[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 29, Number 28 (Monday, July 19, 1993)]
[Pages 1332-1338]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Interview With Jan Mickelson of WHO Radio in Des Moines

 July 14, 1993

    Mr. Mickelson. Mr. President, 1040 WHO Radio, KLYF-FM, and TV-13 
welcomes you to Iowa and the Nation's heartland. Thank you for coming.
    You spent the morning and the midday touring the wreckage and the 
damage, flood damage. Give us some of your impressions, sir.
    The President. I did have the opportunity to tour, first of all, by 
helicopter. I spent about a half an hour flying over the Des Moines 
area, and then I stopped in a supermarket lot where water was being 
distributed. I talked to people who had lost everything in their houses, 
they've lost their businesses, people who obviously have had their farms 
flooded out. It was a very moving thing. I talked to parents who were 
worried about their children and whether they could get adequate water 
and how they were going to do that safely. And some of them had been 
able to send their children to relatives in other communities; some had 
not.
    But the spirit of the people seemed pretty undaunted. Several people 
broke down, and they were very choked up, but they were resolute. And I 
think that, as terrible as these things are, in some ways they bring out 
the best in people. I saw an enormous number of people who had just 
stopped their lives and come in to volunteer and help other people deal 
with their problems.
    I will say this: This is a different sort of emergency than I saw 10 
days ago when I came to Iowa and Illinois. It's gone beyond the flooding 
of farmland, obviously, to the destruction of a lot of homes and 
businesses and the public safety issue here with the water. Your people 
I think have done a very good job working with the Federal agencies and 
the State people, and I was very impressed by that.
    I guess we ought to just do a rundown, since we have people 
listening to us from other States. We know now that there have been five 
States declared disaster areas: Iowa, Illinois, Missouri, Wisconsin, and 
Minnesota. We also have Federal officials in

[[Page 1333]]

South Dakota, Kansas, and Nebraska reviewing the damage there.
    A lot of people here are clearly and justifiably concerned about 
these losses. And I want to make just two or three comments about that. 
First of all, just before I came on this program I talked to the 
Director of our Office of Management and Budget, Leon Panetta, and 
authorized him to send today to the Congress a bill to provide emergency 
help to the families, the farmers, the businesses, and the communities 
who have been hurt by the rains and the flooding along the Mississippi 
River and its tributaries.
    The bill will initially ask for about $2.5 billion in disaster 
funds, based on preliminary estimates of damages and several hundred 
million dollars in what are called contingent appropriations. That is, 
if the damages come through, the money can be released; if not, then 
it's not released and doesn't go against the spending. We expect that 
the damages, frankly, the compensable damages will be greater than that. 
And in the next 4 or 5 days we expect to be modifying that bill some. 
But we felt it was very important to go ahead and get the bill in, start 
it through the congressional process. And over the next 4 or 5 days 
we'll be getting more hard estimates of damages in, and it can be 
modified, first in the House and then in the Senate. After that, if 
further modifications are needed, we will be able to go back and ask the 
Congress to do more.
    The principle, the operative principle here, ought to be that the 
people who have been hit by this disaster should not be treated any 
differently than people who were victims of Hurricane Andrew, Hurricane 
Hugo, the terrible devastation on the island of Kauai in the State of 
Hawaii. We ought to treat everybody the same.
    Let me just make one other point in addition to the aid. I want to 
compliment the work that has been done at the local level and by the 
Federal agencies here. The Secretary of Agriculture, Mike Espy, has been 
here three times. The Director of the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency, James Lee Witt, has been here extensively. He was just 
complimented at the Hy-Vee parking lot here because the hospital needed 
some water purification equipment, and he produced it within 24 hours.
    You've got the Departments of Transportation and Commerce and 
Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, the Small 
Business Administration, the Corps of Engineers, the Coast Guard, and 
National Guardsmen from all over working hard here. So I have been very 
impressed with that, and we're going to keep doing that.
    I want to say a special word of commendation to FEMA and to the 
Director, James Lee Witt, because they have really worked hard to cut 
through the redtape. I got asked a lot of questions in the crowd today 
at the parking lot, and there must be people all over this Mississippi 
River area asking those questions. So let me say that you can go to a 
disaster assistance center set up by FEMA, and they'll give you one-stop 
shopping. That is, if you have some problem that is not necessarily 
covered by the Federal Emergency Management Act, if you just show up 
there, they'll work you through the system and what's there. We're going 
to have, I think, a coordinated and effective as well as a compassionate 
effort.
    So those are the two things I wanted to say. For the people here who 
still have questions about where they are and what they need, go to the 
disaster assistance center. Secondly, I'm going to send the bill up to 
the Congress this afternoon and urge them to move in a speedy way. When 
I say $2.5 billion, let me emphasize there's probably another $1 billion 
in ongoing appropriations of the Congress which can be used to deal with 
the agricultural and other losses here, just money that's already out 
there that we'll just reprogram for the hard-hit areas. And as we get 
more disaster estimates in over the next couple of days, if it's 
warranted--and I think it will be, based on what I've seen and heard--we 
will modify the figures upward.
    But I want to say, again, I've been very impressed. This has been a 
particularly moving experience for me and for the Vice President and for 
our families because so many of these towns that were hit were on the 
bus tour that we took last year. And when I've looked at these towns and 
I've seen what's happened, so many of them, you know, particularly along 
the river, in East St. Louis and

