[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 34, Number 30 (Monday, July 27, 1998)]
[Pages 1458-1461]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Remarks Following a Meeting on Agricultural Assistance and an Exchange 
With Reporters

July 23, 1998

    The President. After the clicking stops, here's what I want to do. 
[Laughter] As you can all see, I'm here with Senator Daschle, Senator 
Harkin, Senator Conrad, Senator Dorgan, and Secretary Glickman, Deputy 
Secretary Rominger; and these young people here are national officers of 
the FFA.
    In a few moments, I'm going to do a national radio press conference 
with agricultural reporters from agricultural radio networks around the 
country. I've got a brief statement here that I would like to read, and 
then I'd like to give the Senators a chance to make whatever comments 
they would like to make. And then I will do what I said I'd do in the 
pressroom a while ago, I'll let you all ask some questions, if you have 
questions on other subjects, and then we'll go do the ag press 
conference.
    We're here because all of us are profoundly concerned about the 
communities that are suffering from both low prices and all kinds of 
natural disasters around the country. In Texas, about three quarters of 
the cotton crop has been lost. Senator Dorgan said the other day that 
North Dakota retired auctioneers are being pressed into duty to handle 
all the families that are being forced to sell their farms.
    For 5\1/2\ years we've worked hard to help America's farm families 
with disaster assistance to ranchers who've lost livestock, surplus 
commodity purchases for school lunches, diversifying the sources of 
enterprise and income in rural America. We've increased our use of 
export credits by a third in the last year alone.

[[Page 1459]]

    This year's farm crisis demands that we do more. On Saturday I 
directed Secretary Glickman to buy more than 80 million bushels of wheat 
to help lift prices for American farmers and ease hunger in the 
developing world. Today I'm announcing that we are providing disaster 
assistance for farmers in Texas--the entire State has been declared a 
disaster area--to help those whose crops and livestock have been ravaged 
by the drought. I believe today is the 18th day in a row that it's above 
100 degrees in Dallas, Texas. Next week I will send Secretary Glickman 
to Texas and Oklahoma to assess what other help is needed.
    As we head into the conference, I ask all of you young people who 
are here to go back home and help us to do whatever we can to pass the 
$500 million in emergency farmer and rancher assistance contained in the 
amendment sponsored by Senators Conrad and Dorgan and strongly supported 
by our ranking Democrat on the committee, Senator Harkin, and our 
leader, Senator Daschle.
    We also have to help to revive the rural economy with exports. We 
have to give the International Monetary Fund the resources it needs to 
strengthen the Asian economies. Let me tell you how big a deal this is. 
About 40 to 50 percent of all American grain production is exported; 40 
percent of all the exports go to Asia. We have a 30 percent decline in 
farm exports to Asian countries--excluding China and Japan--they're down 
about 13 percent in Japan; they're down about 6 percent in China, 30 
percent in the other countries this year because of the Asian financial 
crisis.
    The International Monetary Fund is designed to reform those 
economies and boost them. They need money in order to buy our food. It 
is not a very complicated thing. But I have asked for this since January 
now. I was very disturbed to see in the morning press there's been 
another decision to delay a vote on this in the House of 
Representatives. I think it is a big mistake. I am doing what I can to 
continue to boost food exports. I don't believe that they should be 
subject to sanctions and our policies except under the most extreme 
circumstances. And I believe we have to do more.
    Finally, I want to do whatever I can to strengthen the farm safety 
net. We should expand eligibility for direct and guaranteed loans, 
improve the crop insurance program which simply is not working for too 
many farmers, and extend marketing loans when the prices are low. We 
have to give farmers more flexibility in planning when to receive 
Federal income support. They ought to be able to get these payments 
early. I proposed that last spring. I saw that there was some support 
for that in the House leadership last week, and I'm grateful for that, 
but I'd like to pass that and get it out and do it soon.
    All these things I think will help. But we have to understand we've 
got a price crisis in America today because of high worldwide crop 
production, the decline of the Asian economies, and the decline in the 
currencies of so many countries relative to the dollar, which means they 
can't buy as much food; that's why the IMF is important. We also have a 
disaster problem because of the drought and other significant natural 
problems. And no farmer should go broke because of an act of God. So 
that's our policy, and we're going to try to implement it.
    And I'd like to give the Senators a chance to make a few remarks, 
and then I'll answer your other questions.
    Senator Daschle.

[At this point, Senator Thomas A. Daschle made brief remarks.]

    The President. Senator Harkin.

[At this point, Senator Tom Harkin made brief remarks.]

    The President. The North Dakota Senators--I think North Dakota, I 
should say for the benefit of the national press, I believe has had the 
largest drop in farm income in any State of the country by a good 
stretch.

[At this point, North Dakota Senators Kent Conrad and Byron L. Dorgan 
made brief remarks.]

    The President. Well, let me just make one more comment about this, 
and then I'll answer your questions.
    When the freedom to farm bill was passed, those of us who came from 
farming areas knew that it had a lot of very good provisions.

