[Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George H. W. Bush (1992, Book I)]
[July 18, 1992]
[Pages 1129-1135]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]



[[Page 1129]]

Remarks and a Question-and-Answer Session With Outdoor Groups in Salt 
Lake City, Utah

July 18, 1992
    The President. Well, I came prepared with a few cheaters because on 
this beautiful day it is most fitting and appropriate that we talk about 
the environment, with the emphasis on those that like the outdoors and 
believe in multiple use and believe in fishing and believe in hunting 
and believe in camping. And I do, and my family does. I did want to try 
this morning, though, to put in perspective before taking questions what 
I think is a pretty good environmental record.
    I don't pretend to be able to keep every organization happy. I can't 
do that because I also have a certain--not only do I feel a sense of 
obligation to stewardship of the parks and of the wilderness and of the 
great outdoors, but I also feel a sense of stewardship towards American 
families that are trying to work for a living. To achieve a balance 
between growth and the environment is something that I think every 
President ought to feel an obligation to achieve. And I've tried to do 
exactly that.
    But before getting to the questions, and I hope it's not too self-
serving, I thought I'd just click off some accomplishments that I think 
should make a difference to those who share my love of the outdoors.
    We signed, I guess, the most forward-looking environmental 
legislation in modern times in a revival and renewal of the Clean Air 
Act, improvement of the Clean Air Act. I believe that it's going to have 
a major effect not just on the great outdoors as we all love it but on 
the cities and everything else.
    We've assessed more fines for violations of environmental policy, 
environmental law, than any previous administration. And indeed, more 
people are incarcerated for actually violating the environmental laws of 
this country.
    We've doubled the funding, doubled the funding for national parks, 
wildlife, and outdoor recreation, and tripled the funds, tripled the 
funds for States for parks and open space. I think that's a good record. 
We've proposed or added 20 new national parks, proposed or added 57 new 
wildlife refuges, added 1.5 million new acres to the national parks, and 
added 6.4 million acres to the vast Wilderness System. Twenty-seven 
hundred miles of rivers to Wild and Scenic Rivers System have been 
added.
    We've increased wetlands protection from 295 million to 812 million 
since I've been President. And I'd like to hear from some and maybe 
answer some questions on the controversy that surrounds the wetlands 
policy. But I believe our policy of no net loss is good. We've added to 
the wetlands to compensate for those areas where there has been loss.
    We've closed off the oil development in certain environmentally 
sensitive areas of the California coast, the Florida coast, and in New 
England, isolating them until the year 2000 when we can look at 
technology and look at the environment. We've established three new 
national marine sanctuaries, including the most recent one in Monterey 
Bay, which is, I guess, the largest one ever; increased funding, and 
this comes as great interest to some here, for fishing, fisheries 
management, and $80 million added to that and requested full funding for 
Wallop-Breaux.
    Let me just say here that when you get in Washington you might have 
some earmarked funds, but the propensity in the way it works with the 
Congress is they want to take those earmarked funds and use them for 
other purposes. I stood up against that because I believe in Wallop-
Breaux; I believe that the money ought to be used for what we said it 
would be used for. And I'm going to keep on fighting for that principle. 
And we fought for a lot of projects, Superfund and all, where we've not 
gotten the funding we requested. But I'm going to keep on working to try 
to do that.
    So I cite this because as you get into a political year and you get 
into a subject that has this many variations, environmental protection, 
you're bound to take some heat.

[[Page 1130]]

