pd06no00 Remarks at a Reception for African-American Religious Leaders...

	Web GovRecords.org

all the others.
    Now, we're working together on the Labor/HHS bill, which is the 
education bill and human services bill. But on the tax bill and on the 
appropriation for Commerce/State/Justice, they haven't permitted him to 
work with us. And he's in a very difficult position. I'm very 
sympathetic with him. I'm not trying to harass them. But if we kept 
passing these 4- and 5-day continuing resolutions, we'll just never get 
our work done. And they are coming back tomorrow night. Last week they 
came back on Monday night. So if we could make an agreement tomorrow 
night, they could be out of here by Monday, and that would give them--
they could go home 8 days and take their case to the American people. 
That's all I'm trying to do.
    Q. Mr. President, after you spoke out yesterday, the House Speaker 
said he believed you were being forced by House Democrats to veto the 
tax cut bill and to keep lawmakers in session in order to, A, prevent 
Republicans from getting a victory before election day, and also to 
force some confrontation for election-year gain. What do you say to the 
Speaker?
    The President. Well, that's not true. I mean, look at what--I mean, 
I have--for 3 days in a row now, I have lavished praise on the 
Republicans, as well as the Democrats, where we have worked together. 
And in each case I've told you the things that I didn't agree with that 
they wanted in the bills that we accepted. So we're not trying to force 
a confrontation.
    I will say again, look at the facts here. We haven't finished the 
education bill because we are still arguing over one issue, but I have 
not criticized them. We're working in good faith to try to work through 
this.
    There are two pieces of legislation, and two only, in this entire 
Congress that they basically have refused to meet with us on. They said, 
``We heard you, and here's the best we can do. Take it or leave it.'' 
And they're in that position because of the power of the rightwing of 
their caucus in the Senate and the House. And I understand; it's a very 
difficult thing for them. I am not trying to provoke a confrontation 
here. But these are the only--I will say again, the facts are clear. 
These are the only two bills on which we have not had a bipartisan 
negotiation.
    All we're asking for is to do these bills the way we did the others. 
They'll get some of what they want; we'll get some of what we want. 
We'll have an agreement. It will be, on balance, good for the American 
people. I will say that. Then they can go home and make their case about 
what else they want to do; the Democrats can go home and make their case 
about what else we would like to do.
    All I'm trying to do is get the job done here, and all I'm asking 
for is we treat these bills the same way we treated every other one.

Continuing Appropriations Legislation

    Q. Mr. President, is it your position that you'll sign one-day CR's 
until you get a Labor/HHS bill, or that you'll only sign one-day CR's 
until you get a Labor/HHS bill, a tax proposal, and a Medicare--
[inaudible]?
    The President. Well, first of all, we've got to finish the education 
bill. But what I would--my preference, my strong preference is to finish 
it all. Let me just go back to--your question is tied to the previous 
one. It is not true that I do not want a tax bill before the election. 
That is not true. I believe we should give some tax relief. I am more 
than willing to do it, but I cannot in good conscience do something that 
I think is unfair and that will aggravate some of the problems that it 
purports to solve.
    All I'm asking for here is what I have done every single year I've 
been here. I just want--if you go back, ever since we've had divided 
government, whenever we have negotiated, we have reached agreement; 
we've done things that have been good for America, starting with the 
welfare reform bill in '96; we had the Balanced Budget Act in '97; we 
had the Telecommunications Act, which has

[[Page 2668]]

been an incredible boon to our economy; and many, many other things.
    And this year, because we've been fiscally prudent and we've got 
some funds to invest in America's future, we have made some truly 
astonishing steps forward for our country. All I am asking for is the 
same method of working out the bill, on the last two remaining bills 
that we got on the other bills, and a good-faith conclusion to the work 
we're doing on the education bill. That's all I'm asking for.

