    [Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 33, Number 46 (Monday, November 17, 1997)]
    [Pages 1773-1776]
    [Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

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

    November 10, 1997

        The President. Good morning. Ladies and gentlemen, as you know, we
    have postponed the vote in the House of Representatives on renewing
    fast-track authority to strengthen our ability to expand exports through
    new agreements. I'm disappointed, of course, that this step was
    necessary because we worked very hard and we're very close to having the
    requisite number of votes. But early this morning it became clear to me
    that if the matter were taken to a vote there was a substantial chance
    that we would not get the votes necessary to pass the bill.
        Let me begin by saying a profound word of thanks to Speaker Gingrich
    and to the leadership team in the House who worked with us on this, and
    on the Democratic side, to Representatives Fazio and Matsui and the
    others who were helping them. This was a partnership for the national
    interests, and I am very grateful for what they are doing.
        I think most of you know what happened. We have been having a big
    debate in our party for several years on the question of trade and its
    role in our economic future. Even though we clearly have a majority of
    the Democratic mayors and Governors and we had a majority in the Senate,
    we don't have a majority in the House who agree with the position that I
    have taken. We worked hard to overcome their objections, and we didn't
    succeed. And because we didn't have more Democratic votes, we then had
    to get a bigger share of the Republican vote. That brought into play the
    controversy over international family planning and the so-called Mexico
    City language.
        Had we been able to resolve that, I think we could have gotten
    enough votes on the Republican side to go with the Democrats' votes we
    had to pass the bill. Clearly, I think we could have. But we simply were
    not able to do that. And I say that without undue criticism of anyone.
    The people who took the

    [[Page 1774]]

    position that they could not give their votes to the fast-track
    legislation believe very deeply in principle that we should change our
    family planning funding. I, on the other hand, believe that it would
    have been wrong for me to mix the two issues and to compromise what I
    believe in principle. And in the end this matter could not go forward
    because of that disagreement.
        But what we're going to do now is to regroup a little bit and find a
    way to succeed, and I think we'll be able to do that. I also know, from
    my extensive work now in the House, that there are a large number of
    House Members who are interested in trying to find some constructive
    resolution of this matter, and I think we may well be able to do that. I
    expect that we will successfully press forward with this issue in this
    Congress and at the appropriate time. So I'm not particularly concerned
    about the long run; I think we'll be able to prevail.
        Today, let me say again, I think it's important that all of us do
    more to make the case. This country is in good shape. We have 13\1/2\
    million more jobs; we have a 4.7 percent unemployment rate; we know that
    a third of that growth has come from trade. We know that the countries
    that are willing to enter into agreements with us in the kinds of areas
    of agreement that we need to push on a regional and a worldwide basis
    will lower barriers more in other countries than they will in our
    country.
        But we also know that the benefits of trade are often not seen as
    directly tied to trade. When a plant expands or a new contract is
    signed, and whenever a plant closes down, generally it's easy to tie it
    to trade whether trade had anything to do with it, or not. So we have
    some more work to do.
        But on balance, based on where we are now, I'm quite optimistic that
    we will ultimately prevail in this Congress. And I'm very pleased again
    with the good partnership that we had with Speaker Gingrich and the
    House leadership team and with the Democrats who helped us. And so we're
    just going to go forward. I think it's clear to everybody that America's
    leadership in the world depends upon America's continuing economic
    leadership, and this, therefore, has to be only a temporary obstacle
    because, in the end, we always find out a way to do what's right for
    America, to maintain our leadership, and maintain our economic growth.

    Situation in Iraq

        Q. What did you think--[inaudible]--to make a move on Iraq? And how
    do you assess the situation now?
        The President. Well, first of all, as you know, the United Nations
    U-2 plane was not fired upon in its flight. But--and that's a good
    thing, but it does not change the larger issue which is that the U.N.
    inspections have been stopped by Saddam Hussein. So the next step is to
    get a very strong resolution from the United Nations manifesting the
    determination of the international community to resume those
    inspections. And that should happen shortly, as the report is made from
    the people who went to Iraq. And then we will have to go about
    manifesting that, demonstrating our determination to start those
    inspections again.
        Q.  Do you have any fear for the safety of those Americans who are
    in Baghdad? And what kind of unambiguous action did you signal yesterday
    that you expected out of the Security Council?
        The President. Well, of course, I'm concerned about the Americans.
    I'm concerned about the other United Nations personnel who are there.
    I'm concerned about all of them. But again, I am trying to work with Mr.
    Butler and with the United Nations on a daily basis to do what seems
    right and best. And it was the judgment of the United Nations people and
    Mr. Butler that they ought to stay as long as they had a chance to
    resume their work and that they wanted to do that. But I assure you, I'm
    quite concerned with the safety of all the people that are there on
    behalf of Americans and on behalf of the world community trying to keep
    this weapons of mass destruction program from being restarted.
        I believe we are considering every aspect of this issue. We spent
    all weekend working exhaustively on it, and we're going to watch it very
    carefully in the days ahead.

