thumbnail of The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour
Transcript
Hide -
MR. MacNeil: Good evening. Leading the news this Thursday, the U.S. dropped plans to modernize short range nuclear weapons in Europe, Pres. Bush met with Lithuania's prime minister. We'll have details in our News Summary in a moment. Judy Woodruff is in Washington tonight. Judy.
MS. WOODRUFF: After the News Summary, we'll hear excerpts of Pres. Bush's news conference today, then turn to a News Maker interview [NEWS MAKER - LITHUANIA] with Prime Minister Prunskiene of Lithuania. The rest of the program looks at the state of children in the United States [FOCUS - CHILDREN AT RISK]. In the wake of charges that the U.S. is failing its most precious resource, we will hear from essayist Roger Rosenblatt, then talk with five members of the National Commission on Children. NEWS SUMMARY
MR. MacNeil: Pres. Bush today called for a complete NATO strategy review in light of the changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. As a first step he said he decided to eliminate two U.S. modernization programs for short range nuclear weapons in Europe. At a White House news conference, he called for a NATO summit in late June or early July to discuss the alliance's new political mission and the role of U.S. nuclear forces.
PRES. BUSH: As democracy comes to Eastern Europe and Soviet troops return home, there is less need for nuclear systems of the shortest range, and in response to these new conditions, I've decided to terminate the follow on to Lance Program and cancel any further modernization of U.S. nuclear artillery shells deployed in Europe. The future of the United States cannot be separated from the future of Europe, and so along with our allies, we must prepare for the magnificent opportunities that lie ahead.
MR. MacNeil: Pres. Bush was asked about a report that Moscow recently was on the verge of civil war. That report came from several British news agencies. They said that on February 25th, the day of a huge pro-democracy demonstration in Moscow, Soviet military officers offered the mobilization of one army division, apparently to send a message to Mr. Gorbachev that he was going too far with his reforms. Pres. Bush said he was not advised of that report, but he said that from time to time he does worry about a coup against Gorbachev that could send Soviet reforms. Judy.
MS. WOODRUFF: The President met with the Prime Minister of Lithuania this afternoon. Kazimiera Prunskiene asked for U.S. support of Lithuania's independence movement. Earlier in the day the prime minister testified on Capitol Hill. She said Lithuania was ready to compromise with Moscow. She also said the United States did not have to choose between Lithuania and Mikhail Gorbachev.
KAZIMIERA PRUNSKIENE, Prime Minister, Lithuania: [Speaking through Interpreter] As regards the role of the West, we see and understand their desire to have in Pres. Gorbachev a reliable political leader in East-West relations. Here our interests coincide, but for this we cannot sacrifice everything that is most important, the nation's future and its very existence. Such a sacrifice is senseless and not useful even to the West, itself, because Lithuania's sacrifice would not help the Soviet Union enter a new stage of development as a nation of laws and a reliable economic partner for the West. In other words, the Lithuanian question can and must be solved without damage to democracy in the Soviet Union.
MS. WOODRUFF: We'll have an interview with Prime Minister Prunskiene after the News Summary. The neighboring Baltic republic of Latvia had its own independence debate today. The parliament will not make any decisions until tomorrow, but it is not expected to go as far as Lithuania. Speaking to the parliament, Latvia's president said, "We must show the world that we are not endangering East-West dialogue." He said the world is not going to risk what has been done in the area of arms control because of 5 million people in the Baltics.
MR. MacNeil: Iran's president today accused the United States of acting like a stubborn child. He did so in a radio speech acknowledging Iran's role in the release of two American hostages in Lebanon. Hashimi Rafsanjani said the U.S. refusal to make a good will gesture in return was like a stubborn, frustrated child. However, at his morning's news conference, Pres. Bush said the U.S. was willing to make a good will gesture toward Iran. Reporters asked him what he had in mind.
PRES. BUSH: I would have in mind any gesture that wouldn't be perceived as negotiating for the release of hostages. We have a policy. I'm going to stay with that policy. But let me give you an example, Helen. One of the things that the Iranians are interested in is the fate of, I believe it was four, four Iranians that were taken I think back in '82. Now if there's some way that we can go back and get any information that would relieve the anxieties of their loved ones, of those four people, we ought to do that, and we're trying, so if that is good will, so be it. I hope it is. That's the way I would intend it. And there may be other things we can do.
MR. MacNeil: Former hostage Frank Reed who was released from captivity on Monday will be coming home to the United States tomorrow. Officials said he had completed his medical exams and de-briefing at a U.S. military hospital in Wiesbauten, West Germany. He will be returning to his home in Massachusetts.
MS. WOODRUFF: The federal government announced today that children with AIDS may now be treated with the drug AZT. Health & Human Services Sec. Louis Sullivan said AZT can now be considered standard therapy. It is the only drug that has extended the lives of adult with AIDS, but because of its side effects, the FDA had held off approving it for children. The number of children working illegally either in hazardous jobs or working too many hours jumped dramatically over the past six years. The General Accounting Office reported today that such violations rose by 150 percent in the 26 states surveyed. The increase was attributed to a tight labor market and better reporting of violations due to stricter enforcement by the Labor Department.
MR. MacNeil: Heavy rains in North Central Texas claimed three lives last night and this morning, bringing the death toll in this spring's floods to nine. Officials said the downpours are the worst since 1922. They've been accompanied by strong winds and tornadoes. The flooding has ruined crops and forced residents to evacuate their homes. More rain today threatens to flood areas as far North as Oklahoma and Arkansas.
