-
https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/files/original/e4b56ab0b4fa8c9ee1763168a2e87687.pdf
6a461834872af9dd5b6a83253ee61257
PDF Text
Text
FOIA Number:
2006-0469-F (2)
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the William J. Clinton
Presidential Library Staff.
Collection/Record Group:
Clinton Presidential Records
Subgroup/Office of Origin:
Speechwriting
Series/Staff Member:
Michael Waldman
Subseries:
14450
OA/ID Number:
FolderlD:
Folder Title:
[League of Cities Research]: Business Roundtable 6/12/97 [1]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
S
92
4
2
2
�BUSINESS STATS
Business investment increased: 10.5 % per year - the biggest increase since Kennedy.
Deficit reduction 77%, expected to be under 1% of G.D.P in 1997. Budget agreement will
balance the budget for the first time since 1969.
Low inflation: 2.8% per year, the lowest of any administration in 3 decades
Profits are 9.1% of G.D.P. Highest since 1978.
First time the stock market has doubled in any administration since WWII.
�"then.now
=
•
=
THEN AND NOW: WHAT A DIFFERENCE 5 YEARS MAKES
May 30, 1997
Deficit Cut By 7 7 %
•
1 9 9 2 . The deficit was $290 billion -- the highest dollar level in history. As a
share of the economy (4.7% of GDP), it was much larger than in Japan (1.7%) or
G e r m a n y ( 1 . 3 % ) . [Source: International Monetary Fund]
•
Today. The deficit is expected to fall to $67 billion this year -- down 7 7 % from
1992. As a share of GDP, it is smaller than in Japan or Germany. [Source: international
Monetary Fund)
Unemployment Below 6% For 33 Months
•
•
1992. The unemployment rate averaged 7.5%. [Source: Bureau of Labor statistics]
Today. The unemployment rate is at 4.8% -- the lowest in 24 years. [Source:
Bureau of Labor Statistics]
Jobs Are Up: More than 12 Million Created Since January 1993
•
1992. The private-sectbr was barely even creating jobs and had suffered from
O n e Of t h e w o r s t 4 - y e a r p e r i o d s Of j o b g r o w t h i n h i s t o r y . [Source: Based on data from the
Bureau of Labor Statistics]
•
Today. The economy has created 12.3 million new jobs since January 1993 ~
a faster annual growth rate than any Republican Administration since the 1920s.
The economy has added over 4 times as many private-sector jobs per year than
t h e p r e v i o u s A d m i n i s t r a t i o n . [ S o u r c e : Based on data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics]
Private-Sector Growth Is Up: 3.5% Per Year
•
1981-1992. The private sector of the economy grew 2.4% annually from
1981-1992.
•
Today. The private sector of the economy has grown 3.5% annually ~ a
stronger record of private-sector growth than under Bush or Reagan. [Source: Based on
data from the Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis]
Investment Is Booming: Fastest Since Kennedy
•
1992. Real equipment investment rose just 2.0% annually during the previous
Administration.
•
Today. Real equipment investment is up 10.5% per year -- faster than any
A d m i n i s t r a t i o n S i n c e K e n n e d y . [Source: Based on data from the Department of Commerce, Bureau of
Economic Analysis]
Jobs In Basic Industries Are Back Up
•
1992. The economy lost more than two million jobs in manufacturing and
construction combined during the previous Administration. [Source: Based on data from the
Bureau of Labor Statistics]
•
Today. The economy has added 1.1 million new jobs in construction and
383,000 new jobs in manufacturing since the beginning of 1993. [Source: Based on data
Page f
�from the Bureau of Labor Statistics]
The Auto Sector is Back on Its Feet
•
1 9 9 2 : Trailed J a p a n f o r 1 3 t h Year In A R o w . In 1 9 9 2 J a p a n p r o d u c e d 2 8
p e r c e n t m o r e a u t o m o b i l e s t h a n A m e r i c a -- trailing f o r t h e 1 3 t h year in a r o w .
•
T o d a y . In 1 9 9 4 , t h e U.S. surpassed J a p a n for t h e first t i m e since 1 9 7 9 .
W e m a i n t a i n e d t h e l e a d in 1 9 9 5 a n d 1 9 9 6 . [Source: Based on global production data from
the American Automobile Manufacturers Association]
Paul Volcker, former Federal Reserve Chairman: "The deficit has come d o w n , and I give
the Clinton Administration and President Clinton himself a lot o f credit for that...What's
important is that he acknowledged that it was a big problem and did something about it,
fast. And I think we are seeing some benefits." [Audacity, Fall 1994]
Alan Greenspan, current Fed Chairman: The deficit reduction in President Clinton's 1993
Economic Plan was "an unquestioned factor in contributing to the improvement in
economic activity that occurred thereafter." [2/20/96]
Business Week, "Clinton's 1993 budget cuts, which reduced projected red ink by more
than $ 4 0 0 billion over five years, sparked a major drop in interest rates that helped
boost investment in all the equipment and systems that brought forth the New Age
economy of technological innovation and rising productivity." [5/19/97]
�PRESIDENT CLINTON'S ECONOMIC REPORT CARD:
JUNE 6,1997
Clinton Administration
Best Since
Related Facts
Unemployment fell from 7.5 percent in 1992 to 4.8 percent in
May 1997 — the lowest in 24 years ~ and has remained under
6 percent for 33 months.
j
Unemployment and
Inflation
Combined rate: 8.7 percent
Lowest average
since Johnson
•
Inflation
2.8 percent per year
Lowest average
since Kennedy
Underlying inflation ~ excluding volatile food and energy
components — was lowest since the Kennedy Admimstration.
/
Employment
12.3 million new jobs
Only Administration
to exceed 11 million
93 percent of the net new jobs were in the private sector.
Over two-thirds of recent employment growth has been in
industry/occupation groups paying above-median wages.
/
Construction Jobs
1.1 million new jobs
Fastest growth since
Truman
Real construction output has grown 5.7 percent per year ~ the
fastest rate since the Kennedy Administration.
j
Consumer
Sentiment
Increased 16 percent from January
1993 to May 1997
Highest average
since Eisenhower
University of Michigan index reached its highest level in three
decades. Conference Board measure reached its highest level
in 28 years.
/
Deficit Reduction
From 4.7 percent of GDP in 1992
to 1.4 in 1996. Expected to be
under 1 percent in 1997
Largest fall since
Truman
Deficit narrowed for four years in a row under one President
for the first time since before the Civil War.
j
Business
Investment
Grew 10.5 percent per year
Fastest grov/th since
Kennedy
Business mvestment averaged 7.7 percent of GDP ~ the
highest share for any Administration since World War II.
•
Homeownership
Rose from 63.7 to 65.4 percent of
households
Largest increase on
record
Reached its highest level in 15 years.
•
Stock Market
The Dow Jones rose from 3242 on Fastest growth since
1/20/93 to 7305 on 6/5/97
World War II
/
Poverty Rate
Declined from 15.1 in 1993 to
13.8 in 1995
Largest drop since
Johnson
Real income for the bottom 20 percent of households has
grown 6.8 percent between 1993 and 1995 - after declining
by 7.7 percent between 1979 and 1993.
j
Median Family
Income
Up $1,600 between 1993 and 1995
Fastest growth since
Johnson
Real net worth per household grew 3.2 percent per year after
falling over the previous 4 years.
The real growth rate was higher than for any Administration
since World War II.
�New Job Growth
Source:
Construction
Job Growth
Consumer
Sentiment
Deficit
Business
Investment
(Thousands per
year)
Clinton
Bush
Reagan II
Reagan 1
Carter
Nixon-Ford
Nixon
Johnson
JFK-LBJ
Eisenhower II
Eisenhower 1
Tmman II
Private-Sector
GDP Growth
(Percent)
(Thousands per
year)
(Average,
percent)
(Change in
percent of GDP)
(Growth,
percent)
(Average,
percent)
3.5
1.3
3.5
2.6
3.6
2.1
5.1
4.4
6.7
255
-167
158
71
181
-98
112
79
85
-35
70
107
91.0
82.1
93.1
81.4
74.0
74.6
84.0
96.1
96.3
90.8
91.8
-3.3
1.6
-1.8
2.2
-1.6
2.3
-0.9
2.0
1.0
0.8
-1.3
5.1
10.5
2.0
3.0
5.2
6.2
2.9
6.4
8.0
12.6
7.9
9.5
10.7
14.9
11.0
8.8
7.5
Based on data from the
Bureau of Economic
Analysis, Dflpartment of
Commerce.
Based on data from the
Bureau of Labor
Statistics, Department of
Labor.
Based on data from the
Bureau of Economic
Analysis, Department of
Commerce.
Based on data from the
Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System.
2836
633
2686
1312
2622
1261
1551
2469
1466
182
691
1355
Based on data froni the
Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Department of Labor.
Homeownership
Dow Jones
(Real annual
(Change in rate) growth, percent)
Clinton
Bush
Reagan II
Reagan 1
Carter
Nixon-Ford
Nixon
Johnson
JFK-LBJ
Eisenhower II
Eisenhower 1
Truman II
Source:
1.7
-0.2
-0.2
-1.5
0.8
-0.1
0.8
1.2
Based on data from the
Bureau of the Census,
Department of Commerce.
16.4
5.7
12.0
1.5
-9.6
-8.9
-2.1
-2.0
7.6
4.9
12.8
9.7
Department of Treasury
analysis.
Based on data from the Based on data from the
University of Michigan Congressional Budget
Survey.
Office.
Combined
Unemployment
and Inflation
Inflation
(Average,
percent)
(Average,
percent)
(Average,
percent)
(Real annual
growth, percent)
8.7
10.5
9.9
13.5
16.9
15.0
9.6
7.2
7.0
7.4
5.3
7.0
2.8
4.2
3.5
4.9
10.4
8.3
4.6
3.3
1.2
1.8
1.0
2.6
62.1
60.9
56.8
53.1
49.8
48.4
51.9
52.1
47.6
45.1
2.1
-1.9
1.7
0.9
-0.5
-0.2
1.6
4.2
3.6
2.0
2.7
5.1
Based on data from the
Bureau of Labor
Statistics, Department of
Labor.
Based on data from the
Bureau of Labor
Statistics. Department
of Labor.
College
Median Family
Enrollment Rate
Income
Based on data from the
National Center for
Education Statistics,
Department of Education.
Based on data from the
Bureau of the Census,
Department of
Commerce.
Mortgage Ral
�BUSINESS & TECHNOLOGY
Winners and losers are being
created with a vengeance t
.^ness is zipping along; and',
i'^the company is expand-^
;* ing its 130-person work
ij-force. Lee, \tiiose compaMtf.hy'is called the.RJ Lee
-'(Group, sayis he is -paying!,
^..'•r^-^v-.-:-,.
rabout 20 • percent more
; for new hires than he did }
•'three years ago, often
• drawing workers from
USX, Alcoa, Westing-;
; house, and other big
firms diat are downsizing
or restructuring.
, According to standard
economic textbooks,
those pay hikes should be
driving up prices for RJ
Pittsburgh is building over its old steel mills.
Lee's services. Well,
they're not. In fact, the average price the
. BYWILUAMJ.HOLSTEIN
company charges has declined by 50 perhe $10 million-a-year company cent over three years, mostly because of
that Richard J. Lee runs in the intense competition. If labor costs are inhilly Pittsburgh suburb of Mon- creasing and prices for the company's
roeville uses computer-controlled services are falling, how can Lee, a former
scanning electron microscopes US Steel scientist, stay in business? "The
and other gee-whiz devices to analyze ma- only way you survive is to make your peoterials, such as gunshot residue for police ple work smarter and make them more
labs. After a couple of tough years, busi- productive," says Lee.
He does that by requiring that all his
key technical people be "cross-trained" to
PHOTOGRAPHY BY SCOTT GOLDSMITH
FOR VSNSsWR
handle multiple functions. In peak peri> v ;
T
;
.
:A.- • ^ ! 1 1 f i • / / j i : - JI;11!•;•;.*i;>». • •
i
At the heart of the new economy are technology
ods, he temporarily hires college students
and contract workers to keep his equipment running 24 hours a day, seven days
a week. New, more powerful desktop
computers have tripled the speed at
which data can be drawn down from the
company's internal network. To make all
this click, everyone down to the new
maintenance i p ^ ^ ^ I ^ ^ i a b o u t to
(
; .
A second industrial revolution appears to be washin
'42
U.S.NEWS & WORLD REPORT, MAY 26,1997
�•IIP
Hike Pittsburgh-based Transarc, which was begun by a professor at Carnegie Mellon in 1989. It now has 359 employees; •i-.-.rfa v
i to be computer literate. "The janPjis probably next," Lee quips.
|f8,is more than just a lucky entrepre"WttHis success reflects the emergence
S§linew 'American economy that has
"*ied many nostrums upside down. The
that the economic expansion has lastM ^ n years is stunning enough news.
"ma 'long-term expansions in the past,
growth usually subsided as inflation
picked up over time. In the 1990s version,
the reverse has occurred—growth has accelerated in the past three years as inflation has gone down. And the gains from
rapid technological change, the rise of the
service sector, and globalized markets for
almost everything are penetrating deeply,
if unevenly, into the economy—yes, even
in places like Pittsburgh, among those hit
hardest by the decline and near death of
the old mass-manufacturing model.
