    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: WILLIAM J. CLINTON (1999, Book II)]
    [November 5, 1999]
    [Pages 1988-1992]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Remarks in a Teleconference on Agricultural Issues With Rural Radio
    Stations in Hermitage
    November 5, 1999

        The President. How are you doing?
        Stewart Doan. Fine, sir. Welcome back down
    to Arkansas.
        The President. Nice to hear your voice, Stewart.

    [Mr. Doan of the Arkansas Radio Network began
    the conference by listing American farmers' problems, including low
    commodity prices, high production costs, reduction in exports juxtaposed
    with a rise in imports, and the growing number of farmers exiting the
    business. He asked what incentives existed for crop growers to stay in
    farming for the next century.]

        The President. Well, let me say first of all, I think we've got to
    change the '95 farm bill. When the Republican Congress passed it at the
    end of the session, they did it in such a way that I had to sign it,
    because otherwise we

    [[Page 1989]]

    would have been left with the 1948 law, which was even worse. But the
    problem is, it has no safety net that's adjustable to the conditions.
    And I think that's very important to change.
        And while it is true that we have put a ton of money into emergency
    payments to farmers the last 2 years, it's basically given out under the
    distribution system of the existing law, which means some really big
    farmers get it even if they don't plant and don't need the money, and
    they get a windfall; and then some of the family farmers that are
    actually out there really killing themselves every year, in spite of all
    the money we're spending, are not adequately compensated.
        So I think--you know, I think it's a mistake. And I think that it's
    because--I frankly believe that the majority in Congress is not as
    sensitive as they should be to the existence of family farmers and
    individual farmers, and less concerned if we have more of a corporate
    structure. I think that's a mistake. I think, on the concentration
    issues, I think they all ought to be looked at. And if they're not
    legal, I think they ought to be moved against. But under our system, I
    have to be very careful as President, legally, not to comment on
    specific potential violations of the antitrust laws.
        And the reason we had a decline in markets is because the American
    economy was booming and the Asian economy collapsed, and the Russian
    economy collapsed. I believe the markets will pick up now, as Asia's
    economy picks up and as Europe's picks up. But we're going to have this
    World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle, Washington, next month. And
    I think it's very important that we start a new trade round, and that
    agriculture be at the center of it, because we've always known if we got
    a fair shot to sell our products around the world, we could outcompete
    anybody.
        And I think in the short run, we've got to fix the farm bill to deal
    with emergencies. In the longer run, we've got to have more markets. And
    that's what I'm going to be working on.
        Mr. Doan. Thank you sir.

    [National Association of Farm Broadcasters president Mike Adams noted that many farmers prefered to see markets in
    Cuba opened. He asked if the President was in favor of lifting the
    embargo on Cuba.]

        The President. Well, I'm not in favor of a total lift of the
    embargo, because I think that we should continue to try to put pressure
    on the Castro regime to move more toward
    democracy and respect for human rights. And it's the only nondemocracy
    in our whole hemisphere.
        And let me say, I have bent over backwards to try to reach out to
    them, and to try to provide more opportunities for person-to-person
    contacts, to get better transfer of medicine into Cuba, and all kinds of
    other things. And every time we do something, Castro shoots planes down and kills people illegally, or puts
    people in jail because they say something he doesn't like. And I almost
    think he doesn't want us to lift the embargo, because it provides him an
    excuse for the failures, the economic failures of his administration.
        Now, on the other hand, there is consideration being given in the
    Congress to broad legislation which would permit us to, in effect, not
    apply sanctions and embargoes to food or medicine. And under the right
    circumstances, I could support that. And it had broad bipartisan
    support. My understanding is that it has been held up in the Congress
    because Senator Helms and others don't want us
    to sell any food to Cuba. But under the right circumstances, a general
    policy which permitted me to--which basically said it is the general
    policy of the United States not to include food and medicine in
    embargoes, but under emergencies they could be--I could support that
    kind of legislation. And I think that would provide a lot of relief to
    the farmers.
        But it would have to be written in the proper way. And I have worked
    with both Republicans and Democrats on that. But it's my understanding
    that Cuba is the very issue that's preventing it from being passed in
    the Congress today.
        Mr. Adams. Thank you, sir.
        The President. Let me--if I could just follow up on the question. We
    supported lifting sanctions against Pakistan and India and reforming the
    sanctions law. And we have sold a great deal of corn to Iran, for
    example. And before the Ayatollah took over, in my State sometimes we
    sold as much as 25 percent of our rice crop over there. So it's a big
    issue with me, and I'll do what I can to help. We're for sanctions
    reform in the right kind of way, to basically exempt food and medicine
    from sanctions.

