind of tangible response would
thinking particularly of the issue of Germany and NATO.
NATO, I would like to see the tangible response be an acceptance of
THE PRESIDENT: In terms of the question of Germany and
the concept that a unified Germany in NATO is not only good, but that
it certainly is no threat to them. And we've had long talks with Mr.
Gorbachev about that. And perhaps this declaration will be a
document that he can use to convince others that a unified Germany in
NATO is in the interest of stability and world peace. So that would
be -- I think that is probably the most important message. And then,
I'd like to think that out of this he would feel more confident in
going forward with arms control, bringing the two-plus-four talks to
a conclusion, and there's a wide array of other things as well.
MORE
JUL 6 '90 14:09 FI L' DON UK PRESS OFC
PAGE.006
- 6 -
8
Did the topic of the Middle East come up during your
discussions in the margins of the NATO Summit? And can you comment
on press reports which indicate you might be considering resuming
your dialogue with the PLO? And what conditions would you attach to
such a resumption?
THE PRESIDENT: The discussion of the Middle East in the
NATO meetings did not come up. It may have been discussed in the
corridors, but it was not a discussion in the meetings at all. And I
didn't have discussions in a NATO context about the Middle East.
My position on the dialogue with the PLO is that one of
the preconditions for discussion was a renunciation of terror. And I
viewed the aborted attack on the shores of Israel by some Palestinian
commandos as a terrorist act. So we didn't cancel, we suspended the
talks with the PLO. And I would like to think that Mr. Arafat could
some way bring his council not only to denounce the terror that that
particular terrorist act, but also to take some action against the
person that perpetrated it. And then I think we would certainly give
rapid consideration to renewal of the dialogue. I happen to think
the dialogue has been useful. I, don't think Mr. Arafat particularly
agrees with that and I'm quite confident that Mr. Shamir doesn't
agree with that. But nevertheless, we have -- that's the view of the
United States.
o
Mr. President, Mikhail Gorbachev is already under
fire from conservatives for essentially giving away Eastern Europe.
Are you at all concerned, cis, that by inviting him to speak to MATO
you're further undermining him? And I have a follow-up.
THE PRESIDENT: No, I'm not -- not only do I think we're
not undermining him, but I would think that would send a signal that
NATO has no hostile intentions to the Soviet Union. So I would hope
nobody at home would consider this an effort to undermine Mr.
Gorbachev, nor would it be -- nor would it have the effect of
undermining a man who has clearly tried to move forward, who has
presided over the Soviet Union at a time when this fantastic change
towards democracy and freedom has taken place in Eastern Europe. And
you're seeing that same kind of quest for change -- democratic change
and economic change -- inside the Soviet Union. So I don't think it
would have the effect that the question suggests.
0
If he accepts your invitation, sir, will you attend
that meeting, or would it be an occasion for some sort of a
superpower summit?
THE PRESIDENT: It has -- the level of the Gorbachev
meeting at NATO has not been determined. And I would be guided by
what the other NATO members think is appropriate. But others have --
the level at which Mr. Gorbachev would speak to NATO has not been
set. If it was a head of state level, why, of course, I would
attend. Others have addressed NATO at varying levels.
0
Having attended quite a number of these things,
these NATO conferences, I'd like to ask a question, Mr. President,
that I asked -- Is this to some extent a celebration of the victory
of NATO in the Cold War - the Cold War is over and NATO has won? Or
don't you believe it's the idea that NATO has won the Cold War?
THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me, back up now. I've tried to
avoid code words. And the Cold War being over is something that I'd
rather not comment on. I don't think we're dealing in terms of
victory and defeat. We're dealing in terms of how do we stabilise
and guarantee the peace and security of Europe. So to the degree a
chief of state or head of government dwells on the kinds of rhetoric
that you understandably ask about, I think it is counterproductive,
Does that answer it?
2
Would you say that NATO has - to a great extent
caused Gorbachev to be -- that the whole change in Eastern Europe
have to some extent been caused by what's been going on in Western
MORE
PAGE. 007
- 7 -
Europe for the last 40 years?
THE PRESIDENT: I would say to some degree that the
changes in Eastern Europe and in the Soviet Union have been because
they have seen the success of market economies, they've seen a
craving for freedom and democracy on the parts of people. And to the
degree NATO countries contributed to that proper perception, so be
it. I think -- I'd like to think that -- I'm convinced that NATO's
solidarity during the last 40 years has guaranteed the peace for
Europe. And when you look back at history, it is a long peace given
deserves a lot of credit.
some of the conflagrations on this continent. So I think NATO
pretty fundamental. NATO has nothing to do with the changes in our
But I think the yearning for freedom and democracy is
democracies and you've seen the emergence of free people there. So
own Western Hemisphere and yet you're seeing now the emergence of
it's fundamental - people want democracy and freedom. But I think
NATO's has major contribution has been to keeping the peace and yet it
follow. set an example that I think many in Eastern Europe now want to
!
stability in Europe, which is the new purpose of NATO, with
Mr. President, how do you square your concern over
two political and economic front? And what can you do to put those
the increasing signs of instability in the Soviet Union, particularly on
pieces of the puzzle together?
of because, frankly, one thing we do is stay out of the internal affairs
THE PRESIDENT: A very good and very difficult question
out the Soviet Union. I realize that some think that I'm not staying
pleasantly about Mr. Gorbachev.
of the internal affairs of the Soviet Union when I speak
decide to what they want, how much of their gross national product ought to
But I think they have to sort it out now. They have
have to the next nove, what I'm saying, is up to them. I think But
I think will stand ready to work very cooperatively with then them. WP in
historically the West perceived and once they take that decision
go into arms, whether the threat is much less than they have
predicted changes that have taken place in Eastern Europe and
seen the make these determinations. And in the meantime, NATO having they
think changes in terms of force levels can go forward with the what I
people will view as a historic document.
Excuse me, I did tell you I'd get over here.
0 Thank you very much. How conditional is the
proposal saying to remove nuclear artillery from Europe? Are actually
you Are you saying it should be part of negotiations, does are
likewise? that you will not do this unless the Soviet Union you
nuclear actually merely inviting the Soviet Union to withdraw their or
artillery?
are and -- the the document is fairly clear on that point, I think, that
THE PRESIDENT: Well I'd certainly invite them to do it,
conditioned withdrawal of nuclear artillery on the part of the West they is
on the withdrawal of Soviet nuclear. artillery.
What happened to nonsingularization of Germany?
0 On paragraph 12, Manpower levels of United Germany.
That that was a question that had to be addressed anyway. And think
THE PRESIDENT: Well I don't see that as singularization.
have. through CFE talks. So I would think that this is force
levels you're going to see the United States addressing its I
being example, from not being a part of - a united Germany
out, for always thought of as singularisation. Trying to single not what I
at an a part of NATO. I think what it simply says is this Germany from
force talks. ourselves now to U.S. force levels under our going conventional forward,
addressing appropriate time, will be addressed. And we are question,
So I don't see any contradiction in that.
MORE
JUL
6
'90
14:11
F 1 L DON UK PRESS OFC
PAGE 008
- $ -
There was a guy on the aisle that I identified back
there. No, I'm afraid it wasn't you, but right there, that had his
hand up. Well, he's vanished. The guy in the open shirt here. Then
I have to go. Go ahead, we'll get these two, and then I must - I
really have to take off.
-
or
Would you say that you are hoping that Gorbachev can
convince other people that through this document that they do not
have to fear NATO? Are you saying that some of the people in the
Soviet Union are imposing this fear to NATO to Mr. Gorbachev, and who
are these people? I have a follow-up question, please.
THE PRESIDENT: If I got the first part of it correctly,
I think there's been a historic fear on the part of some about the
West because of the Soviets' own history. I happen to believe that
that fear has been misplaced all along. But to the degree people
still have that fear and they look at this document, it would seem to
be to be de minimus. I can't single out which people they are, but I
think there has been a historic concern on the part of the Soviets
because of their own history in -- certainly as recently as World War
II with an enormous loss of life.
I think over the years, as we improve our relations, have
improved our relations with the Soviet Union and, indeed, as they
have changed, those fears have diminished. I think, given the new
openness, the glasnost, I think they're going to diminish even more.
What was the follow-up?
of
How do you expect that Mr. Gorbachev can be helped
in his present problems in the Soviet Union with this London
Declaration?
THE PRESIDENT: I think he will say, look, NATO has
indeed changed in response to the changes that have taken place in -
Eastern Europe. If I were him, I'd say I've been right. They're
changing, and now I want to go forward with the United States and
negotiate SORE more deals. I want to see us reform, I want to see us
stop SORE of what we've been doing in various regions around the
world that others view as detrimental to the interests of freedom and
democracy. And so I would -- if I were him I would take a hard look
at this document. I'd listen carefully to what he hears from Manfred
Woerner when he goes there. And I would think be could say, we've
been right to reach out as we have tried to do to the United States
and indeed to improve selations ************** du in Western Eyes:
steps that I, Mr. Gorbachev, have taken. And I get on the offense.
Then let the rest of us help him with some of his hardliners. And
there's plenty of work to do.
But I would think that he would view this as a very
positive step forward, and one that vindicates some of the moves that
he's made over the past year or two.
0 Will he join NATO?
0
Mr. President, now that you've had time to digest
Prime Minister Shamir's letter to you of last week, how does that
letter leave you feeling? Does it leave you feeling, as Secretary
Baker said, that maybe we should just leave him with the White House
phone number and to call when he's serious, or does it leave you
feeling you're ready now to get involved in a prolonged negotiation
with him, once again spending another few months or years to try to
modify his position?
