[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 35, Number 40 (Monday, October 11, 1999)]
[Pages 1953-1957]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Remarks on Departure for New York City and an Exchange With Reporters

October 7, 1999

Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty

    The President. Good morning. All this past week a chorus of voices 
has been rising to urge the Senate to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban 
Treaty. Yesterday our Nation's military leaders and our leading nuclear 
experts, including a large number of Nobel laureates, came here to say 
that we can maintain the integrity of our nuclear stockpile without 
testing, and that we would be safer with the test ban treaty. Today 
religious leaders from across the spectrum and across the Nation are 
urging America to seize the higher ground of leadership to stop the 
spread of nuclear weapons.
    I want to thank those who are here, including Bishop John Glynn of 
the U.S. Catholic Bishop's Conference, Reverend Elenora Giddings Ivory 
of the Presbyterian Church, Reverend Jay Lintner of the National Council 
of Churches of Christ, Mark Pelavin of the Religious Action Center of 
Reformed Judaism, Bishop Theodore Schneider of the Evangelical Lutheran 
Church, Joe Volk of the Friends Committee, Dr. James Dunn; there are 
others here, as well. And I would like to say a special word of thanks 
to Reverend Joan Brown Campbell of the National Council of Churches, as 
she concludes her responsibilities, for all the support she has given to 
our administration over the years.
    And let me express my special gratitude to Senator Jim Jeffords from 
Vermont and Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota for their presence here 
and for their leadership in this cause.
    These Americans are telling us that the debate about this treaty 
ultimately comes down to a fairly straightforward question: Will we do 
everything in our power to reduce the likelihood that someday somewhere 
nuclear

[[Page 1954]]

weapons will fall into the hands of someone with absolutely no 
compunction about using them; or will we instead, send a signal to those 
who have nuclear weapons, or those who want them, that we won't test but 
that they can test now or they can test when they develop or acquire the 
weapons? We have a moral responsibility to future generations to answer 
that question correctly. And future generations won't forgive us if we 
fail that responsibility.
    We all recognize that no treaty by itself can guarantee our 
security, and there is always the possibility of cheating. But this 
treaty, like the Chemical Weapons Convention, gives us tools to 
strengthen our security, a global network of sensors to detect nuclear 
tests by others, the right to demand inspections, the means to mobilize 
the whole world against potential violators. To throw away these tools 
will ensure more testing and more development of more sophisticated and 
more dangerous nuclear weapons.
    This is a time to come together and do what is plainly in the best 
interest of our country by embracing a treaty that requires other 
nations to do what we have already decided to do ourselves, a treaty 
that will freeze the development of nuclear weapons around the world at 
a time when we enjoy an overwhelming advantage in military might and 
technology.
    So I say to the Senate today, whatever political commitments you may 
have made, stop, listen, think about the implications of this for our 
children's future. You have heard from the military. I hope you will 
listen to them. You have heard from Nobel laureates and other experts in 
nuclear weapons. I hope you listen to them. You listened to our military 
and scientific leaders about national missile defense, listen to them 
about the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Listen to the religious leaders 
who say it is the right thing to do. Listen to our allies, including 
nuclear powers Britain and France, who say America must continue to 
lead. And listen to the American people who have been for this treaty 
from the very beginning. And ask yourselves, do you really want to leave 
our children a world in which every nation has a green light to test, 
develop, and deploy nuclear weapons, or a world in which we have done 
everything we possibly can to minimize the risks nuclear weapons pose to 
our children? To ratify this treaty is to answer the question right and 
embrace our responsibility to future generations.
    Thank you.

Patients' Bill of Rights Legislation

    Q. If the Patients' Bill of Rights fails today will you work with 
Republicans to get a more limited measure, or is it going to be your 
bill or no bill?
    The President. Well, I believe there is a majority of support for 
the Norwood-Dingell bill. And the issue is not my bill or no bill. I'm 
not the issue here. I'm covered by the Federal plan, and I have extended 
by Executive order the protections of the Patients' Bill of Rights to 
all people covered by all Federal plans, including the Members of 
Congress.
    The issue is whether we're going to give the American people 
adequate protections. The Norwood-Dingell bill does that. We've got some 
Republican support for it in the House. I think Congressman Norwood, who 
has been a loyal Republican in virtually every respect, has shown a 
great deal of courage here, along with the doctors in the House, who 
know it's the right thing to do. And we'll just hope that it works out. 
We've worked very hard, and they've worked very hard. And I believe we 
have an excellent chance to win.

