    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: WILLIAM J. CLINTON (1999, Book II)]
    [October 8, 1999]
    [Pages 1728-1734]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    [[Page 1728]]

    The President's News Conference With Prime Minister Jean Chretien of Canada in Ottawa
    October 8, 1999

        Prime Minister Chretien. Mesdames et messieurs, ladies and
    gentlemen, it's a great pleasure for me to receive the President of the
    United States in Canada for this occasion of opening the new Embassy and
    for the President to come and make a speech in Mont-Tremblant on
    federalism.
        As you know, the relations between Canada and the U.S. are
    excellent, and the President is here for his fifth visit to Canada since
    he started in office. And when I asked him to come to the conference at
    Mont-Tremblant, I had to call upon our longstanding friendship. And
    everyone is very pleased that you, the leader of the greatest democracy
    and the greatest federation, should come to give your point of view.
        [Inaudible]--the President of the United States to come and make
    this statement, the speech in Mont-Tremblant, because he has been--he is
    in a very privileged position. He has been the Governor of a State, of
    Arkansas, and he has been the president of the conference of the
    Governors, and he has been, on the other side, the President of the
    United States. So he knows the functioning of a Federal system inside
    out. And I'm sure that the people coming from around the world will
    benefit very strongly from his experience. And I want to say thank you
    very much. And I take it as a great sign of friendship for Canada and
    for myself that you have accepted to be with us today.
        If you want to say a few words.
        President Clinton. Thank you. First of all, Prime Minister, thank
    you for welcoming me back for my fifth trip to Canada since I've been
    President.
        I would like to be very brief, and then we'll open it to questions.
    I'm here today to dedicate our Embassy, to speak at the Prime Minister's
    federalism conference, and to have the chance to meet with Prime
    Minister Chretien. I want to just mention two or three issues.
        First of all, I'm profoundly grateful for the leadership shown by
    Canada in our common efforts to promote world peace, the work we've done
    together in Haiti, the work we did together in Bosnia, the work we did
    together in Kosovo with NATO, and the efforts that we're all making in
    East Timor, which is still a difficult situation, where we've got to get
    all the refugees home and safe and where we strongly support Secretary-
    General Annan's efforts to establish a United
    Nations program there.
        One of the things that we have worked on together is our efforts in
    nonproliferation. And Canada and the United States agree with all of our
    NATO Allies that the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is the right thing to
    do, it's in the interest of the United States.
        There has been far more controversy about it in our country than in
    other countries, including other nuclear powers who are our allies. And
    I was--we've been trying to have a debate on this for 2 years, but it is
    clear now that the level of opposition to the treaty and the time it
    would take to craft the necessary safeguards to get the necessary votes
    are simply not there. So I hope that the Senate will reach an agreement
    to delay the vote and to establish an orderly process, a nonpolitical
    orderly process, to systematically deal with all the issues that are out
    there and to take whatever time is necessary to do it.
        With this treaty other nations will find it harder to acquire or to
    modernize nuclear weapons, and we will gain the means to detect and
    deter. If we don't have the treaty, the United States will continue to
    refrain from testing, and we'll give a green light to every other
    country in the world to test, to develop, to modernize nuclear weapons.
        I think it's clear what we ought to do, but it's also clear that we
    ought not to rush this vote until there has been an appropriate process
    in the Senate.
        So those are the major foreign policy issues I wanted to mention.
    The other thing I wanted to say is, I think Canada and the United States
    will be working very closely to try to reinvigorate the movement to
    expanded trade around the world. If we're going to really see the rest
    of the world's economy pick up and enjoy the kind of prosperity we have
    enjoyed in the last few years, we've got to make the most of this WTO

