[Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George H. W. Bush (1992, Book I)]
[May 30, 1992]
[Pages 860-867]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]



[[Page 860]]

Remarks and a Question-and-Answer Session With the Agricultural 
Community in Fresno, California

May 30, 1992
    The President. First, let me just thank Lee Simpson, the boys that I 
met. We had a chance to look at one method of growing. He was fair 
enough to tell me that others approach these things in different ways. 
But I must say, I've learned a lot. And it was most enjoyable, all too 
brief. But it wasn't just watching the computer in there; it was seeing 
him and his love of the soil and his boys and all the things that we 
talk about when we think of values when it comes to farm families. So 
they had a nice, neat way of making me feel at home here.
    I want to thank the Governor for being with us and our very able 
Senator John Seymour. I mean, I'm not here on a political mission, but 
let me just say to you who are involved in agriculture, it is nice to 
have somebody in the Senate who understands the real problems facing us 
and then can bring that knowledge of agriculture down to the White House 
to be sure we are sensitive.
    I had a chance earlier on with--I'm accompanied by the woman that 
many of you know, Ann Veneman. I thought it would be better coming to a 
bunch of experts in agriculture to have some brains with me. Mine are 
good for some things, and I think I have a feel for what we need to do 
in agriculture. But I certainly don't stand here as any expert. So I 
brought Ann in case some of you might have technical questions or where 
we stand on some specific initiative or other.
    On the broad agricultural concepts, let me simply say I believe it's 
absolutely essential that we have free and fair trade. We will continue 
to seek access to foreign markets. We've made some progress in beef and 
citrus and some things into Japan. There are some big crops that are 
excluded; we've got to keep pushing. I want to see a successful 
conclusion to what's known as the GATT, the Uruguay round of GATT. And 
the hangup, as everybody in this room knows, the main one has been 
agriculture. We've made some progress working with the Europeans. And 
they themselves have reorganized their common agricultural policy, 
something that is just going to reduce the levels of subsidies.
    But I just want you to know we're committed. I think I've a little 
better feel now for some of the problems that certain growers of certain 
commodities face in selling, for example, to Mexico. With Mexico I want 
an agreement, but I want it to be fair. I'm a great fan of Carlos 
Salinas, the President of Mexico. He's done a superb job. And it's not 
just in working towards free and fair trade; it's the fact that we're in 
very good sync with the Mexicans in terms of major foreign policy 
objectives. So I salute him. But he knows and I know that we cannot take 
to the Congress, and I will not, an agreement that is not based on free 
and fair trade. Our agricultural shipments to Mexico have increased 
threefold over the last few years. That's good, but we still have some 
problems on both sides. He has some problems with us.
    On the GATT, Ann gives her expertise to this a lot. We had a meeting 
the other day with Mr. Andriessen from the EC. I'm told by our very able 
negotiator, Carla Hills, that we made some progress there, but again, I 
can't predict for you when either of these will be done.
    The last point I'll make, and then I'll sit on my little stool and 
take any questions that come my way and maybe deflect a few off of here. 
But I feel that the United States economy is beginning to improve. 
California's had some very difficult times. Lot of defense problems 
here, as we've been able, given the demise of international communism, 
to properly cut back on defense. I would say to you in this very 
patriotic part of the State, I am not going to permit the Congress to 
cut into the muscle of our defense. We are able to make reductions. But 
now, especially in a political year with all the promises resonating out 
there, everybody wants to take $10 billion here or $20 billion there and 
spread it on some pro-

[[Page 861]]

gram, and we can't do that.
    I am the President, and I have responsibility for our basic national 
security interests. The world is much safer. This little Redskin fan 
goes to bed at night with less fear of nuclear weapons than his older 
brothers or maybe his mother and dad did, and that's a wonderful 
accomplishment. But I can tell you, and General Scowcroft, who's with me 
here today, my very able National Security Adviser, could tell you it 
isn't that safe a world.
    So we're trying to solidify the progress for democracy and freedom 
that has been made. It is major heavy lifting, but we are the only ones 
who can do it. The United States, we are the undisputed leader of the 
free world that's moving down the path to democracy. So I cite that 
because I cannot get in the promise business of taking $10 billion or 
$20 billion more from every defense account, and I'm not going to do it.
    In any event, I do feel the U.S. economy's recovering--you saw the 
growth figures yesterday--and with it will surge back the optimism that 
belongs to the United States of America. It's been a tough go for 
people, and I know that. But we are a rising Nation, not a declining 
Nation.
    Now, with no further ado, who wants the first question? I'm told 
that some of you have some real broad interest in areas that might not 
be specifically on agriculture; so much the better. That's fine with me. 
Yes, sir.

