[Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George H. W. Bush (1992, Book I)]
[May 6, 1992]
[Pages 704-708]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]



Teleconference Remarks to the American Newspaper Publishers Association

May 6, 1992
    The President. Thank you, Bob, and thank all of you for that warm 
welcome. And I'd like to say hello to Cathy Black there, the ANPA CEO 
and president. I want to congratulate your incoming chairman, an old 
friend, Frank Bennack, who takes the gavel for the ANPA and the new NAA. 
And it's good to be with all of you again, this time via satellite.
    Please excuse the slight delay here. I've just come from a longer 
than expected press conference with President Kravchuk of Ukraine. And 
incidentally, that was an important meeting we had, and I think it went 
very well indeed. The relationship between the United States and Ukraine 
is a developing one, and it is a very important one. And I will be 
seeing him again in a couple of hours. But that's why I was a little 
late here.
    Before taking your questions, let me just give you a brief update on 
events in Los

[[Page 705]]

Angeles. As I think back today to when I spoke with the American people 
last Friday evening, I think of the oath that I took as President, the 
Constitution's charge to ensure domestic tranquility. This I know: We 
cannot and can never condone violence because without peace there can be 
no hope.
    All of us are grateful that our actions have brought calm to Los 
Angeles. The kids are back in school; city buses are running; the curfew 
is lifted. After last week's shock and spectacle, we take heart at the 
willpower of the people of Los Angeles to join hands and hearts to mend 
their community.
    Let me focus for a minute on what we're doing at the Federal level, 
working in cooperation with the Governor and the Mayor to help in the 
rebuilding. Through my Presidential disaster declaration, FEMA, the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency, will make assistance available to 
individuals and families and the city and county of Los Angeles. We've 
got a preliminary estimate of this assistance, and the preliminary 
estimate is approximately $300 million.
    Now, we will make grants directly to people hit the hardest by the 
violence, personal grants up to $11,500 to meet urgent needs like food, 
clothing, and medicine. These grants will also help with temporary 
housing, money to provide shelter for up to 18 months for families who 
have lost their homes or money for repairs to minimally damaged homes. 
And we're also helping with crisis counseling and disaster unemployment 
assistance for those who are now without jobs as a result of the 
disaster.
    A disaster field office is already up and running in Los Angeles. 
And FEMA's 800 assistance number is ready to receive calls in English, 
Spanish, Chinese, Thai, Korean, and Laotian. In addition, FEMA will 
assist State and local governments to repair and restore public 
utilities, like water and electricity, essential to everyday life. This 
is a cooperation program, a program of cooperation with State and 
Federal and local governments.
    Beyond these emergency grants, we will provide low-interest Small 
Business Administration disaster loans up to $500,000 for business 
losses that exceed insurance coverage and up to $100,000 to homeowners 
and renters for damage not covered by insurance. Preliminary estimates 
indicate that roughly $300 million in loans will be made in the Los 
Angeles area.
    Finally, the Department of Agriculture has arranged for delivery of 
over 2,000 cases of rice cereal, over 2,000 cases of infant formula, 
nearly 250 cases of nonfat dry milk, and continues to assess emergency 
food needs in the city of Los Angeles. So all told, Federal aid to speed 
the recovery process in Los Angeles is estimated at approximately $600 
million.
    Now tonight, I'll be traveling to California to get a firsthand look 
at the situation in Los Angeles. There I'll be meeting with members of 
the community to discuss how we can continue the work of building a 
future of hope, understanding, and tolerance, a future where there's no 
room for hatred. That's a story I know every one of us wants to see in 
print.
    Let me say this about the desire that all Americans share to see 
that what happened in Los Angeles never happens again: We all want to 
solve the problems. This is no time to play the blame game. It is time 
for honest talk. And the fact is, in the past decades spending is up, 
the number of programs are up, and yet, let's face it, that has not 
solved many of the fundamental problems that plague our cities. We need 
an honest, open national discussion about family, about values, about 
public policy, and about race. That's the only way forward. And that's 
what I intend to do in the days ahead.
    I'll never forget when Mayor Bradley of Los Angeles came with some 
other mayors to see me a few months ago. And he pointed out, as did all 
of them--small city mayors, big city mayors--that the decline in the 
family, the dissolution of the American family is at the core of the 
problems the cities face. And we've got to find ways to strengthen the 
American family. Barbara does it by encouraging parents to read to their 
kids, and we're trying to do it through our own education program and 
through revising the welfare system that in the past has encouraged 
families to live apart.
    But the family is important in all of this. And I might add, lastly, 
so is the private

[[Page 706]]

sector. Peter Ueberroth talked to me in very optimistic tones the other 
day of how the private sector can now get involved in some of these 
areas in job-creating ways that will offer them hope for the future, not 
just a repair mechanism but real hope for the future.
    So, I approach this with optimism. I know we've got to do better. 
The whole country has to do better. And I'm looking forward to going out 
there and then making some recommendations to the country about what we 
should do.
    But anyway, thank you all very much for letting me be a part of your 
106th convention. And now I'll be delighted to take some questions, Bob.
    Q. All right. Thank you, Mr. President. There is a podium with a 
microphone here from which questions can be asked.

