[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 34, Number 25 (Monday, June 22, 1998)]
[Pages 1154-1157]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Remarks Prior to a Meeting With the Economic Team and an Exchange With 
Reporters

June 19, 1998

    The President. First of all, let me say good morning, and as you can 
see, I am about to meet with my economic team to discuss the present 
state of the American economy, the developments in the world, and how we 
can keep our economy growing. We're going to talk about the importance 
of promoting stability in Asia and meeting our obligations to the IMF, 
the importance of preserving the surplus until we resolve the issue of 
saving Social Security for the 21st century, the importance of not 
destabilizing our economy with gimmicks like getting rid of the tax code 
before we know what will replace it, and the importance of continuing 
our strategy of long-term investments to grow the American economy 
through education and technology.

Tobacco Legislation

    Let me also make a few brief remarks on another obligation that we 
face, that I am still determined to see through, and that is our 
obligation to the public health of our children and to protect them from 
the dangers of tobacco. We have a chance, as all the surveys show, to 
save about a million lives a year if we do the right thing on reducing 
childhood smoking. For 6 months we have worked hard and in good faith to 
meet all legitimate objections to the legislation and to join together 
the priorities of both parties.
    Let me just be clear about this, every Senator who voted to kill 
this bill not only voted against the provisions which will help to 
prevent teen smoking, which will help to put more research into cancer 
research and to other public health problems and help to promote smoking 
cessation programs; they also voted against fixing the marriage penalty 
and giving a tax break for working families with incomes under $50,000; 
they voted against new measures to crack down on drugs; they voted 
against life-saving research; they also voted not to implement a program 
that can save a million lives a year. It was a vote against our children 
and for the tobacco lobby. It's as simple as that; it is not 
complicated.
    Now, some have suggested that Congress should now just get in line 
and do what the tobacco lobby wants them to do. That's the new 
suggestion: Well, let's just do what the tobacco companies will let us 
do, and appear to be passing a bill that will reduce teen smoking, that 
everybody knows will not have very much influence, if any, on the 
problem.
    I'm going to stick with the public health servants of this country. 
I'm going to stick with the people who know what it takes to do the job. 
And most importantly, we're going to stick with the children and their 
future. And I hope, therefore, that we can still stay in here and keep 
working, get a bill that will increase the price of cigarettes enough to 
deter smoking, that will have strong advertising restrictions, that will 
have strong access restrictions, that will invest in public health and 
do something honorable for the tobacco farmers.
    Now, the Republican majority may want the tobacco companies to run 
the Congress on this issue. I don't. I think we ought to do this for the 
people. I think we ought to vote like parents, not politicians, and I 
still hope we can do that.
    Q. Mr. President, did both Democrats and Republicans get a little 
too greedy, put too much on this bill? That's certainly been suggested.
    The President. Well, let me just remind you that this bill passed 
the committee 19 to 1. This was almost unanimously voted out of a 
committee that had a Republican majority. You have people voting against 
this bill who voted for it in committee, after improvements have been 
made to it.

[[Page 1155]]

    And some of the Republicans said, ``Well, there is too much spending 
on health care and other things in this bill.'' So we said, ``Okay, 
we'll take the bill to relieve the marriage penalty on couples of under 
$50,000.'' Others said, ``There ought to be something for drugs in here 
along with tobacco.'' So we said, ``Okay, we'll agree to put some money 
in here to fight drugs.'' Others said, ``Well, we ought to have some 
limits on lawyers' fees.'' So we said, ``Okay, we'll have some limits on 
lawyers' fees.''
    Every major amendment--every major amendment--was sponsored by a 
Member of the Republican majority. So they voted the bill out 19 to 1. 
They got their major amendments. They all got on record voting for these 
amendments. And then they turn around and kill the bill, which leads us 
to believe that they intended to kill the bill all along; they just 
wanted enough good votes to try to convince the voters back home that 
they really didn't want to kill the bill; they just had to.
    Now, again, the American Cancer Society, the American Heart 
Association, the Lung Association, these people don't have $40 million, 
along with the medical associations. They didn't have the $40 million to 
run ads to mislead the American people about this. But they will be 
around when the ads stop running, and I think the American people can 
figure it out.
    So I still hope that something in the way of conscience and good 
sense and good judgment will strike the Congress and we'll do this.
    Q. You're against a slimmed-down bill?
    The President. Absolutely. I'm against anything that provides no 
life saving to kids and is designed to save the political life of the 
people who vote for it, to provide them cover, but won't save the lives 
of the children. I don't see why we should participate in a charade.
    Now, I have not been adamant about this. Look, I just told you, we 
accepted a lot of amendments to this legislation, and every single one 
of them was a Republican amendment. We have been totally reasonable 
about this. But the parameters should be the principles I outlined from 
the beginning that everyone involved who is a public health expert knows 
is necessary if we want to be serious about the problem.
    Now, if we don't want to be serious about the problem, I don't think 
we ought to be looking for cover. The politicians who don't want to do 
it ought to look the American people in the eye and say, ``Look, the 
tobacco companies have got a lot of power around here. They've helped us 
a lot, and we can't cross them.'' Or they ought to say, ``I just don't 
believe in this.'' They ought to just stand up and say, ``I simply don't 
believe in this.''
    But I am not going to participate in a charade which provides people 
with some cover to pretend that they did something they didn't. That 
would be wrong.

