[Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George H. W. Bush (1991, Book I)]
[January 25, 1991]
[Pages 65-70]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]



Remarks on the Nomination of Edward R. Madigan To Be Secretary of 
Agriculture and a Question-and-Answer Session With Reporters
January 25, 1991

    The President. I wanted to walk in here to this news room to say
that I intend to nominate Edward Madigan, a good friend and outstanding 
Member of the United States Congress, to be the next Secretary of 
Agriculture. Ed Madigan has served for 19 years in the House of 
Representatives. He's been an aggressive leader on all agricultural 
issues, serving as the ranking minority member on the House Agricultural 
Committee. And I've known him for a long time. I've known him as a 
friend, as a leader in our party, and as a man who cares deeply about 
the farm policies of our government and the people from agricultural 
America. He has walked in the shoes of Illinois farmers. He knows their 
needs, their concerns, and most importantly, their dreams for a future 
in agriculture.
    These aren't easy times for the family farmer, but they are 
important times. And we have been--the United States--a role model for 
the world in the production of food. And yet, American farm families 
have not always enjoyed the prosperity that they deserve. I believe that 
Ed Madigan is the man to go to work on these problems. He stands tall, 
and he'll cast a big shadow in the Oval Office there as we consider 
America's agricultural future.
    And so, I want to introduce him to you, ask him to say a few words, 
and then I'll be glad to take a few questions and turn it over to Ed 
again for questions.
    Representative Madigan. Mr. President, I want to thank you for the 
confidence that you have expressed in me and for this opportunity to 
serve you and the farmers and ranchers of America.
    As you know, agriculture is the largest industry in the United 
States, employing nearly 20 percent of our total work force, and 
agriculture exports amount to nearly $40 billion each year. So, this 
will be a job that touches everyone in the country.
    My goal, Mr. President, is to carry out your desire that rural 
Americans have a strong voice in the councils of the government. Many 
issues have a major impact on the family farmers of America. And I'm 
going to work hard with you to ensure that their concerns are heard in 
these councils of government. Ensuring that America has an abundant and 
affordable and a safe food supply is a big job, but I will work hard for 
you and for these farmers, Mr. President, to justify that your 
confidence in me is warranted and that we can get this job done.
    Thank you very much.
    The President. Thank you, Ed, and I'm just delighted you're doing 
it. Big shoes to fill, and I'm glad you're taking it on.

Persian Gulf Conflict

    Now, Helen [Helen Thomas, United Press International].

[[Page 66]]

    Q. Mr. President, what can you do about the Iraqi dumping of oil in 
the Gulf? Is there any way you can offset it?
    The President. Well, there's a lot of activity going on right now 
trying to figure out what the best course of action is to clean this 
mess up, to stop this spill.
    Saddam Hussein continues to amaze the world. First he uses these 
Scud missiles that have no military value whatsoever. Then he uses the 
lives of prisoners of war, parading them and threatening to use them as 
shields; obviously, they have been brutalized. And now he resorts to 
enormous environmental damage in terms of turning loose a lot of oil. No 
military advantage to him whatsoever in this. It's not going to help him 
at all----
    Q. It won't stop an invasion?
    The President. Absolutely not. It has nothing to do with that. And 
so, I don't know. I mean, he clearly is outraging the world. But back to 
your question, there were some meetings that were concluded about 2 
hours ago. A course of action that I will not comment--I think is close 
to agreement. I'm not going to comment on what it is, but I can assure 
you that every effort will be made to try to stop this continuing spill 
into the Gulf and also to stop what has been done from moving further 
south. It's a little hard to do when the man has taken over this other 
country, Kuwait, and is using their assets in this way. But we will try 
hard, and you can be rest assured that the scientists and the oil 
people, the military are all involved--the Saudis and the Kuwaitis and 
the U.S. side--all involved in the closest consultation.
    Q. Are you speaking of a retaliation?
    The President. No, I'm speaking of what we do about this spill right 
now. We'll get to that later.
    Q. Mr. President, you said the other night that no one should cry 
for Saddam Hussein when he's brought to justice. Do you envision war 
crime trials for Saddam? And also, can you say categorically that when 
this is all over Saddam will not be allowed to remain in power?
    The President. No, I'm staying with our objectives. And the 
violation of the Geneva conventions are clear, and we'll have to see how 
that works out. We'll have to see what a post-liberation Kuwait looks 
like there in Iraq. But our objectives remain the same, Terry [Terence 
Hunt, Associated Press].
    Q. As you pointed out, Saddam has done a number of things, none of 
them really a military offensive. Are you coming to the conclusion that 
he's not going to fight?
    The President. No, I haven't reached that conclusion at all, because 
these Scud missile attacks certainly invite instant retaliation if you 
can find the mobile launchers. And we're keeping on in that quest, as I 
indicated the other day.
    Q. Well, what's he doing?
    The President. I think what he's trying to do is to rally support in 
some of the countries where he may have some. I think he's trying with 
the attacks on Israel to divide the coalition and to mount anti-Israel 
sentiment in parts of the world.
    What he is doing with--when you dump oil reserves out, unless he's 
trying to show how tough he will be for Saudi Arabia or something like 
that, I can't figure out. What he's doing when he brutally parades 
American prisoners, I can't figure that out either--or British 
prisoners, or an Italian airman. But it is not a performance that is 
winning him any points anywhere in my view.
    Q. Mr. President, a lot of Americans would like to know--since all 
these problems seem to get back, at least in your statements, to Saddam 
Hussein--why you don't target him. Is it because of the embarrassment 
you encountered in trying to bring Manuel Noriega to ground?
    The President. Hey, there's no embarrassment in that. It took 6 or 7 
days, but there wasn't any embarrassment. I felt no embarrassment at 
all. There was a man who was wanted for crimes in this country, and he's 
in prison, and he's going to have his day in court. So, I would like to 
argue with the predicate a little bit because there wasn't any 
embarrassment. But we've set our objectives. Our coalition partners are 
in accord with these objectives, and we will stay with these objectives.
    Q. But why not go after Saddam Hussein?
    The President. Because we've set our objectives. We've got our 
objectives in accord with the coalition, and we'll stay with