MS. WOODRUFF: South Africa's white government had its second day of meetings with the country's main black leaders. Pres. DeKlerk and African National Congress Leader Nelson Mandela said they made progress on the issues that divide them. Among those issues are the state of emergency, the presence of troops in black townships and black against black violence. They must be resolved before the beginning of full scale negotiations on changing the apartheid system.
MR. MacNeil: OPEC agreed today to cut production in an attempt to lift prices. At an emergency meeting in Geneva, members of the oil producing cartel said they will cut production by nearly 1 1/2 million barrels a day. Because of overproduction so far this year, prices have fallen 25 percent to the current level of $18 a barrel. Today's agreement will remain in effect until July, when OPEC ministers will set quotas for the rest of the year.
MS. WOODRUFF: That's it for the News Summary. Just ahead on the Newshour, Lithuania's prime minister and America's children at risk. NEWS MAKER
MR. MacNeil: Our lead focus tonight the quest for independence by the Soviet Republic of Lithuania and a Newsmaker interview with the Republic's newly chosen Prime Minister. Lithuania which was annexed by the Soviets in 1940 declared its independence in February. President Gorbachev has responded with economic sanctions. The Prime Minister Kazimiera Prunskiene visited President Bush at the White House and met with Congressional leaders. Before he met the Prime Minister President Bush held a news conference and was asked why he followed a policy which supports Gorbachev instead Lithuanian independence.
PRESIDENT BUSH: I don't think that is the choice. And let me repeat here if any body has any doubts about where their President stands, of course we favor self determination and of course we favor democracy and freedom. There is a lot at stake in all of this. And there is complications in all of this. Poland and Eastern Europe I want all those troops out and I want to see the firming up of democracies in Eastern Europe and I want to see the process going forward. So foreign policy is not just based on Mr. Gorbachev. Now if the man has done something good and surprises everyone in this room including me by the acceptance of democracy and freedom in Eastern Europe and he has. Give credit for that. But on Lithuania there is an enormously complicated problem and I must say I am looking forward to visiting with the Prime of Lithuania in a little bit but I must convince the Lithuanian Americans that my desire for their freedom and self determination is just as strong as anybody else. And I also must convince those here and around the World that we want to see the peaceful evolution that is taking place towards democracy continue. So when Terry asked this question about dialogue that is our policy and I am delighted to see that Landsbergis now feels there may be some merits in this policy but Leslie we can't place this on you have to choose between Gorbachev or Landsbergis. That is not the policy of the United States Government nor it should be.
MR. BIERBAUER: Mr. President is there any point as we have heard you say many times that for peristroika to survive that you are structuring your policies to assist him in any shape or form that is why you are towing a very difficult line about Lithuania?
PRESIDENT BUSH: I have expressed my sincere interest in seeing peristroika succeed. Gorbachev is the architect of Peristroika, Gorbachev conducted the affairs of the Soviet Union with great restraint as Poland and Czechoslovakia and GDR and other countries achieved their independence but you can't build the foreign policy of a country on the presence of an individual. You can build it on ideas. You can build on how to facilitate the change towards democracy and freedom. Whether that is in the countries where that has taken place or where in the countries it hasn't taken place and so I would say I salute the man for what he has done. I think that he is under extraordinarily pressure at home particularly on the economy and I do from time to time worry that a takeover will set back the whole process.
REPORTER: Mr. President with this call for dialogue and this meeting with the Prime Minister you are planning later today do you see yourself in some sort of mediation role between Vilnius and Moscow?
PRESIDENT BUSH: If there was a role for the United States and I have thought about that. If there was a constructive role for the United States, of course, we should fulfil that role but there is not and I don't see that emerging for a lot of different reasons but if somebody said that you can facilitate that through being a negotiator which is hard for me to conceive given the realities in the World of course we would be interested in doing that but I don't think that is a reality.
MR. MacNeil: Now to the Lithuanian Prime Minister Kazimiera Prunskiene. She is a professional economist and was one of the founders of the Lithuanian Independence Movement, Sajdis. She was elected to Parliament in February in Lithuania's first free and democratic election since the country was annexed by the Soviets. At that time Ms. Prunskiene resigned from the Communist Party and became Prime Minister in March. I talked with her a few moments ago. Prime Minister thank you for joining us.
PRIME MINISTER PRUNSKIENE: Thank you for inviting me.
MR. MacNeil: You said after you met President Bush this afternoon I don't want to be too optimistic. Did you fail to get the assurances that you wanted?
PRIME MINISTER PRUNSKIENE: I think that I was successful in expressing our interests, our concerns and describing our future plans. But in terms of the President's future involvement I don't have any clear indications and I only hope the Lithuanian nation joins me in this hope that the President will join me in seeking solutions to these questions.
MR. MacNeil: But he has not said he would yet is that true?
PRIME MINISTER PRUNSKIENE: Because I did not openly ask him whether he is going to do that and my request and the request of the Lithuanian nation was made indirectly.
MR. MacNeil: I see. Did he promise anything?
PRIME MINISTER PRUNSKIENE: I couldn't say. I got the impression from the general tone. I got the clear impression that he has good intentions to support Lithuania's independence. I understood that as a leader of a great country he is not indifferent to this matter and in a direct indirect manor he is going to evolve in this process.
