    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1998, Book I)]
    [June 19, 1998]
    [Pages 987-989]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Remarks Prior to a Meeting With the Economic Team and an Exchange With
    Reporters
    June 19, 1998

        The President. First of all, let me say good morning, and as you can
    see, I am about to meet with my economic team to discuss the present
    state of the American economy, the developments in the world, and how we
    can keep our economy growing. We're going to talk about the importance
    of promoting stability in Asia and meeting our obligations to the IMF,
    the importance of preserving the surplus until we resolve the issue of
    saving Social Security for the 21st century, the importance of not
    destabilizing our economy with gimmicks like getting rid of the Tax Code
    before we know what will replace it, and the importance of continuing
    our strategy of long-term investments to grow the American economy
    through education and technology.

    Tobacco Legislation

        Let me also make a few brief remarks on another obligation that we
    face, that I am still determined to see through, and that is our
    obligation to the public health of our children and to protect them from
    the dangers of tobacco. We have a chance, as all the surveys show, to
    save about a million lives a year if we do the right thing on reducing
    childhood smoking. For 6 months we have worked hard and in good faith to
    meet all legitimate objections to the legislation and to join together
    the priorities of both parties.
        Let me just be clear about this: Every Senator who voted to kill
    this bill not only voted against the provisions which will help to
    prevent teen smoking, which will help to put more research into cancer
    research, into other public health problems, and help to promote smoking
    cessation programs; they also voted against fixing the marriage penalty
    and giving a tax break for working families with incomes under $50,000;
    they voted against new measures to crack down on drugs; they voted
    against life-saving research; they also voted not to implement a program
    that can save a million lives a year. It was a vote against our children
    and for the tobacco lobby. It's as simple as that; it is not
    complicated.
        Now, some have suggested that Congress should now just get in line
    and do what the tobacco lobby wants them to do. That's the new
    suggestion: Well, let's just do what the tobacco companies will let us
    do, and appear to be passing a bill that will reduce teen smoking, that
    everybody knows will not have very much influence, if any, on the
    problem.
        I'm going to stick with the public health servants of this country.
    I'm going to stick with the people who know what it takes to do the job.
    And most importantly, we're going to stick with the children and their
    future. And I hope, therefore, that we can still stay in here and keep
    working, get a bill that will increase the price of cigarettes enough to
    deter smoking, that will have strong advertising restrictions, that will
    have strong access restrictions, that will invest in public health and
    do something honorable for the tobacco farmers.
        Now, the Republican majority may want the tobacco companies to run
    the Congress on this issue. I don't. I think we ought to do this for the
    people. I think we ought to vote like parents, not politicians, and I
    still hope we can do that.
        Q. Mr. President, did both Democrats and Republicans get a little
    too greedy, put too much on this bill? That's certainly been suggested.
        The President. Well, let me just remind you that this bill passed
    the committee 19 to 1. This was almost unanimously voted out of a
    committee that had a Republican majority. You have people voting against
    this bill who voted

    [[Page 988]]

    for it in committee, after improvements have been made to it.
        And some of the Republicans said, ``Well, there is too much spending
    on health care and other things in this bill.'' So we said, ``Okay,
    we'll take the bill to relieve the marriage penalty on couples of under
    $50,000.'' Others said, ``There ought to be something for drugs in here
    along with tobacco.'' So we said, ``Okay, we'll agree to put some money
    in here to fight drugs.'' Others said, ``Well, we ought to have some
    limits on lawyers' fees.'' So we said, ``Okay, we'll have some limits on
    lawyers' fees.''
        Every major amendment--every major amendment--was sponsored by a
    member of the Republican majority. So they voted the bill out 19 to 1.
    They got their major amendments. They all got on record voting for these
    amendments. And then they turn around and kill the bill, which leads us
    to believe that they intended to kill the bill all along; they just
    wanted enough good votes to try to convince the voters back home that
    they really didn't want to kill the bill, they just had to.
        Now, again, the American Cancer Society, the American Heart
    Association, the Lung Association, these people don't have $40 million,
    along with the medical associations. They didn't have the $40 million to
    run ads to mislead the American people about this. But they will be
    around when the ads stop running, and I think the American people can
    figure it out.
        So I still hope that something in the way of conscience and good
    sense and good judgment will strike the Congress and we'll do this.
        Q. You're against a slimmed-down bill?
        The President. Absolutely. I'm against anything that provides no
    life saving to kids and is designed to save the political life of the
    people who vote for it, to provide them cover, but won't save the lives
    of the children. I don't see why we should participate in a charade.
        Now, I have not been adamant about this. Look, I just told you, we
    accepted a lot of amendments to this legislation, and every single one
    of them was a Republican amendment. We have been totally reasonable
    about this. But the parameters should be the principles I outlined from
    the beginning that everyone involved who is a public health expert knows
    is necessary if we want to be serious about the problem.
        Now, if we don't want to be serious about the problem, I don't think
    we ought to be looking for cover. The politicians who don't want to do
    it ought to look the American people in the eye and say, ``Look, the
    tobacco companies have got a lot of power around here. They've helped us
    a lot, and we can't cross them.'' Or they ought to say, ``I just don't
    believe in this.'' They ought to just stand up and say, ``I simply don't
    believe in this.''
        But I am not going to participate in a charade which provides people
    with some cover to pretend that they did something they didn't. That
    would be wrong.

