    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1997, Book II)]
    [October 13, 1997]
    [Pages 1347-1352]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Exchange With Reporters Aboard Air Force One
    October 13, 1997

    Brazil-U.S. Relations

        Q. Are you going to get a bad reception in Brazil?
        The President. I don't think so. You know, historically, there have
    been strained relations between the United States and Brazil. I met with
    President Cardoso when he was President-elect at the Summit of the
    Americas, and of course he's been to see me. And we worked very hard on
    this. I think it will be a very good trip.

    1996 Campaign Finance Inquiry and White House Communications Agency
    Videotapes

        Q. Janet Reno says she might want to interview you as the
    investigation goes on. Do you have any problem with that?
        The President. As I said before, I'll do anything that is necessary
    to get her and the Justice Department the information they need. I just
    want them to have the information they need and then be free to make the
    right decision.
        Q. Do you understand why she's mad, and have you done anything to
    try to prevent it from happening again?
        The President. Of course I do. You think she was mad; you should
    have been there when I heard about it.
        Q. So you were mad, too?
        The President. Of course, but I'm--first of all, I think Lanny
    Breuer was on television yesterday explaining what happened on the
    delayed notification. And, you know, I think he made a mistake--but he
    said that. And he's worked very hard at his job. And they're all--as you
    can imagine, they've got all this work that any White House Counsel
    would have and then all this to do. But I think it was a good thing that
    he and Mr. Ruff went on and explained the facts of what happened.
        And as far as WHCA is concerned, what they--I don't think they
    intended to mislead anybody. They've been working hard to try to find
    all the information they've got. I think they've got a few more tapes
    which, as I understand it, won't surprise any of you that have been
    going to the fundraisers with me for the last years. They basically
    just--as I understand it, that's what they are, they show events. And
    they're going to turn them over.

    [[Page 1348]]

        Q.  [Inaudible]--any of these tapes of you directly soliciting or
    anything like that. You don't think----
        The President. Look at them. I think they're perfectly fine. But I
    want the committee to have them, the Justice Department to have them.
        WHCA tries to take a little snippet of everything that I'm involved
    in so they have it recorded for history. It's fine. I do want to make it
    clear that--as I understood the inference of the first--I was unaware of
    this because I never saw the request for information or the efforts to
    provide it. But I think Mike has made it clear that we never had any
    sort of secret taping system like was--the Kennedy or Nixon or Johnson
    administrations did. We've never done anything like that.
        Q. Mr. President, is Congress nitpicking with you--the committee
    nitpicking by wanting all this information and wanting names of people
    who handled the tapes and all these other, what seem minute, details? Is
    that nitpicking?
        The President. We had given them 100,000 pieces of information
    before--the committee--and we'll give them whatever they need to do
    their job.
        But I think they'll find, for example, on handling the tapes--you
    know, all these WHCA people that I've dealt with, they're career
    servicepeople, they're not political. They're trying to do their job, as
    they see it, to get some video record of the things a President does.
    And they're doing their best to fully comply. They're career military
    people, not politicians, and for all I know they've never been involved
    in anything like this before. And I think they've done their best.
    They've worked like crazy to try to find out if they had anything else
    on file. And I think they're doing--I think the Senate and the House and
    the Justice Department will be satisfied that all those folks did their
    best.

    Attorney General Janet Reno

        Q. Attorney General Reno has been under a lot of pressure from a lot
    of quarters. Having been a State attorney general, what kind of standard
    do you have for how an attorney general should handle this kind of a
    situation and deal with the----
        The President. There is one quarter from which there has been no
    pressure--ours. I have gone out of my way to have no conversation with
    her--about this or, frankly, anything else, which I'm not sure is so
    good, except I saw her at the event the other day, that we did the other
    day, that we did for the police officers, where we announced the trigger
    locks on handguns.
        I think the Republican attacks on her have been completely
    unwarranted. It's interesting--it would be hard to make a case that she
    was reluctant to follow this law. There are facts, there are standards,
    there are all kinds of procedures set out about how this law is supposed
    to operate. And she ought to be left alone to implement it.
        Q. When you say that it's been not so good that you haven't been
    able to always have contact with her, do you mean there have been times
    you would have reached out to her on some issue or some subject that you
    haven't because you were afraid about how it might be perceived?
        The President. I haven't even entertained it one way or the other. I
    just think that, at least until she finishes her complete review of this
    and makes a decision one way or the other, it's better if all the
    contacts be sort of in official channels unless some huge national
    emergency arises. You know, Mr. Ruff talks to the Justice Department all
    the time. I just want to make sure, particularly with all this
    unwarranted political talk in the air coming from other quarters, I just
    want to make sure that we don't compound it in any way, shape, or form.
    I think that these are legal judgments that have to be made on the basis
    of the facts, on the basis of what the practice is, and of course the
    law, all the things that are in that law. It's very explicitly set out,
    and so I think she should be left alone to do it. That's what I'm trying
    to do.

