Q. Even with the statements by the Iranian clergy, the fundamentalist clergy, that this is time for a holy war against the United States? The President. Nobody has suggested that out of this there's going to be a harmony and sweetness between some of those factions in Iran and the United States. But read carefully what he said. I'm told by some experts that he did not call for a jihad. But you've got to analyze it very carefully. But there will be factions inside Iran that will continue to resist any improvement in relations between Iran and the United States, and we understand that. But the main thing is, I think the important thing is right now is that Iran do what Iran has publicly said it would do, and that is to comply with the international sanctions. And they have said that publicly. Q. You've been reporting with some pleasure on the fact that our allies and friends around the world have been joining us in the Gulf, and even those countries that are constitutionally restrained, like Germany and Japan, from sending troops have been sending money. At the same time as this is happening, the cost estimates for our presence there have been jumping just as much as the troop counts have, and earlier Secretary Cheney mentioned that the deployment isn't even finished. Should we be concerned as taxpayers that the Persian Gulf crisis has been written a blank check for the duration? The President. You know what I think about that one? I think the American people want me to do exactly what we ought to do to fulfill our four objectives over there. And if that means that we have to ask others to support certain aspects of this in a burden-sharing way, we're going to continue to do that. But I believe that the American people have confidence in the decisions that we've taken, and I don't think they would want to shortchange the effort, no matter how serious the budget complications are right now. Q. Does this scotch any hope for-big-city mayors, for instance, have talked about a peace dividend. It may have been a phantom all along. The President. I've always felt that that was a phantom because I don't think you can declare a dividend when you're operat ing at a loss. And we're operating at a tremendous deficit. So, I hope that they have been disabused of the fact that there would be enormous money to spread around. But I think a big-city mayor would stand right up next to me, no matter how serious the problems in his or her city, and would say, we don't want to shortchange the military effort. If we're going to have those people over there, we ought to do what is necessary to give them full support. I think that's the way they'd all react. Strategic Petroleum Reserve Q. Mr. President, at the beginning of the crisis, there were some calls for you to use the strategic petroleum reserve to hold down gas prices. What do you consider a proper use of the strategic petroleum reserve, and are you satisfied with the level at which it is right now? The President. I think that when you have a real shortage of a product or you see an external event that is going to guarantee that there be shortage, then would be the time when you most certainly should use the SPR. It is my judgment that there isn't such a shortage at this time. There is some feeling that a demonstrative, albeit not large, drawdown would calm a fluctuating market. We'd say, now, wait a minute, you speculators that are speculating on the price of oil out into October sometime do so at your own risk. You could make a case-and I'm listening to those in the administration and on the Hill that make the case that such a drawdown of a small amount perhaps at the beginning might argue against or guarantee against speculation in the futures market. That's an intellectual and economic argument that has some appeal. But the reason we haven't drawn down the SPR is, in my judgment, I have not felt that there was a shortage. Fortunately, if this had to occur, it occurred at a time when there was reasonable amounts of stock. So, you're seeing the fluctuation driven not by market forces, not by supply and demand today, but by speculation as to what it might be in the future, and I just don't think that that would entirely be offset by a SPR drawdown. So, there are other circumstances under which you would clearly have to drawdown. I mean, if we had left Saudi Arabia undefended and if, when Saddam Hussein sent the tanks and the armor south from Kuwait City down to the border, they had gone across, cut off Dhahran or something like that, then you would have had a situation where you might have short-range stocks overhanging the market that would last for a few days, but clearly you would have had an emergency. You would have had something that any President would have, I think, instantly called for a drawdown of the SPR. Offshore Oil Drilling Q. Mr. President, can you address the question down the road about the tradeoffs in environmental concerns with regard to the current oil situation, and in particular if you could address what's going on in California right now? You banned offshore oil drilling for 10 years. But there are a lot of environmentalists in California who are afraid that you're going to go back on your word. The President. I have no plans to revisit the decisions I have taken. But what I do want to do and I may run into conflict with some groups-is to more vigorously go forward with incentives for domestic drilling. I mentioned Alaska, I mentioned tax incentives that I proposed a year ago—over a year ago and I want to press for those. When I met with the California delegation, I said to them: We simply cannot have it prevail that we don't want any drilling here, and she doesn't want any drilling there, and he doesn't want any drilling there. Everybody do some drilling, but do it in somebody else's area. That is not good enough. And I said someday we're going to realize that we are becoming too dependent on foreign oil. You can ask the California delegation with whom I met just prior to my decision. I don't believe that the supply situation is such that I have to revisit the decisions I did make that affect Florida and affect those certain areas in California. Q. A followup. You're going to be going to California tomorrow to do some campaigning for Senator Wilson. He is currently opposed to an initiative in California that would ban offshore oil drilling. Will you be saying anything about that when you are there? The President. I doubt it. I've got enough problems right here in Washington without going out and commenting on a provision out there. [Laughter] But if the question is put to me at a press conference, "Do you want to ban offshore drilling?" the answer will be no. If the question is put to me as you put it, “Do you feel you need to change the decisions you've already made?" I'll say no, I don't think I need