[Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George H. W. Bush (1992, Book I)]
[June 13, 1992]
[Pages 927-934]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]



The President's News Conference in Rio de Janeiro

June 13, 1992
    The President. Well, let me first express my thanks and 
congratulations to President Collor and the Brazilian people and to all 
responsible for this Conference for their

[[Page 928]]

hospitality, for their tremendous success in hosting the Earth summit. 
It's obvious to all who came to Rio that the Brazilians made a special 
effort to accommodate so many heads of states and delegates and 
journalists and visitors. They managed it flawlessly, and they managed 
it with grace and good humor. We've had a very successful visit.
    We've signed a climate convention. We've asked others to join us in 
presenting action plans for the implementation of the climate 
convention. We've won agreement on forest principles. We found a warm 
reception among the G-7 and many developing countries to our Forests for 
the Future initiative. Many U.S. proposals on oceans and public 
participation on the importance of economic instruments and free markets 
were included in this mammoth Agenda 21 document and the Rio 
Declaration.
    Let me be clear on one fundamental point. The United States fully 
intends to be the world's preeminent leader in protecting the global 
environment. We have been that for many years. We will remain so. We 
believe that environment and development, the two subjects of this 
Conference, can and should go hand in hand. A growing economy creates 
the resources necessary for environmental protection, and environmental 
protection makes growth sustainable over the long term. I think that 
recognition of that fact by leaders from around the world is the central 
accomplishment of this important Rio Conference.
    So with no further ado, I believe, Tom [Tom Raum, Associated Press], 
you have the first question, sir.

Panama Demonstration and Environmental Policy

    Q. Mr. President, to what extent do the images Americans have seen 
back home of your being hustled off the stage in Panama and not being 
allowed to give your speech, and the isolation that the United States 
has had in Rio, to what extent does this erode into what Americans seem 
to still feel is your strong suit, your ability to conduct foreign 
policy?
    The President. I think in both instances the reality will prevail. 
In Panama, Panama has made dramatic strides. They're a free country. 
They're a democratic country. I think everybody who was there saw the 
warmth of the reception from the people of Panama along the streets, and 
it was tremendous.
    What got the news, of course, was a handful of demonstrators in 
demonstration. The smoke blew the wrong way as the police tried to 
contain that small group, and that permitted the disruption of an 
outdoor rally. But that should not obscure the fact that Panama is 
democratic, Panama is free, Panama is growing at 9.6 percent, and the 
warmth from the Panamanian people was overwhelming. Can you let 300 
people or 200, whichever it is, carry the day in terms of the reality? 
The answer is no. The hundreds of thousands of people were much more 
representative of the change.
    Then I heard an interview from a prison today by Mr. Noriega, the 
discredited drug lord who's had a fair trial, as though his criticism 
means anything. I mean, come on.
    Panama's doing well. And I was very proud to be there, and so I'd 
like to go back. What we did in helping in the first place to protect 
Americans' lives, secondly to restore democracy, it's good. It's very, 
very positive.
    In terms of Rio, as I said yesterday, we are the leaders; we're not 
the followers. And the fact that we don't go along with every single 
covenant, I don't think that means a relinquishment of leadership. I 
think we are, and I think the record shows we are, the leading 
environmental nation in the world. So I would just reject the premise or 
say, no, this doesn't concern me.
    Q. If I may do a followup, Mr. President. Along those lines, you set 
a January 1st target for another meeting of the Conference to discuss 
global warming. You've set a lot of deadlines for Congress that haven't 
been heeded. Your proposal yesterday wasn't particularly well-received 
by the other nations. Why do you think that that January 1st deadline 
will be heeded any more than your congressional deadlines?
    The President. I don't think there's any comparison because I think 
the G-7 nations and the developed nations want to meet the commitments 
that they've signed up for. So I've not found that it wasn't received 
well at all. In fact, Bill Reilly told me it was

