    [Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 30, Number 46 (Monday, November 21, 1994)]
    [Pages 2390-2400]
    [Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

    <R04>
    The President's News Conference in Jakarta

    November 15, 1994

        The President. Good evening--or good morning, to the people who are
    watching this back in America. [Laughter] At our meeting in Bogor today,
    the Asian-Pacific leaders pledged to achieve free and fair trade and
    investment between our nations by the year 2020, with the industrialized
    countries reaching this goal by 2010. This agreement is good news for
    the countries of this region and especially good news for the United
    States and our workers. I want to thank President Soeharto for hosting
    this meeting and for his leadership in crafting the agreement.
        When the United States brought the APEC leaders together in Seattle
    for the very first time last year, we agreed on a common vision of a
    united, open trading system. At this year's meeting, we have committed
    to make that vision real through free and fair trade and to do it by a
    date certain. We'll meet again next year in Osaka. Meanwhile, we'll
    develop a detailed action agenda, a blueprint, for achieving our goal of
    free and fair trade, which I hope and believe will be approved when we
    meet in Osaka.
        APEC is primarily an economic organization, and today's talks
    focused on those issues. While I believe stronger trade ties also will
    lead to more open societies, I remain committed to pursuing our human
    rights agenda, as I did in my individual meetings with the leaders this
    week. This is an agenda we must be willing to pursue with both patience
    and determination, and we will.
        From the beginning of this administration, we have worked to create
    high-wage jobs and a high-growth economy for the 20th century by
    expanding our ability to trade with and do business with other nations.
    The Asia-Pacific region is key to the success of this strategy because
    it's the fastest growing region in the world, with rapidly expanding
    middle classes who are potential American customers. Already a third of
    our exports go to these nations, with 2 million American jobs

    [[Page 2391]]

    tied to them. And we know that export related jobs on average pay much
    higher than regular jobs in America.
        These free and fair trade agreements will benefit Americans for a
    simple reason: Our Nation already has the most open markets on Earth. By
    opening other markets, our products and services become more
    competitive, and more sales abroad create more high-wage jobs at home.
        Under this agreement, individual APEC nations will have to tear down
    trade barriers to reap trade benefits. And no country will get more in
    benefits than it gives; no free riders. Today's agreement will lower
    barriers even further than the historic GATT world trade agreement.
        Let me just give you one example. Even after the GATT world trade
    agreement takes effect, tariffs on American automobiles in Malaysia,
    Thailand, Indonesia, and the Philippines will still be between 30 and 60
    percent, lower than they are today but very high. By contrast, our
    tariffs on automobiles are 2.5 percent.
        The market in just these four countries alone in 6 years will be as
    great as the total market in Canada and Mexico combined. This APEC
    agreement will knock down Asian tariffs even further, and American autos
    will, therefore, be more affordable. That means for an autoworker in
    Detroit or Toledo more secure jobs and factories with more workers,
    factories that are growing, not shrinking.
        I'm proud of the leadership of the United States in creating a post-
    cold-war world that is both safer and more prosperous, a better place
    for Americans to live and work in. Trade agreements like NAFTA, the GATT
    agreement, and now the Bogor Declaration, along with the Summit of the
    Americas next month, are important in their own way just as are the
    agreements we've made with the Russians and Ukraine on nuclear missiles,
    the North Korean nuclear agreement, and the agreement on missile
    deployments with China. I'm convinced this declaration will prove to be
    of historic importance.
        Americans may hear about this declaration and think, well, 2010 is a
    long time to wait for any benefits. That is--let me emphasize--the
    completion date for the process. The benefits will begin for America as
    soon as we begin to implement the blueprint, which we will develop in
    this coming year.
        But first things first. Our first meeting in Seattle last year
    created the conditions that helped make it possible to get agreement
    among the nations of the world on the GATT world trade agreement.
    Without the meeting in Seattle, we might well not have had a GATT
    agreement.
        Now, when we return to Washington, our first order of business must
    be for Congress to pass the GATT. Every leader I spoke with here--every
    leader I spoke with here--asked me about United States leadership on
    GATT and on world trade issues generally. America's opportunities and
    our responsibilities demand a spirit of bipartisanship, especially when
    it comes to keeping our country strong abroad.
        That cooperation was demonstrated in the historic NAFTA victory and
    in the encouragement I received from the Republican leaders before I
    left for this trip. Now, I call upon the Congress, Members of both
    parties, to use this momentum from this trip to pass the GATT. The
    economic recovery going on in our country and taking hold in the world
    depends upon the passage of GATT and our continued leadership.
        At the end of the Second World War, the United States had a
    bipartisan effort to create an enduring partnership with our allies that
    helped keep the peace and helped spawn an era of global prosperity, that
    created enormous opportunities for the American people.
        Now, at the end of the cold war, we are building a new framework for
    peace and prosperity that will take us into the future. It is imperative
    that the United States lead as we move toward this new century. That is
    our great opportunity, and that is the best way we can help all
    Americans toward a more prosperous future.