In effect, a second industrial revolution
appears to be washing over the land, creating exciting new opportunities as well
as new pitfalls. In the workplace, the fundamental nature of jobs is changing.
Since 1980,-the U.S. economy lost some
ithe land, creating exciting new opportunities as
U.S.NEWS & WORLD REPORT, MAY 26,1997
43
�In the new economy, less skilled woricers like this steelworker, on strike In Steubenville, Ohio, have had little luck pushing for payraises.Some
43 million jobs through downsizing and
other structural changes. Economists call
them "sunset jobs." In their place, analyst
Horace W. Brock has pointed out, 71 million new jobs have been created. TTiat's a
net gain of 28 million jobs, or nearly seven times as many as the economies of
continental Europe, which together are
larger than America's, gained in the same
time. Even more important, they are
"sunrise jobs" in industries that have a future and, in a majority of cases, pay better
than the median wage.
The changes stem from a massive restructuring that was abetted in part by
governmental decisions whose impact
was, if anything, underestimated. The decision to embrace Mexico and Canada as
part of the North American Free Trade
Agreement in 1994 is creating a continental-scale economy, in which the auto industry, for example, is able to shift production across southern as well as
northern borders. The government-induced breakup of AT&T and deregulation
of telecommunications have helped turn
the telephone into an important source of
well as difficult problems. The indicators that used t
44
U.S.NEWS & WORLD REPORT, MAY 26,1997
�. f • . *
.ig iiff idHtHHii nfitminum...
• i'-
. " '
••ffSfC;';<f
c
ftfwiMfKMi....
At the same time, the historic decline of f fifiut the debate is about mote-tfaan'interorganized labor's clout has, for better or ^'ra^.jttt^about the fundamental naworse, given companies new flexibility to ' ^tiijfe,of:tKei economy and how it behaves.
relocate manufacturing and jobs, employ Thtvtedith^^byernmentuses to imdei>
large numbers of temporary workers, stand the ecohbmy-its dashboard indica"outsource" many functions like book- tors-are increasingly under attack as datkeeping, land in general drive their costs ed and faulty. For example, • traditional
down and their profits up. A huge influx economic theory holds that if capacity utiof immigrants and now a potentially large lization-the rate at which factories are
move of welfare recipients into entry-lev- operating-is too high, then inflation: is
el positions intensify competition for sure to result, typically the figure that's
jobs, particularly lesser skilled ones. ' ; seen as triggering inflation is about 85
An equally fundamental workplace percent, and Fed Chairman Alan Greenchange is that the best new jobs rely on span has said he is watching this statistic
highly educated and highly skilled work- with particular interest. But it covers just a
ers; In 1979,38 percent of young men with quarter of GDP. If your windshield obhigh school diplomas were employed in scures three fourths of the view, you're
' better-paying manufacturing jobs. Now, talking about a pretty big blind spot, r i i
fewer than a quarter of young
men with that education level
have such jobs.
The scale and import of
what is happening in the
American economy are only
beginning to dawn. Real eco- ,
nomic growth for the United
States as a whole is roaring
along at about a 4 percent an- %
nual rate, and unemployment
has fallen below the crucial 5
percent threshold for the first •
time in more than two decades. The inflation that haunt- "
ed the economy throughout
'the 19705 is in check. .
i All this is a major surprise to
U.S. policy makers because it
challenges two of the econom- : Medical services are a major growth industryics profession's most basic
convictions: that growth over about 2.5
Even in the manufacturing sector, longpercent and unemployment below 5 per- held assumptions are being exploded. For
cent, however desirable they might seem, example, the application of new software
are unrealistic goals because either or from German company SAP that links
both cause inflation. But they haven't manufacturing, inventory, and other
donesoyet.
functions is dramatically increasing effiThat's one theory. Decades-old theories ciency. For years, experts have wrung
about how the economy performs and the their hands over the "productivity parastatistics used to track it are being chal- dox," or why billions of dollars have been
lenged by business and labor leaders as spent on technology without much imwell as by congressmen and even an in- pact. But now, "management practices are
creasingly vocal minority of corporate and beginning to catch up with the installed
regional economists. One reason this de- technology base," says Donald F. Smith
bate is so important is that the Federal Re- Jr., executive director of the Center for
serve Board has started raising interest Economic Development at Carnegie Melrates to slow the economy and, in a kind of lon University. In other words, the real
pre-emptive strike, to stop inflation from definition of total capacity—how much
re-emerging. After a small increase in factories can produce—has increased, but
March, the Fed is meeting again this week, officialfigureshaven't kept up.
and some Wall Street economists are urgAbove all, the new economy calls into
ing it to raise rates again—and to keep question two related but different ecoraising them for the rest of the year.
nomic concepts: namely, how fast the
;
eke out gains only by working more hours.
growth, allowing Sioux Falls, S.D., and
Omaha to become major centers of credit-card processing and telemarketing.
One surprise in the new era is that the expansion has occurred without the traditional stimulus of increased deficit spending by government. Deficits have been
shrunk from $290 billion five years ago
to an estimated $67 billion this year.
s
l-
n
n
»
f
J td guide national leaders in making economic decision
U.S.NEWS & WORLD REPORT. MAY 26,1997
•i-i
45
�BUSINESS & TECHNOLOGY
;
economy can grow, and how many people small gains by working more hours, send- jobs to professional and techriicd ;p6si-can hold a job, without triggering infla- ing more members of a household out to tions, just as Americans shifted from-agrition. Economists believe that if the U.S. work, and working at temporary jobs culture to factories earlier in the century.
economy expands faster than 2.5 percent, without any benefits.
•
Can the new U.S. economy continue to
productive resources will be strained beAt the lower ends of the labor market, expand while avoiding the inflation that
yond what they can bear, thereby causing there are more disinflationary pressures vwrnld bring its achievements to an end?
prices to rise. Likewise, unemployment than inflationary ones. Companies con- Certainly, there are promising signs;
that is too low—below 5 percent—has been tinue to close expensive, aging fectories What's going on inside the old Gulf Oil
assumed to overstrain the labor market, in and to relocate production to cheaper ar- headquarters building in downto>vn Pittsturn raising wages.
eas inside the country but also in Mexico burgh, an art deco landmark, is particuWhat these concerns don't take into ac- and Asia. Those pressures are plainly evi- larly revealing. The largest tenant in the
count, however, is the decidedly uneven dent in the textile industry in the CaroU- building is a software company, Ttansarc
impact the new economy has had on dif- nas, just as they are in the steel, auto, and Corp., with 350 employees. The company
«> ^ v . r : .
was bom at Carnegie
ferent layers of the
work force. Each tier
Mellon, where a prohas its own dynamics.
fessor named Alfred Z.
At the top of the pyraSpector was studying
mid, where 20 percent
large-scale computing
to 30 percent of Amerisystems like those used
cans work in the techto process credit-card
nology- and service-oritransactions and reser.ented economy, the
vations for airlines.
salaries are strong and
Along with some grad• there are not enough
,;:uate students, he creatpeople to fill some speed the company in
cialized jobs such
;'ii989 and began to
as software programIcompete "against Miming. The technology
crosoft and Novell in
sector is growing at an
this market segment. ^
overall annual clip of
- IBM bought the compa40 percent, and the Inny in 1994. Its sales toformation Technology
:day stand at about $45
^^Association of America \.S
y million, and it is gear- :
^estimates that > high•ing up for ISO "percent
• ' tech companies need
I
growth this year. It's
190,000 new workers The RJ Lee Group
uses high-tech microscopes to magnify objects foranalysis. ;
• trying to increase its'
land can't immediately
• f ^ % 0 i f R V . staff to 500 people by
find them. But the vast majority of hightech firms, both hardware and software, machine tool industries of the Midwest. year's end to serve customers such as
operate under the iron assumption that fi- The least skilled workers aren't able to Boeing, Dow Coming, Goldman Sachs,
:'^0§!&^^:t^
nal prices for their goods will continue to push for wage hikes at all because of and Merrill Lynch.
abundant supplies of immigrants and for- v . In hallways where buttoned-down oil
fall. One reason is that computer power
company executives used to tread, table
keeps increasing as the cost of computa- mer welfare recipients.
So the wage pressures at the top of the tennis equipment has been set up to let
tion plummets—simply put, this allows
workers to get more productive while the work force aren't being translated into blue-jean-clad technicians relax. In one
price increases partly because employers lab where 250 Pentium-based 'personal
technology costs less.
compensate by driving wages lower at computers have been linked, whiz kids
Getting by. Yet another check on infla- other levels. However brutal that may be wearing T-shirts have pasted fliers on
tion is the fact that the hard-pressed mid- for workers who are displaced or paid less their doors mocking Microsoft's Bill Gates
dle doesn't enjoy the same ability to push well, that flexibility means old theories and proclaiming that they will beat the Sefor an increase in wages. That is reflected about the labor force moving in lockstep attle giant in creating software that can
in a rash of strikes and labor friction hit- are antiquated. And because of structural process 1 billion transactions in 24 hours.
ting General Motors, Chrysler, Goodyear, changes in the economy in general, there
It's companies like this that are creatand Caterpillar. Workers say they are an- is less of a direct connection between to- ing growth and employment in cities
gry because companies are forcing them tal wages paid and the actual prices that a across the country. Others that have spun
to work overtime for long periods rather company charges. In addition, Edward out in one way or another from Carnegie
than hiring new workers and because Yardeni, chief economist at Deutsche Mellon and Pittsburgh include Mastech,
most companies are still seeking ways to Morgan Grenfell, says economists' con- Fore Systems, USA On-Ramp, Redzone
outsource production to nonunion sup- cerns that low unemployment may trig- Robots, and Carnegie Group. Pittsburgh
pliers. This tier of the work force, whether ger inflation don't take into account the is trying to foster all this by erecting techunionized or not and whether blue or changing composition of the work force, nology centers on the sites of old steel
white collar, is holding even or eking out which has shifted from manufacturing mills along the Monongahela River, and
1
1
;
'••0
;
are of limited value these days. No one can say for
46
U.S.NEWS & WORLD REPORT, MAY 26, 1997
�BUSINESS & TECHNOLOGY
Former steelwoncers like John Kuczak, now a baiter near Pittsburgh, have had trouble
, high-paying jobs in the new economy.%
the state's innovative Ben Franklin Tech- •> • . • • cycles> • > Instead,•structural .:^ :e^:^w^huihan^pitdji^
Dusiriess > . • • at all. •
T
nology Center is training out-of-work
bankers in how to become entrepreneurs.
Other major sources of growth are the
financial sector, where PNC Corp. and
Mellon Bank are expanding, and the University of Pittsburgh's medical complex.
If the Fed were to raise interest rates aggressively, it could slow overall growth.
But the technology-led growth in American cities and regions isn't as interest-rate
sensitive as construction, housing, or retailing, which typically offer more entrylevel jobs. As a result, steeper interest
rates would fall hardest on the lower end
of the work force, particularly lesser
skilled people attempting to break in. "For
the first time in 20 years, we have people
saying, 'If I play by the rules, maybe I can
get a job,'" says Pittsburgh Mayor Tom
Murphy. "We need sustained growth to
get them back into the marketplace."
The bigger challenges to the continued
transformation of the economy may not
be traditional notions of inflation and
1
[
issues such as a deep mismatch in skQlsrijiJl
•what employers need arid what applicant^ •! ithe raratry or by hiring'iih^
parhave to offer—could be more important! *v ticularlyfromAsia. But if thefruitsof the
States, counties, cities, and educational : It'new economy are going to be broadly disinstitutions are scrambling to come up tributed among all sectors of the Ameriwith better ways to train or retrain work-) can population, at some point the naers to get them into the best jobs, and to do tion's educational institutions and its
it fast enough to head off labor shortages. ; kaleidoscope of job training, social serv, In the know. The problem is going to in- ices, and economic development agencies
tensify. Some 60 percent of all jobs in the will have to function in greater harmony.
United St ates in 1950 were unskilled, ac-; ' <' i -If the 'old indicators artTOf limited value
cording to Timothy Parks, president of the in understanding the complexities of what
Pittsburgh Regional Alliance. That has is happening in the U.S. economy, no one
shrunk to about 25 percent today and will is quite certain what the new rules are.
shrink further to 15 percent by the year The only thing certain is that some of the
2000. The corollary is that finding ade- most rapid, sweeping economic changes
quate supplies of "knowledge workers" in American history are challenging the
will require companies to go to greater ability of policy makers to comprehend.
lengths, including shifting offices and fac- Failure to recognize that could result in setories more rapidly. "The key differentia- riously flawed decision making.
•
tor among regions and cities will be, 'Who
can deliver the people?'" says Parks.
With Fred Vogelstein and Jack Egan in
In boomtowns such as Atlanta, Dallas, New York, JillJordan Sieder in Atlanta,
Austin, and Phoenix, companies are able and Matthew Miller in Los Angeles
:
:
:
sure what the rules of the new era are likely to be.
48
U.S.NEWS «i WORLD REPORT, MAY 26.1997
�Administration of William ]. Clinton, 1993 I Aug. 10
ii warm welcome,
rica. Let's keep it
at 1:15 p.m. at the
.ks, he referred to
Charleston. The Exthe deficit reduction
) at the end of this
and
miversity administrashe takes tlie lead
un equally confident
in the foreign policy
, our staff at OSTP
ience and technology
:s around the world."
