    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1997, Book II)]
    [October 31, 1997]
    [Pages 1465-1469]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Remarks and a Question-and-Answer Session at a Democratic National
    Committee Luncheon in Palm Beach, Florida
    October 31, 1997

        The President. Harriet got on a roll; I didn't want her to stop.
    What did you say? No, I was just thinking Harriet was on a roll. I
    didn't want to stop her.
        Thank you, and thank you, Jerome. We are old friends. And I want to
    thank Sidney and Dorothy for having me back in their wonderful home. I
    was here a little over 5 years ago. They look much younger even than
    they did then, and I have all this gray hair to show for the last 5
    years, but I've enjoyed it immensely.
        You mentioned the St. Mary's Hospital Board, and for those of you
    who don't know, that was the hospital that took care of me when I tore
    my leg off by falling 8 inches here a few months ago. I visited the
    little school in Jupiter that I was supposed to visit that day when I
    couldn't go. And I'm delighted to be back here.
        We're in Florida, among other things, pushing the fast-track
    legislation. There's going to be a vote in Congress next week. And
    Secretary Daley, the Secretary of Commerce, and my Special Counselor,
    Doug Sosnik, who has a wife from Argentina, the three of us just got
    back from Latin America. And I came back even more convinced than ever
    that it's the right thing to do for our country.
        Let me just be very brief. What I'd like to do is to talk a minute
    or two, and then if you have a couple of questions, maybe I could hear
    from you. That would help save my voice, and it will be more interesting
    for you.
        We learned today that growth in the last quarter--this quarter--is
    3.5 percent, and growth has averaged almost 4 percent over the last
    year, the highest in more than a decade. I think that has come about
    because we both broke political gridlock in Washington in 1993 with the
    economic plan and in 1997 with the Balanced Budget Act and because,
    perhaps even more important, we broke an intellectual gridlock.
        Harriet mentioned that she knew me a long time before I became
    President. Most Americans didn't. And one of the things that never
    ceases to amaze me is when I read things written about our policies and
    they say, ``Well, he's adopted this Republican policy and that
    Democratic policy and just making it up as he goes along.'' I was
    reading the other day--last night, getting ready to come down here, an
    article I wrote in 1988 that basically sounds like the speeches I'm
    giving today. But if you're a Governor out in the hinterland, you don't
    exist for people that interpret you to America until you move to
    Washington. So I thank Jerome and Harriet for being my old friends.
        But what I wanted to do when I came to Washington 6 years ago was to
    get people to stop thinking in these sort of outdated left-right terms
    and start thinking instead about what we were trying to do, what is the
    mission of America. And if you think about it in that term, it helps you
    to pick the proper course.
        With our economic policy, it seemed to me there was a huge fight
    between whether we should run a huge deficit and cut taxes or whether we
    should run a slightly smaller deficit and spend more money. And I
    thought both of those were wrong for the modern economy. And people
    laughed at me when I went to Washington and said, ``Here's what we're
    going to do. We're going to reduce the deficit, balance the budget, and
    spend more money on education and the health care of our children and
    empowering our poorest communities.'' And they said, ``Yeah, and the $3
    bill is coming back.'' But that's what we've done, and it worked.
        On crime, it seemed to me we were having a phony debate in
    Washington about whether we needed to talk tougher and have harsher
    sentences or do more to help prevent crime in the first place. The
    sensible thing to do is to sentence more harshly people who should

    [[Page 1466]]

