[Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George H. W. Bush (1992, Book I)]
[April 9, 1992]
[Pages 564-573]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]



Remarks to the American Society of Newspaper Editors

April 9, 1992
    The President. Thank you, Dave. And may I start by thanking the 
members of the board and say to all the members of ASNE I'm grateful for 
this return engagement, glad to participate in an annual event that 
Washington looks forward to, this annual conference.
    Even in the age of VCR's and CNN, people who want to understand the 
times we live in still, as Dave indicated in that sweet and short 
introduction, turn to the printed word.
    And today I want to share some serious observations with you on 
events around the world. Look around the world today. Think of the page-
one stories of the past few years and our victory in the cold war, the 
collapse of imperial communism, the liberation of Kuwait. Think of the 
great revolutions of '89 that brought down the Berlin Wall and broke the 
chains of communism and brought a new world of freedom to Eastern 
Europe. And think of the role this Nation played in every one of these 
great triumphs, the sacrifices we made, the sense of mission that 
carried us through.
    Each day brings new changes, new realities, new hopes, new horizons. 
In the past 6 months alone we've recognized 18, in 6 months, 18 brandnew 
nations. The bulk of those nations, of course, are born of one momentous 
event, the collapse of Soviet communism.
    And today I want to talk to you all about the most important foreign 
policy opportunity of our time, an opportunity that will affect the 
security and the future of every American, young and old, throughout 
this entire decade. The democratic revolutions underway in Russia, in 
Armenia, Ukraine, and the other new nations of the old Soviet empire 
represent the best hope for real peace in my lifetime.
    Shortly after taking office, I outlined a new American strategy in 
response to the changes underway in the Soviet Union and East and 
Central Europe. It was to move beyond containment, to encourage reform, 
to always support freedom for the captive nations of the East. And now, 
after dramatic revolutions in Poland and Hungary and Czechoslovakia, 
revolutions that spread then to Romania and Bulgaria and even Albania; 
after the unification of Germany in NATO; after the demise of the one 
power, the U.S.S.R., that threatened our way of life,

[[Page 565]]

that mission has been fulfilled. The cold war is over. The specter of 
nuclear armageddon has receded, and Soviet communism has collapsed. And 
in its wake we find ourselves on the threshold of a new world of 
opportunity and peace.
    But with the passing of the cold war, a new order has yet to take 
its place. The opportunities, tremendous; they're great. But so, too, 
are the dangers. And so, we stand at history's hinge point. A new world 
beckons while the ghost of history stands in the shadows.
    I want to outline today a new mission for American policy toward 
Russia and the other new nations of the old U.S.S.R. It's a mission that 
can advance our economic and security interests while upholding the 
primacy of American values, values which, as Lincoln said, are the 
``last, best hope of Earth.''
    Americans have always responded best when a new frontier beckoned. 
And I believe that the next frontier for us, and for the generation that 
follows, is to secure a democratic peace in Europe and the former 
U.S.S.R. that will ensure a lasting peace for the United States of 
America.
    The democratic peace must be founded on twin pillars of political 
and economic freedom. The success of reform in Russia and Ukraine, 
Armenia and Kazakhstan, Byelarus and the Baltics will be the single best 
guarantee of our security, our prosperity, and our values.
    After the long cold war, this much is clear: Democrats in the 
Kremlin can assure our security in a way nuclear missiles never could. 
Much of my administration's foreign policy has been dedicated to winning 
the cold war peacefully. And the next 4 years must be dedicated to 
building a democratic peace, not simply for those of us who lived 
through the cold war and won it but for generations to come.
    From the first moments of the cold war, our mission was containment, 
to use the combined resources of the West to check the expansion, the 
expansionist aims of the Soviet empire. It's been my policy as President 
to move beyond containment, to use the power of America and the West to 
end the cold war with freedom's victory. And today, we have reached a 
turning point. We have defeated imperial communism.
    We've not yet won the victory for democracy, though. This democratic 
peace will not be easily won. The weight of history, 74 years of 
Communist misrule in the former U.S.S.R., tells us that democracy and 
economic freedom will be years in the building. America must, therefore, 
resolve that our commitment be equally firm and lasting. With this 
commitment, we have the chance to build a very different world, a world 
built on the common values of political and economic freedom between 
Russia and America, between East and West and at long last, a peace 
built on mutual trust, not on mutual terror.
    And today, we find ourselves in an almost unimaginable world where 
democrats, not Communists, hold power in Moscow and Kiev and Yerevan; a 
new world where a new breed of leaders, Boris Yeltsin, Levon Ter-
Petrosyan, Leonid Kravchuk, Askar Akayev, among others, are pushing 
forward to reform.
    They seek to replace the rule of force with the rule of law. And 
they seek, for the first time in their countries' histories, not to 
impose rule in the name of the people but to build governments of, by, 
and for the people. And they seek a future of free and open markets 
where economic rights rest in the hands of individuals, not on the whims 
of the central planners. They seek partnerships. They seek alliances 
with us. And they also seek an end to competition and conflict. Our 
values are their values. And in this time of transition, they are 
reaching out to us. They seek our help. And if we're to act, we must see 
clearly what is at stake.
    Forty years ago, Americans had the vision and the good sense to help 
defeated enemies back to their feet as democracies. Well, what a wise 
investment that proved to be. Those we helped became close allies and 
major trading partners. Our choice today, just as clear: With our help, 
Russia, Ukraine, other new States can become democratic friends and 
partners. And let me say here, they will have our help.
    What difference can this make for America, you might ask. We can put 
behind us, for good, the nuclear confrontation that has held our very 
civilization hostage for over