Our relations with Canada are far more than
economic, however. The fact that we share the
world's longest undefended border is one of our
greatest security assets. And Canada's cooperation on a host of international security efforts
is absolutely invaluable. Canada has been our
partner in efforts toward the fonner Soviet
Union, Haiti, Somalia, and many other areas.
With Canada we founded the United Nations
and NATO. We work closely together today in
the Group of Seven, in GATT, in international
peacekeeping operations, just to name a few of
the arenas mat are important to us because of
what we are able to do together.
Today the United States and Canada share
a challenging list of opportunities for mutual
progress. We can work together to promote
greater economic growth in our own hemisphere
and throughout the world. We can work together to protect the air, the water, the environmental quality that is significantly shared by our
two peoples. We can work together to improve
the security of both our nations in this new
era of world affairs.
In all this I have greater confidence in the
ability of Canada and the United States to make
that kind of progress knowing that we will be
represented in Ottawa by Jim Blanchard. I appreciate the fact that Jim and Janet are willing
to accept this assignment. We all wish them
great success.
And now, Mr. Vice President, I would like
to ask you to do something I cannot do, administer the oath of office.
[At this point, the Vice President administered
die oath of office.]
NAFTA
Q. Mr. President, have you given up on
NAFTA?
The President. That's ridiculous. No.
Q. Some people say that the administration
isn't fighting hard enough for it.
The President. We don't have an agreement
yet. We have to wait until we finish. The Trade
Ambassador has not finished with the negotiations.
NOTE: The President spoke at 11:48 a.m. at the
North Portico of the West Wing at the White
House.
lominees were made
Press Secretary.
Remarks on Signing the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993
August 10, 1993
issador to
:e in Ottawa will also
and his personal ties
from being Governor
)order and close ties
n Blanchard for this
and I hope to the
immense importance
ips with Canada. For
jstionably one of the
3rld to us. Canada is
er. Over $200 billion
; our borders annually,
significantly after the
agreement. And I bei after implementation
ree Trade Agreement.
Thank you very much. Thank you. Ladies and
gentlemen, the Vice President has given me a
very generous introduction and has fairly characterized the struggle in which we have been engaged. I might say also, for all of you sports
fans, he's given a whole new meaning to the
tenn "tie-breaker." [Laughter]
But I think it would really be unfortunate
if this event were to come and go without recognizing the fact that the people in Congress
who voted for this plan had to labor under historically difficult circumstances. They had to reverse a plan of trickle-down economics in which
it was the accepted path always to say the right
thing but never to do it, and in which, if you
tried to do the right thing, people would say
the wrong things about you and cloud the debate with a fog of misinformation.
In this incredible series of events that have
unfolded, there were many Members of Con-
gress who never appeared on the evening news,
whose names never appeared in the newspapers
simply because of their quiet courage and determination to do what they thought was right and
to see this process through to the end. And
I think I would be remiss, therefore, if on this
occasion I did not ask at least all the sitting
Members of the United States Congress who
are here to stand and to receive a round of
applause. Would you all please stand? I also
want to explicitly thank all the many members
of the Cabinet and the administration who are
here who worked so hard on this program, as
well as the many citizens throughout the country
who helped us to lobby it through.
Today we come here for more than a bill
signing. We come here to begin a new direction
for our Nation. We are taking steps necessary
and long overdue to revive our economy, to
renew our American dream, to restore con-
1355
�Aug.
10 I Administration
of William J. ClinUm, 1993
fidriicr in our own ability to take cliargc of
our own affairs. This was clearly not ;i>> easy
fight. When I presented this program to Congress, I had hoped for something (juite different:
1 had hoped that it would spark a genuine,
open, honest, bipartisan national debate about
the serious choices before us, about the world
economy we face as we move toward the 21st
century, about the problems we have here at
home and all the people whose lives and potential we lose and what economic consequence
that has for all the rest of Americans. I had
hoped that we could discuss whether and to
what extent the revival of the competitive skills
of our work force could raise incomes and generate jobs; how we could both reduce the deficit
and increase investment in ovir future; whether
we could escape the trap that has afflicted so
many wealthy countries, that even when their
economies are growing now they don't seem
to be creating jobs; how we could escape the
wlicies of the seventies and the eighties which
ed middle class Americans to work longer work
weeks for lower pay while they paid more for
the essentials of life; whether we could bring
the power of free enterprise to bear in the poor
inner cities and rural areas of this country and
lift people up with the force of the American
dream; whether the short-term consequences of
bringing the deficit down would be more than
overweighed by the short-term benefits of lower
interest rates and tlie long-term benefits o f
being in control of our economic destiny.
These are the kinds of things that I wanted
to see debated. And to be sure, to some extent,
we did debate them. But for 5 months the
American people heard too little about the real
debate and too much from those who
oversimplified and often downright misrepresented the questions of tax increases and spending cuts because they had narrow economic or
political or personal reasons to do so.
So today, as we sign this landmark legislation,
I say again, now we can talk about the national
interests, how this plan will begin to bring the
change we need in America, how we can have
economic revival and hope if this is a beginning
and we move forward from here. After all, after
12 years of the most rapid increase in deficits
in our country's history, when the national debt
went from $1 to $4 trillion in only 12 years,
this is the largest deficit reduction plan in history, with $255 billion in real enforceable spending cuts in very specific areas, not generalized
1356
hot air and tomorrow's promises but specific
cuts. After 12 years of trickle-down economics
where taxes were lowered on the wealthiest
Americans, raised on the middle class, hoping
that investments would be made which would
reverse the trends of the last 20 years, we now
have real fairness in the Tax Code with over
80 percent of the new tax burden being borne
by those who make over $200,(X)0 a year, with
the middle class asked to pay only $3 a month,
and with a tax cut to working families with children who make under $27,000 a year. By expanding this eamed-income tax credit to working families and especially to the working poor,
this Congress has made history by enabling us
to say for the first time now, if you work lard
and you have children in your home and you
spend 40 hours a week at work, you can be
a successful worker and a successful parent, and
you will be lifted out of ]x>verty.
Every elected public official in America sometime in the last 10 years has given someplace
between one and a thousand speeches decrying
the welfare system, extolling the values of work
and family. But finally, the people who voted
yes on this plan put a down payment toward
ending welfare as we know it by finally doing
sometning to reward work and family instead
of just talking about it.
Everybody in this debate talked about small
business, and the people who opposed this plan
said it was bad for small business. But in truth,
the opposition plan actually increased the burden on small business people who took out their
own health insurance by taking away their deduction for it, while this plan increases bv 75
percent the expensing allowance for small businesses in ways that will give over 90 percent
of the small businesses in America a tax cut
if they do what they ought to do, invest more
money in their business. Others talked about
it; we did it. And we should be proud of it,
and we should tell the small business community
about it.
Others talked about the importance of small
business as a job generator. This plan passed
a pro-jobs capital gains tax that reduces tax rates
by 50 percent for people who invest their money
in new and small businesses and hold those investments for 5 years or more, the most dramatic incentive we have ever had to encourage
people to take money out of their savings and
take a chance on the free enterprise sector in
America in the places where the jobs are being
�Administration
nises hut specific
-down economics
HI the wealthiest
Idle class, hopin
adc which won
20 scars, we now
. Code with over
rden being Ixirne
t.OOO a year, with
only $3 a month,
lamilies with chilK) a year. By exix credit to workllie working poor,
ry hy enabling us
if you work hard
ir home and you
«>rk, you can be
essful parent, and
in America somegiven someplace
speeches decrying
lie values of work
icople who voted
payment toward
I by finally doing
id family instead
Jked about small
opposed this plan
icss. But in truth,
icreased the burvho took out their
ig away their dei increases by 75
ce for small busiover 90 percent
merica a tax cut
i do, invest more
icrs talked about
be proud of it,
isiness community
portance of small
This plan passed
reduces tax rates
nvest their money
nd hold those ine, the most drahad to encourage
their savings and
teqirise sector in
lie jobs are being
(.reated, in the small business sector. Thai's what
tins plan does. Instead of talking about doing
something for small business, this plan actually
did it. And all ol you need to he proud of
dial.
The plan offers incentives to Americans lo
invest to revive the homebuilding market: to
invest in research and development, something
that especially helps high-tech companies; to invest in new plant and equipment. Even the biggest companies in America now will be able
to have tax incentives i f they are willing to invest
in growing more jobs here at home. These are
the right ways to cut taxes, my fellow Americans,
cutting taxes for people because they spent their
money in growing this economy and putting
their fellow Americans to work. And that's what
this plan does.
This plan was criticized in some quarters because it did spend some new money on some
new things. I would argue to you that anybody
who thinks that all Government spending is the
same might just as well say all kinds of bread
taste the same. We did not come here to leave
our judgment and our knowledge about the
global economy at the city borders of Washington, DC.
So yes, I plead guilty: We reformed the student loan program to lower the interest rates
on student loans and make it easier for people
to take out college loans and to repay them.
We did, finally, after 6 long years of reducing
defense spending at rapid rates, at throwing people in the street from California to Connecticut,
we finally did put some more money in here
for defense conversion to give those people a
chance to go back to work in a peacetime economy, to contribute to the American dream. We
did spend some more money on Head Start
and on poor pregnant mothers to try to get
their chi dren into the world in good shape,
to try to lower the tax burden on other people
and increase their productivity. We did spend
some money to try to give 6 million more children inoculations, because no one can explain
to me why the United States of America has
the third worst immunization record in the
Western Hemisphere and we're paying a fortune
for it.
This plan has already begun to work. Ever
since it was clear that we were working to bring
down the deficit and every time we made
progress along the way, long-term interest rates
dropped, enabling millions of Americans to refi-
of William ]. Clinton.
1993 I Aug. 10
nance their home either to lower their monthly
payments or to build up their own sav ings, enabling businesses to refinance llieir loans and,
over the long run, lowering the cost of new
investment in new jobs.
Because of the leadership of tlie Speaker of
the House, Senator Mitchell, Congressman Gephardt, the hard work of the committee chairs.
Senator Moynihan, Congressman Kostenkowski,
Senator Sasser, Congressman Sabo, the committee chairs in all the other committees in the
Congress, and as I said earlier, the simple courage of millions of Americans in supporting this
plan and the quiet courage of so many Members
of Congress who literally put their careers on
the line, this country has begun to take responsibility for itself.
I say to those Members who t(x>k a big
chance in voting for this, with all the rhetoric
that was thrown against them, if you go home
and look your people in the eye and tell them
you were willing to put your job on the line
so that they can keep their jobs, I think they
will understand and reward you with reelection.
This plan is only the beginning. As I said
on February 17th and would like to say again
today as we close, this administration views job
creation and deficit reduction, expanding international trade and providing health care at affordable rates to all Americans, training and
educating our work force, making our families
healthier and our streets safer, reforming our
welfare system and reinventing our Government
not as different challenges requiring disparate
solutions in different coalitions but part of the
fabric of reviving the dream that we were all
raised with.
We cannot simply say, "This is a complicated
time, and we're unequal to the challenge. So
we'll do this, and 4 or 5 years from now we'll
worry about that." We have to think about what
it takes to build the fabric of community, to
rebuild the fabric of our families, to give our
children a good shot, and to have sensible economic policies at home and with our allies
around the world. Toward this end let me say
again, in the long run we cannot succeed in
an endless season of partisan bitterness and rancor and bickering. I f some of us have to make
hard choices while others stand aside and hope
that the house collapses, nothing will in the end
get done.
And so I ask today of the American people
and the American people's representatives, with-
1357
�•m
Aug. 10 I Admmistralion of William ). Clinton, 1993
out regard to your party or philosophy, when
the August recess is over, let us join again in
the common work of American renewal. There
is so much to be done that can only be done
if we're all willing to carry our share of the
load. Clearly, that is what the American people
want us to do.
In the very first week when the Congress
conies back, the Senate will have a chance to
demonstrate that bipartisan spirit by lassing the
national service plan that the House has already
passed and opening up the opportunity for hundreds of thousands of young Americans to pay
their college way by serving their communities
and rebuilding a sense of community in this
country. And then we will move on to the other
great issues of the day. And move on we must.
We cannot stand still.
I remember every time I do something like
this who we're really working for: I remember
the people that Senator Moynihan and I saw
lined along the long way from the airport to
Hyde Park in New York; the people who stood
out in 3-degree weather in Chillicothe, Ohio,
to visit with me about their hopes for America;
the young people I saw at Rutgers in New Jer-
sey, in New Orleans, and in Boston, so 'i _
committed to the idea of national servicetoei/f
cause they want to be in a position to^gtvP*
something back to their country and to beli^]
that their country can work for them again; k l f f i
school students in Chicago who for the lfirstl
time are dreaming of an affordable college'edifc^
cation; and inner-city youths I saw at the play^
ground in Los Angeles who believe that there's^
no reason they can't live in a neighborhood thaP
is free of crime and full of opportunity. These <
are the people that we all came here to \vi>r]c1
for. These are the people that we celebrate foi
today.
. ^rp.tfcl.
This is a beginning. Let us resolve wheri'thls
recess is over to come back with a new deter-';
mination to finish the work. And let us again
hold our hands out to those who were not part
of this process and say, "America needs us all.
Let us go forward together."
"•'»'•>•
Thank you, and God bless you all.
''^L
NOTE: The President spoke at 12:33 p.m. bri'the
South Lawn at the White House. H.R. 2264, approved August 10, was assigned Public Law No.'ri
103-66.
