[Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George H. W. Bush (1991, Book I)]
[March 13, 1991]
[Pages 257-265]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]



The President's News Conference With Prime Minister Brian Mulroney of 
Canada in Ottawa
March 13, 1991

    The Prime Minister. The President and I had an opportunity for 
slightly over an hour so far to review both some bilateral relationships 
and problems that we do have in the trade area and elsewhere, but also 
to begin the process of discussing the evolving situation in the Middle 
East.
    As you know, Secretary of External Affairs Joe Clark is returning 
tonight to join us at dinner after an extensive trip throughout the 
Middle East. He left Tehran earlier today and will be back, and we look 
forward to pursuing these questions later on tonight.
    Mr. President.
    The President. Thank you. The only thing I'd say before taking 
questions is that I would like to take this opportunity to thank the 
Canadian people and the Prime Minister for the steadfast support for the 
coali-

[[Page 258]]

tion and for the principle of standing up against this aggression in the 
Middle East. And Canada, from day one, was on board, steadfast. And the 
Prime Minister and I were in touch a lot. And I valued his counsel then, 
and I value his counsel now. But I really wanted to thank the Canadian 
people for the warm reception today and for their role in the coalition.

Arms Control

    Q. Mr. President, as you know, our Prime Minister has proposed a 
global arms summit under the U.N. auspices to stop the spread of both 
conventional and nonconventional weapons. I was wondering, sir, if you 
could tell us whether you endorse that mechanism as a way of tackling 
this problem.
    The President. One of the goals that I spelled out, one of the 
points I made in my speech to our Congress was the need to do something 
about the proliferation of weapons. I'll have a chance to talk to Prime 
Minister Mulroney about that. I'm not sure exactly what the proper 
structure is, but clearly, that idea might have some merit. But again, 
it's a little early. He has not asked me to endorse that proposal, and 
again, I would like to talk to him before I commit ourselves further on 
it.
    But the idea of coming together in a multilateral way to do 
something about the proliferation of weapons into the Middle East is 
something that has some appeal to me. We've seen multilateral diplomacy 
try and, in some ways, be effective in the Middle East, and I don't want 
to forget that. I don't want to start going it alone, and I don't think 
Canada wants to start going it alone.

Middle East Peace Process

    Q. Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to ask you about Secretary 
Baker's trip to the Middle East. Do you see any sign that Israeli or 
Palestinian leaders are willing to make any kind of fundamental change 
in their long-held positions?
    The President. Well, I would say this, Terry [Terence Hunt, 
Associated Press], that the reports--and I've gotten a report every 
night, each night, from Jim Baker, and then Brent Scowcroft has been, I 
think, even in more touch with him. I think that the Secretary feels 
that the climate is now better than it's been in a long time for making 
progress.
    I can't tell you about radically shifting positions, but it is my 
view that we ought to move forward. I think the United States is in as 
good a position, if not better position, than it has ever been to be a 
catalyst for peace there.
    Put it this way--let me rephrase it--I haven't seen anything 
pessimistic coming out of the Baker reports. I've not had the report 
since he's been into Syria. But up until then, I was fully informed, and 
I think the mood is that we have a chance now. But that's as far as I 
would want to go.
    Q. There is no sign of any change, real change, on either side?
    The President. I think to say what I just said, you'd have to assume 
that there is some kind of change. I think it's fair to say there's some 
kind of change. The threat to some of the countries in the region is 
clearly down--the threat from Iraq, which has been a major threat to 
several countries there. And that in itself is significant change and 
offers a better potential for peaceful arrangement.
    The Prime Minister. Perhaps I could just add a word to that. One of 
the reports that we've been getting from Secretary Clark, who has been a 
little ahead of Secretary Baker in some of the areas, has been the 
resounding reaction he has received from Arab leaders, most recently in 
Damascus yesterday, of the degree to which they were impressed by the 
solidarity of the coalition and the leadership of the United States in 
the war.
    They have conveyed to Mr. Clark, all of them, the extent to which 
they were impressed with the fact that the coalition went so far to 
defend an Arab country under siege. This has registered very, very 
deeply, and I think has placed the membership of the coalition, and in 
particular the United States, in a particularly--as Mr. Clark says--a 
particularly advantageous position to take advantage of what he thinks 
are new and perhaps important opportunities there.