[[Page 566]]

four decades. The threat of a major ground war in Western Europe has 
disappeared with the demise of the Warsaw Pact. A democratic Russia is 
the best guarantee against a renewed danger of competition and the 
threat of nuclear rivalry.
    The failure of the democratic experiment could bring a dark future, 
a return to authoritarianism or a descent into anarchy. In either case, 
the outcome would threaten our peace, our prosperity, and our security 
for years to come. But we should focus not on the dangers of failure but 
on the dividends of success.
    First, we can reap a genuine peace dividend this year and then year 
after year, in the form of permanently reduced defense budgets. Already 
we've proposed $50 billion worth of defense spending reductions between 
now and 1997. Now, that cut comes on top of savings totaling $267 
billion, more than a quarter of a trillion dollars in projected defense 
expenditures since the fall of the Berlin Wall. Make no mistake: I am 
not going to make reckless defense cuts that impair our own fundamental 
national security.
    Second, working with our Russian partners and our allies, we can 
create a new international landscape, a landscape where emerging threats 
are contained and undone, where we work in concert to confront common 
threats to our environment, where terrorists find no safe haven, and 
where genuine coalitions of like-minded countries respond to dangers and 
opportunities together.
    And finally, third, the triumph of free governments and free markets 
in the old Soviet Union will mean extensive opportunities for global 
trade and economic growth. A democratic Russia, one dedicated to free 
market economies, will provide an impetus for a major increase in global 
trade and investment. The people of the former Soviet Union are well-
schooled and highly skilled. They seek for their families the same 
better future each of us wishes for our own. And together, they form a 
potentially vast market that crosses 11 time zones and comprises nearly 
300 million people.
    No economist can pinpoint the value of trade opportunities we hope 
to have. It's impossible to compute, but the potential for prosperity is 
great. Increased trade means vast new markets for American goods, new 
opportunities for American entrepreneurs, new jobs for American workers. 
And I'm committed to giving American business every possible opportunity 
to compete fairly and equally in these new markets.
    For example, last week I asked the Congress to repeal the Stevenson 
and Byrd amendments that limit Export-Import Bank's ability to help 
promote American exports to the former U.S.S.R. And I'm pleased that 
Congress has acted. I'm also seeking to conclude trade, bilateral 
investment, and tax treaties with each of the new Commonwealth States. 
The first agreement between the U.S. and Armenia was signed last week, 
and we expect a lot more to follow.
    Russian democracy is in America's interest. It's also in keeping 
with this Nation's guiding ideals. Across the boundaries of language and 
culture, across the cold war chasm of mistrust, we feel the pull of 
common values. And in the ordeal of long-suffering peoples of the Soviet 
empire, we see glimpses of this Nation's past. In their hopes and 
dreams, we see our own.
    This is an article of the American creed: Freedom is not the special 
preserve of one nation; it is the birthright of men and women 
everywhere. And we have always dreamed of the day democracy and freedom 
will triumph in every corner of the world, in every captive nation and 
closed society. And this may never happen in our lifetime, but it can 
happen now for the millions of people who for so long suffered under 
that totalitarian Soviet rule.
    Some may say this view of the future is a little unrealistic. Let me 
remind you that three of our leading partners in helping democracy 
succeed in Russia are none other than Germany, Japan, and Italy. And if 
we can now bring Russia into the community of free nations who share 
American ideals, we will have redeemed hope in a century that has known 
so much suffering. It is not inevitable, as de Tocqueville wrote, that 
America and Russia were destined to struggle for global supremacy. De 
Tocqueville only knew a despotic Russia, but we see and can help secure 
a democratic Russia.