THE PRESIDENT: It leaves me feeling we need further
clarification in terms of the questions that I've put to him --
answers --- clarification on some of the answers. But, look, we want
to see the peace process go forward. We had good talks with - I
did, and so did Jim Baker -- with the Egyptian Foreign Minister the
other day. I've been on the phone to Mr. Mubarak, to King Hussein,
MORE
JUL -6 '90 14:12 F. L' non UK PRESS OFC
PAGE. 009
- 9 -
to others. And we want to see the process go forward. We have the
United States policy and we're going to stay with the policy in terms
of settlements and other things of this question.
But we will do everything we can to encourage a
discussion that will end up in peace. There has got to be talks,
Palestinians have to attend these talks. And so the ground rules are
out there and we've got to go forward. But we need more
clarification and, very candidly, I'd like to think that Israel would
now move forward again. And that's about where we stand.
Thank you very much.
of What's wrong with your hand?
THE PRESIDENT: It's skewered. I was cleaning the
mackerel and I plunged the knife into it. Minor wound. -
END
12:52 P.M. (L)
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(Houston, Texas)
For Immediate Release
July 9, 1990
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
AT ARRIVAL CEREMONY FOR ECONOMIC SUMMIT LEADERS
Academic Quadrangle
Rice University
Houston, Texas
2:13 P.M. CDT
THE PRESIDENT: Welcome to Houston. And we think this
city is a very appropriate place to host this Eccnomic Summit, not of
the postwar era, but of the post-postwar era. Over the past decade
and a half, the leaders of the largest industrialized democracies
have held these summits to address common problems and challenges.
These economic summits have become framework for frank
and constructive dialogue; a dialogue for progress that I believe
will be advanced greatly in these next three days. And together
we're called upon as allies and as friends to work toward decisions
here in Houston that will bring a new stability and prosperity to the
world, by tapping the power and energy of free wills and free
markets.
A new world of freedom lays before us; hopeful,
confident. A world were peace endures, where commerce has conscience
and where all that seems possible is possible.
So let us begin in good faith to set the stage for the
new millennium. Thank you for coming to Houston. And thank all who
have made us feel so at home here. Thank you very much. (Applause.)
END
2:14 P.M. CDT
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(Houston, Texas)
For Immediate Release
July 11, 1990
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
IN PRESENTING FINAL COMMUNIQUE
Assembly Hall
George R. Brown Convention Center
Houston, Texas
12:11 P.M. CDT
THE PRESIDENT: I would say to my distinguished
colleagues that we've had a chance to review the declaration that was
agreed this morning by the eight of us. And I first want to thank
all of you for the spirit of full cooperation that I think we all
agree existed here in this summit. The eight of us, representing the
people of France, the United Kingdom, the Federal Republic of
Germany, Canada, Italy, Japan, the United States and the European
Communities all met. And our declaration reflects decisions taken
during the past three days here in Houston to extend our long
ecomomic expansion, strengthen the world trading system, reiterate
our support for the strengthened debt strategy, ensure open
investment, assist reform in Central and Eastern Europe and the
Soviet Union, safeguard the environment, help developing nations, and
reduce the scourge of drugs.
On behalf of my colleagues, I'd like to note several
points of particular importance to us, summarizing -- not reading in
its entirety, but summarizing some key points out of this
declaration.
We are enormously heartened by the resurgence of
democracy throughout much of the world. We welcome the spread of
multiparty democracy, the practice of free elections, the freedom of
expression and assembly, the growing respect for human rights and the
rule of law, and the increasing recognition of the strength of open
and competitive economies. These events proclaim loudly man's
freedom. inalienable rights: when people are free to choose, they choose
We, the G-7, are now in the eighth year of an economic
expansion which has created millions of jobs, accelerated the growth
of world trade, and provided tangible support for developing
countries. The process of economic policy coordination, which we
have developed over the years, has contributed importantly to this
economic perfermance. However, we cannot rest on current
accomplishments. Each of us will continue efforts, individually and
together, to maintain and improve conditions for growth.
Economic prosperity depends critically on an open world
trading system. And we will devote close personal attention in the
months ahead to achieving a successful outcome of the Uruguay Round
of Multilateral Trade Negotiations. We have given our trade
negotiators clear instructions on our commitment to conclude a
comprehensive agreement which expands trade worldwide, while bringing
the greatest number of participants into a strengthened General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade -- the GATT. Each of us recognizes
that reaching this goal will require difficult steps by all
participants. We will not hesitate to take them. This is especially
true for agriculture where we are committed by this declaration to
provide the strong political leadership necessary to ensure a
successful and enduring result.
MORE
HOUSTON PRESS OFFICE
PAGE 020
- 2 -
We agreed on the significance of the steps underway in
the Soviet Union to liberalise and democratise its society and to
move toward & market economy. We welcome President Gorbachev's
message, to us, in particular, his Vesire for a sustained economic
dialogue with the West.
We want to support the reforms underway in the Soviet
Union and all agree that technical assistance can help the Soviets
move toward a market-oriented economy: Some of us are already
prepared to extend large-scale credits to the Sovdet Union. We all
agree, however, all of us, that the Soviet Union could greatly
improve the prospects for sustained Western assistance if it
introduced further market reforms, cut its military spending and
ceased supporting governments which promote regional conflicts. We
also took note of the importance to the government of Japan of
peaceful resolution of its dispute with the Soviet Union over the
Northern Territories.
We see the need for a considered, comprehensive Western
response in support of Soviet reform efforts. We've asked the major
international economic institutions to provide us by year's end their
recommendations for reform of the Soviet economy and possible
criteris for Western assistance.
We are Keenly aware of our responsibilities to pass on to
the future generations & world environment whose health, beauty and
economic potential are safeçuarded. Environmental challenges such as
climate change, OZONE depletions deforestation, marine pollution and
the loss of biological diversity require closer and more effective
international cooperation and action. We are united on the goals and
measures to be taken now, particularly in relation to climate change
and the protection of forests And in this regard we have agreed to:
complete by 1992 the work of the IPCC on = franework
convention on climate change;
to begin work immediately on developing a pilot
project to address tropical deforestation in Stazil)
commence negotiations -- this is the third point
to commence negotiations on a global forest
convention or agreement to corb deforestation,
promote biodiversity, and encourage sound forestry
practices and reforestation.
We recognize the difficult economic challenges facing
many developing countries, including reduced growth and severe debt
burdens We have been in the forefront of addressing these problems
and encouraged - we are encouraged, by the progress that has been
made under the international debt strategy over the past year. We
have agreed to review options for helping those countries that are
heavily indebted to our governments. Economic and political reform
are essential for economic prosperity and political stability. For-
those countries undertaking these difficult steps, We offer our
experience, resources and goodwill.
We leave Bouston renewed by the strength of our common
commitments to healthy economic growth and prosperity and freedom for
neonles evervwhere.
And in conclusion, we baveraccepted Prime Minister
Thatcher's kind invitation to meet. again: nort July in London. Again;
my thanks to my: colleagues. 1. think the plan: is we now go and have
our own opportunity to: respond to questions from the press, But I
want to thank my colleagues for what 1, at least, feel has Been a
good summit And welte very pleased you were here. And might 1 just
take one nore. opportunity to thank the people of Houston for their
hospitality.
Thank you all verysmuch: (Applause:)
END
12:21 P.M. CDT.
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
July 12, 1990
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
AT THE 30TH BIENNIAL CLERGY-LAITY BANQUET
Sheraton Ballroom
Sheraton Washington Hotel
Washington, D.C.
7:40 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all very much. Who would have
thought that I would be introduced by Peter Jennings before a
beautiful evening like this? It's just wonderful. (Applause.) Ted,
thank you very, very much. Barbara and I are delighted to be here
this evening. When Ted said that a person we hold in such reverence,
I was ready. You see, I'm used to it now. I thought he was talking
about Barbara, not the All Holiness. (Laughter and applause.)
I am so pleased to be with you. Your All Holiness, once
again, welcome to the capital of our great nation. It was an honor
and, I think, an appropriate honor for us to greet you in the Oval
Office today. (Applause.) And I was proud to be at your side in the
Rose Garden. (Applause.)
It's an extraordinary privilege tonight to be with you
and your distinguished delegation, and also to be with our respected
and revered friend, Archbishop Iakovos, who has distinguished himself
-- (applause) -- in the 30 years that he's been the spiritual leader
of your church in the Americas. I apologize for the order of the
program and speaking before dinner, but Archbishop Iakovos said you
were having broccoli and I figure I have to get out of here.
(Laughter and applause.)
But to more serious things, Your All Holiness, meeting
with you earlier today was a rare and an inspiring opportunity. Once
again, I want to express my profound respect. You are a holy man of
great spirituality and vision and humility, a gentle and revered
pilgrim on this mission of peace. (Applause.)
We are especially blessed to be part of this historic
journey: The first time in the 1400-year history of the Patriarchate
that the successor to St. Andrew has visited the Western Hemisphere.
(Applause.)
Greetings to all of you, the members of the 30th
Clergy-Laity Conference from 555 parishes across the sweep of the
Americas. I still remember the outpouring of warmth that you gave me
when I had the privilege of addressing you two years ago and two
years before that. It is a delight to see you again because I feel
that we do have a special bond.
In particular, I cherish the Greek-American legacy of
putting family values first. (Applause.) This is the finest example
of what our country needs in order to be strong and wise and
flourishing. We admire your unflinching devotion to the passing on
of education. clear moral values, and your emphasis on the importance of a good
I noted that in the census returns for the last three
decades, you have ranked the highest of any community in education.