[[Page 67]]

them--that's why.

Soviet Union

    Q. Can I switch topics a moment? You're going to be meeting with the 
Soviet Foreign Minister on Monday after he meets with Jim Baker on 
Saturday. According to some of your aides, the scenario goes something 
like this: you now lean somewhat strongly toward postponing the February 
summit in Moscow, but if Bessmertnykh comes here and has good news on 
START and also says, listen, if you cancel this summit Mikhail Gorbachev 
is likely to be overthrown by more conservative people in Moscow, within 
the Kremlin, that you might change your mind. Any truth to any of that?
    The President. I am looking forward to the consultations that 
Secretary Baker will have with Mr. Bessmertnykh. Mr. Bessmertnykh knows 
the United States very well and he knows the difficulties that we have 
with any use of force in the Baltics. And so I would stop it right 
there, John [John Cochran, NBC News]. I am not going to go into some 
hypothesis that some aide may have discussed with you or anybody else. 
We're going to see how this plays out. And we have an arms control 
agenda that I want to see fulfilled, but whether it would be ready in 
time for the meeting that is now scheduled, I don't know. We're having 
some difficulties there, frankly. And I expect Jim Baker will be 
discussing these difficulties.
    We have some problems, obviously, on the Baltic States. We have a 
lot of common ground still with the Soviet Union. It is a country that 
has been strongly supportive of our objectives in the Persian Gulf. And 
we have an agenda that Baker and Bessmertnykh will talk about, and then 
I look forward to seeing Mr. Bessmertnykh, and then I'd be in a better 
position to respond definitively to your question.
    Q. Sir, could I just ask, is it less important than it used to be 
for you to help Gorbachev survive politically? Are you so disappointed 
in his actions in the Baltics that you have a different view of it?
    The President. I am disappointed in the Soviet actions in the 
Baltics because use of force is not the way to resolve that problem. And 
I've had an opportunity to discuss that with the President, and I know 
the difficulties that he faces. And I have not lost sight of the fact 
that Mr. Gorbachev was the catalyst, really, for much of the change that 
has taken place in Eastern Europe; had a lot to do with the 
reunification of Germany, which is obviously in the German interests and 
I think in the interests of the United States; a lot to do with common 
ground in the Persian Gulf.
    But the problems in the Baltic States, the use of force there, 
causes us great difficulty. And so the Bessmertnykh-Baker talks will 
touch on a wide array of issues--some where we have very much common 
ground, some where we have common objectives that are not fulfilled, and 
some where we might have clear differences. And at that point I will 
take a look again at the whole problem and see what must be done. And 
I'm sure the Soviets will be doing the same thing.