Legal Services Corporation

    Q. I'm an orange grower. We in the valley here, I'm in California, 
have a problem with an outfit called CRLA, California Rural Legal 
Assistance. These are the folks who seem to us to be creating answers to 
which there are no questions. Harassment, I believe, is one of the 
words. Your predecessor told us that he was going to do something about 
it, and I'd sure like to hear that you would take a shot at defunding 
the organization. I think they're out of hand.
    The President. Well, let me first ask if it's a State or a local--
are you talking about the Legal Services overall?
    Q. Yes.
    The President. Well, I don't know that we're going to defund it. 
What we're trying to do is to get it, through competent and sensible 
appointees, get it confined so it doesn't go off into the political 
arena, trying to make a lot of political statements and affecting 
legislation. That's not what Legal Services, if that is what we're 
talking about, is supposed to be doing. I think we still have some 
appointees not confirmed, but I can assure you we are not going to put 
any loose cannons rolling around on that deck. I hope there's been 
changes, but I gather we've got some work to do.

The Economy

    Q. As you know, everybody's concerned about the economy, and I was 
wondering if you would sign this dollar bill, showing me that you would 
promise to try to make this dollar bill worth just as much or more as it 
is in 4 years from now.
    The President. Yes, let me tell you something about the dollar. Let 
me tell you, one way to take that dollar and make it shrink is to let 
inflation get out of control. The cruelest tax of all is inflation. You 
don't see it, but you feel it. And the dollars shrink. They don't buy as 
much.
    One of the bright spots in an otherwise gloomy economy over the last 
year has been that inflation is down. I want to have economic policies 
enacted that will stimulate economic growth. But that's got to be done 
without making that dollar bill shrink, and I think we can do it. Right 
now, interest rates are down; inflation is down. That makes us poised 
for the best kind of economic recovery. I'm just saying that we've got 
to be sure it stays down because that's the way you make this dollar 
come back.
    When I come back 4 years from now, I think I'll be in this line of 
work then--[laughter]--it would shrink if we don't get control, try to 
keep control--we've got a long way to go--of spending. One of the things 
we're pushing for now, an idea whose time has come, that I've been for 
for many years is what's called a balanced budget amendment to the 
Constitution. It disciplines the executive branch, and it darned sure 
disciplines a Congress that has been very, very reluctant to do anything 
on the spending side.
    So those are just a couple of thoughts

[[Page 862]]

about how we're going to keep that dollar the same size, maybe make it 
buy more.

Environmental Policy

    Q. We've been working on a thing with the Federal Clean Air Act. And 
in that act of 1990, it addresses a thing called fugitive dust, referred 
to as PM10, particulate size. In that regulation it addresses where--
it's going after farmland that makes dust, a tractor that's out there 
farming. And to try to control that dust, the EPA has certain deadline 
dates, '94, '97 and 2001, in which growers are going to have to develop 
control strategies to stop that dust from going in the air. That has 
been based on, in the Federal Clean Air Act, with research that was done 
that was inaccurate, totally wrong. And now we have these implementation 
things called a PM10 plan that every State has to submit an air agency. 
And yet they're not realizing, we've pointed it out, that they need to 
look at better science because it's very difficult to regulate dust on a 
tractor. Yet they're asking us for control measures that are very much--
right now, there's not valid research. The USDA and EPA are hoping now 
to fund some money so we can do some valid research.
    The President. I'm not an expert on that. Ann, do you want to just 
comment on his specific, and then I'll give you an answer on a broader 
sense. Let me give you the broader answer first.
    You may have read about the Rio conference on the environment. I 
have withheld commitment to go there because it seemed to me that what 
we had to do before committing to go is to work out sound environmental 
policy, sound as far as the United States goes, and we are the leader 
because of our science and technology in international environment. So 
we had to work out sound environmental policy. But I also wanted an 
underpinning of sound economic policy. And we cannot permit the extremes 
in the environmental movement to shut down the United States on science 
that may not be as perfected as we in the United States should have it.
    So I don't know the specific, I'll be honest with you, that you're 
talking about, that provision of the Clean Air Act. But my general 
philosophy is to have a good, sound environmental practice. I think we 
do. I think we've got something to be really proud of and to take to 
Rio, but also to say to them, these countries, we cannot accept 
standards that are not based on the soundest of science, and we cannot 
shut down the lives of many Americans because of going to an extreme on 
the environment. So that's my philosophy, and that's what we're trying 
to do.
    Now, on this one for those of you who are environmentalists or 
follow Rio, I think we're coming out all right on that. A lot of the 
world leaders have told me they think that our fighting for that balance 
has been a very good thing, and we've staved off setting such rigid 
standards that nobody can meet. When the United States makes a 
commitment, it has to keep it. And we do that. Our word is pretty good, 
and it should be. But we can't do it and throw an awful lot of people 
out of work, especially when it's not based on sound science.
    Can you make a specific comment on the gentleman's, do you know?
    Deputy Secretary Veneman. Well, I certainly am familiar with this 
issue. It's been in USDA. We are attempting to help to fund the science 
necessary to address this problem, and I think we are committed to 
continuing in that effort.
    Q. I appreciate that very much, Mr. President and Ann Veneman, on 
that because we think that that needs to be looked at very, very 
strongly before we continue to put industry out of business because of 
unsound science, because somebody didn't do their job right. And I thank 
you very much.
    The President. Well, we're trying. I know they're going to want to 
raise the question that might get me in trouble, but I know, for 
example, on endangered species you've got some major California 
problems. They're national problems. We are trying to get balance and 
use of science and also have those hallmarks of the policy, but also the 
fact that a family's got to work for a living. So that one is one that 
has to be filtered into any agreements we're making.

