    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: WILLIAM J. CLINTON (1999, Book II)]
    [October 7, 1999]
    [Pages 1704-1707]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Remarks on the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty and an Exchange
    With Reporters
    October 7, 1999

        The President. Good morning. All this past week a chorus of voices
    has been rising to urge the Senate to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban
    Treaty. Yesterday our Nation's military leaders and our leading nuclear
    experts, including a large number of Nobel laureates, came here to say
    that we can maintain the integrity of our nuclear stockpile without
    testing, and that we would be safer with the test ban treaty. Today
    religious leaders from across the spectrum and across the Nation are
    urging America to seize the higher ground of leadership to stop the
    spread of nuclear weapons.
        I want to thank those who are here, including Bishop John
    Glynn of the U.S. Catholic Bishop's
    Conference, Reverend Elenora Giddings Ivory of the Presbyterian Church, Reverend Jay
    Lintner of the National Council of Churches of
    Christ, Mark Pelavin of the Religious Action
    Center of Reformed Judaism, Bishop Theodore Schneider of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, Joe
    Volk of the Friends Committee, Dr. James
    Dunn; there are others here, as well. And I would
    like to say a special word of thanks to Reverend Joan Brown
    Campbell of the National Council of
    Churches, as she concludes her responsibilities, for all the support she
    has given to our administration over the years.
        And let me express my special gratitude to Senator Jim
    Jeffords from Vermont and Senator Byron
    Dorgan of North Dakota for their presence
    here and for their leadership in this cause.
        These Americans are telling us that the debate about this treaty
    ultimately comes down to a fairly straightforward question: Will we do
    everything in our power to reduce the likelihood that someday somewhere
    nuclear weapons will fall into the hands of someone with absolutely no
    compunction about using them; or will we instead, send a signal to those
    who have nuclear weapons, or those who want them, that we won't test but
    that they can test now or they can test when they develop or acquire the
    weapons? We have a moral responsibility to future generations to answer
    that question correctly. And future generations won't forgive us if we
    fail that responsibility.
        We all recognize that no treaty by itself can guarantee our
    security, and there is always the possibility of cheating. But this
    treaty, like the Chemical Weapons Convention, gives us tools to
    strengthen our security, a global network of sensors to detect nuclear
    tests by others, the right to demand inspections, the means to mobilize
    the whole world against potential violators. To throw away these tools
    will ensure more testing and more development of more sophisticated and
    more dangerous nuclear weapons.
        This is a time to come together and do what is plainly in the best
    interest of our country by embracing a treaty that requires other
    nations to do what we have already decided to do ourselves, a treaty
    that will freeze the development of nuclear weapons around the world at
    a time when we enjoy an overwhelming advantage in military might and
    technology.
        So I say to the Senate today, whatever political commitments you may
    have made, stop, listen, think about the implications of this for our
    children's future. You have heard from the military. I hope you will
    listen to them. You have heard from Nobel laureates and other experts

    [[Page 1705]]

    in nuclear weapons. I hope you listen to them. You listened to our
    military and scientific leaders about national missile defense; listen
    to them about the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Listen to the religious
    leaders who say it is the right thing to do. Listen to our allies,
    including nuclear powers Britain and France, who say America must
    continue to lead. And listen to the American people who have been for
    this treaty from the very beginning. And ask yourselves, do you really
    want to leave our children a world in which every nation has a green
    light to test, develop, and deploy nuclear weapons, or a world in which
    we have done everything we possibly can to minimize the risks nuclear
    weapons pose to our children? To ratify this treaty is to answer the
    question right and embrace our responsibility to future generations.
        Thank you.

    Patients' Bill of Rights Legislation

        Q. If the Patients' Bill of Rights fails today will you work with
    Republicans to get a more limited measure, or is it going to be your
    bill or no bill?
        The President. Well, I believe there is a majority of support for
    the Norwood-Dingell bill. And the issue is not my bill or no bill. I'm
    not the issue here. I'm covered by the Federal plan, and I have extended
    by Executive order the protections of the Patients' Bill of Rights to
    all people covered by all Federal plans, including the Members of
    Congress.
        The issue is whether we're going to give the American people
    adequate protections. The Norwood-Dingell bill does that. We've got some
    Republican support for it in the House. I think Congressman
    Norwood, who has been a loyal Republican in
    virtually every respect, has shown a great deal of courage here, along
    with the doctors in the House, who know it's the right thing to do. And
    we'll just hope that it works out. We've worked very hard, and they've
    worked very hard. And I believe we have an excellent chance to win.