[[Page 1334]]

Hannibal and Wayland and Keokuk and Fort Madison, Burlington in this 
State, Muscatine, Davenport, Bettendorf--we visited all those places. We 
visited Prairie du Chien and La Crosse in Wisconsin. So I've met a lot 
of the people that have been hurt by this flood, and I just want you to 
know that we're going to do everything we can to be there and be a good 
partner. And if there are more things that should be done. I want the 
people to let us know through FEMA.
    Mr. Mickelson. I had a chance to speak with one of Iowa's 
congressional delegation last night, Senator Grassley, who was most 
appreciative that this has been a bipartisan effort, and he wanted to 
have me make certain to pass on to you how much he appreciated being 
included today, as well as the Republican side of the aisle.
    The President. It rains on all of us, you know.
    Mr. Mickelson. Yes, on the just and the unjust, I think the Good 
Book says. [Laughter]
    The President. That's right.
    Mr. Mickelson. The second thing is, this $2.5 billion you're talking 
about--and you implied that it will be left somewhat open-ended--we 
won't even know for sure the extent of the damage, especially the crop-
related damage, until fall when we figure out what is left of the 
wreckage. Will that also be included as part of this package?
    The President. Well, some of that will be. Some of the fall's money, 
I think, will have to come out of the next fiscal year, maybe. But keep 
in mind, that may be a wash on the Federal budget, because the more crop 
land that's taken out of production, the more you'll have some upper 
pressure on prices, and probably less crops in the loan program. So 
while we'll spend more Federal money in some senses on these crop 
losses, we'll spend somewhat less in other areas. And we're just going 
to have to work that through as we go along.
    Some of that money will be covered under existing Federal law. Some 
of it will be covered probably by the next fiscal year. Some of it, we 
may have to come back in for another supplemental appropriation. We're 
just going to have to play it by ear because we literally won't know. 
Senator Grassley and Senator Harkin were both commenting, along with 
your congressional delegation today and of course Governor Branstad, who 
is a farmer, they were all saying we won't know the full extent of the 
farm losses until the fall. And so we'll play it by ear, and as they 
become evident, we'll do what's appropriate.
    Mr. Mickelson. The way it was handled in Hurricane Andrew, we'll try 
to duplicate that? Some cases, the matching funds, requirements from the 
States and localities was waived in the case of Hurricane Andrew. Will 
that be the case here in Iowa?
    The President. In some cases they were, on a case-by-case basis. 
I've asked the FEMA Director, James Lee Witt, to look at that. FEMA has 
gotten some good publicity for a change, and I'm glad to see that in the 
course of this. Part of it is, the Director was not only the director of 
emergency assistance in our State, but before that he was a local 
official. So I think we're pretty sensitive about what can and can't be 
paid. We're prepared to look at that, but we should look at it under the 
law. We have to look at it on a case-by-case basis, and we will.
    Mr. Mickelson. Mr. President, joining us via our live line from the 
scene of more flood damage around and along the Mississippi River is 
Anne Keith from KMOX Radio in St. Louis. Anne, we'd like to welcome you 
to WHO and to our listeners.
    Anne Keith. Good afternoon, and good afternoon, Mr. President.
    The President. Good afternoon, Anne.