But I'm very proud of the record.
    The last thing I'd mention is Rio de Janeiro. I do not consider it 
leadership to go and fall in line with a bunch of other countries who 
accept standards and don't live up to them. When the United States makes 
a commitment, we ought to keep our word. Great countries, like great 
men, should keep their word. That's what a former Justice of our Supreme 
Court said, and that's the way I feel. So I did not go down there to try 
to get in line, putting standards and prohibitions on the United States 
that we couldn't live up to or didn't want to.
    So we did do well on forestry down there. We did do well on climate 
control. I have insisted that we don't make more regulations unless we 
know where the science is on these things. It's very inexact at this 
point. And yet, underlying it all was my commitment and our 
administration's commitment to a sound environment.
    So that's where we stand. I don't know how this is all set up, Val, 
but I'll be glad to go for questions. Here's one right here.
    Q. Our school last year built over 300 trees and----
    The President. This one's not working. You come over here.
    Q. Last year and every year our school built over 300 trees. And we 
did it in City Butte Canyon. Are they doing that all over the United 
States and the world?
    The President. I think so. And every little bit helps. Every tree 
planted is part of a forestation initiative that is sound. We have a 
program to plant a billion trees a year, tiny little things, but 
Government can't do this. Schools, families, whoever have to get this 
job done. The United States is the leader in forestry. We are the 
leaders in trying to preserve the great rain forests. We've got a good 
record ourselves on it.
    So what you say your school is doing, if everybody around the 
country at his or her school does the same thing, then we can achieve 
our goal. And it's very, very important. It's important to clean air. 
It's important to everything, including the sporting quality of the 
whole United States environment.
    Q. President Bush, there is an abundant amount of wildlife in the 
United States today, and it's principally because hunters and fishermen 
have spent a lot of money, time, and resources to secure their habitat, 
to provide for their game management. There's a great deal of attack on 
this traditional wildlife management tool. Specifically, proposition 200 
in Arizona is worded where they could ban hunting on public lands. What 
is your position on that issue?
    The President. You know, I'm a hunter. I happen to be a quail hunter 
of only fair proportions, I might add. [Laughter] But when I go to hunt 
every year, and I try to do it, and I go down there, and I see these 
people standing out that oppose all hunting. They are inconsiderate of 
sound game management. They're inconsiderate of people who like to hunt 
and who recognize not only the fun of the sport but also the sound 
environmental practice of thinning out herds, for example, when it comes 
to deer or whatever else it is.
    So I oppose what I consider extremists' tactics. I'd rather see 
sound management through sound sports practice than I would see some of 
these herds thinned out through famine and suffering of that kind.
    So I will stand with the hunter. I don't think there's anything in 
sound hunting that is inconsistent with sound environmental policy. And 
I don't know about that proposition, but that's the way I feel.
    Yes, sir.
    Q. Mr. President, do we expect to see a reduction in spending abroad 
to fund these policies that you are proposing and trying to continue in 
the country now?
    The President. Well, we've reduced defense spending tremendously. I 
mean, that's what overshadows all other spending that you might say 
abroad. Here's my position. We've won the cold war. What's happened, as 
I see these kids sitting here and I think about it, I think it's 
historic. They don't have little drills in their schools anymore like 
some of you all had about climbing under the desks for fear of nuclear 
warfare. The deal we hammered out with Yeltsin to eliminate these 
ICBM's, SS-18's, is major. It is a significant achievement for mankind, 
particularly for the young people in this country and elsewhere.
    We still have an obligation to help people abroad. When there's 
famine in south

[[Page 1131]]

