    [Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 35, Number 13 (Monday, April 5, 1999)]
    [Pages 539-545]
    [Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

    <R04>
    Remarks at the Electronic Industries Alliance Dinner

    March 30, 1999

        Thank you. First of all, I want to thank you all for giving me a
    chance to come tonight. I thank my longtime friend Dave McCurdy for his
    introduction and for his leadership of EIA. You made a good decision
    when you named him your president. And I know what you're laughing about
    out there. [Laughter] Two or 3 years from now, you'll think it's an even
    better decision. [Laughter]
        I want to also pay my respects to your vice president, John Kelly,
    who went to Georgetown with me, although he's a much younger man.
    [Laughter] John--when I was a senior, John was actually president of the
    freshman class. And I've been trying to think out of respect for the
    will of the people--the only people we knew back then--whether I should
    still address him as ``Mr. President.'' [Laughter] But then that would
    confuse the EIA, so I didn't do it.
        Mr. Major, thank you for your invitation. Mr. McGinn, thank you for
    your remarks. That was very impressive. I couldn't even keep up with all
    the new things you announced tonight.
        I'm glad that our FCC Chairman, Bill Kennard, is here, and I think
    Secretary of the Army Louis Caldera is also here. And General Jones, I
    thought you gave a terrific invocation. Thank you very much. I
    appreciate that.
        You know, I was trying to think tonight whether there was any way I
    could say what I originally wanted to come here and say, which is to
    talk about some of the technology policies that we're trying to pursue
    that I hope will help you, but in the process will strengthen our
    democracy and the sweep of opportunity and freedom around the world, and
    at the same time say a few words, as I feel I must, about our important
    mission in Kosovo.
        And before I came over here tonight, I had a long meeting, and I
    went and had what has now become almost my daily phone call with Prime
    Minister Blair. And I sat down and I thought about it. I thought about
    how grateful I am to the members of this organization for the phenomenal
    successes you have enjoyed in these last few years and the major
    contributions you have made to the economy of the United States, the
    opportunities you have given our people. And I thought about this
    terrible brutality that is going on in Kosovo, replaying what happened
    not so long ago in Bosnia, and in a way, replaying what we see around
    the world, the modern world, that seems to be troubled with ancient
    hatreds rooted in racial and ethnic and religious differences.
        If you think about the major forces alive in the world today, the
    move toward globalization and the explosion in technology, especially in
    information and communications, they really not only, as all of you know
    better than I, are dramatically changing the way we work and live and
    relate to each other and to the rest of the world. They represent both a
    pull toward integration and a dramatic force toward decentralization.
    And I would argue to you that both forces have within them the potential
    for enormous good and enormous trouble for the world of the 21st
    century.
        If you think about the forces toward integration of the global
    economy, for example, that's a wonderful thing. But it can be very
    destabilizing if we leave whole countries and vast populations within
    countries behind.
        If you think about the explosion in technology and how wonderful it
    is in empowering individuals and small firms and communities, and
    enabling communities--little schools I've seen in poor African and Latin
    American villages--to hook up to the Internet and have access to
    learning that would have taken them a whole generation, at least, to
    achieve through traditional economic development processes in their
    countries. It is breathtaking.
        But looked at another way, it also provides access to technology for
    every terrorist in the world to have their own website, and for
    independent operators to figure out how to make bombs and set up
    chemical and biological labs.
        And when married together with the most primitive hatreds, like
    those we see manifest in Kosovo today, the advent of technology