    East Timor

        Q. Mr. President, as you know, nearly two decades ago, the
    Portuguese withdrew from East Timor, and the Indonesian military moved
    in. Sir, do you feel East Timor deserves self-rule, and tomorrow when
    you meet with President Soeharto, will you ask him to withdraw his
    troops and allow East Timor to pursue democratic elections?

    [[Page 2392]]

        The President. The position of the United States and the position
    that I have held since 1991, since long before I held this office, is
    that the people of East Timor should have more say over their own local
    affairs. I have already spoken with President Soeharto about this in the
    past in our personal meetings, and it will come up again in our
    discussion tomorrow.

    Interest Rates

        Q. Mr. President, back on economics, the Federal Reserve raised
    interest rates five times this year, and they're expected to do so again
    today. Many critics think the Fed has gone too far--to push the country
    into----
        The President. Well, of course, the pressure that it's under is
    because of world trading and currencies. I would just like to point out
    that the United States has produced over 5 million jobs in 22 months. We
    have the lowest inflation in 29 years. We have more high-wage jobs this
    year than in the previous 5 years.
        So yes, it is important to keep the proper balance, to keep our
    currency stable, and to keep going and growing. But we are having
    investment-led growth based on highly productive workers with no
    inflation. So I just would say the important thing is to make every
    judgment based on what it takes to keep economic growth going in the
    United States. And I am very proud of what we have done, and I think we
    have to continue to pursue this course. I'm going to do what I can
    control.
        I have noticed, however, that almost anything I say about this may
    be misinterpreted, not just here but primarily around the world. So I'm
    not going to comment on it, except to say, the United States has an
    economic growth pattern that is the envy of advanced nations of the
    world. We're growing at a healthy rate. We have literally the lowest
    inflation in 29 years. And finally, we're creating some high-wage jobs
    after years and years and years of stagnant wages for American working
    people.
        So I'm going to do everything I can to keep that recovery going. And
    I believe that the members of the Fed will do their best to keep the
    recovery going. That's what I would urge them to do and to make the best
    judgment they can.

    Cooperation With Republican Leaders

        Q. Mr. President, while you've been here, Republicans are preparing
    the transition, over in the House and the Senate. As you've been
    monitoring their comments, what is your sense--is there going to be a
    big fight, or is there going to be an opportunity for some consensus,
    some cooperation? And when will you invite the new Republican leadership
    to the White House for a sort of mini-summit that's been talked about?
        The President. I believe that Mr. Panetta is meeting with them
    today, as we all agreed before I left. And I look forward to meeting
    with them as soon as I can, as convenient with all of our schedules when
    I get back.
        And as I said, I am willing to cooperate. There are areas in which I
    believe we can cooperate. I have mentioned several: the line-item veto,
    the welfare reform, continued reductions in the Federal Government, and
    continuation of our whole reinventing Government initiative so that we
    can do more with less. On the middle class tax cut, I believe the first
    thing we had to do was to get control of the deficit and to do as much
    as we could on that. We got as far as 15 million families in 1993. We
    got up to $27,000 in income. I would like very much to go further, but
    we mustn't explode the deficit. We've got to pay for it.
        So there are all these areas where I think we can work together and
    where I am certainly willing to. And that's the spirit in which I will
    go home.

    The Role of the Presidency

        Q. You mentioned a few moments ago that this was a historic
    agreement. I'm wondering in light of this meeting and the other meetings
    you've had over--it's not perhaps beginning to seem to you that perhaps
    foreign affairs and foreign trade is really the essence of the modern
    Presidency, more so than domestic and especially in light of what you're
    looking ahead to in the next few years.
        The President. Well, first of all, I think that the Presidency is
    certainly more than making laws. And the Congress has to pass laws. And
    I've always thought that.

