    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1997, Book II)]
    [November 5, 1997]
    [Pages 1499-1503]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Remarks on Fast-Track Trade Legislation and an Exchange With Reporters
    November 5, 1997

        The President. Thank you very much. Mr. Vice President, Senator,
    Members of the Congress, thank you so much for being here. And to the
    members of the administration, thank you for your efforts on fast track.
        The choice Congress confronts this week will profoundly affect our
    growth, prosperity, and leadership well into the new century, for
    Congress must decide whether to extend the President's fast-track
    authority to negotiate agreements that tear down unfair trade barriers
    to our exports and create high-wage jobs in our economy.
        Yesterday a bipartisan majority in the Senate voted overwhelmingly
    to move forward on extending fast-track authority. On Friday, the House
    of Representatives will vote on fast track, and I strongly encourage the
    House to take the same bold stand for America's future. A Member of
    Congress who votes for fast track is doing the right thing for America.
        If we turn our backs now on trade and fail to seize the
    opportunities of the global economy, our competitors will eagerly take
    our place. That is an ``America last'' strategy. It's unacceptable; it
    won't work.
        The rejection of fast track won't create any new jobs or raise any
    American incomes. It won't advance environmental or labor standards
    abroad. It would reduce our ability to do both. And I think that is very
    important. By freezing the status quo, we would simply be saying that we
    are going to freeze ourselves out of getting a fair deal in other
    markets; we are going to sit by while other countries get a better deal
    in other markets; and at the same time, we are going to reduce our
    influence on the labor and environmental standards in other countries
    and undermine our ability to continue to grow the American economy and
    create good, new jobs here.
        Still, there are things that we have to do to try to continue to
    push the elevation of labor and environmental standards around the world
    as we press for open markets, and I believe we owe it to ourselves and
    our future to leave no one behind who is willing to work and learn

    [[Page 1500]]

    in order to compete and win in the global economy.
        Our social compact ever since I came here has always been
    opportunity for everyone who is responsible and a community in which all
    Americans have a chance. That's why we've worked hard with Congress to
    create a package of initiatives which I will include in my next budget
    to equip all people to reap the rewards of change. We know that the
    technological and trade changes going on today favor people with higher
    skills. We know that they are accelerating the pace of change in our
    economy and indeed in every economy throughout the world. It is,
    therefore, imperative that we do more to make sure all our people have a
    chance to benefit from these changes.
        First, we must greatly expand our efforts to help workers who lose
    their jobs because of technology or trade or other economic changes. At
    the suggestion of Congressman Bentsen, I'm going to establish a
    commission on workers and economic change in the new economy. Right now,
    we're going to commit to provide $750 million in additional funding to
    retrain dislocated workers. We want to create a special fund to
    guarantee that there will always be adequate resources to help workers
    hurt by trade. We want to target funds to help so-called secondary
    workers; that is, not only workers from a textile factory, for example,
    that might close but those in a nearby button factory who supply the
    textile factory.
        This is very important. Changes in the economy do bring job
    dislocation. Most of them come because of technology. Some of them come
    because of trade. Our efforts here, combined with what we have already
    done, will mean that while we were cutting spending and balancing the
    budget during my term of office, we tripled funding for dislocated
    workers continuing training, to move people back into the economy with
    the skills they need.
        Second, we have to step up our efforts to help communities adjust to
    this new economy. We should provide more rapid, more comprehensive, more
    coordinated assistance from all the Federal agencies in a way that is
    modeled on what we now do in our military base closure efforts, when
    we're trying to convert the bases to other uses. We should double the
    funds to help areas that have experienced major plant closings, and we
    should expand the development bank serving trade-affected areas.
        Third, we must develop the untapped potential of our inner cities
    and rural areas, for too many of these places have not been touched by
    growth or dislocation. They need more investment. Our budget agreement
    doubles the number of empowerment zones, with tax incentives to invest
    in these rural and urban areas. But we must do more. We should increase
    loans for people who live in distressed rural and urban communities. We
    should make $100 million in flexible grants available every year in the
    new empowerment zones to attract new jobs and new small businesses, and
    we should provide for more skills training for young people in high
    poverty areas.
        By giving a helping hand to workers at home and a strengthened hand
    to our negotiators as they open markets abroad, we can bring more
    Americans into the winner's circle of the new economy. We can grow the
    economy and let more people participate in that growth. There's no
    reason why our Nation cannot see to it that every American has the tools
    and conditions to succeed in this new economy. Our prosperity enables
    it; our understanding of the social contract demands it.
        Now, the House faces a crucial vote on Friday. For me, the options
    are clear: We can rise to the challenges of the future, write the trade
    rules, continue our remarkable growth; or we can turn our back on the
    world and fail to compete for new markets, new contracts, and new jobs.
    I believe that the evidence is clear. We have produced over 13 million
    new jobs in less than 5 years because we have expanded the ability of
    Americans to sell their products and services around the world. It would
    be a great mistake not to continue that.
        We cannot afford to return to a mindset that pretends that we can
    protect what we have now and never grow in the future. We must seize the
    opportunities of the future and take care of the people who have
    difficulties with change. We must do both, but--we must do both.
        Thank you very much.