    [Price Allan of Kentucky Ag Net described the
    effect of the President's proposed 55 cent tobacco tax on rural
    communities in Kentucky and the

    [[Page 1990]]

    Southeast and asked the President to discuss his plans to compensate
    tobacco growers.]

        The President Well, first of all, the last increase, pursuant to the
    settlement that the tobacco companies made with the States, didn't have
    any protections for tobacco farmers at all. And I thought it was wrong.
    And that's because we couldn't get Congress to ratify and participate in
    the settlement.
        Let me remind you, when I became President, I said I would keep the
    tobacco support program. I said--I did what I could to increase the
    domestic content, to protect American tobacco sales in the American
    market. And I always said that the tobacco farmers had to be taken care
    of in any tobacco settlement.
        So we had, in our proposal--you said you had losses of $300 million.
    We had, I think, $5 billion in support to tobacco farmers and tobacco
    communities, to help to deal with the adverse impact of any increase in
    the price. And, you know, it sounds funny--since I've been so strong for
    increasing the price, because I want to reduce teen smoking, and I want
    funds to pay for health programs related to cigarette-related illnesses
    and to discourage young people from smoking--but I never would sanction
    a price increase of the kind that you have already experienced under the
    settlement between the States and the tobacco companies, without a huge
    increase in the investment in tobacco farmers and families and tobacco
    communities. I think that it's wrong to do that.
        The tobacco farmers didn't do anything wrong. We ought to be paying
    for major transition assistance and other kinds of economic development
    and support to the tobacco farmers and to the communities in which they
    live. So under my plan, you'd get something like $5 billion, which would
    be much more than the short-term economic damage, to create a whole
    different future and to actually compensate for the actual out-of-pocket
    losses.
        Mr. Allan. Thank you, sir.
        Bill Ray. Mr. President, Bill Ray here at Kill
    Devil Hills, North Carolina.
        The President. Hi, Bill.

    [Mr. Ray of the Agrinet Farm Radio Network asked
    the President for suggestions on giving American food producers better
    access to Japanese and European markets.]

        The President. Well, I think there are two things we have to do. I
    think the most important thing we can do is to get the Europeans and the
    Japanese to agree to include broad agricultural talks in a new trade
    round to be completed within 3 years. That is, we need a global opening
    of markets. And as the economy recovers in Asia and in Europe and
    elsewhere, we will see an increase in food consumption and an increase
    in the capacity to buy American food. So I think the most important
    thing is that we've got to have a real broad trade round.
        Then the second thing I think is quite important is that we bargain
    very tough with the Europeans and the Japanese in our bilateral
    relations. You know, they're always wanting to sell things to the United
    States, and they're always wanting to close their markets to our food
    products.
        Mr. Ray. Exactly.
        The President. Now, we've had some real success in opening Japan to
    specific food products, particularly. But the biggest problem, frankly,
    is the trade barriers and, specifically, tariffs on farm products.
    Worldwide, the average tariff on farm products is 50 percent. In the
    United States, the average is less than 10 percent. So I think we just
    have to tell people, ``Look, we've tried to give you access to our
    markets, but you've got to give us access to yours.'' We have to have
    better parity here. And if we can get it, then we can do fine.
        Now, in a lot of places--you know, a lot of these other countries,
    their farmers are just as strong politically as our farmers are. And
    they're not as strong agriculturally. But there is a way for them to get
    the benefits of being able to sell their products in our markets, which
    the Japanese plainly do and the Europeans do. And they ought to give us
    a chance to sell into theirs.
        And that's why I wanted to host this meeting at the World Trade
    Organization, and why we want to kick off this trade deal, because I
    think that the biggest advantage, not just for farmers but for all of
    America, out of new trade talks is the advantage we'd have in greater
    agricultural sales.
        Mr. Ray. Thank you, Mr. President.
        Mr. Allan. Mr. President, may I follow up
    with a question to that?
        The President. Sure.
        Mr. Allan. Looking to the WTO talks in
    Seattle, there are reports that Charlene Barshefsky is prepared to offer
    up the program crops, such