    [[Page 2393]]

        But let me emphasize to you that I do not believe that I could be
    here doing what I am doing today if we hadn't taken vigorous action to
    bring the deficit down and if we hadn't passed the NAFTA agreement in
    Congress and if we hadn't also already taken strong steps to try to
    protect and promote the interests of ordinary Americans, including the
    family leave law, the crime bill, and things that address our problems
    at home.
        I see these things as two sides of the same coin. I don't believe we
    can be strong in the world, I don't believe we can secure the future for
    our working people unless we have good policies at home and good
    policies abroad. I think that strong families and good education systems
    and better paying jobs and safe streets and expanding trade and being
    free from the threat of nuclear war, I think these are two sides of the
    same coin.
        So, to me, I have to do them both. I will say this, there have been
    more opportunities and more responsibilities in this particular year
    than even I could have foreseen when I ran for President even last year.
    A lot of the work that we have been doing came to fruition this year,
    particularly in the Middle East peace talks, in the Partnership For
    Peace and what we are doing in Europe, and of course in Asia in
    expanding economic activities.
        I think that more and more the job of the modern President will
    involve relating with the rest of the world because we are in an
    interdependent world. Whether we like it or not, money and management
    and technology are mobile, and the world is interdependent. And we have
    to make sure Americans do well in that kind of world. And we have the--
    the President has a special responsibility there.

    School Prayer

        Q. President Clinton, one of the other things the Republicans talked
    about yesterday in your press conference was the idea that they would
    propose a constitutional amendment to restore prayer to public schools.
    Is that something that you would support? Do you think the country needs
    that?
        The President. Well, what I think the country needs and what I think
    the schools need is a sense that there are certain basic values of
    citizenship, including valuing the right of people to have and express
    their faith, which can be advocated without crossing the line of the
    separation of church and state and without in any way undermining the
    fabric of our society. Indeed, the schools, perhaps today more than ever
    before, need to be the instrument by which we transfer important values
    of citizenship.
        One of the things that was in the Elementary and Secondary Education
    Act that I signed, that passed with strong bipartisan support, but was
    little noticed, was the advocacy of basically the teaching of civic
    values in the schools.
        Now, on the school prayer thing, I can only tell you what my
    personal opinion is about that. I have always supported voluntary prayer
    in the schools. I have always thought that the question was, when does
    voluntary prayer really become coercive to people who have different
    religious views from those that are in the majority in any particular
    classroom? So that, for example, I personally did not believe that it
    was coercive to have a prayer at an outdoor sporting event or at a
    graduation event because I don't believe that is coercive to people who
    don't participate in it. So I think there is room for that.
        Obviously, I want to reserve judgment. I want to see the specifics.
    But I think this whole values debate will go forward and will intensify
    in the next year. And again, I would say, this ought to be something
    that unites the American people, not something that divides us. This
    ought not to be a partisan debate. The American people do not want us to
    be partisan, but they do want us to proceed in a way that is consistent
    with their values and that communicates those values to our children.
        So let's just--I'll be glad to discuss it with them. I want to see
    what the details are. I certainly wouldn't rule it out. It depends on
    what it says.

    Cooperation With Republican Leaders

        Q. Mr. President, have you had time to reflect on the elections
    results, specifically, what happened? And while we've been here,
    Congressman Gingrich, among his quotes, ``This is time to be open to
    dramatic, bold

    [[Page 2394]]