[[Page 567]]

    One of America's greatest achievements in this century has been our 
leadership of a remarkable community of nations, the free world. This 
community is democratic; it is stable; it's prosperous, cooperative; it 
is independent. In America all of us are the better for that. And we 
have strong allies. We have enormous trade, and we are safer as a result 
of our commitment to this free world. And now, we must expand this most 
successful of communities to include our former adversaries.
    Now, this is good for America. A world that trades with us brings 
greater prosperity. A world that shares our values strengthens the 
peace. This is the world that lies out there before us. This is the 
world that can be achieved if we have the vision to reach for it. And 
this is the peace that we must not lose.
    And this is what we're doing right now to win this peace. 
Strategically, we're moving with the Russians to reach historic nuclear 
reductions. We've urged speedy ratification of START and CFE. And we're 
working with all the new States to prevent the spread of weapons of mass 
destruction. We are offering our help in safety, in nuclear weapons 
safety, in security, and yes, in the dismantlement. And we're engaged in 
an intensive program of military-to-military exchanges to strengthen the 
ties between our two militaries, indeed, to build unprecedented defense 
cooperation, cooperation that would have simply been unthinkable a few 
short months ago.
    Politically, we're reaching out so America and American values will 
be well represented in these new lands. We are the only country with 
embassies in all of the former republics. We're planning to bring 
American houses and American expertise to the former U.S.S.R., to send 
hundreds of Peace Corps volunteers to help create small businesses, to 
launch major exchanges of students, professionals, and scientists, so 
that our people can establish the bonds so important to permanent peace.
    Economically, working with the European Community and many other 
countries, we organized a global coalition to provide urgently needed 
emergency food and medical supplies this past winter. And now we will 
send Americans to help promote improvements in food distribution, 
energy, defense conversion, and democratization.
    I have sent Congress the ``FREEDOM Support Act,'' a comprehensive 
and integrated legislative package that will provide new opportunities 
to support freedom and repeal all cold-war legislation. In its key 
features this bill asks Congress to meet my request for $620 million to 
fund technical assistance projects in the former U.S.S.R. It urges 
Congress to increase the U.S. quota in the IMF, International Monetary 
Fund, by $12 billion. And I pledge to work with the Congress on a 
bipartisan basis to pass this act. And I want to sign this bill into law 
before my June summit with President Yeltsin here in Washington, DC.
    Just as the rewards of this new world will belong to no one nation, 
so too the burden does not fall to America alone. Together with our 
allies, we've developed a $24 billion package of financial assistance. 
Its aim: to provide urgently needed support for President Yeltsin's 
reforms.
    And ours is a policy of collective engagement and shared 
responsibility. Working with the G-7, the IMF, and the World Bank, we 
are seeking to help promote the economic transformation so central to an 
enduring democratic peace. Forty-five years after their founding, the 
Bretton Woods institutions we created after World War II are now serving 
their original purpose. By working with others we're sharing the burden 
responsibly and acting in the best interests of the American taxpayer.
    I know that broad public support will be critical to our effort to 
get this program passed. And so, let me say something to those who say, 
``Yes, the people of Russia, and all across the old Soviet empire, are 
struggling; yes, we want to see them succeed, to join the democratic 
community. But what about us? What about the challenges and demands we 
must meet right here in America? Isn't it time we took care of our 
own?'' And to them I would say this: Peace and prosperity are in the 
interest of every American, each one of us alive today and all the 
generations that will follow. As a Nation, we spent more than $4 
trillion to wage and win the cold war. Compared to such monumental 
sacrifice, the costs of pro-

