    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George H. W. Bush (1991, Book I)]
    [April 29, 1991]
    [Pages 438-444]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Remarks and a Question-and-Answer Session With the National Association
    of Farm Broadcasters
    April 29, 1991

        The President. Sit down, please, and welcome, welcome. Let me just
    make a couple of comments and then try, with the assistance of our able
    Secretary of Agriculture, my friend and yours, too, Ed Madigan, to
    respond to your questions.
        But in the first place, I'm delighted that Ed is here. I was very
    high on Clayton Yeutter--moved over to a new and very difficult and very
    different assignment. Ed stepped into the breach. He's doing a fantastic
    job for our country. And I understand that he's rapidly making believers
    out of those in ag business that didn't know him. Those that did I think
    already were believers, as I have been.
        But anyway, we are the most agriculturally productive nation the
    world has ever known. And I want to be sure that we continue to be that.
    I'm still convinced that we can compete with anybody, provided we remove
    some of the barriers to trade. And that's one of the reasons that the
    Secretary and I are as committed to the successful conclusion of the
    GATT round; also why I believe that a Mexico free trade agreement would
    be in our own best interests.
        As a matter of fact, we've got a new one with Canada. It's been in
    effect for 2 years, and agricultural exports have gone up by 35 percent.
    So, those that want to criticize ought to take a look at the reality,
    and I think then they'd understand why we are committed--because we
    think it's good for American agriculture as well as good for--I think
    it's good for jobs, too. Just across the labor frontier there.
        There are three important trade agreements. You're all familiar with
    them. The Uruguay round--the GATT talks; the trade component of our
    Enterprise for the Americas Initiative, which is, I think, a bold new
    program that must succeed in terms of helping these democracies--
    fledgling democracies, many of them--in South America and thus building
    new markets for our own goods. But in any event, that's the second one.
    And then the third one, of course, is the North American free trade
    agreement that I mentioned earlier that, in

    [[Page 439]]

    this instance, features Mexico.
        Now, there are some questions about whether these would be of
    benefit to the American farmers. Let me just give you a couple--click
    off a couple of little numbers here. Free trade in North America would
    give our farmers a freely accessible market of 365 million people with a
    GNP of $6 trillion. And that's a market that's larger than the European
    Community. And likewise, the negotiation of a successful GATT agreement
    would decrease the trade barriers worldwide, offering potentially
    unlimited export opportunities.
        We're not there yet. We've had some difficulties getting our friends
    in Europe--and they are friends--to understand this. But the Secretary
    and I and our USTR, Ambassador Carla Hills, and the Secretary of the
    Treasury and the Secretary of Commerce--all of us are working on this
    important agreement. But we think that it would be a boon to American
    agriculture when we're successful.
        The success, obviously, hinges on what you know and I know as Fast
    Track negotiating authority. It is simply not right to--you can't
    negotiate an agreement if the people you're negotiating with think that
    it will be amended in many, many ways. The Congress will, though--
    there's a misunderstanding because some think that when we ask for Fast
    Track, that we're asking Congress to yield their right to vote on it.
    And that simply isn't--I found that hard to believe, but I think there's
    been some confusion on that. We are going to--they obviously would vote
    up and down. And if they didn't like it, they'd vote it down. If they
    liked it, they'd vote for it. But you can't have 25,000 amendments to an
    agreement and expect your trading partners to negotiate seriously.
        So, the Congress--and I'm very respectful of Congress' role in this.
    They have a constitutional role on international trade, and some forget
    that. So, we're sensitive to that role. We've had extensive
    consultations. I don't believe I've seen an initiative that's had more
    consultation with Congress than this one. And I think we're going to be
    all right on it, but we're going to continue to work very hard to get
    Fast Track approval.
        New applications for agricultural products, like the alternative
    fuels, fuels blended with ethanol, and biodegradable plastics, and some
    not so modern uses like food and clothing, provide farmers with exciting
    opportunities. I understand that there's some differences in the ag
    community. I was just talking to the Secretary about this. But generally
    speaking, we're committed to alternative fuels. I believe that the Clean
    Air Act alone is going to create tremendous opportunities for
    alternative fuel. So I haven't lost my enthusiasm for this at all.
        The Fast Track assures our trading partners that we will go through
    with our agreement. We will vote on what they and we negotiate, and I
    mentioned that point earlier. New applications for agricultural products
    is important. And we're talking about some fuels blended with ethanol
    and biodegradable plastics. And all of these kinds of things I think
    have a brilliant future for agriculture. It's been a little slower than
    I had hoped, frankly, but I think there's a big market and big future
    out there.
        And so I would say to farmers, do not despair because you haven't
    yet reached the full potential of these new markets for your products.
        I'm going to be asking agriculture over and over again for support
    on this Fast Track extension, and I think that the bottom line is, they
    will enjoy more export opportunity if we're successful here. And I think
    it will be a boon for the rural economy as well as--well, obviously it
    would if we continue to sell more abroad. So, these were just a couple
    of the points, and now I'd be glad to respond to some questions.
        Q. Mr. President, on behalf of NAFB, we appreciate this time on your
    schedule. As president of the organization here in 1991, I'd like to
    defer the first question to the elder statesman of our group from Des
    Moines, Iowa, a gentleman who was our second president in 1946, Herb
    Plambeck.
        The President. Is that right? Herb, you didn't tell me all that.
    Thank you, Ron, and I'm just delighted you are here, really.