Women's Issues

    Q. Mr. President, last night seven women who know each other only 
through this convention, for the most part--and we're from all over the 
country, ranged in age from 21 to over 70--had dinner together. During 
the course of the evening we found that we agreed almost 100 percent on 
the problems that are facing not just professional women but all women 
in this country over the next few years. I'd like to give you those 
problems.
    The first one was physical violence, just the garden variety of 
crime that we see, random crime resulting from the rage in this country. 
The second was sexual violence, including rape, sexual harassment, and 
job discrimination particularly. The third is financial violence, 
including things like not only just getting along in our struggling 
economy and making ends meet but things that are gender-specific like 
years of pay discrimination and the fact that more women are supporting 
families alone and living longer than men in a time when services are 
declining and expenses are going up. And finally, the abortion issue and 
the question of whether women will, in private consultation with their 
God, have the right to choose how to manage their own body or whether 
our U.S. Government is going to tell us that.
    Mr. President, we'd like to know what your agenda is for dealing 
with these issues facing American women.
    The President. I think we've got a good agenda for dealing with 
these problems. First, on physical violence, and secondly, on rape and 
job discrimination, there are strong laws on the book. We're trying to 
make them even stronger by passing a meaningful crime bill that will, in 
my view, inhibit crime. I've had difficulty with that, but we're going 
to keep on trying to get such legislation through the United States 
Congress.
    And I think you're absolutely correct in the underlying point that 
this kind of violence must end. I am not overly happy with some of the 
violence I see in the public media, and I've spoken out against that. I 
saw a film the other day, and I'll spare you its name, a rather 
prominent new one that almost glorified the use of narcotics, cocaine in 
this instance. And we have tried very hard, working with some of the 
media people to eliminate that. There's a great private sector effort 
going on under the leadership of Jim Burke to try to use the media to 
speak out against the narcotics and against the underlying things that 
lead to the kind of violence that both you and I decry.
    Financial violence: The answer is to get this economy going. I'm a 
little more optimistic about that one right now. I believe that most 
people feel that the economy is starting to move. I was wrong last year. 
I thought the economy was starting in a recovery about this time and 
that by the end of August the recovery would be, if not robust, pretty 
steady; and it wasn't. And I think 49 of the 50 blue-chip indicating 
economists, who are leading economists, felt the same way.
    But I think the answer to financial violence is equal opportunity. 
And I hope that the recovery--and it would have been stimulated, I 
think, if we could have passed these very laserlike growth initiatives 
that I have proposed and am still proposing. I hope that will take care 
of a lot of the financial violence that we've suffered through as a 
result of longer than normal recession.
    On abortion, you and I just have different

[[Page 707]]

views on that one, and I am appalled at the numbers of abortions. I know 
that others view it very, very differently. I have confidence in the 
court system and, of course, as President will uphold the Constitution 
of the United States. But when I see a 13-year-old--some of the groups 
are fighting legislation that would say to a 13-year-old, you've got to 
notify your parents; they're challenging that law in Pennsylvania. I'm 
sorry, I just disagree with it.
    And I think that contributes to a weakening of the family, too. So, 
I have a difference. I come down on the side of the sanctity of life, 
and others look at it quite differently. But the matter is in the 
courts, and then we'll see what happens. I don't know how broad the 
Supreme Court decision will be, but at some point it will go back out to 
the States again.