President's Role in 2000 Election

    Q. Mr. President, one question about the campaign, if I might. There 
are reports today that Vice President Gore has communicated to you that 
he would like you to steer clear of the battleground States of 
Pennsylvania and Michigan. Is that true? And do you think you'd be a 
political liability, or does he think that, if you went there?
    The President. Well, I said yesterday, generally--remember what I 
said yesterday? Let me just go back through this. I think, in general, 
these elections are always decided by the candidates and the case they 
make to the people. I actually, as I said, I may be the only person 
that's involved in this debate who has experienced this situation in 
reverse--when President Reagan was immensely popular and came to 
Arkansas in '84 to campaign. And when the votes were counted, he had 62 
percent, and I think I had 63.
    So what a President who is not running--there are only two things a 
President who is not running can do. You can tell people what you think 
the condition of the country is and what the stakes are, and you can try 
to rally the people that are already with you in the hope of getting a 
bigger turnout. The undecided voters will be swayed primarily by the 
others.
    And what I have to hope is that wherever I go, that what I have to 
say is more important than just the fact of my being there. Because 
you're going to decide who you want to be the next President; Mark is 
going to decide; all of you are going to decide, and very few third 
parties can change your mind. So that's not what is at issue here. The 
most important actors in this drama are Al Gore and Governor Bush. 
They're the only actors in the drama that really have any sway here--
except for Senator Lieberman and Congressman Cheney; I think they can 
have some impact.
    And the rest of us might be able to sway some undecided voters if 
our arguments are heard--and I have an understanding of this that's 
unique because I've been President the last 8 years. I may--we haven't 
decided everyplace I'm going yet, and I may still go to Michigan. If 
they want me to come and the campaign thinks it will be helpful, I'll 
go. But what I have to do is what I think will be most helpful. The 
President, if your arguments are heard and people listen to them, you 
may sway a few undecided voters. But the fact of your going is not a 
vote getter, ever. That wasn't for any previous President. It wasn't for 
President Reagan. But it does help if you can turn out your votes.
    So we're looking at all the best ways we have to try to make sure 
all the people who are for our side and agree with us actually show up. 
That's very important. The Republicans are doing the same thing. And 
we'll just see what happens. I'll do whatever I think is best, in 
consultation with the campaign. But I don't think the final travel 
schedule has been set yet, and I think we just have to wait and see how 
things unfold the next few days.
    Also, as I said yesterday, I have to finish this work here. And as 
you know, we're watching events in the Middle East very closely. So if I 
can be helpful, I will. I've already done a lot the last year, and I've 
done a lot in the last few days. I will continue to do what I can. But 
the first priority for me has to be here, and the election will be 
determined by, I believe, the case made by the two candidates for 
President in the next few days. And I think the rest of us, all we can 
do is hope to sway a few undecided voters if they hear us, and get the 
folks out that are already for us.
    Thank you.

 Note:  The President spoke at 2:17 p.m. in the James S. Brady Press 
Briefing Room at the White House. In his remarks, he referred to former 
President Ronald Reagan; and Republican Presidential and Vice 
Presidential candidates Gov. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

[[Page 2669]]


<DOC>
[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents]
 [frwais.access.gpo.gov]
                         

[Page 2669-2671]
 
Monday, November 6, 2000
 
Volume 36--Number 44
Pages 2651-2760
 
Week Ending Friday, November 3, 2000
 
Statement on Signing the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001

 October 28, 2000

     Today I am signing into law H.R. 4461, the Agriculture, Rural 
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act for FY 2001. I commend the Congress for presenting me 
an acceptable version of this bill that provides critical funding for 
our Nation's farmers and ranchers, improves the safety of our food 
supply, and provides assistance to low-income families and rural 
communities.
     I am pleased that the Act fully funds my Food Safety Initiative at 
$383 million, a $57 million, or 17 percent, increase over FY 2000. These 
funds will improve food safety for all Americans by allowing the 
Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Food and Drug Administration 
(FDA) to increase surveillance activities and inspections of domestic 
and imported food, accelerate responses to outbreaks, and perform vital 
research on ways to reduce pathogens in food so that we can advance a 
more science-based food inspection system. I also commend the Congress 
for dropping the objectionable language provision that would have 
prevented USDA from fully implementing the Egg Safety Action Plan that I 
announced in December 1999. This will now allow USDA and FDA to 
vigorously pursue the goal of cutting in half the number of salmonella 
illnesses from eggs.
     While the Congress did not provide the full amount of my requested 
increase for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, 
Infants, and Children, thereby failing to ensure that this vital program 
can achieve the goal of 7.5 million participants, the program will be 
able to serve a monthly average of just over 7.3 million individuals. I 
am pleased that the Act adopts my proposal to expand the vehicle 
allowance for the Food Stamp program, which will assist the many working 
poor families for whom owning a vehicle is the one item that makes them 
ineligible for food stamps. In addition, the Act will provide a much-
needed increase in nutrition assistance for low-income families with 
high housing costs, by increasing the Food Stamp program housing 
allowance. The two changes mean that families do not have to choose 
among buying food, paying their housing costs, or having a more reliable 
car. However, I am disappointed the bill did not restore food stamp 
eligibility for certain legal immigrants, as proposed in my Budget.
     Loans and grants for priority rural development programs will 
increase under the Act to $9.9 billion this year, a $2.7 billion 
increase over FY 2000. These funds will help diversify the rural 
economy, improve the quality of life in rural communities, and bring 
more rural areas across the ``economic divide'' that separates too many 
parts of the country from the historic economic expansion underway. I am 
especially pleased that the Act includes several of my proposals to 
address geographic areas of rural America that have long struggled with 
persistent poverty, including $34 million targeted to Indian 
reservations for health clinics, child care centers, water systems, and 
job opportunities; and $10 million for the Mississippi Delta Region to 
create better job opportunities and strengthen local financial 
intermediaries. The Act will also provide over $100 million in loans and 
grants to help close the ``digital divide'' by financing local Internet 
service and broadband transmission in rural areas.
     The Act increases USDA's conservation technical assistance to 
farmers and ranchers by over $50 million from the FY 2000 level. Part of 
these funds will be used for a one-third increase in technical 
assistance to producers who are improving their animal waste management 
systems, as part of my Clean Water Action Plan. I am disappointed, 
however, that the Act cuts financial assistance for these and other 
conservation projects through the Environmental Quality Incentives 
program, and provides none of the funds I requested for the Farmland 
Protection Program that preserves farmland and helps communities manage 
urban sprawl. Also, while it is certainly helpful that the Act increases 
the Wetlands Reserve Program by 100,000 acres, it is far short of 
reaching the 250,000 acres per year I proposed for this program. I am 
hopeful that the next Congress and the next Farm Bill will recognize