[[Page 568]]

moting democracy will be a fraction and the consequences for our peace 
and prosperity beyond measure. America must take the lead in creating 
this new world of peace.
    Three times this century, America has been called on to help 
construct a lasting peace in Europe. Seventy-five years ago this month, 
the United States entered World War I to tip the balance against 
aggression. And yet, with the battle won, America withdrew across the 
ocean, and the ``war to end all wars'' produced a peace that did not 
last even a generation. Indeed, by the time I was born in 1924, the 
peace was already unraveling. Germany's economic chaos soon led to what, 
to Fascist dictatorship. The seeds of another, more terrible war were 
sown.
    And still, the isolationist impulse remained strong. Years later, as 
the Nazis began their march across the Continent, I can still remember 
the editorials here in the United States talking about ``Europe's war,'' 
as if America could close itself off, as if we could isolate ourselves 
from the world beyond our shores. As a consequence, you know the answer, 
we fought the most costly war in the history of man, a war that claimed 
the lives of countless millions. At war's end, once again we saw the 
prospect of a new world on the horizon. But the great victory over 
fascism quickly gave way to the grim reality of a new Communist threat.
    We are fortunate that our postwar leaders, Democrats and Republicans 
alike, did not forget the lessons of the past in building the peace of 
the next four decades. They shaped a coalition that kept America 
engaged, that kept the peace through the long twilight struggle against 
Soviet communism. And they taught the lesson that we simply must heed 
today, that the noblest mission of the victor is to turn an enemy into a 
friend.
    And now America faces a third opportunity to provide the kind of 
lasting peace that for so long eluded us. At this defining moment, I 
know where I stand. I stand for American engagement in support of a 
democratic peace, a peace that can secure for the next generation a 
world free from war, free from conflict.
    After a half-century of fear and mistrust, America, Russia, and the 
new nations of the former U.S.S.R. must become partners in peace. After 
a half-century of cold war and harsh words, we must speak and act on 
common values. After a half-century of armed and uneasy peace, we must 
move forward toward a new world of freedom, cooperation, reconciliation, 
and hope.
    Thank you all very much for inviting me here today. And may God 
bless the free peoples of the former Soviet empire, and may God bless 
the United States of America. Thank you very, very much.

[At this point, the President answered questions from audience members.]

Persian Gulf

    Q. [Inaudible]
    The President. [Inaudible]--of the Gulf area. At that time not only 
the United States but the United States and many of the Gulf countries, 
the GCC countries, felt that the major threat to stability in the Gulf 
was from Iran. We did not want an Iran that would take over Iraq and 
then inexorably move south. So, there was a real logic for that.
    Shelby [C. Shelby Coffey III, Los Angeles Times], I'm not going to, 
by my silence, acquiesce in all the charges that the question included, 
but some of this was true. We did some business with Iraq, but I just 
don't want to sign off on each one of the allegations that some of these 
stories have contained. But this was our policy.
    And then we saw what Saddam Hussein did after this war ended. We 
tried to bring him into the family of nations through commerce, and we 
failed. And when he reached out to crush a neighboring country, we 
mobilized the best and most effective coalition, I think, that's been 
seen in modern times. And the objective was to set back aggression.
    The U.N. resolutions never called for the elimination of Saddam 
Hussein. It never called for taking the battle into downtown Baghdad. 
And we have a lot of revisionists who opposed me on the war now saying, 
``How come you didn't go into downtown Baghdad and find Saddam Hussein 
and do him in?'' We put together a coalition. We worked effectively with 
the coalition to ful-