[At this point, Ms. Keith asked about flood insurance reform and the 
length of response time.]

    The President. The consensus is that we've had a more rapid response 
this time than in previous ones. And I think the reason is that we do 
have a very high level of coordination here among the agencies. We do 
have some problems with flood insurance. We've got some real problems 
with crop insurance, and I think there's a real consensus about the fact 
that we have to reform the crop insurance system and some of what ought 
to be done about it. On the flood insurance, I think that's something 
else we'll have to look at. But I think that we're getting pretty

[[Page 1335]]

good marks this time for getting out ahead of the curve on the disaster 
coordination. And if you have any other specific ideas about what we 
should do, I'd be glad to have them.
    Mr. Mickelson. Also joining us from our live line from Minneapolis 
from radio station WCCO is Steve Murphy. Steve?

[At this point, Mr. Murphy asked for assurance to farmers of the 
adequacy of Government relief.]

    The President. I think we know enough about what the size of the 
problem on the farm side's going to be that I can clearly give you that 
assurance. The real problem we've got is that the crop insurance program 
itself has some serious shortcomings. And we're going to have to move in 
and reform that and, in the meanwhile, try to hold as many of these 
farmers short of total destruction as we can. We're working on it very, 
very hard.
    Secretary Espy has used and will continue to use every bit of 
flexibility that he has under the present law to try to save as many 
farmers as possible and to try to deal with the individual situations 
that we face. As I said earlier, a lot of the people working on this 
disaster have dealt with this kind of thing, flooded farms and flooded 
towns and these kinds of problems. And Mike Espy represented a farm 
district in Mississippi before he became Secretary of Agriculture.
    We are determined to do everything we can to minimize the damage and 
to try to keep these farmers farming. And we're going to do the best we 
can.
    Mr. Mickelson. Do you visualize a formula?
    The President. What do you mean?
    Mr. Mickelson. Is it possible for the Federal Government to restore 
everything 100 percent?
    The President. Well, I don't think so. It's not possible to restore 
everything 100 percent because some of these programs are loan programs. 
But there are a lot of things that can be done. I believe, with the 
flexibility the Secretary has asked for that will keep these people 
farming. And that's our goal now, to try to help put people's lives back 
together and keep the farmers farming. And I think we'll do that.
    Mr. Mickelson. We want to include our listeners in this mix, Mr. 
President, and we have asked our listeners to call us from all over the 
State with questions, flood related. But I'd like to just use the 
privilege I have as a talk show host to ask you a personal question of 
my own, if you don't mind. What gives you your greatest pleasure as a 
President, flying around in Air Force One or being able to preempt Rush 
Limbaugh, as we're doing right now?
    The President. Oh, the latter. That's not even close. [Laughter]
    Mr. Mickelson. I figured it wouldn't. Let's talk to some of the----
    The President. Actually, my greatest pleasure being President is 
when you do something that you think affects people's lives in a 
positive way. There is so much in public life----
    Mr. Mickelson. Would you include category B in that category? 
[Laughter]
    The President. Perhaps only because of the purpose for which I'm 
here today.

[At this point, a participant asked how disaster assistance costs would 
affect deficit reduction.]

    The President. Well, I think this particular one has a fairly happy 
answer, but let me give you the general argument. The thing that has 
gotten our budget in trouble are ongoing trends. Particular disasters 
that do, frankly, increase spending on a one-year basis have not 
contributed in any significant way at all to the Government's deficit 
problem. And I think that there is a general feeling in the country, and 
certainly in Washington among people of both parties, that when 
something like this happens you have to put the people first.
    Now, in this particular case, while I will ask for $2.5 billion in 
budget authority, and it may go up based on the real losses, it's 
happening in this budget year where our deficit is more than $20 billion 
less than we thought it was going to be in January. Because there's been 
a serious debate in the Congress and an effort that is progressing to 
bring the deficit down dramatically, long-term interest rates have 
dropped. And as they have dropped, the cost of carrying the debt has 
gone down. And some other expenses we

[[Page 1336]]

thought we would have, have not materialized. We've had about one 
million new jobs in the economy, for example, since January. So our 
deficit this year is projected to be over $20 billion less than we 
thought it was going to be, so that while this will cut into that, at 
least we'll still wind up way short of where it was projected in 
January.
    Mr. Mickelson. Every county in the State of Iowa is on your list 
now, eligible for disaster relief.
    The President. Every one.
    Mr. Mickelson. I can't remember that ever occurring in midwestern 
history. What about you, sir? This is just----
    The President. It's very----
    Mr. Mickelson. ----devastating.
    The President. We've never had a time, for example, in my State--
which has more tornadoes per capita than any State and where we've had a 
lot of flooding--we've never had all our counties on disaster relief. 
And this is highly unusual.