    changes.'' That's what you ran on, and I'm wondering if you'll take any
    new attitude with you to Washington after some time off.
        The President. Well, first of all, we gave the American people a lot
    of changes. And the changes we gave them required tough decisions. And
    if we now are going to have a partnership for further bold changes,
    nothing could make me happier. But we reduced the deficit more than any
    time in history. We did it for 3 years in a row for the first time since
    President Truman. We have reduced the Federal Government by 70,000.
    We're taking it down to its smallest size since President Kennedy. We
    have deregulated major parts of the American economy. We have given
    States the ability to get out from under Federal rules to promote
    welfare reform, health care reform, education reform. We are making
    dramatic changes.
        I would like to have a bipartisan partnership to go further. There
    are some things we didn't get done last time that I would like to see
    done. We ought to be able to have a bipartisan welfare reform bill. I
    ask only that the same spirit exists there that I exhibited when I was a
    Democratic Governor in 1988, I reached out my hand in partnership to the
    Reagan administration and to the Republicans and Democrats in Congress.
        There are a lot of things we can do together, and I already
    mentioned several of them. So I'm very hopeful. And we do need a lot
    more changes, and we can do them together if we are determined to put
    America first and not put partisanship first.
        Q. Mr. President, as you look to the next 2 years of your term and
    the changed political realities of Washington, is there some previous
    President that you look to as a sort of model on how you're going to
    proceed?
        The President. I don't think so. I don't think that there's an exact
    historical analogy. I think there are some obvious similarities, but
    they all break down.
        I have read, since I've been President, even though I had read
    widely about our Presidents before I took office, I've read a number of
    biographies, histories of the administrations of many Presidents. I have
    seen times when the usual pattern between a President and Congress was,
    in fact, more contentious than the one we had the last 2 years. Even
    though the American people seem to perceive it as very contentious, the
    truth is that it was, as you know, only the third Congress since World
    War II when a Congress adopted more than 80 percent of the measures a
    President recommended. So I think we'll just have to see.
        What I need to be guided by is not the past but a devotion to
    America's future, to making America stronger, to making the future of
    working people stronger, to the kinds of things that I have worked for.
    And I will do my best to do that with the facts as they develop. And I'm
    looking forward to it.

    Foreign Policy

        Q. Mr. President, in mentioning the special responsibility of a
    President in foreign affairs, do you see any limits on your own personal
    ability to continue being a personal diplomat, and do you intend to
    continue the growing pace of travel?
        The President. Well, as I said, I think that we have had a series of
    unusual opportunities and responsibilities this year: getting the
    Partnership For Peace off, getting the nuclear agreement between Russia
    and Ukraine which led to no Russian missiles being pointed at the United
    States for the first time since the dawn of the nuclear age, pursuing
    the Middle East peace and my meeting with President Asad in Geneva, and
    then the 3 days I spent in the Middle East. And then, of course, we had
    the 50th anniversary of World War II. So these things--there were some
    unusual things which required a great deal of time this year.
        I think every President from now on for the foreseeable future will
    be required to participate in the building of an architecture which
    promotes peace and prosperity and security for the American people and
    is increasingly involved in the rest of the world. But I expect that the
    lion's share of my work will continue to be done at home, and I will
    continue to do it. I don't think anyone could say I had a less than
    ambitious domestic agenda this year and didn't pursue it with great
    vigor. So I think you will just have to--we'll have to do both from now
    on.

    [[Page 2395]]

    Asian-Pacific Trade Agreement

        Q. Mr. President, the report reaching us is that China and South
    Korea do not have to meet the free trade objective until 2020. Does this
    give these countries an unfair advantage in your opinion, and what will
    you do to address it?
        The President. First of all, whether China and South Korea have to
    meet this objective by 2020 or 2010 depends upon their own rate of
    growth. That is, there was no definition today of industrialized
    countries that excluded them in 2010. Indeed, I think most of the people
    who were in that room today thought that, given South Korea's growth,
    they might well meet that and, in fact, might be expected to meet it
    before 2010 and that the Chinese could meet it, depending on whether
    they're able to sustain a certain level of growth.
        Secondly, let me emphasize that while the agreement provides for two
    different times for the parties to be willing and able to get rid of all
    their trade barriers, we assume an equivalence of treatment among all
    the countries so that even if, let's say, China or some other country,
    Thailand--any country, you name it--doesn't have to go down all the way
    until 2020, their relationship with the other countries involved,
    including the advanced countries, will be dictated still by an
    equivalency. There will be no unilateral give-ups; there will be a
    negotiated downward movement in the barriers among all parties.
        So I think this is very good. This simply recognizes that under the
    best of circumstances, some nations may be so far away in economic
    disparities, they may not be able to get there by 2020. There is nothing
    in those two times that disadvantages, let's say, Japan or Canada, not
    to mention the United States.
        Q. Mr. President, given the tough fight that you had over NAFTA and
    the nervousness over GATT, how can you convince Americans they will
    benefit from free trade with Asia, especially when there is such a big
    gap with some countries on workers' wages and rights?
        The President. I would say--I would make two arguments. First of
    all, look at the fight we had over NAFTA, and look at the results. We
    had a 500 percent increase in automobile exports to Mexico in one year.
    Our exports to Mexico increased by 19 percent, about almost 3 times what
    our overall exports went up since NAFTA passed. NAFTA has been a job
    winner for the United States, and basically the jobs we're gaining in
    are upper income jobs. So if NAFTA is the test, it should make us want
    more of these things.
        The second point I'd like to make is that when we started APEC--keep
    in mind the atmosphere that was existing in Seattle last year. When we
    started APEC, what was the worry? The worry was that the world would be
    developing into three huge trade blocs: the European Union; the United
    States, Canada, Mexico, Central, South America and the Caribbean; and
    Asia, and that Asia was the fastest growing region in the world, that
    trade among the Asian nations was going up but people were afraid we
    would be shut out of that market.
        So if everything we do has some equivalency to it, that is, if there
    is no unilateral give-up by the United States, what we are doing in this
    agreement is opening the fastest growing market in the world. Look at--
    just take this country we're in, Indonesia. They are growing at a
    phenomenal rate and have been for quite some time now. Their capacity to
    purchase, to engage, to trade, and for themselves to compete and win in
    the global economy is increasing every day.
        So what I would say is, we could never walk away from the Asian
    market; we should be walking toward it in terms that are fair. And
    that's what I think we're doing.