to do that. I'm not familiar with that proposition, but this is the point: I mean, I don't think these regions can have it. Some never want a refinery. Some never want a drilling rig anywhere near their place. And yet, they see clearly the adverse economic effect on their citizens that comes from a dislocation of this nature. The bottom line is: It's going to have to be conservation. It's going to have to be alternative sources. It's going to have to be more hydrocarbon drilling. I think we can accomplish those objectives through incentives and through sounder practice and through new technology and-for example, clean coal technology-without having to do damage to the highly sensitive environmental areas. I've got time-28:40-and I said to answer questions for 30-so I don't want to get in trouble with Kristen [Kristen Taylor, Director of Media Relations at the White House]. But it's 28:47. Domestic Oil Policy Q. Mr. President, you won't hear many people in Houston or in Texas saying, "We don't want drilling here." The President. No, I haven't heard that. Q. What are your Houston oil men and women friends telling you they want by incentives? And what are you telling them? The President. I haven't been in personal touch with the Houston oil people, though [Secretary of Commerce] Bob Mosbacher, unrecused now from giving advice to the President, feels that the incentives that we put forward last year should be vigorously pushed to stimulate domestic drilling. There are also things that we had in there that would give an exemption-you'd understand-maybe not all of us here today on secondary oil, a break to permit some of this secondary-these stripper-well productions from going offstream. The oil is there, but-produce so little, the option is, do I get some incentive to do this, or do I shut the well down? So, I think there are things we can do in that. I think there are things we can do in R&D in terms of tertiary production that would be of benefit. But the major incentive would be to give a tax incentive to domestic drillers for future drilling. It won't detract from current income, current revenues in the tax situation. I think that is the place where we'd push hard. Now, there's all kind-you're hearing other ideas around that would have an effect on the constituency that you ask about: import fees or taxes on petroleum products or whatever. And I just don't want to comment on those as long as this summit is going on. I've got time for the last one. Here it is, right in the middle. Persian Gulf Crisis Q. Mr. President, who makes the decision on how troops from foreign nations are deployed in Saudi Arabia-where the Syrians are deployed, the Egyptians, French, the British? And is there going to be an overall command? The President. Because of the overall magnitude of the United States force there, there is an active consultation with General Schwarzkopf our CINC, our commander-inchief in the area. And we have not forsworn the right of that general officer to control American troops, nor have the Frenchwho aren't quite there yet in force-or the Brits, or others, done that. But it is a matter of close coordination, particularly with the host country. But I don't want to diminish the importance of General Schwarzkopf in the deployment of forces. Clearly, he can't order the Desert Rats to a certain deployment. But in working very closely with his counterpart in the British forces, or the one that controls the British forces, those matters have all been worked out through really fundamental consultation and in accordance with an overall plan that we've worked on with the various the commanders that have forces in the area. So, it's a coordinated effort. And I have no hesitancy at all to say to the parents of the kids over there, or families: Should something happen that required combat, the command structure will function very, very smoothly. And we're not going to have to stand around waiting for someone else to decide if there is some provocation, either. Thank you all very, very much. Note: The President spoke at 2:02 p.m. in Room 450 of the Old Executive Office Building. Remarks to Participants in the Elementary School Recognition Program September 17, 1990 Thank you, and welcome to the White House lawn on this beautiful fall day. We're delighted to have you all here. And thank you, Secretary Cavazos, and thank you especially for your leadership in keeping education at the very top of our national agenda. A special welcome to the Governors who are with us today and those who participated in last year's economic [education] summit. I'm so glad that this many are here. And I want to greet Governor Campbell and Governor Casey, Governor Perpich, Governor Schaefer, and I'm just delighted they are here. Will you all stand up, please, and have a welcome from the crowd here? [Applause] And also with us today is Gil Grosvenor, a great friend of ours, friend of education, president of the National Geographic Society, to whom we are indebted for the distribution of this pro-education poster. Gil, thank you very much to you and your associates. And a special welcome to all of you, our special guests. You know, Barbara's here. I happen to think with some husbandly pride that she's doing a remarkable job for education. She's just finished a reception inside for her new radio program, "Barbara Bush Story Time." It's going to be kind of like Fiorello LaGuardia for you oldtimers [laughter used to do this. There's a slight complication on this, however, because attending that reception, and with us today, is Bob Saggett of "America's Funniest Home Videos." Is he over there somewhere? Bob, you're welcome to stay, but your act is over there in the press room; that's where you ought to be to get your material. [Laughter] Thank you very much for joining us today. I'm honored to welcome the representatives of 221 elementary schools chosen this year as winners in our school recognition program. Each of your schools is as diverse as this great country: They are public and private; they range in size from 170 to 1,400 pupils; they serve children from scarcely populated rural areas to some of our largest cities. But you all have something important in common: your success and achievement, ideals to which the other schools across the breadth of this nation can look for inspiration. This year's winners were judged on the quality of the education they provide, their students' achievements and attitude, and their teachers' and administrators' leadership. But perhaps the most important criteria was a sense of shared purpose among faculty, students, parents, and then the entire community. These schools share a vision of hope that they can foster the full potential and development of each child and, by doing that, help make this a better nation and a better world. However, those higher goals may