[A participant asked if Federal troops could help with sandbagging and 
water relief efforts.]

    The President. Well, if we need them, we can provide some, 
certainly. But so far, it's my understanding that the National Guard and 
the other human resources are sufficient for that at this time. If we 
need more, we can provide more. We've made it clear. The FEMA Director, 
James Lee Witt, knows that basically that's a high priority, and if they 
need more bodies, more help, that we'll try to provide it.

[A participant asked if water levels set by the Corps of Engineers could 
be changed to prevent future floods.]

    The President. Mitzi, let me just say for the benefit of the 
listeners, Lake Ouachita and Lake Hamilton are two of the three lakes 
around Hot Springs where I grew up. So she and I are from the same place 
more or less.
    The answer to your question is, yes, some more can be done for some 
of these communities, but a lot of this flooding occurred in the 100-
year flood plan, that is in areas that are projected to flood only once 
every 100 years. And the Governor told me today that some of this water 
was 4 feet above the 100-year level. It is often very difficult and 
quite expensive to protect beyond the 100-year flood plain.
    But I do believe what should happen is that, as we get the water 
down and we manage that process, all the communities affected need to 
look at what their flood protection is and to analyze whether more needs 
to be done. There clearly are some communities that had virtually no 
protection at all and that were vulnerable well below the 100-year flood 
level. And I think that just needs to be a community-by-community 
assessment. And we, of course, will work with all of them.
    So my short answer to you is yes, I think the Corps can help some of 
the communities, but I do not believe that any reasonable effort would 
have forestalled all of the damage here. This was an unusual flood. It 
will be more than a century in all probability before anything remotely 
like this occurs again.

[A participant asked how soon Congress would act on disaster legislation 
and suggested an investigation of Corps of Engineers water management 
practices.]

    The President. Thank you. Let me answer you the first question 
first. I think that Congress will move very quickly on this. As I said, 
I authorized the bill to be sent up there today to start the legislative 
process. We want it frankly, to take a few days because we want to get 
the latest damage estimates. We'll know a lot more about 6 days from now 
than we know today. So if that bill needs to be amended in any way, we 
can amend it in the process. But by starting today, we ought to be able 
to move it through, I would say, in just a couple of weeks, and then the 
money would be released virtually immediately.
    Also keep in mind, some of the funds which are emergency funds, like 
emergency help to people who have lost everything, been wiped out of 
their homes, that come through the FEMA programs, there's already money 
associated with that. I want to emphasize that again. A lot of the money 
that can be used to deal with this emergency may be already appropriated 
and in that sense may not in any way increase the deficit or cause any 
problems. But a lot of the funds will have to be done over and above 
that.

[[Page 1337]]

    Now, with regard to the Corps of Engineers, let me say that you're 
the first person who has mentioned that to me. I'll be happy to look 
into it. We had a horrible flood in my State and lost a couple of little 
towns completely. I mean, they were totally underwater, and they lost a 
lot of farmland a couple of years ago. And there were all kinds of 
questions about whether the Corps of Engineers back up the river had 
managed the dams properly. But I had----
    Mr. Mickelson. Same questions are occurring now.
    The President. Same questions. And they're legitimate questions, and 
they can be looked into. But I have to tell you again, I want to say 
that when water gets 4 feet higher than the 100-year flood plain, it's 
almost impossible to conclude that some technical decision back up the 
river could have made a big difference. I think that it's worth looking 
at. I think we should look at all aspects of this. But I think that it 
is unlikely that that made a major contribution to this problem.

[A participant asked about the Red Rock area and about assistance for 
people in the restaurant business.]