[[Page 569]]

fill the aims of the United Nations resolutions. And we fulfilled those 
aims. We set back aggression. And as any one of our respected military 
leaders will tell you, we have all but removed the threat of Saddam 
Hussein to his neighbors.
    Now, we are still concerned about him. There's no question about 
that. And I am very much concerned, as he goes north of the 36th 
parallel the other day with airplanes, as to what that means to the 
safety of the Kurds. I am concerned about the Shiites in the south and 
to the southeast. I was also concerned when I saw an Iranian incursion 
of the Iraq borders to go after those Shiites. We can't condone that, as 
much as we detest the regime of Saddam Hussein.
    So we will--do I have regrets, was your question? I guess if I had 
90-90 hindsight and any action that we might have taken beforehand would 
guarantee that Saddam Hussein did not move down into Kuwait, which he 
did, I'd certainly rethink our position. But I can't certify that by not 
helping Iraq in the modest way we did, that that would have guaranteed 
that he would stay within his confines, the confines of his own border. 
And I can't say to you what would have happened in terms of Iran's 
aggression.
    We are dealing with the facts as they came down the pike. And one of 
them was that he committed an aggression that mobilized the whole world 
against him. And he is going to remain isolated as long as I am 
President. He is going to live by those U.N. resolutions, and we are 
going to see that he complies with each and every one of them, including 
the most dangerous area of all, the one where he is doing things he 
ought not to be doing in terms of missiles and in terms of a nuclear 
capability.
    So we're not going to lighten up on it. I think--oh, there's one 
other point since you've given me such a wonderful opening, Shelby. I 
read that General Norm Schwarzkopf wanted to keep going after I stopped 
the war. I will tell you unequivocally that that is simply totally 
untrue.
    I sat in the Oval Office that fateful day--when you remember the 
turkey shoot along the highway going north--and Colin Powell came to me, 
our respected Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and said, ``Mr. President, 
it's our considered opinion that the war is over. We have achieved our 
objectives, and we should stop.'' And I said, ``Do our commanders in the 
field feel that way?'' And he said, ``Yes.'' And I said, ``Well, let's 
doublecheck,'' something to that effect. He walked over to my desk--I 
was sitting on this end near the Stewart picture in the Oval Office--
picked up the secure phone, dialed a number, and talked to Norm 
Schwarzkopf out in the desert and said, ``What do you think? The 
President has asked me to doublecheck. We have achieved our objectives. 
We ought to stop.'' We agreed that we would stop at, I think it was 
midnight that night, 100 hours after the battle began.
    And now we're caught up in a real peculiar election year. And you 
hear all kinds of people, some of whom supported what I did, many of 
whom oppose it, now going after this administration and our military for 
stopping too soon. I don't think that's right. Am I happy Saddam Hussein 
is still there? Absolutely not. Am I determined he's going to live with 
these resolutions? Absolutely. But we did the right thing. We did the 
honorable thing. And I have absolutely no regrets about that part of it 
at all.

Presidential Campaign

    Q. Mr. President, as you know, another Texan is thinking about 
running for President in 1992. He'll be joining us tomorrow morning. As 
a matter of fact----
    The President. Are you speaking about Lloyd Bentsen? [Laughter]
    Q. Let's say two other Texans.
    The President. Oh, I see.
    Q. Some might even think that Ross Perot sounds a little more Texan 
than you do. My question would be, why do you think he's been as 
successful as he has in the early going in gaining support? What impact 
do you think he might have in the general election, particularly his 
possible ability to carry the State of Texas? And finally, do you feel 
part of his appeal is based on his ability to connect with the average 
American who wants to lift himself economically? Is he better able to do 
that than you are?
    The President. You know, I'm going to

