Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 35 Issue 41 (Monday, October 18, 1999)

[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 35, Number 41 (Monday, October 18, 1999)]
[Pages 2035-2048]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
The President's News Conference

October 14, 1999

The President. Good afternoon. Thank you. In recent days, members of
the congressional majority have displayed a reckless partisanship. It
threatens America's economic well being and, now, our national security.
Yesterday, hardline Republicans irresponsibly forced a vote against
the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. This was partisan politics of
the worst kind, because it was so blatant and because of the risks it
poses to the safety of the American people and the world.
What the Senate seeks is to abandon an agreement that requires other
countries to do what we have already done, an agreement that constrains
Russia and China, India and Pakistan from developing more dangerous
nuclear weapons, that helps to keep other countries out of the nuclear
weapons business altogether, that improves our ability to monitor
dangerous weapons activities in other countries. Even worse, they have
offered no alternative, no other means of keeping countries around the
world from developing nuclear arsenals and threatening our security.
In so doing, they ignored the advice of our top military leaders,
our most distinguished scientists, our closest allies. They brushed
aside the views of the American people and betrayed the vision of
Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy, who set us on the road to this treaty
so many years ago.
Even more troubling are the signs of a new isolationism among some
of the opponents of the treaty. You see it in the refusal to pay our
U.N. dues. You see it in the woefully inadequate budget for foreign
affairs and includes meeting our obligations to the Middle East peace
process and to the continuing efforts to destroy and safeguard Russian
nuclear materials. You see it in the refusal to adopt our proposals to
do our part to stem the tide of global warming, even though these
proposals plainly would create American jobs.
But by this vote, the Senate majority has turned its back on 50
years of American leadership against the spread of weapons of mass
destruction. They are saying America does not need to lead, either by
effort or by example. They are saying we don't need our friends or
allies. They are betting our children's future on the reckless
proposition that we can go it alone, that at the height of our power and
prosperity, we should bury our heads in the sand, behind a wall.
That is not where I stand. And that is not where the American people
stand. They understand that, to be strong, we must not only have a
powerful military, we must also lead, as we have done time and again,
and as the whole world expects us to do, to build a more responsible,
interdependent world.
So we will continue to protect our interests around the world. We
will continue to seek from Congress the financial resources to make that
possible. We will continue to pursue the fight against the spread of
nuclear weapons. And we will not--we will not-- abandon the commitments
inherent in the treaty and resume testing ourselves.
I will not let yesterday's partisanship stand as our final word on
the test ban treaty. Today I say again, on behalf of the United States,
we will continue the policy we have maintained since 1992 of not
conducting nuclear tests. I call on Russia, China, Britain, France, and
all other countries to continue to refrain from testing. I call on
nations that have not done so to sign and ratify the Comprehensive Test
Ban Treaty. And I will continue to do all I can to make that case to the
Senate. When all is said and done, I have no doubt that the United
States will ratify this treaty.
Partisanship also threatens our economic security. Exactly one week
from today the continuing resolution I signed on September the 30th to
keep the Government running will expire. And yet, Congress is not even
close to finishing its work. At this time of unprecedented prosperity we
must ask ourselves why is the congressional majority so unwilling or
unable to make the tough choices? Why would we not be willing--or why
would they not be willing to send me a responsible budget that saves
Social Security, that strengthens and modernizes Medicare, that honors
the priorities of the American people, and that clearly continues to pay
down our debt keeping interest rates low and the economy growing?

[[Page 2036]]

When I signed the continuing resolution 2 weeks ago, I urged
Congress to roll up its sleeves and finish the job the American people
sent them here to do. I said they should stop playing politics, stop
playing games, start making the necessary tough choices. Instead, we
have the Republicans lurching from one unworkable idea to the next.
Instead of sending me bills I can sign, the congressional majority is
still using what the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times and others
have called ``budget gimmicks,'' to disguise the fact that they are
spending the Social Security surplus. Their own Budget Office says so.
We've even seen them try to raise taxes for our hardest pressed
working families. Now, they're talking about across-the-board budget
cuts that could deny tens of thousands of children Head Start
opportunities, drastically reduce medical research, sacrifice military
readiness, jeopardize the safety of air traffic control. One day they
raise the spending, the next day they talk about cutting it again.
I say to the congressional majority, enough is enough. We've got a
job to do for the American people. It is not that difficult. Let's just
do it. We can work together. We can fashion a budget that builds on our
economic prosperity and continues to pay down the debt until it is
eliminated in 2015 for the first time since 1835, that extends the life
of the Social Security Trust Fund to 2050, the life expanse of almost
all the baby boomers, and that invests in our people and our future,
especially in our children's education.
The American people want a world-class education for their children.
They want smaller classes, more qualified teachers, more computers in
the classrooms, more after-school programs for the children who need it,
more Head Start opportunities to ensure that our children all start
school ready to learn. The majority so far has failed to come forward
with a plan that protects these goals. I believe these goals are worth
fighting for, and that's what this debate is all about.
They want us to keep making their communities safer; that's what the
American people want. They want us to stay with the plan that has
resulted in the lowest crime rate in 26 years. They want us to continue
to put more cops on the beat and get guns out of the wrong hands. The
majority wants to take us off that course and derail our progress. I
want to keep us on track in education, in crime, in the budget, in
Social Security, in Medicare.
The American people want us to stand up for the environment by
preserving our treasured landscapes and enhancing our community's
quality of life. The majority would roll back our progress there, too. I
want to build on it. That's what this debate is all about.
I want to work with Congress to fulfill these important obligations.
We have proved we can do it with the welfare reform bill, with the
Balanced Budget Act, with the budget last year, in the teeth of a
partisan election season, which made a big downpayment on our goal of
100,000 teachers. We need it again, a workable, bipartisan budget
process. We don't have that today. We've got a week to go. They've got
to go to work.
There are legitimate differences of opinion. But we can put an end
to reckless partisanship, to gimmicks and gamesmanship. We can put
people first and make a principled, honorable compromise. We can work
for a season of progress, not a winter of politics. And I am committed
to do just that.
Thank you.
Helen [Helen Thomas, United Press International]?

Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty

Q. Mr. President, hasn't the treaty rejection really wiped out our
moral authority to ask other nations around the world to stop testing?
And was there--do you think there was a personal element in the
Republican--a personal vendetta against you in the turn-down,
Republican----
The President. Well, to answer the first question, let me say I had
the occasion to run into three Ambassadors last night, of nations that
strongly support the test ban treaty. And they were concerned. They
didn't know what to say to their governments back home.
And what I told them was that we were in a battle with the new
isolationists in the Republican Party. They see this treaty against the
backdrop of the failure to pay the U.N. dues and the failure to shoulder
some of our

[[Page 2037]]

other responsibilities, the failure to pass a bill that would meet our
obligations to the Middle East peace process and our obligations to keep
working with the Russians to take down their nuclear arsenal.
But what I told them was the American people always get it right,
and we are not going to reverse 40 years of commitment on
nonproliferation, that the treaty is still on the Senate calendar, that
it will be considered, that we have to keep working forward, and that I
have no intention of doing anything other than honoring the obligations
of the treaty imposed on the United States.
So I urged them not to overreact, to make clear their opposition to
what the Senate did, but to stay with us and believe in the United
States because the American people want us to lead toward
nonproliferation.
Now, as to the second element, there were a number of partisan
considerations, including some bad feelings between the Republicans and
Democrats in the Senate, because the Republicans didn't want to bring
this up at all, and then they didn't give us a legitimate process when
they did. If you compare the debates here, one day of hearings here,
with 14 days on the Chemical Weapons Convention, over 20 days on the INF
Treaty under President Reagan, this was not a legitimate process.
Now, I know some people made some personal remarks on the floor of
the Senate in the debate, but you know, it's been my experience that
very often in politics when a person is taking a position that he simply
cannot defend, the only defense is to attack the opponent. And that's
what I took it as, a form of flattery. They knew they didn't have a very
strong case, and so they were looking for some excuse for otherwise
inexcusable conduct, and it didn't bother me a bit. I think it only
exposed----
Q. It wasn't revenge against you.
The President. No, I think it only exposed the weakness of their
argument. I think that it had a lot more to do with what's going on in
the Senate and what they think will happen this year and next year. But
I say that because if it did, that would be even worse for them. I mean,
the idea that we would put the future of our children in peril and the
leadership of America for a safer world in peril for some personal
pique, I think is unthinkable.
I just think when you've got--sometimes, I've seen people when
they've got a very weak argument and they know they don't have a very
strong position, they think that maybe they can deflect the analysis of
their vote and their argument by attacking their opponent. That happens
from time to time, and you can't take it too seriously.
Terry [Terence Hunt, Associated Press]?

2000 Election

Q. A question about politics, Mr. President. Do you agree with Vice
President Gore's characterization of Bill Bradley as a disloyal
Democrat? And how much of a difference would it make if Senator Bradley
were the Democratic nominee, instead of Vice President Gore?
The President. I am not a candidate in the Democratic primary, and I
do not think I should become one. I had to do that twice before, and I
enjoyed it very much, but I don't get a third shot.
So what I would say to you is, as all of you know, I think Al Gore
has been, by far, the best Vice President in history. He's certainly had
more influence over more areas. I think that he is doing well in his
campaign. I think he made a good decision to go home to Tennessee. And I
expect him to win. But I expect to support the nominee of my party, as I
always have. And I think that I can serve no useful function by talking
about anything other than the issues. If you want to ask me an issue
question related to any of them, I'll be glad to answer it. But I'm not
going to get into that kind of horse racing.
Yes, Steve [Steve Holland, Reuters]?

Situation in Pakistan

Q. Given the military coup in Pakistan, are you now more concerned
about the prospect of a war between India and Pakistan, and what can you
do to calm tensions?
The President. Well, obviously, we have been in touch with the
Pakistanis. We don't like it when military leaders forcibly displace
elected governments, and we made that clear. We've had our differences
with Pakistan over the years that have been sometimes sharp, we've also
had strong alliances in many

[[Page 2038]]

areas. I still believe Prime Minister Sharif did the right thing to take
the Pakistani troops behind the line of control and defuse what could
have turned into a war, even a nuclear exchange. And so I appreciate
that.
And I would hope that the military government will soon transition
to a civilian one. And I would hope that nothing would be done at this
time to aggravate tensions between India and Pakistan. India just had an
election. Prime Minister Vajpayee has now been returned for another
period of service. I think they have an opportunity to resume their
dialog and to de-escalate the tensions.
Again, let me say to India and Pakistan, do not take yesterday's
vote as a sign that America doesn't care whether you resume nuclear
testing and build up your nuclear arsenals. We do care. You shouldn't do
it. It's not necessary. It will hurt your economy and endanger your
future. That's our message to Pakistan, and we hope they will move to a
civilian government as quickly as possible.
Claire [Claire Shipman, NBC].

Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty

Q. To what extent do you think that you and the White House bear
some responsibility for the outcome of the vote yesterday? There have
been a lot of people heavily involved--supporters of this treaty--who
say the White House didn't begin an effective lobbying effort early
enough. And I wonder whether you also think that the year of scandal
played some role in that, that the White House was just unable to work
on this----
The President. No.
Q. ----in the way it should have.
The President. For one thing, since I signed this treaty--let's look
at the facts here--I've spoken about this 30 times or more. We always
start a big public campaign in terms of White House events and other
things. Go back and look at this. Look at NAFTA. Look at the Chemical
Weapons Convention. Go back--when we know that we're on a hearing
schedule and we're going to have a vote, until we were given 8 or 10
days notice, we had no earthly idea there would ever be hearings, much
less a vote on this.
So this whole thing came as a complete surprise to us when we
realized that we had 8 or 10 days on a subject that we thought they had
decided in a very determined way not to bring up, because Senator Helms
had made it clear that he didn't want to bring it up, and he wouldn't
even talk about it until he disposed of two other treaties that he said
were ahead of it in his consideration. We had no earthly idea that it
was going to be on the Senate calendar.
So we did our best. We kept asking. And we thought if we ever got a
yes, the yes would be like the yes we got on chemical weapons. ``Yes, we
can have this vote in a couple of months. We'll have 2 or 3 weeks of
hearings.'' If we had had a normal process, you would have seen a much
more extensive public campaign. There was simply no time to put it
together. But I talked about this over and over and over again in many
different contexts. And I think that, given the time we had, we did the
best we could.
And besides that, once it became clear to me that they not only were
going to force this close vote but that they weren't going to do what
they do in every single treaty where there's serious consideration,
namely, to allow the Senators of both parties to offer safeguards, to
offer reservations, to offer clarifications, so that the treaty means
something.
If you remember, the only way we ever passed the chemical weapons
treaty is when the Senate--including Senator Helms--participated with us
in a process that led to over 20 explicit safeguards and reservations.
That's what the Senate is supposed to do. We said, ourselves, that we
thought the treaty required six safeguards that we hoped would be put on
it. And they said, ``Not only are we going to make them vote on the
treaty; we're not going to let you put your safeguards on there.'' So I
think that ought to give you some indication of what was afoot here. We
did the best we could with the time we had.
Q. [Inaudible]--the criticism has been not the public lobbying
effort but behind the scenes--the sense that for a long time the
Republicans were lobbying against this treaty when the White House
wasn't lobbying very effectively on Capitol Hill.
The President. Well, but--you know, first of all, I just don't
accept that. They told us that they had no interest in bringing it up.

[[Page 2039]]

It wasn't going to come up. We had no reason to believe we could do it.
Before we can lobby the Members, we have to have some sense that we're
lobbying them for something. And every time you talk to somebody, they
say, ``Well, that's not even scheduled. That's not going to come up.''
And I think the interesting thing is how many made commitments before
they heard any arguments one way or the other.
John [John King, Cable News Network]?
Q. But Mr. President, given the importance you've placed on this,
why did you wait until 5:15 yesterday to first call the Senate majority
leader? And as part of the same question, if you were the Government of
China and publicly stated on the record that you're looking to modernize
your nuclear arsenal, why would you not take this now as a green light
to test, and will you do anything to try to convince the Chinese not to
do so?
The President. Well, let me answer the first question first. The one
thing I did not want to do, once it became obvious--I had nothing to do
with the schedule the majority leader imposed on the treaty, and I had
no advance knowledge of it, so I couldn't have talked to him before
then.
At that point, he had contact--I believe he and his office--he,
personally, and his office, had contacts several times a day with Mr.
Berger every day from then on out. What we were trying to do was to
preserve the opportunity--just to deal with the question Helen asked in
the beginning, you know, if anybody was out there saying, ``Well, this
is about President Clinton,'' and we were trying to preserve the
opportunity for him and Senator Daschle to make an agreement so that the
Senate could do this; the Senate could put it off, could schedule
hearings, could deal with it in an orderly fashion.
Then, as you may know, the night before the vote, Senator Lott and
Senator Daschle did, in fact, reach an agreement to put it off. And
Senator Lott apparently was unable to convince enough of his caucus to
honor the agreement he had made, so he had to withdraw. And it was at
that point that I called him to see if there was anything else we could
do.
But we were in constant contact with his office, and Mr. Berger
talked to him innumerable times. I would happily have talked to him. I
thought I was giving him some protection not to do it so that he and
Senator Daschle could make an agreement, and they could say the Senate
did it out of a concern for the national interest, because it was
manifestly the right thing to do. And I think Senator Lott believes
today that putting it off was the right thing to do. I'm sorry it didn't
happen.

Chinese Nuclear Testing

Q. And the question on China?
The President. Oh, China. Let me say--well, I will say again, the
Chinese have taken the position we have, that they won't test. I hope
they will continue to honor it. All I can tell you is, we're not going
to test. I signed that treaty. It still binds us unless I go, in effect,
and erase our name. Unless the President does that and takes our name
off, we are bound by it. And we've not been testing since '92. So the
Chinese should have every assurance that, at least as long as this
administration is here, we support nuclear testing.
Now, if we ever get a President that's against the test ban treaty,
which we may get--I mean, there are plenty of people out there who say
they're against it--then I think you might as well get ready for it.
You'll have Russia testing. You'll have China testing. You'll have India
testing. You'll have Pakistan testing. You'll have countries abandoning
the nonproliferation treaty.
The reason I wouldn't make a commitment to Senator Lott not to bring
this treaty up next year--let's just put that out on the table--apart
from the President's prerogative, constitutional prerogative, there is a
substantive reason. Four years ago, we got all the countries that were
in the nonproliferation treaty--even more than have signed the test ban
treaty, I think 176 of them--and they say they're either not going to
develop nuclear capacity, or if they have it, they won't share it. It's
very, very important.
And a lot of the countries that were edgy because their neighbors
had nuclear capacity or because they had nascent nuclear capacity and
they wanted to develop it more--they really wanted to know, was there
going to