Africa, the southern part of Africa, I do think we have an obligation. I 
got a great lesson from the church the other day on how the mission of 
the church, actually in a private way, tries to help. The Government has 
an obligation to help.
    So we're not going to be able to cut off all of our foreign aid or 
our defense because of the fact the world is a more calm, a more 
tranquil place. The spending has been reduced on defense particularly, 
and I think that we can probably reduce it more as we go along. But I 
don't think we should close our eyes to the fact that we're living in a 
place where you have terrorists, you have threats that crop up like the 
threat from the aggression of Saddam Hussein against Kuwait, where only 
the United States can stand and take action.
    On foreign aid itself, you have to look at it, as I do, for an 
insurance policy, avoiding future catastrophe, and also the humanitarian 
side.
    But to get back to your question, there will be a chance to redirect 
more of the funds from the security and foreign account to the domestic 
side. Whether it will be funneled into the environment and all I just 
can't say, because I think, as I've clicked off here at the beginning of 
this, the priorities that our administration has set--and frankly, some 
of them have been underfunded by the Congress. I'll continue to fight 
for full funding.
    Q. As was alluded to earlier, wildlife populations are healthier and 
more numerous today than they have ever been. There are a few people who 
would stop hunting on our public lands, hunting and fishing on our 
public lands. And the wildlife has primarily benefited through funding 
by these wildlife organizations in property acquisition. Can you tell us 
what we can expect from your commitment to us as sportsmen as far as 
hunting and fishing on these public properties?
    The President. I will resist any effort to stop hunting and fishing 
on these public lands. You know, I had a marvelous experience--not 
shared it with my friend the Lieutenant Governor, Johnny Morris, and 
others. But just the other day up in the Sequoia area in California, I 
met there with a group of kids that came from the inner city of Los 
Angeles. We sat around in a little picnic area, and I started listening 
to these kids talk about their experience with gangs, being drummed in, 
beaten in, and then beaten out. If they go into the gang they have to be 
beaten up before they go into it; when they go out they get beaten up 
and then their families threatened.
    Here were these kids sitting in the majesty of this sequoia grove, 
seeing the outdoors for the first time, understanding the joys of nature 
from which they've been sheltered because of their own underprivilege 
and because of their own backgrounds. They talked about the joy of 
camping out the night before and being with their--sitting around a 
little campfire talking to the other kids about their family problems. 
And that little incident brought home to me more clearly than anything 
I've done, except for a little bass fishing with some friends here, the 
need really to keep open, and still preserve, but to keep open these 
lands for sporting purposes, for fishing, for camping, for hunting.
    So we are not going to permit in the name of environmental practice 
a shutting down of these areas to those who really need to experience 
the same joy those kids felt. I really feel strongly about it, and I 
pride myself on stewardship of our environmental resources, our 
environment. But I just don't think we can go to the extremes in the 
name of the environment, whether it's in this, trying to deny hunting or 
fishing to these areas, or whether it's to shut down businesses where 
families are needlessly thrown out of work.
    I think of the endangered species. We're going through a very 
important debate and an important discussion of how do you preserve the 
endangered species and yet not say to a family, ``Look, you all just 
aren't going to be able to make a living anymore.'' I feel as President 
a certain stewardship for that; I really do. We're trying to find a 
proper balance, and balance is a key word in all of this. But just to 
say you're going to preserve public lands by denying hunting and 
fishing, I'm strongly opposed to that.
    Q. A number of groups here today are actively involved in habitat 
acquisition: Ducks Unlimited, Rocky Mountain Elk

[[Page 1132]]

Foundation. Will the Federal Government continue to support us in 
matching funds and help us develop a habitat for wildlife so we can 
continue to increase our herds and increase our duck populations?
    The President. We should and will. And I don't know enough about the 
detail; Roger Porter is here and can answer the specifics. But yes, I 
mean, this is all of our common belief. I'm more familiar with Ducks 
Unlimited, but Ducks Unlimited I think offer sound environmental 
practice. They certainly don't oppose hunting, but they do propose and 
support programs for increasing the ducks and other fowl.
    So I'm strongly in support of that. I'm just a little at a loss to 
give you any specifics in terms of numbers as to how the Federal 
Government might do a better job in working cooperatively here.
    Q. President Bush, as past chairman of Ducks Unlimited for Utah, can 
you tell us a little bit how our no-net-loss program is working as far 
as the lands that have been taken, and what we're doing to replace 
those?
    The President. Well, we're in a debate, and we're also in a struggle 
on wetlands. I think we're doing all right. We've added to the wetlands. 
We're continuing to purchase wetlands. I get into a fight with some--I 
think, some of the people on the extremes on wetland. I hear from a lot 
of farmers and a lot of agricultural people who have one little sump on 
the property for a short period of time, and then they're denied use of 
that land.
    We had one extreme case of a downtown parking area where building 
couldn't take place because it was wet. So we're trying to stand against 
the extremes, and yet I'm trying to live up to this policy, which I 
believe is sound environmental practice, of no net loss of wetlands. 
We're trading, and we're buying. And I'm going to continue to support 
that concept.
    I can't tell you that it's without a furor, because some of the 
groups are saying we're not doing enough. I think our record is pretty 
good in keeping the commitment I made several years ago to no net loss. 
But I would welcome from experts--and I'm surrounded by them here--
criticism or suggestions as to what we could do to further enhance the 
policy without going to the extreme.
    Again, I think sometimes I get brought to my attention cases where 
one of our regulatory agency or another have overinterpreted the law and 
have kept reasonable development from taking place. So once again, I'll 
go back to the answer I gave over here to the question of hunting: We're 
trying to find a balanced policy, but the underpinning of it, in 
response to your question, no net loss. And that's why we're--
[inaudible]--and purchasing wetlands.
    Sir.
    Q. Mr. President, as you probably know, the Central Utah Project is 
one of the most critical issues facing Utah outdoor interests. It's a 
project which has been repaired, in our view, through the mechanisms 
that have been established to meet the wildlife mitigation and 
environmental mitigation requirements. We understand that there is a 
problem with its passage now, and it's based upon, as I understand it, 
California Senator Seymour's efforts to get you to commit to veto the 
H.R. 429 omnibus water bill when it reaches your desk if it doesn't have 
the amendments he wants to serve the California agribusiness interests.
    We're really interested, sir, in having you sign the bill when it 
gets to your desk, and even more, near term, we're interested, if you 
could, sir, in having you work with the Senate to get the Senate to 
assign some conferees so we can get that thing done during this 
Congress. Could you tell us where you are on that?
    The President. Well, where we are is that I don't know what they're 
going to send me. And therefore, I can't commit to sign or veto until I 
know exactly what's in it. But in terms of the project itself, we have 
been and will continue to be supportive.
    One of the great problems in this job--and that's why I strongly 
favor the line-item veto--is that you are sent under the name of, say, 
sound water practice or sound environmental practice a piece of 
legislation where then you always have to balance out does the good 
outweigh the bad.
    But in terms of this project, we are supportive. I believe your 
Senators have been