    White House Communications Agency Videotapes

        Q. There is this one tape, in which a fellow who turned out to be
    a--says, ``James Riady sent me.'' And Republicans are trying to make a
    big deal out of that. What do you say about that? Is there anything
    nefarious there?
        The President. That's the wealthy Asian who was a resident immigrant
    that gave the DNC a lot of money over a long period of time? Well, first
    of all, until the DNC decided to return his contributions, I was unaware
    that he had given and certainly how much he had given. But I don't think
    there is anything to be made

    [[Page 1349]]

    of that. He was an Indonesian. He was a friend of James Riady, who--I
    have known James since the 1970's in Arkansas. So I draw no inference
    from that, and neither should anybody else.
        You know, I've already testified--discussed that, that the Riadys,
    when they came--James came to see me in the meeting that's been
    discussed. He basically said he supported my China policy and urged me
    to stick with it. That was it.
        As I've said repeatedly, a lot of other people, in a way that was
    totally appropriate, in discussing the Middle East with me or the
    expansion of NATO or the problems between Greece and Turkey, you know,
    have been much more explicit and specific in detail than saying,
    ``Here's what I think we ought to do.'' That's part of the way a
    democracy works; people should express their opinions. I took no offense
    at it.
        Q. As you watch these tapes, these moments, the same kind of scene
    again and again, what goes through your mind? All the work that was
    involved? I mean, you seem to----
        The President. I haven't watched, so I don't know. But as I have
    said repeatedly, and I know that some of you have scoffed at me for
    saying it, the coffees in particular I found quite helpful, because they
    brought in all kinds of people from all over America and they just
    talked. Most of the times--I would say the vast majority of the times--
    the issues raised by people at the coffees did not bear directly on
    their personal business activities. And I wish, I have said repeatedly,
    that we had at least a print reporter at all these coffees, so they
    would have been reported, and there wouldn't have been any undue
    suspicion about it. It never occurred to me one way or another, because
    Presidents have meetings all the time without reporters there. But in
    this case--we still meet with groups of people, although not necessarily
    just political supporters. I think those kinds of things are good.
        But in terms of the fundraisers, when I see the films of those, it
    just reminds me of how hard we worked last year. And we knew we were
    going to be outspent, and we just didn't want to be outspent too bad, so
    we did a lot of fundraisers.

    1996 Campaign Finance Inquiry

        Q. Mr. President, Janet Reno, by Wednesday, has to make a decision
    about whether to proceed to the next stage of the investigation of the
    fundraising phone calls. Early reports say she won't go forward because
    there is no direct proof that you made phone calls. How do you feel
    facing that deadline and those reports?
        The President. I do not want to say anything that interferes with
    her decision in any way. I have no comment.
        Q. Are you saying uncategorically that you would speak to her if she
    wanted to interview in connection to that?
        The President. I think, first of all, it's up to them to decide--the
    task force, the Attorney General--whether they have the information from
    me they think they need. If they think they need more, as I have
    repeatedly said, I will do whatever I can to get them whatever
    information they think they need.
        Q. Including speaking to her?
        The President. If she wishes to interview me.