    be, and prevent everybody you can from committing crimes, and also work
    on the environment. That's what the Brady bill, the assault weapons ban,
    100,000 more police on the street were about. And we've contributed to a
    dramatic decline in crime in the last 5 years.
        On welfare, the debate was, ``It's an unfortunate system, but don't
    you have to take care of these children?'' or ``These people don't
    really want to work, so you have to make them work''--sort of polarizing
    debate. My experience as a Governor was that nearly every person I ever
    met on welfare was dying to go to work; that the system penalized them
    because they generally didn't have the education and skills they needed,
    on the one hand, or on the other, if they took a job that was a minimum
    wage job, they lost Medicaid health coverage for their kids, and they
    didn't have the money to pay for child support.
        So we said, ``Let's be tough on work, require people that can work
    to work, but take care of their children, because everyone's most
    important job is taking care of their kids.'' We've had over 3 million
    people drop off the welfare rolls, the biggest decline in history, the
    smallest percentage of Americans on welfare since 1970, after 20 years
    of high levels of immigration.
        I guess what I'm saying is, what I think works is saying: The
    Government can't sit on the sidelines. The Government can't be a savior.
    The Government's job is to create the conditions and give people the
    tools to make the most of their own lives and to build good communities
    and families.
        And I believe we're much closer than we were 5 years ago to my dream
    of the 21st century America where there's opportunity for everybody
    responsible enough to work for it, where we're still leading the world
    for peace and freedom, and where the country is managing its diversity,
    even celebrating it, but coming across all those lines into one America.
    And for all of you who have helped me to do that, I'm very grateful.
        Now, we still have some challenges. One of them is this fast track
    bill. A third of our growth in the last 5 years has come from trade.
    This bill gives me the power to negotiate trade agreements. If the
    Congress doesn't like them, they can vote them down. It has all been
    caught up in, I think, worries of uncertainty and instability among
    certain workers, because not everybody wins when there's more trade,
    although most job loss in America, 80 percent, is due to technology.
        So what should we do? We ought to provide more education and better
    transition for people who lose their jobs through trade or technological
    changes, not walk away from trade. These jobs pay more, on average. And
    we have no choice. Latin America is going to grow, on average, 3 times
    the rate of America. We're 4 percent of the world's people. We've got 20
    percent of the world's income. If we want to keep it, we better sell
    more to the other 96 percent. So the fast-track debate is a big debate.
        We had a big meeting with China this week; the President of China
    was here. We have severe disagreements over human rights, political
    rights, religious rights. But the best way to advance those issues, in
    my view, is to work with China and try to make a partner out of China in
    the 21st century, not create a new cold war with a different country on
    the other side. If it comes out that way, it ought not be our fault. We
    ought to have the sure knowledge, if there is a polarizing situation in
    the 21st century, that it's not our fault--that we did everything we
    could to create a responsible, international system of free trade,
    peace, common efforts against terrorism, weapons proliferation, shared
    environmental and disease problems, and respect for democracy and human
    rights. So I think we're doing the right thing.
        We've got a number of other challenges. I'm in a big debate with the
    Congress--in some ways, the most fateful one--over whether the United
    States should have national academic standards in the basics in schools
    and an exam--voluntary--to see if our children are meeting those
    standards. And I suggested we start with a reading test in the fourth
    grade and a math test in the eighth grade--just had another study this
    week that said that kids who take algebra in the eighth grade are far
    more likely to stay in school and far more likely to go to college and
    far more likely to do well in college. We're the only major country
    without any kind of national academic standards, and I think it's crazy
    not to do it. I'm still fighting that out.
        We were thwarted this year in our efforts to pass campaign reform,
    but I think we've got a good chance to pass it next year. And I might
    say, I appreciate the fact that all of you who are here at this event
    are giving us what in the current jargon is called ``hard money'' and
    what also will be provided for under the new

    [[Page 1467]]