Persian Gulf Conflict

    Q. Mr. President, the reports from Israel now indicate that the 
injuries to civilians, perhaps deaths, may have been caused by Patriot 
missiles themselves not striking their targets, or at least if they 
struck them parts of them fell back on the civilian population--which 
raises anew the question of the sufficiency of the Patriot missile and 
the question about whether you are now contemplating additional measures 
to try to deal with this obviously persistent problem?
    The President. We are certainly dealing with that all the time and 
we want to find ways to stop it. We want to find ways to stop these 
brutal, senseless, nonmilitary-value attacks on civilian populations.
    Q. Can you give us a sense of your level of confidence in the 
Israelis continuing to show restraint here? Obviously, it can't be any 
easier for them now than before.
    The President. No, although this one--I felt I might be asked that 
question walking in here--and there's still--I'm still not certain that 
we know all the details exactly of what happened on this. I will again 
express enormous confidence in the Patriots. They are doing very, very 
well. But whether this was debris falling down from an intercept, or 
not, I simply don't want to comment on

[[Page 68]]

it because we don't yet know it for sure.
    Q. Sir, one more try on Saddam Hussein. Given that your military 
commanders have said that they're hoping that this army quits rather 
than fights and results in a bloody ground offensive, why wouldn't it be 
entirely militarily appropriate to target Saddam Hussein?
    The President. Because we are not in the business of targeting 
Saddam Hussein. I've set out our goals, and I think that--I will say 
this, as I said the other day in echoing my support for what Prime 
Minister Major of the United Kingdom said, no one will weep when he's 
gone. But having said that, we have spelled out our objectives and I 
will stay with them.
    But who knows what would happen if he left today? I would like to 
think that what I have said over and over again would resonate in Iraq, 
and that is that we have no argument with the people of Iraq. We don't 
want to see a destabilized Iraq when this is all over. But we also don't 
want to see a continuation of this aggression. We will not tolerate a 
continuation of this brutality. And so we have a mix of problems. But 
the problems are not with the people in the streets of Baghdad.
    Q. Mr. President, a couple of questions as to how the Gulf relates 
domestically. First of all, can you give the American people some sense 
of what this war is going to cost, especially insofar as you and your 
Secretary of State are turning to allies and coalition partners and 
others to help defray some of this cost? What are your projections? What 
sense can you give the American people? And secondly, on the domestic 
front, how do you respond to Clayton Yeutter and others who are seeking 
to turn this issue politically against many Democrats who may have voted 
against the force resolution?
    The President. On the first part of it, I would leave that to the 
Pentagon. That is still being computed. There have been some--that will 
be presented, obviously, to the United States Congress, that not only 
has a right to know, but has the prime obligations when in terms to 
funding these matters. I am very pleased with the cooperation and 
participation from foreign countries. I think Jim Baker today had or 
will have a statement regarding Kuwait participation. You saw yesterday 
what the Prime Minister of Japan stepped up to the plate to do. And we 
salute that. There will be more such information forthcoming, hopefully, 
next week.
    So, the burden-sharing, which is very, very important, is coming 
along pretty well. And Congress is very interested in this, and of 
course, I'm very interested in it. So, we'll be presenting that along 
with the cost figures to the Congress. But I can't give you the specific 
figures.
    Q. And may I ask you for the second part of that question?
    Mr. Fitzwater. Final question.
    The President. Oh, yes. My position on this is that this is not a 
partisan effort. I thought Lee Hamilton answered that question pretty 
well. I can't remember exactly what he said, but he said, look, I'm 
prepared to defend my vote one way or another. And I think everybody 
views it that way. And I don't want to comment on something because I 
did not see exactly what Clayton Yeutter said. I heard that he said 
today that he had absolutely no intention of making the war a partisan 
issue, because we have strong bipartisan support and, in my view, it is 
a nonpartisan approach.
    And so, I have conducted myself that way; I will continue to conduct 
myself that way. And every once in a while, you get some shots, I would 
say, that come my way, come against us on this. But I don't elect to 
think when I hear something of that nature that the Democratic Party is 
trying to make this a partisan issue, nor do I think Clayton Yeutter is 
trying to make this a partisan issue.

Upcoming Summit With the Soviet Union

    Q. You say you are going to have a look at the whole range of U.S.-
Soviet issues, but a summit has officially been set already. Can you 
tell us will you be in Moscow on February 11th?
    The President. I'm going to have to wait and discuss all this with 
Mr. Bessmertnykh after he has a chance to discuss it with Secretary 
Baker. Because, you may recall, this was to be a summit at which we were 
going

[[Page 69]]

to sign an arms control agreement, and I am told that we aren't there 
yet. So we've got to see. There's a war on in the Persian Gulf. There's 
a lot of reasons that this should be discussed by Jim Baker.
    Yes, right back there in the middle.

Budget Proposals

    Mr. Fitzwater. Final question, please.
    Q. In your budget plan that you will be sending up in February, do 
you plan to resubmit your capital gains proposal?
    The President. Stay tuned. Stay tuned.
    You get another one. You get one more. That was Sarah [Sarah 
McClendon, McClendon News]. Let's see, did you have one last time?
    Q. No, sir.
    The President. Please go ahead then.