[[Page 570]]

give you another question because I am not going to do something now 
I've assiduously avoided all during the primary, going after anybody 
else, or quantify it in any way, that might run or is running. And I'm 
going to stay with that ground rule right now. When the battle is joined 
and the conventions are over and the nominees are out there, I will 
happily answer your question for you. But let him, Ross, make his 
determination. Let him do what the rest of us do, take our case to the 
American people. Let him enjoy the same scrutiny that I've had for, 
what, 12 years at this relatively high level of Government, Vice 
President and President.
    But there's no point in me trying to define his candidacy nor the 
candidacy of the Democrats that are left in the race on the other side. 
What I'm trying to do, having gone into some of these primaries and 
emerged, I think, as the nominee of our party, is to lead this country, 
to talk about these serious issues.
    You know, they say to me, as they say, ``How can you be the 
candidate of change? You've been in Washington all this time.'' I say 
we're the ones that are trying to change things, whether it's education, 
whether it's tort reform, whether it's in matters of this nature that 
have to do with life and death and peace and war.
    And so I'm going to keep on doing that now. And then, when the 
battle is joined and we get past the convention stage, I'll have plenty 
of comment to help you along in assessing the opposition. But I really 
am going to stay out of it now. And this isn't a new position. Just 
because I'm standing before a lot of editors, I think these traveling 
White House press will tell you that's the way it's been.
    So, if you want another one that I can answer, shoot.

Abortion

    Q. Let me ask one other one then, Mr. President. Abortion certainly 
continues to be one of the hottest issues not only in the United States 
but in the Republican Party. Is it your preference that the GOP platform 
in 1992 stay silent on that issue, come out flatly against abortion, or 
support those abortion rights activists who are inside the GOP?
    The President. My position has not changed. I am pro-life. And I'm 
going to stay with that position. In terms of the platform, we have a 
platform committee that's going to debate that. You mentioned inside the 
Republican Party, take a look at the State of Pennsylvania. This isn't 
an issue that divides just Republicans; this is an issue that divides 
Democrats as well, if you look at the laws in the books and the position 
of the Governor of that State and other States as well.
    So each of us should say what we feel, fight for our views, and then 
we've got a party platform process that will resolve that.

Multilateral Trade Negotiations

    Q. Mr. President, you have attended three economic summits since 
taking office in which a very high priority was assigned to a new world 
trade agreement under GATT. Each time these deadlines have been broken; 
on Easter I think we're going to have another deadline broken. And you 
just spoke about a world in which we would trade with the Soviet Union 
or the former Soviet Union. How can the Soviet Union really survive 
unless we get a world trade agreement?
    The President. Well, I think they could survive, but they would 
survive much less well. And we are going to keep on working for a 
successful conclusion of this Uruguay round of GATT. The major stumbling 
block has been agriculture. And we cannot have a satisfactory conclusion 
to the GATT round unless agriculture is addressed. That has been a 
particularly difficult problem for France and a particularly difficult 
problem for Germany.
    And we, as you know from following this, have said we will work with 
the Dunkel text. This is highly technical, but it spells out some broad 
ground rules on agriculture. And we still have some problems other than 
agriculture.
    I am told that the EC leader, Delors, now feels that we are very, 
very close on agriculture. He's coming here soon with Cavaco Silva of 
Portugal, and we're going to be sitting down in one of each--we have 
meetings twice a year. I will then be talking to

[[Page 571]]

him--I won't be doing the negotiating--but with our top negotiators and 
try to hammer out that agreement.
    We still have some other problems, property rights and, you know, 
trademarks and all this kind of thing. But I am more optimistic now. I 
asked Brent the other day, my trusted and able National Security 
Adviser, where do each of these deadlines that you referred to come 
from? They keep coming. Well, we'd have a deadline, and you're right, 
somebody throws up a deadline and says we've got to meet it by February, 
we've got to do it by June. I don't know where the deadline comes from. 
But I do know that it is in the interest of the free world, say nothing 
of the now-freeing world, the Soviet Union, the former Soviet Union, 
that we achieve this agreement.
    And one last point on the trade agreement. Far better, far better 
than a foreign aid program for the emerging democracies of the Third 
World, Africa particularly, is a trade agreement. Far better than aid is 
trade. And so we will keep on playing, I think, a very constructive role 
to achieve a conclusion of this.
    And parenthetically, we are going to work for the North American 
free trade agreement. You know, we're in a political year, some of you 
may know, and we're getting shot at by various predictable organizations 
on the Mexican agreement. The Mexican agreement, in my view, will create 
jobs in the United States, will help the environment. A country that's 
doing better economically can do a lot more for its environment than one 
that is kept down on the ropes because we don't have fair and free 
trade.
    So we're going to work to that end to get a Mexican agreement along 
with the Uruguay round. And yes, all of that will benefit the emerging 
republics that I've been talking about here today. But I'm not 
despairing about it. The point is, if we come to some new deadline, 
we're going to keep on pushing. But right now, it looks like we may have 
a better chance than we've had in the last years of negotiation.
    Q. Your office says one more question.
    The President. Do they? Okay.

