[Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: WILLIAM J. CLINTON (2000, Book I)]
[February 25, 2000]
[Pages 317-321]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]



Remarks on Funding for Native American Programs and an Exchange With 
Reporters
February 25, 2000

    The President. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I am delighted 
to be joined today by Senator Akaka and 
Senator Johnson; Sue Masten, the president of the National Congress of American 
Indians; Kelsey Begaye, the President of the 
Navajo Nation; and other distinguished tribal leaders from all across 
our country.
    I'd also like to thank a few Members of Congress who are not here 
today but who have been vital to our efforts to increase support for 
Native Americans: Senators Daschle, 
Domenici, Bingaman, Inouye, Nighthorse 
Campbell, and Dorgan; and Representatives Kildee, 
Kennedy, and Hayworth.
    Before I leave to give out the Baldrige Awards, I just want to say a 
few words about the importance of bringing the promise of prosperity to 
Indian country.
    Nearly four centuries ago, not far from where we stand today, the 
Powhatan Confederacy enjoyed a prosperous trading partnership with the 
newly settled European colonists. As our country grew, many tribes gave 
up their land, water, and mineral rights in exchange for peace, health 
care, and education from the National Government. They formed solemn and 
lasting pacts with our country, agreements the United States, to be 
charitable, has not always lived up to.
    While some of today's tribes have found success in our new economy, 
far too many have been caught in a cycle of poverty and unemployment. 
Too many have suffered from Government's failure to invest proper 
resources in education, infrastructure, and health care. The facts, of 
course, are all too familiar. American Indian unemployment remains 
unacceptably high, reaching 70 percent on some reservations. One-third 
of American Indians and Alaska natives still live in poverty and many 
lack decent health care. Indians are the victims of twice as many 
violent crimes as other Americans. Nearly half the roads and bridges on 
reservations are in serious disrepair. Many schools are crowded and 
crumbling. More than 80 percent of the people in Indian country are not 
connected to the Internet, and one-third of Indian children never finish 
high school.
    These facts are discouraging, but clearly not irreversible. That's 
because of something no statistic can measure accurately, the potential 
of the more than 2 million members of tribal nations in the United 
States. I am confident that with the right tools and the right support 
we can, together, bring new opportunity with new investment to Native 
Americans and to Indian reservations. That's something I made clear back 
in 1994, when I met with leaders from over 550 federally recognized 
tribes in our first government-to-government meeting here at the White 
House, and when I visited the Pine Ridge Reservation last summer. I want 
to make that even more clear today.
    We're in the midst of the longest, strongest period of economic 
growth in our history. There is no better time than now to make sure 
Indian country has the tools to succeed in the new economy. If not now, 
when will we ever step forward to bring the hope of a good job, decent 
health care, safe communities, quality education,

[[Page 318]]

and new technology to every corner of this Nation, from Penobscot, 
Maine, to Window Rock, Arizona?
    I was proud to announce in my State of the Union Address the single 
largest budget increase, nearly $1.2 billion, for new and existing 
programs that assist tribal nations. This bipartisan budget proposal 
includes funding to increase economic opportunity, health care, 
education, and law enforcement for Indian communities, in a cooperative 
effort with all agencies of our Government.
    One of the first steps must be to make sure American Indian children 
and children everywhere in America have the education they need to 
succeed. My budget more than doubles last year's funding to replace and 
repair schools on reservations and to address the growing digital divide 
with grants to tribal colleges for information and technology training.
    The information superhighway links people and communities across 
very great distances, but we can't abandon our old highways either. Our 
budget includes unprecedented funding to improve roads and bridges in 
Indian country. It also takes steps to strengthen tribal communities 
through improved public safety and health care. It increases funding for 
law enforcement officials and alcohol and substance abuse programs. 
Finally, it includes a 10 percent increase for the Indian Health 
Service, to expand access to high quality health care.
    Working with members of both parties, representatives from tribal 
communities, and leaders from the private sector, together we can pass 
this budget and give the people in Indian country the tools they need 
and deserve to succeed. These are important steps, and we have an 
historic opportunity to achieve them this year. I ask Congress to work 
with me to seize this vital opportunity.
    An old adage of the Sioux says, ``Each of us were created in these 
lands and from them will spring the future generations of our people.'' 
We should all begin this new century by honoring our historic 
responsibility to the new generations of the first Americans.
    Thank you.

