[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 33, Number 42 (Monday, October 20, 1997)]
[Pages 1594-1604]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Remarks in the Univision Town Meeting in Buenos Aires

October 16, 1997

    The President. Thank you, Jorge and Maria Elena. And I thank 
Univision for giving us the chance to have this conversation. I want to 
thank all the young people here in Buenos Aires and joining us from 
Miami and Los Angeles for being a part of this.
    I am near the end of a remarkable trip which my wife, Hillary, and 
I, a distinguished group from our Cabinet and the United States 
Congress, have taken to Latin America to celebrate the changes that have 
taken place: the moves from dictatorship to democracy; the moves from 
closed economies, high inflation, and big debt to stability and growth; 
the moves that are bringing all of us closer together.
    I came here to talk about what we have to do to prepare for the 21st 
century, how we have to work together to seize the promise of education 
and technology, to shoulder the burdens of preserving our environment 
and dealing with new security threats from drugs and crime and 
terrorism. Most of all, I came to reaffirm the commitment of the United 
States to be a good partner with Latin America as we move ahead and 
especially to emphasize the fact that our fastest growing minority of 
Americans are Hispanic-Americans. We are growing together in more ways 
than one, and today I hope we'll talk about what we can do to build the 
kind of future we all want, together.
    Maria Elena Salinas. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I'd like to 
ask you for your permission to introduce your wife. Mrs. Hillary Clinton 
is here with us today. Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton, of course, has been 
accompanying Mr. Clinton throughout this Latin American tour, but she 
herself has traveled through several Latin American countries promoting 
programs to benefit women and also programs that alleviate poverty. So 
we want to welcome her especially. And many Latin Americans of course 
read your weekly column. Welcome.

[At this point, moderator Jorge Ramos introduced a National University 
of Buenos Aires law student from Colombia.]

Antidrug Efforts

    Q. Mr. President, can you show the world a reduction in drug 
consumption which is proportional to the reduction of production and 
cultivation of drugs?
    The President. I think the short answer to that question is yes, we 
can do that, we can show that a lot of our drug consumption is going 
down. Overall drug consumption has been going down in America for the 
last several years. But to be fair, we have one big, troubling thing, 
which is that drug consumption among our younger people, people under 
18, is still going up. And since in America children of school age now 
are the largest number they have ever been, that's a problem we have to 
continue to work on.
    So the answer is, we've made some progress. We have to do much more. 
I just secured from the Congress a program to dra

[[Page 1595]]

matically increase our efforts to reduce drug demand at home, especially 
to reach out to our younger people with messages from people they 
respect telling them that drugs are wrong and illegal and that they can 
kill them. Now, in addition to that, of course, we are working more 
closely--we spend more money in Colombia than any other country working 
with the authorities there on antidrug campaigns. But this is an issue 
that will increasingly involve all the nations not only here on our own 
soil in the Americas but throughout the world, and there is no easy 
answer. You must fight all the chain of supply, and you must change the 
whole psychology of demand. And we have to give a lot of our young 
people hope so that they have something to live for, something to say 
yes to, some reason to do things that are constructive and good not only 
for society but for themselves as well.
    Mr. Ramos. Mr. President, a question related to this. As you 
yourself have recognized, the United States is a country that consumes 
more drugs in the world--one out of every three U.S. citizens, according 
to the polls--and many believe that the certification process is unfair. 
Is it true that at the Summit of the Americas in Chile next year you are 
going to announce the end of the certification process?
    The President. We have made no decision about that. Several years 
ago, our Congress passed a law which requires us every year to certify 
that the people in authority in countries are doing all they can to help 
us to fight the drug problem. The decertification process and some 
intermediate steps are extreme measures taken under unusual 
circumstances. But even in the case of Colombia where there was a 
decertification decision, we still continue to invest more money in 
Colombia than any other country in working with

local authorities there and Federal authorities to fight the drug problem.

    So I think what we have to emphasize is that our approach is 
partnership. Whether it's Mexico, Colombia, any other country in the 
world, what we prefer is to work with people. And we recognize that in a 
lot of the producing countries, it requires enormous courage--enormous 
courage--and people putting their lives on the line to try to stand up 
to the narcotraffickers. And what we want is a world in which we work 
more closely with them and we reduce American demand. And as I said, we 
have now seen American demand go down, but our children are still using 
too many drugs.