    campaign finance reform law. We need to change the finance system.
        But I would also point out--those of you politically active a long
    time know this--the money has not driven the cost up, the costs have
    driven the money up. It's like every other endeavor in human life: The
    cost of communicating with voters has exploded exponentially. So if we
    really want to get a handle on this problem, we also have to say, ``If
    you observe the campaign finance limits, you should get free or reduced
    air time and access to voters.'' If we do that, we can also change the
    nature of debates and elections.
        You look at a British election, for example, where each party gets a
    certain amount of time in different time blocks, and where people have
    reasoned debates, and they're much more like the Presidential debates
    are here, and almost nothing else is like that. And I'm convinced if we
    have free and reduced air time, more citizen participation like the
    debates we did in '92 and '96, that our campaign insisted on to bring
    real people into the debates, the voting record of the country would go
    way up.
        Well, anyway, these are just a few of the things I wanted to talk
    about. The last thing I wanted to say is, in the '98 elections going
    forward, people will not be able to paint this sort of gnarled, twisted
    picture of Democrats anymore. You can't say we're weak on foreign policy
    and national defense. You can't say we can't be trusted to manage the
    economy. You can't say we're spending the country blind. You can't say
    we're against responsible tax cuts or that we're not strong for welfare
    reform or sensible criminal justice policies.
        If you look ahead to the future, the major issues that will affect
    the lives of ordinary Americans--education, the environment, health
    care, the overall strength of the country--these are issues that our
    party, with its new direction, is strong on. And you are helping to
    contribute to that, and in doing it, I think you'll help make America a
    better place.
        Thank you.
        I've got time for one or two questions if anybody wants to ask a
    question.

    Education

        Q. It's really not a question. It's just sort of a comment and sort
    of a personal anecdote--when people have talked about the public schools
    and a lot of criticism about it. My daughter is in seventh grade at the
    School of the Arts here, and recently was sick--in St. Mary's Hospital,
    actually--missed 3 weeks of school. And in the public schools where I
    would expect very little to happen, every one of her teachers called her
    to find out how she was. Her principal sent her balloons to cheer her
    up--[inaudible]--been involved in the School of the Arts and I guess the
    foundation quite a bit.
        There are some really good stories, and it would be nice if they got
    out somehow. This is just one that I know personally. And I never would
    have dreamed--as my daughter had gone to private school up until this
    year--and for whatever it's worth, people ought to try to find out more
    success stories from the public schools.
        The President. Ninety percent of our children are in public schools.
    If most of them weren't doing a good job, they wouldn't be there. That's
    the first point. Second thing is--it's very important to make this point
    because I've been working at this now since, seriously, since 1979, and
    I think I've been in enough schools and looked at enough data and talked
    to enough people to know--the schools are better than they used to be,
    and they're getting better.
        The real problem is there are some that aren't good at all. And what
    do they need? You can do one of two things. You can say, ``Okay, well,
    we ought to just make it possible for people to abandon them.'' The
    problem is, only a portion of the people would abandon them and the
    people that are left will be even worse off, because they'll have less
    money and a lot of them are in financial trouble now. Or you can do what
    I think should be done: You have to have high standards; you have to
    have accountability; you have to have reform; and then you have to have
    adequate investment.
        Now, this school you mentioned--one of the things that I think every
    school district ought to do is, I think they ought to give the parents
    of the children a choice of the schools they attend within the
    districts, and I think every district--I hope some day before too long
    every district will have what educators call a charter school, which is
    a part of the public schools but it's created--for example, suppose
    there were no art school here--where teachers can get together and
    create a whole new school with a separate mission, with fewer rules and
    regulations, and it only stays in existence as long as the parents and
    the students are satisfied that

    [[Page 1468]]

    its's fulfilling its mission. There are now 700 of these schools. In our
    budget, we're going to create 3,000 more. Once you get enough of them to
    be in every district in the country, and if we can get more people to
    give choice to the parents within the school districts, you're going to
    see dramatic improvements.
        We need the national standards. We also need--I have been a very
    strong supporter of the national board for teacher certification to get
    board-certified teachers as master teachers, one in every school in the
    country. There are only about 1,000 now. Our budget contains funds to
    help train 100,000 in the next 4 years, and they are dramatically better
    trained than most people.
        So I'm with you. They're getting better. They can do a good job.
    Most of them are doing better than they used to.
        Yes.

