[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 33, Number 45 (Monday, November 10, 1997)]
[Pages 1707-1710]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
<R04>
Remarks in the Globalization and Trade Session of the Democratic
National Committee's Autumn Retreat on Amelia Island
November 1, 1997
[The discussion is joined in progress.]
Role of National Economic Council
Q. Perhaps the time has come to elevate the National Economic
Council to the level of stature that the National Security Council has
had. Yesterday I attended in Washington a Council on Foreign Relations
meeting which was a retrospective of the first 50 years of the National
Security Council, at which a half-dozen former and the current National
Security Adviser were present. And the scope
[[Page 1708]]
of their remarks and their ability to integrate across the disparate
organizational interests of Defense, State, other U.S. Government and
nongovernmental organizations to create policy synthesis was, although
not perfect, very impressive. And I was wondering whether you had a
comment on whether the United States Government perhaps needed at this
time a comparable structure.
[At this point, the moderator invited the President to respond.]
The President. First of all, while it doesn't have a 50-year
history, I think the record will reflect that's exactly what we've done.
I brought Bob Rubin in to be the head of a new National Economic Council
to reconcile all the different economic agencies. And then Laura Tyson
did it. Now Gene Sperling and Dan Tarrullo do it. As a result of it, for
the first time in most business people's experience, you have the State
Department aggressively working in Embassies around the world to help
American business; you have the Export-Import Bank, Overseas Private
Investment Council, working with the Agriculture Department, the
Commerce Department, and all the other economic agencies, especially,
obviously, the Treasury Department.
And it works like the NSC does. We try to get everybody together,
reach a common policy, and then all back it. Sometimes we don't quite
get there, but we've had a remarkable amount of success, and I think
that it is the single most significant organizational innovation that
our administration has made in the White House. And I think that the
economic record of the administration is due at least in part to the
institution of the National Economic Council.
[The discussion continued.]
Integration of Diplomatic and Economic Policy
Q. ----I think the question is whether, organizationally the
Government needs to think about different ways to both create that and
sustain a free trade area of the Americas.
The President. Well, basically, I agree with you. The reason that I
asked Mack McLarty to take on that job is that I thought our
relationship with Latin America was of profound importance and that it
cut across economic and political lines, and we needed to have somebody
concentrating on it who could deal with not just specific diplomatic or
security issues but the whole range of political and economic issues.
And it's worked.
And what I'm hoping we can do now is take a look at whether we could
do the same sort of thing in other parts of the world and how we'd have
to reorganize the State Department and how we might integrate our
diplomatic and economic efforts even more closely than we have to date.
Let me just say generically, one of the things that stunned me when
I became President was how antiquated all the organizational and
information structures of the Federal Government were. When I walked in
the Oval Office as President the first day, Jimmy Carter's phone system
was on the desk--you know, where you punch those big old plastic buttons
and the light comes up--[laughter]--and you dialed. And if you were
having a call with three people, everybody else in the White House that
had the line on the button could pick it up and listen. It was
unbelievable--1993--we had an almost 20-year-old phone system.
And believe me, that is a metaphor for other problems. One of the
things that Speaker Gingrich and I have discussed as a possible
bipartisan project is an effort to totally upgrade the information
systems and communications systems of both the executive and the
legislative branches, to try to get us in tune with the world. I know we
had some high-tech executives testifying before Congress recently, and
they were asked--they said, ``One real problem is in communications. We
operate at 3 times the speed of normal business decisions.'' Normal
business operates at 3 times the speed of Government; therefore, we're
at a 9-to-1 disadvantage in trying to harmonize these policies.
[Laughter]
So I think Bob's made some very good points about that.
[The discussion continued.]
Trade Policy and Domestic Economic Development
The President. Before I go, if I could just say one thing about this
trade issue, because
[[Page 1709]]
we need your help on this. I think we ought to say, first of all, that
the Democratic Party has moved on the trade issue. Even a lot of the
people who are against fast track basically want it to pass in the
sense--and they know that we need to open more markets to Latin America
and that there are political as well as economic benefits to a free
trade area of the Americas, to the African initiative that I have
announced. They know the biggest middle class in the world is in India.
They know that the Indian subcontinent, if the differences between
Pakistan and India could be resolved, would be an enormous opportunity.
They know these things. This is not a secret. And there is much more of
a willingness to embrace this in our caucus in the Congress than I think
is--than you would sense.
The question is how to get over the hurdle of the feeling that it's
not just foreign markets that are more closed to us but that other
countries, through the use of labor practices we think are wrong, or
Mark mentioned the pollution problem in Mexicali--which we are moving to
address and have some money to do so--that they'll gain unfair economic
advantage; and secondly, the feeling that while we all talk a good
game--and I think this is really the issue--while everybody talks a good
game, our country really does not have a very good system, or at least
it's not adequate, for dealing with people who are dislocated in this
churning modern economy.
And I might say that the Council of Economic Advisers did a study
for me which indicated that 80 percent of the job dislocation was the
result of technological change; only 20 percent from trade patterns. But
my view is, if you're my age and you've got a kid in college and you
lose your job at some company, who cares what the cause is?
So I think that really thoughtful people need to think about how are
we going to set up a system of kind of lifetime education and training
and growth, and how are we going to give people who are dislocated the
transitional support they need for their families so they don't lose all
self-respect and become desperate, and try to increase the flow here
because we know we have--today--you've got significant shortages in
America in high-wage job categories that could be filled by people who
are being dislocated today from other high-wage or moderate-wage jobs.
So what I would like to ask a lot of you who agree with me on this
trade issue to think about is, is we have moved our party. You may not
be able to tell it on the vote here in the fast track, but the truth is,
if you listen to the arguments, there's almost nobody standing up saying
anymore like they used to a few years ago, ``Trade's a bad thing. We're
always going to be taken advantage of. It's always going to be a
terrible thing.'' You don't hear that much anymore. People are genuinely
concerned now about making sure that the rules are fair and that the
dislocation is addressed.
So I say that to ask you, first of all, to keep on working on fast
track, because our opponents are wrong and it won't create a single job
if we lose; it will cost us jobs. So that's the short-term thing; we've
got to fight for that. But we also have to recognize that you've got
three categories of people out there: those that are displaced by trade;
a much larger group of people that are just being dislocated by
technological and economic changes that are going to occur anyway; and
then you've got a group of people that we're trying to address with the
empowerment zones who haven't been affected one way or the other by
trade or economic growth because they live in islands that haven't been
penetrated by free enterprise in America. And in a funny way, we should
look at them as a market, the way we look at the Caribbean or Latin
America or Africa or anyplace else. We should look at these people as a
market.
Mark Nichols represents a Native American group. If you think about
the Native American tribes that aren't making a ton of money off their
gambling casinos, that need jobs and investment, if you think about the
inner city neighborhoods, if you think about the rural areas that
haven't been touched, I think as Democrats we ought to be more creative
about thinking about how we can push an aggressive trade agenda and say
we need all these people, too, and it's a great growth opportunity--and
not be deterred in trying to do what we ought to be doing on trade but
also understand that this other
[[Page 1710]]
thing is a legitimate issue and we have to address it.
In the next few days we're going to do more in the Congress to do
this, but I think--I'm talking about this is going to be an ongoing
effort. It's going to take about 10 years, I think, to just keep pushing
at it as we learn more and more and more about how to do it. And if the
people in the country get the sense that this is a dual commitment on
our part and that we're passionate about both, I think that is not only
the winning position, I think, more importantly, it is the right
position.
Note: The President spoke at 11:20 a.m. in Salon One at the Ritz-Carlton
Hotel. In his remarks, he referred to Mark Nichols, chief executive
officer, Cabazon Band of Mission Indians.