(Applause.) And I'm not just saying that because John Bradamus is
here, either. (Laughter.) Also, you stress hard work and the
MORE
- 2 -
individual initiative that creates opportunity and, thus, have become
the backbone of small businesses throughout this country.
And statistics show that through your shining example of
love and faith and of course family tradition, you've almost no crime
and drug problems. And how wonderful -- (applause) -- and how
wonderful that 3,000 of your young people this week took part in a
forum about the bitter plague of drugs. (Applause.)
Greek Orthodoxy means your deeply-rooted spiritual beliefs, as well
I also admire your strength as a community in which your
challenges threaten the fabric of our society, your intense devotion
as the richness of your cultural life. In any age when so many
to your faith and traditions have made you messengers of hope. You
share the richness of your ancient, undivided faith. You've
impressed us with the vibrant ethnic vitality of your immigrant
parents and grandparents -- I love what Ted Koppel said about that
ealier -- and with your commitment to Christian service both here and
in the lands of your ancestors' birth. They were drawn here by the
beacon of Liberty's torch. And now, you are shining your own beacon
of promise back to your homelands, always remembering the words of
the Greek National Anthem: "Now as ever valor prizing/Hail, all hail
sweet Liberty!" (Applause.)
And what a splendid place Washington is for you to meet.
Here, in his hometown, you can proudly tell the story of your
Greek-American predecessor, Constantino Brumidi. Brumidi, the
Michelangelo of the U.S. Capitol. (Applause.) More than 100 years
ago, Brumidi produced those eloquent friezes showing scenes from
American history and said with reverence: "My one ambition is that I
may live long enough to make beautiful the Capitol of the one country
on Earth in which there is liberty." (Applause.)
In Washington, you can rejoice in the magnificence of
your Cathedral of St. Sophia. When I was Vice President, I used to
live just down the road from Aghia Sophia: the Cathedral of Holy
Wisdom. How impressive is its rich Byzantine style. How moving the
site of its candle-lit icons and those astonishing mosaics. It must
have been a place of rare beauty much like this that, back in the
10th century, inspired the envoys of Prince Vladimir to bring your
Orthodox faith to Kiev. (Applause.) For they said that, upon their
first glimpse inside an Orthodox church in Constantinople: "We knew
not whether we were in heaven or on Earth. Your All Holiness, you
are today trying to bring the peace of heaven to this earthly life.
Your global vision is one of hope -- hope for what we can do with and
for your 250 million spiritual children -- (applause) -- so many of
whom have lived in the chilled darkness of religious persecution.
The world rejoices that the new freedoms of the past year mean that
your Orthodox followers in so many lands are now once again able to
follow freely and openly the road of holy light. (Applause.)
We celebrate the dawn of hope for these people,
particularly those for whom you speak in Eastern Europe. We also
celebrate the tremendous strength of spirit which has sustained them
through these generations of repression. Spirit like that of the 50
million Russian Orthodox believers who still dream of the day when
they can worship openly in their faith which is, after all, 930 years
older than communism itself. (Applause.) We know -- we know with
certainty that day will come because, as a persecutor of Orthodoxy
admitted: "Religion is like a nail. The harder you hit it, the
deeper it goes into the wood." But while the events of this past
year have been a glorious beginning, there is still much to do.
Because peace is more than just the absense of war.
As we continue the struggle for liberty for all, our way
will be lit with the inner radiance of pastoral pilgrims of peace
like Your All Holiness. (Applause.) I've often spoke of hope as "a
thousand points of light ablaze in the black sky," and so I was
struck by this conference's theme: "Walk as children of light." I
noticed how this first began in Ephesians: "For you were once
MORE
- 3 -
darkness but now you are light."
Eastern Europe was once in dark bondage and now begins to
see by the pale glow of a new dawn. (Applause.) It's like your own
Easter midnight service. As the priest calls, "Come and receive the
light, " he brings a candle, I'm told, from the altar into the
unbroken blackness of the church. And then he passes the flame to
each worshiper's own individual candle until the church is ablaze
with flickering lights proudly shining together to defeat the dark.
(Applause.)
Your All Holiness, you are that candle. Your faithful
here and around the world are that congregation which takes the light
of your vision and spreads it through all lands. I was touched to
hear that, during this trip, you will be walking across the "Peace
Bridge" that links our great country, the United States, and Canada.
And really, if you think about it, what a wonderful symbol of what
all individuals and nations must do -- build peace bridges that link,
not separate, nations. And then walk upon those bridges to meet
others halfway in order to celebrate our similarities, not to battle
our differences.
Together, we ask your prayers, Your All Holiness, that
God will guide us in our efforts for peace and that the wide arms of
faith and forgiveness will one day soon embrace a world with justice
and compassion for all.
God bless you, Your All Holiness, and God bless every one
of you gathered here tonight. Barbara and I were honored to be your
guests. Thank you very, very much. (Applause.)
END
7:56 P.M. EDT
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
July 13, 1990
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
DURING DEPARTURE FOR CAMP DAVID
The South Lawn
1:33 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Let me just say before I leave here that
on Tuesday, the House is going to vote on a balanced budget
amendment. And if enacted, that would halt the steady buildup of the
national debt. I think it will bring much-needed discipline to the
process, discipline on the Executive Branch, discipline on the
Legislative Branch, on the Congress of the United States.
We've had one surplus in 30 years. And 30 state
legislators -- more than that -- have already called for this action.
I think this would be a very important tool. This passage is
important to, I think, to the current budget negotiators. It would
send them a good signal. We are very, very serious, not only in the
budget negotiations now in process, but the commitment to the
balanced-budget process. I think this vote on Tuesday is important,
so I wanted to urge strong support for it.
Q What about the civil rights compromise?
Q How practical is it, Mr. President?
THE PRESIDENT: Phase it in and it will be very
practical, and it will work. And it ought to be tried. We've tried
a lot of other things and it hasn't worked. And we hear a lot about
controlling spending, and then we see bills up there -- we're going
$4 billion over the President's request in one day. Turn around and
that's what happens. So I'd like to give this a shot, and I think
the country would like to give it a shot.
Q
how can you reach zero?
When you can't meet Gramm-Rudman in one year, sir,
THE PRESIDENT: We're not going to reach it in one year.
Q Has the budget -- bogged down?
Q
compromise now, after Sununu's letter?
'Are you feeling optimistic about the civil rights
THE PRESIDENT: Well we're trying very hard on that. Do
I leaving. get credit for a full press conference here? Otherwise, I'm
Q Half credit on it.
Q We'll give you credit.
Q How about tax increase revenues? Have you decided
--
THE PRESIDENT: The budget process? I think they're
working in seriousness as of today. And I've vowed to stay out of
it. I notice others are positioning themselves on what they will or
won't accept. I made a deal with the leadership that I wouldn't do
only one in town doing that, but --
that, and I'm going to keep my pledge as long as I can. I may be the
Q
Have you gotten closer to a package on taxes?
MORE
2 ! 1
That's a good -- and I can't tell you. Sometimes I think
THE PRESIDENT: I think -- well, I don't know, Helen.
negotiators -- Brady, Darman and Sununu -- are optimistic and our
that this statement today will be supportive of the process, and I
sometimes they come back with a little less optimism. But I hope
long-run that's what's required to keep our fiscal house in order.
hope that what I've suggested will happen, because I think in the
Q
Where do things stand on civil rights?
back today and had a fairly, I would say, reasonably optimistic
THE PRESIDENT: Negotiations going on. John Sununu was
proposal. civil My position on that one remains clear. I want to sign a
where we are, but I think it's looking encouraging. I saw Ted
rights bill; I will not sign a quota bill. And that's about
him Kennedy down here yesterday and had a chance to share my views with
once again. And he's been working, I would say, quite
most cooperative. So as I leave here for the weekend, I hope I'm
cooperatively with us -- the Republican side, under Senator Hatch,
I want to do it.
right in saying that it looks like we can work something out on that.
Q
signed on for the need for about $25 billion in tax revenues as part
Can you say, sir, if in fact the administration has
of this overall package?
the specifics of the negotiations. And I really think I -- I know
THE PRESIDENT: No. I've said I wasn't going to discuss
it's not too specific, but I really feel I ought to keep share of
saying what we will or won't do or what they will or won't do --
the bargain on that. I see a lot of speculation and a lot my of people
Republicans and Democrats and, look, I understand that. But I
my commitment to the leadership -- Republican and Democrat -- in gave the
House and I'm going to stay with that. And at some point, I have
to go out and say, look, this is all we can do, or here's where may we
go. But I'm not going to do that now.
Q Is your commitment --
THE PRESIDENT: I'm going to try.
Q
waning or weakening in any way?
-- is your commitment to a capital gains tax cut
THE PRESIDENT: I'm not going to -- you know, if I start
going into even one facet of the negotiations I will, in my view, be
violating a commitment I made to the Congress. So I really want to
ask to be forgiven for not answering that nice-try question.
Q When do you think you'll have some answers?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we're moving along, Helen. We all
know what the dates are out there. You'll see some figures next week
on the magnitude of this problem. The figures are out there pretty
much in the public domain and, certainly, the Congress has them. But
the American people want something done. And so I'm going to keep
pushing, and our negotiators are working in total good faith. And I
will happen. It has to.
think the problem is so important nationally that something positive
Q
Communist Party?
What do you think about Boris Yeltsin bolting the
THE PRESIDENT: Boris bolting his party -- very
interesting development -- very interesting. Hey, I'm tired, come
the questions.
on. And so are the rest of you guys. I can tell from the quality of
THE PRESS: Thank you.
