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 demagog. 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 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 [Kristin Clark Taylor, Director of White House Media Relations]. I don't want to overrule my leader here. [Laughter] She'll kill me when we get out of here. Deficit Reduction and the Federal Budget Negotiations 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 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 lutely essential something be done. I will do by the budgeteers-but I think it is absomy 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 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. Space Program 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 advertised 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 what's almost becoming journeymen's work in space. 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 changingand it has dramatically changed-there may be some real opportunities now to do more with the Soviet Union, for example, or with other countries. So, all of this requires a new look, and that's what this story was about. Two more. Who's got them? Right here. Yes, sir? South Africa 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 toor are you doing to negotiate an agreement between Mr. Mandela and Mr. de Klerk [President of South Africa] 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 [African National Congress], 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 have on Castro [President of Cuba] or Qadhafi [leader of Libya], and yet 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, Qadhafi, Yasser Arafat [leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization]. 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 AfroAmerican 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? The President's Reading Habits Q. Marie Petersen, Crafts 'n 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, [Deputy Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs], is here from the National Security Council-and Brent Scowcroft [Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs], 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. 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 [Secretary of Commerce] Bob Mosbacher's busi ness or Dick Darman's [Director of the Office of Management and Budget] 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 round the world. 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 a couple of books on Teddy Roosevelt. Roosevelt. I'm reading 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 beforeinstead of taking one of these Halcions— whatever that-Halcion sleeping tablets, a good novel will help. [Laughter] But I wish I could tell you that I was doing more serious historical reading; I am not at this moment. Listen, thank you all very, very much for coming, and I'm glad to have had this opportunity. Note: The President spoke at 11:35 a.m. in Room 450 of the Old Executive Office Building. Statement by Press Secretary Fitzwater on the President's Meeting With British Labour Party Leader Neil Kinnock July 17, 1990 The President met for about 35 minutes this afternoon with the leader of the British Labour Party, Mr. Neil Kinnock, in a wideranging discussion of East-West relations, including the just-concluded summit meetings in London and Houston. The two men had a good exchange of views. It was the first opportunity in this administration for the President to meet with the leader of Britain's opposition. The President expressed his pleasure with the July 16 announcement after the KohlGorbachev meetings that the Soviet Union was prepared to accept a united Germany as a full member of NATO if that was the German choice. The President emphasized his support for the continuing process of reform in the Soviet Union. While the London summit had shown the alliance's readiness to adapt to the new European realities, the President stressed that the United States remains fully committed to the North Atlantic alliance. Following his meeting with the President, Mr. Kinnock was scheduled to meet separately with Vice President Quayle and the national security adviser, Gen. Brent Scowcroft [Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs]. Proclamation 6158-Decade of the By the President of the United States of America A Proclamation The human brain, a 3-pound mass of interwoven nerve cells that controls our acmysterious-wonders of creation. The seat tivity, is one of the most magnificent—and of human intelligence, interpreter of senses, and controller of movement, this incredible organ continues to intrigue scientist and layman alike. Over the years, our understanding of the brain-how it works, what goes wrong when it is injured or diseased-has increased dramatically. However, we still have much more to learn. The need for continued study of the brain is compelling: millions of Americans are affected each year by disorders of the brain ranging from neurogenetic diseases to degenerative disorders such as Alzheimer's, as well as stroke, schizophrenia, autism, and impairments of speech, language, and hearing. Today, these individuals and their families are justifiably hopeful, for a new era of discovery is dawning in brain research. Powerful microscopes, major strides in the study of genetics, and advanced brain imaging devices are giving physicians and scientists ever greater insight into the brain. Neuroscientists are mapping the brain's biochemical circuitry, which may help produce more effective drugs for alleviating the suffering of those who have Alzheimer's or Parkinson's disease. By studying how the brain's cells and chemicals develop, interact, and communicate with the rest of the body, investigators are also developing improved treatments for people incapacitated by spinal cord injuries, depressive disorders, and epileptic seizures. Breakthroughs in molecular genetics show great promise of yielding methods to treat and prevent Huntington's disease, the muscular dystrophies, and other life-threatening disorders. Research may also prove valuable in our war on drugs, as studies provide greater insight into how people become addicted to drugs and how drugs affect the brain. These studies may also help produce effective treatments for chemical dependency and help us to understand and prevent the harm done to the preborn children of pregnant women who abuse drugs and alcohol. Because there is a connection between the body's nervous and immune systems, studies of the brain may also help enhance our understanding of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. Many studies regarding the human brain have been planned and conducted by scientists at the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute of Mental Health, and other Federal research agencies. Augmenting Federal efforts are programs supported by private foundations and industry. The cooperation between these agencies and the multidisciplinary efforts of thousands of scientists and health care professionals provide powerful evidence of our Nation's determination to conquer brain disease. To enhance public awareness of the benefits to be derived from brain research, the Congress, by House Joint Resolution 174, has designated the decade beginning January 1, 1990, as the “Decade of the Brain" and has authorized and requested the Presi dent to issue a proclamation in observance of this occasion. Now, Therefore, I, George Bush, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim the decade beginning January 1, 1990, as the Decade of the Brain. I call upon all public officials and the people of the United States to observe that decade with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities. In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this seventeenth day of July, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and ninety, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and fifteenth. George Bush [Filed with the Office of the Federal Register, 12:11 p.m., July 18, 1990] Proclamation 6159-Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Family Appreciation Day, 1990 July 18, 1990 By the President of the United States of America A Proclamation On July 22, 1990, Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy will celebrate her 100th birthday. It is fitting that, on this special occasion, we not only wish her much happiness, but also reflect upon the importance of an institution she has cherished and defended for years. That institution is the family. In the inimitable shelter of family life, we gain a sense of identity and purpose. The love and knowledge passed from generation to generation provides us with a link to the past-and it gives us a stake in the future. Through family life, our country's most cherished values and traditions are passed from one generation to the next. Indeed, as members of a family, we learn important lessons about love and commitment, duty and fidelity, and respect and concern for others. It is through our parents and other close relatives that most of us discover how great God's love for mankind must be, and |