[Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1994, Book II)]
[November 15, 1994]
[Pages 2085-2094]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]



[[Page 2085]]


The President's News Conference in Jakarta
November 15, 1994

    The President. Good evening--or good morning, to the people who are 
watching this back in America. At our meeting in Bogor today, the Asian-
Pacific leaders pledged to achieve free and fair trade and investment 
between our nations by the year 2020, with the industrialized countries 
reaching this goal by 2010. This agreement is good news for the 
countries of this region and especially good news for the United States 
and our workers. I want to thank President Soeharto for hosting this 
meeting and for his leadership in crafting the agreement.
    When the United States brought the APEC leaders together in Seattle 
for the very first time last year, we agreed on a common vision of a 
united, open trading system. At this year's meeting, we have committed 
to make that vision real through free and fair trade and to do it by a 
date certain. We'll meet again next year in Osaka. Meanwhile, we'll 
develop a detailed action agenda, a blueprint, for achieving our goal of 
free and fair trade, which I hope and believe will be approved when we 
meet in Osaka.
    APEC is primarily an economic organization, and today's talks 
focused on those issues. While I believe stronger trade ties also will 
lead to more open societies, I remain committed to pursuing our human 
rights agenda, as I did in my individual meetings with the leaders this 
week. This is an agenda we must be willing to pursue with both patience 
and determination, and we will.
    From the beginning of this administration, we have worked to create 
high-wage jobs and a high-growth economy for the 21st century by 
expanding our ability to trade with and do business with other nations. 
The Asia-Pacific region is key to the success of this strategy because 
it's the fastest growing region in the world, with rapidly expanding 
middle classes who are potential American customers. Already a third of 
our exports go to these nations, with 2 million American jobs tied to 
them. And we know that export-related jobs on average pay much higher 
than regular jobs in America.
    These free and fair trade agreements will benefit Americans for a 
simple reason: Our Nation already has the most open markets on Earth. By 
opening other markets, our products and services become more 
competitive, and more sales abroad create more high-wage jobs at home.
    Under this agreement, individual APEC nations will have to tear down 
trade barriers to reap trade benefits. And no country will get more in 
benefits than it gives; no free riders. Today's agreement will lower 
barriers even further than the historic GATT world trade agreement.
    Let me just give you one example. Even after the GATT world trade 
agreement takes effect, tariffs on American automobiles in Malaysia, 
Thailand, Indonesia, and the Philippines will still be between 30 and 60 
percent, lower than they are today but very high. By contrast, our 
tariffs on automobiles are 2.5 percent.
    The market in just these four countries alone in 6 years will be as 
great as the total market in Canada and Mexico combined. This APEC 
agreement will knock down Asian tariffs even further, and American autos 
will, therefore, be more affordable. That means for an autoworker in 
Detroit or Toledo more secure jobs and factories with more workers, 
factories that are growing, not shrinking.
    I'm proud of the leadership of the United States in creating a post-
cold-war world that is both safer and more prosperous, a better place 
for Americans to live and work in. Trade agreements like NAFTA, the GATT 
agreement, and now the Bogor Declaration, along with the Summit of the 
Americas next month, are important in their own way just as are the 
agreements we've made with the Russians and Ukraine on nuclear missiles, 
the North Korean nuclear agreement, and the agreement on missile 
deployments with China. I'm convinced this declaration will prove to be 
of historic importance.
    Americans may hear about this declaration and think, well, 2010 is a 
long time to wait for any benefits. That is--let me emphasize--the 
completion date for the process. The benefits will begin for America as 
soon as we begin to implement the blueprint, which we will develop in 
this coming year.
    But first things first. Our first meeting in Seattle last year 
created the conditions that helped make it possible to get agreement 
among the

[[Page 2086]]

nations of the world on the GATT world trade agreement. Without the 
meeting in Seattle, we might well not have had a GATT agreement.
    Now, when we return to Washington, our first order of business must 
be for Congress to pass the GATT. Every leader I spoke with here, every 
leader I spoke with here asked me about United States leadership on GATT 
and on world trade issues generally. America's opportunities and our 
responsibilities demand a spirit of bipartisanship, especially when it 
comes to keeping our country strong abroad.
    That cooperation was demonstrated in the historic NAFTA victory and 
in the encouragement I received from the Republican leaders before I 
left for this trip. Now, I call upon the Congress, members of both 
parties, to use this momentum from this trip to pass the GATT. The 
economic recovery going on in our country and taking hold in the world 
depends upon the passage of GATT and our continued leadership.
    At the end of the Second World War, the United States had a 
bipartisan effort to create an enduring partnership with our allies that 
helped keep the peace and helped spawn an era of global prosperity, that 
created enormous opportunities for the American people.
    Now, at the end of the cold war, we are building a new framework for 
peace and prosperity that will take us into the future. It is imperative 
that the United States lead as we move toward this new century. That is 
our great opportunity, and that is the best way we can help all 
Americans toward a more prosperous future.