    Congressional Inaction

        Q. Mr. President, on the treaty, on health care, on tax cuts, and
    even on budget matters, the Republicans up on Capitol Hill seem to be
    saying that they do not want to work with you; they would prefer to wait
    until another person is in the office. Do you get that impression?
        The President. Well, on tax cuts, I vetoed their bill, and it was
    the right thing to do. And it's a good thing for America. They are
    showing us every day they can't even fund the spending that they've
    already voted for and that they tried to saddle America with another
    $800 billion worth of spending and say that somehow they could pay for
    it.
        I think there are some of them who want to be a lame-duck Congress.
    They're still drawing a paycheck up there, and it's a little larger than
    it was before a bill that I signed. And I don't think they ought to make
    themselves into a lame-duck Congress. I think they ought to show up for
    work, and we ought to do the people's business. There are plenty of
    things we disagree on, but we have proved that we can work together
    under adverse circumstances.
        Does this year look more like 1999 than 1996, 1997, and 1998--I
    mean, more like 1995? It does. It looks more like 1995. And I just don't
    think they ought to be a lame-duck Congress. I don't think the American
    people will understand it if they insist on sitting around up here for 2
    years and doing nothing.
        Now if the Senate doesn't want to work on saving Social Security and
    Medicare and educating our children, then maybe they ought to take a
    little time and confirm our judges and do some other things. But you
    know, I think there are people in the Senate and in the House, on both
    sides, who don't want to have a lame-duck 2 years for themselves.
    Senator Jeffords is here on this;
    Congressman Norwood and a number of other
    Republicans are helping on the Patients' Bill of Rights. And I think
    that we'll find a way to get some things done.

    Labor Research Association Dinner

        Q. Would you be mending fences with the Teamsters if it weren't for
    the campaigns of the Vice President and Mrs. Clinton?
        The President. Oh, absolutely. I'm not mending fences. I would have
    accepted this invitation to go to this event tonight under any
    circumstances. I have actually enjoyed a fairly constructive
    relationship with the Teamsters over 6\1/2\ years. I've seen all those
    stories, but I've been a little amused by them. I don't understand what
    the fence mending--we have a difference of opinion about an issue or
    two, but I would--if I had been invited to this under any circumstances,
    I would certainly have gone.

    [[Page 1706]]

    Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty

        Q. Mr. President, any progress on delaying the treaty vote?
        Q. [Inaudible]--for the Vice President.
        The President. I'm sorry; I can't hear. What did you say about the
    treaty vote?
        Q. Any progress on delaying the treaty vote?
        The President. I had a dinner here the other night that had
    Republicans and Democrats, including Republicans who were on both sides
    of the issue. There seems to be, among really thoughtful people who care
    about this, an overwhelming consensus that not enough time has been
    allocated to deal with the substantive issues that have to be discussed.
        So we have had conversations obviously with the leadership and with
    Members in both parties, and I think there is a chance that they will
    reach an accord there.

    Gov. George W. Bush of Texas

        Q. Governor Bush seems to have taken a page from your history on
    triangulation in his dealings with a Republican-led Congress. Do you
    have any opinion on that, sir?
        The President. First of all, I think the Republican right's being
    too hard on Governor Bush. I mean, you know, I don't understand why
    they're being so mean to him about this. He has stuck with them on--he
    was for that tax cut that they wanted. His main health care adviser
    sponsored that breakfast with the House leadership yesterday designed to
    help kill the Patients' Bill of Rights. He stuck with them and the NRA
    on the gun issue. You know, he's for privatizing Social Security. I
    don't see why they're so hard on him, but I will say this, I personally
    appreciated what he said.
        Raising taxes on poor people is not the way to get out of this bind
    we're in. But I think they're being way too hard on him and unfair.

    AFL-CIO Endorsement

        Q. When you talk to Mr. Hoffa about the AFL-CIO endorsement will you
    ask him to throw his support behind the Vice President?
        The President. Well I think everybody knows where I am on that. I
    have met already with the executive committee of the AFL-CIO. That is
    not the purpose of my going there. They invited me to come by, and I was
    happy to accept, but I have already had a meeting with the executive
    committee, with all the executive committee of the AFL-CIO, in which we
    have discussed that issue among others. Thank you very much.

    Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty

        Q. What part of the test ban--a followup on the test ban, sir?
        The President. You want to ask a test ban treaty----
        Q. Yes, just a followup. If it looks like you're not going to get
    the votes, is it better tactically to go down to defeat and blame it on
    the Republicans or to just----
        The President. I'm not interested--that's not the--that's a game,
    and that's wrong. I'm not interested in blaming them for this. I think
    the Members who committed to be against the treaty before they heard the
    arguments and studied the issues and listened to the Joint Chiefs of
    Staff and the Nobel laureates made a mistake. I think that was wrong.
        On the other hand, there are lots of issues, complex issues, that
    serious people who have questions about it have raised that deserve to
    be answered, worked through. And there are plenty of devices to do that
    if there is time to do that. All I ask here is that we do what is in the
    national interest. Let's just do what's right for America. I am not
    interested in an issue to beat them up about. That would be a serious
    mistake. That's not the way for the United States to behave in the
    world. But neither should they be interested in an issue that they can
    sort of take off the table with a defeat. That would do terrible damage
    to the role of the United States, which has been, from the time of
    President Eisenhower, the leader through Republican and Democratic
    administrations alike, Republican and Democratic Congresses alike--until
    this moment we have been the leader in the cause of nonproliferation.
        We should not either try to get an issue that will enable us to beat
    up on them, neither should they have an issue that enables them to show
    that they can just deep-six this treaty. That would be a terrible
    mistake. Therefore, we ought to have a regular orderly substantive
    process that gives all the people the necessary time to consider this on
    the merit and that gives the people who made early commitments--I think
    wrongly, but they did it--the chance to move to doing the Senate's
    business the way the Senate should do it.
        Look at what these people are saying here today. This is huge. This
    is bigger than party

    [[Page 1707]]

    politics. This is bigger than personal politics. This is about America's
    future and the future of our children and the world. We have a chance to
    reduce the likelihood that more countries will obtain nuclear weapons.
    We have a chance to reduce the likelihood that countries that are now
    working on developing nuclear technologies will be able to convert them
    into usable weapons. We have a chance to reduce the likelihood that
    countries that now have weapons will be able to make more advanced, more
    sophisticated, and bigger weapons. We cannot walk away from that, and we
    cannot let it get caught up in the kind of debate that would be unworthy
    of the children and grandchildren of Republicans and Democrats.
        Thank you.
        I would like to ask Senator Jeffords--
    let me just give credit where credit is due. Senator Jeffords got this
    group together. And when I heard they were meeting, I invited them to
    come down here to stand with us. So he deserves the credit for this day,
    and Senator Dorgan has been perhaps our most
    vociferous advocate on the Democratic side of this treaty. So I would
    like to ask Senator Jeffords to say a few words and then invite Senator
    Dorgan to say a few words.

    [At this point, Senator James M. Jeffords
    and Senator Byron L. Dorgan made brief
    remarks.]

        The President. Do you want to ask either one of them any questions?
    Thank you very much.

    Note: The President spoke at 11:55 a.m. on the South Lawn at the White
    House prior to departure for New York City. In his remarks, he referred
    to Bishop John J. Glynn, National Conference of Catholic Bishops,
    Archdiocese of Military Services; Rev. Elenora Giddings Ivory, director,
    Washington office, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.); Rev. Jay Lintner,
    director, Washington office, United Church of Christ; Mark J. Pelavin,
    associate director, Religious Action Center of Reformed Judaism; Bishop
    Theodore F. Schneider, Metropolitan Washington, DC, Synod, Evangelical
    Lutheran Church in America; Joe Volk, executive secretary, Friends
    Committee on National Legislation; James Dunn, executive director,
    Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs; and Rev. Joan Brown Campbell,
    general secretary, National Council of Churches. The President also
    referred to his memorandum of February 20, 1998, on compliance of
    Federal agencies with the Patients' Bill of Rights (Public Papers of the
    Presidents: William J. Clinton, 1998 Book I (Washington: U.S. Government
    Printing Office, 1999), p. 260). The transcript released by the Office
    of the Press Secretary also included the remarks of Senator Jeffords and
    Senator Dorgan.