Wetlands

    Q. I was pleased to see that we have a wetlands preserve program 
just starting up,

[[Page 863]]

with California being one of the pilot States. I think that that offers 
a way to restore wetlands and, at the same time, make a workable 
relationship with farming. One thing I would like to see is in the 
following programs, should Congress support your budget proposal, is a 
wider definition of the crop and land that is allowable in it. Within 
California much of the land that would qualify----
    The President. To be a wet?
    Q. Right, exactly.
    The President. We've had examples of that. The first gentleman was 
telling me about it, and we have--I consider myself a sound and 
hopefully sensible environmental President. But again, I think in terms 
of wetlands, the manual and definition, it's gotten a little ahead of 
where it should be in terms of a definition of a wetland.
    So we're trying hard. I just had a meeting earlier, and one of the 
rice growers told me about a program that they are working closely on 
where it really does help create wetlands. And the bird hunters and all 
these people who are very interested in the flyways are very happy about 
it. So I think there's room for innovation. I think we ought to stay 
with our objective and no net loss of wetlands, but we don't want to 
overdefine what a wetland is.
    That's what I've tried to do, and again, I've taken a few shots as 
being too much on the growth side of that. But I don't think that's a 
fair shot because I think what happens during some periods, some of the 
bureaucrats in our regulatory agencies started defining the wetland 
problem in a way that really overdefines it. There was not a legitimate 
wetland we were trying to preserve. So we're working it. And I 
appreciate your suggestion.

Domestic Agenda

    Q. I think most people are wondering that during your first 4 years 
in the Presidency I think that your main objective has been to center on 
the foreign affairs with the fall of international communism. With Ross 
Perot coming out saying that you need to address the situations with the 
homeless and with the deficit and all these other sort of domestic 
affairs, if you are reelected, assuming you are, will you be focusing 
your attention on the domestic affairs and not so much on the military 
and communism, the fall of communism, and China and Russia and all these 
other areas such as the Baltics?
    The President. The President's responsibilities are multifaceted. 
One of them is the national security of the United States. It is in this 
field that the President really has primacy, and I'm not going to 
neglect that. I'm not going to neglect it because of political 
criticism. Having said that, it is absolutely essential that our 
domestic program, which is sound, be brought before a Congress that will 
think some new ideas.
    The Congress today, in my view, thinks old ideas. We've got some 
problems. How are we going to help the city of Los Angeles? I think an 
enterprise zone that green-lines the area and cuts the capital gains 
rate to zero will do more to bring jobs into the hopeless areas of Los 
Angeles than doubling the spending on some Government programs. I have 
had that proposal up there for years. I've had it up there for years, 
and it has been blocked by, for the most part, by a hostile Congress.
    So I will not plead guilty to having neglected the domestic agenda. 
What we've got to do is get the facts out there that there is a good one 
that's based on empowerment. It is based on keeping Government close to 
the people. It's based on less regulation rather than more. It's based 
on giving people a part of the action. And that goes into all kinds of 
subjects. It also is based on fiscal sanity.
    I argue for a balanced budget amendment. It will discipline the 
executive branch, and it will darned sure discipline the Congress. Now 
it's beginning to happen. The good thing about this 4-year election 
dance is, it does get to focus, it brings people's focus on these major 
problems. I think we have a rare opportunity now to pass some of the 
things that would help guarantee the future of that little girl's dollar 
bill.
    I'd like to see a line-item veto for the President. Forty-three 
Governors have it, and it works. Somebody said, ``You don't have a 
domestic program.'' Here's a good one. Try it on for size. And they say, 
``Well, that's not a new idea.'' As far as I'm con-