MR. MacNeil: So will you go back to Vilnius happy with your visit?
PRIME MINISTER PRUNSKIENE: Without a doubt. First of all as I was leaving Lithuania I did not have clear plans I was not certain that I would have the opportunity to meet with President Bush and I am happy to have had that opportunity.
MR. MacNeil: The fact that he agreed to see you. The first time that an American President has talked to an elected official from Lithuania is significant in itself to you is it?
PRIME MINISTER PRUNSKIENE: Without a doubt it is important. Especially when the situation is very complicated and when it is necessary for all sides not just Lithuania but also the Soviet Union's leadership and in addition leaders of other countries to make very informed decisions. The outcome will be satisfactory to all sides.
MR. MacNeil: The fact of Mr. Bush seeing you today even though you are on a private visit will send a signal to Moscow?
PRIME MINISTER PRUNSKIENE: I wouldn't want to provide a model for the President's future actions. This is a question of his own free will. I think we will see the results in his future activities and I think my visit will have been positive in that sense.
MR. MacNeil: Did he give you to have a clearer understanding of what he has taken the somewhat equivocal position that he has. Do you now understand that better?
PRIME MINISTER PRUNSKIENE: Yes. I understand President Bush made is sufficiently clear to me what his motives are and of course they are connected with the situation in the Soviet Union and in general with the World political situation and the balance of forces on a World level. Of course I am speaking in my own words here and I wanted see the situation from a different point of view. I wanted to see the consultation of the Lithuanian independence not just in the context of the Soviet Union but the context of other countries. I am not sure that I can convince President Bush but I think that it is quite certain that he heard what I had to say.
MR. MacNeil: Let me put the question this way. Mr. Landsbergis your President has made some rather angry statements about the U.S. position. Will you go back and explain to Mr. Landsbergis and so on that he should feel more reassured and not so angry about what the U.S. has done?
PRIME MINISTER PRUNSKIENE: I agree with you that the situation that anger is never a good solution to a political problem and I feel no anger. I don't want to make accusations of anyone in advance. And my view on this was expressed to President Bush himself and I have said this more than once.
MR. MacNeil: You are seeking international guarantees from what you said at the Congress earlier today. Which countries are you seeking guarantees from and what precisely do you want them to guarantee.
PRIME MINISTER PRUNSKIENE: First of all these assurances are connected with the acknowledgement of the legitimacy of Lithuania's independence and also recognition of the legitimacy of the current government in Lithuania which would contribute to the further evolution of events in Lithuania.
MR. MacNeil: Well are you asking the United States to join in this guarantees?
PRIME MINISTER PRUNSKIENE: Yes. I am sorry I didn't catch the whole question. My understanding the position of the United States that it will join with the positions of President Mitteran and Chancellor Kohl. This would be acceptable to us.I understood from speaking to President Bush that he is supportive of this course of action in the future.
MR. MacNeil: Now President Mitteran and Chancellor Kohl asked your Government to withdraw or slow down or suspend some parts of your exercise of independence in exchange for those guarantees. Is that not right?
PRIME MINISTER PRUNSKIENE: I wouldn't say that is a question of exchange or trade. I think the question is a matter of assurances from other countries. Other countries need to consult among themselves. But it would be very important in awaiting an appropriate response from Moscow.
MR. MacNeil: You have said that you are prepared to suspend some of the execution of independence in order to compromise and get talks going with Moscow. What are you willing to suspend?
PRIME MINISTER PRUNSKIENE: First of all we can understand the Soviet Unions interests and we can suspend our laws regarding to the Army and borders and things of that matter.
MR. MacNeil: In other words you would not refuse to have Lithuanian men conscripted in the Soviet Army would that be an example. You would resume your participation in the Soviet Army temporarily.
PRIME MINISTER PRUNSKIENE: I can't say, I can't put it in the way that you are formulating it. There is a different kind of variant here. We don't forbid and we don't want to interfere in young men who take the decision to serve in the Soviet Army but we can not agree to allow the Soviet Union to take these young men in the Soviet Army by force. This is accepted by Human rights conventions documents. We can make transitional agreements so that Lithuania, this was a matter that was discussed even before we announced our independence. We can participate in the Soviets defense system satisfying both the Soviet Union's military interests and our own.
MR. MacNeil: has Mr. Gorbachev offered if you compromise on some of these laws has he offered to lift the blockade. Has that been made explicit?
PRIME MINISTER PRUNSKIENE: President Gorbachev has not made such promises. These are things that we have requested and of course we await them because the economic blockade hurts not only Lithuania but the Soviet Union and the Soviet Leadership should understand that it hurts the Soviet people.
MR. MacNeil: Do you think ultimately that Gorbachev will grant Lithuania full independence?
PRIME MINISTER PRUNSKIENE: I would like to believe that and I think there is a very big chance for him also and of these kinds of decisions are supported by other countries including President Bush he could demonstrate his own democracy and he could make his mark in history by showing that we are in a new age in Europe.
MR. MacNeil: You refereed to Gorbachev today as the World's darling. It sounded so ironic. Do you think that he is over admired by us?