    Republican Electoral Victories

        Q. Mr. President, you asked voters yesterday to send a message to
    Washington in the elections. What do you thing the message was on the
    Republican victories?
        The President. Well, they won in places that they had before, and we
    won the places we had before--in the urban areas where we had

    [[Page 1501]]

    elections. And I think the lesson of this year is that when the economy
    is up and crime is down, people believe the country and their States and
    their communities are moving in the right directions, and they tend to
    stay with incumbent candidates and parties.
        I will say this--I was surprised and terribly impressed by the
    remarkable campaign of Mr. McGreevey in New Jersey. And I was profoundly
    grateful for a vote which may well have some national significance in
    Houston, when the people of Houston voted to retain their affirmative
    action program in city contracting. I say that because that's a second
    version of the debate that was held in California, and I expect that
    debate will be held in other communities throughout the country. So that
    may or may not have national significance, but it might.
        But the others, I think--economy is up, crime is down; people think
    the country and the States and the communities are going in the right
    direction, and the incumbents all benefited.

    Possible Impeachment Proceedings

        Q. Could we ask your reaction to the announcement by Congressman Bob
    Barr this morning that he will ask for a resolution for a preliminary
    inquiry by the House Judiciary Committee into possible impeachment
    proceedings against you for, among other things, possible abuse of
    Presidential power. What would your reaction to such a move be?
        The President. Well, Congressman Barr, as I remember, was the man
    who carried the NRA's water to try to beat the Brady bill and the
    assault weapons ban. He's always had a rather extreme view of these
    things. I don't really have any comment on that.
        Q. Mr. President, going back to fast track----

    Iraq

        Q. Mr. President, on Iraq, sir, what do you think the signals should
    be--what signals should Saddam Hussein take--I'm sorry--from the U.N.
    decision to postpone these U-2 flights over his territory?
        The President. Well, as I said yesterday, that was a decision for
    Mr. Butler to make. But if I were in his position, I wouldn't draw too
    much of a conclusion from it. They want the United Nations group to be
    able to talk to Saddam Hussein and to be able to speak directly and
    frankly. But Mr. Butler has, in his tenure, has done a good job of doing
    the inspections, and he made it clear that the U-2 flights would be
    resumed. I personally felt that it was important.
        So I think that you've got to say that Mr. Butler's got a good
    record of doing these inspections, that he's aggressively determined to
    stop the development of a weapons of mass destruction program, and he
    did say the flights would be resumed. So if I were Saddam Hussein I
    wouldn't draw too much inference from it except to say they'd like to
    have a talk in the most open circumstances possible.

    National Standardized Testing

        Q. Mr. President, Congressman Goodling says you have an agreement on
    national testing. What is it, and is it going to turn into a signable
    bill?
        The President. Well, I met with Congressman Goodling this morning,
    and I do want to thank him, because we have been working for weeks and
    weeks and weeks to try to work out his concerns and mine. He did not--he
    told me months ago, when we started talking about it, he did not want to
    see an inordinate duplication of the efforts already undertaken at the
    State level and by some large school districts where they're already
    doing some kind of standardized test.
        I said my concern was not to have--was to have some sort of clearly
    accepted standard of excellence that all our children would be expected
    to meet in reading and math. And we believe, based on our conversation
    today, that we at least have an agreement in principle about how our
    students can master the basics and achieve higher academic standards and
    be measured for doing that, to hold children's educational performance
    to a uniform standard without undermining the efforts that are now going
    on in States, if they actually do measure whether the children know what
    they need to know.
        So the agreement was reached in principle, but there's some
    complexity in terms of just turning it into language, in terms of how
    this test would be evaluated compared with one another and what we
    propose to do in terms of research over the next couple of years. But
    the bottom line for the American people is I think we have opened the
    door to giving people in every State, every school district, and every
    school the assurance that their children's performance in reading and
    math can actually be

    [[Page 1502]]

    measured and be made meaningful in terms of what every child in America
    should know, so they will know how they're doing.
        And if that--if it can be done, I will be a very happy person,
    indeed. And I'm hopeful that we have done that. I say that just to give
    Mr. Goodling a little protection, and the President as well, just
    because we've reached an agreement in principle; we've got to turn it
    into the language. I'm very hopeful. This will be a huge thing, long-
    term, for American education if we have, in fact, worked this out.
        Q. Mr. President----