[Ms. Salinas introduced an employee of the Foreign Ministry in 
Argentina.]

    Q. Mr. President, good afternoon. Over the last few months there's 
been a lot discussed about the role of the armed forces in our region in 
the fight against drug trafficking. There are messages, although not all 
of them homogeneous, from your country that would seem to favor such a 
role. And specifically, in our country there are certain fears. And 
since you know the tragic history we've suffered here, I would ask for 
your personal opinion on this.
    The President. Well, first of all, let me say that one of the great 
things that should make all Argentineans proud is the changing nature of 
the role of the armed services in the last several years. Now Argentina 
is recognized--when people think of the Argentine military around the 
world now, they think of peacekeepers, from Bosnia to Cyprus to 
Mozambique to Haiti. This is very different than it was in former times. 
And I would say you wouldn't want to do anything to change that.
    Now, in different countries there will be different capacities for 
dealing with this issue. And different nations may want to find some 
role for the military; it may be necessary. In our country we use the 
National Guard, to some extent, to fight the drug problem. But I think 
we all recognize that it is a national security issue. We all recognize 
that these people are wealthy and powerful and well-armed and capable of 
killing large numbers of people in a short period of time. So the 
question each country will have to face is, how am I going to deal with 
this? How am I going to fight it? And if you use the military in a 
domestic situation, then there must be extraordinary precautions, 
obviously, taken to avoid the kinds of abuses which would be possible. 
In most cases in our country, such things are not legal anymore because 
we're so sensitive to it. But I wouldn't want to make a judgment for 
every nation.

[[Page 1596]]

I would just say every nation should do what is necessary to deal with 
the security threat but should do so in a way that protects the civil 
liberties and the human rights of the people and guarantees civilian 
control of the military, because that's one of the great triumphs of 
Latin America in the last 15 years or so, and it should not be 
sacrificed.
    Ms. Salinas. As we said earlier at the beginning of the program, we 
are not just going to have questions in Argentina. We're also going to 
have questions from Los Angeles and also Miami. We're now going to hear 
Teresa Rodriguez in Miami, a city that many times has been the 
northernmost Latin American city.

[Miami, FL, moderator Teresa Rodriguez introduced a high school 
student.]

Freedom of Information

    Q. Good day, Mr. President. Freedom of expression and access to 
information are two basic ideas for any democracy as an example of a 
hemispheric initiative to provide more information for North and South 
America. My question is, which of these events or which of these things 
do you think are necessary, or what should happen in order to increase 
access to information? And also, how we, as a hemispheric community--how 
can we incorporate countries like Cuba where actually there is no 
respect for freedom of expression?
    The President. Well, let me answer your bigger question first. I 
think it's very important not only that we have freedom of speech and 
freedom of the press, freedom of association in every country in the 
Americas but that we take the initiative to try to increase the 
information available to people. I just came from Brazil, for example, 
where I visited a school in a poor neighborhood in Rio. And they had 
computers there which were placed there through a joint operation of 
private companies and the government. And we spoke over the Internet to 
students in an American school just across the Potomac River from 
Washington, DC.
    One of the things that I have been trying to do on this trip is to 
get all the leaders of South America to work with me, especially in 
Argentina and Brazil, to dramatically increase the technology available 
to students and then the use of the Internet. In addition to that, the 
United States is trying to get all the countries in the world to

promise not to overly regulate or tax or burden the Internet so that we can 
get more information out.

    The technology available today enables us to bring education to 
children who could never get it, enables us to bring information to 
people who want to make a living, who never would have been able to get 
that information. It can revolutionize the way we do business in a 
positive way if we do it. And eventually I think no society can remain 
closed to it. Cuba will inevitably get this information and respond to 
it, and it will lead to a rising democratic impulse, just as it did in 
the former Communist countries of Eastern Europe. So you should be 
optimistic about that. We just have to push this technology out there 
for education and for opportunity, to all people. It's one of the ways 
we're going to sort of close the gap between the haves and have-nots and 
not leave all the poor people that are still in Latin America behind--
and still in our country, I might add.
    Mr. Ramos. We're jumping back and forth. We're going to jump from 
Cuba to other subjects. Let's go to one of the most multicultural and 
multiracial societies in the world, Los Angeles, with Maria Antonietta. 
Go ahead, please.