[[Page 1133]]

working diligently for it. I hope it comes in a way that I can strongly 
endorse that action.
    Q. Mr. President, this is indeed a great pleasure. You have been in 
support of the free trade as evidenced by your support of the free trade 
agreement with Mexico and Canada. Therefore, I am sure that you are not 
aware of a U.S. Park Service-sponsored monopoly on Lake Powell, a 
national recreation area in southern Utah. All commerce in a 2,000-
square-mile area, including five separate marinas in two States, is 
controlled by one company from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The lack of 
competition creates high prices and minimal level of quality service. 
This, I feel, is repressive and is rapidly driving many boaters away, 
thus hurting the marine business and restricting free enterprise in the 
State of Utah. Will your second administration address these inequities?
    The President. The answer is, your predicate was correct; I'm not 
familiar with the details of Lake Powell. And thus I can honestly dodge 
having an opinion on this particular issue. But no, I believe there 
should be competition in these matters, if that's what the objection is. 
But I really don't want to speak on a subject that I should be perhaps 
familiar with but I'm not. But in principle, I can't argue with what I 
believe your question implied was a proper conclusion. But I just don't 
want to comment without knowing the facts.
    Q. Good morning, Mr. President. I'm here representing Safari Club 
International. And we as hunters want to ask you as a hunter, and we as 
citizens: How can we deal with the people who want to deny us our second 
amendment rights, and how do we answer them properly and keep our 
amendment safe?
    The President. I think a lot of it is, and this goes back to maybe a 
fundamental answer, but a lot is to who you elect to office. I think in 
the local level, in the State legislative level, Val's level, a lot of 
the decisions are made. A lot of them are made at the Federal level. But 
I think you just ought to find out and establish whatever candidate at 
whatever level's commitment to the environment, to hunting, to 
nonhunting, whatever it is. I know no other way to do it.
    But the idea that we should, in the name of the environment, knuckle 
under to those who really want to tie up these assets and prohibit 
hunting and fishing is something that I would, will, and have stood up 
against. But I don't know any other way to do it other than to roll up 
your sleeve and be sure that those topics are covered in whatever 
election it is, every 2-year election or every 4-year election. And 
that's one good thing about it, because everybody has to put into focus 
his or her commitment on a question of that nature.
    I am not persuaded that there's a big move against the hunter and 
against the fisherman. There's some groups that are strong, strongly 
vocal. But I do not believe they represent the mainstream. And I have 
had a hunting and fishing license as long as I've been old enough to, 
and I continue to enjoy sports. I'm mainly in the fishing end of things. 
But for fishing and hunting, I just think you have to take it to the 
legislative process. I know people are turned off from politics, but 
that doesn't mean that you withdraw and you pull away from it. If 
anybody should feel like withdrawing or pulling away from something, I 
could make a case for the Bush family. [Laughter] But I'm not about to 
do that because I do believe in some of the stuff that I--problems I'm 
faced to solve. And I'm going to keep on saying what I believe.
    Q. You touched a little bit earlier on the situation--kids and the 
joy that you saw in the kids in getting maybe their first experience 
with the outdoors. Could you maybe carry that a little bit further and 
talk about your opinion on the--I broke them both. [Laughter] Throw them 
in the lake, put a hook on them. [Laughter] Talk about your opinion of 
the correlation between improved fishing and hunting and keeping the 
outdoors the way that we all want it, and these kids, taking these great 
kids and turning them into great adults, and the family values that 
perhaps are created out there, your thoughts on the family values.
    The President. I could wax philosophical, but they asked me a 
pointed and understandably pointed question 2 days ago in Wyoming. And 
this one was put against a political backdrop of how come I didn't stay