    [[Page 540]]

    and decentralized decisionmaking and access to information can be a very
    potent but destructive force.
        When I ran for President in 1992, what I was seeking to do was to
    articulate a vision to the American people of the way I wanted America
    to look in the 21st century, in a world I hope we would be living in
    then, and what I thought the President and the Government of the United
    States should do: to take advantage of the benefits of globalization and
    the explosion of technology and to provide those policies and bulwarks
    necessary to guard against the deepest problems of the modern world.
    There are so many things bringing us together and so many things
    breaking apart. We have to decide a lot of new questions.
        And if I could just say a word about what we tried to do--and Dave
    McCurdy and I have been working on this through the Democratic
    Leadership Council for more than 15 years--I believe that if we could
    create a country in which there was genuine opportunity for every
    responsible citizen, and in which we had a real sense of community, of
    belonging, of mutual responsibility, one to another, so we all felt we
    would be better off if everybody had a chance as well; and that if we
    could maintain America's sense of responsibility for leading the rest of
    the world toward peace and prosperity and harmony, both with the
    environment and with others across all the lines that divide us, that
    the best days for our country and the best days for humanity were still
    ahead. I still believe that.
        Every story you can tell about every company represented in this
    room reflects that. But we cannot forget that there will never be a time
    when life is free of difficulties and where the organized forces of
    destruction did not seek to move into the breaches of human conduct for
    their own advance.
        And that is what we see in Kosovo. It is a sad commentary, indeed,
    that on the edge of a new millennium there are still people who feel
    they must define their own self-worth and merit in terms of who they are
    not; and who believe that their lives only really count not when they
    are lifting themselves up but when they are holding someone else down;
    and sometimes who believe that it is literally legitimate not only to
    uproot totally innocent civilians from their homes and their villages
    but to kill them in large numbers.
        This is, of course, not confined to the Balkans; it is still at the
    root of the troubles in the Middle East; it is still at the root of the
    problems we are oh so close to getting finally resolved in Northern
    Ireland; it was at the root of an ancient tribal difference that led to
    the deaths of somewhere between 500,000 and 800,000 people in 100 days
    in Rwanda just a few years ago.
        We see it everywhere, the fear of the other. It led a couple of
    demented people in a little Texas town to dismember and drag an African-
    American to death and a couple of other people in Wyoming to kill a
    young man at the dawn of his life, apparently because he was gay.
        We have to find a way to use all this technology in a way that
    celebrates our differences instead of uses them for destructive ends.
    And the only way to do that, I am convinced, is to somehow reaffirm that
    amidst all our differences, what it is we have in common as human beings
    is more important.
        And ultimately, that is the liberating logic of the
    telecommunications revolution, so much of you have powered. The idea
    that if we just gave everybody a chance, ordinary people would do
    extraordinary things, and so they have.
        And so I ask all of you tonight to support what the United States
    and our 18 other NATO allies are trying to do in the Balkans--first,
    because of all the little people who may never even see most of the
    things you invent and sell and market, but who could if they could live
    in peace. Second, because the problems could spread, and you see them
    beginning to spread with the outflow of refugees. And third, because the
    United States and our allies will always have to provide for some order
    in a world where you want to maximize freedom and individual initiative.
    There have to be some limits beyond which we collectively do not wish to
    see our country go, our world go.
        I know you had Congressman Davis and Governor Gilmore here today.
    The White House, as all of you know, is quite close to the Potomac
    River. Right across the river in Virginia--I used to run down there
    every day

    [[Page 541]]