' ' W
>
;
i.nrt
Remarks on the Swearing-in of Supreme Court Associate Justice
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
August 10, 1993
The President. Please be seated. Welcome to
the White House. It is my distinct honor to
introduce the Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court.
[At this point, Chief Justice William Rehnquist
administered the oath of office, and Justice Ginsburg then made brief remarks ]
The President. Ladies and gentlemen, before
we adjourn to the reception in honor of Justice
Ginsburg, I'd like to acknowledge the presence
here today of Senator Moynihan, who sponsored
her so strongly in the Senate, Senator Larry
Pressler of South Dakota, Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, and the chairman of
the House Judiciary Committee, my good friend
Jack Brooks from Texas. It's good to see all
of you here.
This was a very iinportant appointment to me.
1358
'•••.•'Mi \
.i
••
In one of my former lives I had the great joy ,
and responsibility of teaching the United States
Constitution and the decisions of the Supreme
Court under it to aspiring but not always inter-;
ested law students. [Laughter] I have learned
over the course of a lifetime of practical experience what I knew then: We breathe life into
the values we espouse through our law. It gives j
to every American, including the most illiterate j
among us, the most totally unaware of how the ,
legal system works, a fair measure of our ideals j
and some reality that comes into life from the J
speeches given by the rest of us. There is noj
one with a deeper appreciation of this fact than|
Ruth Bader Ginsburg. This is a moment, this!
historic moment, therefore, that all Americans j
can celebrate. For no one knows better than?
she that it is the law that provides the rules J
that permit us to live together and that permit |
�THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(London, England)
For Immediate Release
May 29, 1997
PRESS CONFERENCE BY THE PRESIDENT
AND PRIME MINISTER BLAIR
#10 Downing Street
London, England
3:05 P.M. (L)
PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. The President and
I have ranged over many subjects in the hours we have had together, and we intend to continue
those discussions later today.
We've discussed Bosnia and our continuing efforts to work together in addressing one of
the most pressing crises on the international agenda. We've discussed, obviously, Northern
Ireland and our determination to do all that we can to bring about the cease-fire that will allow
all-party talks to proceed in the best possible climate, and that a cease-fire is genuine and credible
with all the parties there.
We agreed that NATO is and will remain the cornerstone of Europe's defense. And I
was grateful, too, for the President's expression of continuing support on Hong Kong. We
agreed, too, that Britain does not need to choose between being strong in Europe or being close
to the United States of America, but that by being strong in Europe we will further strengthen our
relations with the U.S.
President Clinton will have more to say on these and other issues in a moment. But we
agreed, too, and have for sometime, that this is a new era which calls for a new generation
politics and a new generation leadership. This is the generation that prefers reason to doctrine,
that is strong in ideals but indifferent to ideology; whose instinct is to judge government not on
�grand designs, but by practical results. This is the generation trying to take politics to a new
plateau, seeking to rise above some of the old divisions of right and left. It is what, on my last
visit to the United States to meet the President, I described as the radical center of politics.
The soil is the same; the values of progress, justice, of a one nation country in which
ambition for oneself and compassion for others can live easily together. But the horizons are
new; the focus and agenda are also new.
We discussed how this is the generation that claims education, skills and technology as
the instruments of economic prosperity and personal fulfillment, not all battles between state
and market. This is the generation that believes in international engagement, in our nations being
stronger by being open to the world, not in isolationism. This is the generation that knows that it
will fall to us to modernize the New Deal and the welfare state, to replace dependency by
independence.
This is the generation, too, searching for a new set of rules to define citizenship for the
21st century ~ intolerant of crime, but deeply respectful and tolerant towards those of different
races, colors, and class and creed, prepared to stand up against discrimination in all its guises.
This is the generation, too, that celebrates the successful entrepreneur, but knows that we cannot
prosper as a country unless we prosper together, with no underclass of the excluded shut out
from society's future. It's a generation that puts merit before privilege, which cares more about
the environment than about some outdated notion of class war.
New times, new challenges - the new political generation must meet them.
So, yes, we discussed the pressing issues of diplomacy and statesmanship and peace in
troubled parts of our world. But perhaps just as important was our discussion of this new agenda
for the new world in which we find ourselves. We agreed that our priority as political leaders
must indeed be education, education, education, flexible labor markets, welfare reform,
partnership with business.
In Europe, in particular, we need to reduce long-term and youth unemployment, both of
which are unacceptably high. The U.S. has been more successful in creating jobs, but it, too,
faces new challenges in seeking to assure opportunity for all its citizens.
The United States has the presidency of the G-8 in 1997. In 1998, Britain has the
presidency both of the European Union and the G-8. We have agreed today to a common agenda
and a shared determination to identify what action needs to be taken to tackle the problems we all
face, to identify what reforms have worked where, what reforms have failed, and how we can
leam the lessons both of success and of failure.
As part of this process, Britain will host a G-8 Conference of Finance and Social Affairs
�Ministers in the early months of our G-8 presidency next year, and the Chancellor of the
Exchequer will be announcing further details today.
We have a shared language; we have a shared outlook on many of the issues that face us.
We are determined, too, to share our ideas, our expertise, and our commitment to a new era of
cooperation and of understanding. Thank you.
President Clinton.
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Thank you very much. Prime Minister. First, let me say it's
an honor and a pleasure to be here today. I've looked forward to this for a long time. I have read
countless articles about how Prime Minister Blair and I have everything in common; and I'm still
looking for my 179-seat majority. I have been all ears in trying to get the advice about how such
a thing might be achieved.
On a more serious note, let me say that one of the most important and meaningful
responsibilities of any American President is to carry forward the unique partnership between the
United States and the United Kingdom. Over the last 50 years, our unbreakable alliance has
helped to bring our people unparalleled peace and prosperity and security. It's an alliance based
on shared values and common aspirations.
In the last four years I was privileged to lead the United States in pursuing that
partnership. I had a good and productive relationship with Prime Minister Major, and I am very
much looking forward to working with Tony Blair. I have asked him in pursuance of this to
come to Washington as early as is convenient for both us, and I expect that there will be an
official visit pretty soon. And I know that the people of the United States are looking forward to
having him there.
I have been impressed by the determination of the Prime Minister and his Cabinet to
prepare this nation for the next century; to focus on economic growth; to make education the
number one priority because without it, you can't guarantee every person in any country the
chance to compete and succeed in the world toward which we're moving. I have been impressed
by his understanding that in order for the United Kingdom to fulfill its historic leadership role in
Europe and the rest of the world, the needs and concerns of the people here at home have to be
adequately addressed.
As you know, this corresponds with my own views. Our first task must always be to
expand opportunities for our own citizens; to expect them to behave in a responsible manner; and
to recognize that we have to maintain a community in which people's differences are respected,
but in which their shared values are more important.
We talked about how we could work together to shape a peace for the coming
generation. We reviewed our efforts to complete the work that began 50 years ago with the
�Marshall Plan, building an undivided, peaceful Europe for the first time in history - through
NATO's enlargement, through its new partnership with Russia, its new agreement with Ukraine,
a strengthened Partnership for Peace, an expanding European Union that reaches out to Europe's
newly free nations.
We agreed on the importance, as he has already said, of helping the parties in Bosnia
fulfill their commitments under the Dayton Accord and continuing our support for all elements
of it.
We discussed Northern Ireland. As all of you know, when I visited Northern Ireland 18
months ago, I was profoundly moved by the palpable desire of people in both communities for
peace. I applaud the Prime Minister's initial efforts in this regard. There is a sense of hope and
reassurance that has been conveyed here. And I know that he is committed in partnership with
the Irish government to bring about a lasting resolution to the conflict.
The goal of this peace process is inclusive talks because they are the ones most likely to
succeed. But I have said before, and I'd like to say again, that can only succeed if there is an
unequivocal cease-fire in deed and in word. Again, I urge the IRA to lay down their guns for
good, and for all parties to turn their efforts to building the peace together.
The concerns we share extend far beyond our borders. Today's global challenges require
global responses. Indeed, one of the reasons that we are working so hard to organize NATO in
the proper way, to unify Europe in the proper way is so that our nations will all be prepared to
meet the challenges to our security in the new century which cross national lines — terrorism,
international crime, weapons proliferation, and obviously, global environmental degradation.
More and more, we are focusing our attention on these challenges. Again, we are going
to deepen our cooperation between our two nations and in the forums in which we're members. I
am very pleased with the proposal that the Prime Minister has made to pursue an economic
agenda within the Group of 8, and I intend to support that.
Let me say, finally, that we discussed Hong Kong, and I commended the United
Kingdom to work to implement the word and the spirit of the 1984 agreement. All of us who
care about the future of Hong Kong have a stake in making sure the agreement is fully met. We
will keep faith with the people of Hong Kong by monitoring the transition to make sure that civil
liberties are retained, that democratic values and free market principles are maintained. Those
are the things for which the United Kingdom and the United States stand, and those are the
things that the agreement guarantees.
This is a hopeful time for the people of the United Kingdom and for the people of the
United States. It is a hopeful time for the world. More people live free and have the chance to
live out their dreams than ever before in human history. But we face daunting new challenges
and we have to face them together. I say repeatedly to the American people, we may be at the
�point of our greatest relative influence in the world after the Cold War, but we can exercise that
influence only if we acknowledge our interdependence on like-minded people with similar
dreams. I feel that very strongly here today with Prime Minister Blair, and I intend to act upon
it.
Thank you very much.
PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: Thank you very much, Mr. President.
Right, gentlemen, questions.
Q Mr. President, as you probably know, during our recent election year there was a
good deal written on both sides of the Atlantic about Mr. Blair being the "Clinton clone," or the
"British Clinton." I wonder, now you're here, how the American original thinks that the British
version is shaping up.
PRESIDENT CLINTON: (Laughter.) Well, I have a couple of reactions to that. First of
all, a lot of the columns that were written about that were not altogether flattering to either one of
us, and I had half a mind to call Mr. Blair during the election and offer to attack him in the
harshest possible terms if he thought it might free him of an unwanted yoke. (Laughter.) And
now, I also told you today that there is one big difference, and that's the enormous parliamentary
majority that the Prime Minister enjoys. So I should be here learning from new Labor instead of
the other way around.
Let me just give you a serious answer. I believe that the peoples, free peoples in the
world are interested in democratic governments that work; that have constructive economic
policies, that try to reconcile the imperative of growth with the imperatives of family and
neighborhood and community; that do not accept that fact that our social problems will always
worsen and cannot be made better; that do not promise to do things which responsible citizens
must do for themselves, but which don't run away from their own responsibilities. That's what I
think people want.
And I think that requires us to move beyond ~ I don't think that it's the end of ideology,
but I think it's the end of yesterday's ideology. And I think the more people see the issues framed
in terms of attacks of parties on each other and yesterday's language that seems disconnected to
their own concerns, their own hopes and their own problems, the more faith is lost in politics.
The more people see the political process is relevant to their lives and their future, the more
energy you have. And what I sense in Great Britain today is an enormous amount of energy.
So if you're asking me to rate the beginning, I'd say that's a great thing. It's a great thing
when the people of a democracy believe in its possibilities and are willing to work for them.
That is about all you can ask. No one has all the answers, but you want people to believe in the
possibilities of a nation and be willing to work for them.
�Q Sir, you told us this morning that the Northern Ireland peace process is an article of
faith in your life. Given that, is there anything more the U.S. can do to nudge the process along?
And what's your take on Iran's new President, a moderate cleric who won in a landslide?
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, let me say, first of all, we have a new British
government that has taken what I think were wise and judicious steps and made statements that I
think are clear, unequivocal and appropriate. There is about to be an election in Ireland. The
United States ~ I have restated what the pole stars of our position are today ~ an unequivocal
cease-fire, inclusive talks. But I think before I say or do anything more, as with every peace, this
is a peace that has to be made by the parties themselves, and we need to let this unfold a little.
But we'll be there, active and involved, along the way.
Now, as to Iran, obviously it's a very interesting development and for those of us who
don't feel privy to all the details of daily life in that country, it's at least a reaffirmation of the
democratic process there. And it's interesting, and it's hopeful. But, from the point of view of
the United States, what we hope for is a reconciliation with a country that does not believe that
terrorism is a legitimate extension of political policies, that would not use violence to wreck a
peace process in the Middle East, and would not be trying to develop weapons of mass
destruction.
I have never been pleased about the estrangements between the people of the United
States and the people of Iran. And they are a very great people, and I hope that the
estrangements can be bridged. But those are three big hurdles that would have to be cleared, and
we'll just have to hope for the best.
Q Mr. President, you've appealed again strongly today for the IRA to call a cease-fire.
How soon after the calling of an IRA cease-fire would you want and expect to see Sinn Fein in
inclusive talks? How long a verification process would you see as being correct? Would this be
matter of months or weeks or days?
PRESIDENT CLINTON: I don't believe I should make a public comment on that at this
moment. Tony Blair's government has just come into office. As I said, I think they've taken
some very impressive and appropriate steps. There's about to be an Irish election. I think, at this
moment, for the American President to start specifying that level of detail would be
inappropriate.
Q Mr. President, this may be a time of new politics, but there are some immutable old
laws, like the military doctrine of not stretching your forces too thin. Both of you are involved in
downsizing your militaries. How do you do that and at the same time credibly make a vast new
defense commitment that is involved in NATO expansion?