    Foreign Policy

        Q. Mr. President, how can you prevent the Republicans from blocking
    foreign policy initiatives you might want to pass, such as the
    operations--the administration seems increasingly comfortable in
    multilateral operations such as Haiti; potential U.S. involvement in a
    future Bosnia peace enforcement operation; potential U.S. commitment to
    peacekeeping in the Golan. How are you going to prevent the Republicans
    from blocking you in that area?
        The President. Well, historically, the Republicans have favored a
    strong American foreign policy and a robust one. And most

    [[Page 2396]]

    of what I have been able to do as President has enjoyed bipartisan
    support. And when the same of the things that have not enjoyed
    Republican support, it also generated significant Democratic support. I
    had bipartisan opposition to some of the things I have sought to do in
    foreign policy.
        I believe that with careful and honest and open consultations, that
    in critical matters to our national security, we will be able to put the
    interest of the United States first. That is certainly the challenge
    that we must all face.
        The Congress and the President have had tensions between them on
    foreign policy for a very long time now when both parties were in
    different positions. I don't expect that to go away. And we are creating
    a new world in which there are new questions to be asked and answered.
    There's been controversy in foreign policy directions in the last 2
    years. I don't expect that to go away. But I do think on the really
    pivotal matters we'll be able to achieve the kind of bipartisan or
    perhaps even a nonpartisan consensus to do what's right for the country.
    That will be my goal.

    Asian-Pacific Trade Agreement

        Q. Mr. President, this may be historic, but a lot of this is often
    nonbinding--the APEC accord. And a year ago, this forum was boycotted by
    one member. What gives you any confidence that this kind of deal will
    not fall apart at some point in the future? And what should the U.S. do
    to try to avoid that?
        The President. I would say there are two things that give me
    confidence that it will not fall apart. One is that it is in the
    interest of the Asian countries because they have decided that they want
    expanded trade in an open world trading system, not in closed trading
    blocs. The second is the constant reaffirmation of commitment to this by
    the Asian leaders themselves.
        Finally, I would say we have some historic evidence that should give
    us some encouragement. On a smaller scale, look at the ASEAN agreement,
    the regional trade agreement where they promised that they would break
    down trade barriers among themselves. And it was all voluntary, but they
    met and they worked on it and they laid out a platform. And they just
    recently shortened by 5 years the time deadline they imposed on
    themselves for taking all the barriers away.
        So if you look at the experience of their conduct, if you look at
    the conviction by which they express this commitment, and if you look at
    it, in very cold terms, their own self-interest in wanting to do more in
    the rest of the world, I think all those things should be very
    encouraging in terms of having you think that it's more likely than not
    that it will occur.