    [[Page 1729]]

    ministerial. We've got to make the most of Canada's hosting the Free
    Trade Area of the Americas ministerial. And I think that's important.
        Now, as to our bilateral relations, I wanted to mention one thing
    that we talked about in our meeting. We have agreed to have a more
    intensive dialog on border issues, through a new forum we creatively
    called the Canada-United States Partnership or CUSP. This will enable us
    to have local businesses, local communities, talk about managing border
    issues, and figure out how we can resolve some of the hassles people
    have with the vast volume of goods that go back and forth across the
    border and the vast number of people. So, I thank you.
        And you've already said why you invited me to the federalism
    conference. And I can tell you, I was a Governor for 12 years, and no
    matter how hard you try, you will never solve all the problems of
    federalism. So the best thing you can do is to paraphrase Winston
    Churchill and say it is the worst form of government, except for all the
    others.
        Thank you very much.
        Prime Minister Chretien. Thank you, sir. Now, we'll take questions.
        Sir?

    Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty

        Q. Mr. President, the Senate majority leader has stated that he
    would consider taking the test ban treaty off the table, withdrawing it
    from consideration under the caveat that it would not be reintroduced in
    the 106th Congress. Would you, sir, in order to preserve this treaty, be
    willing to give up ownership of it to the next Congress and the next
    administration?
        President Clinton. First of all, I don't own it. And insofar as I
    do, we always will, since we negotiated it and the United States was the
    first to sign it. But it isn't mine. It belongs to the world. And I
    think the whole nature of your question shows what's wrong with the way
    the Senate has treated this.
        They've treated this like a political document. They've treated this
    whole issue like a political issue. They went out and got people
    committed to vote against the treaty before they knew the first thing
    about it. And what I have said is I don't understand what he's worried
    about. This thing could never have come up in the first place if he
    hadn't agreed to it. And I wouldn't bring it up unless I thought we
    could ratify it, because I won't treat it politically.
        So this whole thing is about politics. It's about: Burn us in 1999
    because we're against the treaty that 80 percent of the American people
    support, but please don't burn us again in 2000. It's political. This
    treaty is not going to come up until we think we can pass it, and it
    won't come up until they treat it seriously.
        Every serious American treaty, for example, has the legislative
    language attached as safeguards, just like we did in the chemical
    weapons treaty, so that everyone understands exactly what it means. In
    this treaty they actually went out of their way to try to keep
    safeguards from being attached to it so that they could have the maximum
    number of votes against it.
        So I will give you a nonpolitical answer. I will say again, they
    should put if off, and then they should agree to a legitimate process
    where Republican and Democratic Senators think about the national
    interest. They have total control over when it comes up, not me. If it
    had been up to me we'd have started on this 2 years ago. We'd have had 6
    months of hearings, 2 weeks of debate, lots of negotiations, and this
    whole thing would have been out of the way a year and a half ago.
        It was not out of the way because that's the decision they made not
    to bring it up. They control when it comes up. So you're asking the
    wrong person whether it would come up next year. You should turn around
    and ask Senator Lott whether it would come up
    next year.
        What I want to do--I don't care when it comes up, except when it
    comes up, I want it to come up as soon as we can, pass it, with a
    legitimate process. As messy as this has been, this has illustrated to
    the American people, beyond any question, that this whole deal has been
    about politics so far.
        Now, there are some people who are honestly against this treaty. But
    we haven't been able to hear from them for 2 years, and we haven't been
    able to answer them, and we haven't been able to work on it. So I think
    it's been a very healthy thing to bring it up. But now we ought to do
    what's right for America: take it out of politics. This is not going to
    be a huge issue next year in the election, one way or the other. We
    should deal with this on the merits. They should agree to a process, and
    they control when it comes up.
        Prime Minister Chretien. And I would like to add that we all have an
    interest in that. And all your allies to Americans will want this

    [[Page 1730]]

    process to be terminated as quickly as possible, because there's a lot
    of other nations that have to live with the consequences of what the
    American Congress will do. And peace in the world is extremely important
    for our neighbors, too.