[[Page 2670]]

that farmers were the first environmentalists and that Federal farm 
programs should be structured and funded to improve the environment 
while boosting farm income.
     I am also pleased that the Act provides vital payments to farmers 
and ranchers who have suffered losses from natural disasters. However, 
the more than $4 billion in emergency funds in this Act, combined with 
more than $7 billion in farm assistance for the current crop year that 
was enacted this summer, represents the third year in a row the Congress 
has had to supplement farm income through major emergency 
appropriations, due to the failure of the 1996 Farm Bill. I am hopeful 
that the reforms enacted this year to the crop insurance program will 
mitigate the need for future ad hoc crop loss legislation. I continue to 
believe that USDA's farm income assistance program must be overhauled to 
target funds to family farmers based on their actual income losses on 
crops they are growing now, not paid out inordinately to corporate farms 
based on what they grew years ago. My Administration is reviewing the 
emergency funding provisions in this Act, and these funds will be 
released as needs dictate.
     I am concerned that the bill contains an ineffective provision 
regarding importation of FDA-approved prescription drugs that represents 
little more than a false promise to the American public. While I am 
supportive of efforts to allow American consumers to gain access to 
lower-cost prescription drugs, the language included in the Act contains 
several loopholes that effectively render the provision meaningless. 
Among other serious flaws, drug manufacturers can deny importers access 
to FDA-approved labeling that is required for reimportation, and 
therefore, drug companies are likely to block reimportation of their 
medications. In addition, because this reimport authority expires after 
5 years, private and public sector interest in investing in this system 
will be limited. Not only does this provision fail to provide discounts, 
it also does not address the larger issue of the lack of prescription 
drug coverage for Medicare beneficiaries.
     I am also concerned that language in this Act restricts 
Presidential ability to initiate certain new agricultural and medical 
trade sanctions and maintain old ones, as congressional approval of such 
sanctions will now be required. This could disrupt the ability of the 
President to conduct foreign policy, and could provide potential targets 
of U.S. actions with time to take countermeasures. The bill permits 
exports of U.S. farm and medical products to Cuba, but constrains these 
trade opportunities by barring the U.S. Government, and severely 
limiting U.S. private banks, from providing financing assistance to 
Cuba. In addition, the legislation purports to restrict the President's 
ability to authorize certain travel-related activities in Cuba. We are 
concerned that this provision could be read to impose overly rigid 
constraints on our ability to conduct foreign policy and respond to 
immediate humanitarian and operational concerns including,  inter alia,  
protecting American lives, ensuring upkeep of American diplomatic 
installations, and assisting in both Federal and State prosecutions in 
the United States in which travel to Cuba may be required. We do not 
think that the Congress intended to curtail such activities by this 
legislation. Accordingly, my Administration will interpret this 
provision, to the extent possible, as not infringing upon such 
activities.
     Also, I note that this bill will provide select U.S. industries 
with a subsidy above and beyond the protection level needed to 
counteract foreign subsidies, while providing no comparable subsidy to 
other U.S. industries or to U.S. consumers, who are forced to pay higher 
prices on industrial inputs or consumer goods as a result of the anti-
dumping and countervailing duties. I call on the Congress to override 
this provision, or amend it to be acceptable, before they adjourn.
     I am also concerned that this bill prohibits the Office of the 
Under Secretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources and the Environment 
from supervising, managing, or directing the Forest Service and the 
Natural Resources Conservation Service. Policy disputes between the 
Congress and the Administration should not degenerate into personal 
attacks. Under Secretary Jim Lyons and his office are essential to 
numerous national environmental, forestry, and conservation initiatives, 
and have provided strong leadership in this regard throughout my 
Administration.

[[Page 2671]]

Other Popular 2000 Presidential Documents Documents:

Other Documents:

2000 Presidential Documents Records and Documents