[[Page 929]]

well-received. And we will be there with specific plans.
    Now, you want to talk about leadership? We will be there with 
specific plans, prepared to share, but more important, that others who 
have signed these documents ought to have specific plans. So I think 
this is a leadership role. We are challenging them to come forward. We 
will be there. I think the Third World and others are entitled to know 
that the commitments made are going to be commitments kept.
    Brit [Brit Hume, ABC News].
    Q. Mr. President, you and members of your administration feel that 
you came here with a good record on the environment and a good case to 
make for the positions you've taken. If that's so, sir, how is it that 
the words, remarks of your critics seem to so dominate the atmosphere?
    The President. Well, I don't know. I guess it's because all the 
banks that weren't robbed today don't make news. When Americans 
criticize America outside of America, that seems to make news. The 
positive accomplishments I think should make the news, and I maintain 
that we have the best environmental record in the world. And I think the 
people I talked to yesterday certainly would concede that we have been 
world leaders.
    But I can't answer that question for you, Brit, as to why the news 
is dominated by the critics. I have said that American environmental 
policy is not going to be dominated by the extremes, because I believe 
that the title of economic development as well as environmental 
protection is in order. I think both things count. Bill Reilly has made 
that point over and over again since he's been here.
    But maybe it's the same as the Panama question. What dominates is 
the protest, not the fact that there was a great, warm reception along 
the way.
    Q. Well, if I could follow up, sir----
    The President. Yes.
    Q. ----you, in one remark you made, and members of your 
administration have indicated that there are other nations here, some of 
whose officials were critical of your positions, who are in no position 
themselves, or their countries are in no position, to meet the terms of 
the climate change treaty, for example, and yet they were privately 
critical of you. And you suggested that that was so. Would you care to 
elaborate on who they were and what they----
    The President. No, I don't think I suggested that at all. What I'm 
saying is let's go forward.
    Q. Do you think they're glad that you had taken the position that 
you have taken?
    The President. Well, I think most are. I think most people are glad 
that we've taken this position to go forward. I was very pleased, 
incidentally, with the remarks by Chancellor Kohl, by Brian Mulroney; 
had a good talk with the Prime Minister of Japan before getting here; 
I'm most appreciative of John Major for what he said. So I think there's 
not only understanding but support for American positions.
    Bill Reilly told me, and I don't want to get into a private 
conversation, but yesterday evening he talked to some of the developing 
nations' representatives, and they were rather supportive of what we 
said. So the fact that we didn't sign that one treaty does not diminish, 
in my view, the U.S. leadership role. Sometimes leadership is not going 
along with everybody else.

'92 Elections

    Q. Mr. President, Mr. Quayle made a speech yesterday to the 
Federalist Society in which he called Ross Perot a temperamental person 
who has contempt for the Constitution and suggested that the country 
elect a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress if they couldn't 
elect a Republican President, a Republican Congress. How do you feel 
about these two suggestions?
    The President. I feel they ought to elect a Republican President and 
a Republican Congress. I feel very unenthusiastic about the second one. 
[Laughter] And I feel that you better ask Mr. Quayle about what he said. 
I've vowed not to go after either of the opponents until after the 
convention, and I've also said that I'm getting kind of anxious to get 
after the convention.
    Q. May I follow up, sir? This is your running mate echoing what 
Warren Rudman said, in which somebody's got to govern this country, and 
if it's going to be gridlocked

[[Page 930]]

between the White House and the Capitol, something has to be done. I 
realize it's hyperbole, but he's your running mate, and you disagree 
with those remarks?
    The President. Well, I agree with him--listen, I say give me a 
Republican Congress, and we'll move on things. Let me give you an 
example. The American people want a balanced budget amendment to the 
Constitution. Seven cosponsors of that amendment were pulled off of the 
sponsorship and voted against their own amendment, their own resolution, 
because of the cracking of the whip by the Democratic leadership. The 
arrogance of the leadership to pull away people that had sponsored it, 
I'll tell you, the American people are not for that.
    So I think in a wide array of issues, as I said at the press 
conference the other night, the American people back what we're standing 
for. They want revolutionary educational reform. They want tougher crime 
legislation. And I could just go through a whole litany of things that 
the American people want that I am advocating that have been blocked by 
a hostile, Democratic, politically leaning leadership in the United 
States Congress. So a lot can happen. There is gridlock. A lot can 
happen, however, if we have more Republicans in the Congress.
    Look back to the early parts of the Reagan administration when we 
controlled the Senate. It was then that things moved forward, and that 
was only one house. I think the House, that's been in control by the 
Democrats so long, needs to be shaken up. And I think that's why I agree 
so strongly with that concept of give me a Republican Congress and watch 
this country change and move forward.
    In foreign affairs, fortunately, I don't need a congressional 
acquiescence every step of the way.
    Yes, Charles [Charles Bierbauer, Cable Network News].