Canadian Unity

    Q. Mr. President, have you and the Prime

[[Page 259]]

Minister had a chance yet, or will you discuss the national unity crisis 
in Canada, which has worsened significantly since your last visit here? 
And how do you regard the prospect of an independent Quebec and a 
fractured Canada on your northern border?
    The President. I would, on that question--we barely touched on the 
question, to answer the first part of your question.
    Secondly, I would say that the United States, for many years, has 
enjoyed the best possible relations with a unified Canada. I am not 
about to come up here and intervene into the internal affairs of Canada. 
But I can say from Canada's biggest trading partner and Canada's staunch 
friend, that we have enjoyed the best possible relations with a unified 
Canada. And I would leave it right there.

Future of Iraq

    Q. Mr. President, I know you're following closely the reports from 
Iraq about the troubles that Saddam Hussein is facing. I'd like to ask 
you whether you think, if you feel he is near the completion of his 
regime? And are you concerned about some of the things that are 
happening there--I think now of the Iranian involvement. Are you 
concerned about possibly the Iranians having aggressive attitudes toward 
Iraq?
    The President. Is that to both of us?
    Q. Yes, sir. You first--whoever first.
    The President. Yes, I'm concerned. I'm concerned about the 
instability. Neither the Canadians, nor the Americans, nor any other 
coalition partner wanted to see an unstable Iraq creating a vacuum in 
that part of the world. I'm not suggesting that is what is happening. 
But I'm concerned about it, and we are watching it with great interest.
    What was the second part?
    Q. I'm asking if Saddam is going to survive politically and are you 
particularly concerned about the Iranians? I mean, would you warn them 
not to try to take Iraqi territory?
    The President. I think Iran knows our view; in various ways they 
know our view that grabbing territory would be counterproductive. And I 
could take this opportunity to suggest that that would be the worst 
thing they could do. And I know that I would speak confidently for our 
coalition partners in the Gulf on that point. I'd let the Prime Minister 
speak for himself.
    On the question of Saddam, I have said over and over again that I 
think it's almost impossible--put it this way--is impossible to have 
normalized relations with Iraq while Saddam Hussein is in there. As the 
brutalities in Kuwait come out, as people see this environmental 
terrorism--right, looking it in the face over there--I think people are 
feeling more strongly than ever that what he has done in brutalizing 
that country and in the burnt, the scorched-earth policy, as he's 
violated every tenet of any concern for the environment, is beneath even 
contempt.
    So, it is hard to see how an Iraq with him at the helm can rejoin 
the family of peace-loving nations. And, of course, there is this U.N. 
sanction question of damages that has to be addressed. But as one 
assesses the damage in Kuwait, I think the blame has to be put right 
squarely on his shoulders.
    The Prime Minister. You can't find, I wouldn't think, a person in a 
civilized country who would do anything but expect and hope for a change 
in the leadership, a quite vile leadership, that we have seen in Iraq.
    To go to the first part of your question, one thing that Mr. Clark 
has picked up in the last week is an opinion quite contrary to the view 
that the coalition or the United States might adopt quite a leisurely 
pace in dealing with problems in the Middle East. There's a sense of 
urgency that Canada has picked up and we have conveyed to our partners 
about not sitting idly by and saying, well, perhaps 6 months or 9 months 
or a year from now we'll get around to this.
    There is a request from all of the moderate Arab leaders who have 
been partners of ours in the coalition for prompt attention to some of 
the very serious matters that have emerged in the region.
    The President. May I clarify one thing, John [John Cochran, NBC 
News]? I'm a little nervous about my answer on Iran. I have no evidence 
that that's what Iran is trying to do. But as Iran has stated over and 
over again, their concerns about the U.S. keeping some permanent 
foothold in that part of the world--I will say today that Iran

[[Page 260]]

must not and should not try to annex any of the territory of Iraq.
    Having said that, being fair to the Iranians, I have no evidence, 
and I don't think the Canadians do, that Iran intends to do that. And I 
want to be clear on that point.