    and look at this and just be amazed--in the Fairfax County School
    District, there are children from 180 different racial, ethnic, and
    national groups. They speak about 100 different languages as their first
    language. It is the most diverse of all American school districts; but
    what they represent is happening everywhere.
        I went home a couple of weeks ago to the little town in Arkansas
    where I was born. There are about 9,700 people there now. It's a lot
    bigger than it was when I was born there. And there is a little grade
    school in this little town in southwest Arkansas named for me--which I
    appreciate; usually you have to die before they do that. [Laughter] And
    anyway, in this little grade school in my little hometown there are 27
    immigrant children, first generation immigrant children whose parents,
    by and large, were migrant farmworkers who settled there.
        This is an incredible asset for America. But we have to say to
    people, whatever your national background, whatever your racial
    background, whatever your religious convictions, you can have a home
    here in this country and you ought to be safe in the world if you are
    willing to abide by the norms of civilized conduct everywhere. We must
    not allow, if we have the ability to stop it, ethnic cleansing or
    genocide anywhere we can stop it, particularly at the edge of Europe.
        So I ask you to support our men and women in uniform, but to support
    the proposition that the 21st century world will be a case of--yes,
    there will be a lot more decentralization, there will be a lot more
    individual empowerment, but it will not be a time of chaos and madness.
    We will not let it descend into the vision of the darkest of the science
    fiction writers, because we believe our common humanity is better than
    that. Thank you. [Applause] Thank you; thank you.
        Now I want to say what I came to say. [Laughter] But it relates to
    what I just said. I believe in the information age the role of
    Government is to empower people with the tools to make the most of their
    own lives, to tear down the barriers to that objective, and to create
    the conditions within which we can go forward together.
        Now, the answers to all the questions will not always be easy. But
    at least I want you to know that's how I think about this. I see myself
    trying to help create the conditions of dynamic balance so we can get
    the maximum benefit from market economics without giving up the idea of
    community and without leaving anyone behind who's willing to try to do
    the right thing.
        And I see our environmental policy in the same way. I think we have
    to take on the challenge of climate change because I'm convinced the
    science is real; but I believe we can do it in a way that grows the
    economy, not undermines it. And all the big questions we're facing this
    year as a country require that sort of decisionmaking. You don't have to
    agree with the decision I make, but you ought to ask yourself what is
    the basis of your decision.
        We're dealing with the challenge, for example, of the aging of
    America. And the older I get, the better I like that challenge.
    [Laughter] I've never understood all this handwringing about Social
    Security and Medicare, this is a high-class problem. [Laughter] Some of
    you have helped to bring it about. [Laughter] We're living longer, and
    that's good, isn't it? And there's more medicine, and that's good, isn't
    it? But as a consequence, you know, the average age in America is 76.7
    years.
        Anybody in this room over 60 who still doesn't have any life-
    threatening conditions has probably got a life expectancy well in excess
    of 80 years already. Any child born in America that's under the age of
    15 that's healthy and stays healthy has probably got a life expectancy
    of about 84. And with the baby boomers retiring, this is an issue we
    have to deal with.
        Now, I'll tell you how I think about this. I believe we should make
    maximum use of technology, maximum use of modern business organizations
    and competition. I think that we have to be willing to reform the
    Medicare system. But I don't believe we should turn the Medicare system
    into, in effect, a defined contribution, as opposed to a defined benefit
    plan, because health care is not like retirement, and it's a lifesaver
    for people.
        And I'm willing to work with Congress to save it. And we'll have
    some philosophical

    [[Page 542]]