    Canadian Defense Industries Licenses

        Q. Prime Minister, did you discuss the concerns that Canada's
    defense industries have had with having to get licenses? And did you get
    any answer from the President?
        Prime Minister Chretien. Yes, we discussed and we have found an
    agreement. And the agreement will be in details made public by Madam
    Albright and Mr. Axworthy.
        Q. Was it important to get an agreement? Why?
        Prime Minister Chretien. But, yes. It's always important when you
    have a problem to find a solution. And we found a solution. That's all.
    [Laughter]
        Next. Next.

    U.S. Documents on Augusto Pinochet

        Q. Mr. President, today a London magistrate ruled that former
    Chilean dictator Pinochet be extradited for trial in Spain. The CIA has
    been accused of withholding documents that are said to show that the
    United States encouraged the coup which installed Pinochet in power and
    that the CIA maintained close ties to Pinochet's repressive security
    forces. Will you order that the release of those documents be sped up?
        President Clinton. Well, I believe we've released some documents and
    my understanding--before I came out here, I was told that we're about to
    release some more. So I think we ought to just keep releasing documents
    until we--I think you're entitled to know what happened back then and
    how it happened.
        And obviously, the Governments of Spain and the United Kingdom are
    following their own legal systems. I would point out, in defense of the
    people of Chile, is that they actually succeeded in moving away from the
    Pinochet dictatorship and solving the problem they had in a way that
    allowed them to make a transition to parliamentary democracy. And I
    think even the people that spent their whole lives opposed to Pinochet,
    they have some--they're trying to figure out, now, what the impact on
    their democracy will be of all these actions.
        But the United States has supported the legal process, and we
    continue to do so. And we support releasing the documents in an
    appropriate fashion. And we support the democracy which now exists in
    Chile.
        Paul?
        Prime Minister Chretien. Okay, en Francais.
        President Clinton. I've got to take a couple of the Americans; go
    ahead. France, yes, go ahead.
        Q. Monsieur Clinton----
        Prime Minister Chretien. Oh, the question is for Clinton. [Laughter]

    Premier Lucien Bouchard of Quebec

        Q. Mr. Clinton, I want to know if your meeting with Mr. Bouchard
    today is an indication of any change in U.S. policy towards Quebec
    sovereignty? And secondly, if Mr. Chretien asked you anything about that
    meeting today?
        President Clinton. No, and, no. That's the short answer.
        Prime Minister Chretien. Thank you. Next. [Laughter]
        President Clinton. The short answer, no and no. I did meet with him
    when he was in opposition about 4 years ago. He is the Premier of the
    Province. We're going there. He's the host. It's a courtesy, and I think
    I should do it. But there has been no change in our policy, whatsoever.
        Prime Minister Chretien. American.

    Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty

        Q. First of all, Mr. President, are you going to meet Senator Helms'
    demand that you actually submit what you announced here today in
    writing? How badly has this hurt the United States?
        President Clinton. I'm sorry, what?
        Q. Senator Helms' demand that you submit it in writing to him.
        President Clinton. Submit what?
        Q. The CTBT--I'm sorry--the CTBT, the withdrawal of it in writing.
    He's asked for that. How badly has that hurt U.S. leadership role in
    arms control? And what's the message from India where the world's
    largest democracy just overwhelmingly reelected the Government that you
    criticized heavily for conducting nuclear tests?
        President Clinton. Well, I think, first of all, if you look at
    India, you have to see the people voted for that Government for all
    kinds of reasons. And what I believe is--look, France conducted a
    nuclear test before they signed the

    [[Page 1731]]