Jordan-U.S. Relations

    Q. Mr. President, there were published reports this morning that you 
had received a letter from King Hussein a couple of weeks ago, and that 
that letter has yet to be answered. Do you intend to answer it? And 
also, I'd like to ask if Mr. Clark's visit to Jordan was helpful in 
setting a new course for U.S. relations with----
    The President. Of course I'll answer his letter. I've expressed 
myself on the Jordanian question, on our relationship with the King, 
over and over again. But yes, I have received a letter, and yes, I will 
respond to it in normal course of events. I mean, it's not being held 
up; there's no delay, anything of that nature.
    The Prime Minister. One of the reasons I asked Mr. Clark in 
particular to visit Jordan immediately after the hostilities was because 
King Hussein is, in certain quarters, below the salt these days. And 
Canada believes that he continues to play--notwithstanding his position 
in the hostilities, which we don't share, obviously--he continues to 
play and will play an important role in the future.
    And we have made major contributions to the refugee problems that he 
has encountered. We have made other financial contributions because--and 
Mr. Clark had a very productive series of meetings with him--because we 
believe that, at an appropriate time, members of the coalition will of 
course want to resume a dialog with King Hussein. And we did not want 
that bridge to be permanently ruptured.
    Mr. Clark, I can tell you, spent some hours with the King and his 
officials. And clearly, there's a desire on his part to resume 
progressively normal relationships both with the United States and the 
Arab leadership of the coalition.

Allied Consultations on the Middle East

    Q. Mr. President, what specifically are you seeking in these allied 
consultations? Do you have some kind of idea of a coalition concerted 
action?
    The President. On the consultations that Secretary Baker is having?
    Q. And what you're doing here with Canada, France, and Britain.
    The President. Well, a lot of our consultation today will be talking 
as coalition partners, longtime friends, countries that are friendly, as 
to what we do about the Middle East. But we also are into some bilateral 
questions. And we are, after all, the biggest trading partner--Canada is 
our biggest trading partner, so we'll be discussing some trade questions 
as well.
    But what I said earlier was not just boilerplate. We have seen eye-
to-eye on the threat in the Middle East. And I am confident that when we 
talk to Minister Clark, who's coming back tonight, that I will get 
through his eyes and through the consultation with Prime Minister 
Mulroney a needed extra dimension on what's happening in that part of 
the world he's been. He's been into Syria; he's been to Jordan, I 
understand it; he's been to Israel. And of course, that question of 
Lebanon, the question of Israel, the Palestine question are all key.
    We've got the Lebanon, we've got the Israeli-Palestinian question, 
and then we have the Gulf question. So, it is very important that 
coalition partners and normal friends as we are, stay in very close 
touch. So, that's what the consultation will be about.

Middle East Peace Process

    Q. You mentioned the unity of the coalition in times of war. To what 
extent are you seeking unity in this postwar period, specifically on the 
Israeli-Palestinian question and the idea of land for peace?
    The President. I've already expressed myself in terms of our 
continued support for [United Nations Security Council Resolutions] 242 
and 338 that address themselves to that question. So, we are not backing 
off from that. But I think that we have a real opportunity. I think we 
have renewed credibility in that part of the world. I think there is a 
recognition in Israel that, in reducing the threat to them by the victo-

[[Page 261]]

ry over Saddam Hussein, we've done something solid for peace. And I know 
there's that same sense of appreciation and understanding in the Gulf.
    So, I think the coalition partners, such as Canada and the United 
States, are in the best position we've been in, in a long, long time not 
only to stay in touch and consult, but to get something done in these 
three areas that have been denied peace for far too long.

Cease-Fire in Iraq

    Q. What is your assessment, please, of where we stand on the 
achievement of a permanent cease-fire and how it might affect the 
ability of U.S. troops to be pulled out of southern Iraq?
    The President. One, I'll restate my view that I want our troops to 
come home as soon as possible. I've just been elated as I've watched the 
troops come home and the warmth of the welcome and all of that. There 
are some details to be worked out on the cease-fire--the return of all 
the prisoners, accounting for those who have not been accounted for. I 
must confess to some concern about the use of Iraqi helicopters in 
violation of what our understanding was. And that's one that has got to 
be resolved before we're going to have any permanence to any cease-fire. 
And so there are several details remaining out there.
    Q. Generally, are you satisfied with the progress, or do you think 
the Iraqis could do better?
    The President. Very much satisfied with the progress that has been 
made since General Schwarzkopf met in the tent, but there are still some 
very important things to be taken care of, including the fact that these 
helicopters should not be used for combat purposes inside Iraq.