PRIME MINISTER PRUNSKIENE: First of all I would like to say for many years he was my darling too and I can not say in general that I do not like President Gorbachev and sometimes I get criticized for having that view point. But I think that it is very dangerous to be too subservient to some one. I think decisions should be made which the World awaits and nations await and that is what will justify the prestige of a darling.
MR. MacNeil: Prime Minister Prunskiene thank you for joining us.
PRIME MINISTER PRUNSKIENE: Thank you. FOCUS - CHILDREN AT RISK
MS. WOODRUFF: We devote the rest of the Newshour tonight to the problems of growing up in America in the 1990s. Last week a Blue Ribbon Commission called the poverty and despair facing many American children "a staggering national tragedy". Those words were contained in an interim report by the National Commission On Children, whose 36 members were appointed by the President and Congress. A final report is due next year. We begin with a look at what many American children face as seen through the eyes of essayist Roger Rosenblatt.
MR. ROSENBLATT: If America loves children, it has a strange way of showing it. A recent story tells of the death of Celeste Carion. Celeste died at the age of twelve years and seven months, a noteworthy age because she lived a remarkably long time for a child infected with AIDS. Celeste's father addicted the child. Mr. Carion was addicted to drugs from the age of 12, the exact age of his daughter's death. Thus, with some years intervening, one 12 year old killed another. Between the cold facts of the Carion case, one reads an entire cycle in the life of American children, particularly but not exclusively American poor children. The Children's Defense Fund, an organization advocating help for children, tracks statistics on America's young. The numbers are stiffening. Of every 100 children born today, 13 will be born to mothers who are teen-agers, 15 into homes where neither parent is employed, 15 into households where the working parent earns a wage below the national poverty level, 25 will be on welfare before they reach adulthood. In 1985, 11 million children under the age of 18, 1 in every 6 American children, had no health insurance whatever. In 1986, 1.9 million children were reported abused or neglected. In 1988, the U.S. spent nearly $20 billion in welfare payments on families begun by teen-age mothers. Between 1.2 and 1.5 million children run away from home each year. The U.S. ranks 22nd in the world in infant mortality. Celeste Carion is not included among the cases of infant mortality but she ought to be included, since children with AIDS are born as good as dead. These numbers raise an accusation in the form of a question that the country seems uninterested in hearing. Does America love children? A hurried answer might be that America loves rich, white children but that too is problematical. Forms of torment suffered by rich white American children are different from those suffered by the poor, less drugs, less AIDS, but those children are hardly safe from educational deficiencies, sexual abuse, stupidity, cruelty and plain old neglect. One thinks immediately of the Lisa Steinberg killing, but the examples need not be that sensational. Survey the wealthy homes of America at any hour. Survey the children's rooms. Look into the fear, bewilderment, and loneliness of the people in those rooms and tell me that America loves children. The cultural oddity in the face of so much evidence to the contrary is that Americans make a great show of loving their children and always have. How then does the prominence given children jive with all the statistics indicating abuse, cruelty and neglect? The simplest answer may be hypocrisy, the essence of hypocrisy being self- deception, not the deception of others. It may be that America does not love children. Children are small, weak and do not vote. If America does not love children, better to say so. That way the murders of Lisa Steinberg and Celeste Carion would at least be consistent with philosophy. But if the country really means to love its children, it ought to get on with it, in schools, child care, prenatal care, health, with food and jobs and housing. There is no practical rationale for such activity. The country could get by as it is, allowing the survival of the fittest kids and burying the rest. But think back to the condition of life when you depended for everything on your elders. Then walk the streets and stare into the eyes of those who stare back at no one but you.
MS. WOODRUFF: Joining us now are five members of the National Commission on Children. Wade Horn is the Commissioner of the Administration for Children, Youth, and Families at the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. He joins us from public station WHRO in Norfolk, Virginia. Marian Wright Edelman is president and founder of the Children's Defense Found. Dr. Barry Zuckerman is director of developmental and behavioral pediatrics at Boston City Hospital. He is also a professor at the Boston University School of Medicine. David Zwiebel is general counsel for Agudath Israel of America, a national organization representing orthodox Jews and more than 500 Hebrew day schools across the country, and Bill Honig is the superintendent of schools in California. He joins us from San Diego. Marian Edelman, let me begin with you with the same question Roger Rosenblatt posed and that is, does America as a society love its children?
MARIAN WRIGHT EDELMAN, Children's Defense Fund: Well, I think as a society, no. I think that all of us love our individual children, but we have tended to make a distinction between our own children and other people's children. And we're at a point, however, where I think we're going to have to confront this dichotomy and the lack of a sense of community about our children because we really do face a crisis of unprecedented proportions. You heard the figures from Roger Rosenblatt's essay, but it is disgraceful that the wealthiest nation on earth would let children be the poorest Americans and at a time when we need every child to be strong, healthy, educated, and productive, because we have fewer children and our work force needs now are going to depend on every one of the them, you know, being educated and being well prepared to work, if we're going to be a competitive nation, so doing what is right for children, which is long overdue in America, and doing what is absolutely essential to save our economic skin and to have our work force be competitive against a unifying European community is now essential, so we have got to confront our children and ourselves and what we believe and whether we're going to invest in them now or lose our, I think, lose our ability as a nation to provide moral as well as economic leadership.
MS. WOODRUFF: Commissioner Wade Horn, does America as a society love its children?