    treaty. What I believe is that the United States does not sign the
    treaty and show a little leadership here, why should the Pakistanis and
    the Indians do it?
        Ever since the end of World War II and beginning with the election
    of Dwight Eisenhower, we have had a bipartisan commitment to leading the
    world away from proliferation. It has never been called into question
    until the present day. Never.
        Now, we had to work for a very long time to get the Chemical Weapons
    Convention passed, which is very important. But Senator Helms and the others followed a legitimate process. I never
    had a doubt that the objections that they raised and the safeguards they
    wanted were absolutely heartfelt and serious. This treaty was never
    treated seriously. They took 2 years, had no time for hearings, said,
    ``I'll give you 8 days,'' and later we discovered, after they said that,
    that that was offered only after they had 43 commitments on a party-line
    vote to vote against the treaty from people who hadn't heard a hearing
    and hadn't even thought about it, most of them.
        So they want me to give them a letter to cover the political
    decision they have made that does severe damage to the interest of the
    United States and the interest of nonproliferation in the world? I don't
    think so. That's not what this is about. They have to take
    responsibility for whether they want to reverse 50 years of American
    leadership in nonproliferation that the Republicans have been just as
    involved in as the Democrats, to their everlasting credit.
        Now, they have to make that decision. I cannot bring this treaty up
    again unless they want to. I have asked them to put it off because we
    don't have the votes. I have talked to enough Republicans to know that
    some of them have honest, genuine reservations about this treaty, and
    they ought to have the opportunity to have them resolved, instead of
    being told that they owe it to their party to vote against the treaty
    and that the leadership of their party will do everything they can to
    keep us from writing safeguards into the treaty which answer their
    reservations, which is what we do on every other thing.
        So I don't want to get into making this political. But they
    shouldn't tie the Senate up or themselves up in knots thinking that some
    letter from me will somehow obscure from the American people next year
    the reality that they have run the risk of putting America on the wrong
    side of the proliferation issue for the first time in 50 years. And they
    want to do it, and then they don't want to get up and defend it before
    the American people in an election year. That's what this whole thing is
    about. That is the wrong thing to do.
        We don't have the votes. I'm not going to try to bring it up without
    the votes. Let them take it down but also agree on a legitimate process
    to take this out of politics. I will not criticize them as long as they
    are genuinely working through the issues, the way we did in the chemical
    weapons treaty.
        They're entitled to advise and consent. They're entitled to take all
    the time they want. But nobody hit a lick at this for 2 years. And then
    they tried to get it up and down on grounds that were other than
    substantive, and that's wrong. And it's bad for America. It has nothing
    to do with me and my administration. I wouldn't care who got the thing
    ratified, as long as we did it in the right way.

    Canada in the New Millennium

        Q. On your throne speech next week, do you see it as charting some
    kind of grand new course for the millennium? Or is it just more of the
    same? [Laughter]
        Prime Minister Chretien. Yes, it will be if Canada is considered as
    the best country in the world. [Laughter]
        President Clinton. Are you sure he's not one of ours? [Laughter]
        Prime Minister Chretien. You know, they're complaining because I
    keep telling them that Canada's been considered, Mr. President, as the
    best country in the world to live in. I'm sorry to tell you to that.
    [Laughter] And I want to carry on in the 21st century with the same
    thing, and they say I have no vision. Imagine if I had a vision.
    [Laughter] So you will see.
        Q. Mr. Chretien? Mr. Chretien?
        President Clinton. Go ahead. [Laughter] I'm sorry. That was great.

    Oil Prices

        Q. You've been asked to sell oil from the U.S. Strategic Petroleum
    Reserve to fight rising heating oil prices as the winter comes. Do you
    think this is a good idea, and do you agree with Senator Schumer that
    OPEC has been engaged in price gouging, to raise the prices?

    [[Page 1732]]

        President Clinton. I think we should look at the reserve and the
    question of whether, if we released some oil from it for sales, we could
    moderate the price some.
        I think that the States in the Northeast, as you know, are unusually
    dependent upon home heating oil and, therefore, are the most sensitive
    to oil prices. But it's also true that the price of oil was historically
    low for a good long time. And it's made a modest rebound, now.
        I'm grateful that it hasn't put any inflation in our economy and so
    far we can manage it. But we have to be sensitive to the people who are
    disproportionately affected by it. And I have not reached a decision
    yet, because I haven't been given a recommendation yet, about whether we
    could have any appreciable impact on the Americans that are most
    disproportionately affected.
        One of the reasons we always fight hard for the LIHEAP program,
    apart from what the summertime can do to people all over America, is
    that we know these people in the Northeast have a problem that no other
    Americans have, with the impact of the oil prices. It hits them much,
    much harder. So we're looking at it.
        Prime Minister Chretien. Thank you.
        Madam?