END
1:38 P.M. EDT
WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
July 17, 1990
PRESS BRIEFING BY THE PRESIDENT
WITH MAGAZINE PUBLISHERS OF AMERICA
Room 450
Old Executive Office Building
11:35 A.M. EDT
you waiting. Let me just open with a brief -- I don't want to
THE PRESIDENT: Please be seated. Apologies for keeping
And filibuster, but open with a brief statement on a word about Germany.
then I'll be glad to respond to your questions.
I talked this morning with both Chancellor Kohl and
Mikhail Gorbachev, and had a fairly long conversations, about 30 or
40 minutes with each one. I feel that the agreement that was
significant and very important. And I'd like to reflect on how we
announced yesterday between Gorbachev and Kohl is very, very
got -- I say "we" because the U.S. has been in the forefront of
suggesting the best way for stabilization and peace would be a united
Germany, a unified Germany as a full-fledged member of NATO.
had to recognize that this unification was going to take place, was
So let me reflect on how we got here. First, everybody
going to happen, and that it was right. And you don't have to go
very far back in your minds to remember there was some debate about
the speed of unification and whether a unified Germany indeed would
be a factor for peace.
I remember telling the press last October, before the
Berlin Wall came down, that when we said we supported German unity we
really meant that. And we meant it without qualifications. After
the East German elections in March people began to realize that
unification could actually occur this year. And my view was the
sooner the better. And I think the German people -- I know the
German people have appreciated that stand by the United States.
And the second step was to put together a solid Western
position on the external aspects of German unification. In February,
Chancellor Kohl and I had a very long talk out there at Camp David
about the alignment of a united Germany, and we came out after those
meetings and agreed unequivocally that a united Germany needed to
military structures.
remain in NATO, including its full membership in the integrated
Prime Minister Thatcher and President Mitterrand, as well
minds on German unification.
as other leaders in the Alliance, developed a solid meeting of the
And the third step, though, was to persuade the Soviet
Union. And President Gorbachev and I discussed this in Washington;
we discussed it in considerable depth on that Saturday up at Camp
David. And then in our joint press conference I said that I thought
we both agreed that Germany should be free to choose the alliance
that it would belong to.
that, and we all thought that that was a good sign then -- the Soviet
President Gorbachev, if you remember, didn't challenge
having been positioned, as you remember, against Germany and NATO.
alliance they want to be in.
But he didn't challenge that idea that everybody ought to choose what
MORE
- 2 -
We also had to show him that the NATO Alliance was not
his enemy, but was a force for stability that could, indeed, adapt;
could, indeed, change - -- adapt to the new realities in Europe. And
that's why the recently completed NATO Summit was so important, where
all of our colleagues agreed to our proposals for the transformed
alliance. And I'm very proud of my collaborators here -- the top
foreign affairs and national security people, Jim Baker, Brent
Scowcroft -- in formulating this position, this leadership position
on behalf of the United States.
I sent a paper around prior to the NATO meeting, and it
was that paper from which everybody worked and it became the basis
for this agreement. Then yesterday, President Gorbachev commented
that -- and here's what he said that without the "very important
impulse" from the London Declaration, it would have been difficult to
make headway.
M
So the Soviets viewed the NATO agreement as something
that was very important to them and demonstrated less of a
threatening mode on the part of NATO.
Both Kohl and Gorbachev have displayed, I think,
exceptional qualities of leadership during this challenging period.
I commended -- as a politician -- commended President Gorbachev on
the outcome of the Party Congress over there. You talk about a guy
getting hit from all sides. -- I mean, I felt just -- (laughter) --
totally relaxed about what's happening in this country.
So anyway - I don't know, but I must say I take pride in
the way Europe is moving into this new era of freedom. It's a goal
that we Americans have long worked to achieve. We've still got some
very important problems that lie out there ahead of us, but it's a
challenging and very exciting time to be President of the United
States. And I expect my other co-leaders in the Alliance would feel
that way. I'm not sure Mr. Gorbachev feels that way yet, but isn't
it exciting when you think back a year and a half ago to where we
stand today?
Now, with no further ado and without this opening
designed to deflect you away from matters domestic, I'll be glad to
respond to questions on any subject.
Yes, sir.
Q
Mr. President, my name is Peter Diamandis, and I'm
the chairman of the Magazine Publishers Association. First of all,
I'd like to thank you for spending some time with the representatives
of the industry. We're planning a party next year this is sort of
a statement, not a question. (Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: All right, I'll take it. (Laughter.)
Q Okay. We're going to plan a party next year. We're
having a 250th anniversary of the first magazine in America. It
started in 1741, appropriately titled The American Magazine. This
industry has now grown to 10,000 titles on every conceivable subject.
And in honor of that celebration, we're going to devote a big part of
our budget and our time to fighting illiteracy I know that's a big
subject for you and your wife. I would just like for you to know
that and hopefully support that in 1991.
And on that note, I'd like to introduce a fellow Texan,
Mr. Reg Brack, who's the president of Time, Inc. Magazine.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, first, I'm delighted to hear that.
And it is very important. This whole media support for the
antinarcotics and for education, with literacy being in the
forefront, has been dramatic. I will say this -- not to avoid my
responsibilities as President, but it couldn't be done, the federal
government -- there are not enough chips around to do what your
basis. industry and others are doing on a pro bono, thousand points of light
MORE
- 3 -
Excuse me, Reg. Go ahead, sir.
Q
Well, Mr. President, first of all, I'd like to
congratulate you on your most recent accomplishment regarding the
German issue and the handling of NATO and the development of Europe
in general.
I would like to take this opportunity, on the heals of
yesterday's troublesome news about the deficit, to address some
issues domestically. And in that respect, I hope you know that I'm
sure all magazine publishers are supportive of the administration's
apparent willingness to begin to seriously address the deficit
crisis.
But in that respect, I'd like to just make a quick
comment and then ask a question. The comment has to with the fact
that magazines are particularly dependent on two things if we're
going to continue our contribution to America's knowledge and
vitality and diversity. Those obviously are advertising - and you
just mentioned how advertising functions on some important national
matters -- the other is the United States Postal Service. And since
advertising is, by a large measure, the machine or the engine that
drives the consumer demand in this country, we would all hope that
you would agree that anything that constrains or restricts
advertising of any kind is actually a restriction, really, on the
free enterprise system.
As you can imagine, as an industry we're more dependent
than any part of the knowlege business on the United States Postal
Service. Now, we know we have to pay more and, in fact, the nation,
next year I believe, will be confronted with a cost for its mail $7
billion greater than it pays this year.
My question really has to do with your view of the Postal
Service in general, and specifically your position on the Postmaster
General's strategic initiative to address costs in general and reduce
labor costs in particular, because it's vital to the way the nation
gets its information.
THE PRESIDENT: In the first place, I would obviously
support bringing the Postal Service even more significantly into the
end of this century. I mean, I think most people that look back
historically have found that there are certain inefficiencies there.
The whole concept of getting it more out of the political patronage
business was to be able to overcome some of those inefficiencies.
You people would probably be in a better position than I to judge how
successful those efforts have been.
But certainly, I would be for encouraging the ultimate in
that. I happen to not be fearful of the competition that has been
brought to bear on the Postal Service. I know that some are critical
of it, but on the other hand, I think it's a good thing. And I think
if that's the way to stimulate efficiency, more efficiency on the
part of the public side, the Postal Service itself, so much the
better. So it's a very general answer to a rather specific question,
but clearly, I'd like to think the answer is in reducing costs
through efficient management as opposed to raising more revenues to
support what historically most people think has been politically
abused and, to some degree, inefficient system.
Who's next? Yes, sir?
Q
Ed Torrero, executive editor IEEE Spectrum Magazine.
I'd like to change the topic to international competitiveness, if I
might. There are three technologies which are generally agreed upon
to be essential to the national security. They are electronics,
computers, and telecommunications. Their vitality depends on a
vibrant commercial industry. Sir, are there any conditions or
scenario under which you would support a somewhat more focused
support of critical technologies by a stronger buttressing of
commercial activities?
MORE
- 4 -
THE PRESIDENT: I'm not sure I understand what you mean
by "buttressing commercial activities." I mean, clearly, you put
your finger on the future. And what we are trying to do, recognizing
America's historic ability to lead in these areas, is to open up
markets. But I'm not sure I understand what you mean in buttressing
--
I
If I might clarify. In the commercial area, there
have been three specific examples in recent years where we may have
been able to do something in terms of public policy, but thought
better of doing it. One is in the supercomputer area where we've
lost some companies; another is in HDTV, where the former speaker
gave some information; and a third is -- if I may continue the
specifics -- in the area of semiconductor equipment manufacturers,
which was almost lost in this particular -- to this country.
A government agency recently predicted, therefore, that
by 1994 the Japanese will, among other Asian technologies, dominate
this particular area. So the previous speaker outlined a very
exciting program to help R&D and SO on. The question is, is that
enough in time?
THE PRESIDENT: I think it's enough in time for the
government. In other words, we are trying to take a look at
antitrust to see that we're not giving out producers and our
industries a disadvantage. We are trying to open up markets so that
we can compete, and we are putting a lot of emphasis on research. I
forget the total budget figure for research this year, but it's
enormous, not just in this -- as it relates to electronics, computers
and telecommunications. But I think that I would draw the line in
terms of R&D and then trade policies that give us a chance to
compete.
I've just come from an appeal by a United States senator
for support on -- this is a little off your question -- for the
textile industry, to protect the textile business further. And I
can't do that. I can't say that I think the answer to the problem of
textiles is further protection. Nor can I say that I think the
answer to these three very important elements of our technology is
further protection. So that leads you then to R&D and to opening the
markets abroad.