Japanese Economy

    Q. With regard to Japan, Mr. President, did Prime Minister Hashimoto 
give you any schedule for carrying out the reforms he pledged? And do 
you think it's important that they act before parliamentary elections in 
3 weeks?
    The President. I'm not in a position to know whether they can do 
that. What he said to me--and perhaps I should start with what I said to 
him. I said to him that the United States wanted to support the Japanese 
economic recovery, and that we had a big stake in it, that our economy 
depended upon it, and that in a larger sense the whole Asia-Pacific 
region depended upon a Japanese economic recovery; but that no short-
term efforts would work unless there was a serious, long-term, very 
comprehensive commitment to economic reform, nothing that Secretary 
Rubin and Mr. Summers haven't said repeatedly in other forums.
    He said to me that they were prepared to issue a statement which 
would be clear and specific about what they intended to do in a timely 
fashion. He did not say whether it would be before or just after the 
parliamentary elections, but he said he would not delay about it.

Relations With China

    Q. Mr. President, do you think that those who oppose trade with 
China have isolationist blinders on, as the Press Secretary said? 
[Laughter]

[[Page 1156]]

    The President. I'm glad you put the last phrase in there so I--
[laughter]--I never want to disagree with Mr. McCurry.
    Well, I believe that, first of all, I think trade with China is 
important to promote stability in China and throughout the Asia-Pacific 
region. Secondly, I think it's the biggest country in the world, a big 
market, and they're growing, and the American people ought to be able to 
get the benefit of selling to the Chinese.
    None of that should prevent us from disagreeing with them. Keep in 
mind, we're not asking for anything special for China here. All we're 
saying is, if you look at all the other countries in the world that we 
trade with, with whom we have serious disagreements, there is no 
principled, grounded distinction between China and some of the other 
countries that we have normal trading relationships with for saying 
we're not going to have them with China.
    And I think that we had worked very hard and had made a lot of 
progress over the last few years in having a principled debate about 
Chinese policy that was unencumbered by the politics of the moment, and 
I'm afraid that has slipped up a little bit in the last few weeks. But I 
hope we can get back to it.
    You know, there are a lot of people who disagree with me on this. 
But you just can't draw a distinction between China and a lot of other 
countries we have serious disagreements with but we don't have abnormal 
trade relations with. The idea that America should just stop talking to 
and stop dealing with any country in the world that does anything we 
disagree with and that that will make them more likely to do what we 
agree with, I think there is very little evidence to support that, and 
there's a whole lot of evidence against it. We tend to get more done 
when we work with people, when we disagree with them openly, when we 
push them, and when they have something to gain by working with us. Most 
people don't respond very well to threats and to isolation.
    And once in a while it works when you've got--in certain specific 
cases--I mean, the trade sanctions worked in South Africa after many 
years because everybody supported them. And they helped us in Bosnia 
because everybody supported them. And they helped us in Iraq because it 
had the U.N. behind it. But here's a case where I think we've got far 
more to gain with a constructive engagement with China. It's a very 
great country with enormous potential, that has cooperated with us in 
many areas to make the world a safer place in the last few years. And we 
have now found a forum and a way in which we can honorably express our 
disagreements and believe we can make some progress on. This is the last 
time to be making a U-turn and going back to a policy we know won't work 
when we've got a policy that is working. We need patience and discipline 
and determination to stay with what we're doing.

General Motors Strike

    Q. Mr. President, are you worried about the economic effects of the 
GM strike? And what is your administration strategy for possible 
intervention or at least a resolution?
    The President. Well, I've been briefed on it, obviously, on a 
regular basis by Secretary Herman. And I'm sure you know that under the 
governing laws of the United States the role of the Federal Government 
in a strike like this is limited. But I would like to encourage the 
parties to work it out. Our economy is doing well, our auto industry is 
doing well. They have some, apparently, very legitimate and substantial 
differences, but we've got a collective bargaining system which I 
support. And I think they can work it out, and I hope they'll do it in a 
timely fashion.

Note: The President spoke at approximately 10:40 a.m. in the Cabinet 
Room at the White House. In his remarks, he referred to Prime Minister 
Ryutaro Hashimoto of Japan. A tape was not available for verification of 
the content of these remarks.

[[Page 1157]]