And again, I appreciate your leadership, and I appreciate your work, and I appreciate your help. I want to thank Embajadora A-Baki from Ecuador. I want to thank you for coming. I also want to thank Carlos Alzamora from Peru and all the other ambassadors who are here. I want to appreciate you-appreciate your hard work on sending the message of trade to Members of our Congress. I want to thank you for your diligence, and I want to thank your ENTITY for their care and concern about this incredibly important initiative, not only for Americans but for workers all around the world. With trade promotion authority, the trade agreements I negotiate will have an up-or-down vote in Congress, giving other countries the confidence to negotiate with us. Five Presidents before me had this advantage, but since the authority elapsed in 1994, other nations and regions have pursued new trade agreements while America's trade policy was stuck in park. With each passing day, America has lost trading opportunities and the jobs and earnings that go with them. Starting now, America is back at the bargaining table in full force. I will use trade promotion authority aggressively to create more good jobs for American workers, more exports for American farmers, and higher living standards for American families. Free trade has a proven track record for spurring growth and advancing opportunity for our working families. Exports accounted for roughly one-quarter of all U.S. economic growth in the 1990s. Jobs in exporting plants pay wages that are up to 18 percent higher than jobs in nonexporting plants. And our two major trade agreements, NAFTA and the Uruguay Round, have created more choices and lower prices for consumers while raising standards of living for the typical American family of four by $2,000 a year. America will build on this record of success. A completely free global market for agricultural products, for example, would result in gains of as much as $13 billion a year for American farmers and consumers. In other words, trade is good for the American people, and I am going to use the trade promotion authority to bring these benefits to the American people. Free trade is also a proven strategy for building global prosperity and adding to the momentum of political freedom. Trade is an engine of economic growth. It uses the power of markets to meet the needs of the poor. In our lifetime, trade has helped lift millions of people and whole nations and entire regions out of poverty and put them on the path to prosperity.


Prime Minister, today we accomplished a great deal. Tonight we celebrate the ties that bind us. Those ties begin with the discoveries of Columbus and Vespucci, whose busts adorn the Blue Room next door. When the Founders created the American Republic, they looked to Rome for inspiration. George Washington was likened to Cincinnatus, the Roman hero who abandoned his plow to rescue his country by popular demand. I might say, they were the last two people to head our countries only by popular demand. Poets and philosophers of the Roman Republic were read and rejuvenated as our new Republic looked to the past to plan our future. In the writings of ancient Roman thinkers like Cicero and Cato, America's Founders saw the promise of democratic representative government. from our architecture to words like senate and capitol. Indeed, after our Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin was asked what our Founders had produced. His simple reply was, A Republic, sir, if you can keep it. Towns sprang up with the names from the ancient Mediterranean world, names like Utica, Troy, or the Vice President's hometown, Carthage. Artists portrayed America's leaders wearing togas, as the bust of George Washington in the hall demonstrates. Thankfully, that is a tradition we have left to the 19th century. In the 19th and 20th centuries, our Republic turned into a bustling nation, thanks in no small measure to Italian-Americans. Ancient Rome was replaced by young Italy in the American imagination. And democracy was given new life by heroes like Mazzini and Garibaldi. America's growing cities attracted millions of Italians, eager to build a new life in a new world. Today American Italians, or Italian-Americans, are leaders in every enterprise conducted in our Nation. And as we all know, it is impossible to walk more than a few blocks in any American city without hearing the words caffe latte. The people here in this room tonight are the link between our two countries, between two cultures that have nourished each other since America was just an idea. From our highest courts to our finest tables, from our playing fields to our silver screen, from one side of the aisle in Congress to the other, Italian-Americans have graced our Nation with their intellect, their industry, their good will, and above all, a contagious love of life. Prime Minister, you have accomplished so much in your time in office. You have presided over a string of economic successes.