    Brazil-U.S. Relations

        Q. Can I switch the subject? Back to Brazil, where do you think this
    American bashing is coming from? How do you account for it?
        The President. You mean, the recent press lately? Well, I don't
    know. There is some speculation that there were some problems with the
    advance team in Brasilia, something like that. Is that right? I don't
    know about that; I can't comment on it. But this is a rather challenging
    trip for the advance team because we have so many Members of Congress
    and so many Cabinet members. It's sort of a big group to move around.
        I hope that our people haven't done anything inappropriate. I know
    that that's something we worked very, very hard on. When I became
    President, I heard sort of generic criticisms that often the
    Presidential team--everywhere, I don't mean my predecessor, I mean just
    generically--sometimes they were thought to be a little overbearing. So
    we've done a lot of kind of training work on that topic, and we try not
    to do that.
        So I don't know anything about the facts; if we did anything we
    shouldn't have done, I'm sorry. But I can tell you this, the
    relationship that I hope that we have with Brazil is better than it's
    been in a very, very long time, maybe ever--but certainly in a long
    time. And the relationship we need to build with Brazil is critical to
    the future. If you go back to Ron Brown's list of 10 emerging nations,
    go back to anybody's analysis of which countries will really have a huge
    impact on the future, particularly for us in our backyard, Brazil is one
    of them and one

    [[Page 1350]]

    of the leading potential candidates for a much larger role in the world
    in the 21st century. And I view that as a positive thing.
        I think it's an exciting, interesting place with a fabulous
    culture--great music. I was down here listening to my Brazilian music I
    brought along with me.
        Q. You brought some?
        The President. Oh, yes.
        Q. What did you bring?
        The President. I've got a lot of my old Antonio Carlos Jobim
    records. But I also have some newer records back at the house; I left
    some of them back.
        I feel basically quite positive. I think Cardoso has been an
    exceptional leader, defending Brazil's national interests, understanding
    its unique challenges, and trying to form a constructive partnership
    with us while building a MERCOSUR alliance and reaching out to other
    countries on the South American continent. So I feel very upbeat.
        But if there are a few scratches on the record that you hear as we
    go in, keep in mind, you have to see this against the background of the
    historic relationship between the United States and Brazil, which was
    much more tense and conflicted than it is today.

    Relevance of Trip to South America

        Q. Mr. President, for the average person back home, what would you
    hope that he or she would draw from your experiences that you're having
    here in South America--the trip itself, your message?
        The President. Well, I would hope that the average person would
    think, number one, it's a good thing for America that these countries
    believe in democracy and free markets, because that means that it's less
    likely that we'll have the kind of difficulties we had 30 or 40 years--
    actually going back to the beginning of the century in the Americas
    because of political upheavals, military dictatorships, things of that
    kind.
        Number two, I am convinced that there is an increasing determination
    among the South Americans to join us in a common fight against drug
    trafficking and crime, and that's important.
        Number three, I hope they will see, through your reporting and the
    pictures you send back, that there is an enormous amount of economic
    potential down here, and it's a great market for America's goods and
    services, and we ought to be selling more to these people. They have
    been very willing to buy our products. Seventy percent of our increase
    in trade in the last year has come from Canada to the tip of South
    America, and we need to do more. I hope that--and I hope all of you when
    you leave here will think that we made a better case for fast track just
    by being down here, just by seeing the enormous economic potential and
    how the Latin Americans can use things that we have to sell in ways that
    benefit us both.

    Fast-Track Trade Authority

        Q. [Inaudible]--until now?
        The President. Well, I think there are a lot of reasons. But I think
    one problem is, there is a lot of residual over NAFTA. The people who
    were against NAFTA are against this. But in the case of NAFTA, you had
    Mexico on our border with 100 million people and a set of very specific
    terms in the trade agreement, so that there were a lot of winners as
    well as people who thought they were going to lose. So the scales of the
    debate were more evenly balanced. Plus the other consequences--the
    political consequences, the immigration consequences, the drug
    consequences, as well as the economic benefits, were all much more stark
    and immediate with Mexico and NAFTA.
        The fast-track vote is a process vote to give the President the
    power to present other trade agreements to the Congress. Two categories
    of them have generally been very popular with both Democrats and
    Republicans; that is, anything that expands global trade under the WTO,
    which is good for us because we're competitive; and sector-specific
    agreements, like the information technology agreement we negotiated
    which is going to create tens of thousands, maybe even a couple hundred
    thousands good American jobs in the next few years.
        The third category is where the controversy is. It would give
    Ambassador Barshefsky the ability to try to negotiate an agreement with
    other individual countries. Except here, the people who weren't for
    NAFTA or the people who think that it didn't work or the people who were
    worried about something else, they have their worries out there, but we
    don't yet have the specific benefits out there except in a conjecture,
    because I don't have an agreement. NAFTA was a specific agreement. So,
    in a way, the opposition can burn a little whiter heat and show a little
    more intensity. And I think that that's a difficult thing for us.