Environmental Policy

    Q. Mr. President, some of the other leaders here, including some who 
say they know you well, feel that you might just, well, sign some of 
these agreements but not in an election year and that you are feeling 
pressured by the roller coaster nature of policy. Can you comment on 
that, sir?
    The President. Yes. I don't think that's true.
    Q. Which one, there were several elements. Which, that you might 
sign these agreements?
    The President. That I'm not pressured by domestic politics as to 
what our sound environmental practices are. We've got sound 
environmental practices. We are not going to sign up to things that we 
can't do. We're not going to sign up to do things we don't believe in. I 
happen to believe that in biodiversity it is important to protect our 
rights, our business rights. And I happen to think that when we do, 
whether it's in a biodiversity treaty or a GATT arrangement, we make 
things better for others. I believe that American biotechnology can help 
others. But it can't be if the product of that is taken away or if the 
incentive to innovate and the incentive to profit by your research is 
removed.
    So, this isn't domestic politics '92 that determines whether I'm 
going to sign a biodiversity treaty or not, if that was the question.
    Q. And their assertion that they sense in you an anxiety, a feeling 
of pressure?
    The President. If they sense an anxiety, they may be right. I mean, 
this has been a tough, weird political year at home. But it has nothing 
to do with sound policy. It has nothing to do with whether I'm going to 
shape something as important as environmental policy based on an 
election that's, what, 4 or 5 months away.
    Yes, Susan [Susan Spencer, CBS News].

Presidential Campaign

    Q. Mr. President, you have no assurance of getting a Republican 
Congress. And in light of that and the fact that you've now been in 
office for 4 years, why should the American people look to you as the 
agent of revolutionary change?
    The President. Because they agree fundamentally with our ideas. When 
you see a group of Democrats can't run for office in California 
campaigning for tougher crime legislation and having voted against 
tougher crime legislation, I say there is a little bit of an indicator 
that the American people want

[[Page 931]]

tougher crime legislation, and they'd love to get it through. The way to 
get it through is put more people in Congress that agree with me.
    Our ideas--when we talk about family values, or we talk about fiscal 
sanity, or when we talk about sound environmental practice, when we say 
that we're not going to throw people out of work needlessly--all of 
these things have support from the American people. And I would say that 
when you look around at this screwy year people do seem to be fingering 
Congress even more than the President.
    Q. Sir, a lot of polls indicate that many of the American people say 
they don't know what it is you want to do in your second term.
    The President. Well, maybe we need to make that a little clearer, 
and I think this Conference helps. I think the fact that somebody's 
going to take a focus on what's happened around the world, and they'll 
see the leadership we've brought to many things will be helpful. That's 
not in focus. You're dealing with polls all the time and some new trend. 
But the American people sort these things out. They'll sort it out, and 
I will win.
    Q. Mr. Clinton has said that he will release a 100-day agenda of 
what he would do in the first 100 days, specifically. Will you do the 
same?
    The President. I've already done it. But yes, I'll rephrase it and 
make it clearer because I think it is important that the American people 
know of my firm commitment to revolutionary educational change.
    Here's a good example. We've got the best new education approach for 
the United States in history, the best. And we've had it up there--we've 
got the six goals. And it's hung up by the old thinkers in Congress. So 
I think maybe it would be a good idea. But I'm taking these ideas up 
there every single day with specificity to the Hill. It's a little 
different than when you're outside shooting in.

Developing Nations

    Q. Yes, Patricia Walsh, United Press International, a slightly 
little bit longer question for you, Mr. President. Some respected 
environmentalists here at the Earth summit say that poverty leads to 
many of the environmental problems and that poverty in developing 
nations is perpetuated by unending foreign debt and an unfair trade 
balance that funnels money from the south to the north. They criticize 
the Earth summit and wealthy nations like the United States for not 
focusing on these issues here. How would you respond to that criticism, 
please?
    The President. I would take great credit for the fact that the 
United States has taken the leadership role, a unique one that's been 
well-received, in debt-for-equity swaps or forgiveness of debt or debt-
for-environmental swaps. And I think that shows that we are sensitive to 
the problems of the Third World in terms of the economy.
    I happen to believe that a successful conclusion to the GATT round, 
the Uruguay round of GATT, will do more than any foreign aid program of 
any country to help the Third World, because I believe their products 
will be able to flow more freely and they will be able to prosper by the 
market that they've been denied access to through various forms of 
protection. So both those areas I think would refute the allegation.
    Q. As a followup, there are those who say that if the GATT is 
successful and these barriers are dropped, these developing nations will 
not be able to protect their own developing industries from the 
multilaterals coming in. How do you respond to that?
    The President. Well, I say that the things they do best they'll be 
able to get into the world markets, and I just am convinced that free 
and fair trade is best for everybody. If you don't believe me, take a 
country that is now moving well along on the development path; talk to 
President Carlos Salinas of Mexico. He is convinced that the free trade 
agreement with Mexico will be good for him, Mexico, good for the United 
States, and good for the environment. And he's right. He believes that 
Mexico, and he's made this point over and over again, can do much more 
in environmental cleanup, environmental progress if this free trade 
agreement is met. Now, there's a very good refutation to the criticism 
you say some are making.
    Yes, John [John Cochran, NBC News].