[[Page 864]]

cerned it's new until it's been tried. We ought to keep pushing until we 
get it. That gets the President then all interacting with the people 
running for Congress, and it gets you in there. If you believe that last 
point, for example, get your Congressman to say what he'll do when he 
goes there.
    So I think we've got a good program. I'll give you one more, and 
then I'll stop filibustering. Education, we have a program called 
America 2000. It literally revolutionizes education. It creates 535 new 
American schools where the community and the families get involved in 
saying, ``Here's what we think will work in Fresno. I don't care so much 
what's going to work in Austin, Texas,'' and create these new schools. 
We send the bill up to the Congress, and what do they do in education? 
They just add money to programs that have failed. We've got a good 
domestic agenda, and there is a significant flagship of that domestic 
agenda.
    So what I've got to do is, one, make clear to the American people 
we've got it; and, two, take my case in the fall when I get into that 
political arena that I'm trying to stay out of at least until after our 
convention and say, all right, send me some Members of Congress that 
agree with this. Don't send people up there that come home and talk 
tough on law and order and crime and then go back and vote some other 
way.
    I listened to some ads of people running to try to get into the 
United States Senate, and these happen to be on the Democratic side, all 
of them talking tough on law and order. We've got a tough crime bill 
that is sitting in the United States Congress because the very same 
people that are advertising today in California refuse to vote for it.
    The good thing about an election year is, we can make that case 
clearly and say, look, send us some people, if you happen to think we're 
right, a little tougher on the criminal and little less tough on the 
victim of crime. Vote for them. Get our program going.
    So I think we've got a good domestic agenda. I do not plead guilty 
to neglecting it. I think out of the 4-year process here we'll have time 
to get it in focus.
    But look, I know that there's this feeling that we're living in a 
benign world now because of this magnificent victory over communism. But 
believe me, if you look at the Soviet Union and you see what's happening 
in some of the Republics, and if you look at the problems south of our 
border, although the hemisphere's going--the President can't neglect 
that. I can't shift entirely away from that responsibility.
    But I take your point. I think I've got to do a better job 
explaining to the people. Send me Members of Congress that will vote for 
these kinds of initiatives. If you want to do it the old way, get them 
to go in and vote for the status quo. But I think people want change 
now. I think we can take that message of hope out there.

Wristwatch Presentation

    Q. Last week you gave your watch away to Ensign Sam Wagener. You may 
not have realized it, but he was from Fresno. And so the Fresno Chamber 
of Commerce and the California Bowl Committee would like to present you 
with an official California Bowl watch, as a matter of fact, an official 
California Raisins Bowl watch.
    The President.  I'm a two-watch man again, but I'm telling you that 
I came out way ahead on the trade. That midshipman came out--he gave 
me--he did all right. He didn't have anything when he started. So he got 
my watch. But I didn't know he was from here. I'm very grateful. This is 
beautiful, and thank you. I accept with pleasure.

Water Management Legislation

    Q. I'd first like to start off by thanking you and your 
administration for trying to add a little bit of sanity to the 
application of Environmental and Endangered Species Act by putting in 
people and jobs and the economy as part of the equation.
    As you know, we are in the fight of our life here in the Central 
Valley of California over irrigated agriculture and the operations of 
Central Valley Project. Sir, Governor Wilson has shown historic and 
courageous 
leadership recently in announcing that 
there is a California solution to the 
Central Valley Project. Senator Seymour, likewise, has lead a courageous 
fight in the Senate to put aside some of the criticisms we have from 
some of the Democratic Sen-