Foreign Aid and Trade

    Q. Mr. President, oddly enough part of your reply there dealt with 
my question. You've given a good vision of our obligations to help 
redeem the emergent nations of the former Soviet empire. But I wonder if 
anyone's paying much attention to our obligations to the truly hungry, 
starving nations of the world. Patrick Buchanan wants to do away with 
all foreign aid as part of his, I guess, Judeo-Christian tradition 
platform, forgetting the admonition that we bear one another's burdens. 
Our foreign aid appropriation has been about $18 billion a year. Almost 
half went to Middle East countries. And our spending seems to me to be a 
disgraceful pittance in relation to the hunger and the deprivation of 
the really deprived nations of the Third World. I wonder if you think we 
should spend more to help the countries that have no influence, like 
Somalia and Ethiopia and even Haiti, closer, where there are millions of 
children with swollen stomachs crying for aid still. Do you think we are 
spending enough for actual food and aid for the hungry countries of the 
Earth?
    The President. Not included in the figures you gave are other 
activities, such as the Peace Corps, such as some agricultural programs; 
and such is clearly the most important--the benefit of trade that you 
referred to in the first part.
    Let me tell you something, it is going to be impossible to get 
anything through the Congress this year, in terms of foreign aid, beyond 
what we have suggested. We would be unrealistic to think that there 
might be more. I'm not suggesting, though, that the answer is to spend 
more money on it. I think the trade initiative is important. I think the 
position that our administration has taken in debt forgiveness has been 
tremendously important to many of these emerging democracies in Africa 
and, indeed, in this hemisphere.
    Look at the basket case that was Argentina just a while back. And 
working with us, they are now on the move. They've come in, they've 
taken a very constructive approach to their economy. They are in the 
debt forgiveness. We've worked out a deal, they have, with the private 
financial institu-

[[Page 572]]

tions just very recently to lower their debt burden. The Enterprise for 
the Americas Initiative and the Brady plan are meaningful. And the 
impoverished people in that country and in other countries in our 
hemisphere are beginning to get a little break here.
    So we're in a realistic time. I will continue to push for the trade 
agreements. I will continue to do what I can in these debt-reduction 
initiatives. And we'll continue to support foreign aid. And I think 
everybody here who writes, understands that that is not necessarily a 
popular position in an election year or any other time.
    But we are dealing also with a time when we must address ourselves, 
and are trying so to do, to our own problems at home. And we are 
operating at enormous deficits in a sluggish economy, it isn't easy. And 
yet I want to not end here because we can take a couple more.
    But I'm a little more optimistic on the economy. And I was very 
pleased today when the Fed lowered its rates by another quarter. That 
was instantly pretty well received in the market. Far be it for me to 
mention what levels markets should be at; I learned that long ago by 
mistake, saying something that triggered--I don't remember how it 
worked--triggered a market reaction. But I think the lowering of the 
rate by the Fed is a good thing, and I hope that it will guarantee that 
this fledgling recovery that we're seeing will now be a little more 
robust.
    Q. Mr. President, over here, sir.
    The President. Got you.