Q Mr. President, I'm Jim Guthrie of the MTA. I'd like
to address you as our spiritual leader who would like to keep us
looking ahead. We're coming out of a decade that could probably be
politely defined and characterized as one of self-indulgence and
immediate gratification. There were inquisitive yuppies; there were
junk bond LBOs that led to certain decrements in our own economic
fabric; there were Wall Street convictions, and now we're at the S&L
crisis. Secretary Mosbacher talked about the Baldrige Award. You've
talked about a thousand points of light. What else is going on that
will keep us looking ahead to the quality and the value that we're
talking about restoring to all areas of our life?
THE PRESIDENT: You know, I've never been too pessimistic
about America in this regard. I'll make you a slight confession. I
still am trying to find the appropriate way to discuss, using the
bully pulpit of the White House, these matters you talk about --
talking about religious values, family values or whatever. I think
there is a danger that one can over do it, and yet, I think it's
appropriate that the President try to not only adhere to those
values, but to discuss them.
Having said that, I'm not pessimistic about America. We
go through cycles. We went through a cycle in the Vietnam War where
our own sons and, to some degree, daughters were told that our cause
was immoral. People feeling as strongly as they did. I was old
enough or blind enough, or whatever, not to accept that view. I
still don't accept that view. Because when I look at Southeast Asia
and I see a Vietnam where the charge was against us, if we'd only get
out, this is an indigenous civil war, you'd have a little more
MORE
- 5 -
democracy there that hasn't worked out that way. And in your line
of work where there were many publications, there are now but a few.
And you see still people going out in these boats.
But the point is as it relates to your question, we had a
generation of Americans that were taught that -- about a deep
conviction by professors and politicians and others that our purpose,
our cause was wrong. And then we condoned as a society certain
excesses that we should have condemned. And I'm talking about an
elevation of understanding about narcotics, for example, which gets
right to the core of values.
Well, you've got to understand. I even think that we
condoned graffiti as an expression of people's -- wasn't this
marvelous -- creativity, when all it was was littering and cluttering
up not exactly beautiful subway cars, but -- (laughter)
nevertheless, we condoned things we should have condemned I
have
confidence that the country goes somewhat cyclically, but always
moves forward to our fundamental values.
I'm not discouraged about it. I wrestle with things that
I think are important -- and I don't want to get into a debate with
you all about the flag amendment. I happen to feel strongly about
it, and I'd like to see the debate done so you could do it without
having to call the other guy a demagogue. I may be wrong, but I feel
strongly about it and I've fought for it because I do think there was
a unique symbol there. And there's pretty good understanding on the
part of the American people. The debate can go on without
denigrating the other person's convictions that disagrees or feels
that amending the Bill of Rights or the Constitution would be an
egregious error.
But I keep coming back, as I listen to the debates on all
these questions -- the National Endowment of the Arts -- all of them
-- that we have a way of finding our way through in the United States
these what appear to be dilemmas or these challenges. And the reason
is, I think there is a fundamental understanding that we are one
nation under God, that we have great respect for religion diversity,
and that as we see the social problems of the day, we return more and
more to the importance of the family.
So I don't know what we can do about it. I want to be
very careful about censorship and about demagoging these issues,
whatever they are. But I don't feel that I ought to address myself
in a legislative sense to helping with this question because I think
we can sort it out as people. And I'm confident of our -- not only
of our decency and honor as a country, but of our tremendous
generosity as a country. We've got some big problems here at home,
and I've got to address myself perhaps more effectively to some of
those. But I don't put down one of them the weakening of the moral
underpinning of this country. I hope I'm right.
Here we've got a couple of more. I was late getting
over. Yes. (Laughter.) Thank you, Kristin. I don't want to
overrule my leader here. (Laughter.) She'll kill me when we get out
of here.
Q
Mr. President, I'm Tom Ryder, from American Express.
After yesterday's disappointing budget news, does the
administration's game plan on deficit reduction change?
THE PRESIDENT: No --
Q Where do we go from here?
THE PRESIDENT: The news in the Congress has been
somewhat discounted because the numbers have been shared with them.
And that news is one of the reasons I tried to make very clear that
we would go with no preconditions to these talks.
We're getting to a crunch. The debt ceiling vote is
going to drive some of the action. I'm still optimistic -- or put it
MORE
- 6 -
this way fairly optimistic that we're going to get a budget bill.
But it can't be on one side of the equation or not. By that I mean
it can't be done by all spending increases, it darn sure can't be
done by revenue increases, and it cannot and will not be a budget
agreement unless we get budget reform. The American people ought not
to be asked to put a Band-Aid on a problem because of the budget
process on Capitol Hill.
So we've got three ingredients to the question, and I
think we're going to have to move forward on all three of them. I
believe that we can get something done, and I think it is essential,
given yesterday's public news -- which I think has been discounted by
the budgeteers -- but I think it is absolutely essential something be
done. I will do my part. And I have felt constrained on talking
about what kinds of revenues, or what kinds of spending cuts, or what
kinds of reforms, because I made a deal with the congressional
leaders that I wouldn't do that.
As I said as I departed for Camp David the other day, I'm
perhaps the only guy in town abiding by those constraints --
(laughter) -- which isn't all that bad. Because people on both sides
of the aisle feel strongly. We've got to make progress. And given
yesterday's news, Tom, it is essential. The time for game playing is
over. And we have to get something done that is seen not only -- is
not only a sound budget agreement, but is seen by the American people
to be a sound budget agreement. And I worry that if we don't get one
about the confidence in the marketplace that, obviously, you know a
good deal more about than I do.
So we will be pushing in the next couple of weeks, and
the meter is running. We're getting close to adjournment of the
Congress. And we're getting close to a deficit ceiling that has to
be raised. But I'm very serious about it and I will stay with them
just as long as is required to get a sound deal.
But the news is disturbing. It's big. It's strong --
most of it or a lot of it coming because the economy has been more
sluggish. But I still feel -- and I'm going to filibuster here --
but I still feel that there isn't quite the acute awareness on the
part of the average American as deserves to be there. And maybe that
means I'll have to do a little bit more once I feel unfettered from
my agreement with the leaders.
Let me take three more, and then I will go peacefully.
Q
Mr. President, Terry McGraw, McGraw-Hill. Since the
completion of the Apollo Space program the U.S. space program has
seemingly struggled for a definitive notion of its mission. Could
you comment on your priority the space program has in your agenda,
and more specifically, what your expectations are in this new
investigation of NASA?
THE PRESIDENT: One, I have great confidence in Dick
Truly, the Administrator of NASA. And so to lay that part of the
question to rest, what we are doing is asking him to form an outside
committee of the best minds he can find to look to the future. Not
go try to assign blame because a mission is delayed getting off the
ground. I mean, these shots are highly complex. We have been the
leaders in space and I want to see us continue to be the leaders in
space.
So the group that was advertized a couple of days ago or
heralded as an investigation of NASA is nothing of the kind. I saw
the stories and, once again, went semiballistic, thinking, my
heavens, how could somebody write this when that is not what the
President intends? But I think the Vice President, who is doing a
good job as head of the Space Council, clarified that.
In terms of goals, we've got some broad objectives that
go far beyond lunar landings now. But the first one obviously would
be this space station, but with continued shots back and forth to do
the what's almost becoming journeymen's work in space.
MORE
- 7 -
I'm confident we can do it. Obviously, we're in tight
budget times, so we've set the goals for Mars and beyond out there
many, many years. But I have confidence in NASA. And it's a
perilous business I guess anytime you put people up there into space.
But the record has been very good.
And yet, I think the management is such a complex -- it's
such a complex organization that it is appropriate that the
Administrator now call on the best minds he can find to see how we're
going to meet these next goals and meet them, hopefully, within
budget. And I'm talking about the space station; I'm talking about
what Sally Ride talked about -- Mission to Planet Earth, where we
actually utilize to the fullest extent possible space shots and
improving matters on Earth. Obviously, the environment comes to mind
and agriculture comes to mind. And then taking that third step, how
do we organize NASA to meet this big, tremendous management challenge
that will come about for this next quantum leap forward -- and
discuss the cooperation with other nations in all of this.
I mean, as the whole world is changing -- and it has
dramatically changed there may be some real opportunities now to
do more with the Soviet Union, for example, or with other countries.
about. So all of this requires a new look. And that's what this story was
Two more. Who's got them? Right here. Yes, sir.
Q Mr. President, Ed Lewis, publisher of Essence
Magazine. Mr. Nelson Mandela, who has visited us, had great impact
on many Americans. What are you doing to -- or are you -- doing to
facilitate, to negotiate an agreement between Mr. Mandela and Mr. de
Klerk to facilitate a hopeful, peaceful resolution for all South
Africans?
THE PRESIDENT: What we're doing now is encouraging Mr.
de Klerk to come here. And I think it is important, having had good
visits with Mr. Mandela -- and they were good, and I'll tell you
about that in a minute that de Klerk come here. It will be
somewhat controversial. There will be a lot of picketers out here.
I think they're wrong. I think in de Klerk you have a new kind of
leader in South Africa.
I detected quite a respect on Mandela's part for de
Klerk. And thus, I have concluded that it is important for the
President to sit down with Mr. de Klerk. In the meantime, why, we're
having a lot of diplomacy going on as to how we can encourage further
change on the part of South Africa towards the elimination of
apartheid.