Palestine Liberation Organization

    Q. Do you and the President see eye-to-eye on the role of the PLO 
under the current leadership?
    The Prime Minister. My own opinion is the one that I gave the House 
of Commons the other day. I think that the credibility of the leadership 
of the PLO is zero. When you have people encouraging Scud missiles as 
they rain down on Israel and actively siding with the enemy in a major 
war, then of course you have people, as far as I'm concerned, of very 
questionable credibility.
    Canada has always taken the position that there has to be a solution 
to the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinians. And it is up to the 
Palestinian people to choose their representatives. And it's not up to 
Canada or the United States or, I assume, anyone else to impose choices 
on them. But if we had our druthers, I think you can conclude what it 
might be.
    For the life of me, I can't figure out why anyone would be 
supportive of a group of people who have displayed such consistently 
egregious judgment. But the United States may have a different view on 
it.
    The President. I've expressed my disappointment in the PLO. The PLO, 
you remember--I believe it was at the Rabat summit years ago, was 
designated as the sole spokesman for the Palestinian people. But their 
leader chose wrong on this; went far beyond where he had to go in order 
to express his understanding about the dilemma that Iraq was in. Put it 
this way: he supported Saddam overly zealously and diminished his 
credibility--not any further in the United States, necessarily, because 
it had gone way down when those terrorist vessels came along the coast 
of Israel. But he diminished his credibility in the Arab world. He 
diminished his credibility with the coalition partners.
    So, whether there is something that can come out of that 
organization that has been designated the spokesman for the Palestinian 
people that will be more reasonable or more sensible, let's hope there 
will be. But I don't think we're very far apart, if at all, on this with 
that the Canadian Prime Minister has said.

Arms Sales to the Middle East

    Q. Mr. President, since you cited the reduced threat to Israel here 
this afternoon and your desire to halt the proliferation of arms in the 
region, are you reconsidering any potential arms sales to Israel, and is 
the administration reconsidering its pledge, promise, commitment--
whatever you want to call it--to sell some $15 billion worth of arms to 
Saudi Arabia?

[[Page 262]]

    The President. When the Secretary of State gets back, we will be 
talking about that whole question. I have repeated my desire to try to 
curb proliferation. That doesn't mean we're going to refuse to sell 
anything to everybody. We're not going to cut off all weapons sales. We 
don't want to see imbalances develop. We won't want to see the threats 
to individual countries increased because of imbalance. But it is a 
subject, Jim [Jim Miklaszewski, NBC News], that we will be talking about 
and trying to find an answer to.
    I don't know what the questions are before the Congress now or the 
administration in detail on Israel requests. We think we've been pretty 
generous and fair in terms of this recent appropriation bill with the 
State of Israel. But I'll be reserving on that before going further 
until I talk to the Secretary when he gets back.
    I would like to think that the diminished threat to Israel--and it 
is significantly diminished because of what's happened in Iraq--will be 
a reason that we will just not have ever-increasing arms sales.
    You've got other countries, though, that want arms. The Saudi sale--
that was put on kind of a hold, and I just can't tell you where that 
stands right this minute.
    The Prime Minister. Jim, no one can fail to be struck by the irony 
of the fact that most of the hardware deployed in the Middle East was 
sold to the various factions by the five permanent members of the U.N. 
Security Council. This doesn't make a whole lot of sense if, on the one 
hand, you're trying to prevent war; on the other hand, there is the 
propagation of war through policies in the past that have led to this 
kind of development.
    That's why Canada believes very strongly in the policies that we 
have put forward in regard to the control and possibly the elimination 
of these instruments of mass destruction. And that's why the President 
is examining this, because I think there is a general view, without 
getting into any question of a total interdiction for the moment, that 
clearly a lot of these weapons--to understate the case--fell into hands 
that should never have had them in the first place. So, that is why our 
policy is predicated on that kind of activity affecting all of us.
    Canada adheres to that policy today. I mean, we could be much more 
active in that area if we wanted. We have all the technology in the 
world. We have all the resources we need. We could be big arms 
merchants. We've chosen not to be, even though it's a very lucrative 
business. We've chosen not to be because it's fundamentally inconsistent 
with our policy--to develop it, to peddle it, to finance it, and then to 
deplore its use. And that is where Canada has taken a very vigorous and, 
we think, appropriate stand.
    I know that in his comments earlier some weeks ago, President Bush 
alluded to the same problem and wants to rein in and circumscribe that 
problem. That's why we're where we are on this issue.

Canadian Unity

    Q. And if I may, Mr. President, follow up on the previous question. 
You said that the United States enjoyed the best possible relations with 
a unified Canada. Does your administration have any concerns that 
whatever happened north of the border, trade or security arrangements 
with the United States could be jeopardized one way or the other?
    The President. As I mentioned to you--maybe you missed that part of 
it where I said I didn't want to get into the internal affairs of 
Canada, courageously on the sidelines. But I will simply say that I'm 
not going to go any further than that, but I would put a lot of emphasis 
in what I said about how we value the relations with a unified Canada. 
I'm not going to buy into all kinds of hypotheses as what might happen.
    But we are very happy--put it this way--we are very, very happy with 
one unified Canada that has been friendly, been allies--staunch allies. 
And when you have the unknown, you've got to ask yourself questions. But 
I'm not going to go into that any further.
    The Prime Minister. Let me just answer the first part of the 
question. I've indicated to the President, as he knows, that Canada has 
gone through these constitutional difficulties in the past. We never 
minimize them because they're always serious.