East Timor

    Q. Mr. President, as you know, nearly two decades ago, the 
Portuguese withdrew from East Timor, and the Indonesian military moved 
in. Sir, do you feel East Timor deserves self-rule, and tomorrow when 
you meet with President Soeharto, will you ask him to withdraw his 
troops and allow East Timor to pursue democratic elections?
    The President. The position of the United States and the position 
that I have held since 1991, since long before I held this office, is 
that the people of East Timor should have more say over their own local 
affairs. I have already spoken with President Soeharto about this in the 
past in our personal meetings, and it will come up again in our 
discussion tomorrow.

Interest Rates

    Q. Mr. President, back on economics, the Federal Reserve raised 
interest rates five times this year, and they're expected to do so again 
today. Many critics think that the Fed has gone too far and that another 
boost will push the country into a recession. I know that you always say 
that the Fed is an independent agency, but I wonder if, now that it's 
gone this far, if you have something to say?
    The President. Well, of course, the pressure that it's under is 
because of world trading and currencies. I would just like to point out 
that the United States has produced over 5 million jobs in 22 months. We 
have the lowest inflation in 29 years. We have more high-wage jobs this 
year than in the previous 5 years.
    So yes, it is important to keep the proper balance, to keep our 
currency stable, and to keep going and growing. But we are having 
investment-led growth based on highly productive workers with no 
inflation. So I just would say the important thing is to make every 
judgment based on what it takes to keep economic growth going in the 
United States. And I am very proud of what we have done, and I think we 
have to continue to pursue this course. I'm going to do what I can 
control.
    I have noticed, however, that almost anything I say about this may 
be misinterpreted, not just here but primarily around the world. So I'm 
not going to comment on it, except to say the United States has an 
economic growth pattern that is the envy of advanced nations in the 
world. We're growing at a healthy rate. We have literally the lowest 
inflation in 29 years. And finally, we're creating some high-wage jobs 
after years and years and years of stagnant wages for American working 
people.
    So I'm going to do everything I can to keep that recovery going. And 
I believe that the members of the Fed will do their best to keep the 
recovery going. That's what I would urge them to do and to make the best 
judgment they can.

Cooperation With Republican Leaders

    Q. Mr. President, while you've been here, the Republicans are 
preparing for the transition over in the House and the Senate. As you've 
been monitoring their comments, what is your sense: Is there going to be 
a big fight, or is there going to be an opportunity for some con-


[[Page 2087]]

sensus, some cooperation? And when will you invite the new Republican 
leadership to the White House for a sort of mini-summit that's been 
talked about?
    The President. I believe that Mr. Panetta is meeting with them 
today, as we all agreed before I left. And I look forward to meeting 
with them as soon as I can, as convenient with all of our schedules, 
when I get back.
    And as I said, I am willing to cooperate. There are areas in which I 
believe we can cooperate. I have mentioned several: the line-item veto, 
the welfare reform, continued reductions in the Federal Government, and 
continuation of our whole reinventing Government initiative so that we 
can do more with less. On the middle class tax cut, I believe the first 
thing we had to do was to get control of the deficit and to do as much 
as we could on that. We got as far as 15 million families in 1993. We 
got up to $27,000 in income. I would like very much to go further, but 
we mustn't explode the deficit. We've got to pay for it.
    So there are all these areas where I think we can work together and 
where I am certainly willing to. And that's the spirit in which I will 
go home.