    Foreign Policy

        Q. Mr. President, your administration is in the process of changing
    its policy or developing its policy on expanding NATO and strengthening
    CSCE. Will you be going to the CSCE summit in Budapest? And when you
    look at your foreign travel, your past foreign travel, in recent weeks
    you've gone to the Middle East; you spent several days here; you're
    going to be hosting the Summit of the Americas; you have an ambitious
    foreign agenda next year. Are you becoming, in essence, a foreign policy
    President?
        The President. Well, let me answer both questions. First of all, I
    plan to make a very--a brief but I think quite critical trip to the
    CSCE. I decided to do it after having communications with both
    Chancellor Kohl and President Yeltsin and looking at what is at stake
    there in terms of the future of European security. After all, the United
    States played a strong leadership role in the Partnership For Peace and
    encouraging the growth of the European Union and European security
    arrangements.
        What I have sought to do is to create a stronger Europe that was
    more independent but also more closely allied with us and one that at
    least created the possibility that there would not be another dividing
    line in Europe just moved a few hundred miles east. We have a big stake
    in that. So I will go quickly and come back quickly, but I think I
    should go.
        Secondly, on the question of foreign policy versus domestic, let me
    say, if you look at what happened, in the last 2 years, we had only the
    third Congress in the history of--since World War II which gave a
    President more than 80 percent of his domestic initiatives as well as
    the foreign policy initiatives,

    [[Page 2397]]

    including sweeping education reform, the family leave law, the Brady
    bill, the crime bill, and a number of other very important issues.
        So I have no intention of withdrawing from the domestic field. But
    we had an unusual number of responsibilities this year, an unusual
    number of opportunities. And Americans are both more prosperous and more
    secure because of these efforts. And they will be more so in the future.
    So if I were to give up one in favor of the other, I would be doing a
    disservice to the American people. I have to try to pursue both courses.
        It's been somewhat more busy on the foreign front than I could have
    anticipated in the last few months because of the unusual developments.

    World Trade

        Q. Mr. President, it looks like you've made some concessions on
    letting them come in in 2020 and 2010. China also wants to join GATT and
    some other world trade organizations. If they want to join and be held
    to a lesser standard than the major industrial nations--China's the
    third largest economy in the world. What is your position on letting
    China into these world trade organizations? Will you give then a break
    on this, or will you insist that they be held to the same standard as
    the industrial nations?
        The President. Let me answer the first question. First of all, I
    will say again, whether a country is an industrialized country or a
    developing country as of 2010 is a question of fact that cannot be
    answered now. There are some we can be pretty sure will be still
    industrializing, still developing; some we can be certain will be
    developed; others we're not sure. There was no concession given because
    there must be equivalency in the reduction of trade barriers, a fairness
    on both sides. But as a practical matter, it will take developing
    countries longer to get down to zero, even if they have great incentives
    to do so in dealing with other countries.
        Now, on the GATT. To be a founding member of GATT, whether you are a
    developing country or an industrialized country, without regard to your
    status, you must agree to observe three or four basic commitments in
    terms of the way you handle your financial exchanges, in terms of the
    transparency of your trade laws, in terms of your whole approach to the
    international economy. There are four basic commitments that all 123--I
    think the number is--people who have agreed to be founding members of
    GATT have agreed to do.
        So the United States position is that China ought to be in GATT,
    ought to be a founding member of GATT. They're a very big country; they
    ought to be a part of this. It's in our interest to do it because it
    will open more Chinese markets to American products. But every country
    that has agreed to be a founding member, even the poorest countries,
    even the smallest countries, have agreed to these four basic criteria.
    And we believe that anyone who goes in as a founding member should do
    the same.
        Q. Mr. President, you mentioned GATT as your top priority when you
    get back from this trip. How troubling is it to you that Senator Dole is
    clearly not on board on this, and how are you going to address the
    problems of the sort of populist conservative criticisms of WTO is
    somehow eliminating sovereignty?
        The President. Well, it's not just the populist conservatives, there
    are also some populist liberals who aren't sure about it.
        Just before I left, when I called on Senator Dole and we had our
    conversation, he said that he thought that we could work it out, that we
    could have some language which would make it clear that our sovereignty
    was intact, that would not violate the GATT agreement. And I believe
    that, so I think that's what we'll do. I think he's trying in good faith
    to get that done based on his representation to me, and we certainly
    are. And that is our objective.
        That's an understandable concern when people first hear about this.
    You know, they want to be reassured that we're not giving up the ability
    to run our own affairs. So we're working on it, and I think we'll
    resolve it.