have been lost on some of the youngest winners. I understand that when one first grader from Colwyn Elementary School told her parents about her principal being honored, she exclaimed: "Sister Mary won the Academy Award?" [Laughter] We're here today not only to salute these individual schools but also to restate our commitment as a nation to education. For our democracy can remain vital only if our people continue to grow in knowledge and wisdom, facing each new choice with an increased understanding of the complex and competitive world in which we live. And we must realize that education is the key to our future, to our identity as a nation, and to our very soul as a people. I came to this job believing that America can and must have a restructured and revitalized education system to enable us to compete successfully in the world and to empower each citizen to achieve his or her fullest potential. After all, education is our most enduring legacy, vital to everything we are and everything we can become. We're celebrating an important anniversary here. One year ago this month, we held the President's education summit with the Governors. In fact, my first stop after the summit was right here, where I spoke to last year's winner of this prestigious award. And the summit itself grew out of our pledge to lead a national effort toward a renaissance of excellence in American schools. As a result of this historic event, involving the Nation's Governors and our Cabinet, we emerged with a sense of direction for individual and collective efforts to improve the quality of education for all. For the first time, Americans now have a clear sense of direction toward national education. With the invaluable cooperation of teachers and parents and community leaders and a variety of educators, and working with the Governors at the beginning of this year, I announced our six education goals to be met by the year 2000, absolutely essential goals that recognize education as a lifelong enterprise. And I want to repeat them now because they must become so familiar that they seem woven into the fabric of our lives. First, by the year 2000, all children in America must start school ready to learn. And second, the high school graduation rate must increase to at least 90 percent. And third, American students must be competent in 5 critical subjects with their progress measured in grades 4, 8, and 12. Fourth, our students must be first in the world in science and math. And fifth, every adult American must be able to read. And finally, every one of our schools must be safe, disciplined, and drug-free. I am very pleased today to be able to unveil a wonderful poster displaying these important goals that have been produced, as I said earlier, by the National Geographic Society, and it will be sent to every single school in the Nation. National Geographic has joined the fight to ensure a first-class education for every American child. And once again, Gil Grosvenor, we are very, very grateful to you and your associates over there. And I'm grateful to you two for holding that up in the wind. [Laughter] You're doing a first-class job there, Marcus and Jennifer. You know, in this past year since our summit, as we've turned our attention to the formidable task of ensuring that these goals are attained, we've seen an extraordinary response as reform took off across our nation. And one of the most important reforms sweeping our great country is educational choice, empowering parents to get involved in their children's education. Today, with us-and I spot her right down here is Polly Williams, a courageous leader who brought choice to Milwaukee, Wisconsin's school. Polly, would you please stand up, too? And it's teamwork that's engendering this inspiring success, an extraordinarily constructive partnership between the Federal level, the Governors of our States and territories. Showing our administration-wide commitment to educational excellence, we've also begun exciting programs involving all of the Cabinet Departments. Today, I issue a challenge to every American to join us. Step forward in your own way to respond to one of the most crucial issues that we face. And students, set your sights and your personal goals high, so that your future can match your finest dreams. Educators, you're engaged in noble, terribly important work. And we congratulate you and look forward to your continuing dedication to American educational excellence. And then to parents, we urge you to become more involved, more involved in your children's education. And lastly, to the communities, we've made great leaps in getting communities more engaged. The Governors have done a sensational job going to the communities getting them more engaged in local-level action, too. But we need more. All of us must commit ourselves fully now. Right now. And America, really on this one, can't afford to wait, or waste, an entire generation. To all of you, as we look ahead to our goals and to the year 2000, let's answer the call: Let tomorrow begin today. Congratulations to all of you. Thank you for your interest in education. Thank you for caring about our kids. Thank you very, very much. Note: The President spoke at 3:36 p.m. on the South Lawn at the White House. In his remarks, he referred to Governors Carroll A. Campbell of South Carolina, Robert Casey of Pennsylvania, Rudy Perpich of Minnesota, and William D. Schaefer of Maryland; Wisconsin State Legislator Polly Williams; and students Marcus Laruex and Jennifer Abreo. Letter to the Speaker and the Dear Tom: (Dear Bob:) I am writing to express my strong opposition to the textile, apparel, and footwear quota bill (H.R. 4328) which the House is scheduled to consider tomorrow. The bill is a threat to the stability of the world trading system and is completely contrary to the economic, commercial, and political interests of the United States. If the bill passes, I will veto it. This legislation would seriously restrict textile and footwear imports and violate international trade rules. It represents the worst form of economic policy for America, one based upon the mistaken belief that less trade throughout the world will somehow save American jobs and enhance our prosperity. In reality, the bill would cause slower growth, result in fewer jobs, and create far higher costs for all American consumers. We are enjoying the greatest export boom in our history. This bill will place at risk our $400 billion in exports and the millions of American jobs that depend on world trade. Ironically, this vote comes at a time when the world is adopting the American model of free enterprise, open markets, and greater competition. It would send the wrong message to retreat now from the world economy and build protectionist walls just when the reform governments of Eastern Europe, Latin America, and Asia need our |