    Trade With Iraq

        Q. Mr. President, I'm sure I speak for everyone here in our group
    when I voice

    [[Page 440]]

    the pride and the gratitude we have toward you for the way the Persian
    Gulf crisis was handled and the humanitarian efforts that have been made
    since then.
        There are, however, a few questions remaining. One relates to Iraq
    having been one of our good customers for our farm products. Is any
    thought being given already toward the restoration of this trade?
        The President. The restoration of food support for Iraq is underway,
    the United Nations having taken some steps. We are not going to let
    people starve. But in terms of building reliable markets and in terms of
    trying to have normalized trade, the United States will not have
    normalized trade as long as Saddam Hussein is in power.
        Food is an exception now, because we're not going to let people
    starve. We are going to go forward with helping people in Iraq without
    regard to what sect they're from or anything of that nature. But I don't
    want to mislead any farmer in this country. We will not have normalized
    trade with Iraq as long as Saddam Hussein is in office. And they're now
    trying to appeal to get some relief on the oil. There's not going to be
    any relief as far as the United States goes until they move forward on a
    lot of fronts, incidentally. I mean, what's happened to these Kurds is
    absolutely--it's so sad you're just moved.
        Frankly--and Herb, I'm glad you mentioned it--we have responded. We
    responded from day one, and now we're responding to enormous--hundreds
    of millions of dollars relief. That's what we do. We're Americans. We do
    that to help people. But we're not going to have normalized relations
    with this man.

    Credit for the Soviet Union

        Q. Mr. President, have you made a decision on granting the Soviet
    Union more credit?
        The President. No, and we're thinking about that. The legislation--
    I've talked to Ed about this, and the legislation is fairly specific in
    terms of creditworthiness. Shake me off if I'm wrong here, Ed, but I
    think that's correct. Regrettably, the Soviet Union has not entered into
    the market reforms that I think Gorbachev aspires to and that I know
    that the President of the Republic, Mr. Yeltsin, aspires to. So, they've
    got to move forward to be creditworthy if we're going to do this.
        Now, there may be--and we're thinking about this--there may be some
    way to extend credits. And I'll tell you another problem is we want to
    be sure how it's distributed--that no area is precluded from being the
    beneficiaries of this kind of credit. So, it's up in the air right now.
    I don't want to say that I won't go forward with this. I think in some
    areas it would be very helpful to us, to our grain growers.
        I'm not immune to the fact that they've been hurting, so I'd like to
    be helpful. But I've got to abide by the law. And if we can find ways to
    encourage forward movement on these credits or find ways to make it
    creditworthy any other way, so much--market reform is a good way to do
    it. There are other ways that perhaps they could make the credit more
    secure.