The Presidency

    Q. You mentioned a few moments ago that this was a historic 
agreement--[inaudible]--here today. I'm wondering, in light of this 
meeting and the other meetings you've had overseas previously to this, 
if it's not perhaps beginning to seem to you that perhaps foreign 
affairs and foreign trade is really the essence of the modern 
Presidency, more so than domestic and especially in light of what you're 
looking ahead to in the next few years.
    The President. Well, first of all, I think that the Presidency is 
certainly more than making laws. And the Congress has to pass laws. And 
I've always thought that.
    But let me emphasize to you that I do not believe that I could be 
here doing what I am doing today if we hadn't taken vigorous action to 
bring the deficit down and if we hadn't passed the NAFTA agreement in 
Congress and if we hadn't also already taken strong steps to try to 
protect and promote the interests of ordinary Americans, including the 
family leave law, the crime bill, and things that address our problems 
at home.
    I see these things as two sides of the same coin. I don't believe we 
can be strong in the world, I don't believe we can secure the future for 
our working people unless we have good policies at home and good 
policies abroad. I think that strong families and good education systems 
and better paying jobs and safe streets and expanding trade and being 
free from the threat of nuclear war, I think these are two sides of the 
same coin. So, to me, I have to do them both.
    I will say this, there have been more opportunities and more 
responsibilities in this particular year than even I could have foreseen 
when I ran for President even last year. A lot of the work that we have 
been doing came to fruition this year, particularly in the Middle East 
peace talks, in the Partnership For Peace and what we are doing in 
Europe, and of course in Asia in expanding economic activities.
    I think that more and more the job of the modern President will 
involve relating with the rest of the world because we are in an 
interdependent world. Whether we like it or not, money and management 
and technology are mobile, and the world is interdependent. And we have 
to make sure Americans do well in that kind of world. And we have the--
the President has a special responsibility there.
    Yes?

School Prayer

    Q. President Clinton, one of the other things the Republicans talked 
about yesterday in your press conference was the idea that they would 
propose a constitutional amendment to restore prayer to public schools. 
Is that something that you would support? Do you think the country needs 
that?
    The President. Well, what I think the country needs and what I think 
the schools need is a sense that there are certain basic values of 
citizenship, including valuing the right of people to have and express 
their faith, which can be advocated without crossing the line of the 
separation of church and state and without in any way undermining the 
fabric of our society. Indeed, the schools, perhaps today more than ever 
before, need to be the instrument by which we transfer important values 
of citizenship.
    One of the things that was in the elementary and secondary education 
act that I signed, that passed with strong bipartisan support but was

[[Page 2088]]

little noticed, was the advocacy of basically the teaching of civic 
values in the schools.
    Now, on the school prayer thing, I can only tell you what my 
personal opinion is about that. I have always supported voluntary prayer 
in the schools. I have always thought that the question was, when does 
voluntary prayer really become coercive to people who have different 
religious views from those that are in the majority in any particular 
classroom? So that, for example, I personally did not believe that it 
was coercive to have a prayer at an outdoor sporting event or at a 
graduation event because I don't believe that is coercive to people who 
don't participate in it. So I think there is room for that.
    Obviously, I want to reserve judgment. I want to see the specifics. 
But I think this whole values debate will go forward and will intensify 
in the next year. And again, I would say, this ought to be something 
that unites the American people, not something that divides us. This 
ought not to be a partisan debate. The American people do not want us to 
be partisan, but they do want us to proceed in a way that is consistent 
with their values and that communicates those values to our children.
    So let's just--I'll be glad to discuss it with them. I want to see 
what the details are. I certainly wouldn't rule it out. It depends on 
what it says.