And the second part of the question for President Clinton. There are reports that NATO
6
�enlargement will cost American taxpayers as much as a $150 billion over the next five years.
What is your estimate of the cost?
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, first -- and I think the Prime Minister and I both should
answer your first question ~ so let me answer the second question very briefly. Our last estimate
was -- or more than an estimate - in the last defense report we got, the estimate was more in the
range of $150 million to $200 million a year. They are reviewing our defense commitments
now.
I should point this out ~ the cost will be important because for most European countries,
the relative costs will be greater than for the United States because we've already done some of
the structural things that European countries have to do ~ most of them. So I do not expect that
that larger figure is anywhere close to the ballpark.
Secondly, the security umbrella we have is really no longer dependent upon stationing
large armies along the Eastern frontier of NATO. What kept any NATO nation from being
attacked, in my judgment, was the larger nuclear deterrent that was present during the Cold War.
Now, we are also trying to reduce that, but keep in mind, see the NATO expansion in the context
of the following things: There's an agreement between NATO and Russia about what our
relationship is going to be. President Yeltsin just agreed to detarget the nuclear missiles against
all the NATO countries; we will have an agreement on conventional forces in Europe which will
further reduce those forces. And after the Russians ratify START II, we will move on to START
III which will involve an 80-percent reduction in nuclear forces from their post-Cold War high.
So, in that context, I think the expansion of NATO is quite affordable and really should
be seen not only as a cooperative security guarantee, but as a cooperative commitment to try to
deal with the other security problems of our times, like Bosnia.
PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: I agree very much with that, and I think what is important
is to see NATO enlargement and, indeed, the Joint Council between NATO and Russia, as part
of building the security and defense of our countries, and, indeed, making sure that
the commitments that we have are fully realizable.
Now, we announced just a couple days ago a strategic review of our defense, which is
foreign policy led. It's not about downsizing our armed forces, but it is about making sense of
the commitments that we have. But I think that NATO enlargement is a very, very important
part of bringing in those emerging countries in Eastern Europe, and ensuring also, through
cooperation with Russia, that we're doing it in a way that preserves the security of the
world. And I can't think of anything more important than that. So I don't see these as conflicting
objectives. On the contrary; I see them properly implemented as entirely complementary.
Q Mr. President ~ (inaudible) - there is a conflict ~ (inaudible) - on the way being
pushed by the Prime Minister for more flexible labor markets and a call from Brussels for more
�social legislation. Is the Prime Minister right to warn against the dangers of this? And secondly,
while you're in London, you said you wanted to go out and about a bit. What is it you're looking
forward to see most?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I've already seen part of what I want to see most, which is the
unique and unspeakably beautiful British spring. I was so hoping it would be sunny today.
Let me say on the other question, there is not a simple answer. The great challenge for
Europe ~ and more for other countries even than for the United Kingdom because your
unemployment rate is already lower than some ~ but the great challenge you face is how to
create enough jobs to be competitive and to promote not only economic growth, but to have a
good society. A successful society requires that able-bodied adults be able to work. Successful
families, successful communities, low crime rates all require that able-bodied adults be able to
spend their energies a certain number of hours a day at work ~ quite apart from the economic
considerations.
So the question is, how do you do that, how do you become more flexible, how do you
have more entrepreneurs, more flexible labor markets, and still preserve the social cohesion that
has made community life strong in Europe, justifiably.
In the United States, we've had enormous success -and I'm grateful for this ~ in creating
jobs and more in the first four years of my term than in any previous four-year term in history,
but we're struggling to come back the other way. We're struggling to find a way to give those
working families -make sure they can all afford health care for their children, make sure they
can have some time off when there is a baby born or a parent sick. You know, we're trying to
deal with the arguments from the other way.
But the imperative of reconciling work and family and providing some social safety net
so that the conditions of community can be met while having growth, that is the balance-striking
that every advanced economy has to do.
And I think what the Prime Minister has said that I thoroughly agree with is, the one
option that is unacceptable is denial. That's the only unacceptable - there is no perfect answer.
I would be the last person to tell you that we've drawn the perfect balance. We're better at
creating jobs than nearly anybody, but we don't have quite as much family security and support
as I'd like to see in the area of child care and family leave and other things.
But one thing there is not an option to do is to deny that this is an issue anymore. The
United States wants a higher growth rate in Europe. We don't feel threatened by it; we think it
would help us, and we hope you can achieve it.
PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: If I could just add one thing to that ~ I mean, I think what
is absolutely essential is to realize this is part of the reason for the G-8 initiative that we want to
8
�take. We are all facing, as modem, developed countries the same challenges.
Work is changing; industry is changing; we live in a new type of world economy; there
are different pressures putting together work and family life. Now, what we're all trying to do is
to make sure that we can be fully competitive as we need to be in this new economy while
preserving the essential foundations of a humane and decent society. Now, that is the very goal.
That's why education and welfare are important. That's why the type of different agenda that I
think that a different generation of politicians is reaching towards is actually what is necessary
not just here, not just in the United States, but all over the developed world. And if we can bring
together some of those lessons, from the U.S., from Britain and from Europe, then we'll find
better ways of going forward in Europe as well as the USA.
PRESIDENT CLINTON: I'll take both of you, but only one at a time.
Q Mr. President, Prime Minister, as you've said already a lot has been made of the
notion that the two of you are similar. My question is, sometimes the press gets a story and
keeps going with it. Are you just a little bit sick of this story line? How far can this thing go?
(Laughter.)
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Yes, I'm sick of it because he's seven years younger than I am
and has no grey hair. (Laughter.) So I resent it. But there doesn't seem to be anything I can do
about it.
PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: Look, I think it's a perfectly healthy thing if we realize that
these are common developments the world over. I mean, this isn't just something that's to do
with the United States or to do with Britain. There is a different generation of political leaders. I
mean, I grew up, was bom 10 years after the end of the second world war. I grew up with
Eastern Europe on our doorstep. I never thought that the politics of my type of political
aspiration was the politics I saw in Eastern Europe. But what I took from my own political
traditions was a belief in community, injustice, in a hatred of discrimination. But I want to
apply those types of values in the different world.
Now, if you take the welfare state, which we're trying to reform now here in Britain, and
which President Clinton has done so much to reform in the United States, we believe in the
values of that, but 1997 is not 1947 or 1937. So that's why the New Deal has to be updated for
today's world; the welfare state has to be updated for today's world. And in Europe, you'll find
the same issues being addressed today.
Q
Mr. Prime Minister, are you the student in this relationship?
PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: Well, I think we can both learn from each other and
develop together. I think this is good. But I would pay tribute to the way that Bill Clinton
blazed the trail in this area.
�PRESIDENT CLINTON: Let me say on that point, as all of you know -- all of the
American journalists here know —before I became President I was not a member of our
Congress; I was a governor for a dozen years. And the founding fathers of the United States
wrote in the Federalist Papers that they expected the states to be the laboratories of democracy,
which is an elegant 18th century way of saying that all governors should be students of one
another. They should borrow from each other shamelessly. They should leam from each other
without arrogance.
And what I think - if you get a generation of leaders ~ and it's not necessarily
determined by age. I consider Prime Minister Kok in the Netherlands in this category, a little bit
older than we are; the young Prime Minister of Portugal a little younger than we are; a number of
others - who are thinking in the same way and trying to move toward the same place and
recognize ~ have a common understanding of the kind of changes that are sweeping through the
world, then we should fairly be expected to - in fact, our people ought to demand that we do the
best we can to learn from each other and cherish that, celebrate that, and say that nobody has got
all the answers, but if we can get our countries headed in the right direction, free people usually
do the right thing if they're going in the right direction. Eventually, they figure it out.
Q Prime Minister, what role do you envisage the President playing in furthering the
peace process?
And, Mr. President, you were obviously very disappointed when the IRA cease-fire
collapsed. Do you think the other parties should now move forward without Sinn Fein if another
cease-fire is not forthcoming?
PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: I'll answer the first part of your question, Kenneth. The
United States has played, and I've no doubt will continue to play, a helpful role. And we
obviously are carrying forward the process. We want to make sure that we can get into all-party
talks; we've laid down the conditions for that. And I know that the United States is fully behind
that. And I think that that is always helpful.
I remember, too, the visit that President Clinton made some 18 months ago, when the
huge optimism and hope that he ignited there in the province was tangible. And we want that
back again. We want that sense. Peace in Northern Ireland and ensuring that we get a lasting
political settlement that endures is what the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland want.
This is the great burningfrustrationof it - that we are so keen to make sure that the voice of that
majority that wants a lasting settlement, that doesn't want to do it by anything other than
democratic means, is heard.
Now, I believe it's possible that we can move this process forward, but it's got to be done
with care. And I'm sure, as they've played a helpful role before, the United States will play a
helpful role again.
10
�PRESIDENT CLINTON: Obviously, I think that Sinn Fein should participate in the
talks. And I think the IRA should meet what I think has to be the precondition. You can't say,
we'll talk and shoot; we'll talk when we're happy and shoot when we're not. And every political
process in the world is a struggle for principled compromise, which means when it's over, no one
is ever 100 percent happy.
So that is the decision that obviously all of them will have to make. But the people there
do not want to be led in a destructive path anymore. I'm convinced the Catholics don't. I'm
convinced the Protestants don't. And I'm convinced the young are more insistent than the old.
And to trap people in the prison of those past patterns ~ we talk about changing economic policy
~ a far greater tragedy is to move into the wonders of the 21 st century with the shackles of what
can only be characterized as almost primitive hatred of people because they are of different
religions than you are.
I promised you next, I'm sorry. Then we'll go on. Go ahead. I apologize. My memory's
is not what it used to be.
Q You're older now.
PRESIDENT CLINTON: That's right. (Laughter.) I'vegotacain. (Laughter.)
Q As a follow-up to some of the previous questions and answers, Mr. Prime Minister,
your party won election by promising no new taxes and by endorsing many of the privatization
policies of your Conservative predecessors. Mr. President, you've just signed off on a budget
deal that has tax cuts, but basically precludes any large new spending initiatives over the next
several years. Both of these compromises have made people within your own parties ~ a lot of
them have great misgivings about them. How can you convince these people that what you've
described as the radical center is not really just the dead center and this new pragmatism isn't just
another named for old-fashioned expediency?
PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: Well, I think you can do it very easily, by sharing how it
derives from conviction and principle. What we decided to do when we created new Labor was
to be honest with people. There were certain things the 1980s got right ~ an emphasis on
enterprise, more flexible labor markets. Fine; accept it. They got it right. There should be no
mileage in trying to undo things that are basically right.
But there were some very fundamental things that we got wrong — education, the
creation of a large pool of people of underclass cut off from society's mainstream, a negative
isolationist view of foreign policy. These things we change over centralized government. These
things we change.
And what is different about it ~ and I think potentially exciting and radical about it - is
that it does try to get past a lot of the divisions of the past. And you got out there and you talk to
people in the street about what concerns them ~ I often think the people are a thousand miles
11
�ahead of the politicians. They know that what matters to them is to get their schools right, their
hospitals right, tackle crime in their streets. They know that there are certain things that
government can't do about jobs and industry, but certain things they can do. They want us to do
those things.
Now, I don't think that's a dead center, I think that is a radical center. And it's ~ the big
changes that we were able to make in the Labor Party we made out of principle. It was
electorally necessary, but it was also the right thing to do. If it hadn't been the right thing to do,
it would never have taken root in the way that it did.
Now, sure, whenever you make changes, there are people that disagree, and there will be
those that say we just want to go backwards. Well, the job of political leadership is to explain to
people why that's not sensible ~ why you should move forward.
PRESIDENT CLINTON: First of all, let me just remind you of what it was like when I
took office. We had high unemployment, low growth, a country with rising crime, rising
welfare, and increasing social division. We now have the lowest unemployment rate in 24 years,
the biggest decline in income inequality ~ something the progressive party should care about
~ in over 30 years. We have declining crime rates. For every year I've been President, the crime
rate's gone down, and our crime bill is fully funding and is implementing that. We've got the
biggest decline in welfare rolls in history. And we have fought against the divisive forces of
race, religion and all the other forces that are used to divide people in a complex society like
ours.
So I think that what we have done is both progressive and effective. And, yes, we have a
smaller government; we have the smallest government since the Kennedy administration. But
we're spending more money on education, more money on medical research, more money on
technology. I think we're doing the right thing. That's first.
Second, on the budget agreement itself, to my fellow Democrats - before they criticize
me, I would ask them to read what the conservative Republicans have said about the Republicans
for signing off on the budget agreement. One conservative periodical accused the moderate
Republicans of being Clintonites, which is a fate worse than death for them, and then said that I
guess we're all new Democrats now.
Look at what this budget does. You say it has no room for big spending - it has the
biggest increase in education in a generation, a big increase in environmental protection. It has
enough ~ $17 billion to insure half the kids in America who don't have health insurance.
Now, beyond that, does it allow for big spending new programs? No, it doesn't. If we
want to spend any more money, big money, in the next three and a half years, what do we have
to do? We either have to grow the economy or we've got to raise the money. That's what a
balanced budget is for. I support that. I support that. I want the American people ~ if I could ~
12
�we would come closer to solving our social problems if we can maintain unemployment at or
under five percent for the next four years than nearly anything else I could do.