[[Page 1134]]

tuned into the convention that was going on in New York. I put it in 
terms of the joy that I felt fishing with my son in streams of Wyoming. 
He's grown; he's from Florida. But it's hard to describe unless you have 
done it. Ricky Clunn, that you guys know, talked about following in his 
underpants behind his father, fishing the streams of Oklahoma. I 
understand that. And I think most American family understand it. Some 
haven't had the opportunity to do it.
    But it was very easy for me to give an honest answer that the joy of 
doing that with my son, albeit grown, really surpassed the politics of 
the moment. And I think if you feel it that strongly, you need to try to 
convey it to the parents and to the families that this really is a way 
that you can strengthen your family.
    We talk about family values, and I hope not to the extreme on that. 
But anyone who has fished or hunted or hiked or camped with a child 
knows what I'm talking about. And what we have to do, I think, those of 
us that agree with this, is to make clear to the American people that's 
what we're talking about. We're not talking about something that's 
selfish. So when we talk about preserving the streams or the lakes for 
sound fishing practice, we're talking about something that has a way of 
strengthening families.
    I know I'm not particularly articulate on this, but I really feel 
strongly when we talk about family that anything you do with your kids 
in the outdoors does nothing but strengthen the relationship between the 
parents and the kids at a time when--those kids that were coming out of 
that city in South Central, in L.A., they'd been denied that. And here, 
even though it wasn't with their parents, they were beginning to get 
that feeling of comradeship and of enjoyment and of really conversation, 
if you will, that strengthens, I think, the American family. So it's so 
hard to describe, but I feel it so strongly.
    Q. Mr. President, as you travel across this beautiful Nation, a 
concern that we have is, I would like to know how you feel about it when 
there's a building that's sold to a foreign country, a public building, 
public lands? How do you feel, and what can we do about our lands and 
our buildings being sold to the Japanese and to foreign countries? We 
want to own our buildings. We want to own all of our ground here. How do 
you feel about that?
    The President. I probably differ with you on it, because I think 
investment by the United States abroad is a sensible thing. I think it 
creates a tremendous amount of jobs in America. And I think you've got 
to look at each--I think you have to be sure that nobody takes over the 
United States of America. But in terms of the percentage of investment, 
much more is held by Britain and Holland, for example, than the 
Japanese.
    So I am not one who worries about people investing in the United 
States, particularly if it means jobs. I'll tell you an example. The BMW 
people are opening a plant in South Carolina. They bought some land, and 
they're going to create something like 4,000 to 10,000 jobs building 
automobiles in the United States. Now, they have to have that land if 
they're going to put their plant there. And I think that's good for the 
United States.
    What I don't think is good is if it gets into the security areas 
where our defenses and our legitimate security needs might be pulled----

[At this point, the microphone failed.]

    Just as I was going to make a profound statement here. [Laughter]
    I am not an isolationist. I don't believe we should pull back. I 
think we have too much to offer abroad, and I don't think we have to 
fear from people competing in this country.
    So maybe you and I differ on it, but I don't--if you were going to 
say do you want to sell the great wilderness area of Utah to some 
foreign country, no, I don't want to do that. I think we've got to be 
very sure that we don't aimlessly get into something like that. But in 
terms of investment in this country, I think that means jobs in this 
country. I don't think it deters from the environment or the sporting 
ability to have the kinds of things we're talking about here today in 
terms of hunting, fishing, and outdoor recreation.
    We probably differ, but I think I could

[[Page 1135]]

convince you. I don't think I have yet.
    Listen, thank you all very, very much.

                    Note: The President spoke at 9 a.m. at Red Butte 
                        Gardens. In his remarks, he referred to W. Val 
                        Oveson, Lieutenant Governor of Utah; John 
                        Morris, chairman, Bush-Quayle Outdoors 
                        Coalition; Roger Porter, Assistant to the 
                        President for Economic and Domestic Policy; and 
                        Rick Clunn, champion bass fisherman.