[Los Angeles, CA, moderator Maria Antonietta Collins introduced an 
immigration lawyer.]

Immigration

    Q. Mr. President, on behalf of--[inaudible]--in Los Angeles and the 
Central American community in the United States, I'd like to thank you 
for the leadership you have demonstrated through the initiative of the 
legislation presented to Congress several weeks ago. As you well know, 
last week two Republican Members of Congress announced an agreement 
which has not yet been finalized and a legislative proposal. My question 
is, what possibility is there to see legislation passed that is fair and 
just in the way that Salvadorans, Nicaraguans, and Guatemalans are 
treated, all of these people who are under special immigration programs?
    The President. Just very briefly, for the benefit of all the people 
here in Buenos Aires

[[Page 1597]]

and who are listening to this who may not know what we're talking 
about--in the political upheavals of the eighties in Central America, 
the United States gave special permission to people who were affected by 
these troubles to come to the United States, in theory for a limited 
amount of time until democracy or peace had been restored to their 
country; then they were to return home. By the time that happened, they 
had been here quite a long while, particularly Guatemalans, Salvadorans, 
and Nicaraguans. Under the law passed by our Congress last year, they 
would all have had to go home immediately. So our Attorney General, 
working with me, issued an order to stop that while we tried to fix it.
    I think the chances are excellent that we will be able to at least 
return to the former system, where we'll be able to leave people here on 
humanitarian grounds who have made marriages and made families, had 
children, and started their lives. And I'm encouraged that finally we 
have also gotten a positive response from some of the Republican 
Members. Some of that legislation, as you know, is directed to benefit 
only Nicaraguans. I think that we should help them, but I don't think we 
should forget about the Guatemalans and the Salvadorans either. I think 
the chances are excellent that we will have legislation which will 
enable us to do the humane, decent thing. Thank you.
    Let me also say, if I could just make a point about Los Angeles. 
While Hispanic-Americans are the fastest growing group of Americans, Los 
Angeles County, our largest county, has people from at least 150 
different racial and ethnic groups--in one of our counties. So we are 
becoming a multiethnic democracy in ways that we never have been before, 
and if we do it properly, it will be a great thing for our future.
    Thank you very much.

[Ms. Salinas introduced a patent lawyer.]

U.S. Trade Policy

    Q. Good afternoon, first of all, Mr. President. The United States on 
the one hand is promoting the establishment of the free trade area of 
the Americas, the FTAA, and has now embarked on its own regional 
integration project, which is NAFTA. On the other hand, it says that it 
would be against integration blocs in Latin America that would limit the 
exports or imports of third parties. Now, my question is this: How can 
you simultaneously hold both positions, which at first sight seem to be 
contradictory?
    The President. Well, first of all, let me tell you what my position 
is. I supported the establishment of NAFTA. I supported the 
strengthening of MERCOSUR. I support the Andean Pact. I

support CARICOM. Why? Because when countries that are neighbors lower their 
barriers and trade with each other, they increase growth and wealth. They 
also acquire a political closeness that makes former conflicts unthinkable. 
And they begin to look to the future and to their children, instead of to 
their past prejudices or difficulties. They tend to work together to solve 
problems, the way we're working with Argentina and Brazil, for example, to 
help Peru and Ecuador resolve their problems on the border.

    Secondly, I believe that being for MERCOSUR, being for NAFTA, being 
for these other pacts is sort of a first step toward trying to have a 
larger hemispheric economic integration. If you imagine--all of you here 
are younger than I am--imagine what your life will be like 20 years from 
now. Imagine all the people who live in Argentina who couldn't come here 
wearing a coat and tie yet. How are they going to have opportunities in 
the future? How are they going to live out their dreams? If we can 
integrate the markets from the northern part of Alaska to the tip of 
Tierra del Fuego so that you have 800 million people who are, in a 
deliberate fashion, trying to work together and grow together, that will 
change the future of people that otherwise won't be touched. So to me, I 
say yes to hemispheric integration, but let's build on what's happening 
now that's working.