[[Page 865]]

ators from New Jersey who think they know how to manage water from 
Washington, DC, for what we do here in the Central Valley.
    In the last 2 days there has been some--many call it negotiations--
and discussions on the House side, unfortunately controlled by many of 
our Democratic colleagues who are no better for us than some of those 
liberal folks in the Senate.
    I would like to say, sir, that if there is any doubt from the 
administration as to who they should look for, for whether or not these 
bills, as they go forward, are accepted by the leadership in California, 
you should please look toward Senator Seymour and Governor Wilson. I 
know they're going to be many mixed signals out there. But we will 
welcome the administration's overview and dedication to the fact that we 
have to balance environmental with jobs, economic, and people issues as 
we move forward for a solution to Central Valley water issues.
    The President. The Seymour approach is far--and I'll put some names 
on it for you--the Seymour approach is far better, far better than 
Miller-Bradley. And yes, we're trying to--I don't want to be flirting 
around leaving any doubt. Miller-Bradley is unacceptable, unacceptable 
and I wouldn't sign it. We are now discussing it. We were talking about 
it coming up here on the plane as to how to move forward with 
implementation of a more sensible approach. So I appreciate your 
comments. It helps me understand the fervor of the feeling out here. But 
I'm not just saying this politically. We are not going to accept Mr. 
Miller's approach, seconded by Bradley.

Multilateral Trade Negotiations

    Q. Mr. President, I'm a dairyman and a diversified farmer here in 
Fresno County. I want to thank you and your administration for pushing 
so hard for the successful conclusion of GATT as well as NAFTA. We thank 
you for hanging tough in agriculture, not giving in to the EC, the 
demands they have made upon us.
    The concern that we have is on NAFTA, that recently the Canadians 
have said that they will not give up on their dairy quotas, that their 
dairy quotas are not negotiable. If we go ahead and negotiate a treaty 
where we have to give up our Section 22 and the Canadians give up none 
of their dairy quotas, we're put at a tremendous disadvantage. Our plea 
to you, sir, is hang tough on that deal.
    We do want a free trade agreement. I believe that the future of 
American agriculture depends on international trade. But we do want an 
agreement that we can live with and that is fair to everybody, and 
hopefully, that we can hang on tough. But if they don't give, well, we 
don't want to give. We don't want to be put at a disadvantage.
    The President. Let me comment. The gentleman makes a very good 
point. It's not simply Canada on dairies; it is EC on bananas, for 
example. And I might say the Canadian pitch on this one relates to the 
unity of Canada itself. They're worried that if they don't continue to 
protect dairies, that that gives the Quebec people kind of a shot with a 
lot of concentrated dairies there, pulling away from what used to be 
called the Meech Lake Accords, which is technical, but that was the 
effort by our friend, and he is a friend, Brian Mulroney, to hold Canada 
together.
    But on your point, the difficulty that we have with the Canadian 
request or the request from some of our smaller friends in the Caribbean 
is, once you start down the road of exception, exception, exception, you 
get farther away rather than closer to an agreement.
    So we've got problems. I talked earlier about the rice problem as it 
affects Japan. I mean, there's an enormous market there. When I deal 
with the Prime Minister, the various Prime Ministers of Japan, the push 
always is, ``Please understand we've got enormously complex political 
problems on rice in the Diet, in our political legislature.''
    So we say, well, yes, but we can't have a successful conclusion if 
everybody excepts what is precious to him or her or whatever it is. So I 
think your point is very, very valid. And there are ways in these 
agreements to phase things in so people aren't hectored and harassed and 
thrown out of business at the outset. But the principle that you've 
outlined is one I believe is underlying, and I've instructed our 
negotiators accordingly, underlying our negotiations on

[[Page 866]]

NAFTA and the GATT.
    Ann, do you want to add to that? I appreciate your comments on it.