    [[Page 1991]]

    as peanuts, sugar, and tobacco, and their support quotas, in return for
    foreign countries removing their tariffs and subsidies. Is that
    currently the game plan? And if so, what suggestions do you have for
    farmers that will be affected if that happens?
        The President. To the best of my knowledge, there has been no pre-
    existing offer like that put on the table. If there was one, they'd have
    to discuss it with me first, and I--then I'd be glad to answer that
    question.
        But I--to the best of my knowledge, there has been no decision to do
    that yet, because neither the Secretary of Agriculture nor I have been consulted on that. And I just don't
    believe some position of that magnitude would be taken without prior
    consultation with us. And it wouldn't hold water if we didn't agree.
        Mr. Allan. Thank you, sir.

    [Mr. Doan asked if the issues of genetically
    modified organisms (GMO's) and overly hormone-treated beef were
    discussed when the President met with the European Commission President
    Romano Prodi.]

        The President. Yes. Yes, and let me tell you where we are on that.
        Let's talk about the GMO's first. We told--we have repeatedly told
    the Europeans, and the whole world, that the United States has prided
    itself on having not only the cheapest but the safest food supply in the
    world, and that we never want to sell anything to our people, much less
    to anybody else, that isn't safe; that we have confidence in the finding
    of our Food and Drug Administration that these foods are safe. And if we
    didn't believe that, we wouldn't be selling them, and we certainly
    wouldn't be eating them.
        And one of the big problems is--and the Europeans recognize this, by
    the way--one of the big problems they have is that there is no
    equivalent organization to the American Food and Drug Administration,
    certainly in the European Union as a whole and, frankly, in individual
    European countries. So what we tried to do is get them not necessarily
    to agree with us on everything, but not to panic, and to make a
    commitment that this ought to be a decision made based on the science
    and the evidence, not on politics and fear; that, you know, the United
    States is not about to sell other people, or feed its own people, food
    that we think is dangerous. We would never, ever do that.
        And all these things have been reviewed by the appropriate
    authorities that we have reason to have confidence in. And they say that
    it cuts the cost of production and is perfectly safe. So what--our goal
    with the Europeans is to get them to commit unambiguously to making
    decisions with GMO's based on science.
        Now, with the beef, it's a different issue. We have a decision
    there, by the governing body of the WTO. We won, and they lost. They
    were all panicked, as you might understand, over their so-called mad cow
    problem. And as a result, it became an occasion to discriminate against
    our beef. It's just wrong.
        We've won two important agricultural cases, one involving beef, the
    other involving bananas, which are not produced in America but are owned
    by American companies. And the Europeans have to give us satisfaction.
    Once you play by the rules, you know--if we lose a case in the WTO to
    them, they expect us to honor the ruling. We have won not once, not
    twice, but three times, and they keep ignoring the rulings.
        And so all I can tell you is I've already imposed some sanctions and
    will impose more until we get satisfaction. We won the beef case, and
    we're entitled to the results of our victory. And you know, if they take
    us in here and they beat us fair and square, we've got to let them win.
        So we're in a real serious confrontation with the Europeans over the
    beef and banana issues. I think we'll prevail, and I think we'll prevail
    in fairly short order. Romano Prodi is a very
    able man, the new head of the European Union. He's a very serious
    person, and he has great potential for long-term leadership and
    partnership with the United States. And the other--he's got a whole
    crowd of immensely talented people in there. So I'm very hopeful we're
    finally going to get some good results.
        But anyway--the GMO's, we've got to give the Europeans a chance to
    look at it. But it's got to be done on a science basis, because you know
    yourself that I would never permit an American child to eat anything
    that I thought was unsafe. If we had any reason, based on our own
    scientific reviews, to question this, we would question it. So all we
    want the Europeans to do is to have the same kind of scientific
    approach. If we get there, we'll work through this GMO thing, and it'll
    all come out just fine.
        Mr. Doan. Thank you, sir.