1996 Campaign Financing

    Ms. Salinas. Mr. President, of course, you have tried to keep the 
focus throughout this tour on trade, which is one of the main points. 
But unfortunately, other subjects have come up that you would have 
preferred to leave at home. Some people in Latin America criticize 
Presidents because they use

[[Page 1598]]

their position to benefit from power and from elections, and there are 
people who criticize you perhaps for the same thing, by making phone 
calls from the White House or perhaps holding coffees for people who 
could finance your campaign. Do you think there is anything valid in any 
of those criticisms?
    The President. No. [Laughter] But it's true that I tried to win 
reelection, and it's true that I asked people to support me, and it's 
true that from time to time I actually talked to my supporters. I think 
that's how democracy works.
    But on the other hand, I don't mind people saying that, well, in 
their opinion we should have done it one way or the other. The 
fundamental problem in America is there is no effective limitation on 
spending. There is no access by national candidates or Federal 
candidates for our Congress to free or reduced air time, and so we have 
increasing costs of communication in campaigns. And one of our big 
problems--if we want to preserve our democracy in a way that has the 
trust of the people of our country and gets participation back up, 
people in public life and people who want office should be doing more 
things like this. And there should be strict limits on spending in 
return for access like this to the public, so that people feel that 
they're participating. That's the real problem. We ought to pass the 
finance reform legislation that I'm supporting or some other version of 
comprehensive campaign finance reform. Every nation should do that.

[Mr. Ramos introduced an Argentine lawyer.]

Domestic Violence

    Q. Mr. President, I'd like to ask you with regard to domestic 
violence, which recently has been publicly recognized by the nations of 
the world as a serious social problem that especially victimizes women 
and children, what are your policies--active policies to prevent it and 
eradicate it?
    The President. First of all, I think--I thank you for working in the 
field, and I think it's very important that domestic violence is being 
recognized as a human rights issue. My wife should be answering this 
question. She has done a lot more work on this than I have. She went to 
Beijing to the International Women's Conference to talk about this, 
among other things. She spoke with women from Argentina today, just 
today, about this and has talked about it all over Latin America.
    It is not a cultural issue; it's a human rights issue, and it is a 
crime. What we have done is we set up a special division in our Justice 
Department with an advocate on violence against women. We established a 
toll-free long distance phone line so that people could call us from all 
over the country to talk about instances of domestic violence, to ask 
for help, to get--for treatment for people, for law enforcement support, 
for whatever. And it has been very well used. And we have done a lot of 
work to increase the sensitivity of our local law enforcement officials 
and to train them better, so that they know it when they see it. I know 
that may sound funny, but a lot of people don't know it when they see 
it, don't know how to respond to it.
    And I think every country needs to do that. There needs to be an 
advocate; there needs to be a way ordinary people who aren't being heard 
in their neighborhoods or their communities can call and get help; and 
then there needs to be a comprehensive training program to change the 
priorities, the attitudes, the understandings of the people in law 
enforcement. It should be a priority in every nation of the Americas. 
And I would be the last to say we have solved the problem in America, 
but at least we are aggressively pursuing it. And I thank my wife for 
making sure we're trying to do the right thing anyway.

[Mr. Ramos called on Ms. Rodriguez, who introduced a Costa Rican 
participant from Florida.]

Human Rights

    Q. Good afternoon, Mr. President. For the first time since the 
Carter administration, the United States has decided to promote human 
rights in Latin America. Given the fact that in the past the United 
States has demonstrated its will to intervene or even invade on behalf 
of causes such as democracy or to take away from power supposed 
criminals, alleged criminals, what possibilities are there for the 
United States to do that today for human rights?

[[Page 1599]]

    The President. Well, the United States is being very aggressive in 
the support of human rights. It affects our other policies. It is a part 
of all of our dialog with countries where it's an issue. We are trying 
to move away from the period when the United States was eager to invade 
other countries in our hemisphere and our neighbors, toward a spirit of 
partnership and cooperation but a cooperation based not simply on common 
economic interests but most importantly on the shared values of freedom 
and democracy, of peace and prosperity, of cooperative efforts in 
environmental protection and education and other things. So you can't 
have a relationship like that if human rights is taken out of the 
equation.
    And I might say--you're Costa Rican--if you look at the experience 
of Costa Rica, if you look at how wonderfully they have done, part of it 
is because they have observed basic human rights and did not have 
institutions within the society that had a vested interest in holding 
people down and denying their human potential. That's a lesson we all 
need to learn.
    So I wouldn't think that America would want to get into the invasion 
business. We did participate in the United Nations-sanctioned 
restoration of the elected Government of Haiti, but only after it became 
sanctioned by the international community, where there were serious 
human rights abuses but where an election had also been interrupted. But 
what we can do to have the most influence is just, day-in and day-out, 
find ways to work together to deal with it, and hopefully in a 
multilateral situation. The OAS can do more, and we can do more 
bilaterally as well. But thank you for your question and for your 
concern.