Cooperation With Republican Leaders

    Q. Mr. President, have you had time to reflect on the elections 
results, specifically, what happened? And while we've been here, 
Congressman Gingrich, among his quotes, ``This is time to be open to 
dramatic, bold changes.'' That's what you ran on, and I'm wondering if 
you'll take any new attitude with you to Washington after some time off.
    The President. Well, first of all, we gave the American people a lot 
of changes. And the changes we gave them required tough decisions. And 
if we now are going to have a partnership for further bold changes, 
nothing could make me happier. But we reduced the deficit more than any 
time in history. We did it for 3 years in a row for the first time since 
President Truman. We have reduced the Federal Government by 70,000. 
We're taking it down to its smallest size since President Kennedy. We 
have deregulated major parts of the American economy. We have given 
States the ability to get out from under Federal rules to promote 
welfare reform, health care reform, education reform. We are making 
dramatic changes.
    I would like to have a bipartisan partnership to go further. There 
are some things we didn't get done last time that I would like to see 
done. We ought to be able to have a bipartisan welfare reform bill. I 
ask only that the same spirit exists there that I exhibited when I was a 
Democratic Governor in 1988, I reached out my hand in partnership to the 
Reagan administration and to the Republicans and Democrats in Congress.
    There are a lot of things we can do together, and I've already 
mentioned several of them. So I'm very hopeful. And we do need a lot 
more changes, and we can do them together if we are determined to put 
America first and not put partisanship first.
    Q. Mr. President, as you look to the next 2 years of your term and 
the changed political realities of Washington, is there some previous 
President that you look to as a sort of model on how you're going to 
proceed?
    The President. I don't think so. I don't think that there's an exact 
historical analogy. I think there are some obvious similarities, but 
they all break down.
    I have read, since I've been President, even though I had read 
widely about our Presidents before I took office, I've read a number of 
biographies, histories of the administrations of many Presidents. I have 
seen times when the usual pattern between a President and Congress was, 
in fact, more contentious than the one we had the last 2 years. Even 
though the American people seem to perceive it as very contentious, the 
truth is that it was, as you know, only the third Congress since World 
War II when a Congress adopted more than 80 percent of the measures a 
President recommended. So I think we'll just have to see.
    What I need to be guided by is not the past but a devotion to 
America's future, to making America stronger, to making the future of 
working people stronger, to the kinds of things that I have worked for. 
And I will do my best to do that with the facts as they develop. And I'm 
looking forward to it.

Foreign Policy

    Q. Mr. President, in mentioning the special responsibility of a 
President in foreign affairs, do you see any limits on your own personal 
ability to continue being a personal diplomat,

[[Page 2089]]

and do you intend to continue the growing pace of travel?
    The President. Well, as I said, I think that we have had a series of 
unusual opportunities and responsibilities this year: getting the 
Partnership For Peace off; getting the nuclear agreement between Russia 
and Ukraine, which led to no Russian missiles being pointed at the 
United States for the first time since the dawn of the nuclear age; 
pursuing the Middle East peace in my meeting with President Asad in 
Geneva and then the 3 days I spent in the Middle East. And then, of 
course, we had the 50th anniversary of World War II. So these things--
there were some unusual things which required a great deal of time this 
year.
    I think every President from now on, for the foreseeable future, 
will be required to participate in the building of an architecture which 
promotes peace and prosperity and security for the American people and 
is increasingly involved in the rest of the world. But I expect that the 
lion's share of my work will continue to be done at home, and I will 
continue to do it. I don't think anyone could say I had a less than 
ambitious domestic agenda this year and didn't pursue it with great 
vigor. So I think you will just have to--we'll have to do both from now 
on.
    Yes.

Asian-Pacific Trade Agreement

    Q. Mr. President, the report reaching us is that China and South 
Korea do not have to meet the free trade objective until 2020. Does this 
give these countries an unfair advantage in your opinion, and what will 
you do to address it?
    The President. First of all, whether China and South Korea have to 
meet this objective by 2020 or 2010 depends upon their own rate of 
growth. That is, there was no definition today of industrialized 
countries that excluded them in 2010. Indeed, I think most of the people 
who were in that room today thought that, given South Korea's growth, 
they might well meet that and, in fact, might be expected to meet it 
before 2010 and that the Chinese could meet it, depending on whether 
they're able to sustain a certain level of growth.
    Secondly, let me emphasize that while the agreement provides for two 
different times for the parties to be willing and able to get rid of all 
their trade barriers, we assume an equivalence of treatment among all 
the countries so that even if, let's say, China or some other country, 
Thailand--any country, you name it--doesn't have to go down all the way 
until 2020, their relationship with the other countries involved, 
including the advanced countries, will be dictated still by an 
equivalency. There will be no unilateral give-ups; there will be a 
negotiated downward movement in the barriers among all parties.
    So I think this is very good. This simply recognizes that under the 
best of circumstances, some nations may be so far away in economic 
disparities, they may not be able to get there by 2020. There is nothing 
in those two times that disadvantages, let's say, Japan or Canada, not 
to mention the United States.
    Q. Mr. President, given the tough fight that you had over NAFTA and 
the nervousness over GATT, how can you convince Americans they will 
benefit from free trade with Asia, especially when there is such a big 
gap with some countries on workers' wages and rights?
    The President. I would say--I would make two arguments. First of 
all, look at the fight we had over NAFTA, and look at the results. We 
had a 500 percent increase in automobile exports to Mexico in one year. 
Our exports to Mexico increased by 19 percent, about almost 3 times what 
our overall exports went up since NAFTA passed. NAFTA has been a job 
winner for the United States, and basically the jobs we're gaining in 
are upper income jobs. So if NAFTA is the test, it should make us want 
more of these things.
    The second point I'd like to make is that when we started APEC--keep 
in mind the atmosphere that was existing in Seattle last year. When we 
started APEC, what was the worry? The worry was that the world would be 
developing into three huge trade blocs: the European Union; the United 
States, Canada, Mexico, Central, South America, and the Caribbean; and 
Asia, and that Asia was the fastest growing region in the world, that 
trade among the Asian nations was going up but people were afraid we 
would be shut out of that market.
    So if everything we do has some equivalency to it, that is, if there 
is no unilateral give-up by the United States, what we are doing in this 
agreement is opening the fastest growing market in the world. Look at--
just take this country we're in, Indonesia. They are growing at a 
phenomenal rate and have been for quite some time now. Their capacity to 
purchase, to