    [[Page 1992]]

    [Mr. Adams asked the President if the lack of
    fast-track trading authority placed American negotiators at a
    disadvantage in the World Trade Organization talks in Seattle, WA, and
    if he would try again to obtain it before leaving office.]

        The President. The short answers are yes and yes, but we're not at
    too much of a disadvantage. That is, we can still negotiate, actually,
    because we have the WTO framework. We can still start a new trade round
    and bring it back to Congress. And it's 3 years down the road anyway.
        So to the extent that we're at any disadvantage, it's more
    psychological than anything else, because other countries traditionally
    have been far more protectionist than America, because we have a
    stronger economy, and we just tend to be more competitive, and we
    understand the benefits we get from open markets. So when we refuse to
    adopt fast track, it makes it easier for other countries to refuse to
    reduce their tariffs on farm products and to otherwise be more
    protectionist. So it's like a psychological advantage.
        But in the way the WTO system works, we'd launch this new trade
    round. It wouldn't have to be ratified for 3 years, or completed for 3
    years. So the fact that we don't have the fast-track authority right now
    is not a big problem there. It's a bigger problem in our efforts to
    develop a Free Trade Area of the Americas and get our own neighbors to
    keep buying more and more of our products. And our trade has grown more
    with Latin America than with any other part of the world in the short
    run.
        So that's the real answer to that. We could still get a very good
    WTO deal without fast track, because we can't ratify for 3 years anyway.

    [Mr. Allan asked the President how he would like
    farmers to remember his Presidency.]

        The President. Well, I want them to remember first of all that I
    turned the American economy around, and that until the collapse of the
    Asian economy, we had very, very good agricultural years, in the
    beginning of my administration. We had record exports, record farm
    income.
        I want them to remember that I had a special emphasis on rural
    development. I'm down in south Arkansas today at a tomato cooperative to
    try to emphasize the importance of having very, very strong co-ops of
    individual farmers, so that little guys can have a better chance to make
    a living; and that I've worked to try to find nonfarm sources of income
    to support farmers in small communities.
        I want them to remember that we did a really good job on increasing
    food safety and that that was good for marketing, because safe food
    sells, and that the food is safer now than it was when I took office.
        And I want them to remember that--I don't know yet if I'm going to
    succeed, but that I opposed the so-called freedom-to-farm concept
    without an adequate safety net for family farmers. I am--I think it does
    matter whether family farmers can make a living on the land. I don't
    think that America would be the same kind of country, and that rural
    America would have the same kind of character, if all the farmers of any
    size were corporate farms and individual family farms couldn't make it.
        So I hope I'll be remembered for the prosperity of the years before
    the Asian financial collapse, which I hope will return before I leave
    office; for a real emphasis on rural development; for an emphasis on
    food safety; and for a genuine concern for the family farmer.
        Secretary of Agriculture Daniel Glickman.
    Thank you, Mr. President.
        The President. Thank you.

    Note: The President spoke at 1:07 p.m. by telephone from the Hermitage
    Tomato Cooperative. In his remarks, he referred to President Fidel
    Castro of Cuba. The transcript released by the Office of the Press
    Secretary also included the remarks of Stewart Doan, Mike Adams, Price
    Allan, and Bill Ray.