[Ms. Salinas called on Ms. Collins, who introduced the coordinator for 
inter-American affairs, William C. Velasquez Institute.]

Free Trade

    Q. Good afternoon, Mr. President. Hispanic congressmen here in the 
United States are against fast track, as a result of certain lacks in 
certain NAFTA programs for retraining workers who have lost their jobs 
as a result of NAFTA and others to create jobs for those same workers. 
My question is, don't you think that we need to improve NAFTA before we 
expand it to South America or before we negotiate any other free-trade 
agreement, before we ask for fast-track authorization?
    The President. Absolutely not. Let's look at the economic facts 
here. First of all--and I would be happy to discuss this, but whether 
you believe NAFTA was a success or a failure--and I believe we are far 
better off economically and in our relationships with Mexico than we 
would have been had we not passed NAFTA--but we are the only developed 
country in the world with a 2,000-mile border with a country that is 
still developing. We have unique historical, cultural, economic, 
environmental, and other challenges in our relationship.
    Our trade with the Americas has grown enormously in the last few 
years. It has gone up 200 percent since 1990. It's now over $109 
billion. In the last year alone, 70 percent of America's trade growth 
has come from the Americas. So should we do something to trade more with 
Chile, with Argentina, with Brazil, with other

countries? Yes, I believe we should. Should we wait while Europeans and 
others make agreements that help their workers? No, I don't believe we 
should. Are there political benefits as well as economic benefits to our 
cooperation? Absolutely.

    Now, in the case of NAFTA--let's go back to NAFTA. We had a couple 
of rough years with NAFTA because of the peso crisis in Mexico and the 
recession which followed. But they were not nearly as bad and Mexico 
bounced back much more quickly than they did when the same thing 
happened to Mexico in the early eighties and there was no NAFTA, there 
was no trade.
    We have not solved all the environmental problems along the border, 
but at least we have a financial mechanism and a testing mechanism now, 
and we have shown we have some examples of progress. I think you can 
rightly say that the North American Development Bank lost 2 years in the 
development, in '94 and '95. We've been working since early '96 to get 
it going. And just recently, I reached an agreement with the Hispanic 
caucus to dramatically increase the lending capacity of the North 
American Develop

[[Page 1600]]

ment Bank to help Americans displaced by NAFTA-related trade. We've 
already doubled worker retraining funds. I've reached an agreement with 
the Hispanic caucus to increase it another $450 million over the next 5 
years.
    So I think that we do have to do more to help Americans who are 
disadvantaged by trade, but that is not an argument against fast track. 
Fast track is about the future of Latin America and its future economic 
relations with us, and I think we'd be making a terrible mistake to 
delay. We should speed up, not delay. The economy down here is on a fast 
track. I can see it all around me. They're not waiting for us to do 
this. We just should be a good partner and do it.

[Mr. Ramos introduced an Argentine pediatrician.]

    Q. Good afternoon.
    The President. Good afternoon.

Health Care

    Q. My question has to do with health, and it's this. Access to 
health care is a basic human right. The United States has many times 
helped to promote and defend human rights. How do you think the United 
States can help us now to be able to gain access for the entire 
population to health care? And how does this work in the United States, 
immersed as you are in a free market economic system?
    The President. Well, you know, that's a problem that we haven't 
fully solved. Hillary and I tried in 1994 to devise a system where 
everyone who could afford it would pay something, according to their 
ability to pay, for themselves and their employees to buy health 
insurance so everyone would have access to health care. That plan did 
not pass.
    What have we done instead? We have tried to make it possible for 
health care to be more affordable. We've tried to protect people's 
health insurance when they have it so that they don't lose it. And we 
have a network of public health clinics throughout the United States 
that people can visit if they do not have access to health care. We just 
passed a law in our country with 24 billion U.S. dollars to provide 
health insurance to another 5 million children over the next 5 years. So 
we're trying.
    But I think that we should--from my own point of view, we should 
support programs through the international financial institutions that 
help you and through AID, the USAID programs that deal with basic health 
care. Access to health care is, in my view, right up there with 
education in terms of what it will take to give every single child in 
this country and on this continent a chance to participate in the future 
we're building. And I think the United States should continue to have a 
high priority on health care at home and health care abroad.
    And thank you for being a pediatrician.