Remarks at the State Dinner Honoring Prime Minister Romano Prodi of Italy


It is good to be back with NCLR. It is good to see all of you. Right off the bat, I should thank you because I have poached quite a few of your alumni to work in my administration. They are all doing outstanding work. We have got young people right out of college in the White House. We have got the first Latina Cabinet Secretary in history, Hilda Solis. So we could not be prouder of the work that so many folks who've been engaged with La Raza before, the handiwork that they are doing with our administration. And as Janet mentioned, obviously, we are extraordinarily proud of someone who is doing outstanding work on the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor. Now, recently, 100 Latino officials from across the Government met with Latino leaders from across the country at the White House. I know some of you were there. And I think all who attended would agree that we were not just paying lip service to the community. Our work together, not just that day but every day, has been more than just talk. What I told the gathering at the White House was we need your voice. Your country needs you. Our American family will only be as strong as our growing Latino community. And so we are going to take these conversations on the road and keep working with you, because for more than four decades, NCLR has fought for opportunities for Latinos from city centers to farm fields. And that fight for opportunity--the opportunity to get a decent education, the opportunity to find a good job, the opportunity to make of our lives what we will--has never been more important than it is today. And we are still climbing out of a vicious recession, and that recession hit Latino families especially hard. I do not need to tell you Latino unemployment is painfully high. The truth is, it is going to take more time. And a lot of the problems we face right now, like slow job growth and stagnant wages, these were problems that were there even before the recession hit. But that only makes our work more urgent, to get this economy going and make sure that opportunity is spreading, to make sure that everyone who wants a job can find one; and to make sure that paychecks can actually cover the bills; to make sure that families do not have to choose between buying groceries or buying medicine, that they do not have to choose between sending their kids to college or being able to retire.

Remarks to the National Council of La Raza


My number-one priority, every single day, is to figure out how we can get businesses to hire and create jobs with decent wages. And in the short term, there are some things we can do right away. I want to extend tax relief that we already put in place for middle class families to make sure that folks have more money in their paychecks. And I want to cut redtape that keeps entrepreneurs from turning new ideas into thriving businesses. I want to sign trade deals so our businesses can sell more goods made in America to the rest of the world, especially to the Americas. And the hundreds of thousands of construction workers--many of them Latino--who lost their jobs when the housing bubble burst, I want to put them back to work rebuilding our roads and our bridges and new schools and airports all across the country. These workers are ready to do it. So bipartisan proposals for all of these jobs measures would already be law if Congress would just send them to my desk, and I'd appreciate if you all would help me convince them to do it. Now, obviously, the other debate in Washington that we are having is one that is going to have a direct impact on every American. Every day, NCLR and your affiliates hear from families figuring out how to stretch every dollar a little bit further, what sacrifices they have got to make, how they are going to budget only what is truly important. So they should expect the same thing from Washington. Neither party is blameless for the decisions that led to our debt, but both parties have a responsibility to come together and solve the problem and make sure that the American people are not hurt on this issue. Because--I just want to talk about this for a second, because it has a potential impact on everybody here and all the communities you serve--if we do not address the debt that is already on our national credit card, it will leave us unable to invest in things like education, to protect vital programs. So I have already said I am willing to cut spending that we do not need by historic amounts to reduce our long-term deficit and make sure that we can invest in our children's future. I am willing to take on the rising costs of health care programs like Medicare and Medicaid to make sure they are strong and secure for future generations. But we cannot just close our deficits by cutting spending. That is the truth, and Americans understand that.


Because if all we all do is cut, then seniors will have to pay a lot more for their health care, and students will have to pay a lot more for college, and workers who get laid off might not have any temporary assistance or job training to get them back on their feet. And with gas prices this high, we'd have to stop much of the clean energy research that will help us free ourselves from dependence on foreign oil. Not only is it not fair if all of this is done on the backs of middle class families and poor families, it does not make sense. It may sound good to save a lot of money over the next 5 years, but not if we sacrifice our future for the next 50. And that is why people from both parties have said that the best way to take on our deficit is with a balanced approach, one where the wealthiest Americans and big corporations pay their fair share too. Before we stop funding energy research, we should ask oil companies and corporate jet owners to give up special tax breaks that other folks do not get. Before we ask college students to pay more to go to college, we should ask hedge fund managers to stop paying taxes that are lower in their--in terms of rates than their secretaries. Before we ask seniors to pay more for Medicare, we should ask people like me to give up tax breaks that we do not need and were not even asking for. So, NCLR, that is at the heart of this debate. Are we a nation that asks only the middle class and the poor to bear the burden? After they have seen their jobs disappear and their incomes decline over a decade? Are we a people who break the promises we have made to seniors or the disabled and leave them to fend for themselves? We are better than that. We are a people who look out for one another. We are a people who believe in shared sacrifice, because we know that we rise or fall as one Nation. We are a people who will do whatever it takes to make sure our children have the same chances and the same opportunities that our parents gave us--not just the same chances, better chances, than our parents gave us. And that is what NCLR is all about. That is what the Latino community is all about. When I spoke to you as a candidate for this office, I said you and I share a belief that opportunity and prosperity are not just words to be said, they are promises to be kept.


Back then, we did not know the depths of the challenges that were going to lie ahead. But thanks to you, we are keeping our promises. We are keeping our promise to make sure that America remains a place where opportunity is open to all who work for it. We have cut taxes for middle class workers and small businesses and low-income families. We won credit card reform and financial reform and protections for consumers and folks who use payday lenders or send remittances home from being exploited and being ripped off. We worked to secure health care for 4 million children, including the children of legal immigrants. And we are implementing health reform for all who've been abused by insurance companies and all who fear about going broke if they get sick. And these were huge victories for the Latino community that suffers from lack of health insurance more than any other group. We are keeping our promise to give our young people every opportunity to succeed. NCLR has always organized its work around the principle that the single most important investment we can make is in our children's education and that if we let our Latino students fall behind, we will all fall behind. I believe that. So we have tied giving more money to reform. And we are working with States to improve teacher recruitment and retraining and retention. We are making sure English language learners are a priority for educators across the country. We are holding schools with high dropout rates accountable so they start delivering for our kids. We are emphasizing math and science and investing in community colleges so that all of our workers get the skills that today's companies want. And we have won new college grants for more than 100,000 Latino students. And as long as I am President, this country will always invest in its young people. These are victories for NCLR; they are victories for America. And we did it with your help. We are keeping our promises. Of course, that does not mean we do not have unfinished business. I promised you I would work tirelessly to fix our broken immigration system and make the DREAM Act a reality. And 2 months ago, I went down to the border of El Paso to reiterate--. El Paso is in the house----to reiterate my vision for an immigration system that holds true to our values and our heritage and meets our economic and security needs. In recent years, one in four high-tech startups in America--companies like Google and Intel--were founded on immigrants.


These are job creators who came here to seek opportunity and now seek to share opportunity. This country has always been made stronger by our immigrants. We attract talented, dynamic, optimistic people who are continually refreshing our economy and our spirit. And you can see that in urban areas all across the country where communities that may have been hollowed out when manufacturing left or were having problems because of an aging population, suddenly, you see an influx of immigration, and you see streets that were full of boarded-up buildings, suddenly, they are vibrant with life once again. And it is immigrant populations who are providing that energy and that drive. We have a system right now that allows the best and the brightest to come study in America and then tells them to leave, set up the next great company someplace else. We have a system that tolerates immigrants and businesses that breaks the rules and punishes those that follow the rules. We have a system that separates families, and punishes innocent young people for their parents' actions by denying them the chance to earn an education or contribute to our economy or serve in our military. These are the laws on the books. Now, I swore an oath to uphold the laws on the books, but that does not mean I do not know very well the real pain and heartbreak that deportations cause. I share your concerns, and I understand them. And I promise you, we are responding to your concerns and working every day to make sure we are enforcing flawed laws in the most humane and best possible way. Now, I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own. But believe me, the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. I promise you. I need a dance partner here, and the floor is empty. Five years ago, 23 Republican Senators supported comprehensive immigration reform because they knew it was the right thing to do for the economy and it was the right thing to do for America. Republicans helped write the DREAM Act because they knew it was the right thing to do for the country. Last year, we passed the DREAM Act through the House only to see it blocked by Senate Republicans. It was heartbreaking to get so close and see politics get in the way, particularly because some of the folks who walked away had previously been sponsors of this. And part of the problem is, is that the political winds have changed. That is left States to come up with patchwork versions of reform that do not solve the problem.