[[Page 2040]]

be a test ban treaty, so that if they stopped dead in their tracks, they
wouldn't be discriminated against by people who were a little ahead of
them who could test. And the United States took the lead in assuring
them we would continue to work until we got a test ban treaty. So we
did. And that's why I was the first person to sign it, not only because
I believe in the test ban treaty but because I think it is essential to
reinforce the nonproliferation treaty.
Consider how each of you would feel if you were running a country
and you thought you had the scientific capacity to develop these kinds
of weapons and you had neighbors with them you felt threatened by, but
they were a little ahead of you and they could test and you couldn't.
So the reason I--what I told Senator Lott was, I said, ``Look, I
believe if next year we have indications that three or four or five
countries are going to bail out on the nonproliferation treaty, I could
come to you, and I could convince you that we should bring it up. And
therefore, I cannot promise not to bring it up. But, barring some
international emergency, I wouldn't bring this treaty up until I thought
we could get it ratified.'' To me it's not a matter of personal credit,
it's a matter of leaving in place for the future a framework that will
maximize the safety and security of the American people and minimize the
prospect of nuclear conflict around the world.
So that's where it is. I hope very much that people will see in the
steadfast determination of this administration and of the American
people, the determination to stay on this path. And I hope they will
stick with us. I think if we ever have a President and a Senate not for
this test ban treaty, then all bets are off. You will see a lot of
testing, and they will bail on the NPT. That's what I think will happen,
and we will be in a much, much more dangerous world. But we are not
there today, and I hope I can discourage people from going there.
Mark, [Mark Knoller, CBS Radio] and then Sarah [Sarah McClendon,
McClendon News Service].

Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty

Q. Sir, just as you had experts saying, advocating the ratification
of the treaty, the Republicans had experts saying that the treaty was
dangerous. Why can't you accept the vote as a good faith expression of
that opposition, rather than as a partisan attack?
The President. Oh, I have said every time that there were some
Republicans who believed that in good conscience. The reason I can't
accept it as only a matter of conviction are the following reasons.
Number one, they had a lot of people committed who didn't know very
much about the treaty, who were asked to commit before there was ever an
argument made.
Number two, the objections about the treaty essentially fall into
two categories. One is that, notwithstanding the heads of the weapons
labs, the entire military establishment and General Shelton's last few
predecessors as Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs, and these 32 Nobel
laureates, there are people who say, ``I don't care what they all say, I
just don't believe it. I just don't think that they can preserve the
security of the nuclear arsenal without testing. Even though we're
spending $4.5 billion a year, and we're going to spend more, and we're
far more likely to be able to do that than any other country in the
world, I just don't believe it.''
Now, my answer to them was, so we put an explicit safeguard in the
treaty which says, when we have evidence, which we don't have now, that
we cannot maintain the reliability of the nuclear deterrent, if at that
time it is still necessary for us to do so, then we will have to give
notice and withdraw. That's what you have these safeguards for. That's
in our supreme national interest.
The other major argument against the treaty was that there can be
some cheating because you can't always be sure, for underground tests
under 5 kilotons and particularly under 1 kiloton. The answer to that
is, that's true now. And this treaty makes it more likely that we will
catch such things.
That wasn't a good argument, because this treaty would give us over
300 sensors around the world. And those sensors are far more likely to
pick it up. This treaty would give us the possibility of on-site
inspections,

[[Page 2041]]

something we don't have now. And this treaty would give us the
possibility of marshaling a much sterner rebuke to any country that
violated it than we do now.
There were other objections that were more minor, compared to these
two big ones. That's why we offered these six safeguards, and invited
the Senate to offer more. There were objections like this to the
Chemical Weapons Convention. There are always going to be objections
from the point of view of the country that feels it's in the strongest
position. And that's why we have a process, an orderly process in the
Senate, to allow the Senate to put these safeguards on. I think that's
what Senator Byrd was saying yesterday when he voted ``present'' and
condemned the process.
You know, keep in mind, I didn't ask them to ratify the treaty as it
was written. I asked them to ratify the treaty with the six safeguards
that would address those two major objections and some of the others.
Sarah, and then----

Deployment of U.S. Troops Abroad

Q. Do you think the American people agree with you on the fact that
we send armed soldiers to every place in the world where there's a
conflict?
The President. Do I think what now?
Q. Do you feel that we, the American people, agree with the policy
that we send armed soldiers to other parts of the country when we're not
involved, but they're having an armed conflict, and we send soldiers
over there anyway?
The President. Yes, but I think----
Q. Do you think the American people agree with that?
The President. Let me say this. I think that the safer we make the
world and the more we reduce the likelihood of war, the less likely we
are to send people there. But you know, this is another argument for
cooperation, however.
There's another point I'd like to make. The heads of the Governments
of Britain, France and Germany took the extraordinary step of writing an
op-ed piece--we don't have any better allies--they took the
extraordinary step of writing an op-ed piece asking us to ratify this
treaty and, in any case, not to defeat it. This was also an amazing
rebuke to our allies. We say, ``Okay you guys are with us every time we
need you, the Gulf war, the Balkans, always in NATO, you're there, but
you ask us to do something for your common safety, go take a hike.'' And
you know, I think that's a very tenuous position.
If you look at what we did, we took a very leading role in trying to
stop the violence and promote the integrity of the referendum in East
Timor, a long way away. The Australians, the New Zealanders, the other
countries in that region, they stepped right up and took the lion's
share of the burden. They didn't expect America to do that. They asked
us to help them with certain services that we are capable of providing,
but they stepped right up. They looked to us and say, ``You know, keep
leading the world toward nonproliferation. We'll do this work with
you.'' We say to them, ``Go take a hike.'' I think it was a very dubious
decision.
Go ahead.

FY 2000 Budget

Q. Mr. President, a question on the budget. Are you saying that you
would veto a Republican plan for across-the-board spending cuts? And
since they are adamantly opposed to your tobacco tax hikes and your
loophole closings, and both of you don't want to spend the Social
Security surplus, what is the way out of this box to avoid another
Government shutdown?
The President. Well, first of all, I would veto a bill that I
thought--here at the moment of our greatest prosperity, when we've got a
surplus, if they wanted to cut education and gut our efforts to put more
teachers in the schools, our efforts to give kids after-school programs,
our efforts to do all of the things we're trying to do in education--
hook up their computers to the schools by 2000, the Internet, all the
classrooms to the Internet by 2000--all these things we're trying to do,
would I veto that? I would. I would have to do that. I would have no
choice. It would be unconscionable to think that America, at its moment
of greatest prosperity, when we've got our first surplus in 30 years, is
out there cutting education and several other areas. So, yes, I would.