WADE HORN, Health & Human Services Department: Well, I think there's no question that America loves its children. Far more children each year are not abused than abused. Far more children, in fact, get a good education than don't get a good education. That does not mean there are not a segment of our society and a segment of our children who are at risk. There's no question about that. But I think that there's great opportunity and great reason to be optimistic about this moment in history. I think that we as a society are focusing now again on those children, that segment of our society which are at risk. And I think that that attention that, in fact, our society is now focusing on those children who are at risk is beginning to translate into action.
MS. WOODRUFF: Bill Honig, in California, same question.
BILL HONIG, California Schools Superintendent: I think that there's no question that we're not investing in our youngsters. And it's not that we don't know what to do. We know prenatal care. We know inoculations, work with kids. We know Head Start works. And in the educational system, we know we have a good game plan for improving and I think this country's got to come to a decision. We are going to get behind an overall comprehensive approach and get on with the job, and I haven't heard that from any of the political leadership, and this commission is now in the throes of working through the specifics. If we're going to do right by our kids, here are the areas we're going to have to invest. Here are the changes in delivery systems we're going to have to initiate and get on with the job.
MS. WOODRUFF: David Zwiebel, does America as a society love it's children?
DAVID ZWIEBEL, Agudath Israel of America: Well, it's a question that I think needs to be addressed at several different levels. I think parents by and large in the United States do love their children. We have been to communities all across the country and have met parents who have been remarkably supportive of their children and their needs. At the same time the alarming rise in teen-age pregnancies and children born out of wedlock means that I think many parents today are not capable of giving the type of mature love to their children that children need. At another level, there's a question of American culture. I think American culture has most assuredly not shown love for our children. When children today are exposed and promoted for things like Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles which glorifies, I believe, violence, when popular culture, in general, does not promote the notion of human dignity, which is ultimately the bottom line of what we need to teach our children in terms of values, I think there are some very severe problems in this country in terms of the love that we show our children.
MS. WOODRUFF: And Dr. Barry Zuckerman, the same question.
DR. ZUCKERMAN: I'm concerned that we've hurt our children in the last number of years. And I think part of it is that society is, the adults are disconnected from the children on a regular basis in terms of jobs, in terms of how they run their lives. If many people could see what I see where I work as a clinician, what the Commission has seen as part of the tours when you see parents heroically struggling to help their children when their child has a chronic illness or when the children are living in poverty, all of us would want to help. I don't think we see that and we feel it like I do as a clinician and like the commission members have during the traveling around the country, meeting families in their homes and going to town meetings.
MS. WOODRUFF: Marian Edelman, why is it that here we are in the last decade leading into the 21st century having had, what, eight years of economic expansion and growth in this country, having all the medical and technological and scientific advances and so forth and we still have the statistics on children, how could this be? What happened?
MS. EDELMAN: Well, I ask myself that every morning when I get up and I look at these statistics and I never get used to it, because we say we're the wealthiest nation on earth and we have the means, we know the things that do work. I think that some part stems from the fact that children are weak, they don't vote, they don't lobby, they don't make campaign contributions, and so as a result, we have politicians who kiss our babies in election campaigns, but when they are elected to govern, children because they are weak and don't have that strong constituency which we are going to build in this country so that we can place them first rather than last tend to get overlooked. That is beginning to change as more churches and as the business community who are powerful are beginning to understand that we've got to invest in our children if we're going to be competitive in the near future so that self-interest is beginning to coincide with what is right. But, secondly, I think that we have had this very privatistic view about who should take care of children, who is responsible for children. It's a parental thing, and I agree that parents are the most important things in people's lives, but our policies have not kept pace with the realities of family life that produce --
MS. WOODRUFF: You mean our government policies.
MS. EDELMAN: Our government policies or our private sector policies frankly do not value and support parenting and do not deal realistically with the work, family struggles of all parents of all incomes and all classes. We do not have parental leave policies. We do not have a decent child care system even though a majority of mothers of preschoolers are in the labor force. We don't recognize all the needs of teen-age parents and single parents, and there are many millions of poor parents, so we've really got to begin to look at our families and see how we can support them, rather than judge them and say they should be what the good old family was in the good old days.
MS. WOODRUFF: Commissioner Horn, do you see the root causes the same way Marian Edelman does?
COMMISSIONER HORN: Well, I think that there's danger in saying that the primary reason why children may be at risk today is because of low income. I think that's one reason but it's not the only reason. In fact, there are other factors, some that may, in fact, be more important than low income that face the children who are at risk at risk. For example, there are far far too many children being born to unwed mothers today and particularly to very young unwed mothers, and that does place those children at risk, because one way to fast track into poverty is, in fact, to have a child, when you are very young, under educated, not employed, and unmarried. I think that in addition to that that there's an explosion of the use of illegal substances in this country, particularly crack cocaine, and that when I travel in this country and I hear people talk about what is threatening family life, what is threatening children, again and again I hear the issue of substance abuse and particularly substance abuse on the part of parents and we need to do something about that. And thirdly I think that another issue that's very important, you know, we talk about the dissolution of family life. Well, I'll be very honest with you. In some ways I'm almost less concerned now about the dissolution of families and much more concerned about the failure to form families in the first place. If you don't form families, you have nothing to dissolve. I think that we really have to get back into the business of supporting the formation of families to ensure that children when they do grow up, they grow up in families that are fully formed and able to be supportive to our nation's children.