    Fast-Track Trade Authority

        Q.  Mr. President, on fast track, you said that the people who
    decided to vote no on

    [[Page 1775]]

    this because they believed in principle about family planning are
    sincere. Do you think the Democrats who decided to vote no on fast track
    are sincere, or as you suggested in the past, that, in fact, they're
    knuckling under to political pressure from labor?
        The President. Well, I think some of them are generally opposed to
    it. I think some of them really do believe that we would have gotten all
    the jobs we've gotten and we would be raising incomes and lowering
    unemployment and growing the economy if we had a more protectionist
    trade policy, and that we wouldn't have lost any jobs that have gone
    away in the economy. I think some of them really believe that. I don't
    believe that. And I think the evidence is on my side on that argument.
        And then I think some of them were, in effect, voting their
    district, voting their concerns. They're afraid or concerned, at least,
    that the trade issue is much misunderstood and easily subject to
    misunderstanding. Was there some politics in it? Of course, there is.
    But there's politics in every tough vote that has been held in the
    Congress and any legislative body in my lifetime. I did not question
    their integrity. I questioned the judgment, and I do believe that there
    was some who felt that it was a politically impossible vote but that the
    right thing to do was for me to have the authority and go forward, based
    on my conversations.
        What I think we have to do is try to let the temperature go down
    here and unpack this and go back to what is actually at stake. The
    Democratic Party, insofar as it is saying that we ought to inject labor
    issues and environmental issues into our international negotiations as
    part of our strategy to expand trade and economic partnerships, that is
    a positive thing. We can disagree about how we should do that, but I
    think that's a positive contribution of our party.
        Insofar as we're saying that we should do more and do it more
    quickly to help people who do lose their jobs, whether it's from trade
    or technological changes, or whatever, to start new lives and to resume
    successful careers, I think that is a positive thing. And what we need
    to do is sort of unpack the politics and the emotions and the substance
    and try to go back and put this together in a way that allows us to have
    a big bipartisan majority in the House for a constructive fast-track
    authority that enables us to move forward on all these fronts. And I
    think we'll be able to do it.
        Q. A lot of people are going to say this is the second most serious
    defeat you've suffered, after health care. Do you feel----
        The President. No, there's a big difference.
        Q. Do you feel you could have handled it better? Do you think you
    could have started earlier, or is this just a nut you couldn't crack
    unless you caved in on Mexico City?
        The President. Well, I think in the end--let me say again, I think
    in the end we could have passed the bill if the Mexico City thing had
    been resolved. But I simply couldn't do that. I mean, I just couldn't do
    it. To me, first of all, I think it's wrong to mix these things. And
    secondly, I feel as strongly in principle on one side of the issue as
    the people in the House who otherwise might have voted for fast track do
    on the other. The prior problem was that we have, as I said, we had--
    look at the Senate vote--we have a majority of Senate Democrats for fast
    track, a huge majority of the mayors and Governors who are Democrats. We
    don't have a majority in the House. And I don't know whether--what we
    could have done differently.
        Let me just say this. I think the bill that's there before them now,
    had we been able to persuade everybody involved that that bill should
    have been there months ago, maybe that would have made a difference. But
    it's easy to second-guess these things. The main thing is--the
    difference between this and health care was that health care was all
    caught up in politics and partisanship in even a more profound way, and
    there were big vested interests that had a stake in basically performing
    reverse plastic surgery on the proposal we made, and when it was dead,
    it was dead.
        This is not dead. I will be very surprised if we are not successful
    in developing a bipartisan, constructive, successful approach to fast
    track before this Congress is over. This is a big difference here. I
    feel that this is entirely different. And keep in mind, it's also
    occurring in a different context. It's occurring in the context of the
    country doing well, the

    [[Page 1776]]

    economy being strong, and the Congress continuing to do productive
    things.
        So I'm going to sign a bill, an appropriations bill that has the
    biggest increase in education in decades, that funds the America Reads
    program, our program to put computers in schools, increased scholarships
    for people going to college, and that makes a huge step toward
    establishing national academic standards and national testing, something
    that everything thought was dead just about 10 days ago, and we worked
    out.
        So I'm basically very upbeat as we move toward the break for
    Thanksgiving and Christmas about the capacity of the Congress to work
    together and to work with me and to get this done. I wish we'd been able
    to pass it right now, but I expect it to pass.
        Q. What about this week? You said this session, but do you mean this
    year?
        Q. When? In the spring?
        The President. I'm sorry, what did you say?
        Q. You said you expect it to pass this session, but what about this
    year? Any hope this week?
        The President. First of all, we've been up for a couple of days
    working on fast track and dealing with Iraq, and you will, I hope
    understand why we can't make a judgment about that. We will bring it
    back up at the appropriate time and when we think we can pass it. But
    we're very close now, under the most burdensome of circumstances. So all
    we need is a few breaks to have more than enough votes to pass it. And
    what I would like to do is to bring it back up at a time when we can
    pass it with a big vote and a much stronger vote from both parties. And
    I think there's every change that we will be able to do that. And I look
    forward to it, and I expect it to happen.
        Thank you.

    Note: The President spoke at 11:30 a.m. on the South Lawn at the White
    House. In his remarks, he referred to President Saddam Hussein of Iraq;
    and Richard Butler, executive chairman of the United Nations Special
    Commission.