    Fast Track Authority Legislation

        Q. Sir, I'd like to get back to Fast Track. Only one of the major
    farm organizations, and they're a glaring example--everybody else is in
    favor of the Fast Track. What's the hangup? What's the problem? What do
    you see?
        The President. Problem with who? With that one guy that's out of
    step, or the other 51? [Laughter] I'm for the 51 farm organizations that
    are for it. Fifty-one are.
        Q. Don't you feel it will pass?
        The President. Well, I hope so, but we're not going to act like it's
    done yet. We are killing ourselves trying to get this done, and we are
    going to continue to work with the Democrats in the Congress--
    Republicans. Incidentally, we're approaching this in a nonpartisan
    manner. We've got some Republicans that I still have to convince, and
    plenty of Democrats. And then we've got plenty of Democrats that are for
    us and plenty of Republicans. And Ed's not approaching it in a partisan
    manner.
        But in terms of the farm organizations, thank heavens most of them
    are seeing that it will benefit the agricultural economy in this
    country. I really believe it will. But we're just going to keep pursuing
    it because I don't want to say it's in the bag. It isn't yet. We're
    counting votes, but we've got a

    [[Page 441]]

    ways to go before I can say to the American farmer, look, we're going to
    win this one, and you're going to be the beneficiaries thereof.
        Q. The President, how successful--or what would it mean not only to
    the U.S. as a whole but for the U.S. farmer for a successful GATT
    agreement? And how important is Fast Track to that?
        The President. It's very important to a successful conclusion to the
    GATT round. Without it, without Fast Track, I think it would be almost
    impossible to hammer out an agreement that would pass muster with the
    many countries that have to be in accord. And so it's do or die, in a
    sense, that this Fast Track--some have wanted to try to split them off,
    split off Mexican--the North American free trade from Fast Track and
    relating to Europe--to GATT, I mean. And I don't want that. I don't want
    to see a policy that discriminates against a neighbor of ours. And so,
    we're going to go forward. And I--again back to Bill's question--I think
    we can do it, but we're not there yet.

    Mexican Adherence to Pesticide Regulations

        Q. One of the problems it seems like that Congress and some
    agricultural interests need assurances on is the pesticide regulation
    issue. What kind of assurances can you provide that we can get Mexico to
    conform to our strict pesticide regulations here?
        The President. Well, there's a lot of discussion going on with them.
    It has to do with the other environmental concerns, too. I believe that
    Mexico--and the technical way we're doing this I'd have to defer--even
    maybe Ed could answer it, but I'd have to defer to Carla. I'm not sure.
    I have discussed at length the environmental concerns here with the
    President of Mexico. And all I can tell you is that he has moved
    forward. He's already shut down or is in the process of shutting down
    the highest polluting refinery in Mexico. It's the PEMEX refinery. He is
    well aware of the environmental concerns in this country, and he shares
    them as far as Mexico.
        I'll give you an example. When I first met--maybe not the first
    meeting but early-on meeting with President Salinas, who's a good man--
    and he started telling me about the children in the Mexican schools.
    They paint the sky at night with no stars. Imagine that--a school child
    painting the sky gray. He said, ``My ambition is to have the children
    paint the night with the stars and the moon so they can see it.'' And I
    am convinced that he is going to do what is reasonable and what he
    should do to protect his environment, just as we're trying hard to do it
    on ours.
        So, in terms of this, I'm embarrassed to say I can't give you the
    technical language as to what we might be doing right now on
    agricultural pesticide use, pesticide use in agriculture, but I am
    confident--and incidentally, the Senators tell me that they are
    confident that the environmental questions can be readily answered.
        Ed, do you want to add anything?
        Secretary Madigan. You covered it very well.
        The President. I mean, it's more general than you wanted, but I am
    satisfied we can get it done.

    Energy Policy

        Q. You mentioned the commitment to alternative fuels, and I think
    wheat and corn producers realize that commitment came long before the
    Persian Gulf war. But haven't the events of the last few months
    reemphasized our need to get away from those foreign fuels?
        The President. Getting away from this much reliance on foreign oil
    has been there for a long, long time. It's more clear today because of
    the Gulf. We must learn. And one of the things that we are trying to do
    with our whole new national energy program is to become less dependent
    on foreign oil. Now, one way to do that is through alternative fuels.
        We also, I want to say--and I hope I don't sound defensive--do have
    some pretty good ideas in terms of conservation. And we're accused of
    not having any conservation ideas or conservation program--and we want
    it. But I also don't want this country to be shoved into a no-growth
    mode. I mean, there's a lot of young people that need economic
    opportunity in this country, a lot of farmers that can sell more if the
    market increases for their products. But you put your finger on
    something I feel strongly

    [[Page 442]]

    about, and that is that we must, from our national security standpoint,
    become less dependent on foreign oil. And alternative fuels is one good
    way to do it.
        I happen to think another way to do it is to expand our exploration
    domestically. And you run into conflict with special interests groups on
    that, but I am convinced that that is in our national security
    interests, too.