[[Page 2042]]

Secondly, I know for ideological reasons they don't want to raise
the tobacco tax, but just yesterday one of their long-time allies,
Philip Morris, acknowledged that cigarettes cause cancer. And we know
that more needs to be done to get our kids off tobacco. And we know that
raising the price of a pack of cigarettes is one of the best ways to do
it. So we--you know, they don't have to agree to raise it as much as I
proposed, but it would help to sit down and negotiate that. If they
don't like my offsets, what are their offsets? Maybe there are some
other things we could agree on. We won't know unless we have a serious
conversation.
I think the best way to do this is to avoid spending the Social
Security surplus, even though it's been done every year for at least 16
years and was done before in times of deficits. This is a new thing, you
know, not spending it. The only reason they're proposing not to spend it
is that we have non-Social Security surplus, though much smaller.
There is a good reason not to spend it. And the good reason not to
spend it is, number one, it will help us to pay down the debt and get
this country out of debt in 15 years, for the first time in 165 years.
Number two, it enables us to achieve interest savings, and those
interest savings, I believe, for 5 years should be put back in the Trust
Fund, and that will run the life of Social Security out to 2050 and take
into account the retirement of all the baby boomers. So I hope we can do
it.
But in order to do it, we're going to have to make some hard
decisions. But it looks to me like, though, the decisions that I propose
to make are less hard than slashing education at a time of great
prosperity when you've got the biggest and most diverse student
population in history or raising taxes on poor people, which was another
one of their proposals or all these gimmicks. I mean, they proposed--for
example, if they do this 13-month thing, you know, where they just, we
spend the money this year but play like we're spending it next year,
then they're just going to make an even bigger headache. We'll have the
same headache next year. And we'll be here a year from now, and you will
be asking me these same questions.
They say that the ordinary operations of the Pentagon are an
emergency. That's one of the things they're considering. The ordinary
operations of the Pentagon are an emergency. I think that will come as a
surprise to people who have been working there for 10 or 20 years.

Susan [Susan Page, USA Today]?

2000 Election Issues

Q. Mr. President, every 4 years the American people revise and
adjust what they're looking for in the President they're about to elect,
often, in reaction to the President who is about to leave office. And I
wonder if, looking ahead, what you think Americans are looking for in
the President they'll elect next year? And if there are ways in which
those qualities or qualifications are different from what they were
looking for in 1992 and 1996 when you were elected?
The President. Well, I think that one big difference is the country
is going to be in good shape instead of bad shape. And so they're going
to be--right now, unless something unforeseen happens, by next February
we'll have the longest expansion in history, peacetime or wartime. We'll
have a 26-year-low in crime rate, a 30-year-low in the welfare rolls, a
29-year-low in unemployment, first back-to-back surpluses in 42 years.
We'll have--the social fabric of America will be mending. And the
economy is lifting. We have a low in poverty rate of 20 years.
So I think they'll be looking for things and thinking about--and
they will know that they have a chance to shape the future in a way that
we've not had in my lifetime. And so, I can only tell you what I think.
What I think they will be looking for is someone who will offer big
ideas about how to make sure that we deal with the aging of America, as
we double the number of people over 65, how we deal with the explosion
of children and their increasing diversity.
I hope that they will say--we see a little bit in this debate on the
gun safety issue in the Senate now. I hope they will say, ``Oh, it's
fine we've got the lowest crime rate in 26 years. We want to vote for
somebody that'll make this the safest big country in the world.'' And I
hope they will say that they are now much more concerned than they

[[Page 2043]]

were able to be in '92, when people were worried about how they were
going to get from one month to the next, that they really, really want
us to make a sustained effort to bring opportunity to all the people and
places that are still trapped in poverty. And I hope they will say
that--they've been given a new issue now. I hope they will say that they
don't want America to adopt a new isolationism, they want us to lead
into the future. So there is a different sort of thing there. I also
think that they want somebody who can deal in a sensitive way with the
continuing evidence we have of violence in our country and of people
manifesting all kinds of bigotry, that in its most extreme version you
see in the killings in the Middle West and the shootings at the Jewish
community school and all of that.
But it's a different world. On balance, it's better, but I think
we're much more sensitive than we were 7 years ago to the problems of
the poor among us, and that's a good thing. And I think we're much more
sensitive to the problems of discrimination and violence against people
because of their race or their religion or their sexual orientation.
You know, I hope that they will want someone, and I hope that--who
will try as hard as I have tried and maybe be more successful--although
I think they'll have to make some changes in Congress to do that--to
create a genuine, constructive, bipartisan atmosphere. We get it here,
but we get it about once a year, and it doesn't last long enough to suit
me. When we get it, great things happen. [Laughter]
Mary, [Mary McGrory, Washington Post] did you have a question?