Congressional Inaction

    Q. Mr. President, on the treaty, on health care, on tax cuts, and 
even on budget matters, the Republicans up on Capitol Hill seem to be 
saying that they do not want to work with you; they would prefer to wait 
until another person is in the office. Do you get that impression?
    The President. Well, on tax cuts, I vetoed their bill, and it was 
the right thing to do. And it's a good thing for America. They are 
showing us every day they can't even fund the spending that they've 
already voted for and that they tried to saddle America with another 
$800 billion worth of spending and say that somehow they could pay for 
it.
    I think there are some of them who want to be a lame-duck Congress. 
They're still drawing a paycheck up there, and it's a little larger than 
it was before a bill that I signed.

[[Page 1955]]

And I don't think they ought to make themselves into a lame-duck 
Congress. I think they ought to show up for work, and we ought to do the 
people's business. There are plenty of things we disagree on, but we 
have proved that we can work together under adverse circumstances.
    Does this year look more like 1999 than 1996, 1997, and 1998--I 
mean, more like 1995? It does. It looks more like 1995. And I just don't 
think they ought to be a lame-duck Congress. I don't think the American 
people will understand it if they insist on sitting around up here for 2 
years and doing nothing.
    Now if the Senate doesn't want to work on saving Social Security and 
Medicare and educating our children, then maybe they ought to take a 
little time and confirm our judges and do some other things. But you 
know, I think there are people in the Senate and in the House, on both 
sides, who don't want to have a lame-duck 2 years for themselves. 
Senator Jeffords is here on this; Congressman Norwood and a number of 
other Republicans are helping on the Patients' Bill of Rights. And I 
think that we'll find a way to get some things done.

Labor Research Association Dinner

    Q. Would you be mending fences with the Teamsters if it weren't for 
the campaigns of the Vice President and Mrs. Clinton?
    The President. Oh, absolutely. I'm not mending fences. I would have 
accepted this invitation to go to this event tonight under any 
circumstances. I have actually enjoyed a fairly constructive 
relationship with the Teamsters over 6\1/2\ years. I've seen all those 
stories, but I've been a little amused by them. I don't understand what 
the fence mending--we have a difference of opinion about an issue or 
two, but I would--if I had been invited to this under any circumstances, 
I would certainly have gone.

Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty

    Q. Mr. President, any progress on delaying the treaty vote?
    Q. [Inaudible]--for the Vice President.
    The President. I'm sorry; I can't hear. What did you say about the 
treaty vote?
    Q. Any progress on delaying the treaty vote?
    The President. I had a dinner here the other night that had 
Republicans and Democrats, including Republicans who were on both sides 
of the issue. There seems to be, among really thoughtful people who care 
about this, an overwhelming consensus that not enough time has been 
allocated to deal with the substantive issues that have to be discussed.
    So we have had conversations, obviously, with the leadership and 
with Members in both parties, and I think there is a chance that they 
will reach an accord there.

Gov. George W. Bush of Texas

    Q. Governor Bush seems to have taken a page from your history on 
triangulation in his dealings with a Republican-led Congress. Do you 
have any opinion on that, sir?
    The President. First of all, I think the Republican right's being 
too hard on Governor Bush. I mean, you know, I don't understand why 
they're being so mean to him about this. He has stuck with them on--he 
was for that tax cut that they wanted. His main health care adviser 
sponsored that breakfast with the House leadership yesterday designed to 
help kill the Patients' Bill of Rights. He stuck with them and the NRA 
on the gun issue. You know, he's for privatizing Social Security. I 
don't see why they're so hard on him, but I will say this, I personally 
appreciated what he said.
    Raising taxes on poor people is not the way to get out of this bind 
we're in. But I think they're being way too hard on him and unfair.