    Federal Emergency Assistance for Kansas

        Q. Mr. President, any decision on Federal assistance for the tornado
    victims?
        The President. I'm glad you asked about that one because one of the
    reasons I kept you all waiting a little bit is I just signed the
    disaster assistance for Kansas--and I expect, as the other requests come
    in, they will be processed that rapidly. I mentioned yesterday coming
    out of church that our hearts really go out to the victims. Bob Dole was
    out there the night before last in Kansas, and he called me up, I think
    it was Friday night--or Saturday night I guess he got back--and said he
    really had never seen anything like this. And of course, it was widely
    covered on the television.
        And I said, ``Bob, what more do we need to be doing?'' He said,
    ``Well, the FEMA emergency people are there now.'' And then, of course,
    then in came the formal request. And I'm happy to say that we did sign
    that right now, and we'll do what's necessary for other States.

    China

        Q. Mr. President, what about most-favored-nation status for China?
        The President. Well, Mike, it's a difficult one. What I have tried
    to do with China is to make clear our concern about human rights abuses,
    stemming out of--highlighted particularly by Tiananmen Square, but
    recognize that cutting off all contacts or trying to drive them to their
    knees economically is not the way to effect change. And I go back to
    when we opened relations with China. And, yes, there's some abuses there
    that no American can be tolerant of. But there's a lot of changes in
    China that have taken place that are beneficial.
        And I would point to the fact that our policy of at least trying to
    keep some reasoned relation with China paid off in spades on the recent
    war, because we needed--I felt we needed--the international sanction
    that those United Nations gave the effort. And if we'd have had enmity
    with China, it is very clear in my mind that they might--I can't say
    would have, but they might well have vetoed the resolutions. And we
    operated with an international sanction, an international approval that
    gave the whole operation worldwide credibility.
        So, I think it's important that we have reasonable relations with
    China. I think it's important we have trade relations with China. But on
    the other hand, China sometimes doesn't see eye-to-eye with us on some
    of the fundamental human rights questions that concern me as President
    and concern all Americans.
        So, that's a long way of saying I don't know exactly what we're
    going to do on the MFN to China. We fought for it last year. We have
    protected the students in this country, Chinese students--will continue
    to do that. But I'm one who believes that if we can keep contact and
    keep showing them our way, showing them how good our product is, that
    that's a better way than breaking off relations.
        There's a billion--what, 1.1 billion people in China. And give them
    their due, they're feeding 1.1 billion people. I wish our trade balance
    with China was better. It's gone more in their favor. But again, we
    can't legislate that. But I think I understand China. I note the
    importance of China. I respect the sovereignty of China. I've said over
    and over again, I wish that--I have not certainly approved, indeed, have
    condemned some of the human rights abuses.
        So, we've got to work with this big country. And it is in our
    interest so to do. Whether that will lead to MFN renewal, that question
    will be decided very soon. And I, myself, must decide what role the
    administration will take, because we had a battle on it before, as you
    know.
        Two more--there are two persistent hands up, and then we'll go. Yes?

    Soviet Union

        Q. Your reaction to the instability shown last week, of Gorbachev
    resigning and then the Communist Committee not taking it.

    [[Page 443]]