[Ms. Salinas introduced a Uruguayan English teacher.]

Intercultural Education

    Q. Good afternoon, Mr. President. I spent some time studying in the 
United States. Your universities and your schools in the United States 
are full of foreign students who seem to have understood the need to 
culturally interact in this era of globalization. Don't you think that 
more U.S. young people should be going out to the world in order to get 
to know it and get to know people and get in touch and not be so unaware 
of the needs of globalization?
    The President. Yes, absolutely. You know, one of the reasons I have 
the attitudes that I have today is that when I was a young man I was 
given the opportunity to study in another country for 2 years and travel 
to other countries. I have strongly supported America maintaining the 
Fulbright scholarship program for that reason. And I believe that we 
should do all that we can to encourage more students from the United 
States to take a year or so and study abroad. I'm very glad that we have 
students from other countries in the U.S. I think there are now 2,000 
students from Argentina in the United States. Are there any American 
students here? Good for you. Well, we have a few here, beating the odds. 
But I think it's very important.
    Let me also say that there is a marked attitudinal change, though, 
now. Young Americans, Americans under 30, are far more likely to want to 
be involved with a foreign culture, to want to study overseas, to 
understand the

[[Page 1601]]

importance of trade and political cooperation to their own future--far 
more likely. So I wouldn't be surprised if we don't see a big upsurge in 
the number of young Americans now who want to take at least a year and 
go overseas to learn about another culture, to master another language, 
to be a part of the world as it is developing. But you're absolutely 
right, we should do more of it.

[Ms. Salinas called on Ms. Rodriguez, who introduced the president of 
the Puerto Rican Students Association at the University of Miami.]

Puerto Rican Statehood

    Q. Thank you. Good afternoon to everyone and good afternoon to you, 
Mr. President. This is my question. If Puerto Rico were accepted as the 
51st State, what assurance could you give the Puerto Rican community 
that we would be able to keep our traditions, our culture, our language, 
and not lose our Puerto Rican identity?
    The President. Well, first, let me state what my position is. My 
position is that the status of Puerto Rico should be for the Puerto 
Rican people themselves to decide. Whether a commonwealth, independence, 
or statehood, it should be totally up to the people of Puerto Rico. If 
Puerto Rico were to become a State, among other things, under our laws 
the educational system of Puerto Rico would be primarily the 
constitutional responsibility of the State of Puerto Rico, so that to 
whatever extent the State wanted to have a cultural support for the 
native culture and the native customs and the native language would be a 
decision for the State to pursue that the Federal Government should not 
try to undermine.
    So that's my position. I don't think you'd have to worry about that. 
There are complicating questions on both sides of that issue. But I 
think that the preservation of the unique and wonderful culture of 
Puerto Rico would not be a problem probably in either way, but there may 
be some specific problems I'm unaware of. But I would say that people 
should make their decisions about commonwealth and statehood probably 
based on what they think is best economically, rather than that. I 
believe that we'll be able to preserve the culture no matter what.
    As a matter of fact, if you look at what's happening in Miami, 
what's happening in Los Angeles, what's happening in Chicago, what's 
happening in the Fairfax County school district across the river from 
Washington, DC, where there are people from 180 different national 
groups in one school district, we're going to do a lot of cultural 
preservation in the years ahead.

[Mr. Ramos called on Ms. Collins, who introduced the coordinator of a 
Los Angeles human rights organization.]

Immigration

    Q. Yes, Mr. President. The new immigration law of 1996 has caused a 
major crisis for immigrant families. In the past, you have said that 
life was not going to be made more difficult for those immigrants who 
have complied with the law in this country and who are seeking the 
American dream. What I'd like to know is what do you plan to do so that 
the immigration laws are more humane for the people coming from those 
countries?
    The President. First of all, I think it's important that you look at 
the changes that we just put into the recently passed budget. As you 
know, I was bitterly opposed to the immigration law changes made by 
Congress last year, and I said I would do all I could

to reverse the harshest aspects of them. Those laws were largely reversed 
in their impact in the budget that we just passed.