    Iraq

        Q. On Iraq, we get the impression that if you had your druthers,
    you'd rather have not had a break in these U-2 flights, that you
    understand why it's happened, but you don't think it's necessarily a
    great idea.
        The President. I don't think it's fruitful for me to second-guess
    Mr. Butler now. One of the things that I have seen in his--he hasn't
    been there very long, but since he's been there he's been quite
    aggressive. And keep in mind what our goal is here. Our goal is to use
    these inspections to try to ensure that a weapons of mass destruction
    program is not developed. And since there is absolutely no reason to
    believe that Mr. Butler has been anything other than extremely faithful
    to his task, I think we should let these talks unfold.
        I would have been disturbed if the flight had been suspended and
    there hadn't been a clear statement that they would be resumed shortly.
    But since he made a clear statement that they would be resumed shortly,
    I think we have to give him the benefit of the doubt on this, and let's
    see if we can work through it.
        Q. Do you compare notes with President Bush about your joint
    nemesis, your shared nemesis, Saddam?
        The President. It's interesting, when this whole issue first broke
    was when I was on my way over to the--it was the night before I went
    over to the Washington Children's Hospital to be with General
    Schwarzkopf at the STARBRIGHT Foundation announcement, so we had some
    interesting conversations about it. And I've seen former Secretary Baker
    since then, and we're all commiserating, and obviously I asked these
    people for their advice about it.
        But we just--look, this is a frustrating policy, the one we're
    following, because it requires long-term patience and discipline. It's
    frustrating for him; it's frustrating for us; it's frustrating for
    everybody else. But you know, there is a reason these United Nations
    resolutions were passed. There's a reason this inspection regime was set
    up. We think it's a bad idea for any more dictators who have shown
    aggression toward their neighbors to develop the capacity to have
    nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. We think it's a bad idea. And
    we know of no way to do that--to avoid that in peaceful terms than to
    have some sort of inspection regime.
        And as I said yesterday, the UNSCOM inspection regime has actually
    led to the destruction of more dangerous weapons than the Desert Storm
    did, because it's been done with great discipline over a period of
    years. So I would ask the American people and our allies around the
    world not to get too frustrated, to be patient, but to be firm, and
    let's try to hold on to this inspection regime, because that is the most
    peaceful way of dealing with this and permitting everyone to go on with
    their lives.
        Q. Are there days when you wish President Bush had gone----

    Fast-Track Trade Legislation

        Q. One last question on fast track. Mr. President--thank you--there
    is a certain pocket of people who are affected through fast track, we
    understand--blue-collar, low-income persons--where education failed them
    from the beginning, and they went into a trade. What do you say to those
    people who are losing and plan to lose their job or expect to lose their
    job because of this?
        The President. I would say that we will continue to have some
    economic disruption in this country if we don't adopt fast track. If we
    don't adopt fast track--our market is still the most open market in the
    world, the most competitive market in the world, and we have the most
    technological change, and we know that most job changes are caused by
    technology, not by trade--the vast majority--so if we don't adopt fast
    track and we just sit where we are, a lot of those people will still
    confront the same challenges.
        My argument is, adopt fast track, give me the power to create more
    jobs by opening markets, but also do more for those folks. Our programs
    were organized for a time when the economy didn't change as quickly as
    it does now. So Secretary Herman, for example, has worked

    [[Page 1503]]

    very hard to radically accelerate our response time and to get all these
    programs working together the way we worked when a military base was
    closed. That's what we're trying to do.
        So my answer would be, we should invest more money to give you more
    training more quickly and to give you more support while you're going
    through it. We should put more money into those communities where no
    economic benefit or burden has been felt because there has been no new
    investment one way or the other. But that's not a reason not to continue
    to expand trade. What we should do is both.
        The way to preserve the social compact in America is to create more
    opportunity and then take more responsibility for preserving families
    and communities. Our policy is the right one. But we will not create or
    save jobs in the short run or the long run by refusing to open markets
    to our products. We will not raise labor and environmental standards
    abroad; we will lose our ability to do that. We will lose our leverage
    if we decline to open new markets for American products. This increases
    our political influence on labor and environmental and other issues,
    even as it opens up our economics.
        But the main thing is, I just ask the American people to give me the
    benefit of the doubt on this. We have worked for 5 years. We have
    created over 13 million jobs. We have reduced the deficit by over 90
    percent before the balanced budget checks in. In the last 2 years, more
    than half our new jobs have come in high-wage categories and a third of
    the growth has come because of trade. This is our only strategy. We're
    only 4 percent of the world's economy; we're trying to hold on to 20
    percent of its income. We've got to sell more to other people. There is
    not an option. And refusing to do it won't save jobs, won't keep incomes
    up, and won't help us help other people around the world.
        Thank you.
        Q. Do you worry about the impact on the stock markets if fast track
    fails--global markets?
        The President. Well, let me say if it passes, I think it will have a
    very positive impact on the stock market here and around the world.

    Note: The President spoke at noon in the Oval Office at the White House.
    In his remarks, he referred to Senator Dirk Kempthorne of Idaho; Richard
    Butler, Executive Chairman, United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM)
    charged with dismantling Iraq's weapons of mass destruction; Gen. H.
    Norman Schwarzkopf, USA (Ret.), capital campaign chairman, STARBRIGHT
    Foundation; and former Secretary of State James A. Baker III.