[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.