    Now, for people who are there without legal approval, they may be 
eligible to become legal immigrants and, if so, they should try to get 
legal status. For some legal immigrants that may still lose some public 
benefits, our information is that over 70 percent of them are eligible 
to become citizens. I would urge them to become citizens. We just had a 
big report from our immigration commission saying that we in the United 
States Government should do more to try to push citizenship and help new 
citizens to integrate more successfully into our society. So we're going 
to be looking at that to see if there are some people who have fallen 
between the cracks, that we can change their status so they won't be put 
in a perilous circumstance. But I'm confident that most of

[[Page 1602]]

the people's problems were taken care of by the recent budget law. The 
others, I think, we'll have to work hard, particularly moving people 
into citizenship, because most of the people who don't have benefits 
now, because they're legal immigrants and not citizens, are old people 
who aren't in dire health conditions. But almost all of them are 
eligible to become citizens, and I think we have to move them through 
the system as quickly as we can.

[Ms. Salinas introduced a Chilean computer company president.]

Major Non-NATO Ally Status and Arms Sales

    Q. Mr. President, in the United States seeking MNNA status for 
Argentina, the armed forces of Argentina, no doubt, would also be given 
a new status by the U.S. Government. Don't you think that a rivalry can 
be generated between these neighboring countries in the south and also 
produce democratic instability in the region in an arms race that could 
be unleashed through this decision?
    The President. No, but let me explain why. Let me explain why. It's 
a fair question. And let me say if someone--an Argentine here might 
stand up and ask the following question: Mr. President, don't you think 
the fact that the United States is now willing to send--sell 
sophisticated jets to the Chilean air force could cause the same problem 
you just said? So let me answer both questions, if I might.
    We accorded the major non-NATO ally status to Argentina because of 
the truly extraordinary efforts that have happened just in the 1990's, 
where Argentina has gone with us to Bosnia, has gone into Haiti, is 
working with British soldiers in Cyprus, is working in Mozambique. There 
is hardly a country in the world that has anything approaching the 
record of the Argentine military in being willing to stand up for the 
cause of peace. We believe that we should be sending a signal that this 
is the policy that other countries should follow. There is nothing here 
designed to upset the military balance in South America. We want 
Argentina to be working with Chile, to be working with Brazil. It would 
be the height of stupidity for these countries to go to war with each 
other.
    Now, why did we decide to say that we might sell aircraft to Chile? 
Because Chile was interested in our making a bid. We used to have--
essentially, when the continent was governed by military dictators, we 
said we're not going to sell them planes because they'll use them to go 
to war with each other. Now that the continent is governed by stable 
democracies, I asked myself this question: Is there some reason I should 
continue to discriminate against Chile and treat them differently than I 
would France or Germany? And the answer was no.
    So what we're trying to do, so that no arms--so that we don't have a 
new arms race in Latin America and people don't get scared about this, 
whether--I mean, Chile may or may not buy American planes, for all I 
know. But what we think ought to be done is that all the OAS members 
ought to say, ``Look, we have militaries, we have to keep them properly 
equipped, but we're going to share information with each other about 
what we're buying and why.'' No more secrets, no surprises, no attempts 
to gain any advantage over one another--that's the answer there. So I 
think that we ought to just be very open and honest with each other 
about why we're doing these things, and if so, we won't be heightening 
the military tension.

Malvinas-Falkland Islands

    Mr. Ramos. Mr. President, as a journalist, before going to the next 
question, I wanted to say this. Since Argentina is an ally of the United 
States, a non-NATO ally, what would happen if, for example, Argentina 
wanted to seek a diplomatic or military solution to the Malvinas-
Falkland Islands? What would the United States do, ally itself with 
Great Britain or Argentina?
    The President. The United States would say--we tried that once; it 
didn't work out so well. And the United States would say, here are two 
great countries following, in every other respect, farsighted policies. 
Great Britain is enjoying enormous

success now in Europe in economic recovery, showing real responsibility in 
international affairs, trying to deal with the question we must all deal 
with, which is how do you have a free

[[Page 1603]]

market and preserve the social contract, treat the poor fairly, grow the 
middle class. This is not the time to be going to war. These are our 
friends. They should get together and work this out. That's what the United 
States would say. The United States would say, for goodness sakes, don't 
spoil a good thing. We have two good countries here with two--with strong 
leadership. They should get together and work this out. This is not a cause 
for war; this is a cause for negotiations.