And I want us to be in a position ~ as the progressive party ~ where we can't launch a
big new program unless we raise the money for it or grow the economy to fund it. That's the way
we ought to do it. That is the fiscally responsible way to do it. So I am happy with that
criticism, and I plead guilty, and the results are good.
PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: I like that very much, indeed.
Q Mr. Blair, you talked early on about lessons that you can leam from America and
you said that they've been better at creating jobs. I just wondered why you thought they had been
better at creating jobs, what lessons specifically we could draw from that ~ their attitudes to it.
PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: I think there is a very strong commitment to
entrepreneurship there, which is very important. They've pursued, of course, a stable economic
management policy. That is very important. And Bill said something there just a moment ago
that I think is very, very important ~ that the progressive parties today are the parties of fiscal
responsibility and prudence. You don't do anything for anybody by making a wreckage out of
the economy.
Now, I think these are all things that we take to heart. And what is interesting to me is,
again, if you look around not just the USA or what we're doing with new Labor here in Britain,
but if you look around Europe, there are center, center-left parties there again as the parties of
fiscal prudence and responsibility. And what you can do is make changes within the budget.
You see, the questioner a moment ago was saying, well, you know, you're not going for
big tax increases and all the rest of it ~ the people have had large tax increases. You know, state
expenditure has grown to a very large extent. Why has it grown? Well, it's grown here because
you've got massive welfare bills that you're paying out, often with people who would like the
chance to get back into the labor market if we have the imagination and vision to try and give
them the chance to do so, so that they're not any longer reliant on state benefits, but are standing
on their own two feet, raising their family in some type of decent set of circumstances.
So I think that these elements of job creation, of economic management, of creating the
type of enterprises and industries of the future, they're interlinked. And we see those links very,
very clearly, indeed.
PRESIDENT CLINTON: If I could just say one thing. I would like to give credit where
I think credit is due, which is not primarily to me in this. And I think we have been successful in
creating jobs for several reasons. One is, we maintained earlier than a lot of other countries a
reasonably open economy - not perfectly open, but reasonably open ~ so that we suffered a lot
of painful restructuring in the 1980s due to competition. But as a result of that, both our business
13
�managers and our working people have dramatically improved their productivity — first.
Second, America is a relatively easy place to start a small business, and we get a lot of
our new jobs from starting small businesses. Third, we have been blessed by having sort of
incubators of the future in computers, in telecommunications, in electronics, increasingly in
biotechnology. That is important.
Fourth, we've had a good, stable monetary system —I think the Prime Minister did a good
thing by - and he'll be criticized for it the first time interest rates are raised, but he did a good
thing, I think, by trying to take the setting of interest rates out of politics, because it will create
the feeling of stability and make Britain more attractive for investment. That's been a big factor
for us.
And, finally, we've had good government policies which were reduced the deficit,
expand trade, invest in people. So I think all those things, together, will give you a job creation
policy.
PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: We'll take one more each, shall we?
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Yes.
Q Mr. President, you have promised to withdraw our troops from Bosnia a year from
now. And yet the British Prime Minister's Foreign Secretary says, if you do that the British will
withdraw their troops, too, and that could lead to renewed fighting. Is there a dispute between
Secretary of State Albright and Defense Secretary Cohen, and are you going to keep your
commitment to withdraw?
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, when we - first of all, when we adopted the second
mission, the SFOR mission, after our first full year in Bosnia — we cut all the forces in half and
stayed ~ we said we expected that mission to last about a year and a half. I still accept that.
Here is the problem, the basic issue. I think we would all admit that a lot of the elements
of the Bosnia peace process, the Dayton process, are not going as fast as they should. We have
just completed a comprehensive review of our policy. We've identified a number of things we
want to do better. The Prime Minister and I talked about, for example, the police training and the
placement of police there.
If you look at what our military people do today - since we are not presently today
actively involved, for example, in escorting and protecting refugee returnees ~ a lot of that could
be done by civilian police if we were on schedule. We're not on schedule. We're not on schedule
in the economic implementation. We're trying to put — very hard, all of our allies ~ we're trying
to put together a team that will get us back up and going.
14
�And so I would agree to this extent with the Prime Minister, which is that I don't think
we ought to be talking about how we're going to leave; I think we ought to be talking about what
we're going to tomorrow and next week and next month. And if we work like crazy in the next
13 months, do I believe we can fulfill our mission and that they can go forward? Yes, I do. But I
think we're going to have to make some very tough decisions. We can't play around with this.
We can't just sort of hang around and then disappear in a year and expect the Dayton process to
go forward. We have a lot of work to do in the next year. And so what I want to do is stop
talking about what date we're leaving on and start talking about we're going to do on the only
date that matters, which is tomorrow.
PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: I agree with that very strongly indeed. Last question.
Q President Clinton, I know you're reluctant to offer advise to our Prime Minister, but
could I tempt you? You became ~ I want to be polite ~ rather unpopular during your first term
after a brief honeymoon. Which mistakes do you think you made that our Prime Minister could
avoid?
PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: Well, he did one thing very right, which was to win again,
and I hope I repeat that. (Laughter.)
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, for one thing, it was a brief honeymoon; it lasted about
35 seconds. (Laughter.) So, again, I don't know that I have an advice to offer. I think that the
errors that we made, or at least the political decisions we made that caused us problems, are fairly
well-known.
Also, keep in mind, we have a different system than you do. I had to pass my first
economic program with only Democrats, but the Democrats basically got credit for being divided
in their support of me when the facts are that they have supported me more strongly than they
supported the last three Democratic Presidents before me. But our friends on the other side were
opposed in even more unified fashion.
So the things that happened to us were so unique, I hope, to the American political
system — I wouldn't wish them on anyone else ~ that I don't really think it's very instructive for
me to give advice.
PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: If I could I just say one final thing to you. I think when
you heard President Clinton speak about the record that he has achieved in government earlier, I
think that is the reason why he was reelected. And the important thing is that that record stands
as testimony to the leadership that he gave.
We'll have one last question then.
PRESIDENT CLINTON: My only advice on that would be to try to keep people
15
�focused on the policies and the consequences, and that we should all be willing to work on that
basis, because real people out there who have to get up every day and wonder how they're going
to feed and educate their children, and whether they're safe in their neighborhoods, and what the
future is going to be like for their kids, then want to know that we're at the task. And so my only
advice would be to maintain the same level of concentration in the administration that was shown
by all of Labor in the campaign; that relaxing concentration is fatal in this business, it's an
important thing and it's complicated, you got to concentration all the time.
Q Mr. President, bearing in mind your comments on the budget, I was wondering if
you had been listening to your own Minority Leader. He is against you on the budget. He is
against you on MFN. He is against you on expansion of NATO on a fast track. And I wondered
if you could explain maybe whether you think it's you or he who represents the hearts and minds
of the Democratic Party, and whether maybe you think there is ~ it's time for a new Minority
Leader, or maybe you don't really want that Democratic majority you talked about at the
beginning of the news conference.
PRESIDENT CLINTON: No, I think -- for one thing, I think -- you know, I disagree
with him about the budget and MFN for China, and we've had some trade differences since I
came here ~ otherwise, he's supported me on just about everything. I would point out, however,
that well over 60 percent of the Democratic Caucus in the House voted for the budget agreement
and that 82 percent of the Democratic Caucus in the Senate voted for it. We had a higher
percentage of Democrats than Republicans voting for it in the Senate, a higher percentage of
Republicans than Democrats voting for it in the House, and a two-to-one majority overall.
So that's something ~ the American people ought to feel comfortable ~ we had an
overwhelming bipartisan agreement. Individual people will have differences on individual
issues. They'll see the world in different ways. But I think I did the right thing, and I think we're
going to ~ I think the country will be immensely benefited by it. And I think everybody that
voted for it in retrospect will be happy and those who didn't vote for it will be pleased that what
they thought was wrong with it wasn't. That's what I think will happen.
PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: Okay, thank you very much indeed, ladies and gentlemen.
And thank you in particular to President Clinton.
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Thank you.
END
3:55 P.M. (L)
16
�THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
April 11, 1997
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT TO THE ANNUAL MEETING
THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF NEWSPAPER EDITORS
J.W. Marriott Hotel
Washington, D.C.
12:17 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. And, thank you, Bob, for reminding me of
my best line from the speech last night. (Laughter.) George Bush got the last laugh. (Laughter.)
Twelve thousand feet, not a scratch. I fell six inches, I'm hobbled for six months. (Laughter.)
I'm delighted to be here. I want to thank you for having me and congratulate this year's
writing award winners. I missed last year and I'm sorry I couldn't come, but the Vice President
told me all about it. And because he came here, I had to listen one more time and look one more
time at all those pictures from his days as a long-haired reporter for the National Tennessean.
(Laughter.)
This is what it's really like. I don't mind learning about global warming and high
technology and everything, but I had to leam all about the newspaper business all over again. I
hear that speech about once every three months from him. (Laughter.)
You know, times have changed remarkably since Will Rogers said, "All I know is what I
see in the papers." Today, we live in a world with 500 channels, literally hundreds of thousands
of web sites exploding all the time. We're trying to develop the Internet, too. But, still, the role
that you play in informing and educating Americans and in helping them to make the right kind
of choices is terribly important.
�I want to talk today about one of those choices that will have a profound effect on all of
our lives and the lives of our children in the next century, and that is the choices we must make
to sustain America's leadership in the world.
Four years ago I came into office determined to renew our strength and prosperity here at
home. But I also believe that in the global society of the 21st century, the dividing line between
foreign and domestic policy was increasingly an artificial distinction. After all, our national
security depends on strong families, safe streets, and world-class education. And our success at
home clearly depends on our strength and willingness and our ability to lead abroad.
The conviction that America must be strong and involved in the world has really been the
bedrock of our foreign policy for the last 50 years. After World War II, a generation of
farsighted leaders forged NATO, which has given us a half century of security and played a
strong role in ending the Cold War. They built the United Nations so that a hard-won peace
would not be lost. They launched the Marshall Plan to rebuild a Europe ravaged by war. They
created the World Bank and other international financial institutions to pave the way for
unprecedented prosperity for American people and others around the world. They did this
throughout a half century, Republicans and Democrats together, united in bipartisan support for
the American leadership that has been essential to the strength and security of the American
people for half a century now.
Now we stand at the dawn of a new century and a new millennium ~ another moment to
be farsighted, another moment to guarantee America another 50 years of security and prosperity.
We've largely swept away the blocks and barriers that once divided whole continents. But as
borders become more open and the flow of information, technology, money, trade, and people
across the borders are larger and more rapid, the line between domestic and foreign policy
continues to blur.
And we can only preserve our security and our well-being at home by being strongly
involved in the world beyond our borders. From fighting terrorism and drug trafficking, to
limiting the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, to protecting the global environment,
we stand to gain from working with other nations, and we will surely lose if we fail to do so.
Just as American leaders of both political parties did 50 years ago, we have to come
together to take new initiatives and revitalize and reform old structures so that we can prepare
our country to succeed and win and make the world a better place in this new era.
You know, it is commonplace to say that since the end of the Cold War, America stands
alone as the world's only superpower. That is clearly true, but it can be dangerously misleading
because our power can only be used if we are willing to become even more involved with others
all around the world in an increasingly interdependent world.
�We must be willing to shape this interdependent world and to embrace its
interdependence, including our interdependence on others. There is no illusory Olympus on
which the world's only superpower can sit and expect to preserve its position, much less enhance
it.
In my State of the Union address, I set out six key strategic objectives for America's
prosperity, security, and democratic values in the 21st century. First, a Europe that is undivided,
democratic, and at peace for the first time in its history. Second, strong and stable relations
between the United States and Asia. Third, our willing continuation of America's leadership as
the world's most important force for peace. Fourth, the creation of more jobs and opportunity for
our people through a more open and competitive trading system that also helps others all around
the world. Fifth, increasing cooperation in confronting new security threats that defy borders and
unilateral solutions. And, sixth, the provision of the tools necessary to meet these challenges,
from maintaining the world's strongest, most modem and most adaptable military, to maintaining
a strong, fully funded, and comprehensive diplomacy.
On that last point, let me just point out that Secretary Albright often says that our whole
diplomatic budget is only about one percent of the budget. We devote less of our resources to
that than any other major country in the world and, yet, about half of America's legacy will be
determined by whether we have the adequate resources to do that.
That's a very important thing, because I think most of your readers don't know that. They
think we spend more and get less out of our foreign policy investments when, in fact, we spend
less and get more than almost any other area of public endeavor.
Each of these six goals is vital to realizing the promise of our time and to guarding
against its perils. Together, they provide a blueprint for our future, not just for the next four
years but for the next half-century.
In the next three months we'll face critical choices that will determine whether we have
the vision and will to pursue these objectives. We have to seize the opportunity to complete the
mission America set out on 50 years ago and to push forward on the mission of the next 50 years.
We will begin by strengthening the foundation for security and prosperity in our own
hemisphere. In the first of my three trips to the Americas over the next year, I will meet with our
closest neighbors in Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean to help our democracies and
economies grow together and to intensify our shared fight against crime, drugs, illegal
immigration, and pollution.
�Just before the SOth anniversary of the Marshall Plan, I will hold a summit with the
European Union to affirm our transatlantic ties even as we expand our global partnership.
I will host the world's leading industrial democracies at what we used to call the G-7 but
now call the Summit of the Eight in Denver, which will give us an opportunity to deepen our
cooperation with Russia for peace and freedom and prosperity.