Anti-Ballistic-Missile Treaty

Q. Yes, sir. I was wondering if you have any plans to protect the
ABM Treaty, which will almost certainly be the next target of the Senate
Republicans, looking to start Star Wars?
The President. As you have--all of you have reported this, we have
continued to work on missile defense. We spend quite a good deal of
money on it. Some preliminary tests are encouraging. If we have the
potential to protect our people against missiles that could be loaded
with nuclear weapons or chemical or biological weapons, coming at us
from other countries--and this does not include the Russians with whom
we have this ABM Treaty but all of these other countries that are trying
to get missile technology--and it would be the responsible thing to try
to deploy such a system.
The problem is, any such system, even a ground-based one, would
violate the literal terms of the ABM Treaty. Now, there are--as you've
said, Mary, there are people in the United States Congress who would
like to just tear up the ABM Treaty and go on. I, personally, think that
would be a terrible mistake. Look, we are--for all of our ups and downs
and rough edges, we are working with the Russians, and we have made real
progress in reducing threats as a result of it. And let me just tick off
a few things. They continue to reduce their nuclear arsenals. If they
ratify START II, we'll take our nuclear arsenals to 80 percent below
their cold-war high. We're prepared to go into START III negotiations
with them if we do. They've also taken their troops out of the Baltics,
and they've gotten nuclear weapons out of all those other former Soviet
republics.
We're getting something out of this, this partnership. And we, I
think, would be very foolish to just discard the ABM Treaty.
So what we're trying to do is see whether or not we can work with
the Russians in a way that enhances their security and ours, to share
some of the benefits of these developments, and to go forward in a way
that convinces them that they're not the problem. We're also trying to
do other things to minimize the problem. As you know, we've been working
very hard with North Korea to try to end the missile program there.
So I do not want to throw the ABM Treaty away. I do think it is the
responsible thing to do to continue to pursue what appears to be far
more promising than many had thought, including me a few a years ago, in
terms of missile defense. But we have to try to work the two things out
together. And I'm confident that if the Russians believe it is in their
security interest to do so, that we can. And that will happen if we work
with them. If we just scrap the ABM Treaty, it won't happen, and our
insecurity will increase.

[[Page 2044]]

Bill [Bill Plante, CBS News]? Go ahead, I'll take both of you, just
one after the other. Go ahead.

Judge Susan Webber Wright's Decision

Q. Mr. President, you've never commented on Judge Wright's decision
that you intentionally lied in the Jones deposition. Do you accept her
finding? And if not, why have you or your attorneys not challenged it?
The President. When I am out of office, I will have a lot to say
about this. Until then, I'm going to honor my commitment to all of you,
to go back to work. I haven't challenged anything, including things that
I consider to be questionable, because I think it is wrong. The American
people have been put through enough, and they need every hour, every
day, every minute I can give them thinking about their business. And so
until I leave here, as I understand it now, all this is finished, and I
don't have to comment on it. And unless there is some reason I legally
have to, I'm not going to say anything else that doesn't relate to my
responsibilities as President as regards to that. When I'm done, then I
can say what I want to say.
Go ahead.

Dismantling of Strategic Arms Controls

Q. Mr. President, one of the arguments that some of your closest
friends in the Senate make about this situation with the Comprehensive
Test Ban Treaty is that the Republicans aren't just after that treaty or
the ABM Treaty, that really what they want to do is embark on the full
dismantling of all strategic arms controls. We've known it since the end
of the cold war.
The Republican argument is that arms control is an illusion and a
delusion, that it lulls us into a false sense of security, and that it
drains our will to maintain our military might. What do you think of
those arguments? What's your response to them?
The President. Imagine the world we will live in if they prevail. I
mean, imagine the world we will live in if they prevail. That's what I
think of them. I mean, look, are we more secure because we made an
agreement with the Russians to reduce our nuclear arsenals? I believe we
are. Are we more secure, given the economic and political tensions in
that area that we made an agreement with the Russians to take those
nuclear weapons out of Kazakhstan and Ukraine and Belarus? I believe we
are. Are we more secure because other countries are not testing nuclear
weapons and can only do so much in the laboratory? I believe we are. I
think these arms control agreements have created a climate in the world
which has helped to make us far more secure and helped to reduce the
likelihood that nuclear weapons will ever be used again.
If the United States, with all of our wealth, all of our strength,
more nuclear weapons than anybody else, says we are so insecure that we
want more, more, more, what in the wide world could we ever say to the
Chinese; to the Russians, who I hope will not be on their backs
economically forever; to the Indians and the Pakistanis, who I hope will
not be on their backs economically forever, to the Indians and the
Pakistanis, who have all kinds of arguments, one against the other, and
involving other countries; to countries that believe we are too
aggressive in the world already and don't share a lot of our political
or our philosophical views?
You know, I'm glad you said that. You're right. They don't believe
that, and they think we ought to go it alone. It doesn't bother them
that we don't pay our U.N. dues. It doesn't bother them that we're
giving the Pentagon money in their budget that the Pentagon didn't ask
for and say is not necessary for our national security, but they won't
fund a decent investment in diplomacy and helping to lift the world's
poor in places where people are trying to make democracy take root; that
we're not funding our obligations under the Middle East peace process,
our obligations to help the Russians continue to dismantle their nuclear
weapons. That's right, and they do believe that. And I go back to what
Mark said, there are--I don't believe they're yet the majority in the
Republican caucus, but they are a very very potent minority. And they do
believe this. But I think they're wrong. And the American people must
understand that this is one of the choices they now have to make.
Q. Mr. President, you said imagine a world without these agreements.
Please give some

[[Page 2045]]