    The Economy

        Q. Mr. President, you've mentioned here several times your
    achievements and your record with Congress and the things you've gotten
    done. But as you know, one of the big problems you face politically is
    that the American people don't believe their lives

    [[Page 2398]]

    have changed as a result of the things that have been done.
        Now, here you have another long-term agreement; it's going to take
    place over the next generation. And while it may be very beneficial to
    the country, how are you going to convince Americans that this is going
    to affect their lives, and how are you going to do it within the next 2
    years before you have to face the voters?
        The President. Well, I think there were two issues there. One is, as
    you know, there were a lot of Americans who did not know a lot of the
    things that had been done. And it is my job to do my best to make sure
    people know that. Then there is the inevitable fact that there is a time
    lag between when you pass any law or take any executive action and it
    can be manifest in the lives of Americans.
        You know, one of the problems with the nature of the economy today,
    from the point of view of the average American working family, is that
    even if more jobs are coming into the economy, people may not feel more
    personal job security; even if the economy is growing with low
    inflation, people may not get a raise. Most Americans, wage earners,
    particularly hourly earners, have not had an increase in real income,
    that is, above inflation, in quite some time now.
        These are conditions that I am working hard to remedy. There are
    only two or three ways to remedy them. You have to change the job mix
    and get more high-wage jobs, you have to increase the skill level of the
    work force so people can take those jobs, and you have to get enterprise
    and investment into isolated areas, that is, pockets of the inner
    cities, pockets of the rural areas which have been left behind. These
    things may require long-term solutions.
        It is my job to do what is best for the American people in the
    future. I'll do my best to get credit for it, but the most important
    thing is that I do the right thing. And you know, if I can find a way to
    get credit for it, I'll be very happy. But the most important thing is
    that I do the right thing. And I think that as time goes on--most
    Americans say, if you ask them, ``Do you want us to have a long-term
    vision, do you want us to have a long-term strategy, do you want us to
    look at that?'' they'll say yes. And then they hear things on a daily
    basis that are so contentious and so conflicting and so kind of clouding
    of the atmosphere that it's hard to think about that.
        My job is to try to keep lifting the sights of the country above
    that and keep looking at the long run. The credit will have to either
    come or not, but that's not as important as trying to do the right
    thing.
        I think I ought to take a question or two from the Indonesian press.
        Q. Mr. President----
        The President. Go ahead, and then I'll take this lady first and then
    you, sir.

    Asian-Pacific Economic Agreement

        Q. Mr. President--[inaudible].
        The President. That the media is?
        Q. ----media is so--[inaudible].
        The President. First of all, if I might--her question was sort of
    related to your question. Your question is, how do we know that this is
    going to happen, implying that maybe these folks aren't serious. Her
    question, in a way, is the same question from a different point of view.
    If there is no institutionalized mechanism, how do we know that it will
    go on when those of us who are here aren't here anymore?
        And I have to tell you that I think the critical question is, will
    the leaders themselves continue to meet personally every year, even when
    it is inconvenient for them to do so? Like now, you know--[laughter]--
    will they continue to do that? Will they continue to meet, even when it
    is inconvenient for them to do so? And secondly, will they make some
    specific, concrete progress every time they meet?
        So, for example--I feel very good about this. This is potentially, I
    think, a very historic declaration. But next year, if we don't adopt the
    blueprint, I'd say that's not a good sign. If we do adopt a blueprint,
    that is a very good sign. So that is my test.
        Now, let me say, on the question of the media being, if you will,
    dominated by the first world, I think you should be encouraged that, for
    example, in many of our major news outlets, there is enormous attention
    given now, much more than previously, not just to foreign policy
    concerns that affect the developing world and not just the largest
    powers

    [[Page 2399]]