[[Page 263]]

They're the product of our--we are the children of our environment. And 
families are and so are nations. But Canada's accomplished an 
extraordinary amount in 123 years. And I am satisfied that we will again 
over the next 123 years, although I'm not sure I'll be around.
    The final question.

Soviet Union

    Q. Could you tell me on the eve of the Secretary's trip to Moscow 
whether you think it's in your intention for your administration now 
reach out in the Soviet Union individually to the Republics? And do you 
think that President Gorbachev's days are now numbered in power?
    The President. I will continue to deal with the President of the 
Soviet Union. That is the Government that's accredited, and that is the 
Government with which the United States Government will deal. We have 
had many, many contacts with leaders of the Republics including Mr. 
Yeltsin, including the Baltic leaders, including others that have been 
in the United States recently, including some that are considered 
opposition like the mayor of Leningrad. And we will continue to have 
those. But the last thing we want to do is to act like we are trying to 
determine the course for the Soviet Union in its internal affairs. So I 
will continue to deal--what was the last part, Ann [Ann Compton, ABC 
News]?
    Q. Whether President Gorbachev's days in power might be numbered.
    The President. I think that everyone knows that he has 
extraordinarily complicated problems facing him. But, again, I think it 
would be imprudent for me to speculate on how he's going to master these 
problems. And so, I just would leave it there.
    The Prime Minister. Mr. President, in going to Ann, I cut off the 
gentleman in the back there.

Trade With Mexico

    Q. Thank you very much. Mr. President, I want to know if you 
envision a program similar to this one with the Government of Mexico.
    The President. You mean on the environment or on the trade?
    Q. In both--trade. For the Prime Minister, I would like to know what 
he thinks of the trade agreement.
    The President. On the trade agreement we are going to push very hard 
to get what we call Fast Track authority with the Congress. It is in the 
interest of the United States of America; it is in our own interest to 
go forward, say nothing about the interest of Mexico.
    In Mexico you have a courageous new President who's taken that 
country and gotten relations with the United States in the best shape 
they've ever been in. And in terms of this trade agreement Prime 
Minister Mulroney, President Salinas, and I all agree that this 
trilateral approach makes a great deal of sense for all three of our 
countries. So, it is priority, and we will push for it.
    We have no environmental agreements of this nature that I can think 
of--I'll have to ask Mr. Reilly--that are in the works here. But I can 
tell you that we are working very cooperatively, more cooperatively than 
ever--and again, I salute President Salinas--with Mexico on 
environmental questions. We're doing much, much better in that regard.
    The Prime Minister. Perhaps a word on the proposed trilateral 
agreement which would make North America the largest and richest trading 
bloc in the world, substantially more so than Europe. But I find we have 
already entered into a bilateral free-trade agreement with the United 
States. And we know it's productive, and we know it's going to be 
progressively so over the years. And that's because liberalized trade 
throws off new wealth. What I am astonished by from time to time are the 
protectionists whom I can understand but who, for example, in looking at 
Mexico--which is a developing country, and Mexico can achieve new 
prosperity either by aid or through trade. And trade ought to be the 
preferred route. If you're going to lift people up to a new dimension of 
prosperity then you have to liberalize trading opportunities for that 
country.
    And the advantages work both ways. That is why President Bush's 
statement was so visionary: because while Canada and the

[[Page 264]]