    Japanese Economy

        Q. With regard to Japan, Mr. President, did Prime Minister Hashimoto
    give you any schedule for carrying out the reforms he pledged? And do
    you think it's important that they act before parliamentary elections in
    3 weeks?
        The President. I'm not in a position to know whether they can do
    that. What he said to me--and perhaps I
    should start with what I said to him. I said to him that the United
    States wanted to support the Japanese economic recovery and that we had
    a big stake in it, that our economy depended upon it, and that in a
    larger sense the whole Asia-Pacific region depended upon a Japanese
    economic recovery; but that no short-term efforts would work unless
    there was a serious, long-term, very comprehensive commitment to
    economic reform--nothing that Secretary Rubin and Mr. Summers haven't
    said repeatedly in other forums.
        He said to me that they were prepared
    to issue a statement which would be clear and specific about what they
    intended to do in a timely fashion. He did not say whether it would be
    before or just after the parliamentary elections, but he said he would
    not delay about it.

    Relations With China

        Q. Mr. President, do you think that those who oppose trade with
    China have isolationist blinders on, as the Press Secretary said?
    [Laughter]
        The President. I'm glad you put the last phrase in there so I--
    [laughter]--I never want to disagree with Mr. McCurry.
        Well, I believe that, first of all, I think trade with China is
    important to promote stability in China and throughout the Asia-Pacific
    region. Secondly, I think it's the biggest country in the world, a big
    market, and they're growing, and the American people ought to be able to
    get the benefit of selling to the Chinese.

    [[Page 989]]

        None of that should prevent us from disagreeing with them. Keep in
    mind, we're not asking for anything special for China here. All we're
    saying is, if you look at all the other countries in the world that we
    trade with, with whom we have serious disagreements, there is no
    principled, grounded distinction between China and some of the other
    countries that we have normal trading relationships with for saying
    we're not going to have them with China.
        And I think that we had worked very hard and had made a lot of
    progress over the last few years in having a principled debate about
    Chinese policy that was unencumbered by the politics of the moment, and
    I'm afraid that has slipped up a little bit in the last few weeks. But I
    hope we can get back to it.
        You know, there are a lot of people who disagree with me on this.
    But you just can't draw a distinction between China and a lot of other
    countries we have serious disagreements with but we don't have abnormal
    trade relations with. The idea that America should just stop talking to
    and stop dealing with any country in the world that does anything we
    disagree with and that that will make them more likely to do what we
    agree with, I think there is very little evidence to support that, and
    there's a whole lot of evidence against it. We tend to get more done
    when we work with people, when we disagree with them openly, when we
    push them, and when they have something to gain by working with us. Most
    people don't respond very well to threats and to isolation.
        And once in a while it works when you've got--in certain specific
    cases--I mean, the trade sanctions worked in South Africa after many
    years because everybody supported them. And they helped us in Bosnia
    because everybody supported them. And they helped us in Iraq because it
    had the U.N. behind it. But here's a case where I think we've got far
    more to gain with a constructive engagement with China. It's a very
    great country with enormous potential, that has cooperated with us in
    many areas to make the world a safer place in the last few years. And we
    have now found a forum and a way in which we can honorably express our
    disagreements and believe we can make some progress on. This is the last
    time to be making a U-turn and going back to a policy we know won't work
    when we've got a policy that is working. We need patience and discipline
    and determination to stay with what we're doing.

    General Motors Strike

        Q. Mr. President, are you worried about the economic effects of the
    GM strike? And what is your administration strategy for possible
    intervention or at least a resolution?
        The President. Well, I've been briefed on it, obviously, on a
    regular basis by Secretary Herman. And I'm
    sure you know that under the governing laws of the United States, the
    role of the Federal Government in a strike like this is limited. But I
    would like to encourage the parties to work it out. Our economy is doing
    well; our auto industry is doing well. They have some, apparently, very
    legitimate and substantial differences, but we've got a collective
    bargaining system which I support. And I think they can work it out, and
    I hope they'll do it in a timely fashion.

    Note: The President spoke at approximately 10:40 a.m. in the Cabinet
    Room at the White House. In his remarks, he referred to Prime Minister
    Ryutaro Hashimoto of Japan. A tape was not available for verification of
    the content of these remarks.