Oil Prices

    Q. Mr. President, at least two OPEC nations seem to have decided 
that they're going to increase their oil output. I'm wondering if the 
United States put direct pressure on them, and why do you think they are 
doing this?
    The President. Well, I think that they're doing it because they 
believe it's in their long-term best interest. They don't want oil 
prices to go as low as they dipped at the bottom, not all that long ago, 
and we shouldn't either. But they know if oil prices are too high, one 
of two things will happen. Either they will provoke any economic 
downturn among their customers, and then the demand will fall off and 
the price will drop; or they will provoke more competition from non-OPEC 
members, and the supply will go up in ways they don't have control over. 
So I think that they would be making a sound decision to try to 
stabilize prices at a lower rate.
    Q. Was there diplomatic pressure put on them to do this from the 
United States?
    The President. I think--we are in constant contact with all the oil 
producers and all these other--as we are with other countries around the 
world. I wouldn't characterize it that way, however. I think this is a 
decision they will make on their own, based on what they believe is in 
their interest.

Iraq

    Q. Are you easing the import restrictions on dual-use technology to 
Iraq, sir?
    The President. What we are reviewing is whether there is some way to 
continue our policy of meeting human needs without allowing Saddam 
Hussein to rearm. I think it's clear to 
everybody who has looked at the facts, however, that they're exporting 
about as much oil now as they were before the embargo was imposed. And 
any continued suffering from lack of food and medicine on the part of 
Iraqi children or the poor is the result of Saddam Hussein's policies, 
not this embargo.
    If you look at the difference in the health indicators of children 
in the north of Iraq where this program, the oil for food program, has 
been administered by the United Nations and in the rest of Iraq where 
it's been administered by Saddam Hussein, 
it's perfectly clear that he has increased the misery of his people and 
has blamed us for something that is no longer--clearly--clearly no 
longer attributable to the international community.

[[Page 319]]

    Nonetheless, if there is a way to further free up resources for the 
overall health and development of the people of Iraq without doing 
anything that will make it easier for him to 
rearm in ways that will be damaging to his neighbors and to the 
stability of the region, we ought to be open to that. And we ought to be 
careful and constructive in listening to arguments about it.
    Yes, April [April Ryan, American Urban Radio Networks].

Secret Service Promotions Lawsuit

    Q. Mr. President, what are your thoughts about the black Secret 
Service filing a suit against the Service in reference to promotions 
there, and especially in light of the fact that you supported the Secret 
Service officers that filed suit against Denny's several years ago?
    The President. I knew what the facts were there. This case has just 
been filed. There are a lot of members of racial and ethnic minorities 
who have done very well in the Secret Service, and I think that it's 
better not to comment on the merits of the case. I will say this--I try 
never to pass up a chance to say I think that it is a superb 
organization. They do a wonderful job. And we have been, my family and 
I, very well served by men and women in the Secret Service of all racial 
and ethnic backgrounds. And I think that, beyond that, I shouldn't 
comment because it's in litigation, and there are very specific facts 
that are alleged that it would be wrong to comment on. But I think the 
Secret Service has given a lot of different kinds of Americans a chance 
to serve, and they have done it superbly well there.
    Go ahead, John [John Roberts, CBS News].

2000 Presidential Election

    Q. Mr. President, I know that you hate to talk politics, sir, and I 
don't mean to keep you here for a long time. And I realize that you 
don't want to influence the race, but we are about to go into a very 
important week here in the primary season. And I'm wondering, sir, 
without asking you to handicap the race, who do you see as being the 
stronger Republican candidate to go up against the eventual Democratic 
nominee in November?
    The President. Sounds like a handicap question to me. [Laughter]
    I'll give you a straight answer which won't sound straight. I don't 
think you can know now. I mean, what happens is, in national political 
life, one person begins and is in total control of the way he or she 
presents himself or herself and is hot as a firecracker. And then a 
fuller picture comes out, and maybe even an attack or two comes out, and 
then that person once again returns to the ranks of human beings, and 
people make more reasoned and seasoned judgments.
    And we're in a period where there's been a shift in that. But I 
think you have no way of knowing whether today's facts will be 
November's facts. So I don't think that--for our Democrats, my advice 
not only to the Vice President but for all 
of our people out there running is, run on what we believe in; run on 
what we've done; run on what you want to do. And don't worry about what 
the Republicans are doing. Just go out there and make your case to the 
American people, and don't worry about it, and time will take care of 
it. And then eventually these races, including the Presidency, will be 
joined. There will be two choices. There will be debates, and people 
will draw their own conclusions.
    But I don't think--I think it is utterly impossible on today's facts 
to answer the question that you've asked with any confidence, because 
look how different today's facts are than the facts 6 months ago. And 6 
months from now, they might be different again.
    John [John Palmer, NBC News].