    Iran

        Q. What is your position on the joint venture between the Malaysian-
    French oil group that is hoping to get financed by Goldman-Sachs to mine
    new oilfields in Iran and will increase Iran's economy by about $400
    billion over 20 years?
        The President. Well, you know what my position is: we don't like it.
    We're in an intense debate within the administration now about exactly
    what we ought to do about it. I just have a different view of--the
    United States generally has a different view than most of our allies.
    They all think we're all wet. But I just believe that we should not be
    conducting ordinary business with a country that funds, trains, and
    supports terrorists. I don't have the same opinion that--they can have a
    different religion than we do; they can have different politics; they
    can attack me on the evening news every night--whatever they want. But I
    don't think we should be doing business with a country that funds,
    trains, and supports terrorists. And I don't think we should be bashful
    about telling our friends that we think that's wrong. And if we're the
    only country in the world that thinks that, I think that's still what we
    ought to say.
        Now, what we have to decide is, within the parameters of the law
    which was passed--which I signed because I support that position--what
    the appropriate action is in this case. And frankly, I haven't gotten a
    recommendation from my administration yet, and I haven't had a lot of
    time to even talk to them about it because we've been so preoccupied
    with what's going on with our relationship with China in the last couple
    of weeks.
        But I keep hoping that Iran will take a different course. It's a
    very old culture. It's a very great country. There are still a lot of
    people there that were educated in our country. And the people voted in
    the last election, obviously, at least for a relaxation of their
    ordinary lives at home. And I would like it very much if they would take
    a different course. But until they do, I think we have to be quite firm,
    even if we're all by ourselves.

    Child Care and Brain Development

        Q. [Inaudible]--programs. Recently it has come to our mind that at
    the University of Miami we conducted a study with rats, and it has to do
    with the warehousing of our children at day care centers. And the rats
    that were brought up in a nonstimulating environment versus the rats
    that were stimulated had a profound effect, once those brains of those
    rats were dissected. And it's something else now that the Life
    Foundation has become extremely interested in, because I'm a mother of
    six and grandmother of nine. This is the future. And these rats that
    were not stimulated became violent, did not live as long, and brains,
    when dissected, were atrophied; versus the brains of the rats who lived
    in a stimulating environment, lived a longer life, were more productive
    in every way, and had brains with arteries that were clear to the brain
    and obviously were happier rats.
        So, therefore, it goes to say that the children--our children that
    are being warehoused, this is a very big problem in America. And I
    really believe that it's not just the Government's obligation and
    responsibility to take care of these children and to help out, it's our
    responsibility as well.
        The President. Well, let me say it's both our responsibilities. And
    given that the budget realities of where we are now, that's the way it
    has to be attacked. But very briefly, this year Hillary and I hosted two
    conferences at the White House. One was on early childhood and brain
    development and the other one, last week, was on child care.
        We now know, scientists know that an enormous percentage of the
    brain's capacity develops in the first 3 years of life. We also know
    that children in supportive environments, whether

    [[Page 1469]]

    it's from their parents or in a child care facility where they get not
    only love and affection but I mean actually stimulating environments,
    have an average of 700,000 positive interactions in their first 4 years
    of life. Children who are left to sit in front of a television, even by
    a loving parent, or at a child care center where they're not being
    stimulated, have an average of 150,000 positive interactions in the
    first 4 years of life--700,000 to 150,000, while the infrastructure of
    the brain is being developed. It's not rocket science.
        Now, the child care thing--the basic fundamental problem is lower
    income parents spend as much as 25 percent of their income on child
    care. And if you want to raise the standards for the child care centers
    and make sure that a higher percentage of them have more stimulating
    educational programs, the money has to come from somewhere. Now, we may
    be able to increase the child care tax credit. I'm working on some
    options of things we can do. We can help to actually fund the training
    of more child care workers. But we also have to do more to make child
    care, that is quality care, affordable. It's a huge issue for the
    country.
        Q. I'd like--if we could, I know that you're having a little problem
    with your voice----
        The President. [Inaudible]--to lose my voice. I lost it once. It was
    pretty scary. [Laughter]
        Q. ----ask that you sort of try to--I know you'd like to go on--but
    if we could call off the questions now if you don't mind, Mr.
    President----
        The President. Thank you. I enjoyed being with you. Thank you so
    much.

    Note: The President spoke at 3 p.m. at a private residence. In his
    remarks, he referred to luncheon cohosts Harriet and Jerome Zimmerman
    and Sidney and Dorothy Kohl; and President Jiang Zemin of China.