    that dominated the cold war debate, number one. Number two, there are
    now more specific outlets, particularly CNN, for example, that has a
    whole separate channel dealing with global affairs which gives more and
    more attention to the developing world. I'll get in a lot of trouble
    with all of the other networks now. [Laughter]
        But I think--look at all these people here from all the American
    outlets. I can't speak for BBC or the French television network or the
    German network. But every major American media outlet, just about, sent
    someone to Indonesia, which was, as you know, originally the leader of
    the nonaligned movement in the United Nations. Every person who is here
    now has a little different understanding of the problems and the promise
    of this country, the other countries here represented at APEC.
        I think you have to be a little patient with us, too. We are
    learning more about the rest of the world beyond our borders and beyond
    our previous habits of encounter. And I think the more we do that, the
    more you will see a broader coverage of world affairs right across the
    board.
        Q. I watch you every day on CNN, Mr. President, but now you are
    real. Thank you very much for being here.
        Let me introduce myself, chief editor of the Economic and Business
    Review of Indonesia. I have two questions, Mr. President. First of all,
    do you agree with me that education, in fact, has been the best
    investment of the United States in Indonesia? Because you have so many
    economists and people in high position and in key strategic positions
    who graduated from the United States. I, myself, am a product of George
    Washington University. It so happens I'm chairman of the U.S. Alumni
    Association.
        Somehow, the U.S. effort in this, United States effort in
    encouraging and developing education, of providing scholarships for
    Indonesians to the United States has been less today than some years
    back. In fact, education for the armed forces has been curtailed. What
    is your view on this, Mr. President?
        The second question is, while liberalization and normalization seems
    to have been the trademark of APEC, you know yourself that economies do
    not determine history. Often politics determine history. How do you
    harmonize this normalization trend with international politics, Mr.
    President? Thank you very much.
        The President. Well, first let me say, I definitely agree that the
    investment the United States has made in times past in international
    educational exchanges and bringing people to our country to attend our
    universities and our colleges and sending our young people abroad to
    attend school in other countries has been a very, very important thing.
        It is true that there has been some reduction in Federal support for
    such programs, which I very much regret, but it is a function of the
    fact that we quadrupled the national debt of America from 1981 to 1993,
    that in a 12-year period we exploded our debt, our Government deficit
    was high, and we started having to cut back on a lot of investments,
    including things that we wanted to do.
        I will say that most of our major universities now, particularly a
    lot of our State universities, are investing much more of their money
    and their effort in trying to recruit students from around the world and
    to promote these sort of educational exchanges. And what I would need to
    do before I could make a final judgment is to see what the total effort
    is in our country. But we should be doing more of it.
        So I feel very strongly about that. Now, what was the second
    question you asked? Yes, yes, the economy and politics. Let me just say
    about that, I believe that the business of politics is, not completely
    but in large measure, to give the maximum opportunity for the positive
    economic forces in the world to succeed within each country or within
    each--in my case, within each of our States within our country. That is
    not the whole business, but that is a major part of the business. So a
    lot of what we try to do in the United States is to think about the good
    things that are happening in our country and in the world and what we
    can do to accelerate them and then to think about the problems, the
    roadblocks, the obstacles, and what we can do to eliminate them so that
    we try to harmonize those things.
        Very often when politics can mess up economics, it's because it
    becomes obsessed with

    [[Page 2400]]

    some other goal which is destructive of the human spirit. Politics
    should be more than economics--I talked about human rights here today--
    but it should be very heedful of making those good things happen through
    the economic system.
        I'll take this lady's question, the last one.

    WTO and President's Visit to Istiqlal

        Q. Thank you, Mr. President. Who will the United States appoint for
    the job of Secretary General of the WTO, Salinas--or Kim? And my other
    question, while Indonesians are very proud that a Christian, my
    Christian uncle built Istiqlal Mosque, I find it difficult to explain to
    my leaders why the President of the United States took his time to visit
    the mosque. Thank you, Mr. President.
        The President. Let me answer the second question first. I went to
    the mosque because, first of all, I wanted to see it. It's a massive and
    impressive and important structure. Secondly, because Indonesia is a
    predominantly Muslim country that has a very vibrant Catholic,
    Protestant, Hindu, and Buddhist heritage and active religions today in
    all those areas. And the Minister of Religious Affairs here made
    available some time for me to go to the mosque, to talk with him about
    what was going on there, and to explain to me personally how these
    various religions had come into this country and how they operated today
    within the country together, without undermining or conflicting one with
    the other.
        Finally, I have tried to do a lot as I have traveled the world--and
    I did this when I was in Jordan, speaking to the Jordanian Parliament--
    to say to the American people and to the West generally that even though
    we have had problems with terrorism coming out of the Middle East, it is
    not inherently related to Islam, not to the religion, not to the
    culture. And the tradition of Islam in Indonesia, I think, makes that
    point very graphically. It's something our people in America need to
    know; it's something people in the West, throughout the West, need to
    know.
        With regard to the World Trade Organization, I will have an
    announcement about that in the next couple of days. You won't have to
    wait long.
        Thank you very much.

    Note: The President's 81st news conference began at 7:10 p.m. at the
    Jakarta Hilton. In his remarks, he referred to Tarmizi Taher, Minister
    of Religious Affairs of Indonesia. A reporter referred to President
    Carlos Salinas of Mexico and South Korean Minister of Trade, Industry
    and Energy Kim Chol-su as candidates for Secretary General, World Trade
    Organization. A tape was not available for verification of the content
    of this news conference.