    differences, but I'm trying to achieve the dynamic balance of maximizing
    the change while maximizing the sense of community and the fact that
    it's a lifesaver for so many people.
        Social Security--we're going to have an interesting debate. By 2030
    we'll only have two people working for every one person drawing Social
    Security. Now, by 2034, 35 years from now, the Social Security system is
    projected to run out of money, the Trust Fund, which means you only have
    three choices: You can raise revenues, reduce benefits, or increase the
    rate of return on what we're investing.
        And there are a lot of people who believe that we should, in effect,
    take this surplus and give it back to the American people as mandatory
    individual retirement accounts; let them invest it in the stock market,
    because the stock market always outperforms the Government bonds over
    any long period of time. And if you happen to be one of those
    unfortunate people who retire in a period like we had between--in the
    1960's and early seventies, where the value of the stock market is going
    down, then the Government would make up the difference between what you
    would have gotten under the old Social Security program and what you in
    fact get.
        The other way to do it is to do what Canada does, which is set up an
    independent board, like the Federal Reserve, and let the whole Trust
    Fund earn money. And then you'll know you'll always be able to have
    uniform, but higher, returns for people.
        None of us want--no Republican or Democrat I've talked to believes
    we should raise payroll taxes, because the tax is regressive. More than
    half the working people in the country already pay more in payroll taxes
    than they do in income taxes; and small businesses just getting started
    have to pay that, whether they make money or not, unlike the income tax.
    So we don't believe that's an acceptable thing.
        So when you hear this debate, think of the dynamic balance; think of
    how you can maximize the market forces that are good and still preserve
    a sense of community so--and maybe even improve it. For example, I want
    to lift the earnings limitations because people are living longer, and I
    think once you earn Social Security, you ought to be able to work. I
    want to do something about single women, because the poverty rate among
    elderly single women, if they're living alone, is about twice the
    poverty rate for other seniors in our country. That's the framework in
    which I hope this debate will play itself out and get resolved this
    year.
        The last issue I'll tell you is that I firmly believe we ought to
    deal with Social Security and Medicare in a way that maximizes the
    amount of the surplus we use over the next 15 years to buy down the
    public debt.
        Now, that is much less popular than the alternative proposal by the
    congressional majority, which is to give most of the surplus away right
    now in a tax cut. It's your money anyway, they say. And of course, it
    is. It is your money anyway. But keep in mind, our country quadrupled
    the national debt between 1981 and 1993. And in an uncertain economic
    climate in the rest of the world, with all the financial troubles you've
    seen in Asia, it seems to me to be given a chance to pay down our debt
    to the lowest level we've had since before World War I is better for
    most of you than a short-term impact of a tax cut.
        Why? Because it will give us lower interest rates, lower inflation;
    it will lower interest rates for countries that have to borrow money
    that you want to sell your products to; it will maximize growth; it
    will, therefore, maximize income and job-generating potential in
    America. And to me, the benefits of having an America that could be out
    of debt in 17 years, that's quite staggering. Because we might have to
    borrow money ourselves someday, again, and we don't ever want to do--
    ever get back to the way we were when we were having to borrow money
    just to pay the bills.
        Most of your companies have borrowed a lot of money, but presumably,
    you didn't do it very often just to make payroll. And that is what we--
    that's the decision we've been given the opportunity to deal with. So it
    seems to me that's the right decision to do.
        And I think that--when I look at our technology policy, I think
    about that. I think about how can we have the dynamic balance, how can
    we maximize this. This is almost 100 percent positive good. And if there
    is something that has to be done to limit it in any

    [[Page 543]]

    way, shape, or form, how can we minimize the damage to the economy and
    to the rapid spread of opportunity.
        Now, that's what we've tried to do for 6 years, and it's worked
    pretty well. So we've cut the deficit and balanced the budget, but
    almost doubled investment in education and training.
        I believe very strongly that we have to continue to expand trade.
    That's another issue. Most of you support that position. Most of you
    believe the President should be given fast-track authority. And most of
    you believe if we can get an agreement with China that is good for the
    American economy, we should extend the opportunity to them to join the
    World Trade Organization. I believe that.
        But I ask you to think about how are we going to get this passed in
    a Congress where there are some people who are afraid of trade and some
    people who are basically--they're afraid trade hurts more of the people
    they represent than it helps--and others just are afraid trade gives
    power to countries that they feel will be adversaries of the United
    States over the long run. Some people feel that about China now, that
    they're inevitably our adversary.
        I say there has to be a dynamic balance here. We should be trading
    more. We should be opening our markets more. We should be getting more
    open markets, but we should make sure we're investing what is necessary
    here to help people who are dislocated by trade through no fault of
    their own, and we should support the same thing in other countries. When
    we elevate trade, if we increase national income it should lift the
    incomes of all working people. It should be a race to the top, not a
    race to the bottom.
        And when we deal with China, we should recognize that we're
    advantaged when we open China more, economically, informa- tionally,
    culturally; but if we have honest differences with them over political
    and human rights, we ought to say it. And we ought to encourage them to
    air their differences with us but not in a way that isolates us one from
    another.
        Keep in mind what I said to you about these ethnic wars. There are
    people who cannot bear to live without somebody to be afraid of or look
    down on. And there are--sometimes I have the feeling that we're looking
    for a new enemy in America. I'm not looking for a new enemy. I didn't
    pick Mr. Milosevic, for example. His conduct made him the adversary of
    the United States and people who believe in the inherent dignity of
    every religious and ethnic group in the world. I did not look for a new
    enemy.
        So I say to you, if you want us to go forward with China, then
    remind everybody the same debates we're having about China today are
    being held about the United States in China. I promise you there are
    people inside the high councils of government who say, ``Those Americans
    don't want us to amount to a hill of beans. Those Americans want us to
    be their enemy so they will have a way to increase the defense budget.
    Those Americans will do everything they can to promote discord in our
    country; that's why they're all for political and human rights. They
    want us to just pure disintegrate, just like we did once before.'' And
    by the time--you know, you just keep on talking like that, and there is
    enough mutual misunderstanding until finally you get the political
    equivalent of a divorce.
        So I say we should be careful. We should evaluate our partners, our
    friends, our potential adversaries based on the facts at hand. But we
    should always be working for the best future, even as we prepare for
    something we might not like. And that's where I think you are.
        So I ask you to work with us to help to fashion a fast-track bill,
    for example, that will reflect a new consensus on trade; that will be
    able to say: we want more trade, but we want to lift people up and we
    don't want to tear the environment up, and there is a way to do that.
    And, yes, we would like to have a good relationship with China that
    includes a frank, sometimes even uncomfortable airing of our
    differences, but we recognize that the Chinese people will be better
    off, and we'll be less likely to have conflict in the 21st century if
    there is more constructive relationships--not just commerce, but also
    culture, education, all kinds of information. And so let's try to build
    that sort of relationship.
        And that again I say, it seems to me you folks are in a unique
    position to make these arguments because if you take--well, Rich