We are not going to change our sanctions position until
there is more progress. And you can argue that. I've sometimes felt
that sanctions might be counterproductive, but I'm not going to
change them now. And I think we're right -- nor am I going to
strengthen - nor am I going to acquiesce in their being increased
right now. And I think that position is understood by Mandela as
head of the ANC, and I think it's understood by de Klerk. They may
not agree with it.
So that's about where we are. I will say that the visit
with Mr. Mandela was very interesting. I had a long talk with him
over here, and then took him and his wife over for lunch. What
impressed me -- this is kind of a personal observation and off the
substance is how a man who had been incarcerated for so long could
retain this quiet sense of dignity and, I thought, reasoned
understanding. I disagree with him on, at this juncture in history,
the use of violence. He made his position clear. And I happen to
think that my position is correct for the United States to keep
emphasizing peaceful resolution to this question as opposed to a
violent one.
But I talked to him very frankly about the differences we
MORE
- 8 -
have on Castro or Gadhafi, and yet, he explained -- he didn't take
offense by that. But I felt if these talks are going to be
meaningful at all, you might as well tell him what he's running into
in the United States in terms of Castro, Gadhafi, Yasser Arafat.
So we had a good, frank discussion, and I hope that he
went away -- I think he did -- he called me up just before he left --
with a feeling that the United States government had been responsive
and certainly interested. And we'll see where we go. But I think
more than any of the European countries we can be catalytic. We were
not a colonial power and we are united in our opposition to
apartheid. And then we have an Afro-American population here that
feels fervently -- this is a gut issue. And I think that's a good
thing. That might not be quite as prominent in other countries as
well.
So I think those ingredients make our country uniquely
able to serve as a catalyst between the various factors in South
Africa, and that's what I want to try to do.
Last one. Who's got it? Yes, ma'am.
Q
Marie Peterson, Crafts and Things Magazine. Our
business is communicating via the written word. But many of us in
this room are so busy doing our business we don't have time to read.
When you have time to read, Mr. President, what is it that you choose
to read for pleasure?
THE PRESIDENT: What do I read as President?
Q And for pleasure.
THE PRESIDENT: For pleasure? Thank God you added that,
because -- (laughter) -- because really, this job is -- and I don't
want to single out -- well, he's not even here to defend himself --
but his able deputy and my trusted friend, Bob Gates, is here from
the National Security Council -- and Brent Scowcroft, who's not here.
Part of the job -- I'll address myself just to the concept of reading
-- is endless numbers of papers. I do better getting briefed in
person where I can ask questions of our Cabinet or of our National
Security team, but I have to have reading ahead of that. So most of
my reading is formal and heavy-going and -- but in terms of process,
I have enough confidence in our people that when they take those
yellow, underlining-highlighting pens, they can take a 40-page
document and convert it into 10 pages of reading. I cite this as
process. And it's not just foreign affairs. It's Bob Mosbacher's
business, or Dick Garment's business, the budget stuff. And so
there's plenty of that to do.
The CIA, in which I have great confidence, has some
marvelous studies of things all around the world -- economic --
they've got a good economic part of the house out there. So I have
to do a lot of that reading.
What I do in terms of pleasure is to read mostly novels
-- some of them not so -- I wouldn't say that they would be
particularly weighty. "Bonfire of the Vanities" is one which was
pretty darn good and was up near the top of the list. I'm reading
"Network News" right now. I'm halfway through that. I read Teddy
Roosevelt -- a couple of books on Teddy Roosevelt. I'm reading
Caro's "Lyndon Johnson." I say "reading," " I've got about two or
three books going right now. There's a plain mystery by a guy named
Beschloss called "Mayday" that I started and put aside because
Barbara gave me the other one. (Laughter.) But it's relaxed
reading. It is relaxed kind of reading, and it's novels. I find I
can do that just before -- instead of taking one of these Halcions --
whatever (Laughter.) that -- Halcion sleeping tablets, a good novel will help.
But I wish I could tell you that I was doing more serious
historical reading; I am not at this moment.
MORE
-
9 -
glad to have had this opportunity.
Listen, thank you all very, very much for coming, and I'm
END
12:10 P.M. EDT
JUL 20 '90 12:04
STAD
PAGE. 001
KOHL
THE WHITE HOUSE 7/20/90
Office of the Press Secretary
(Billings, Montana)
For Immediate Release
July 20, 1990
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
DURING KOLSTAD FOR SENATE FUNDRAISING BREAKFAST
Billings Plaza Trade Center
Billings, Montana
8:11 A.M. MDT
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. And, Allen, thank you
for that wonderful introduction. First, it's a delight to see our
Governor, your friend and mine, Governor Stephens here. (Applause.)
What a job he's doing. And I felt this warmth when I was with him
not so long ago at the Centennial. Of course, in a very short period
of time, Conrad Burns, our unique Senator -- (laughter) -- you can
interpret that any way you want to. (Applause.) He hasn't been
there that long, but he hasn't forgot how he got there -- (laughter)
-- and people understand that and they respect it in Washington. And
clearly, you love him here, as I do. And, Conrad, I appreciate the
effort you made to get out here, rushing off to all kinds of
connecting airplanes because he had to work up until the gong sounded
yesterday in the Senate.
And as for our State Chairman, Barbara Campbell, I salute
her. She's doing a great job for the party, and she gave me a
wonderfully upbeat assessment just now about Allen's chances to win
this important Senate seat. Barbara, thank you for what you're
doing. (Applause.) And then to our Committee members -- Jack Galt,
Ione Brownson, and my old friend of longstanding, Chuck Heringer.
And then, of course, to your outstanding congressional candidate,
Brad Johnson -- we've got to see him win. (Applause.) I also want
to salute one who's not here, but who is doing a superb job -- I'm
talking about Ron Marlenee, who was with me early on -- very, very
early supporter. (Applause.) And that brings us, at last, to the
next senator from the State of Montana, Allen Kolstad. (Applause.)
Let me just say it is great to be back in Montana, near
some of the best fishing streams and forests in the country. I
remember coming to Glacier National Park last year with a grandson
and being told that Montana has 896 catchable fish per square mile.
(Laughter.) My question is why don't they count the uncatchable
fish? (Laughter.) I've found from my vast experience there are
quite a few of those. But there is nothing better for the soul than
seeing the grandeur of the snow-capped mountains in the distance or a
Montana sunset, as we saw it last night, streaked across the fading
And America still is a country of big dreams. (Applause.) But to
skies. Montana is, proudly, the Big Sky State, a state of big skies.
help make those dreams come true -- and I know Conrad would agree
with this -- we have got to have more grassroots sound representation
in the United States Senate. And to help make those dreams come true
United States Senate. (Applause.)
for America and Montana, I need Allen Kolstad working with me in the
Montana as few others do. Five generations of Kolstads have called
Allen Kolstad and Iva, sitting over here next to me, know
Montana home. Allen is a farmer, rancher, who has given over 20
years of his life to public service, to the people of this great
state. first He was elected to the Montana legislature back in 1968, the
in Republican to serve Liberty County in almost 50 years. Then,
giving them their first loss in a governor's race in 20
1988, Stan Stephens and Allen Kolstad stunned the Democrats by
Senate (Applause.) And just like our friend, Conrad Burns, did years. in the last
election, Allen Kolstad's about to hand the opposition another
MORE
JUL 20 '90 12:05
PAGE 002
- 2 -
stunner. (Applause.) We need him in the Senate and we need him there now.
You see, I am convinced that with more people like Allen
there and more Republicans, we can build a better America. Despite
hard for what's right. They' re fighting to preserve and protect the
its minority status on Capitol Hill, the Republican Party has fought
longest peacetime economic expansion in history, the lowest
unemployment rate in the nation in 16 years, and the 22 million jobs
created in the last seven and a half years. Having said that, I am
still concerned, I am very concerned about problems that remain out
there ahead of us. And, Iva, thank you for those lovely words of
prayer from your heart. The outrageous deficit, for example, is over
-- fasten your seatbelts -- over $160 billion a year. That is not
acceptable, (Applause.) and I am determined to do something about it.
We Republicans have a good record, at home and abroad,
one we can stand with pride -- stand on with pride. And it was our
policy of peace through strength that helped bring freedom to the
lives of millions from Panama to Poland. (Applause.) And with a
Republican majority in Congress working with me, we could do much,
becomes fiscally sound.
much more to ensure that America remains economically strong and
Instead, with the Democrats now in the control of the
United States Congress -- both Houses -- we're facing government by
gridlock in Washington, with spending skyrocketing out of control,
deficit looming over our children's children. And while the
good legislation thrown aside for pork barrel programs, and a budget
Republican Party is using everything we've got to build a strong,
competitive America, the Democratic stranglehold on the United States
Congress has finally taken its toll.
of 1989, our administration sent to the Congress the Educational
the price. Let me just give you a few specific examples. In April
Unfortunately, it is the American people who are paying
Excellence Act. Our proposals would advance education reform, reward
achievement and encourage educational choice. And yet as the bill
moved through the Congress -- and Conrad knows this so well -- some
ripped out of the bill; substituting tired, old, expensive Democratic
of its most sensible and cost-effective programs were scrapped,
substitutes. Almost $1 billion worth of unnecessary, unrelated and
costly changes were heaped on top of our original $400-million
changed the name of the bill.
billion, more than triple our original request. In fact, they even
education bill. So it came out not $400 million, but it totaled $1.4
I know Allen Kolstad would have said no to these
unnecessary changes. Listen, Montana's graduation rate is 87
third that. But Allen and I want to make it even higher. Montana ranks
percent. And that's terrific; you ought to take great pride in
and students and building, building in something that is essential,
and by rewarding excellence, putting choice in the hands of parents
it among the 28 states which administer the ACT test. You've done
federal that is accountability. And that's exactly the thrust of
our the key; schools national goals to challenge our students, our teachers and
program: choice, accountability, flexibility, excellence our is
to succeed. This is the program.