[[Page 1460]]

It got the Government out of micromanaging farming; it gave farmers more 
freedom to make their own planting decision; it had terrific 
conservation provisions; it had good rural development provisions. But 
it did not have an adequate safety net. We all knew it at the time. And 
there were those, and there still are some, who believe that we really 
don't need one.
    But I just think that's wrong. To go back to what Senator Harkin 
said, I believe if you look at the trends in world population growth and 
agricultural production elsewhere, in most normal years for the next 30 
years, American farmers should do better and better and better. This 
would be a very good time for a whole generation of our farmers. But the 
average farmer is about 59 years old in America today.
    So what I'm worried about is that, you know, you get a bad year or 
two like this coming along without an adequate safety net in this bill, 
then you wind up changing the whole structure of agriculture in ways 
that I don't think are good for America.
    So we're going to work on this. We're going to try to get it done. 
But I do say to the young people here, I agree with Senator Harkin, I 
think the future trends around the world look quite good for America's 
farmers if we can get through this rough spot.
    Thank you.
    Q. Why can't you lawmakers convince your fellows on the Hill? I 
mean, what is the holdup?
    The President. Well, don't you think your bill will pass? I think 
it'll pass.
    Senator Dorgan. It passed the Senate. We've got to get it through 
conference and I think we'll get it----
    The President. And the Senate passed the International Monetary 
Fund.
    Senator Harkin. Yes. And we've got the indemnity fund in there.
    Senator Conrad. We're about to----
    The President. You're about to--but you're going to pass it.
    Q. What's the problem?
    The President. The problem is in the House, and we just have to hope 
that they will follow the lead of the Senate here.

Iran-U.S. Relations

    Q. Mr. President, what impact do you see the missile test having on 
your efforts to try and warm relations with Iran?
    The President. Well, we've been following this for some time. And we 
knew that Iran was attempting to develop this capability. It's just a 
test. But if they--obviously, if they were to develop an intermediate 
range missile, it could change the regional stability dynamics in the 
Middle East. And that's why we've worked so hard with North Korea and 
with others to try to get them not to transfer missiles and missile 
technology to Iran.
    If we do continue to have an opening of relations because the new 
President seems more open to it, obviously this is one of the things I 
would raise with him. We've been very concerned about this. And we 
believe that the future of the Middle East would be better if they'd 
invest more money, all those countries, in something other than military 
technology.
    So we're very, very concerned about it, but not surprised by it.
    Q. [Inaudible]
    The President. One at a time. Obviously, it is an obstacle. But I 
don't think it's an argument for closing off all avenues of opportunity. 
The country is in a dynamic state now. There's some dynamism there, and 
there's some reason to believe that--it seems to me that at least making 
it clear what our position is on that, on the Middle East peace process, 
on terrorism, support of terrorism, on all these issues with which we've 
had problems with Iran in the past, and still being glad that there's 
some movement toward greater popular government, more openness in the 
country argues for what we're doing--a cautious, deliberate approach.

Fast-Track Trade Legislation

    Q. Mr. President, besides the IMF bill, high on the farm agenda is 
fast-track legislation. Why not go along with Speaker Gingrich and 
schedule a vote--a September vote on this?
    The President. First of all, I strongly support fast track, as you 
know. I was bitterly disappointed that we couldn't pass it earlier. And 
he and I both worked very hard to pass it. There is no evidence that one 
single vote

[[Page 1461]]

has changed. If anything, there's some evidence that we'd have more 
trouble passing it.
    So if we bring it up in a bill that also has the International 
Monetary Fund or the Africa trade bill or the Caribbean Basin 
initiative--all of which I think are good for America--the impact would 
be, in all probability, to kill them all and to make it even harder to 
pass fast track early next year. I still believe we'll pass fast track 
next year when we get beyond this election year. I think it is so 
evidently in the best interest of the country. That's the first answer.
    The second point is, the International Monetary Fund funding will do 
much more good in the short run because it puts money into the countries 
that want to buy our food today. Fast track gives the United States the 
power to open new markets in the future, to enter negotiations to open 
new markets in the future.
    So it's not terribly significant whether we get the fast-track 
legislation in August, let's say, or September or January or February 
next year or March, because we still have to start the negotiations and 
open new markets. We're already going to negotiate in opening 
agricultural markets, for example, within the World Trade Organization 
to try to deal with the European subsidy issue that was mentioned 
earlier.
    So I'm strongly for fast track. I think we will pass it next year. I 
have no evidence that a single vote has changed since it was not passed 
earlier, and I don't want to kill all the rest of that. We ought to pass 
the Africa trade bill now, the modified Caribbean Basin bill now. But 
most important of all, dwarfing everything else, in the near term for 
these farmers with their prices low is the International Monetary Fund 
funding, because that will float cash into these countries as a 
condition for reform, and it will give the money to buy our food. That's 
more important.

Middle East Peace Process

    Q. Why have you thrown in the towel on the Middle East?
    The President. Well, we haven't. I saw that story. That's just not 
so.
    Let me say first of all, if I thought the process were over, I would 
say it was over. We have continued intense negotiations to this day with 
both sides, based on the ideas we advanced earlier, which, as you know, 
were accepted in principle by Mr. Arafat and not by Mr. Netanyahu, but a 
negotiation ensued.
    Secretary Albright has worked very, very hard on this. We have made 
a not inconsiderable amount of progress. But differences remain. We 
haven't thrown in the towel because I think it's a lot better to get an 
agreement, to get them into final status talks than it is to give up and 
let this thing drift dangerously toward conflict and dissolution.
    So if we come to a time when I think it's hopeless, I'll say it's 
hopeless and that ideas weren't accepted. But right now, I'm not 
prepared to say that. I think there's still a chance we can get an 
agreement, and we're going to keep working for it.

Note: The President spoke at 2:45 p.m. in the Oval Office at the White 
House. In his remarks, he referred to Chairman Yasser Arafat of the 
Palestinian Authority; and Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu of Israel. 
A tape was not available for verification of the content of these 
remarks.