The President's Security

    Q. Thank you, sir. Next Tuesday night when you go and give the State 
of the Union message in that great Hall of the House, where there's a 
joint session of House and Senate, all those Members there, all the 
Cabinet and the Supreme Court and the diplomats, and your wife and 
yourself, that presents a great opportunity for terrorists if they can 
get by. Why don't you give the State of the Union message quietly from 
the White House?
    The President. Well, many Presidents have given the State of the 
Union message by post office--messengers, sent it up there. And I don't 
know that any of them have been done from the White House. But if I--
when I go to the Capitol--put it that way--I will have total confidence 
in the security apparatus in this country. It doesn't bother me one 
single bit.
    And I know this man has sponsored terrorism, and we continue to be 
safeguarding in every way we can against it. But the Capitol of the 
United States will be secure, and the people that are there will be 
safe. And so, it just doesn't worry me, Sarah. Maybe it should. I'm not 
a fatalist, exactly, about this because I think we are doing things to 
keep the people's Capitol secure.
    Q. But you remember the time--shot up the Capitol.
    The President. Yes. Every once in a while you find some outbreak, 
none quite like that, though. That was probably the most violent, but it 
doesn't concern me. I'll be standing up there giving that speech with 
total confidence in the men and women of our security system. And they 
are the best. And see, that's why I hadn't considered changing. I am not 
going to be held a captive in the White House by Saddam Hussein of Iraq. 
And you can make a note of that one. We're going about our business and 
the world goes on.
    Somebody asked me a while back about the Super Bowl. Do you think we 
ought to cancel the Super Bowl because of this situation? One, the war 
is a serious business and the Nation is focused on it. But two, life 
goes on. And I'd say one thing: The kids over there in the Gulf--
somebody told me to stop saying ``kids.'' They look like kids to me, 
frankly, but I say it with a great affection. I say it with affection. 
But the boys and men and women in the Gulf, they want to see this game 
go on, and they're going to get great instant replays over there.
    And so, life goes on. And this is priority, getting this war 
concluded properly. But we are not going to screech everything to a halt 
on terms of our domestic agenda. We're not going to screech everything 
to a halt in terms of the recreational activities, and I cite the Super 
Bowl. And I am not going to screech my life to a halt out of some fear 
about Saddam Hussein. And I think that's a good, clear signal for all 
Americans to send halfway around the world.
    I admit he does irrational things. This thing today troubles me very 
much because there's no rationality to it. It looks desperate. It looks 
last gasp. It doesn't measure up to any military doctrine of any kind. 
But it's kind of sick. And yet, we are not going to be held captive to 
this kind of outrageous expression; nor will we be to the bombing of 
population centers or the brutal parading of American prisoners. And, 
boy, that one has hit me right square in the heart, I'll tell you. It's 
just outrageous what he's done.
    I really do have to go.
    Q. Mr. President----
    Q. ----amphibious landings?
    The President. Education is the subject at hand. Ed----

[[Page 70]]

    Q. Agriculture. [Laughter]
    The President. Education to the Agriculture Secretary. [Laughter]
    Q. Is it desperation, Mr. President?
    Q. Sir, couldn't the oil--Mr. President----
    The President. Ed, I apologize.

Persian Gulf Conflict

    Q. Sir, couldn't the oil interfere with amphibious landings, though? 
Doesn't that make military sense?
    The President. No, it doesn't interfere with anything.
    Representative Madigan. I think I'll leave with you.

Farm Bill

    Q. Mr. Madigan?
    The President. Agriculture.
    Q. Mr. Madigan?
    Representative Madigan. Yes.
    Q. Sir, the farmers' wives say--women involved in farm economics say 
a half a million family farmers will go out of business with this new 
1990 agriculture bill. Can you do something about it? Can you take it 
back for reconsideration?
    Representative Madigan. Well, I don't think that's true. I was a 
cosponsor of the 1990 farm bill. It received overwhelming support from 
Members of both parties in both the House and Senate. I think it's a 
very workable bill. The implementation of the bill hasn't even begun, 
and I think these are very premature remarks.
    Thank you.

                    Note: President Bush spoke at 3:02 p.m. in the 
                        Briefing Room at the White House. In his 
                        remarks, he referred to President Saddam Hussein 
                        of Iraq; Foreign Minister Aleksandr Bessmertnykh 
                        of the Soviet Union; Secretary of State James A. 
                        Baker III; Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev; 
                        Prime Minister John Major of the United Kingdom; 
                        Prime Minister Toshiki Kaifu of Japan; 
                        Representative Lee H. Hamilton; and Secretary of 
                        Agriculture Clayton K. Yeutter, nominee for 
                        chairman of the Republican National Committee. 
                        Marlin Fitzwater was Press Secretary to the 
                        President.