[[Page 2090]]

engage, to trade, and for themselves to compete and win in the global 
economy is increasing every day.
    So what I would say is, we could never walk away from the Asian 
market; we should be walking toward it on terms that are fair. And 
that's what I think we're doing.
    Yes.

Foreign Policy

    Q. Mr. President, how can you prevent the Republicans from blocking 
foreign policy initiatives you might want to pass, such as the 
operations--the administration seems increasingly comfortable in 
multilateral operations such as Haiti, potential U.S. involvement in a 
future Bosnia peace enforcement operation, potential U.S. commitment to 
peacekeeping in the Golan. How are you going to prevent the Republicans 
from blocking you in that area?
    The President. Well, historically, the Republicans have favored a 
strong American foreign policy and a robust one. And most of what I have 
been able to do as President has enjoyed bipartisan support. And when 
the--some of the things that have not enjoyed Republican support have 
also generated significant Democratic support. I had bipartisan 
opposition to some of the things I have sought to do in foreign policy.
    I believe that with careful and honest and open consultations, that 
in critical matters to our national security, we will be able to put the 
interest of the United States first. That is certainly the challenge 
that we must all face.
    The Congress and the President have had tensions between them on 
foreign policy for a very long time now when both parties were in 
different positions. I don't expect that to go away. And we are creating 
a new world in which there are new questions to be asked and answered. 
There's been controversy over foreign policy directions in the last 2 
years. I don't expect that to go away. But I do think on the really 
pivotal matters we'll be able to achieve the kind of bipartisan or 
perhaps even a nonpartisan consensus to do what's right for the country. 
That will be my goal.
    Yes.

Asian-Pacific Trade Agreement

    Q. Mr. President, this may be historic, but a lot of this is often 
nonbinding--the APEC accord. And a year ago, this forum was boycotted by 
one member. What gives you any confidence that this kind of deal will 
not fall apart at some point in the future? And what should the U.S. do 
to try to avoid that?
    The President. I would say there are two things that give me 
confidence that it will not fall apart. One is that it is in the 
interest of the Asian countries because they have decided that they want 
expanded trade in an open world trading system, not in closed trading 
blocs. The second is the constant reaffirmation of commitment to this by 
the Asian leaders themselves.
    Finally, I would say we have some historic evidence that should give 
us some encouragement. On a smaller scale, look at the ASEAN agreement, 
the regional trade agreement where they promised that they would break 
down trade barriers among themselves. And it was all voluntary, but they 
met and they worked on it and they laid out a platform. And they just 
recently shortened by 5 years the time deadline they imposed on 
themselves for taking all the barriers away.
    So if you look at the experience of their conduct, if you look at 
the conviction by which they express this commitment, and if you look at 
it, in very cold terms, their own self-interest in wanting to do more in 
the rest of the world, I think all those things should be very 
encouraging in terms of having you think that it's more likely than not 
that it will occur.

Foreign Policy

    Q. Mr. President, your administration is in the process of changing 
its policy or developing its policy on expanding NATO and strengthening 
CSCE. Will you be going to the CSCE summit in Budapest? And when you 
look at your foreign travel, your past foreign travel, in recent weeks 
you've gone to the Middle East; you've spent several days here; you're 
going to be hosting the Summit of the Americas; you have an ambitious 
foreign agenda next year. Are you becoming, in essence, a foreign policy 
President?
    The President. Well, let me answer both questions. First of all, I 
plan to make a very--a brief but I think quite critical trip to the 
CSCE. I decided to do it after having communications with both 
Chancellor Kohl and President Yeltsin and looking at what is at stake 
there in terms of the future of European security. After all, the United 
States played a strong leadership role in the Partnership For Peace and 
encouraging the growth of the European Union and European security 
arrangements.