MS. WOODRUFF: Bill Honig in California, do those sound like the areas that have fallen apart, that are the cause of this problem now confronting us?
MR. HONIG: Well, I think people have talked about the right issues, and our problem as a commission, we've got different ways of looking at this, can we fashion out of these diverse views a comprehensive plan for action? And that's what we're going to be doing over the next year. We have to support families. We have to fully fund some of these programs for Medicare, medical support for prenatal care and post natal problems, and we have to do something about Head Start. We know what we have to do within schooling. And I was just this morning in San Diego visiting a program for pregnant youngsters who have had babies and help that they're giving in parenting and that's crucial. And it's a great program, but only one out of ten kids can get into a program like that. So I think we've got the idea of how to do something about these problems and then putting them and fashioning them together so you chip away at the problem is what we're going to be after. And then I think we can present this nation, here's the game plan for the '90s, here's where we want to be in the year 2000, we've got to sign off across the board not on everything, but generally enough, and I think we will reach that consensus.
MS. WOODRUFF: What is missing, David Zwiebel? When you hear, and I know you've given all this a great deal of thought, you're on the commission as well, what is missing, what is the missing ingredient or ingredients?
MR. ZWIEBEL: Well, there are many missing ingredients. I think we've got to get back as a nation to certain very basic values in terms of, as I mentioned before, the concept of human dignity and impressing our children about the importance of that. I think also Marian spoke before about the notion of parental responsibility. And I think that parental responsibility is indeed the key. Parents need to understand in this country and we've got to create a climate where parents understand that ultimately the first and foremost responsibility for the welfare of their children, the physical welfare, the material welfare, the spiritual welfare for their children ultimately rests with the parent. And I think that somehow many parents in this country have lost that notion of responsibility. They think that when they send their children to school, it's the school's responsibility to educate the child. Of course, the school stands in as an agent of the parent, but ultimately it's the parent who is obligated and responsible for the child's education, for the child's welfare, and the child's well being.
MS. WOODRUFF: Well, let's pick up on that, Marian, because I thought I heard you say that yes, parents do have a responsibility, but it's a bigger issue.
MS. EDELMAN: Parents raise children in the context of communities. Communities also have responsibility for children and many parents who want to do a good job, if there is no job, they're not going to be able to support their children, if there is no job with health insurance, they are not going to be able to get that child the health coverage they need to be born healthy. We have got to make sure that we have a basic floor of decency under our families. I think families want to work. Most parents do want to work, but we have many millions of families who are working and who are still poor and who cannot meet the children's needs. We have an infant mortality rate of an under developed nation. Our government should provide for families the means and communities should enable families to do a good job in parenting.
MS. WOODRUFF: All right. Wade Horn, when you hear this, everybody keeps, not everyone, but several of you mentioned government has a role, how much of a role does the government have? How much of a responsibility for what we're talking about falls on the shoulders of the federal government in your mind?
COMMISSIONER HORN: I think there is a very important role for the federal government and a very important role for it to play. I think for example that it does have a role to bully pulpit these issues, to focus the attention of the nation on the needs of children. In addition to that, I do think it also needs to develop and support some well crafted, well targeted programs to support children who are at risk. One terrific example of that is the Head Start program. The Head Start program takes as its assumption that parents are the primary educators of its children and supports that notion in all of the programming that it does with our nation's preschoolers. I think that another area that we need to look at and be involved with is in terms of expanding the number of children who, in fact, do get adequate prenatal care in this country. And in fact, we're doing that. Over the last year we have raised the eligibility level in terms of eligibility for Medicaid for women and young children from something like 83 percent to 133 percent of the poverty line. So I think there is a role for that.
MS. WOODRUFF: All right. Let's bring Dr. Zuckerman in there. Do you agree that the government is doing all it can do at this point in the infant mortality area, which is a major problem here?
DR. BARRY ZUCKERMAN, Pediatrician: I think the government is funding the programs that need to be funded but all eligible children need to have those. We have to treat the whole child and the whole family, so prenatal care, Head Start, pediatric care, adequate nutrition, it's not good enough if children only have one, two or three of those. Children need all of those, so if it doesn't work, it's not that the programs don't work. It's that if there are two or three medical problems and I only treat one, the person is still going to be ill. So we have a variety of programs that are important to children, but if only one in five children get Head Start and only one in two children get adequate nutrition, those other children are suffering.
MS. WOODRUFF: And you're saying that's the government's responsibility to pick up the slack there?
DR. ZUCKERMAN: I think as the commission's going to deliberate, I think it's society's responsibility. Government has an important role to provide leadership, our political leaders have a role in that, but also business has a role in that, communities have a role. This is something that society has to do together. It's not just the government. I think our job is to identify what works and what communities, families and children need, but I think we all have to work together.
MS. WOODRUFF: Marian
MS. EDELMAN: I agree with that. I think the entire community, from the churches and synagogues, to the government and private sector need to be looking at how we can support parenting, help parents meet their children's needs, but we also have to make sure that when government is there as a last resort and when corporations are not providing health insurance or not providing child care for their employees or not providing parental leave or health insurance, that no child will grow up in America, the wealthiest nation on earth, without immunization, without prenatal care, without preventive health care and nutrition, without quality child care which we're debating and which most industrialized nations provide, and I think at some point this country in the '90s has to come to grips after we do these targeted programs and give our children a strong early childhood foundation, make sure that the full funding is there for the programs that we know work, and which save money, but we've got to confront whether we can eliminate child poverty in America.