    What would him stepping down mean to U.S. agriculture?
        The President. Well, I think it would mean uncertainty inside the
    Soviet Union. And there's a lot of question as to something--if Mr.
    Gorbachev stepped down, which way the Soviet Union would go. I like to
    feel that the changes manifested by the lightening up in Eastern Europe
    and by much more openness, glasnost, inside is irreversible. I like to
    believe that. But that is an internal matter of the Soviet Union. I have
    elected to stay in close touch with Mr. Gorbachev. He is the man there
    right now. We meet with opposition leaders from time to time at various
    levels, including mine with the Baltic leaders. We have differences with
    them in terms of, well, treatment of the Republics, for example, right
    now.
        But what happened last week I think in a sense was quite reassuring
    because there were some widespread speculation that Mr. Gorbachev was in
    trouble, even with the party. And I think that showed that that was not
    the case.
        But, again, there's a lot of turmoil there. And there's a lot of
    economic difficulty in the Soviet Union today. And we don't take joy in
    that at all. We don't take joy in their problems. They've moved
    considerably since--on a lot of things. And, again, going back to the
    war, the answer I gave you on China is very valid in terms of the Soviet
    Union. They approved every resolution. They stayed with us, even when
    Gorbachev--you remember just before the ground war started--was talking
    about, well, please hold off. But I didn't take that as a disapproval of
    what we were trying to do. Indeed, when we said, okay, it's Saturday,
    Mr. Saddam Hussein, or you've got problems--the Soviets, having tried
    their approach, were supportive.
        And so again, we want to keep good relations, but they have
    enormous--just enormous--problems, and we take no joy in that at all.
    I'd like to find ways to be helpful. But when it comes to these credits,
    we cannot--we are bound by our laws. And I think that protects the
    American taxpayers--that there has to be a certain creditworthiness. So,
    it's a tough one right now for them, but let's hope that this democratic
    process will keep going and keep evolving until we have just
    pluperfectly good relations with them. I mean, we've got good relations,
    but they've got such enormous problems that their full potential is
    unrealized.
        You talk about energy--somebody asked me the energy question--the
    potential is enormous. But they've got to move forward with more than
    rhetoric. They've got to go with these market reforms.

    Free and Fair Trade

        Q. Mr. President, there's been a lot of talk about tariffication.
    One of those places where it has happened--Japan has removed quotas and
    put on tariffs on beef. Could you relate to that, please?
        The President. What was the word?
        Q. Tariffication--putting tariffs on instead of quotas in trade
    negotiations. That's been one of the goals.
        The President. I don't think just substituting one barrier for
    another, if that's what the question is, is a good way to do it. We're
    trying to get open markets. It is my fundamental belief that the
    American farmer can compete with anybody provided we're talking total
    freedom of trade. We're not there yet. We're not there yet in terms of
    trade with a lot of countries--put it that way. But if the substitution
    is being substituted to throw up a barrier under a different name, I
    don't think we should be very enthusiastic about that approach.
        Maybe I'm missing your question, but----
        Q. The question is, as opposed to just a strict quota, put on a
    tariff--and that's been one of the things that have been talked about in
    trade negotiations, that has happened, and apparently beef exports to
    Japan have increased.
        The President. Can I refer to my economic expert to answer that
    which I do not know? [Laughter] Mike? This is Dr. Mike Boskin here.
        Chairman Boskin. We have been generally in favor of substituting
    tariffs for quotas in the context of reducing the tariffs in a variety
    of ways. So, I think the President's quite right--you don't want to just
    substitute one form of barrier for another. That won't help us. That
    won't help our exporters. But it's being done, and the discussions of it
    will continue--discussion of it in the

    [[Page 444]]

    Uruguay round and elsewhere is a process of getting the tariffs removed.
    So, you start by getting rid of the quotas and putting on a tariff with
    a schedule for the tariff to decline.
        The President. That's what I wanted to say, but I was just kind of
    hung up on it. Thank you all very much.
        Q. I just wanted to say thank you, and we appreciate your access to
    talk about agriculture for a few moments.
        The President. Thank you all very much.

                        Note: The President spoke at 2:35 p.m. in the
                            Roosevelt Room at the White House. In his
                            remarks, he referred to Secretary of Agriculture
                            Edward R. Madigan; Clayton Yeutter, chairman of
                            the Republican National Committee and former
                            Secretary of Agriculture; U.S. Trade
                            Representative Carla A. Hills; Secretary of the
                            Treasury Nicholas F. Brady; Secretary of
                            Commerce Robert A. Mosbacher; Herb Plambeck and
                            Ronald Hays, former president and current
                            president of the National Association of Farm
                            Broadcasters; President Saddam Hussein of Iraq;
                            President Mikhail Gorbachev of the Soviet Union;
                            Boris Yeltsin, President of the Russian
                            Republic; Bill Mason, farm broadcaster at WGEL
                            in Greenville, IL; President Carlos Salinas de
                            Gortari of Mexico; Senator Robert Dole of
                            Kansas; Michael LePorte, farm broadcaster at
                            KRVN in Lexington, NE; and Michael J. Boskin,
                            Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers.