[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 33, Number 45 (Monday, November 10, 1997)]
[Pages 1735-1739]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Remarks on Fast-Track Trade Legislation and an Exchange With Reporters

November 5, 1997

    The President. Thank you very much. Mr. Vice President, Senator, 
Members of the Congress, thank you so much for being here. And to the 
members of the administration, thank you for your efforts on fast track.
    The choice Congress confronts this week will profoundly affect our 
growth, prosperity, and leadership well into the new century, for 
Congress must decide whether to extend the President's fast-track 
authority to negotiate agreements that tear down unfair trade barriers 
to our exports and create high-wage jobs in our economy.
    Yesterday a bipartisan majority in the Senate voted overwhelmingly 
to move forward on extending fast-track authority. On Friday, the House 
of Representatives will vote on fast track, and I strongly encourage the 
House to take the same bold stand for America's future. A Member of 
Congress who votes for fast track is doing the right thing for America.
    If we turn our backs now on trade and fail to seize the 
opportunities of the global economy, our competitors will eagerly take 
our place. That is an ``America last'' strategy. It's unacceptable; it 
won't work.
    The rejection of fast track won't create any new jobs or raise any 
American incomes. It won't advance environmental or labor standards 
abroad. It would reduce our ability to do both. And I think that is very 
important. By freezing the status quo, we would simply be saying that we 
are going to freeze ourselves out of getting a fair deal in other 
markets; we are going to sit by while other countries get a better deal 
in other markets; and at the same time, we are going to reduce our 
influence on the labor and environmental standards in other countries 
and undermine our ability to continue to grow the American economy and 
create good, new jobs here.
    Still, there are things that we have to do to try to continue to 
push the elevation of labor and environmental standards around the world 
as we press for open markets, and I believe we owe it to ourselves and 
our future to leave no one behind who is willing to work and learn in 
order to compete and win in the global economy.
    Our social compact ever since I came here has always been 
opportunity for everyone who is responsible and a community in which all 
Americans have a chance. That's why we've worked hard with Congress to 
create a package of initiatives which I will include in my next budget 
to equip all people to reap the rewards of change. We know that the

[[Page 1736]]

technological and trade changes going on today favor people with higher 
skills. We know that they are accelerating the pace of change in our 
economy and indeed in every economy throughout the world. It is, 
therefore, imperative that we do more to make sure all our people have a 
chance to benefit from these changes.
    First, we must greatly expand our efforts to help workers who lose 
their jobs because of technology or trade or other economic changes. At 
the suggestion of Congressman Bentsen, I'm going to establish a 
commission on workers and economic change in the new economy. Right now, 
we're going to commit to provide $750 million in additional funding to 
retrain dislocated workers. We want to create a special fund to 
guarantee that there will always be adequate resources to help workers 
hurt by trade. We want to target funds to help so-called secondary 
workers; that is, not only workers from a textile factory, for example, 
that might close but those in a nearby button factory who supply the 
textile factory.
    This is very important. Changes in the economy do bring job 
dislocation. Most of them come because of technology. Some of them come 
because of trade. Our efforts here, combined with what we have already 
done, will mean that while we were cutting spending and balancing the 
budget during my term of office, we tripled funding for dislocated 
workers continuing training, to move people back into the economy with 
the skills they need.
    Second, we have to step up our efforts to help communities adjust to 
this new economy. We should provide more rapid, more comprehensive, more 
coordinated assistance from all the Federal agencies in a way that is 
modeled on what we now do in our military base closure efforts, when 
we're trying to convert the bases to other uses. We should double the 
funds to help areas that have experienced

major plant closings, and we should expand the development bank serving 
trade-affected areas.

    Third, we must develop the untapped potential of our inner cities 
and rural areas, for too many of these places have not been touched by 
growth or dislocation. They need more investment. Our budget agreement 
doubles the number of empowerment zones, with tax incentives to invest 
in these rural and urban areas. But we must do more. We should increase 
loans for people who live in distressed rural and urban communities. We 
should make $100 million in flexible grants available every year in the 
new empowerment zones to attract new jobs and new small businesses, and 
we should provide for more skills training for young people in high 
poverty areas.
    By giving a helping hand to workers at home and a strengthened hand 
to our negotiators as they open markets abroad, we can bring more 
Americans into the winner's circle of the new economy. We can grow the 
economy and let more people participate in that growth. There's no 
reason why our Nation cannot see to it that every American has the tools 
and conditions to succeed in this new economy. Our prosperity enables 
it; our understanding of the social contract demands it.
    Now, the House faces a crucial vote on Friday. For me, the options 
are clear: We can rise to the challenges of the future, write the trade 
rules, continue our remarkable growth; or we can turn our back on the 
world and fail to compete for new markets, new contracts, and new jobs. 
I believe that the evidence is clear. We have produced over 13 million 
new jobs in less than 5 years, because we have expanded the ability of 
Americans to sell their products and services around the world. It would 
be a great mistake not to continue that.
    We cannot afford to return to a mindset that pretends that we can 
protect what we have now and never grow in the future. We must seize the 
opportunities of the future and take care of the people who have 
difficulties with change. We must do both, but--we must do both.
    Thank you very much.

Republican Electoral Victories

    Q. Mr. President, you asked voters yesterday to send a message to 
Washington in the elections. What do you thing the message was on the 
Republican victories?
    The President. Well, they won in places that they had before, and we 
won the places we had before--in the urban areas where we

[[Page 1737]]

had elections. And I think the lesson of this year is that when the 
economy is up and crime is down, people believe the country and their 
States and their communities are moving in the right directions, and 
they tend to stay with incumbent candidates and parties.
    I will say this--I was surprised and terribly impressed by the 
remarkable campaign of Mr. McGreevey in New Jersey. And I was profoundly 
grateful for a vote which may well have some national significance in 
Houston, when the people of Houston voted to retain their affirmative 
action program in city contracting. I say that because that's a second 
version of the debate that was held in California, and I expect that 
debate will be held in other communities throughout the country. So that 
may or may not have national significance, but it might.
    But the others, I think--economy is up, crime is down; people think 
the country and the States and the communities are going in the right 
direction, and the incumbents all benefited.

Possible Impeachment Proceedings

    Q. Could we ask your reaction to the announcement by Congressman Bob 
Barr this morning that he will ask for a resolution for a preliminary 
inquiry by the House Judiciary Committee into possible impeachment 
proceedings against you for, among other things, possible abuse of 
Presidential power. What would your reaction to such a move be?
    The President. Well, Congressman Barr, as I remember, was the man 
who carried the NRA's water to try to beat the Brady bill and the 
assault weapons ban. He's always had a rather extreme view of these 
things. I don't really have any comment on that.
    Q. Mr. President, going back to fast track----

Iraq

    Q. Mr. President, on Iraq, sir, what do you think the signals should 
be--what signals should Saddam Hussein take--I'm sorry--from the U.N. 
decision to postpone these U-2 flights over his territory?
    The President. Well, as I said yesterday, that was a decision for 
Mr. Butler to make. But if I were in his position, I wouldn't draw too 
much of a conclusion from it. They want the United Nations group to be 
able to talk to Saddam Hussein and to be able to speak directly and 
frankly. But Mr. Butler has, in his tenure, has done a good job of doing 
the inspections, and he made it clear that the U-2 flights would be 
resumed. I personally felt that it was important.
    So I think that you've got to say that Mr. Butler's got a good 
record of doing these inspections, that he's aggressively determined to 
stop the development of a weapons of mass destruction program, and he 
did say the flights would be resumed. So if I were Saddam Hussein I 
wouldn't draw too much inference from it except to say they'd like to 
have a talk in the most open circumstances possible.

National Standardized Testing

    Q. Mr. President, Congressman Goodling says you have an agreement on 
national testing. What is it, and is it going to turn into a signable 
bill?
    The President. Well, I met with Congressman Goodling this morning, 
and I do want to thank him, because we have been working for weeks and 
weeks and weeks to try to work out his concerns and mine. He did not--he 
told me months ago, when we started talking about it, he did not want to 
see an inordinate duplication of the efforts already undertaken at the 
State level and by some large school districts where they're already 
doing some kind of standardized test.
    I said my concern was not to have--was to have some sort of clearly 
accepted standard of excellence that all our children would be expected 
to meet in reading and math. And we believe, based on our conversation 
today, that we at least have an agreement in principle about how our 
students can master the basics and achieve higher

academic standards and be measured for doing that, to hold children's 
educational performance to a uniform standard without undermining the 
efforts that are now going on in States, if they actually do measure 
whether the children know what they need to know.

    So the agreement was reached in principle, but there's some 
complexity in terms of just turning it into language, in terms of how 
this test would be evaluated compared

[[Page 1738]]

with one another and what we propose to do in terms of research over the 
next couple of years. But the bottom line for the American people is I 
think we have opened the door to giving people in every State, every 
school district, and every school the assurance that their children's 
performance in reading and math can actually be measured and be made 
meaningful in terms of what every child in America should know, so they 
will know how they're doing.
    And if that--if it can be done, I will be a very happy person, 
indeed. And I'm hopeful that we have done that. I say that just to give 
Mr. Goodling a little protection, and the President as well, just 
because we've reached an agreement in principle; we've got to turn it 
into the language. I'm very hopeful. This will be a huge thing, long-
term, for American education if we have, in fact, worked this out.
    Q. Mr. President----