[Mr. Ramos introduced Mexico's special envoy for the United Nations 
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization.]

Youth Empowerment

    Q. Good afternoon, Mr. President. This is my question. We young 
people are concerned about solving the problems that affect our 
countries, but the only thing we can do is show up these concerns 
because we don't have the proper platform for decisionmaking. I'd like 
to know, do you have concrete policies designed for young people to 
become part of strategic decisionmaking processes? And could this policy 
be used as a tool for better intercontinental integration?
    The President. To be perfectly honest with you, I'd never thought of 
it in that way before. It's interesting; in the United States more and 
more of our school boards, for example, are having a student be a member 
of the board. More and more of our university boards of trustees are 
having a student be a member of the board, trying to actually share 
power with people who are even younger than you, to get young people 
into this. I haven't thought of this in the context you mention, but I 
would urge you and anyone else here who is interested in this, if you 
have any ideas, write to me about it. I will think about it, and I will 
see what can be done.
    But since you're from Mexico though, let me make a specific 
suggestion. I believe President Zedillo did a very brave and good thing 
in basically genuinely opening up the Mexican political system, knowing 
that it would cost his own party positions in the Mexican Congress in 
the short run. Now you have a much more competitive democracy in Mexico. 
As a result of that, all these parties are going to be looking around 
now for young people like you, with ideas and energy and values, people 
who can command the support of other people. And I think this is a very 
good time for young people in Mexico to try to make their influence felt 
in the political system.

Because the old--the PRI, they desperately need now young people to come in 
and say, ``No, we have new ideas. We have a future.'' The other parties 
that are competing are going to be open. And I think for young people who 
are of the age to be in politics, not just as elected officials but I mean 
as activists, there is an unprecedented opportunity in Mexico to affect 
policy now because you've just opened up a new chapter in your political 
history.

    On the other question, think about it. If you have any ideas 
specifically, write to me. I'm intrigued by it. I hadn't thought of it 
before.
    Q. We'll ask for the address then.
    Ms. Salinas. Mr. President, we've run out of the time we had for 
questions. Of course, there are so many young people here and in Los 
Angeles and Miami as well who wanted to take advantage of this 
opportunity to ask you questions. Others have been able to do that, and 
they're very grateful. But now, please, you take the floor.
    The President. First, let me thank all of you for coming. Let me 
thank the people in Los Angeles and Miami. Let me congratulate the 
people in Miami. Their baseball team is going to the World Series faster 
than any new team has ever gone before. Let me thank the people of 
Venezuela and Brazil and Argentina for making us feel so welcome.
    And let me say again, I am convinced that the best years in all of 
human civilization can be ahead of us if we take advantage of the 
revolutions that are now in play and honestly face our problems 
together. And if we define the worth of our lives by what we can 
accomplish by helping each other to make the most of their lives, then I 
think you will have a very wonderful time in the 21st century.
    Thank you, and God bless you.

[An additional question was asked in Spanish, but a translation was not 
provided.]

[[Page 1604]]

Bilingual Education

    The President. Believe it or not, I lost my interpreter, but I know 
what we're talking about. [Laughter]
    Here's what I think about the whole bilingual education issue. Every 
country has a dominant language, and should. And the children in the 
schools should make every effort--should learn that dominant language 
and become proficient in it. I think more and more, our children in 
America will want to speak at least two languages and perhaps more.
    What I'd like to see is a situation where we say, however--we can't 
say we're not going to have any bilingual education, because then 
children would come here, not just from Spanish-speaking countries but 
from any number of Asian cultures, and not be able to learn in school 
for 2 or 3 years. And when children come to the United States and they 
don't speak English, but they're school age, I think they should start 
school immediately. They should be able to get whatever instruction they 
have to have in the language that they do speak, but then they should 
learn to speak English in an appropriate time, so that we're always 
encouraging bilingualism or multilingualism.
    Thank you.

Note: The President spoke at 4:07 p.m. at the Univision Television 
Network Studio. In his remarks, he referred to Univision journalists 
Jorge Ramos and Maria Elena Salinas, who moderated the meeting in Buenos 
Aires; and President Ernesto Zedillo of Mexico. The President also 
referred to the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), Mexico's ruling 
political party.