AFL-CIO Endorsement

    Q. When you talk to Mr. Hoffa about the AFL-CIO endorsement will you 
ask him to throw his support behind the Vice President?
    The President. Well I think everybody knows where I am on that. I 
have met already with the executive committee of the AFL-CIO. That is 
not the purpose of my going there. They invited me to come by, and I was 
happy to accept, but I have already had a meeting with the executive 
committee, with all the executive committee of the AFL-CIO, in which we 
have discussed that issue among others. Thank you very much.

[[Page 1956]]

Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty

    Q. What part of the test ban--a followup on the test ban, sir?
    The President. You want to ask a test ban treaty----
    Q. Yes, just a followup. If it looks like you're not going to get 
the votes, is it better tactically to go down to defeat and blame it on 
the Republicans or to just----
    The President. I'm not interested--that's not the--that's a game, 
and that's wrong. I'm not interested in blaming them for this. I think 
the Members who committed to be against the treaty before they heard the 
arguments and studied the issues and listened to the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff and the Nobel laureates made a mistake. I think that was wrong.
    On the other hand, there are lots of issues, complex issues, that 
serious people who have questions about it have raised that deserve to 
be answered, worked through. And there are plenty of devices to do that 
if there is time to do that. All I ask here is that we do what is in the 
national interest. Let's just do what's right for America. I am not 
interested in an issue to beat them up about. That would be a serious 
mistake. That's not the way for the United States to behave in the 
world. But neither should they be interested in an issue that they can 
sort of take off the table with a defeat. That would do terrible damage 
to the role of the United States, which has been, from the time of 
President Eisenhower, the leader through Republican and Democratic 
administrations alike, Republican and Democratic Congresses alike--until 
this moment we have been the leader in the cause of nonproliferation.
    We should not either try to get an issue that will enable us to beat 
up on them, neither should they have an issue that enables them to show 
that they can just deep six this treaty. That would be a terrible 
mistake. Therefore, we ought to have a regular orderly substantive 
process that gives all the people the necessary time to consider this on 
the merit and that gives the people who made early commitments--I think 
wrongly, but they did it--the chance to move to doing the Senate's 
business the way the Senate should do it.
    Look at what these people are saying here today. This is huge. This 
is bigger than party politics. This is bigger than personal politics. 
This is about America's future and the future of our children and the 
world. We have a chance to reduce the likelihood that more countries 
will obtain nuclear weapons. We have a chance to reduce the likelihood 
that countries that are now working on developing nuclear technologies 
will be able to convert them into usable weapons. We have a chance to 
reduce the likelihood that countries that now have weapons will be able 
to make more advanced, more sophisticated, and bigger weapons. We cannot 
walk away from that, and we cannot let it get caught up in the kind of 
debate that would be unworthy of the children and grandchildren of 
Republicans and Democrats.
    Thank you.
    I would like to ask Senator Jeffords--let me just give credit where 
credit is due. Senator Jeffords got this group together. And when I 
heard they were meeting, I invited them to come down here to stand with 
us. So he deserves the credit for this day, and Senator Dorgan has been 
perhaps our most vociferous advocate on the Democratic side of this 
treaty. So I would like to ask Senator Jeffords to say a few words and 
then invite Senator Dorgan to say a few words.

[At this point, Senator James M. Jeffords and Senator Byron L. Dorgan 
made brief remarks.]

    The President. Do you want to ask either one of them any questions? 
Thank you very much.

Note: The President spoke at 11:55 a.m. on the South Lawn at the White 
House. In his remarks, he referred to Bishop John J. Glynn, National 
Conference of Catholic Bishops, Archdiocese of Military Services; Rev. 
Elenora Giddings Ivory, director, Washington office, Presbyterian Church 
(U.S.A.); Rev. Jay Lintner, director, Washington office, United Church 
of Christ; Mark J. Pelavin, associate director, Religious Action Center 
of Reformed Judaism; Bishop Theodore F. Schneider, Metropolitan 
Washington, DC, Synod, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America; Joe Volk, 
executive secretary, Friends Committee on National Legislation; James 
Dunn, executive director, Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs; and 
Rev. Joan Brown Campbell, general secretary, National Council of 
Churches. The transcript released by the Office of the Press Secretary 
also included

[[Page 1957]]

the remarks of Senator Jeffords and Senator Dorgan.