[[Page 932]]

Environmental Policy

    Q. A couple of questions about your wish back in the '88 campaign to 
be the environmental President. It would be difficult for a politician 
that got a parking ticket in a red-light district to campaign as a 
family values candidate, even though there may be a perfectly acceptable 
reason for his being there. Given the opposition of environmental 
groups, can you still campaign as the environmental President, and will 
you?
    The President. Well, I think so--and for the very reasons that the 
man standing next to me, who has superb environmental credentials, has 
made over and over again here. You cannot go to the extreme. And yes, I 
do have to be concerned about the American worker, about taxes, about a 
lot of things like that; a President must be concerned. But I think we 
have an outstanding environmental record.
    Let me just click off some of it for you: The Clean Air Act, and 
that was ours. We did it. We needed the Democrats' support, and we got 
it done. It is the most forward-looking piece of legislation that any 
country has in place.
    We've got a national energy strategy that emphasizes alternate fuels 
and conservation and all of this part of it. We've got a forestation 
program that is second to none. I'd like to see the Congress move 
forward with my plan to plant a billion trees a year, and we're going to 
keep pushing on that.
    We've done what's right environmentally on drilling, putting the 
sensitive, environmentally sensitive areas off bounds. We've done that 
in the Florida Keys, for example, and off of Big Sur.
    We have over a billion dollars in new lands, and our parks, forests, 
wildlife refuges, have all been added to. So we have a good stewardship 
of the land.
    We took the leadership in phasing out CFC's, and I think that is a 
very important environmental leadership role by the United States. Our 
budget for EPA is up considerably, our Environmental Protection Agency.
    So I think along the lines we've done very, very well. And I think 
that's a case I will be proud to take to the American people.
    Q. Can I follow up with one, sir?
    The President. Yes, please.
    Q. Sir, you talk about not wanting to jeopardize jobs by being 
overly conscious of environmental concerns, but you've never really been 
very specific about which jobs you would save with your policies, for 
example, on global warming and the biodiversity treaty.
    The President. I will give you an example, and that was on the owl 
decision. There what was clearly at stake was some 30,000 jobs in the 
Northwest. That decision was met with some opposition by certain 
environmentalists, but it was a good decision. Some people regrettably 
will still be put out of work, but not near as many as if that 
arrangement had not been achieved.

Russia-U.S. Relations

    Q. President Yeltsin fears the United States is trying to take 
strategic advantage in nuclear weapons. You'll be seeing him next week. 
Is this true, and are you optimistic you'll be able to reach an 
agreement with him?
    The President. No, we are not trying to take strategic advantage of 
Russia. I hope that President Yeltsin knows that. Jim Baker is talking 
to Mr. Kozyrev; he's finished now, I believe. I talked to him yesterday. 
If Yeltsin still feels that way when he comes, President Yeltsin, I will 
make another effort to disabuse him of that.
    I think we have a rare opportunity to move forward with Russia on 
many fronts, helping them solidify their reforms, helping the world get 
what it wants, which is more stability and progress in not only arms 
control but the whole nuclear proliferation field. These are very, very 
important things.
    I might go back to Susan's [Susan Spencer, CBS News] question. I am 
very happy that we're talking now about these kinds of things when we 
weren't a few years ago to this degree. We've made dramatic progress, 
and our children, as somebody pointed out to me again yesterday, picking 
up on the theme that I have, go to bed at night far less worried about 
nuclear war. In the final analysis, the American people are going to 
say, well, this administration deserves some credit, not all but some 
credit for that.

[[Page 933]]

    So if President Yeltsin feels as you do, I will have no trouble 
disabusing him of this.