    [[Page 544]]

    was giving his speech tonight, and I was thinking about what his company
    does in Newark, New Jersey. Now, most of the people there helping in
    Newark, New Jersey, will never work for Lucent. But it will be a more
    successful company if everybody is at least literate enough to make a
    decent living, have a good job, and buy those products. And life will be
    a lot better if every inner city in this country has a set of thriving
    businesses beyond the drug trade, and where the children feel safe
    walking on the street, and where the schools are functioning at a high
    level and people aren't dropping out of school. And so they invest in
    that; not because it immediately shows up on the bottom line, but
    because they have a sense that life is of a whole texture and you have
    to understand what these relationships are. That's what we have to do as
    Americans. And that's how we have to look at this.
        So let me just mention two or three specific things that I think we
    should do in your area--and I ask you for your help. First, we have to
    work to keep America's lead in science and technology, which means you
    have to do your part, but we have to do ours. Basic Government
    investment in research and development is important and fulfills a role
    fundamentally different from that done by most companies.
        Tonight I ask you to help us to increase our investment for the
    seventh straight year in research and development. Our budget provides
    those kinds of investments that will spur the next generation of
    information technology, meet the challenge of climate change, find new
    cures for medical difficulties, explore space, protect our
    infrastructure against terrorist attacks.
        The budget resolution passed by the congressional majority would
    inevitably lead to big reductions in many of these investments. It is
    not necessary for us to do this. We can find a way to be fiscally
    responsible without cutting our R and D investments, and I ask for your
    help in that regard.
        Second, I ask you to work with me to maintain the right conditions
    for entrepreneurship in electronics. Just a few years ago, E-commerce
    did not exist. In 4 years, retail trade on the Internet could reach $100
    billion, business-to-business trade above a trillion. Two years ago the
    Vice President and I released a framework for seizing the potential of
    global electronic commerce. We said the Internet should be a free-trade
    zone, with incentives for competition, protection for consumers and
    children, supervised not by Government but by the people who use the
    Internet every day. Most of you thought that was a pretty good idea.
        Now, in the coming months we've got to fill in the blanks of that
    nice sounding general statement. I want to work with you to find ways to
    give consumers the same protection in the virtual mall they now have at
    the shopping mall, to enhance the security and privacy of financial
    transactions on the Internet, an increasingly deep concern of citizens
    everywhere, and to bring advanced, high-speed connections into homes and
    small businesses.
        I may not know as much about cable modems or T-1 lines as the Vice
    President--[laughter]--``may'' is a misleading word there. [Laughter]
    But I know what this can do for our children's future.
        The third thing I'd like to ask you to do relates to something Dave
    McCurdy talked about. I want you to help us continue to work to bridge
    the digital divide. We have to have shared prosperity and leave no one
    behind. Today, affluent schools still are more likely than disadvantaged
    ones to have Internet access in the classrooms. And white households are
    more than twice as likely to own a computer as black or Hispanic ones.
    The digital divide has begun to narrow, but it won't disappear on its
    own. We'll have to work at it.
        Dave talked about the first NetDay in 1996. Listen to that--before
    that day, only 8 percent of our classrooms were wired to the Internet.
    Today, well over half of them are, and we are well on our way to
    connecting every classroom to the Internet by the end of next year.
        I'd like to ask you to do one other thing, as well. A lot of you
    have had a hard time finding sufficiently trained workers in the United
    States to do the work you need done. Last year I agreed to increase the
    number of H-1B visas as an emergency measure. But over the long run, the
    answer to this problem of the lack of skilled workers cannot simply be
    to look beyond our borders. Surely, a part