Agricultural Chemicals

    Q. I'm glad to hear that you are America's environmental President 
because I think in this room today are America's first 
environmentalists. Farmers should be and are good environmentalists. We 
do not want to do anything that would poison the ground or poison our 
families. But I'm concerned about the deluge of regulation in the last 
decade, especially in regard to the use of farm chemicals.
    I'm concerned especially about the minor-use chemicals that the 
chemical companies no longer wish to register. California grows over 250 
different crops. Some of these crops are considered to be minor-use 
crops for some of the chemicals that we use. I'm concerned about the 
loss of those chemicals not because they are inherently bad but because 
the economics of the use really prohibits the chemical company from 
reregistering its chemicals for each of these minor-use crops.
    Then we also have a problem with a major-use chemical, and that is 
methylbromide. As a nurseryman, we have a protocol in California whereby 
we cannot sell trees without following that protocol. It involves 
killing organisms within the soil, parasites that would eat the roots of 
the plants that we sell. Because of the strong phytosanitary regulations 
of the USDA and the California Department of Food and Agriculture, we 
are able to ship trees around the world. If we lose methylbromide, we 
will not only have the problem of not being able to ship around the 
world because we will have an inferior product, but we will have a 
problem within shipping in California because we can't meet the 
regulations. What can we do as good environmentalists but also as good 
business people to stem this regulatory tide?
    The President. Let me say on that methylbromide, I'm certainly no 
expert on it. But I'll give you the philosophy again behind it. 
Decisions should be based on sound science. It is my understanding that 
the science is less than perfected as it relates to this chemical. It 
seems to me that the way to approach this problem is to be sure that the 
science is sound.
    I would have to say, if the science proved that it was detrimental 
to the environment, I as President would be facing a significant problem 
because you cannot neglect the environmental destruction to our economy 
or to our country. So I think the answer is to try to move forward more 
fast on the science itself, as well as the alternate scientific work 
that's taking place.
    Now, Ann knows a great deal more about this than I. Can you add 
something to that?
    Deputy Secretary Veneman. Mr. President, I think that you're exactly 
right. We have to have the scientific evidence on these issues. We've 
certainly been trying in the USDA to work with EPA on the particular 
problems that face farmers as we deal with these chemical issues, and 
we'll try to continue to do that. Methylbromide does need additional 
science, and we'll participate in that to the extent that we can.

Energy Policy

    The President. And I agree. I mean, I think farmers are not only 
environmentalists but conservationists. I think that's very, very 
important. I think we have to do it.
    Incidentally, I would like to make a pitch for our energy bill that 
passed the Congress the other day, which does have some good, sound 
conservation in it, but also it balances out the need for this country 
to grow. I don't want to shift the subject away from your question, but 
in all these fields--and this gets back to this young man's question--in 
all these fields there's a question of philosophy on a lot of this 
stuff.
    On our energy approach, we're trying to keep growth going through 
more energy sources and through conservation. Some would have you just 
do nothing on the former part of it, and I'm in a big fight, although 
it's not in this bill, on the ANWR, the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge. I am 
absolutely convinced that you can have prudent development, as we did in 
Prudhoe Bay, of that. And yet I'm in a big row with the 
environmentalists because they say, ``Well, you say you're for the 
environment; how come you're for ANWR?'' I'm saying ANWR can be 
developed without decimating the

[[Page 867]]

environment or the species there, in this case caribou or whatever else 
it is.
    So I just cite this because it is something in my job that you have 
to keep balancing, just as this guy's question was how do you balance 
the national security from domestic. Here's one: How do you balance 
domestic growth, families need to make a living, our hopefully becoming 
less dependent on foreign oil for a lot of reasons, and balance that 
with the environmental needs? And you've raised a more specific 
question. We've just got to keep that ethic going, and I think we can. I 
think we can do better on it.
    Getting thrown out of here?
    Q. Sir, we could sit here and talk all day long and probably all 
week long. We just appreciate so much your coming to Fresno and 
listening to our concerns. We wish you the best of luck in the near 
future.
    The President. Let me say--thank you, Lee, very much. Let me just 
make this observation that you can't help but feel when you're here. 
We're talking about agriculture; we're talking about chemicals; we're 
talking about wetlands; we're talking about economic growth; we're 
talking about national security. These are all big issues. But I wish 
that Barbara Bush had been out here, the Silver Fox we call her, because 
I think she would sense the feeling of community and of family that we 
sensed when we lived in a climate not unlike this in west Texas for 12 
years and long before I got wrapped up in the political world. These 
issues are terribly important.
    But when we talk about family, you feel it when you walk into his 
house or his place of business and feel it just looking around this 
room. You get that sense this is something that is very important. And 
when those mayors came to me, long before the trouble in Los Angeles, 
and said, ``The largest single concern we have about the decline in the 
cities, the biggest problem is the decline in the American family, the 
falling apart of the family.''
    So when Barbara hugs a child or we read to kids, it is trying as 
best we can to show the importance of family and the importance of the 
values that stem from family. I make that not as a pitch but just as a 
statement, because the Presidency is about issues. It's about doing your 
best. It's about national security, but it is also about understanding 
the strength of this country. And I've gotten a good lesson in that here 
today.
    Thank you.

                    Note: The President spoke at 10:58 a.m. at the 
                        Simpson Vineyards. In his remarks, he referred 
                        to Lee Simpson, owner of the vineyards, and 
                        Frans Andriessen, Vice President of the European 
                        Community Commission.