We cannot have 50 immigration laws across the country. The Democrats and your President are with you----are with you. Remember who it is that we need to move in order to actually change the laws. Now, usually, as soon as I come out in favor of something, about half of Congress is immediately against it even if it was originally their idea. So I need you to keep building a movement for change outside of Washington, one they cannot stop, one that is greater than this community. We need a movement that bridges party lines, that unites business and labor and faith communities and law enforcement communities and all who know that America cannot continue operating with a broken immigration system. And I will be there every step of the way. I will keep up this fight, because Washington is way behind where the rest of the country knows we need to go. This is a city where compromise is becoming a dirty word, where there is more political upside in doing what is easier for reelection, what is easier for an attack ad, than what is best for the country. But, NCLR, I want you to know, when you feel frustration or you are feeling cynical, and when you hear people say we cannot solve our problems or we cannot bring about the change that we have fought so hard for, I do want you to remember everything that we have already accomplished together just in 2 years. And I want you to remember why we do this in the first place. Recently, I heard the story of a participant at this gathering that we had at the White House that I was telling you about at the top of my speech. And Marie was born to migrant farm workers in Avondale, Arizona. As a young girl, she and her brother would help their parents in the cotton fields. And I am assuming the temperatures were sort of like they have been the last couple days here in DC. And it was in those cotton fields that Marie's father would tell her, If you do not want to be working in this heat, you better stay in school. And so that is what Marie did. And because of that, because of the tireless, back-breaking work of her parents, because of their willingness to struggle and sacrifice so that one day their children would not have to, Marie became the first in her family to go to college. And interestingly, she now works at the very site where she used to pick cotton, except now city hall sits there, and Marie is the town's mayor.


I think we should give it up for the men's and women's national college basketball champions, the Connecticut Huskies! Now, I have to say that, as President, one of my goals has been to eliminate waste and cut out duplicative programs to make things a little more efficient, but this might be carrying things a little too far. We have, as you might expect, some big Huskies fans here today, including some outstanding Members of Congress. I also want to recognize your university president, Susan Herbst; your athletic director, Warde Manuel; and Larry McHugh, the chairman of your board of trustees. And of course, you have got a couple of great coaches in what I called when we were meeting back there the grizzled veteran, Geno Auriemma and the new blood, Kevin Ollie, both in the house. I can make that joke now that I have got gray hair. Only once before, in 2004, has one school won both the men's and women's Division I titles. And of course, that was who? This is the women's ninth national title, more than any other women's basketball team in history. For the men, it is their fourth title in the last 16 years, which is twice as many as anybody else during that same span of time. Which makes me think, what is up with you guys? It is just a remarkable thing what these two programs have accomplished. Of course, this season the women went a perfect 40-0, won their games by an average of 34 points, so there was not a lot of suspense during their season. In a championship game billed as one of the biggest in women's basketball history, the Huskies routed the previously unbeaten Notre Dame and gave me bragging rights. It gave me bragging rights to pick them in my bracket. I mean, me and 95 percent of the country. And this marked the fifth time that UConn has finished a season as an undefeated national champion. Of course, a lot of this success belongs to Coach Geno, who has cemented his place as not only a legend in women's basketball, but one of the best coaches that we have ever seen at any level and any sport, period. So we are grateful to him. But I think Coach Auriemma would be the first to tell you that the credit goes to the players.

Remarks on Honoring the NCAA Men's and Women's Basketball Champion University of Connecticut Huskies


You have got Breanna Stewart, named the Final Four's Most Outstanding Player 2 years in a row. You have got Kaleena Mosqueda-Lewis, who overcame injury and illness during the season and came up big as she is prone to do during the tournament. You have got Stefanie Dolson and Bria Hartley, who went on to become top-10 picks in the WNBA draft. And, Stefanie, I did not forget that you challenged me to a dance-off last year. Do not think that I do not think that you are going to beat me on that. I also told you the I also appreciate that you told the world about it after the title game. I have daughters in junior high and high school, and for their sake, I will not be dancing too much while the cameras are around. Now, I also have to confess, I did not pick the men to win in my bracket. Of course, neither did anybody else, unless you went to UConn. Look at these guys, they are all raising their hand yes, I went. We were not counting on Shabazz Napier leading the way as the tournament's Most Outstanding Player and hitting big shot after big shot and locking down the perimeter defensively. The Huskies also had huge contributions from guys like Ryan Boatright, DeAndre Daniels, and Niels Giffey, who is not here because he is playing overseas. After the tournament wins over Villanova, Iowa State, Michigan State, Florida, Kentucky, UConn became the first seven-seed ever to win the title. Somebody told me we were Cinderellas, and I said, 'No, we are UConn. That is what we do, bred to cut down nets.' In fact, a sportswriter once referred to him as our future President. I do not know with a name like Kevin whether that is possible. Now, Coach Ollie is doing one other important thing. He is making sure his team hits the books as hard as they hit the boards. And this season, both the men and the women ranked among the Nation's best academically, and that is worth applauding. Both teams have also done tremendous work in the community. They have raised awareness for cancer and autism. They have volunteered at senior centers, spent time with underprivileged youth. Coach Ollie and Coach Auriemma spoke at the Pentagon last month as part of our Hoops for Troops program.