MS. WOODRUFF: But, Bill Honig, when we hear the prescriptions for what needs to be done, we are really a very long way away from getting those things done. I mean, it seems to me it would be easy for any of us to be, to feel that it's sort of a hopeless job. I mean, this is an enormous undertaking we're talking about here.
MR. HONIG: I don't think so. We've got examples of these programs that work. We know, you've heard all different points of view expressed. We've got to fully fund some of these areas that are high pay off and I think another area that hasn't been talked about is --
MS. WOODRUFF: Well, the fully funding, let's stop it there. Fully fund, how much money are we talking about here?
MS. EDELMAN: You're talking about an investment that is going to save many more billions of dollars. It costs a dollar -- every dollar you invest in immunization saves ten dollars on the other end. Yet, we have now our zero to two year olds with polio immunization rates that are behind children in Botswana. Prenatal care saves money, it's an investment. We can't afford not to do it. Every dollar we invest in Head Start or quality child care saves much more. So you're not talking about a lot of money. You're talking about systematically moving to invest preventively to save later costs.
MR. HONIG: I think the issue is this. Are we going to take the long view? If we take a strategic planning view that business does and say where do we want to be in the next 10 years, then what Marian is saying makes sense, because dollar invested pays off. The problem is that the political horizon is next month or next election and somebody has got to force our political leadership in this country to take the long view, or we all end up paying for it, and I think that's the major point. If you don't invest now, you pay later, so you might as well get organized, figure out a plan for children in this country, and get on with it. Another point - -
COMMISSIONER HORN: I agree that one has to take the long view, but I must take exception that government is failing and political leadership is failing to take the long view in any aspect. For example, for the last two years in a row, the President has proposed the largest two single year increases in the Head Start program in its 25 year history. It's hard for me to say, given that evidence, that we're not taking the long view. I think that there needs to be more done and that we're on our way though, that we are starting to understand.
MR. HONIG: I don't buy the argument that just because you increase a program, if you have kids who don't get immunized and for the small amount of money available, you're not doing your job. If you have kids not in Head Start and you know it pays off, you're not doing the job. So it doesn't matter that you're expanding. The question is we have to fully fund those programs now and if it costs some money to do it, let's get behind it and get it done.
MS. WOODRUFF: What about that, Mr. Horn?
COMMISSIONER HORN: Well, we're asking this year for a $500 million increase in the Head Start program. That would bring us almost to a $2 billion budget. Now that compares two years ago to a $1.2 billion budget. In two years we will have expanded by $750 million in that one program alone. Now one has to also be somewhat considered and when one talks about expanding programs, you don't want to expand so quickly that there is not either the capacity to get the money out responsibly, nor the capacity for communities to absorb those kinds of increases.
MS. WOODRUFF: Does he have a point, Marian Edelman?
MS. EDELMAN: He has a half point. In fact, the $500 million on Head Start is terrific, but we're supporting a bill that's $1 billion in Head Start this year with Sen. Dodd and others. You know, the President proposes $500 million for Head Start, but he proposes $5.5 billion for the B-2 Stealth bomber. We're talking about very small investments, and I'm glad to see us moving ahead in prenatal care and Medicaid coverage, but we're still talking about enormous investments in things like the savings & loans. The priorities of this nation still and of this administration still are to invest small amounts incrementally, which is a good step forward, in our children, while investing astronomical amounts in the non-needy, in the defense budget, and we've got to reverse those priorities if we're going to eliminate child poverty and give every child a head start and indeed, achieve the educated children that all of us want to have.
MS. WOODRUFF: David Zwiebel, I want to come back to you in just one second, but first, Barry Zuckerman, you've been sitting here patiently.
DR. ZUCKERMAN: Thank you. We talked about an enormous undertaking and the analogy to me is when you have a child that's an enormous undertaking, and for society, it's all of society's children, parents, there's an outlay of money, parents change their whole life. Having and rearing a child at an individual level is enormous. The struggle and talk I'm hearing now is another way that people are talking about, just like parents do, what best to do. And I think it's important in the struggle to understand that raising individual children is difficult. It's hard. For society to care for all of its children is difficult and hard. And these kind of struggles are normal. And I think obviously what the commission is going to try and do is to take these kind of viewpoints and really sort of forge a plan that will allow us to meet really because we share the same goals for our children and really what we have to do is develop and implement policies to meet those goals.
MS. WOODRUFF: David Zwiebel, you talked earlier about changing the culture. I guess you were talking about the expectations we have of our children, what they expect of us. What did you mean by that?
MR. ZWIEBEL: Well, in part I'm speaking about I think a culture that sends a certain message to children and the message is that it's a materialistic message in a sense. In another sense it's a very I guess a violent message. In a certain sense, it's a message that Hedonism is an appropriate and good and healthy thing, ultimately messages as I said before that I believe detract from the notion of human dignity.
MS. WOODRUFF: But those are all things that are givens in 1990 in America, aren't they?
