Bill Clinton: “Well, the honest answer to your question is--first of all, let me point out, just going back to what Les said, the…”

“Well, the honest answer to your question is--first of all, let me point out, just going back to what Les said, the conservation reserve is a classic example of the kind of environmentalism we ought to be practicing in this country. Instead of beating somebody over the head with a stick and giving them a rulebook 9 inches thick, here is an incentive to basically restore wildlife and biodiversity. And it's been, I think, a resounding success. Now, it's like everything else. People can show you where there's been something or other they don't like about it, but it's basically worked. It's done what it was intended to do, in my opinion. The answer to your question, whether it will survive or not, depends upon, in large measure, upon you and the other people in agriculture throughout the country and on the decisions that we all have to make once we decide how much overall agriculture has to be cut. The thing that I don't like about the way that this budget process is unfolding is, if you decide--it's kind of backward--if you decide, well, you're going to have to balance the budget in 7 years instead of 9 or 10 or some other time, and you decide that you're going to have to set aside a certain amount of money for a tax cut, then you wind up being very arbitrary in how much you're going to cut various things. And what we really ought to say is, go back to what Max said--I believe most farmers in America would gladly give up all of their Government subsidies--we might still want a conservation reserve for environmental reasons--but would gladly give up all of their Government subsidies if all of our competitors would. So this is, as I keep hammering this issue, this is a question of our standing in the global economy. We worked like crazy to pass the GATT so we could reduce some of our subsidies but so that competitors of ours that subsidize more would have to reduce more. So the simple answer to your question is--let's just say--I proposed, because of the GATT, another $1.5 billion in reductions in agricultural subsidies. They propose, I think, $8 billion or $9 billion. I think that's an excessive number over a 7-year period. But let's say that the $8 billion number passes, or it's a $5 billion number, whatever it finally is, then you've got to--then you, the agricultural community, have to figure out what is the most sensible way to allocate that cut. And if you want to keep the conservation reserve, then you've got to give up more of something else. And if you want to modify it, then you maybe make it less costly, and you do something else. These are decisions we're all going to have to make together. I guess that's the one thing that I want to impress upon you today, is that I have a Secretary of Agriculture from Kansas who served for 18 years in the Congress, I care about this issue, and whatever level of funding we wind up with, we need to make the best decisions. If the farm supports are cut, are they going to still be the way they are now? Are we going to give farmers more flexibility within the support framework to decide what they plant? Is that a good or a bad idea? These are things that we need input from the agriculture community on. But this is not a done deal yet. No one knows what the final number is going to be and what the final form is going to be. And I think you ought to be able to shape it, looking at what has worked fundamentally in the 1990 farm bill and what the continuing problems are. Livestock Industry [Gary Ruff asked if the Justice Department could investigate possible antitrust violations in the cattle market.]”