    Quebec

        Q. This morning you talked about rule of law, respect for rule of
    law being one of the fundamental principles Canada and the U.S. share. I
    am wondering, in that context, if the President could tell us what he
    thinks of Mr. Bouchard saying that Quebec could secede without regard to
    the Canadian Constitution, or the Supreme Court ruling last year, which
    said they must have a clear majority vote, yes, and a clear question.
    Would the U.S. ever recognize a sovereign Quebec under those
    circumstances?
        Prime Minister Chretien. I think that it's for me to reply. I think
    that the rule of law will apply to Canada. We have a judgment of the
    Supreme Court of Canada, which said very clearly that the question has
    to be clear and the majority has to be clear. And if there is a clear
    will expressed, that only after that, that negotiations could start.
        So the rule of law will be applied. The question will have to be
    clear, and the majority will have to be clear. And I know that if they
    have a clear question, the President of the United States will never
    have to make a decision on that.

    Natural Disasters

        Q. Excuse me. I would like to say something. You've had a lot of
    disasters lately, and so has the world. And I'm with Christian News, and
    I would like to ask you, have you thought that possibly this is a
    message from above that there is moral decay, that there is abortion,
    that there is violence? I was wondering if you had given it some
    thought.
        President Clinton. Actually, I have. You know, we--particularly
    because of all the millennial predictions. But I think the fact is that
    some of these natural disasters are part of predictable weather
    patterns, and the others have been predicted for more than a decade now
    by people who tell us that the climate is warming up. And I think that
    the real moral message here is that as we all get richer and use more of
    the resources God has given us, we're being called upon to take greater
    care of them. And I think that we have to deal seriously with the impact
    of the changing climate.
        I was just in New Zealand at the jumping-off place for 70 percent of
    our operations in Antarctica, the South Pole, talking about the thinning
    of the polar ice cap there and the consequences it could bring to the
    whole world.
        So I believe that insofar as these natural disasters are greater in
    intensity or number than previous ones, the primary warning we're
    getting from on high is that we have to keep--to use the phrase of a
    person I know reasonably well--we have to keep Earth in the balance. We
    have to respond to this in an appropriate way.
        Yes.
        Prime Minister Chretien Okay. And that will be the last one.
        President Clinton. Go ahead.

    Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty

        Q. Sir, you talked about the Republicans playing politics with this
    arms ban treaty or weapons testing ban treaty. Are you talking about
    normal partisan politics, just Republicans versus Democrats? Are you
    talking about the kind of politics where some Republicans--maybe not a
    lot of them, but some--will say, ``I'm sorry, Bill Clinton is for it. I
    feel so viscerally that I despise Bill Clinton, I'm not going to go
    along with something that he wants that much, and I'm

    [[Page 1733]]