United States had economies of equivalent degrees of maturity and 
compatibility, that of Mexico is in some areas less so. And it is an 
important step towards the integration of a developing country into a 
vast developed economy. And that is not only good for business, it's 
good for democracy because it gives individuals an opportunity to 
prosper through the ennobling means of trade, rather than through the 
instruments of aid and assistance which are a lot less noble than the 
opportunities that we can develop together. And that's why I hope that 
the trilateral measure that the President has outlined will get approval 
from the United States Senate and House and go ahead.
    The President. May I add one point to that--just an observation. Not 
only has the United States got better relations with Mexico than ever, 
but Canada has demonstrated a keen interest always--historic--in this 
hemisphere. Recently joined the OAS. Been of a special help to many 
countries in the Caribbean area and also in Central and South America.
    It is very important that while we focus on the Middle East and 
while we have our attention riveted on the changes of Eastern Europe 
that we not lose sight of the importance of this hemisphere. And I know 
the Prime Minister feels that way. And one of the things I forgot to 
mention on Lori Santos' [United Press International] question is the 
discussion, consultation of that kind of situation. We must not neglect 
it. And for the United States' part, we are trying not to--with our 
Enterprise for the Americas Initiative, for the Brady plan, for the work 
we've been doing in the Caribbean--and Canada extraordinarily supportive 
and side by side with us. So, we've got to move forward on the Uruguay 
round for GATT that's in everybody's interest. But we also must not 
neglect trade relationships in this hemisphere. And we're not going to, 
and I don't think Canada will.
    The Prime Minister. Mr. President, I'm sorry, a final--this 
gentleman here has been trying.
    The President. He's persistent.

France and the Palestine Liberation Organization

    Q. Are you going to ask France--for both of you--not to back PLO as 
the official interlocutor of the Palestinian people?
    The President. I have no interest in asking them not to back the 
PLO. I will share with President Mitterrand my disappointment over the 
way Yasser Arafat and some of his colleagues have behaved. And I will be 
probing with him to see if we can find a way to be more active catalysts 
for peace.
    And let me say I'm looking forward to seeing President Mitterrand--
because Mr. Mulroney and I were talking about this. We both have great 
respect for his knowledge of the Middle East. And we may have some 
differences with France. And, if so, I expect I'll hear them loud and 
clear down in Martinique tomorrow for lunch. But we also have a lot in 
common. And the common way we're looking at the Middle East these days 
far, far exceed the other. So, I wouldn't expect to find--and I'm 
anxious to ask him--that President Mitterrand was elated about the 
performance of Yasser Arafat, because France stood with this coalition 
early on--lots of pressures at times mounting at home--and solid as a 
rock also. And President Mitterrand led the way. Let there be no mistake 
about that one.
    So, I think in your question, I'll be listening--``Francois, what 
are you going to say about this?''--because he knows a lot about it. But 
I know he'll be disappointed in the way the PLO reacted--acted as they 
drew the wrong side. Boy, did they choose it wrong. And now, we got to 
wait--a little time. But I want to see what he thinks about it.

Cease-Fire in Iraq

    Q. What helicopters were you speaking about, sir? On the rebels?
    The President. The use of helicopters--yes.
    Q. Against the rebels?
    The President. Yes. Warning them, do not do this.

U.S. Hostages in Lebanon

    Q. What about the hostages? Have you heard anything at all about 
them?

[[Page 265]]

    The President. Which ones?
    Q. The hostages.
    The President. From Lebanon?
    Q. Yes.
    The President. No, I haven't heard anything----
    Q. What about you? Did Mr. Clark----
    The Prime Minister. No, we have not.
    Q. Did he ask about them----
    The Prime Minister. Yes, he has. I'll be seeing him tonight at 
dinner.
    The President. Every place Jim Baker goes--and I expect the same for 
Mr. Clark----
    The Prime Minister. Exactly.
    Q. I didn't hear what you said. I just didn't hear you.
    The President. I just said--of course, we ask about it, but are you 
suggesting there was something new today? If so, I haven't heard it.

                    Note: The President's 73d news conference began at 
                        4:25 p.m. in the Reading Room at Parliament 
                        Hill. In the news conference, the following 
                        persons were referred to: Canadian Secretary of 
                        State for External Affairs Charles Joseph Clark; 
                        Secretary of State James A. Baker III; Brent 
                        Scowcroft, Assistant to the President for 
                        National Security Affairs; President Saddam 
                        Hussein of Iraq; King Hussein I of Jordan; Gen. 
                        H. Norman Schwarzkopf, commander of the U.S. 
                        forces in the Persian Gulf; Yasser Arafat, 
                        leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization; 
                        President Mikhail Gorbachev of the Soviet Union; 
                        President Boris Yeltsin of the Russian Republic; 
                        Anatoly Sobchak, mayor of Leningrad; President 
                        Carlos Salinas de Gortari of Mexico; William K. 
                        Reilly, Administrator of the Environmental 
                        Protection Agency; and President Francois 
                        Mitterrand of France. Following the news 
                        conference, the President went to the U.S. 
                        Ambassador's residence, where he greeted members 
                        of the American Embassy community.