Twenty-nine out of the last 35 years of Democrat control is long
And that's just part of the Republican agenda.
enough. We must have more Republicans in Congress. (Applause.)
But there's more. We proposed new child
legislation. than America's Based on our belief that there is nothing care more precious
5Vml d five children, we asked for $9 billion in funding
choice year passion " Lillion. MC proposed opread
helping in them the hands of all families, whether low or middle a 0111 that put by
or, yes, in get the kind of child care that they wanted -- income, at home,
child-care a church or a church-related facility, or from local
provider. And the Senate passed a child care bill a at
MORE
JUL 20 '90 12:06
PAGE. 003
- 3 -
double the money -- remember I proposed $9 billion; they come up with
$18 billion in the Senate. And then the House, under solid
Democratic control, outdid the Senate by tripling my request to $29
billion. In short, we started at $9 billion and the last word from
Congress was $29 billion. And if Congress has its way, the federal
government will intrude upon one more area of your lives -- using
that money to pile more red tape on child-care providers including
friends and neighbors providing the child care. Democrats still
believe that the federal government knows better how to do all this
than parents or local communities. And I know what that tells me, it
tells me that we must have more Republicans in the United States
Congress. (Applause.)
Just this year, in February, March, I requested $800
million in dire emergency -- this is a term that's used when you have
to do something special dire emergency funds for immediate
assistance to the governments of Panama and Nicaragua to help those
fledgling democracies build their shattered economies, to help them
strengthen their democracies. And I challenged the Congress to act
in 30 days. I said this is a dire emergency and we need to have
Kyl.
action now. One hundred eight days later, the Congress acted. Who
am I to complain? It's been over 20 years since Congress produced a
balanced budget.
But here's what caused the delay. Some so-calied dire
emergency additions to the bill by Congress - almost $3 and a half
647-11980
billion more in spending than I requested. Everyone on Capitol Hill
knew how important this bill was, and for 108 days, Congress decided
to hold it hostage. For 108 days, Congress calculated how much
spending they could pile on top of this emergency request that they
knew I needed to support the democracies that were just beginning in
Panama and in Nicaragua. And for 108 days, inaction by the Congress
jeopardized not only the economic recovery of these two critically
strategic nations, it jeopardized the hard-won freedom of the brave
people of Nicaragua and Panama. That's more than a difference
between parties. In my view that was a disgrace. And I say we must
have more Republicans in the United States Congress. (Applause.)
You know Republicans like what works. We think that
finding a cure to the budget deficit means funding those programs
011
that we know work, not throwing billions of hard-earned tax dollars
562
at untested ideas with no track record or built-in accountability.
7255. 251-
Americans are fed up. Year after year after year they
hear about budget wrangling in Washington, D.C. They hear about the
President trying to hold the line on spending and the Congress
MARK
spending money it doesn't have. And I think now, given the magnitude
RUIOMANN.
of this problem, enough is enough. We must end this "deficits don't
matter" mentality. And I do not want to preside over these god-awful
deficits that are saddling these young people here with billions of
dollars of debt.
The deficit is estimated to be over $160 billion for one
year. And Congress, as the American people know so well,
appropriates every single dollar we spend. And at this very moment,
our White House negotiators are trying to do something meaningful
about this deficit. And, frankly, I think in fairness to say we are
getting some good cooperation with the leadership on the Democratic
side of the aisle -- I'd say on both sides of the aisle. And we must
control spending; we must reform the budget process itself. And I've
taken a few shots -- you've heard it rebounding around out here.
I've said before that I'll negotiate without preconditions. And I
will, in spite of the outcry about revenues. But there must be
budget reform and true spending control. We owe it to the young
people in this country. (Applause.)
Some people think that there's no difference between the
Divide. On one side the Republicans out there, our side, that side
already know -- to tell you there is. And it's as big as the Great
two parties. I've come here to tell you probably something you
lies opportunity, growth, choice in child care, choice in education,
the creativity of the marketplace, and a government that understands
MORE
JUL 20 '90 12:06
PAGE. 004
- 4 -
it works for you and not the other way around. And I'll tell you
something. That's why I think Conrad Burns has what I know Allen
Kolstad will have when he comes to Washington, the full confidence of
the people of Montana. You have the feeling, and properly so, that
he works for the people of this state that sent him to the United
States Senate. (Applause.)
And on the other side, the far side, lies the Democratic
Party, the party of red tape and bureaucracy. Still pushing for
higher and higher spending; still telling the states how to conduct
their affairs; still pushing for mandated benefits; dictation from
Washington to every drug program in the country or every education
->[
program or every program of whatever nature mandated benefits
that's the hallmark of the Democratic Party. And now we're getting
to the election cycle, and the choice is up to America.
And right here in Montana you know that there's a better
way of doing things, a Republican way. I remember the last time I
was in this state. It was for Montana's 100th birthday, when Allen
was Chairman of the Centennial Commission. For my part, I planted a
tree. Now, you my know that my record's not too good in that
respect. (Laughter.) I planted a tree in North Dakota and,
regrettably, it got attacked by gypsy moth. (Laughter.) And I
planted a tree in Spokane, Washington, and I hadn't left town before
some vandals ripped off the whole tree. (Laughter.) And so you can
understand why they've asked me not to dedicate any buildings here.
(Laughter.) But the tree -- when I climbed off the plane I got a
firsthand report from the Governor who confessed to a certain
nervousness about the tree. But the tree I planted in Helena,
believe it or not, it's alive and it's well. (Laughter.) And it's
flourishing. (Applause.)
Well, in that spirit, what a great job Allen did for the
Centennial Commission. First of all, he didn't use one penny of
taxpayer money, not one. (Applause.) And secondly, the Centennial
is expected to give thousands of dollars back to the state Treasury.
And that is the kind of fiscal responsibility that America needs on
Capitol Hill. (Applause.)
Allen Kolstad agrees, and most Americans I believe when
we take the case to them will, too. We must have budget process
reforms. We must have budget process reforms. And your Senator
sitting there in Washington now understands exactly what I'm talking
about. We must have spending cuts and, frankly, I'd like to have
that line-item veto. (Applause.) And if the Congress can't do it,
let the President have a shot at it. (Applause.) And I'd like to
see the balanced budget amendment. In the House it missed by seven
votes. It would have disciplined the Executive Branch that I head
and it surely would have disciplined the Legislative Branch, and I
think that kind of disciplinary measure would be good for the United
States. We like what works. And our budget process is simply not
working.
It was one of the most famous Democratic Presidents,
Franklin Roosevelt, who said about some 50 years ago, "The future
lies with those wise political leaders who realize that the great
public is interested more in government than in politics." The
Republican Party is ready to govern in the United States Congress.
And Allen Kolstad is ready to be your next United States Senator.
(Applause.)
As for my part, I like my line of work. I like the
challenges that face me. I like the fact that Barbara Bush is
spelling out a lot of fundamental values that we all believe in for
the country. (Applause.) I've dwelt here on what we must do and the
things we're trying to do on the domestic side. But when you look
around the world you can't help but wonder and be excited about the
changes that are taking place all through Eastern Europe and in our
own hemisphere -- changes toward democracy and freedom. It's a very
exciting time to be the President of the United States. But we
cannot succeed without your help. The help of the American people.
MORE
JUL 20 '90 12:07
PAGE. 005
- 5 -
And once again - -- we had a little reception earlier on
that Barbara put on and then one that Allen arranged -- and I
couldn't help but feel the warmth and the genuineness of the people
of this country and, in this instance, the people of Montana, as I
shook hands with several who were nice enough to greet me once again
to this state. I like my line of work, but I need help. Send Allen
Kolstad to the United States Senate. (Applause.)
Thank you, and God bless you. And God bless the United
States of America. Thank you. (Applause.)
END
8:34 A.M. MDT
IN " " " 111 I " . 1111,000 ⑉⑉ " - ⑉⑉
-
⑉
THE WHITE HOUSE
"
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
September 28, 1990
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
AND THE AMIR OF KUWAIT
UPON DEPARTURE
The South Lawn
1:45 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it is my great pleasure to welcome
His Highness Sheikh Jabir Sabah to the United States. His Highness
is visiting Washington for the first time. What normally would be a
pleasurable occasion instead is a time for sobriety and sorrow. Our
meeting has taken place with the backdrop of the tragedy that has
dictator. been vested on Kuwait and its people by a ruthless and ambitious
Iraqi aggression has ransacked and pillaged a once
peaceful and secure country. Its population assaulted, incarcerated,
intimidated and even murdered. Iraq's leaders are trying to wipe an
internationally-recognized sovereign state, a member of the Arab
League and the United Nations, off the face of the map.
To them and to the world, I will state what I told His
Highness the Amir. Iraq will fail. Kuwait -- free Kuwait -- will
endure. And I have reaffirmed to the Amir that America's resolve to
end this aggression against Kuwait remains firm and undiminished.
Kuwait's sovereignty and territorial integrity will be restored. The
stability and security of the Persian Gulf region is assured and the
safety of all innocent citizens is secured. And this is consistent
with our longstanding interests endorsed by all my predecessors since
Harry Truman. And this is consistent with the will of the world
community, endorsed by the United Nations in eight Security Council
resolutions. And just yesterday, the standing ovation that greeted
the Amir's moving address to the U.N. General Assembly was one more
powerful expression of international support for a free Kuwait.