examples of what you're driving at, because they said it's going to be a
terrific world without these agreements, that America is going to be
safer without the agreements than it is with them.
The President. First of all, we're all tied in knots now over this
budget, right? I mean, it's totally unnecessary, but we are. We
shouldn't be. Now, can you imagine if we had no arms control agreements,
let's just suppose we tore them all up tomorrow--nothing, no
nonproliferation agreement. Then this same crowd would be coming in and
saying. ``Well, now there's no nonproliferation agreements, you know,
and here's a list of 12 countries that we think they have two scientists
who can figure out how to put together a small nuclear weapon. And
there's no Chemical Weapons Convention or Biological Weapons Convention,
so they've got those labs chugging right along here. And therefore, we
need you to increase the budget for all this to the labs and the
Pentagon by another $30 or $40 or $50 billion a year. So, I'm sorry,
we'll just have to get out of the business of funding education. We
can't afford to invest any more in health care. The American people just
have to figure out what to do on their own.'' It would totally erode the
fabric of our domestic climate.
Meanwhile, what happens overseas? Countries that could be putting
money into the education and health care and development of their
children, whether they're democracies or military dictatorships or
communist countries, will be sitting there saying, ``Well, you know,
we'd like to lower the infant mortality rate. We'd like to lower the
hunger rate. We'd like to lower the poverty rate. We'd like to raise the
literacy rate. But look at what the Americans are doing. Look at what
our neighbors are doing. Let's spend half our money on military.'' It
would be great for the people that build this stuff, but for everybody
else it would be a nightmare.
Consider the Japanese, coming out, we earnestly hope, of their long
economic slump, having honored, since World War II, their commitment to
be a non-nuclear state and to spend a small percentage of their income
on defense. What in the world would they do in such a world? And if they
had to divert 4, 5, 6 percent of their gross national product to
defense, what kind of economic partner would they be?
What would happen in Latin America, the area which has been the area
that was the greatest growth for us in trade? After we have worked so
hard, you've got Brazil to renounce its nuclear program. You've got
former adversaries working together in trade agreements. What would
happen if they, all of a sudden, got antsy and decided, ``Well, you
know, we have no national status. Our people, you know, we'll have the
same elements in our country saying we can't defend ourselves. We've got
to have a biological program, a chemical program, a nuclear program.''
I mean, you know, all this sounds good. But the idea that the best
way for us to go forward--since right now, at this particular moment in
history, we enjoy the greatest wealth and the greatest power, is to
build this big old wall and tell all of our friends and neighbors to go
take a hike. ``We're not cooperating with them anymore. As far as we're
concerned any might--might be an enemy, and anything you want to do with
your money is fine with us, because we have more money than you do, so
whatever you do, we'll do more.''
I think it will be a bleak, poor, less secure world. I don't want my
children and my grandchildren or your children or your grandchildren to
live in it. They believe that. I will do everything I can to stop it.
Yes.

Political Impact of Senate Action

Q. Sir, isn't it wishful thinking for the Democrats to think they
can beat up on the Republicans next year over this treaty vote? Yes,
public opinions show that most Americans do support the treaty. But you
were not able, despite your 30-plus public appearances, you were not
able to light a fire under public opinion. Can't the Republicans just
walk away from this without any damage, particularly in the post-cold-
war era? Isn't it true that Americans just don't worry about the nuclear
threat?
The President. I think there is something to that. But you know, it
was interesting, as I understand it, one of the reasons this came up--
from what my Republican friends in the

[[Page 2046]]

Senate say--is that the Republicans were worried that the Democrats
would keep beating on this next year if they didn't bring it up and
dispose of it this year, and they were afraid it would be a political
issue. I never wanted it to be a political issue. I never wanted the
Chemical Weapons Treaty to be a political issue. I never thought this
stuff would be a political issue. I always thought we'd have a
bipartisan consensus to do what had to be done.
So they may have made it a political issue now, and it may or may
not have any impact. But I will say this. I will say again--I believe
the American people eventually--I think they will stay where they are,
and I think we'll eventually get this treaty ratified. But it may be in
every democracy--you know, the people decide what they care about. I
told Senator Lott that I did not expect that this would ever be such a
big issue. I think it might be now. and the people have to decide. This
is part of the choices a free people make, and it's an important choice,
and we'll just see what they do.
Yes, go ahead.

Protests at the Seattle Trade Talks

Q. Labor unions have stepped up their criticisms of the World Trade
Organization and plan to demonstrate at the talks next month. You've
sought to answer some of their concerns, but it's not likely that you're
going to answer all of them before then. Is that going to weaken the
U.S. negotiating position in the talks?
The President. No, because there will be a lot of people from other
countries there demonstrating against it, too. [Laughter] I mean, you're
going to have--there will be a lot of people there against it. And I
think--I want to say two things. First of all, I am committed to
launching a new trade round which will expand opportunities for us and
for others on a fair basis. For example, if we stop export subsidies to
agriculture, 85 percent of which are in Europe today, it would benefit
farmers in my home State of Arkansas, but it would also benefit farmers
in Argentina and farmers in Africa. And I would like to see that done.
I would like to see us make a commitment that electronic commerce
would continue to be tax free. And I would like to see us continue to
make progress in other areas, because 3 out of 10--30 percent of our
growth came from trade-related growth, until the Asian financial crisis,
and because I think it's the best way to lift labor standards and to
give countries the money they need to protect their environment. So I
will continue to push for this.
Now, having said that, I don't think it's such a bad thing that all
these people are coming to Seattle to demonstrate. Why? Because I went
to Geneva to speak to the WTO, and then I went back to Geneva to speak
to the International Labor Organizations to say that, particularly those
of us in the wealthier countries, have a heavy responsibility to try to
put a more human face on the global economy. And that means you have to
bring labor interests and environmental interests into these
deliberations, that not only do these factors have to be considered but
the people themselves have to be heard. I think it is very important.
And so we have proposed, for example, a trade and labor group, coming
out of the WTO. We want to see more work done in the environmental area.
But the point I'd like to make is--if you'll just let me get off on
this one little area in which I have an obsession. I think that, while
I'm all for big ideas--you asked me about what the next campaign should
be about; I'm all for big ideas--the world is still largely in the grip
of a big idea that isn't true anymore. And that big idea is that in
order for any country that's not rich to get rich, they have to burn
more fossil fuels and put more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere,
because that's the way we got rich, and that's the way the British got
rich, and that's the way other countries got rich. And that's not true
anymore.
The whole economics of energy and the economy have changed. And we
could have a revolution in the environment with more trade and
investment in available, presently available, environmental technologies
and alternative energy sources. That's just one example.
But it won't necessarily happen automatically. And just as--look at
the domestic market in America. We have about the freest