At the NATO summit in Madrid this July, we will continue to adapt NATO to the
demands of a new era and invite the first, but not the last new members to join history's most
successful alliance.
And I will continue America's efforts to bring the parties together at this very difficult
moment for peace in the Middle East.
Like the larger agenda they support, each of these initiatives calls for American
leadership that is strong and steadfast. The powerful trend toward democracy and free markets is
neither inevitable nor irreversible. Sustaining it will take relentless effort. But leadership brings
its rewards. The more America leads, the more willing others will be to share the risks and the
responsibilities of forging the future we want.
In the last four years, we have seen that over and over again. We've seen it in Bosnia.
We've seen it in Haiti. We've seen it in the Summit of the Americas and in the APEC Leaders
Forum, where we have agreed with our partners to build a free and open trading system early in
the next century.
Our leadership also faces two other pressing tests now and in the coming months: first,
immediately ratifying the Chemical Weapons Convention; and then, giving the United States the
means we need to continue our growth by making trade more open and fair in the global
economy.
Let me deal with the first issue. For the last 50 years, Americans have lived under the
hair-trigger threat of mass destruction. Our leadership has been essential to lifting that global
peril, thanks in large measure to the efforts of my predecessors, and during the last four years
also when we have remarkable progress.
The collapse of the Soviet Union left 3,400 nuclear warheads in Ukraine, Kazakhstan and
Belarus. Today, there are none. North Korea was accumulating material for nuclear weapons
when I became President. Now its nuclear program is frozen, under international supervision,
and eventually will be dismantled.
�We helped to win the indefinite extension of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, a
powerful global barrier to the spread of nuclear weapons and their technology. We led in
concluding the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which will bring to life a decades-old dream of
ending nuclear weapons testing.
President Yeltsin and I agreed in Helsinki to a roadmap through the START treaties to
cut our nuclear arsenals over the next decade by 80 percent from their Cold War peaks, and
actually to destroy the warheads so they can never be used for destructive ends.
Now America must rise to the challenge of ratifying the Chemical Weapons Convention,
and doing it before it takes effect on April 29th, less than three weeks from today.
This century opened with the horror of chemical warfare in the trenches of World War I .
Today, at the dawn of a new century, we have the opportunity to forge a widening international
commitment to begin banishing poison gas from the earth, even as we know it remains a grave,
grave threat in the hands of rogue states or terrorist groups.
The Chemical Weapons Convention requires other nations to do what we decided to do
more than a decade ago - get rid of all chemical weapons. In other words, the treaty is about
other nations destroying their chemical weapons. As they do so and renounce the development,
production, acquisition, or use of chemical arms, and pledge not to help others acquire them or
produce them, our troops will be less likely to face one of the battlefields most lethal threats. As
stockpiles are eliminated and the transfer of dangerous chemicals is controlled, rogue states and
terrorists will have a harder time getting the ingredients for weapons. And that will protect not
only military forces, but also innocent civilians.
By giving us new tools for verification, enabling us to tap a global network for
intelligence and information, and strengthening our own law enforcement, the treaty will make it
easier for us to prevent and to punish those who seek to violate its rules.
The Chemical Weapons Convention reflects the best of American bipartisanship ~
negotiated under President Reagan and President Bush, supported by a broad and growing
number of Americans, including every chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff since the Carter
administration. Last week at the White House, I was proud to welcome a remarkable crosssection of these supporters, including former Secretary of State James Baker, General Colin
Powell, other military leaders, legislators, arms control experts and representatives from small
and large businesses, religious groups, and scientists.
I urge the Senate to do what is right and ratify this convention. If we fail to do it, we
�won't be there to enforce a treaty that we helped to write, leaving our military and our people
more vulnerable to a silent and sudden killer. We will put ourselves in the same column with
rogue nations like Libya and Iraq that reject this treaty, instead of in the company of those that
set the norms for civilized behavior in this world. We will subject our chemical companies,
among our leading exporters, to severe trade restrictions that could cost them hundreds of
millions of dollars in sales, and cost many Americans good jobs. And perhaps most important,
we will send a clear signal of retreat to the rest of the world at the very time when we ought to be
sending the opposite signal.
America has led the effort to establish an international ban against chemical weapons.
Now we have to ratify it and remain on the right side of history. If we do, there will be new
momentum and moral authority to our leadership in reducing even more the dangers of weapons
of mass destruction.
Within my lifetime we've made enormous strides. Stepping back from the nuclear
precipice, from the bleak time of fallout shelters and air raid drills. But we have so much more
to do. We have to strengthen the world's ability to stop the use of deadly diseases as biological
weapons of war. We have to freeze the production of raw materials used for nuclear bombs. We
must give greater bite to the global watchdogs responsible for detecting hidden weapons systems
and programs. Continuing this progress demands constant work, nonstop vigilance, and
American leadership.
There is a second matter that demands bipartisan cooperation in the coming months. For
50 years, our nation has led the world not only in building security but in promoting global
prosperity. Now we have to choose whether to continue to shape the international economy so
that it works for all our people, or to shrink from its challenges. The rapidly growing and everchanging global economy is an inescapable fact of our time. In the last 50 years, global trade has
increased ninety-fold. Over the next decade, it is expected to grow at three times the rate of the
American economy. Nations once divided by great gulfs of geography and military rivalry are
now linked by surging currents of commerce.
Now, the world marketplace does pose stiff challenges. But it offers us great opportunity.
In each of the last three years, the United States has been ranked the world's most competitive
economy. Our exports have surged to record levels, our budget deficit is now the smallest as a
share of national income of any major economy in the world, basic industries have revived, our
auto industry is number one in the world again for the first time since the 1970s. From
semiconductors to biotech, to Hollywood, American firms lead the industries that are remaking
the world. Our economy produced 11.5 million jobs in the last four years for the first time ever.
Our unemployment today is 5.2 percent; that's 1.5 percent lower than the 25-year average before
I took office.
�We can make the most of this new economic era. We do not need to be afraid of global
trade. But in a world where we have only 4 percent of the population and where the fastestgrowing markets for our products and services are Asia and Latin America, where export-related
jobs pay 13 percent to 16 percent more than other American jobs, we don't have a choice; we
have to export.
To do that, we have to have higher skills, stronger productivity, deeper investment.
That's why we have to balance the budget ~ to keep our interest rates down, our investment up,
and to keep the economy going.
We have to give our people the best education in the world. That's why we need the new
national school standards. We must open the doors of college to all. We ought to pass the G.I.
Bill for America's workers I've proposed that would give every unemployed and underemployed
person a skills grant to use and get into training that he or she needs.
We must continue to expand research and development in both the public and private
sectors. And in every opportunity, we have to press forward for more open international trade.
Our administration has concluded more than 200 separate trade agreements, each of
which opens someone else's markets wider to American business. We fought for NAFTA, which
created the free market with our neighbors, and today, in spite of its economic crisis, our exports
to Mexico are up 37 percent over pre-NAFTA levels. We broke seven years of global gridlock
and successfully negotiated the new round of GATT, which has lowered average tariffs on
Americans goods around the world by one-third. We have broken down barriers and boosted
exports to Japan - up 41 percent since 1993 and 85 percent in the areas where we have
negotiated specific trade agreements.
This is a record to build on, not to rest on. When the momentum for open market falters,
the world can easily slide backward. And when America falters, our relative position will
certainly slide backward. It is unacceptable for us to sit on the sidelines while other nations forge
bonds of trade. Only American leadership can create the prosperity for our people and for the
world in the next 50 years. And America cannot lead if we don't act.
And here's what the issue is: Every American President since 1974 ~ Democrat and
Republican alike — has had the authority to negotiate new trade agreements, called fast-track
negotiating authority, which permits the agreement to be presented in a package to the Congress
to be approved up or down. Every time this has been extended with the support of members of
Congress of both parties. That is how we have exercised our must fundamental economic
leadership. That authority has expired, and today, I renew my call to Congress to give me the
authority to negotiate new trade agreements that will create opportunities for our workers and our
�businesses in the global economy and will maintain our leadership in creating the kind of world
we want the young people who are here in this audience to live in.
We have seen in the past six months what a strong trade agreement can do for our people
and our businesses. The information technology agreement that we reached with 37 other
nations in December will eliminate tariffs and unshackle trade on $500 billion of trade in
computers, semiconductors, and telecommunications. This amounts to a $5 billion cut in tariffs
on Anierican products exported to other nations. It can lead to hundreds of thousands of highwage jobs for Americans.
Now if Congress grants fast track authority, I can use it to open trade in areas where
American firms are leading and where our future lies. We lead the world in high technology. In
years to come, we must press to tear down barriers that keep that technology ~ products like
computer software, medical equipment, environmental technology out of other markets.
We lead the world in agricultural exports. We have to negotiate trade agreements to open
even more markets. We will negotiate a comprehensive free trade agreement with Chile and
follow through on our leadership to determine the future of trade in our own hemisphere with our
own neighbors, all of whom but one are democracies. And we have to keep them that way and
keep them strong.
We will press aggressively to open markets in Asia as well. We must also continue to
open opportunities in the world's newest market economies. In particular, I urge Congress to
support my new partnership for freedom, to expand trade and investment, entrench free markets
in democracy, and promote stability in Russia and the new independent states.
If we don't seize these opportunities, our competitors surely will. Let me just give you
one example. Last year, for the first time ever, Latin American nations had more trade with
Europe than the United States. There is no reason to think that others will wait while we sit idle.
These nations in Latin America especially are our friends; they're our partners. They
have done an enormously important thing in moving to freedom and democracy in the last few
years - all over Central and South America. We dare not let this opportunity pass us by.
I am determined that the new trade agreements we seek will be good for our working
people. After all, we've got 11.5 million more jobs and 5.2 percent unemployment. We know
we can make it good for the American people. And I am determined that they will be good for
the environment. More and more, in the future, we will see nations negotiating environmental
partnerships for the sake of their economies and the stability of their society and the future of
their children.
8
�I have asked the United States Trade Representative, Charlene Barshefsky, to work with
members of Congress of both parties, with labor and business and environmental groups to try to
reach consensus on these issues. But let me be clear: There is one consensus we cannot avoid.
We cannot shrink from the challenges of leadership in the global economy.
Trade and communications are remaking our world. They're bringing it closer together,
they're bringing a revolution in global trade ~ because in the long run, we know that it's going to
happen, we ought to lead it. We have to lead it. And if we do, it will increase our buying power
and expand our exports. American workers and businesses, given the chance, can outcompete
anyone, and I hope Congress will help me let them do just that.
The larger question we face is as old as America ~ whether to turn inward or reach
outward, whether to fear change embrace it. Over the past 50 years, over the past four years, I
believe we've made the choices that have served America well.
Now we face another moment of choice. While we no longer face a single implacable
foe, the enemy of our time is inaction. It is so easy to be inactive when things seem to be going
well and so easy to believe a new choice will cause more trouble than it will do good. But we
did not get where we are today by being inactive or by sitting on the sidelines. The decisions we
make in the next few months will set America's course in the world for the next 50 years. We
have to make them together, and they must be the right ones.
Thank you very much. (Applause.)
Q
Mr. President, the Commission on Protection and Reduction of Government
Secrecy ~ the Moynihan Commission ~ said last month that 3 million people have the authority
to classify government secrets at a cost of more than $5.5 billion a year. The commission called
this a form of government regulation not controlled by statute as is all regulatory power. And it
said it should be subject to the same guidelines and oversight as other regulation. To provide a
check on unrestrained discretion in creating secrets, the commission recommended a law to
codify the principles as to what can be classified and what should not be classified and for how
long it should be classified, and to create a national declassification center to provide annual
reports on the progress in declassifying government records, and to require the President to set
procedures and provide the resources for declassifying information.
Will you support enactment of such a law? If not, why not? If so, how hard will you
push for it?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, let me say, the short answer to your question is: I
9
�think there has to be ~ we have to do something about it to respond to the commission's report
and to respond to the fact that there are too many people who can make too many things
classified in the government. And we are reviewing the report. We have also started
conversations with members of Congress about it. And I'm — we're attempting to fashion what
we think is the appropriate response. But let me remind you that 1 believe that we ought to
unearth more documents and not keep so many secrets for so long.
I've worked very hard to open up documents since I've been President. We did it with the
human radiation experiments. We have conducted a relentless effort to find out what really
happened in the Gulf War, in terms of whether our people were or were not and to what extent
exposed to dangerous chemicals. And in any number of other ways, I support the general thrust
of the commission's report.
I have asked my staff to study it. I have not received a specific recommendation on the
specific points in the report, but generally I think there is too much secrecy in the government
and I think too many people have too much unfettered discretion just to declare documents
secret, and I think that you will see some significant progress coming out of this.
Q
Mr. President, my county of 70,000 people is at risk from 7 percent of the nation's
stockpile of aging chemical weapons, the nerve agents it's referred to. We don't have the
highways to evacuate ~ we need to; we don't have the civil defense infrastructure. The disposal
plan is behind the time line.
Two questions. As a political matter, wouldn't it make sense to bring even more
intensive scrutiny to these sites? There are eight sites scattered across the country; our whole
nation is at risk from the downside of the old chemical warfare. And as a moral matter, doesn't it
make sense for your administration to step up the disposal and make sure that the highway
infrastructure is in place for escape routes and civil defense?