[[Page 2091]]

    What I have sought to do is to create a stronger Europe that was 
more independent but also more closely allied with us and one that at 
least created the possibility that there would not be another dividing 
line in Europe just moved a few hundred miles east. We have a big stake 
in that. So I will go quickly and come back quickly, but I think I 
should go.
    Secondly, on the question of foreign policy versus domestic, let me 
say, if you look at what happened, in the last 2 years, we had only the 
third Congress in the history of--since World War II which gave a 
President more than 80 percent of his domestic initiatives as well as 
the foreign policy initiatives, including sweeping education reform, the 
family leave law, the Brady bill, the crime bill, and a number of other 
very important issues.
    So I have no intention of withdrawing from the domestic field. But 
we had an unusual number of responsibilities this year, an unusual 
number of opportunities. And Americans are both more prosperous and more 
secure because of these efforts, and they will be more so in the future. 
So if I were to give up one in favor of the other, I would be doing a 
disservice to the American people. I have to try to pursue both courses.
    It's been somewhat more busy on the foreign front than I could have 
anticipated in the last few months because of the unusual developments.

Asian-Pacific Trade Agreement and GATT

    Q. Mr. President, it looks like you've made some concessions on 
letting them come in in 2020 and 2010. China also wants to join GATT and 
some other world trade organizations. If they want to join and be held 
to a lesser standard than the major industrial nations--China's the 
third largest economy in the world. What is your position on letting 
China into these world trade organizations? Will you give them a break 
on this, or will you insist that they be held to the same standard as 
the industrial nations?
    The President. Let me answer the first question. First of all, I 
will say again, whether a country is an industrialized country or a 
developing country as of 2010 is a question of fact that cannot be 
answered now. There are some we can be pretty sure will be still 
industrializing, still developing; some we can be certain will be 
developed; others we're not sure. There was no concession given because 
there must be equivalency in the reduction of trade barriers, a fairness 
on both sides. But as a practical matter, it will take developing 
countries longer to get down to zero, even if they have great incentives 
to do so in dealing with other countries.
    Now, on the GATT. To be a founding member of GATT, whether you are a 
developing country or an industrialized country, without regard to your 
status, you must agree to observe three or four basic commitments in 
terms of the way you handle your financial exchanges, in terms of the 
transparency of your trade laws, in terms of your whole approach to the 
international economy. There are four basic commitments that all 123--I 
think the number is--people who have agreed to be founding members of 
GATT have agreed to do.
    So the United States position is that China ought to be in GATT, 
ought to be a founding member of GATT. They're a very big country; they 
ought to be a part of this. It's in our interest to do it because it 
will open more Chinese markets to American products. But every country 
that has agreed to be a founding member, even the poorest countries, 
even the smallest countries, have agreed to these four basic criteria. 
And we believe that anyone who goes in as a founding member should do 
the same.
    Q. Mr. President, you mentioned GATT as your top priority when you 
get back from this trip. How troubling is it to you that Senator Dole is 
clearly not on board on this, and how are you going to address the 
problems--the sort of populist conservative criticisms of WTO as somehow 
eliminating sovereignty?
    The President. Well, it's not just the populist conservatives, there 
are also some populist liberals who aren't sure about it.
    Just before I left, when I called on Senator Dole and we had our 
conversation, he said that he thought that we could work it out, that we 
could have some language which would make it clear that our sovereignty 
was intact, that would not violate the GATT agreement. And I believe 
that, so I think that's what we'll do. I think he's trying in good faith 
to get that done based on his representation to me, and we certainly 
are. And that is our objective.
    That's an understandable concern when people first hear about this. 
You know, they want to be reassured that we're not giving up the ability 
to run our own affairs. So we're working on it, and I think we'll 
resolve it.