    [[Page 545]]

    of it has to be to better train people within our borders to do this
    work.
        For many years, your foundation has made this a top priority, and
    many individual firms have, as well. Cisco Systems is now working to
    establish a networking academy, for example, in every empowerment zone
    high school that wants one. These academies will provide students with
    the skills they need to get certified for jobs in information
    technology. It's like giving a student a first-class ticket to a high-
    skill, high-wage future. We have to do more of that.
        Because you have done so well, I would argue that you have larger
    responsibilities as citizens than those who have not. And many of you
    are fulfilling them remarkably.
        The last thing I'd like to say is this: You were very kind when I
    spoke about Kosovo earlier--kind to stand, maybe just hoping I was
    through with my speech. [Laughter] I believe there is a hunger for
    substantive information on the part of our citizens greater than I have
    ever seen before. And the more you give them ways to get information,
    the more hungry they feel. But keep in mind, you can sit in front of
    your television and channel-surf all night long. You can have 50
    channels, or 70 or 80 or 90. You may pick up a lot of facts, and you may
    go to bed bleary-eyed at 3 in the morning, and the next day your
    understanding of what it is you have seen or heard might not be any
    greater.
        And so the last thing I would like to say is, with your employees,
    with those in the community with whom you work, help people to
    understand that the forces of globalization can be good, but they
    present challenges that must be met. Help people understand that the
    forces of decentralization, of the breaking up of old blocs can be a
    magnificent story of individual empowerment and democratization, but
    they, too, present challenges that must be met.
        I have done everything I could to fashion a Government that could do
    its part to meet those challenges. It's the smallest Government we've
    had since President Kennedy was here. It has given more power to States
    and localities. It works more with community groups and churches and
    social programs. It does a lot of things that need to be done badly, and
    I'm sure we can do better.
        But in the end, there will be these gaps, and someone must be
    standing in the gap to reaffirm our basic devotion to freedom and
    democracy, to peace and prosperity, and to the principle that we must be
    a community, that out of many we are one, and that we are still about
    the business of our Founding Fathers, forming a more perfect Union.
        Thank you, and God bless you all.

    Note: The President spoke at 8:25 p.m. in the Grand Ballroom at the J.W.
    Marriott Hotel. In his remarks, he referred to John E. Major, chairman,
    Electronic Industries Alliance; Richard A. McGinn, chairman and chief
    executive officer, Lucent Technologies; Brig. Gen. Hiram (Doc) Jones,
    USAF, Deputy Chief of Chaplains, who gave the invocation; Prime Minister
    Tony Blair of the United Kingdom; Gov. James S. Gilmore III of Virginia;
    and President Slobodan Milosevic of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
    (Serbia and Montenegro).