    [[Page 1351]]

        I also think, in fairness to the Democrats, we have raised the
    issue--all of us, I'm not using the Presidential ``we''--our party put
    the question on the agenda, really, about the role that labor standards
    and environmental standards should have in the trade equation. And we're
    having an in-house debate about what the best way to do that is.
        You know, Senator Moynihan, for example, who's got a very strong
    pro-labor record at home and abroad and a very strong trade record,
    thinks that there shouldn't be trade sanctions applied for specific
    environmental or labor issues, but we ought to be able to go at it in
    other ways. Mr. Gephardt believes we shouldn't have another trade
    agreement unless it contains trade sanctions for labor and environmental
    reasons, or at least that we ought to try to negotiate that.
        What I tried to do is to leave most of our options open there so
    that I could get the best agreement I can. But knowing that, regardless,
    I'm not going to negotiate an agreement that I do not believe is in the
    best interest of the United States. Congress will be able to review it
    and decide whether it helps create jobs and a better future for us. And
    I think that engaging these countries will increase our ability to
    influence them as they try to raise labor standards and deal with
    environmental issues.
        The Venezuelans--we were talking--they understand that they can't
    preserve their democracy in a free market economy unless they try to
    strengthen the social compact. They've got to figure out a way for more
    people to do well, and they've got to figure out an intergenerational
    strategy that not only supports education for children but protects the
    environment.
        So I think that we're going in the right direction, the direction
    that the opponents of fast track want to go in--that is, those that are
    really interested in the labor and environmental issues.
        There are some people who simply think that globalization always
    works to our disadvantage, and I just don't agree with that. And I think
    that it's not a realistic option. The global economy is on a fast track.
    The Europeans are reaching out to the MERCOSUR nations. Even though our
    exports have grown a great deal to Latin America, the European exports
    have grown even more and now outpace ours. And their trade union
    movements in their country, for example, and other people like--they
    seem to understand that, because of what they have to sell and because
    of the trade relationships, they're going to come out, net, ahead.
    That's what I believe is the case in America and why I'm pushing this so
    hard.
        Q. Are you going to win?
        The President. I think so. It's a tough fight, but I think we'll
    win. But it's just a--it's really a debate over principle with me. And I
    believe the United States has to create more high-wage jobs for the
    future so that we can start growing together again. The last couple of
    years, we've finally got some indication that the bottom 40 percent of
    our workers are beginning to raise their incomes equal to and after
    taxes maybe even a little more, in percentage terms, than the upper 20
    percent. But that's after 20 years of complete stagnation.
        And the evidence is not clear yet. We have to change the job mix
    every year. The last 2 years, more than half our new jobs have paid
    above-average wages--dramatic contrast from the eighties and the early
    nineties. The only way for us to keep that trend going and accelerate it
    is for us to trade more in areas where we have a competitive advantage,
    where we make things that are sophisticated, with workers who make good
    incomes; we make more of that. That's the first thing.
        The second thing is, I believe the United States has to send a
    signal to our allies, particularly in this hemisphere and our allies in
    Asia and in Africa, that we know we're in a new world and it's a world
    in which we're interdependent and which we want to lead through
    partnerships.
        So I think the political interest we have in having stable countries
    growing more successful, being firmly democratic, working with us on
    issues like labor and environmental conditions argues overwhelmingly for
    the adoption of fast track and giving the President the authority to go
    do this work. There is a principle at stake here, so I would be fighting
    for it if I thought I had no chance to win, because it relates centrally
    to the way I see the world unfolding and the ties that I've tried to
    create for the United States in the Americas, in Asia, in Africa, as
    well as reaffirming our historic ties to Europe.

    Note: The exchange began at 3:15 p.m. en route from Venezuela to Brazil.
    In his remarks, the President referred to President Fernando

    [[Page 1352]]

    Henrique Cardoso of Brazil; Counsel to the President Charles F.C. Ruff;
    Press Secretary Michael D. McCurry; and businessman James Riady of the
    Lippo Group. A tape was not available for verification of the content of
    this exchange.