[[Page 2092]]

The Economy

    Q. Mr. President, you've mentioned here several times your 
achievements and your record with Congress and the things you've gotten 
done. But as you know, one of the big problems you face politically is 
that the American people don't believe their lives have changed as a 
result of the things that have been done.
    Now, here you have another long-term agreement; it's going to take 
place over the next generation. And while it may be very beneficial to 
the country, how are you going to convince Americans that this is going 
to affect their lives, and how are you going to do it within the next 2 
years before you have to face the voters?
    The President. Well, I think there were two issues there. One is, as 
you know, there were a lot of Americans who did not know a lot of the 
things that had been done. And it is my job to do my best to make sure 
people know that. Then there is the inevitable fact that there is a time 
lag between when you pass any law or take any executive action and it 
can be manifest in the lives of Americans.
    You know, one of the problems with the nature of the economy today, 
from the point of view of the average American working family, is that 
even if more jobs are coming into the economy, people may not feel more 
personal job security; even if the economy is growing with low 
inflation, people may not get a raise. Most Americans, wage earners, 
particularly hourly earners, have not had an increase in real income, 
that is, above inflation, in quite some time now.
    These are conditions that I am working hard to remedy. There are 
only two or three ways to remedy them. You have to change the job mix 
and get more high-wage jobs, you have to increase the skill level of the 
work force so people can take those jobs, and you have to get enterprise 
and investment into isolated areas, that is, pockets of the inner 
cities, pockets of the rural areas which have been left behind. These 
things may require long-term solutions.
    It is my job to do what is best for the American people in the 
future. I'll do my best to get credit for it, but the most important 
thing is that I do the right thing. And you know, if I can find a way to 
get credit for it, I'll be very happy. But the most important thing is 
that I do the right thing. And I think that as time goes on--most 
Americans say, if you ask them, ``Do you want us to have a long-term 
vision, do you want us to have a long-term strategy, do you want us to 
look at that?'' they'll say yes. And then they hear things on a daily 
basis that are so contentious and so conflicting and so kind of clouding 
of the atmosphere that it's hard to think about that.
    My job is to try to keep lifting the sights of the country above 
that and keep looking at the long run. The credit will have to either 
come or not, but that's not as important as trying to do the right 
thing.
    I think I ought to take a question or two from the Indonesian press; 
I'm sorry.
    Q. Mr. President----
    The President. Go ahead, and then I'll take this lady first and then 
you, sir. Go ahead.

APEC and Media Coverage

    Q. Mr. President--[inaudible]
    The President. That the media is?
    Q. [Inaudible]--media is so completely dominated by the first world?
    The President. First of all, if I might--her question was sort of 
related to your question. Your question is, how do we know that this is 
going to happen, implying that maybe these folks aren't serious. Her 
question, in a way, is the same question from a different point of view. 
If there is no institutionalized mechanism, how do we know that it will 
go on when those of us who are here aren't here anymore?
    And I have to tell you that I think the critical question is, will 
the leaders themselves continue to meet personally every year, even when 
it is inconvenient for them to do so? Like now, you know--[laughter]--
will they continue to do that? Will they continue to meet, even when it 
is inconvenient for them to do so? And secondly, will they make some 
specific, concrete progress every time they meet?
    So, for example, I feel very good about this; this is potentially, I 
think, a very historic declaration. But next year, if we don't adopt the 
blueprint, I'd say that's not a good sign. If we do adopt a blueprint, 
that is a very good sign. So that is my test.
    Now, let me say, on the question of the media being, if you will, 
dominated by the first world, I think you should be encouraged that, for 
example, in many of our major news outlets, there is enormous attention 
given now, much more than previously, not just to--to foreign policy 
concerns that affect the developing world and

[[Page 2093]]

not just the largest powers that dominated the cold war debate, number 
one. Number two, there are now more specific outlets, particularly CNN, 
for example, that has a whole separate channel dealing with global 
affairs which gives more and more attention to the developing world. 
I'll get in a lot of trouble with all of the other networks now. 
[Laughter]
    But I think--look at all these people here from all the American 
outlets. I can't speak for BBC or the French television network or the 
German network, but every major American media outlet, just about, sent 
someone to Indonesia, which was, as you know, originally the leader of 
the nonaligned movement in the United Nations. Every person who is here 
now has a little different understanding of the problems and the promise 
of this country, the other countries here represented at APEC.
    I think you have to be a little patient with us, too. We are 
learning more about the rest of the world beyond our borders and beyond 
our previous habits of encounter. And I think the more we do that, the 
more you will see a broader coverage of world affairs right across the 
board.