[[Page 2047]]

markets you can imagine here. It's easier for--if any of you folks could
leave what you're doing, if you weren't so devoted to it, and go make
more money probably doing something else, you could get venture capital;
you could come up with some idea; you'd fooled around with your computer
so much you could probably start some new Internet company and be worth
a couple hundred million dollars in no time. And that happens all the
time. [Laughter] You know, those of you who are over 25 may be too old
to do it, now. That's where all the money--[laughter].
But you know, we have an open economy. But what makes it work? We've
got a Federal Reserve that works. We've got a Securities and Exchange
Commission that works. We've got protections for consumers. We've got
protections against monopolies. We have intermediate institutions.
The trading system and the financial system, the global financial
markets and the global trading system, are creating a global economy. We
need some intermediate involvement from labor and environment, just to
name two, to make sure that we build an economy that benefits everybody
and that literally has a more human face on it.
And so I'm actually not all that upset those folks are coming to
Seattle. I welcome them. But if their fundamental view is, if we had
less trade instead of more, that every economy could be self-sustaining
and the environment would be better and people would make more money, I
think that is simply not true. And I think you can demonstrate that's
not true. So I want an expansive trade round that helps America and
helps them, too.
Let me just make one final point. I have done everything I could to
get the wealthy countries to do more for the poor countries. We're
trying to pass an Africa trade initiative here, and a Caribbean Basin
initiative. And it does have bipartisan support. Let me say that I'm
grateful for the Republicans that are helping us with it. And I think
we've got a chance to pass it this year. We're trying to get debt relief
for the poorest countries in the world.
So I'm sympathetic with all these negative feelings. But one of the
things that spawns these kind of negative feelings is, these folks feel
like they've been shut out. They think the WTO is some rich guys' club
where people get in and talk in funny language and use words nobody
understands and make a bunch of rules that help the people that already
have and stick it to the people that have not. That's what they think.
And so if we're going to change their perception, we've got to listen to
their protests and bring them into the tent and go forward taking these
concerns into account.

Gun Buy-Back Program

Q. Mr. President, you have alluded several times to anti-crime
initiatives, and a big part of your anti-crime initiatives are gun buy-
back programs. Recent studies that are coming out--that have come out--
that are coming out show that a lot of people that hand these guns in
are old shotguns that don't work. They're from the attic. They're from
the basement, whatever. They're really not the kinds of guns that were
used in Los Angeles, in some of the high profile crimes that the nation
has been so fixed on in recent months.
Basically, I'm wondering, are you concerned that in putting so much
focus on these buy-back programs that other initiatives like they've
tried in Richmond, that have proven successful, and in Philadelphia,
might languish as a result?
The President. Well, first let me say that I do believe that the gun
buy-back programs will get all kinds of guns. And obviously, if you
wanted the money and you didn't care about the gun, those are the
easiest to give up. If you've got some old gun that doesn't work and you
want $25 or whatever you get for it, it's a good way to get it.
But keep in mind there are over--I don't know what the exact number
is--but there is almost one gun for every person in America. There are
way over 200 million guns in America. And all the new gun purchases,
handgun purchases at least, require background checks. So I still think
the more you can get done with that the better. I still think the more
the better.
I agree with the import of your question, however. It would be a
great mistake to emphasize that to the exclusion of law enforcement
strategies that plainly work like the one

[[Page 2048]]

in Richmond, like the one in Boston that led to no child being killed by
gun violence in nearly 2 years. It would be a great mistake to think
that's a substitute for closing the loopholes in both our assault
weapons bill and the Brady bill, especially the gun show loophole. It
would be a great mistake to think that that could substitute for our
efforts to put 50,000 more police officers on the street in the areas
that still have crime rates that are still too high.
So I think we should stick with the gun buy-back program. I think
we're spending about $15 million on it, not an enormous amount of money,
but it should be only one part of a very comprehensive strategy.
Yes, in the back.

Japan

Q. Mr. President, about steel imports from Japan. Why are you
delaying your decision under Section 201 charges against Japanese steel
wire? The ITC was divided; your advisers are divided, according to Mr.
Sperling yesterday. Does that mean that you don't see any compelling
reasons for taking action to protect domestic producers? And also,
next--about CTBT, does Japan have any special role to play in preventing
the spread of nuclear weapons?
The President. Let me answer the first question first. You answered
the first question for me. I have delayed a decision because the ITC was
divided, and my advisers are divided. So I have to make the decision.
[Laughter] And it's a complicated issue, and I'm trying to work it
through. And I only got the background material on it, oh, in the last
few days. And as you know, we've been otherwise preoccupied with the
test ban treaty. So I only looked at it, I don't know, yesterday, the
day before, even at first blush.
So it's a decision that I will have to make and for which everyone
can hold me responsible, because our people have not yet been able--they
can't resolve all the details themselves. I will do what I think is
right. You should not infer from the fact that a decision has been made
that I will grant no relief, because I have not decided whether to grant
relief or not. And I will decide in the most timely fashion I can.
Now on the second question you asked, which I think is the far more
important question, I think in a way Japan may be in a unique position
to play a role of global importance now. Why? Because Japan is by far
the wealthiest, strongest country in the world without a nuclear
program. And if the Japanese say--go to the Chinese and say, ``Don't
start testing;'' go to the Indians and say, ``Don't start testing;'' go
to the Pakistanis and say, ``Don't start testing again;'' say, ``We want
to stay where we are; we want to live in a 21st century world where our
competition is commercial, not military, where we're worried about
ideas, not atoms,'' I think it will have a very important effect in this
period when people are going to try to sort out how they feel about what
I've said at this press conference today as against the vote last night.
So I personally believe Japan can play a remarkably positive role.
And I have great confidence in Prime Minister Obuchi; he's done a
terrific job. And I hope that Japan will play that role.
Thank you very much.

Note: The President's 182d news conference began at 2:04 p.m. in the
East Room at the White House. In his remarks, he referred to Prime
Minister Nawaz Sharif of Pakistan; Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee
of India; Prime Minister Keizo Obuchi of Japan.