Urban Aid

    Q. The New York Times today asserts in its lead editorial that 
spending on direct aid for cities has fallen by more than 60 percent, 
after adjusting for inflation, since 1981. First, how will you explain 
that statistic to the people of Los Angeles whom you will soon be 
visiting? And second, if many of them have, in fact, suffered dramatic 
declines in economic opportunity in the last decade, they will, of 
course, want to know if recent events have convinced you to reconsider 
your strategies on Federal aid to cities.
    The President. Well, first place, I'd like to look at the New York 
Times editorial. I have asked the Director of OMB to give me the amounts 
by which Federal spending has increased, and it's increased 
dramatically. We may be being judged by whether you should put money 
into these hopeless projects of bricks and mortar that we saw rot in St. 
Louis, for example, and deny everybody dignity.
    If you can pick out a program like that one and say spending is 
down, you're correct. What we've tried to do is bring it to bear in 
different ways. We've tried for block grants that leave the individual 
communities to have a better shot. But overall, I can certify to you 
that spending is up. So, I'd have to see exactly what it is that the New 
York Times is talking about.
    What was the second part of your question? Is she gone?
    Q. She's back. [Laughter] The second part was, many of the people in 
L.A. have, in fact, suffered dramatic declines in economic opportunity 
in the last decade. They will, of course, want to know if recent events 
have convinced you to reconsider your strategies on Federal aid to 
cities.
    The President. I think we should certainly reconsider the status quo 
in terms of Federal aid to cities. And that's one of the things we've 
been trying to do by offering people HOPE, Home Ownership for People 
Everywhere, for offering them enterprise zones that would actually bring 
businesses into the communities. You see, I don't think this is a time 
for blame, as I said in my remarks. I think it is a time to rethink and 
to try some new ideas as to how we cope with the problems of the cities. 
I think we would all agree that it hasn't worked. It hasn't worked in 
the last 10 years; it hasn't worked in the last 30. And so we've got to 
do what we can.
    All the time I have to bear in mind, however, because of my concern 
about the Federal deficit that's appalling, exactly how many dollars can 
be brought to bear in the community. And this is one of the reasons I 
like what Peter Ueberroth is talking--what we've tried to be talking 
about in terms of Points of Light, people, neighbors helping neighbors, 
in terms of block grants and fewer mandated programs.
    One of the places that I may have a difference with the New York 
Times editorial page, and there may be others, relates to the concept of 
mandated programs. You see, every Governor, every Governor comes to 
Washington and says, ``Do not mandate any more programs. Please do not 
pass programs that tell me as Governor or my mayors as mayors how they 
have to spend the money.'' So, we have a proposal for a substantial 
block grant that has been pending in the United States Congress, and 
maybe that time has come to think new thoughts and to try that one.
    So I would tell them: Look, I'm not happy with the status quo, and 
clearly you're not happy with the status quo, so let's try some new 
ideas. Let's try some change. And this isn't any time for demagoguery or 
blame.

[[Page 708]]

In my view, it's a time to go out and sensibly and sensitively survey 
the situation, do what I have suggested here, which is to bring the 
Federal resources to bear on the problem, and then say: Look, let's turn 
over a new leaf, and let's see what will heal. And all the time 
remembering that we cannot condone lawlessness and violence. And so we 
can separate that out. I will do what the Federal Government can do to 
support the local police, to support the mayors, to support the 
Governors in their requests for support for keeping the peace. So, 
that's one.
    And then the other: What do you do about the problems? How do you 
bring hope where there has been hopelessness? And I think my challenge 
now is to find a package of answers that will at least give these people 
that you're talking about a shot at something new. And I am not 
pessimistic about it. I really believe that in our country sometimes out 
of despair or out of gloom comes real opportunity. That's the way I'm 
going to approach it, with no rancor in my heart, and do what we can to 
help.
    And I must tell you, I am very pleased at the reaction from both the 
Governor and the Mayor about the Federal response. It is not easy when 
you want the Federal Government to be a partner, but you don't want it 
to dominate. I think we've handled it right in terms of putting down the 
violence. And I hope we're handling it right in terms of compassionate 
help to people that desperately need it.
    Q. Mr. President, if we have time for one more question----

Welfare Reform

    Q. My question is, you have indicated that there are some basic 
flaws with our current welfare system, and that they are related to the 
crisis in Los Angeles. What are your specific ideas for welfare reform, 
and how will they relate to that crisis?
    The President. The best answer on welfare reform is to give the 
States the flexibility through the waiver process to innovate. And 
that's exactly what we've done now with the State of Wisconsin. We have 
invited other States to send in requests for waivers so that we can let 
them innovate.
    In the Wisconsin program, for example, there was Learnfare, there 
was Workfare, as a part of their reform program. Some were upset because 
in the program it suggests that if you curtail payments after so many 
children that that would be cruel. Others are saying that that'll be a 
disincentive for families that are going to just be on welfare and be 
there for decades. But let's see it work. This was passed by the 
Wisconsin Legislature. Let's see it work.
    So, the Federal role predominantly is to provide the flexibility to 
the States that are required. But underlying my own philosophy is this 
concept of work incentive, learning incentive. And I'd like to see us 
really go forward on this program because therein, I think, lies the 
answer. I do not think that you're going to design one-size-fits-all 
welfare legislation out of Washington, DC. We've got to get past this 
view. And it's tough in an election year when you hear all the promises 
of these grand designs, which means just more Federal spending. I'm 
sorry, but I don't think the highly centralized Federal answers work, 
and I don't think that they need the support of people that are hurting, 
in the future.
    So, this one on welfare, we're trying this diffused, decentralized 
approach, underpinning it as the kind of philosophy I've outlined for 
you. But I think it'll be well-received by the American people, and I 
wish those in Wisconsin who are starting with this waiver the greatest 
success with their approach.
    Q. Mr. President, we thank you very much for taking time out of your 
schedule to join us, and we wish you well on your trip to Los Angeles.
    The President. Thank you, Bob. Thank you very much.

                    Note: The President spoke at 1:50 p.m. via satellite 
                        from Room 459 of the Old Executive Office 
                        Building to the American Newspaper Publishers 
                        Association convention in New York City. In his 
                        remarks, he referred to Robert F. Erburu, 
                        association chairman; Peter Ueberroth, chairman 
                        of the Rebuild L.A. Committee; and Jim Burke, 
                        chairman of the Partnership for a Drug-Free 
                        America.