    The President. First of all, I didn't go down that far, but I did 
talk to some people about it. There are a couple of problems. One is how 
to manage the outflow of water from the dam. The other is, to the extent 
we have any control over it, how to drain all this flooded farmland 
between here and the Mississippi River. See, you've got these 
tributaries that cause all the flooding around Des Moines, but you've 
got about a--well, from here to the Mississippi River you've got a whole 
swath of land that is totally flooded. So it's like you've got another 
big lake here that's 3 miles wide at its widest point. And to whatever 
extent we can control that, that needs to be drained in a way that 
doesn't just throw all the water back in at once and then down on the 
folks down river. So all that will have to be managed very carefully and 
by people who are expert in doing it.
    Secondly, with regard to the restaurant business, for the people who 
work there and the people who own it, you should check in at the 
disaster assistance centers and ask essentially about two things. One is 
what kind of Small Business Administration programs are there to help 
you, because there are some, and they are pretty significant. I think 
you'll find them pretty significant. And secondly, for the people who 
work for you who may have lost everything in terms of their ability to 
earn any income for a significant period of time, there are some 
individual disaster assistance programs that might be available to help 
them. And at the disaster assistance center, they can give you all that 
information.
    Mr. Mickelson. The cliche question is like this, Mr. President: 
Could you please cut spending first right after you send us the $3 
billion? Talk to us about this. How will you be able to justify this 
level of expenditure to people who live in New Jersey?
    The President. Because it might happen in New Jersey someday, 
Because it happened in Florida and Louisiana and South Carolina with 
Hurricanes Andrew and Hugo. Because you just can't stop nature from 
taking its course, and we can't afford to paralyze the American people 
on this.
    And let me just back up and say I don't want to get into a political 
discussion on the budget today unless you wish to do so. I'll be happy 
to. But let me just point out to the American people who are listening 
to this, over the next 5 years, if this budget passes, we will have a 
hard freeze on non-health-care-related domestic spending. That means 
every dollar we increase Head Start by or we spend more on technology or 
spend to help people in California, for example, to convert from defense 
cuts to domestic economy and opportunities, will be made up for by cuts 
everyplace else. We have cut agriculture. We have cut veterans costs. 
We've cut all kinds of things in this budget to actually flatten that 
spending.
    So you've got a decline in defense spending, flat domestic spending. 
The only increases in this whole budget for the next 5 years net are 
increases in Social Security and other income-related programs and 
increases in health care costs, which are still going up at 9 percent a 
year while inflation is about 3 or 4. And that's the next big challenge 
for our administration. But believe me, we've got $250 billion plus in 
cuts there now, and we ought to keep them there. But we can't not

[[Page 1338]]

deal with this disaster or some other disaster for fear of having it go 
up just a little bit.

[A participant requested cooperation from private lending institutions 
in the coming years to help farmers recover from their losses.]

    The President. Well, let me make two points, if I might. First of 
all, you characterized what happened in the eighties rather well. We had 
a lot of droughts in the eighties, but we also had, as you well know, a 
huge amount of farm debt out there which had been taken out when there 
was inflation, rising prices, rising land prices, and high interest 
rates. And then when commodity prices collapsed in the eighties, a lot 
of farmers couldn't finance that debt. And it took about 5 years for the 
Federal Government to agree on a bipartisan basis on a farming 
refinancing system, which then the private lending institutions could 
plug into. I think that provided for forbearance, for example, and other 
things.
    I think you've got a lot of that out there now. There are also some 
real options that every farming State in this country has to try to help 
the lending institutions deal with the farmers. We won't go through all 
the details, but we do.
    The next thing I would like to say to you, however, is that we are 
working aggressively to try to change the regulatory environment in 
which small business and agriculture live and relate to the federally 
insured financial institutions, the private banks. And I think that over 
the next year you will see a significant increase in credit offered to 
businesses and to agriculture because of this changing regulatory 
environment.
    Mr. Mickelson. Mr. President, we're out of time here. On behalf of 
KMOX Radio in St. Louis, WCCO Radio in Minneapolis, WHO Radio here in 
Des Moines, along with KLYF-FM and TV-13, thank you for coming and 
sharing your thoughts and visiting the heartland. I appreciate it.
    The President. Thank you.

Note: The interview began at 1:30 p.m. at WHO Studios.