Educational Exchanges, Politics, and Economics

    Q. I watch you every day on CNN, Mr. President, but now you are 
real. Thank you very much for being here.
    Let me introduce myself, chief editor of the Economic and Business 
Review of Indonesia. I have two questions, Mr. President. First of all, 
do you agree with me that education, in fact, has been the best 
investment of the United States in Indonesia, because you have so many 
economists and people in high position and in key, strategic positions 
who graduated from the United States? I, myself, am a product of George 
Washington University; it so happens I'm chairman of the U.S. alumni 
association.
    Somehow, the U.S. effort in this, United States effort in 
encouraging and developing education, in terms of providing scholarships 
for Indonesians to the United States, has been less today than some 
years back. In fact, education for the armed forces has been curtailed. 
What is your view on this, Mr. President?
    The second question is, while liberalization and globalization seems 
to have been the trademark of APEC, you know yourself that economies do 
not determine history. Often politics determine history. How do you 
harmonize this globalization trend with international politics, Mr. 
President? Thank you very much.
    The President. Well, first let me say, I definitely agree that the 
investment the United States has made in times past in international 
educational exchanges and bringing people to our country to attend our 
universities and our colleges and sending our young people abroad to 
attend school in other countries has been a very, very important thing.
    It is true that there has been some reduction in Federal support for 
such programs, which I very much regret, but it is a function of the 
fact that we quadrupled the national debt of America from 1981 to 1993, 
that in a 12-year period we exploded our debt, our Government deficit 
was high, and we started having to cut back on a lot of investments, 
including things that we wanted to do.
    I will say that most of our major universities now, particularly a 
lot of our State universities, are investing much more of their money 
and their effort in trying to recruit students from around the world and 
to promote these sort of educational exchanges. And what I would need to 
do before I could make a final judgment is to see what the total effort 
is in our country. But we should be doing more of it. So I feel very 
strongly about that.
    Now, what was the second question you asked? Yes, yes, the economy 
and politics. Let me just say about that, I believe that the business of 
politics is, not completely but in large measure, to give the maximum 
opportunity for the positive economic forces in the world to succeed 
within each country or within each--in my case, within each of our 
States within our country. That is not the whole business, but that is a 
major part of the business. So a lot of what we try to do in the United 
States is to think about the good things that are happening in our 
country and in the world and what we can do to accelerate them and then 
to think about the problems, the roadblocks, the obstacles, and what we 
can do to eliminate them so that we try to harmonize those things.
    Very often when politics can mess up economics, it's because it 
becomes obsessed with some other goal which is destructive of the human 
spirit. Politics should be more than economics--I talked about human 
rights here today--but it should be very heedful of making those good 
things happen through the economic system.

[[Page 2094]]

    I'll take this lady's question, the last one.

WTO and President's Visit to Istiqlal

    Q. Thank you, Mr. President. Who will the United States support for 
the job of Secretary General of the WTO, Salinas, Ruggiero, or Kim?
    And my other question, while Indonesians are very proud that a 
Christian--my Christian uncle built the Istiqlal Mosque, I find it 
difficult to explain to my readers why the President of the United 
States took his time to visit that mosque. Thank you, Mr. President.
    The President. Let me answer the second question first. I went to 
the mosque because, first of all, I wanted to see it--it's a massive and 
impressive and important structure; secondly, because Indonesia is a 
predominantly Muslim country that has a very vibrant Catholic, 
Protestant, Hindu, and Buddhist heritage and active religions today in 
all those areas. And the Minister of Religious Affairs here made 
available some time for me to go to the mosque, to talk with him about 
what was going on there, and to explain to me personally how these 
various religions had come into this country and how they operated today 
within the country together, without undermining or conflicting one with 
the other.
    Finally, I have tried to do a lot as I have traveled the world--and 
I did this when I was in Jordan, speaking to the Jordanian Parliament--
to say to the American people and to the West generally that even though 
we have had problems with terrorism coming out of the Middle East, it is 
not inherently related to Islam, not to the religion, not to the 
culture. And the tradition of Islam in Indonesia, I think, makes that 
point very graphically. It's something our people in America need to 
know; it's something people in the West, throughout the West, need to 
know.
    With regard to the World Trade Organization, I will have an 
announcement about that in the next couple of days. You won't have to 
wait long.
    Thank you very much.

Note: The President's 81st news conference began at 7:10 p.m. at the 
Jakarta Hilton. In his remarks, he referred to Tarmizi Taher, Minister 
of Religious Affairs of Indonesia. A reporter referred to Mexican 
President Carlos Salinas, former Italian Trade Minister Renato Ruggiero, 
and South Korean Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy Kim Chol-su as 
candidates for Secretary General, World Trade Organization.