Federal Budget

    Q. The Government's going in the hole about a billion dollars a day 
right now. And what reason can you give the American people for voting 
for 4 more years of the same kind of deficit spending?
    The President. I certainly don't want them to vote for 4 more years 
of deficit spending. And I would like to get some changes in the United 
States Congress to guarantee against that. I would like to see them 
enact our budget that takes a major step towards the containment of an 
area that is the main area that's causing the deficit, and that is the 
entitlement area. And what are we proposing? We're proposing that the 
entitlements not grow beyond inflation and population growth. That in 
itself will save literally billions, billions, many billions of dollars.
    So we've got to go forward with a sensible budget approach. Right 
now I'm battling against a Congress that wants to knock off the one 
guarantee that the American taxpayer has on spending, and that is the 
caps out of the nefarious 1990 budget agreement, the caps on 
discretionary spending. We're getting into an election year so we're 
trying to hold the line on those caps. And I'm determined to do it, and 
I think we will prevail.
    But what I'll be doing is taking my case to the American people and 
say, yes, we've had some tough things. We've had banking problems that 
have cost the taxpayer enormously. We've had savings and loan problems 
that have cost the taxpayers enormously as we protect every single 
depositor. But we've got to try to exert some fiscal discipline on the 
system. And I'll be ready for the debate that will follow come fall 
because I think we're on the right track with what I've just told you 
here.
    Dave says I'm out of here. We'll do one more, and then I'm gone.
    Q. It's your staff, Mr. President, who says you're out of here. You 
can stay as long as you want.
    The President. I don't want to be in trouble with them. [Laughter] 
Let's see what we've got here.

Presidential Campaign

    Q. Mr. President, as you've astutely noted for us today, we are in 
an election year.
    The President. Thank you. [Laughter]
    Q. And in 7 months, much to the chagrin of this group, many 
Americans will be deciding their vote on the basis of television 
advertising. In 1988, many voters, most of us, were bombarded with what 
we would probably consider very negative television advertising that 
attacked the reputation of your opponent and seemed to pander to some of 
the fears of our society. I guess my question to you as you look into 
this election year, do you plan to direct, encourage, or discourage your 
consultants from pursu-

[[Page 573]]

ing a similar negative ad campaign in 1992?
    The President. Well, you asked me at a time when this is in the 
heightened attention of the American people, isn't it? I look across at 
the Democratic primary, and anything that happened in 1988 is pale in 
comparison to what's going on there. We've tried to have most of ours 
positive.
    You may recall an ad we ran in Michigan that triggered the famous 
line I used at the Gridiron Club, ``Ich bin ein Mercedes owner.'' 
[Laughter] But that is a negative ad. Now, I don't know whether you 
consider that a turnoff or not, but just by the genesis of that ad came 
about that the opponent in this case was talking about protection and 
jobs and American jobs and American workers and all of this, and he was 
driving a Mercedes. Nobody was pointing it out. A lot of editors here--
and I don't remember a brutal revelation of this terribly important 
fact. So we brought it out.
    Now, I don't know if you consider that--I don't want to get into a 
debate since you might clearly win it--[laughter]--but is that a 
negative ad or is that fair in the way--everybody now that puts on the 
television at least have a thing--and the newspapers, too--here's why 
the ad was fair or unfair. I can't remember what they said about that 
one. I think when you define a person on issues, that's very, very 
important. I think some would consider it negative. But just seriously 
on that one. Then I can maybe answer your question a little better.
    Q. I think what it does is set the tone. I guess people maybe care 
whether the opponent drives a Mercedes. But I guess we get into 
discussions of other character issues. I think that's really where the--
--
    The President. Well, as I've said, I would like to see it on the 
issues and not on some of the sleaze questions. I've said that before, 
and I'll keep repeating that. I know that we will try hard, but I also 
know that this is about the ugliest political year I've ever seen 
already. And I don't know what it's going to hold, but I will try to 
keep my head up and try to do my job as President, and try to do it with 
a certain sense of decency and honor.
    But we've seen it start off that way in the early primaries, and 
then something else evolved for reasons I'm not quite sure I fully 
understand. But I don't want to make you a firm statement because I 
don't know what's negative and what's not these days. If it's just 
ripping down somebody's character or tearing them apart, I don't want to 
do that. If it's factual and brings out something that hasn't been 
brought out, I think that's fair. And so we have to just use your 
judgment, I guess is the answer to that one.
    Well, I guess I really do have to go. but thank you all very, very 
much. I appreciate it.

                    Note: The President spoke at 1:53 p.m. at the J.W. 
                        Marriott Hotel. In his remarks, he referred to 
                        David Lawrence, Jr., president of the society.