Environmental Policy

    Q. Mr. President, on the way back home today you will be flying for 
some two to three hours over the Amazon forests. Do you believe your 
200-something U.S. million dollars of your Forests for the Future 
initiative will make a difference?
    The President. Well, I certainly think it will, and most people here 
seem to think it will, yes. I salute President Collor for the steps he 
is taking in terms of preservation of that great forest.
    You see, we've got a good record in terms of forest policy. We're 
doing something about below-cost timber sales in 10 national forests. 
We've signed this Tongass Timber Reform Act, which is in a very 
sensitive--below-cost timber sales in an extraordinarily sensitive 
American rain forest.
    So I think we've got a good record. I'm very pleased with the way 
that forestry initiative has been received here. I noticed that it was 
singled out by several of the leaders in their speech yesterday. And 
it's those positive things that I think just emphasize once again the 
U.S. role of leadership in the environment.

POW-MIA's

    Q. Mr. President, what do you think, sir, of this revelation from 
Boris Yeltsin that the Soviet Union was holding 12 American POW's during 
the 1950's? And were you ever aware of this either in your role as once 
CIA Director or as President, and did you ever get a hint of this from 
your close relationship with Mikhail Gorbachev?
    The President. No. In fact, I believe that Mr. Gorbachev denied it. 
And what do I think of it is, I think it's very, very credible and very 
good that President Yeltsin is coming forward with this kind of full 
disclosure. He's done it in other areas. He's done it in the field of 
biological and chemical weapons. It's one more reason why we want to 
work very closely with him, and I salute him for doing that.

Presidential Campaign

    Q. Mr. President, Mr. Perot has said that he would not raise taxes 
except in a national emergency. And as someone who has had some 
experience on statements about no new taxes, I wonder if you feel that 
Mr. Perot is oversimplifying the situation and if you would agree with 
that on the other side? [Laughter]
    The President. Well, you must have missed what I said earlier on, 
not wanting to engage Mr. Perot. So I'll respectfully not engage him on 
that.

U.N. Conference on Environment

    Q. Mr. President, in following up this Conference, what do you think 
you'll be doing in the way of supporting an international organization 
to oversee the work that has come out of this Conference?
    The President. I think one of the main things we're going to do is 
go forward with this January 1st date in order to present detailed plans 
to meet the climate change commitments. We're pretty far along on that, 
and we're prepared to share with others. Bill Reilly will be actively 
involved in that. Any commitment we make here will be kept, and so we 
have a broad agenda to follow through on.
    We forget that there are many, many commitments, some involving 
funds, some not, being made here at this Conference. And the EPA 
leadership will be extraordinarily busy in getting specific now to 
follow them up. I'm excited about that because I think our leadership is 
up to it, and I think others will welcome it.

Iraq

    Q. Mr. President, the House Judiciary Committee has now asked you to 
make your aides and documents available to provide further details about 
the assistance your administration gave to Iraq before the Gulf war. Do 
you intend to comply with that request?
    The President. I don't know what----
    Q. And what do you think of their efforts to create an independent 
counsel?
    The President. I think it's political. I think it's purely 
political. We have had detailed testimony by Larry Eagleburger. I myself 
have discussed the policy. I sense a frustration on the part of the 
Democrats because of what we had to do and did in terms of

[[Page 934]]

the war. I think it is a pure political inquest, and we have complied 
fully. I know politics when I see it. I know political timing when I see 
it. So, we have disclosed, and we will continue to cooperate with 
Congress. But the determination on the special prosecutor, let's wait 
and see where that one goes.
    But I must say that it smells political to me. I see these other 
hearings up there that have cost the taxpayers millions. And, 
incidentally, I will make one last appeal to the Congress: I would say, 
would you please say yes or no as to whether I was in Paris at any time, 
say nothing about the fall of 1980, because you're spending millions of 
the taxpayers' dollars trying to prove on the basis of a stupid book 
that I was there. Would you please certify to the American people 
whether this now-President and then-candidate was in Paris?
    Why the Congress keeps spending the taxpayers' monies on these witch 
hunts, I do not know. I'm a little sick of it, but there's not a heck of 
a lot I can do about it except to express a continual and somewhat 
mounting frustration as I see now another attack. Our policy was well-
known. We tried to bring Saddam Hussein into the family of nations. That 
policy was not successful. We did not enhance his nuclear, biological, 
or chemical weapon capability, a charge recklessly made in this 
political year. When we failed and when he took an aggression, the whole 
world joined with us in standing against it. Now some of the very people 
that opposed U.S. action are trying to redeem themselves by a lot of 
political inquiry. And I don't think the American people are going to 
stand for it.
    Thank you all very much.

                    Note: The President's 131st news conference began at 
                        11 a.m. in the Sheraton Rio.