[Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George H. W. Bush (1992-1993, Book II)]
[September 14, 1992]
[Pages 1551-1554]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]



Remarks to Natural Communities Conservation Planning Organizations in 
San Diego, California
September 14, 1992

    Thank you very much, Bill. Please be seated, and thank you all for 
that warm welcome at this early hour. I'm delighted to be here. And let 
me just thank Bill Lowery for the introduction. He's been a joy to work 
with in the United States Congress. He always keeps in mind his 
constituents, the people that sent him there. But he always has also had 
a broad national perspective. I've trusted him, and I've worked with 
him. And I'm going to sorely miss him inasmuch as he's determined not to 
stand again for election. But he's a good man, and you've been very, 
very well served. Let me also acknowledge and thank Doug Wheeler here, 
the secretary of California resources agency. It's great to be back in 
California. It's great to be here with him who understands the need to 
find the balance the right way.
    Before I begin, though, let me talk about another situation, the one 
out in Hawaii. Regrettably, some lives have been lost; the property 
damage is estimated at a billion dollars. Already relief efforts are 
well underway. Military aircraft and ships are supplying the island with 
food and water and generators, tents. And some aircraft are being used 
to carry tourists who want to leave over to the island of Oahu. We 
continue to work closely with the Governor to provide whatever 
assistance possible. And our prayers and good wishes are extended to all 
who stood in Iniki's path. And I just wanted to say that because 
following on with Florida and Louisiana, it has been a strange month or 
so for these natural disasters. And a lot of people have been hurt.

[[Page 1552]]

I'm proud that the Federal Government has responded, working closely 
with the three States involved.
    You know, we gather at a very important moment in history. Today I 
can stand before you and say something that no President has ever been 
able to say before: The cold war is over, and freedom finished first. 
With the cold war behind us, the global economy is entering a period of 
transition. And I know that you, particularly in California, but I know 
our whole country, and I know you all are feeling the impact, feeling it 
right here in this wonderfully productive part of California.
    The question that voters must ask in this election is this: Who has 
the ideas, the principles to allow America to rise to our new 
challenges, to guarantee that in the next century America will remain 
not just a military superpower but also an export superpower and an 
economic superpower?
    Last week I outlined my Agenda for American Renewal, a 
comprehensive, integrated set of responses to the challenges that are 
facing America today. And much of the agenda is underway. Other parts 
are brandnew. I hope that you and every American will take a look at the 
ideas and then compare them with my opponent's before you make a 
decision. I start with the belief that free trade can bring prosperity 
to California and to the United States. That's why I negotiated the 
North American free trade agreement, or what we call NAFTA. It will 
create a $6 trillion market from Manitoba to Mexico and bring thousands 
of new jobs here to California.
    And I want to go further. I want to see a strategic network of trade 
agreements unique to America and the countries of Eastern Europe; then 
also in the Pacific Rim. My opponent was once in favor of free trade and 
NAFTA, and then he changed his mind. Now he says, and here's the quote, 
``When I have a definitive opinion, I'll say so.'' Listen, my opinion 
may not be popular in all places, but I will tell it to you straight: 
Americans will never retreat, and we will always compete. And we will 
win.
    My opponent really believes we need more Government in Washington. 
He proposes at least $200 billion in new spending plus $150 billion in 
new taxes, just to start. Well, I want to go in the opposite direction. 
I've put forward specific ideas to control the growth of mandatory 
Federal spending, that's two-thirds of the budget that heretofore has 
been uncontrolled, saving over $300 billion over the next 5 years. I 
want to use the savings to cut the tax rates. I believe very simply that 
Government is too big and we spend too much of your money. And we've got 
to turn that around.
    Let me give you another difference. Today, American businesses and 
consumers spend up to $200 billion just on direct services to lawyers. 
The Japanese don't spend that much, neither do the Germans. And my 
opponent doesn't think this is a problem. I really believe it's a 
disgrace. As a nation, we must sue each other less and care for each 
other more.
    So look at every economic issue we face, improving our schools, 
reforming welfare, controlling health costs, and my opponent and I offer 
two vastly different approaches. He puts his faith, if you'll analyze 
his program, in more Government. And I want to put more faith in you, 
the American people. My opponent's plan includes new taxes, plus steep 
defense cuts way beyond what the military and civilian experts believe 
is responsible. And together this program will cost America 2.6 million 
jobs, with a major impact obviously right here in California, right here 
in San Diego. My agenda doesn't kill jobs, it protects jobs. It 
guarantees the national security of this country. And it offers a way to 
get this economy moving and create in America the world's first $10 
trillion economy by early in the next century.
    Now, as we create jobs we can re-create dreams for so many Americans 
and so many Californians. But Americans dream of more than a good job 
and rising income. As Bill pointed out, we also want clean waters in 
which to swim, clean air to breathe, and preserves like this in which to 
enjoy nature. And I have long believed that a strong economy and a clean 
environment not only can go hand in hand but they must go hand in hand. 
And here in San Diego, you know so well, a clean environment can be the 
foundation for a dynamic economy. So I am proud of what my 
administration has ac-