    not going to give him a victory during his administration on something
    this important?''
        President Clinton. I don't think that's what's going on. I mean, it
    might be, but I don't think so. That sounds like Wile E. Coyote and the
    Roadrunner, you know? [Laughter] But I don't think that's what's going
    on.
        I think you have the following things. I think you have--I will say
    again--you have some Republicans who have thought about this and
    listened to people who aren't for it and really believe it's not the
    right thing to do. I hate it when we have fights. We're always
    questioning other people's motives. There are people who genuinely
    aren't for this. I think they're dead wrong, and I think it would be a
    disaster if their view prevailed, but I believe that's what they think.
        Now, in addition to that, however, this process--the Democrats were
    frustrated because for 2 years--that's why I don't think the second part
    of your thing is right. For 2 years they've been trying to bring this
    treaty up for a hearing, during which time we did ratify the Chemical
    Weapons Convention, and they could never even get hearings. So there was
    something about this thing that they didn't want to give hearings on.
        So then the Democrats agreed to what they knew was a truncated
    hearing schedule--almost no hearings--and debate schedule, only to find
    that basically a sufficient number of votes in the Republican caucus had
    been locked down for reasons of party loyalty, whatever their motives
    were, from people who couldn't possibly know enough about the treaty
    right now to know they were against it on the merits. Now, maybe it's
    they don't want some alleged victory to come to the administration
    during the pendency of the political season. Maybe that's it, maybe not.
    My point is, I don't care about that. I don't care who gets credit for
    it. If they adopted it, I'd be glad to say it was Trent Lott's triumph.
    It's six and one-half dozen of the other to me. What I want to do is to
    leave this country with a framework--my country with a framework for
    dealing with the major security problems of the 21st century.
        I believe that there will still be rogue states that want nuclear,
    chemical, and biological weapons. I, furthermore, believe that there
    will be enemies of all nation states--terrorist groups, organized
    criminals, drug runners--who will be increasingly likely to have access
    to miniaturized, but powerful weapons of mass destruction. And what I
    would like to leave office doing is not getting credit for anything--I
    don't give a rip who gets the credit for it. What I want is the Chemical
    Weapons Convention to be enforced, the Biological Weapons Convention to
    have teeth added to it so it actually means something, and this
    Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to be in place so at least we have a shot
    to reduce the number of nuclear states and the sophistication of their
    weapons and their ability to use them. That's the whole deal with me.
        Because I think that our successors are going to have a whole lot of
    headaches from all these groups, and we need to minimize risk because as
    societies grow more open they'll be more vulnerable to being terrorized
    by people who have access to this. That's the whole deal with me. I
    don't care who gets credit for it; I just want there to be a framework
    for dealing with it.
        So if they take more than a year to deal with this, if there is a
    legitimate process of working through, that's okay with me. If there is
    an emergency in the world where the rest of the world--it looks like
    we're going to have 10 other people try to become nuclear powers, and
    they've had 2 months of hearings or 3 months of hearings, and I think
    there's some reason we ought to vote--that goes back to your question--I
    don't want to say on the front end, ``Yes, I'll play the same political
    game, and no matter what, we won't vote next year, no matter what other
    developments we see on the Indian subcontinent or in other places.''
        But this thing can't come up for a vote if they don't bring it up.
    And I'm not going to willfully try to get it up if I think it's going to
    get beat. That's the only thing I want to--I'm sorry to bore our
    Canadian friends with a discourse to American politics. And the other
    thing, the United States cannot afford to relinquish the leadership of
    the world in the cause of nonproliferation.
        So if they want to strengthen the treaty, there are all kinds of
    vehicles through which we can do it. We do it on every other treaty. And
    if they want to take months, if they want to take a year--whatever they
    need to take--just play this straight. I'm not going to be out there--
    there's no downside for them to playing it straight.
        But I will not say in advance, no matter what--no matter what
    happens in the world,

    [[Page 1734]]

    no matter what unforeseeable development there is, no matter what other
    countries are about to do, no matter what, I would not ask you to deal
    with this next year, because on the merits there might be a reason. If
    it's just politics, we won't, because I'm not going to bring it up if we
    can't win.
        Prime Minister Chretien. Perhaps, Mr. President, I would like to add
    that when we were at the summit in Birmingham, and it was at the moment
    that India was about to do the experiment and Pakistan was to follow, we
    were all extremely preoccupied about it. And it is a problem that
    concerns the world. And it's not only the United States; everybody
    around the globe has a stake into that.
        And for me, I cannot agree more than the President that the
    leadership of the United States for the allies is extremely important.
    And keep up the good fight.
        And unfortunately, we have to go. Merci beaucoup. Thank you.
        President Clinton. Thank you.

    Note: The President's 181st news conference began at 12:05 p.m. in the
    Parliament Building. In his remarks, the President referred to United
    Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan and Foreign Minister Lloyd Axworthy
    of Canada. He also referred to LIHEAP, the Low Income Home Energy
    Assistance Program. A portion of this news conference could not be
    verified because the tape was incomplete.