Situation in Chechnya

    Q. Mr. President, there were reports today of really some horrendous 
atrocities in Chechnya, allegedly carried out by the Russians. Does this 
give you even more concern than you've had in the past about Russian 
behavior there?
    The President. Well, of course it does. The reports are very 
troubling, and I think they again make the case for the right kind of 
unfettered access to Chechnya and to the people there by the appropriate 
international agencies.
    I think, you know, in every conflict of any duration, there are 
always excesses. I'm not excusing anything. I'm saying that if you look 
at the fact that this is the second incarnation in this decade of the 
conflict in Chechnya, if you look at the bitter feelings, the tensions 
there--and I think it is imperative for the Russians to allow the 
appropriate international agencies unfettered access to do the right 
inquiries, to

[[Page 320]]

find out what really went on, and to deal with it in an appropriate way. 
I think that these reports should increase the sense of conviction that 
people all over the world have about that.

Permanent Normal Trade Relations With China

    Q. One quick question on China. Key Democrats are saying right now 
that the chances of getting your trade policies through Congress are not 
very good, rather bleak. And it comes at a time when China has been 
doing a lot of saber rattling and also has been telling, basically, the 
United States to mind its own business regarding Taiwan. Do you really 
think you can get those trade policies through in this environment?
    The President. Well, I think the environment is unfortunate, but I 
think you have to see those statements in terms of--in the context of 
the election in Taiwan for Presidency. I think that's what's going on 
here. Keep in mind, the United States has had now for two decades a 
``one China'' policy that says we believe in one China, but we believe 
the differences between Taiwan and Beijing have to be resolved in a 
diplomatic manner, and we support a cross-strait dialog.
    So in the context of this season, the President of Taiwan announced 
that he thought they ought to start acting like there was not one China, 
that it was--that they should be state-to-state relations. Then the 
Chinese made some military maneuvers which raised questions. We said the 
same thing then we said in light of their statements here. But it would 
be a mistake for either side to abandon a policy that has served both 
well for the last 20 years.
    Now, having said that, in the absence of some destructive action, it 
would be a terrible mistake for the United States and for those who 
basically find this an uncomfortable vote to use this as an excuse to 
isolate China and almost guarantee the very things they say they're 
worried about.
    Look, this is an economic no-brainer. It's almost--it's amazing to 
me that anybody could say the contrary. China opens all their markets to 
us for reducing tariffs, allowing us to invest there, allowing us to 
open business there. In some areas, we no longer have to transfer 
technology. We get special rights outside the WTO if they bombard our 
markets unfairly with cheap products that forge a big surge and throw a 
lot of Americans out of business. We have special rights in this 
agreement to go against them, something most Members of Congress don't 
know. So it is clearly an economic plus.
    So the real issue is, from the point of view of national security, 
do you want them in the international system as responsible players, or 
do you want to say, ``We don't want you in the international system 
until you're governed exactly the way we think you should be and until 
you do exactly what we think you should. And until that time, we will 
keep you out, so there''? Now, based on all your knowledge of human 
nature, which do you think is more likely to produce constructive 
partnerships and constructive conduct on the part of the Chinese?
    All I can tell you is, I know this is an election year. I know that 
some Members are receiving pressure--in both parties, I might add. I 
think it is very interesting that most of the religious groups, for 
example, that have done missionary work in China and have seen the 
impact of religious persecution or the absence of religious liberty 
there--virtually all of them that have actually worked in China strongly 
favor China's coming into the WTO because they understand once there are 
millions and millions of Internet connections, once the Chinese are open 
to the world, once they are involved in an international system, the 
Government will be more likely to be responsible, and the people will be 
more likely to find their own freedom.
    And I believe that if we do not do this, that our country will be 
regretting this 5, 10, 15, 20 years from now. We will be shaking our 
heads saying, what in the world got ahold of our judgment in the year 
2000? If we do it, 10 years from now, we will marvel that it was ever 
even a hard debate. That's what I believe. And so I'm going to stick 
with it, and I believe we'll make it.
    Now, the statement on Taiwan may get harder, but you have to see it 
in the context of the electoral politics playing out in Taiwan and not 
necessarily assume that some destructive action will follow--just as I 
saw the Taiwanese provocative comments in the context of the Taiwanese 
elections.
    Thank you. Thank you all very much.

Note: The President spoke at 1:17 p.m. on the South Grounds at the White 
House. Following his remarks, he went to the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel 
for the presentation of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Awards. 
However, a fire in the hotel at the beginning of the President's

[[Page 321]]

remarks there prevented him from completing his planned participation in 
the awards ceremony.