THE PRESIDENT: You've asked me a question no one's ever asked me before, but I can
tell you the answer to the first question is, does it make more sense to bring more attention to the
country about it ~ the answer to that is yes - if, for no other reason, not just because of what
your people may be exposed to, but because one of the reasons we decided to destroy all this
before I ever came along ~ my predecessors made that decision, it was the right one —is that you
don't want even small amounts of these kinds of chemicals in the wrong hands ~ can be used for
very bad things.
And let me also say ~ now, on the second question, I will have to go back and see what
the facts are and see what we can do to accelerate it. I don't know enough now to give you a
sensible answer, but you've asked a good question and I will get an answer and I'll get back to
10
�you. And let me just make one other point on this. Some of the opponents of the Chemical
Weapons Convention say, well, you know, you can't protect everybody against everything.
Well, if that were the standard, we'd never have any treaties and we wouldn't pass any laws.
You know, still, some people may be able to cook up chemical weapons in laboratories in
their garages. But if you look at what happened to the Japanese people, for example, when the
extremist sect unleashed the sarin gas in the Tokyo subway, it was a devastating thing.
Now, maybe they could or could not do that once the chemical weapons regime is fully in
force and we have much tighter restrictions on what can cross national lines. But one thing we
know for sure: Japan has already ratified this treaty because they have suffered through this and
they know even if somebody who has got a half-cocked idea and a home-baked laboratory can go
out and do something terrible like this, there will be fewer incidents like this if we pass the
Chemical Weapons Convention.
And I think it's very interesting ~ a lot of the objections that have been raised to this
convention in America were totally dismissed out of hand in Japan, a country that has genuinely
suffered from chemicals like this in the hands of terrorists. But that goes back to the question the
gentleman from Alabama asked and it's one of the reasons we want to destroy our stockpiles as
quickly as possible, because, in addition to the risks that people in the area are exposed to, we
want to minimize the chances that anybody ever can get their hands on any of this for
mischievous, evil purposes.
Q
Mr. President, some opponents of the Chemical Weapons Convention are arguing
that, indeed, it would let the fox into the henhouse; that is to say, a country, perhaps Iran, a
signatory, would gain access to our development techniques for making chemical weapons,
which are relatively simple, but more importantly, to those regarding defenses against chemical
weapons in the fields. What is your response to that argument? And are you in any position to
negotiate a change of any sort in the document if that were necessary to get the votes for
ratification?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, it is ~ let me answer the second question first, and
then I'll go back. In general, obviously no one country can change the body of a treaty which has
already been ratified by other countries; we can't do that, and lots of other countries have ratified
it.
But every country is empowered to, in effect, attach a set of understandings as to what the
treaty means, and as long as they're not plainly inconsistent with the thrust of the document and
don't vitiate it, they can go forward. And one of the things we've been doing with a lot of the
opponents and the skeptics of the treaty ~ Senator Helms, for example, and others raised, I think,
l l
�30 different questions in the beginning, and we have reached agreement, I believe, in 20 of those
30 areas, and we've offered alternatives that we believe are reasonable in the other areas.
Let me just say for those of you who may not understand this, Iran is a signatory of the ~
they have ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention. Iraq and Libya have not and will not.
The concern is that if a country is attacked by chemical weapons and they are part of the treaty,
that all the rest of us have pledged to do something to help them. And the concern would be ~
well, what if Iran is attacked by Iraq and the United States and Germany, for example, give them
a lot of sophisticated defense technology on chemical weapons and they turn around and use the
chemical weapons against someone else. In other words, if they turned out to have lied about
their promise in the treaty. That's the argument.
We have made it clear that, as regards other countries, we will not do anything to give
them our technology ~ not Iran, not anybody -- and that what our response will be - will be
limited to helping them deal with the health effects of the attack. We will help people in medical
ways and with other things having to do with the health consequences.
So I believe that the compromise we have reached on that, once it becomes fully public
and the language is dealt with, will be acceptable to at least most of those who have opposed the
treaty on that ground.
Q
Mr. President, we seem to be following a policy in Asia with communist countries
like China and Vietnam of engagement and trade. Even with North Korea now, we seem to be
on the verge of a breakthrough there - possibly some aid because they're suffering famine. And
I wonder, though, when we turn to our own hemisphere, we seem to follow a policy of embargo
against ~ we don't seem to, we are ~ following a policy of embargo against Castro's Cuba. And
I wonder, why is there an apparent difference in approach, and whether trying to open Cuba up
for active trade wouldn't be in line with the kind of opening of market policies that you were
suggesting a little while ago?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think, first of all, as a practical matter, with each of these
countries, we do what we think is in our interest and what is most likely to further our interest.
Secondly, the other three countries you have mentioned have not murdered any
Americans lately. We had a law that I strongly supported ~ the Cuba Democracy Act. I strongly
supported it. I thought it was absolutely the right policy. It strengthened the economic embargo
but also gave us a chance to open up relations to Cuba and to take care of humanitarian
problems, to facilitate travel, to do all kinds of things. And we were implementing that law. It
gave the Executive requisite flexibility.
And in return for the Cuba Democracy Act, the Castro government illegally shot down
12
�two planes and murdered Americans. And so we changed our policy. Congress was outraged.
They passed the Helms-Burton law, and I signed it regretfully, but not reluctantly. And our
policy toward Cuba, therefore today, is one that was dictated by Cuba, not by the United States.
And until I see some indication of willingness to change, it's going to be very difficult to
persuade me to change our policy. And I would have a different attitude toward China or
Vietnam or North Korea if they murdered any Americans. And I would hope you would want
me to have a different attitude toward them if they did.
Q
Mr. President, my son, Cody, is here with me today and he's 11 years old, and his
5th grade class will be voting first in the presidential elections of 2004. I wonder if you could
share with us a little bit of what you hope your legacy will be for him and his class, since you
will be just leaving office then, and also what advice and suggestions you might give Cody's
class and the other young people of America on what they can do now to prepare themselves to
be productive citizens in the early next century.
THE PRESIDENT: Let me answer the second question first. I think the following things
I would recommend to the 5th graders to prepare themselves for the 21st century. Number one,
first and foremost, be a good student. Learn all you can. Learn the hard things as well as those
that aren't hard for you. And stay out of trouble. Don't do something dumb, like get involved
with drugs or alcohol or something that will wreck your life. Learn. Be a good student.
Secondly, get to know people who are your age but who are different from you, people of
a different racial or ethnic group, people of a different religion. Because you're going to live in
the most multi-ethnic, multi-racial, multi-religious democracy in human history. And how we
handle that will determine whether the 21st century is also an American century. Still somewhat
of an open question, although I'm encouraged about it.
The third thing I would say is, learn as much as you can about the rest of the world,
because it will be a smaller world and you will need to know more about it.
And the fourth thing I would say is, start to take the responsibilities of citizenship
seriously and find some way ~ even at the age of ten ~ to be of service in your community,
whether it's helping some student in your school that's not learning as well as he or she should or
doing something on the weekends to help people who are unfortunate. I think that we need to
build an ethic of citizen service into our young people.
Those are the four things I would advise him to do.
In terms of what I hope the legacy will be ~ I hope people will look back on this period
and say that while I was President, we prepared America for the 21 st century basically in three
13
�ways: that we preserved the American Dream of opportunity for everybody who is willing to
work for it; number two, that we preserved America's leadership for peace and freedom and
prosperity in the world, and the world is a better place because of it; and number three, that
Americans are living in greater harmony with one another as one America because we
passionately advocated a respect for people's differences and respect for our shared values, and
we made real progress in overcoming these divides and extremist hatreds that have not only
weakened our democracy but are virtually destroying countries all around the world.
Or in a more pedestrian way, I hope at least people will say, well, after Bill Clinton was
President, at least we had a new set of problems to deal with. (Laughter.)
In 1983,1 was in Portland, Maine, at a governors conference. And the former Senator
and former Secretary of State, Edmund Muskie, who recently passed away ~ a remarkable man - was there. And we were having a visit and he said, you know, I loved being a governor. In
some ways I liked it even more than being a Senator of Secretary of State; I liked running
something.
And I said, how did you keep score, Senator Muskie; how did you know whether you had
succeeded or not? He said, I knew I had succeeded if my successor had a new set of problems.
(Laughter.) And you think about it, we will always have problems; it's endemic to the human
condition and to the nature of life. The way you define progress is if you get a new set of
problems, and if you get over it.
And particularly on feel on this whole issue of how we deal with our racial diversity. It's
something, of course, that's dominated my whole life because I grew up as a southerner. But it's
a very different issue now. It's more than black Americans and white Americans. The majority
of students in the Los Angeles County schools are Hispanic. And there are four school districts
in America - four ~ where there are children who have more than 100 different racial, ethnic, or
linguistic backgrounds within the school districts already.
So this is a big deal. And every issue that we debate, whether it's affirmative action or
immigration or things that seem only peripherally involved in this, need to be viewed through the
prism of how we can preserve one America, the American Dream, our shared values, and still
accord people real respect and appreciation for their independent heritages. It will be a great,
great challenge. It's a challenge that, by the way, I think the newspapers of the country can do a
lot to help promote in terms of advancing dialogue, diversifying your own staffs, doing the things
that will help America to come to grips with what it means not to be a country with a legacy of
slavery and the differences between blacks and whites, but to have grafted on to that not only the
immigration patterns of the early 20th century but what is happening to us now.
14
�It is really potentially a great thing for America that we are becoming so multi-ethnic at
the time the world is becoming so closely tied together. But it's also potentially a powder keg of
problems and heartbreak and division and loss. And how we handle it will determine, really ~
that single question may be the biggest determinant of what we look like 50 years from now and
what our position in the world is and what the children of that age will have to look forward to.
Q
Mr. President, our region has been devastated by job losses, mainly because of
downsizing in the military. Could you speak to the people of the Mohawk Valley, and perhaps
other communities like ours, on how your trade policies will help revive our stagnant economy
and revive our spirits?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, let's talk about the downsizing of the military and the trade
policy. The trade policy alone won't necessarily revive a place with a stagnant economy, because
very often the trade policy increases jobs in the places that are already doing well — because
success will build on success. So the only way it can help is if the people in the Mohawk Valley
can identify companies that are going to have to expand because of expanding trade and try to get
the expansions to locate there.
But what I think is important ~ and I believe the United States, first of all, has an extra
obligation to communities that have been adversely affected by military downsizing. And we
have worked very hard to accelerate the rate at which we work with communities that have had
military downsizing, to give them back the resources that they can use to rebuild their
communities. In many places we've had a lot of success; in some places we haven't.
Secondly, I think it's important that in areas like yours the United States gives greater
economic incentives for new investment to diversify the economy. One of the things that I have
asked the Congress to do in my balanced budget plan is to more than double the number of
empowerment zones and enterprise communities from the numbers we have now in the new
plan, so we can give real incentives for people to invest their money and to create good, stable,
long-term jobs in areas with high unemployment rates.
If there's anything else you can think of I can do, I'll be happy to do it. If there's anything
we should have done in the defense downsizing to benefit your area that we haven't done, I'll be
happy to look into that. But I think the main thing we have to do at the national level is to keep
the economy strong and then to create extra incentives for people ~ like people we're trying to
move from welfare to work where I proposed some special incentives ~ or for places with high
unemployment rates, so that we can more uniformly spread economic opportunity.
When you see that America has a 5.2 percent unemployment rate, that's very misleading.
We have a lot of states with unemployment rates below 4 percent now. We have within states a
15
�lot of communities with unemployment rates below 5.2 percent. But we still have places with
unemployment rates of 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 percent. And so the trick is to create the economic
incentives that will even out the investment patterns. And that's what I'm trying to do. And if
you can think of anything specific I can do to help you, I hope you'll feel free to contact me and
let me know.
Thank you very much. (Applause.)
END
16
1:03 P.M. EDT
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Michael Waldman
Description
An account of the resource
<p>Michael Waldman was Assistant to the President and Director of Speechwriting from 1995-1999. His responsibilities were writing and editing nearly 2,000 speeches, which included four State of the Union speeches and two Inaugural Addresses. From 1993 -1995 he served as Special Assistant to the President for Policy Coordination.</p>
<p>The collection generally consists of copies of speeches and speech drafts, talking points, memoranda, background material, correspondence, reports, handwritten notes, articles, clippings, and presidential schedules. A large volume of this collection was for the State of the Union speeches. Many of the speech drafts are heavily annotated with additions or deletions. There are a lot of articles and clippings in this collection.</p>
<p>Due to the size of this collection it has been divided into two segments. Use links below for access to the individual segments:<br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=43&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=2006-0469-F+Segment+1">Segment One</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=43&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=2006-0469-F+Segment+2">Segment Two</a></p>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Michael Waldman
Office of Speechwriting
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1993-1999
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2006-0469-F
Extent
The size or duration of the resource.
Segment One contains 1071 folders in 72 boxes.
Segment Two contains 868 folders in 66 boxes.
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
William J. Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Adobe Acrobat Document
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
paper
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
[League of Cities Research]: Business Roundtable 6/12/97 [1]
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Office of Speechwriting
Michael Waldman
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Box 22
<a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/36404"> Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7763296">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2006-0469-F Segment 2
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
White House Staff and Office Files
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
William J. Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Adobe Acrobat Document
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Preservation-Reproduction-Reference
Date Created
Date of creation of the resource.
6/3/2015
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
7763296
42-t-7763296-20060469F-Seg2-022-001-2015