 I am not signing the piece of legislation that came down to me today. I am signing a veto. I'd like to make a statement with regard to that, to my fellow Americans, as they all know, some of our farmers are facing severe financial problems. They're living with the results of a generation of failed policies that drove down farm prices, drove up the cost of their land, seed, and equipment. And then in the late 1970s they were hit again by runaway inflation and interest rates, grain embargoes that robbed them of long-term markets. Farmers who've toiled to make America productive, growing food and fiber for all of us and millions beyond our shores deserve our sympathy and our support. The federal government mustn't shirk its responsibility to help undo some of the damage that it created, and with spring planning upon us, we're meeting that responsibility. Last September we initiated a carefully targeted effort to direct special help to farmers with credit problems, and just last month we modified this new program to ensure its effectiveness. This year, under plans that I approved, the federal government will make nearly four and a half billion dollars in credit available to farmers. We will also spend just over 15 billion dollars to support the price of farm commodities. We're doing a great deal to help farmers, but I've pleaded and warned repeatedly that just as your families don't have a blank check for whatever your needs may be, neither can government, and that means taxpayers, bail out every farmer hopelessly in debt or every bank which made imprudent or speculative loans and bet on higher inflation. I asked for help. I asked Congress, which just days ago was bemoaning the size of deficits, to demonstrate courage, hold a line, and match rhetoric with deeds. Congress failed. In the first major bill since convening in January, a majority proved itself incapable of resisting the very tax and spend philosophy that brought America to its knees and wrecked our economy. So today, I have vetoed this massive new bailout that would add billions to the deficit over the next several years, and let's be clear on one thing. The bill I vetoed would not really help farmers. It's too late in the season for that. This bill is merely designed to convey the impression of helping farmers, but if Congress wants to help, it will help us reduce unnecessary spending and increase incentives for greater real economic growth, which will provide confidence to the markets and help interest rates come further down. Let me add that my veto will not interfere with the African relief effort now underway. Using authority in existing law, we can maintain the flow of emergency assistance. The bottom line is that someone in Washington must be responsible. Someone must be willing to stand up for those who pay America's bills, and someone must stand up to those who say, here's the key, there's the Treasury, just take as many of those hard-earned tax dollars as you want. I applaud and thank the 35 senators and 168 members of the House who courageously stood with me on this issue. And now that I have vetoed this bill, I hope that Congress will get the message and work with me to reduce spending in a responsible way that does not threaten our national security. If it doesn't, then I'll do what must be done. I will veto again and again until spending is brought under control. So please help me by telling your representatives to stop talking about deficits and to start helping me bring them down. Thank you and God bless you. Mr. President, are you confident that this veto will stand up in Congress? Well, I believe if those in Congress vote as they voted for the piece of legislation and if they evidence the same or vote that same way with regard to a veto, yes, it will be upheld. The Democrats say that the farmers who voted for you are going to feel betrayed and are going to take this out on other Republicans. What do you think the political fallout of this will be? Aren't you hurting Republicans? Well, the thing is the farmers would only consider this. They would recognize that we are helping. I've just given the figures there, $4.5 billion. That's already planned for their help, plus $15 billion. We have spent $50 billion on aid to farmers in the last four years, more than the last three years, as a matter of fact. What I said in there with regard to figures doesn't touch on the additional program that in September Secretary Block initiated several new issues, a five-year set aside of up to 25% to a maximum of $200,000 of a FMHA borrower's interest payments, $650 million in guarantees for refinancing up to 90% of the restructured commercial loans provided the private sector lender writes off 10% of the principal or interest on the loan. Now up to now only about $25 million of that $650 has been used, as anyone sought it. And then on February 6th, Secretary Block initiated additional measures to build upon the September initiatives. Farm Credit Coordinating Group, chaired by him, will make sure that all federal credit agencies work closely together to solve the farm liquidity problems. Modified federal regulations will make it possible for banks to work out lower payments for farmers having liquidity problems. And guarantees of up to 90% of operating loans will be provided for eligible farmers whose local banks fail and who can't find a new private lender without such a guarantee. Now some lenders have been unwilling to participate in this program, but that was due to the uncertainty about whether something better might come out of the Congress. But these are the things we're doing. The truth of the matter is, in need of immediate help, are less than 4% or around 4% at best of all the farmers in the United States. 96% do not have any liquidity problems. Will the Democrats seem to think they have a pretty hot political issue? Do they? Well, I would rather treat with the issue as it relates to our own financial problems at the federal government and not as a political issue. Do you think they're playing politics with it, sir? You'll have to ask them. I certainly don't think that tying this to a bill on food aid for the starving people in Africa was exactly the way to go in this kind of legislation. As a matter of fact, it emphasized the real need for a line item veto. Mr. President, would you sign the Food Aid Bill if the farm provision was switched away? Yes. But again, let me reiterate what I've said. But as of right now, there is going to be no interruption of the aid that we're giving because of funds that are already available. The Senate Budget Committee yesterday voted to cut your defense budget by $11 billion. Doesn't that show a lack of support for your defense program, just as we're going to Geneva? Well, now, of course, I would rather, I took your questions here that had to do with the issue of the day, and I'd rather limit it to that. And I think I should rather than we get into a general press conference. There will be time coming up for us to talk about those other things. It is Congress. What? It is Congress. Yes. But I've been meeting and with a great many of them on both sides of the aisle and there's evidence of some willingness to stand together on these other matters. So if you don't mind, I'll make my way out the door now. Mr. President, do you think it's appropriate for Mr. Dever and the others to have taken a discount on those cards? Now that's another question that doesn't have to deal with the farm problem. Would you nod? I'll take that. You're talking about something that has gone on for a great many years that exists in our embassies in all of the countries. It's a standard practice that's been used for many, many years. So you see nothing wrong with what he did, sir? No. All right. Thank you. Yes. Thank all of you.