[[Page 1553]]

complished, proud of the many environmental achievements that 
Congressman Lowery very, very generously talked about.
    And I'm especially proud of the way we've been able to make these 
advances. We've been able to strike a balance between jobs and the 
environment by rejecting the stale old ideas of command-and-control 
regulation and relying instead on new ideas and the power of the 
marketplace, new technology, new kinds of partnerships.
    And that's why I really came up here today. We've come together at 
this historic ranch house, the site of the first land grant in the State 
of California, to celebrate a voluntary partnership. And frankly, it's 
an experiment, an effort to preserve species in their critical habitat 
while still allowing for economic development. The natural communities 
conservation planning project tries to bring all parties together 
voluntarily before regulatory approaches kick in and reduce all 
flexibility. This will help protect endangered species while still 
allowing for rational and reasonable economic development. It sounds 
simple. But very few communities are able to pull it off. I congratulate 
all of you who are involved in this effort. And I hope other communities 
across this country will take a look at what you are trying to do here.
    Partnership is a principle that can work in environmental policy. 
And another is in using incentives, not expensive regulations, to stop 
pollution at its source. Let me just give you one example of what I am 
talking about: We all know that it can stop money for some businesses 
and factories to comply with the Clean Air Act. And we also know that, 
by far, the most polluting cars on the road are these clunkers, like the 
old Dodge Aunt Edna bought in the early sixties before we had real 
pollution standards. So we came up with a new idea. We let States allow 
companies to earn credit for meeting the Clean Air Act standards by 
buying old cars, taking them off the road, and putting them in the scrap 
heap. UNOCAL tried doing this right here in southern California. Over 
8,000 old cars were turned in. The program cut pollution--now, listen to 
this--that program cut pollution equal to 150,000 new cars, one million 
gallons of paint, half the carbon monoxide from refineries and 
powerplants in greater Los Angeles, and get this, all the barbecue 
lighter fluids in the LA basin. [Laughter] It had that kind of effect. 
It's the perfect program. Companies can protect jobs, the air becomes 
cleaner, and old Aunt Edna finally gets rid of the old Dodge in the 
garage. And now we're going to apply this program nationwide.
    We're also trying to encourage the development of technology. 
Technology has made possible cleaner cars and cleaner factories, more 
energy-efficient buildings, less wasteful factories. Technology is not 
just key to our economic future but to our environmental future as well. 
One of the lessons that we've learned over the past two decades is that 
command-and-control regulation freezes this, locks this old technology 
in place. And you need incentives, you need investment to make new 
breakthroughs possible.
    In this administration, we've launched a broad program of investment 
in new technologies. They clean the environment. They promote energy 
efficiency and, in the process, can create an entire new industry to 
employ you and your children. We started a national technology 
initiative, linking experts in our Federal labs, where all that great 
research has been going on, with those in the private sector. And 
already environmental technology has been the focus of 20 of these 
ventures, with twice that many small businesses participating. As part 
of our R&D program, we started a partnership with the major auto 
companies to develop cars that run on batteries, with no air pollution. 
And we're working toward lighter materials so that everything from 
airplanes to automobiles will use less energy and create less pollution. 
We've increased investment in research and development for new ways to 
produce and use clean-burning natural gas. And perhaps most important, 
our national energy strategy gets rid of the roadblocks that will allow 
these technologies to be adopted in the marketplace. These programs all 
reject the old command-and-control mentality that drove up the costs and 
reduced jobs and never achieved the environmental progress that we 
desired. I am very proud of what we've done.

[[Page 1554]]

    I'll certainly match my environmental record against my opponent. 
Under Governor Clinton, Arkansas ranks 50th, worst in the country, for 
utility of State environmental initiatives, according to an independent 
analysis by the Institute for Southern Studies. But in his zeal to 
capture his party's nomination, Governor Clinton has made every promise 
to every environmental group who sent him a survey. He and his running-
mate are advancing a philosophy that goes back to where command-and-
control regulation is the only solution, a philosophy that will not only 
cut jobs but could impede technology, environmental progress, not 
promote it. And when it comes to the environment, I believe extremism on 
either side is no virtue. Cooperation, innovation, a faith in 
technology, these are the virtues that will allow us to protect both 
jobs and nature.
    And let me give you another example of my opponent's inconsistency. 
It refers to the free trade agreement that I mentioned earlier. I 
strongly support the free trade agreement. But I am sensitive to 
concerns about its impact on the environment in Mexico and along the 
border, not far from here, that goes all the way across Arizona and down 
into Texas. Governor Clinton claims he's concerned, too. In fact, it's 
one of the reasons he gives to justify his refusal to take a definite 
position on the treaty. But at the exact same time he talks about his 
concern about border pollution, his Democratic friends on Capitol Hill 
are cutting in half my proposed plan to help protect our border 
environment. When it comes to environment, Governor Clinton seems to be 
on one side on one day and on another side the next. And I don't, I 
honestly do not believe that America needs that equivocation. I believe 
we've struck the right balance. And with your support, I will fight to 
keep the right balance.
    You remember a few years ago when Time magazine selected its Man of 
the Year? It selected Planet Earth as the Planet of the Year. And Jay 
Leno said, ``Well, what do you expect? All the judges came from Earth.'' 
Well, Time's cover and Jay Leno's joke underscores one fact: The 
environment is the concern of every Californian, of every American. And 
we can have a strong environment and a strong economy. Indeed, the way I 
look at it is we must have both.
    I began by talking about the globalization of our economy. I really 
believe that the question of how America can compete is the defining 
question not just of this election but of our future. I am very 
optimistic about our future. If we can create new partnerships like this 
one, and if we can focus more on preventing a problem than fixing it 
later, and if we can turn our technological prowess to our environmental 
advantage, then we face a competitive edge that no other nation can 
match. But the key is achieving a reasonable balance. And if we do it, 
we can help. We can renew America. We can make our Nation stronger, 
safer, and more secure. I am absolutely confident that with your support 
and with these hundred and some new Members of Congress coming in, that 
we can get the job done.
    Thank you. God bless you. And may God bless the United States of 
America. Thank you all very much.

                    Note: The President spoke at 8:20 a.m. at Rancho 
                        Penasquitos. In his remarks, he referred to 
                        comedian Jay Leno.