MR. ZWIEBEL: Well, I would hope not. I think that that's a fatalistic view of society in the United States. I think that as a culture we can begin to try and do better. I think that we can emphasize values. I think that there are values that our schools can start to emphasize that are not necessarily tied in with any specific religious beliefs but just are the types of basic American values that have always stood this country in very good stead and we're starting to see an erosion of that. And so I think it's a fatalistic and a pessimistic view to say that we have to give up in the 1990s on the notion that we want our children to be a better moral society as well. So I'd like to reject that and certainly hope that the commission will reject that type of fatalism.
MS. WOODRUFF: Marian.
MS. EDELMAN: I agree with him. I think that we can transform American values. I think that the American public is ready to confront the crisis in our children and families. We know that things are not well. And it's not just poor children who are in trouble. They're in trouble because they don't have their basic survival needs, but all of our children are at risk in many ways. Drugs are a symptom of a broader lack of community and lack of purpose and lack of striving and I think that this is going to be the central issue of debate throughout the society if we're going to sort of get our bearings again.
MS. WOODRUFF: But I'm hearing two things here. I'm hearing, No. 1, that we've got an enormous problem on our hands, and on the other hand, that we're not that far away from a solution.
MS. EDELMAN: Well, there's so much that we know that works. There's no secret about how to immunize children. There's no secret about how to private prenatal care or good quality child care. We just need to get the bill through, the President needs to sign it, and we need to get that child care out to families. We know how to do the basic preventive things to give children a good early childhood education. We know how to educate poor children and all other kinds of children. The point is we just need to do it.
MS. WOODRUFF: So it's a matter of passing legislation.
MS. EDELMAN: It's not just legislation. It's also implementing it and funding it. We need to pass child care legislation. It is absolutely disgraceful that we're among the only industrialized nations that do not have parental leave and quality child care programs for our working families of all incomes and all classes. But yes, we do need to pass some legislation. But we also need to begin to change the priorities of our values to spend more time with our kids to value parenting and our private sector work policies and our governmental policies. I mean, we need to begin to re-establish a sense of community responsibility for all ages. I mean, the kid who is snuffing, sniffing cocaine out in these rich suburban homes are as disconnected from any sense of purpose and motivation as those young people who are in the ghetto taking crack.
MS. WOODRUFF: Finally to you, Commissioner Horn, for the final word in all of this, are you optimistic, pessimistic, should our audience be optimistic or pessimistic?
COMMISSIONER HORN: I think there's great reason to be optimistic. I think that we're seeing a great deal of attention focused on these issues. The existence of this national commission is one piece of evidence that there is, in fact, an interest in this country in focusing on these questions and I think we're starting to see some real, there are some real efforts to try to attack the problems that are facing our children, and I think we should all be optimistic that we can move forward with this agenda.
MS. WOODRUFF: Well, we thank you all very very much. Wade Horn, we thank you, David Zwiebel in New York, Bill Honig in San Jose, Dr. Zuckerman, Marian Edelman, thank you all for being with us. RECAP
MR. MacNeil: Once again, Thursday's main stories, Pres. Bush, citing the sweeping changes in the Soviet Bloc, said the U.S. has cancelled plans to modernize short range nuclear missiles in Europe. Earlier today the President met with Lithuania's Prime Minister Kazimiera Prunskiene. In an interview with the Newshour after her White House meeting, the prime minister said she did not ask for, nor did she get any promises of help from Pres. Bush,but she said she got a better understanding of U.S. policy towards Lithuania. Good night, Judy.
MS. WOODRUFF: Good night, Robin. That's our Newshour for tonight. We'll be back tomorrow night. I'm Judy Woodruff. Thank you and good night.
Series
The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour
Producing Organization
NewsHour Productions
Contributing Organization
NewsHour Productions (Washington, District of Columbia)
AAPB ID
cpb-aacip/507-5t3fx74h32
If you have more information about this item than what is given here, or if you have concerns about this record, we want to know! Contact us, indicating the AAPB ID (cpb-aacip/507-5t3fx74h32).
Description
Episode Description
This episode's headline: Crusade for Change; Government Crisis. The guests include KAZIMIERA PRUNSKIENE, Prime Minister, Lithuania; MARIAN WRIGHT EDELMAN, Children's Defense Fund; WADE HORN, Health & Human Services Department; BILL HONIG, California Schools Superintendent; DAVID ZWIEBEL, Agudath Israel of America; DR. BARRY ZUCKERMAN, Pediatrician; ESSAYIST: ROGER ROSENBLATT. Byline: In New York: ROBERT MacNeil; In Washington: JAMES LEHRER
Date
1990-05-03
Asset type
Episode
Topics
War and Conflict
Military Forces and Armaments
Politics and Government
Rights
Copyright NewsHour Productions, LLC. Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode)
Media type
Moving Image
Duration
01:00:18
Embed Code
Copy and paste this HTML to include AAPB content on your blog or webpage.
Credits
Producing Organization: NewsHour Productions
AAPB Contributor Holdings
NewsHour Productions
Identifier: NH-1713 (NH Show Code)
Format: 1 inch videotape
Generation: Master
Duration: 01:00:00;00
If you have a copy of this asset and would like us to add it to our catalog, please contact us.
Citations
Chicago: “The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour,” 1990-05-03, NewsHour Productions, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed November 13, 2024, http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-507-5t3fx74h32.
MLA: “The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour.” 1990-05-03. NewsHour Productions, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. November 13, 2024. <http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-507-5t3fx74h32>.
APA: The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour. Boston, MA: NewsHour Productions, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-507-5t3fx74h32