Iraq

    Q. On Iraq, we get the impression that if you had your druthers, 
you'd rather have not had a break in these U-2 flights, that you 
understand why it's happened, but you don't think it's necessarily a 
great idea.
    The President. I don't think it's fruitful for me to second-guess 
Mr. Butler now. One of the things that I have seen in his--he hasn't 
been there very long, but since he's been there he's been quite 
aggressive. And keep in mind what our goal is here. Our goal is to use 
these inspections to try to ensure that a weapons of mass destruction 
program is not developed. And since there is absolutely no reason to 
believe that Mr. Butler has been anything other than extremely faithful 
to his task, I think we should let these talks unfold.
    I would have been disturbed if the flight had been suspended and 
there hadn't been a clear statement that they would be resumed shortly. 
But since he made a clear statement that they would be resumed shortly, 
I think we have to give him the benefit of the doubt on this, and let's 
see if we can work through it.
    Q. Do you compare notes with President Bush about your joint 
nemesis, your shared nemesis, Saddam?
    The President. It's interesting, when this whole issue first broke 
was when I was on my way over to the--it was the night before I went 
over to the Washington Children's Hospital to be with General 
Schwarzkopf at the STARBRIGHT Foundation announcement, so we had some 
interesting conversations about it. And I've seen former Secretary Baker 
since then, and we're all commiserating, and obviously I asked these 
people for their advice about it.
    But we just--look, this is a frustrating policy, the one we're 
following, because it requires long-term patience and discipline. It's 
frustrating for him; it's frustrating for us; it's frustrating for 
everybody else. But you know, there is a reason these United Nations 
resolutions were passed. There's a reason this inspection regime was set 
up. We think it's a bad idea for any more dictators who have shown 
aggression toward their neighbors to develop the capacity to have 
nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. We think it's a bad idea. And 
we know of no way to do that--to avoid that in peaceful terms than to 
have some sort of inspection regime.
    And as I said yesterday, the UNSCOM inspection regime has actually 
led to the destruction of more dangerous weapons than the Desert Storm 
did, because it's been done with great discipline over a period of 
years. So I would ask the American people and our allies around the 
world not to get too frustrated, to be patient, but to be firm, and 
let's try to hold on to this inspection regime, because that is the most 
peaceful way of dealing with this and permitting everyone to go on with 
their lives.
    Q. Are there days when you wish President Bush had gone----

Fast-Track Trade Legislation

    Q. One last question on fast track. Mr. President--thank you--there 
is a certain pocket of people who are affected through fast track, we 
understand--blue-collar, low-income persons--where education failed them 
from the beginning, and they went into a trade. What do you say to those 
people who are losing and plan to lose their job or expect to lose their 
job because of this?
    The President. I would say that we will continue to have some 
economic disruption

[[Page 1739]]

in this country if we don't adopt fast track. If we don't adopt fast 
track--our market is still the most open market in the world, the most 
competitive market in the world, and we have the most technological 
change, and we know that most job changes are caused by technology, not 
by trade--the vast majority--so if we don't adopt fast track and we just 
sit where we are, a lot of those people will still confront the same 
challenges.
    My argument is, adopt fast track, give me the power to create more 
jobs by opening markets, but also do more for those folks. Our programs 
were organized for a time when the economy didn't change as quickly as 
it does now. So Secretary Herman, for example, has worked very hard to 
radically accelerate our response time and to get all these programs 
working together the way we worked when a military base was closed. 
That's what we're trying to do.
    So my answer would be, we should invest more money to give you more 
training more quickly and to give you more support while you're going 
through it. We should put more money into those communities where no 
economic benefit or burden has been felt because there has been no new 
investment one way or the other. But that's not a reason not to continue 
to expand trade. What we should do is both.
    The way to preserve the social compact in America is to create more 
opportunity and then take more responsibility for preserving families 
and communities. Our policy is the right one. But we will not create or 
save jobs in the short run or the long run by refusing to open markets 
to our products. We will not raise labor and environmental standards 
abroad. We will lose our ability to do that. We will lose our leverage 
if we decline to open new markets for American products. This increases 
our political influence on labor and environmental and other issues, 
even as it opens up our economics.
    But the main thing is, I just ask the American people to give me the 
benefit of the doubt on this. We have worked for 5 years. We have 
created over 13 million jobs. We have reduced the deficit by over 90 
percent before the balanced budget checks in. In the last 2 years, more 
than half our new jobs have come in high-wage categories, and a third of 
the growth has come because of trade. This is our only strategy. We're 
only 4 percent of the world's economy; we're trying to hold on to 20 
percent of its income. We've got to sell more to other people. There is 
not an option. And refusing to do it won't save jobs, won't keep incomes 
up, and won't help us help other people around the world.
    Thank you.
    Q. Do you worry about the impact on the stock markets if fast track 
fails--global markets?
    The President. Well, let me say if it passes, I think it will have a 
very positive impact on the stock market here and around the world.

Note: The President spoke at noon in the Oval Office at the White House. 
In his remarks, he referred to Australian Ambassador to the United 
Nations Richard Butler, chairman, United Nations Special Commission 
(UNSCOM) charged with dismantling Iraq's weapons of mass destruction; 
Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf, USA (Ret.), capital campaign chairman, 
STARBRIGHT Foundation; and former Secretary of State James A. Baker III.