His Highness and I reaffirmed our support for the U.N.
Security Council resolutions as the means to bring about a peaceful
end to the crisis. But ultimately, that is up to Saddam Hussein. I
reiterated our strong belief that we just continue to stand on the
principles by which the United States and the rest of the civilized
world are governed. And that means that no nation should be allowed
to conduct its relations with another on the basis of threats or the
use of brute force. And finally, His Highness and I agreed that we
must keep all our options open to ensure that Iraq's unlawful
occupation of Kuwait is ended and Kuwait's legitimate government
restored. We also discussed the key role that His Highness, his
government, and the Kuwaiti people are playing and will continue to
play in the international effort to achieve these efforts.
I want to thank the Amir for his generous support for
those who are being asked to make sacrifices. And I also want to
single out the valiant efforts of the Kuwaiti resistance who are
continuing to fight vigorously for their country. Despite
incalculable risks, many are willing to pay the highest price to rid
their country of foreign occupation and to protect innocent citizens,
including Americans, from harm. And many have already paid the
ultimate price.
His Highness and I will continue to stay in close touch
and to work together to find a solution to this tragedy. As I stated
MORE
- 2 -
friends. in my address to the nation earlier this month, we will stand by our
in I look forward to the day that I can visit you and the Kuwaiti people
And to my guests, let me, sir, say one more thing, sir.
your rightful home Kuwait.
Thank you for coming. (Applause.)
pleased I to have visited the capital of your great nation. And am I wish
HIS HIGHNESS SHEIKH JABIR SABAH: Mr. President, I
denied capital of my country, were it not for the Iraqi aggression which has
could have had the pleasure of receiving you in Kuwait City, the
the us that opportunity temporarily, God willing. Nevertheless,
you, President, in liberated, independent Kuwait.
people Mr. of Kuwait, as well as myself, look forward to receiving
and President, and to your great people the deep feelings of friendship
I take pleasure in expressing to you, once again, Mr.
appreciation Kuwait feels for you. Our stand together in the
face of treachery and aggression is proof that relations between
principles that, in turn, provides guidance for the fruitful
two countries are based on the solid foundation of common values and our
United States and Kuwait.
cooperation that evolved and developed in various fields between the
Your principled, courageous, and decisive position in
face of the Iraqi aggression on Kuwait is a true expression of the
unabated faith and commitment of the American people to the
humanitarian morals on which and for which the United States of
America was founded. The unity of the international community in
support of our position against aggression and occupation, the two
most flagrant violations of human rights, conclusively indicates the
determination of all nations and peoples of the world to put a
definitive end to armed aggression as any country's foreign policy
tool. This unity takes on added relevance given the world's entrance
cooperation, and optimism.
to an era dominated by an atmosphere of peace, rapprochement,
and your nation have played in inaugurating and enhancing the
We look with admiration to the role you, Mr. President,
foundation of this era. Mr. President, your just position by the
side of Kuwait in this ordeal represents a categorical rejection of
aggression in all its forms and manifestations, whatever its source
or pretext. The unity and support shown by the friendly American
against Iraq's aggression, whose first and foremost victims are the
people towards the position and measures taken by you, Mr. President,
human rights of the Kuwaiti people, are perfectly compatible with the
unflinching faith in the standards of justice and fairness for which
the nations and peoples of the civilized world.
the American people stand. This is the faith that brings together
I am fully satisfied by the identical views we hold on
issues covered in our talks this morning with you. Truly, this
mutual agreement reflects the advanced stage in relations our two
friendly countries and peoples have reached.
Thank you, Mr. President. (Applause.)
END
1:56 P.M. EDT
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
March 4, 1991
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
TO VETERANS SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS
Room 450
Old Executive Office Building
1:48 P.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much for that warm
welcome. Looking at this array of speakers up here, I can't imagine
there's anything left for me to say, because I understand that you
have had a briefing from Brent Scowcroft and Secretary Cheney, and
also, of course, heard from our very able Secretary of the Veterans
Administration Ed Derwinski. What a tremendous job he's doing for
our country and for our veterans. And I'm so proud to have him at my
side.
I'm glad to see the familiar faces from so many of our
veterans organizations -- particularly the VFW and the Disabled
American Veterans, the American Legion -- many, many others. I'm
going to get in real trouble now for -- (laughter) -- omitting some.
But welcome, again; welcome back to the White House.
Let me just begin by giving credit where credit is due.
From the day that Saddam Hussein first invaded Kuwait, America's
veterans stood rock-solid -- rock-solid behind our troops. You
understood from the very beginning what was at stake: the rule of
law and the cause of freedom. You understood that when the forces of
aggression arise, America must stand ready to do the hard work of
freedom.
You understood because you've been there. And you know
how important the support of the folks back home is to our troops.
Our brave men and women, as you have heard, are coming home soon --
home to the respect and the gratitude of the American people. And
let me tell you -- they have sure earned it. (Applause.)
I am pleased to say -- and you've seen it all in this age
of instant television communication -- that we're making progress in
our journey from war to peace. The cessation of combat operations
tht went into effect midnight Wednesday is, as you've heard from Dick
Cheney, holding -- for the most part, it is holding. General
Schwarzkopf has reported, and then the Secretary called me yesterday
morning about this -- that Sunday's desert meeting with the Iraqi
commanders really met -- made great progress.
I liked it -- what General Schwarzkopf said on the
television when he said, "Look, we're not here to humiliate anybody."
And then he went ahead and laid down the rules that should be
fulfilled. And it looks like he made great, great progress on that.
Already 10 coalition POWS, including several Americans,
are on their way back home. But I'll tell you, I don't think any of
us, particularly in this audience -- and I know I speak for the three
up here behind me on this stage -- can relax at all until every
single one of those prisoners is home and every single missing is
accounted for to the best of the ability of the Iraqi forces, and
also that the Kuwaiti detainees are returned -- every single one of
them. And that's our goal. (Applause.)
And clearly, on a sad subject, that requires the
returning of the remains of all our fallen heroes.
MORE
- 2 -
We've received information on the location of the mine
fields in and around the theater of operations, so that the
rebuilding of Kuwait can begin safely. And it's my understanding,
Dick, that -- you told me that he got immediate satisfaction on that
question of the mine fields. So that's good -- that shows some real
signs of progress and cooperation.
Our goal remains what it's been all along Iraq's
complete and unconditional compliance with all relevant United
Nations resolutions and its implementation of all the requirements to.
be found in Security Council Resolution 686, passed overwhelmingly
just this -- late Saturday afternoon, just this past Saturday. This
would allow us to move beyond the current suspension of military
operations to a more permanent and stable cease-fire.
Now, this has been a triumph -- a triumph for the 28
nations united against aggression. But as I said in my address to
the nation the final night of Kuwait's liberation, this is not a time
to gloat or it's not a time to brag. It's a time to be proud,
fiercely proud -- proud of our troops, proud of our friends who stood
with us, and proud of our people. Their strength and perseverance
endured that our success was as certain as our cause was true.
We're here today to ensure that our nation always
remembers those who defended her -- the heroic men and women who
stood where duty required them to stand. And we owe it to our
veterans that they return to an America confident and full of
promise. Much work remains to be done on the domestic scene. We've
got to tackle that with a new determination. But the American
people, I am convinced, are up to the job, as they have always been.
Let me close with the words of Abraham Lincoln, who spoke
to the nation on this very day, but back in 1865, at the end of a
devastating civil war. Here was the quote; most remember part of it:
"With malice toward none, with charity for all, with
firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us
strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's
wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his
widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just
and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations."
Those words are inscribed on the marble of the memorial
which bears Lincoln's name. They were from the President's second
inaugural. They were a fitting call to honor the nation's veterans.
I made a comment right here at this podium the other day
about shedding the divisions that incurred from the Vietnam War. And
I want to repeat and say especially to the Vietnam veterans that are
here -- and I just had the pleasure of meeting some in the hall --
it's long overdue. It is long overdue that we kicked the Vietnam
syndrome, because many veterans from that conflict came back and did
not receive the proper acclaim that they deserve -- that this nation
was divided and we weren't as grateful as we should be. So somehow,
when these troops come home, I hope that message goes out to those
that served this country in the Vietnam War, that we appreciate their
service as well. (Applause.)
I am very grateful to our Secretary of Defense, to the
commander of our -- to the Chairman of our Joint Chiefs, and to our
CINC in the field, General Schwarzkopf, and to each and every one of
them -- I expect, knowing some of you, that you took the same pride I
did in one of our G.I.s when these Iraqis came tearing out to
surrender. And they had fear written all over their faces because
they'd been told that this would be their end. And I thought there
was something very moving and touching when that American sergeant
said, "We're not going to hurt you. We're not going to hurt you."
And we are a generous nation. And we've got a lot to do
now; we've got a lot to do to heal the wounds. Our argument has
never been with the people of Iraq, with those hapless soldiers that
MORE
- 3 -
were sent to a fate that they didn't even know what was in store for
them. Our argument has been with Saddam Hussein. Our argument has
been with a dictator who created aggression against a neighbor.
And so, as we rejoice in our victory, I think we can also
rejoice in the fact that we are a humble nation, that we have pride,
of course, in what took place, but we are not gloating. We are not
trying to rub it in. What we stood for was a principle. And now
we've got to stand for doing what's right by our veterans, and we've
got to stand for doing what's right by those countries whose freedom
we saved around the world.
Thank you all for your fantastic support. Isn't it great
to be an American in these wonderful times? (Applause.)
END
1:57 P.M. EST