I am speaking to you today from Manitowoc, Wisconsin, where I am at an innovative company called Orion Energy Systems. A major employer had shut down this factory, moved its operations abroad, and took a lot of jobs away from this town. You are looking at part of a factory where 250 workers are building advanced clean energy systems, state-of-the-art technologies that use solar power and energy efficiency to save farms and businesses thousands of dollars on their utility bills. I am here because this business and others like it are showing us the way forward. And in the coming days, I will be shining a spotlight on innovators across America who are relying on new technologies to create new jobs and opportunities in new industries. by outinnovating, outeducating, and outbuilding our competitors. We will win the future by being the best place on Earth to do business. That is what we are called to do at this moment. And in my State of the Union, I talked about how we get there. It starts by making sure that every single child can get a good education and every American can afford college or career training, because that is what will help light the spark in the minds of innovators and ensure that our people have the skills to work for innovative companies. We also need to make sure that America can move goods and information as fast as any of our competitors, whether on the road or online, because good infrastructure helps our businesses sell their products and services faster and cheaper. We have to reform our Government and cut wasteful spending so that we eliminate what we do not need to pay for the investments we need to grow, like education and medical research. As we can see here in Manitowoc, we need to ensure that we are promoting innovation, especially in promising areas like clean energy. This is going to be key to growing our economy and helping businesses create jobs. Orion, for example, was able to open with the help of small-business loans and incentives that are creating demand for clean energy technologies like wind power and solar panels. That is why I have proposed a bigger tax credit for the research that companies do. By 2035, 80 percent of electricity should come from clean energy. This is going to help spark innovation at businesses across America. This is going to spur new products and technologies. This is going to lead to good, new jobs.

Barack Obama The President's Weekly Address


It is always good to see some old friends and have a chance to make new ones. And it is always a pleasure to be joined by two of the most important women in my life, Nancy and Maureen. Well, it may be September, but here in Washington it is been plenty warm until just a couple of days ago. We turned this off just for this particular gathering. And these past few weeks, I guess we broke the record here for the length of a hot spell just a few days ago, before the reduction in temperature, and it reminded me when I was a kid of our minister one hot summer Sunday morning. And he said that he was going to keep his sermon short, and he didjust seven words. Well, today I will follow his example, though I may slip a few more in than seven. But I am sure you have heard of our plan to overhaul the Federal tax program. This is the most burning issue that is facing the American people, I think, in this decade. I am going to be out on the stump all fall bringing our case for tax fairness and economic growth to the American people and rallying their support. I will be in many of your States; indeed, in many of your communities. And I will be looking for your help, because it is the grassroots level that our tax proposal will find the energy, determination, and willpower needed to topple the status quo. Status quothat's Latin for the mess we are in. As State legislators, you do not need to hear about the pleadings of lobbyists, and the siren songs of special interests are heard in every legislative hall from Capitol Hill out through all the 50 States. But this time we can work for the special interests of all the American people to create a fair and equitable tax system, one which will be a double boon to the economy because it'll both close wasteful loopholes and, at the same time, cut tax rates. It is time for Americans to take their money out of tax shelters and invest the money in America's future. Every day we live with the present tax code, we are slowing down economic growth, sacrificing jobs that would have been created, unfairly burdening families, and perpetuating an unjust system that only breeds cynicism and resentment in the American people. You know, last week I spoke about tax reform at North Carolina State University. The room was electrified with their hope and energy and enthusiasm.

Remarks at a White House Luncheon for Elected Republican Women Officials


Believe me, having served as a Governor during the time of the Vietnam riots and all, when, if I went to a campus, they'd burn down a buildingto see these young people today has just made me sureand I am glad to tell youthe 21st century's going to be in good hands. And one of our proudest accomplishments as Republicans is the way we have been able to draw more and more young people into our ranks. We have swept aside the pessimism and resignation that gripped the elected leadership of this country not too long ago, and we have opened our doors to the future. Like the American people themselves, we Republicans believe that America is still young, still vital, and still strong. What we have accomplished together goes beyond words. We have backed our words with decisive and dramatic action. Our 25-percent across-the-board tax reduction gave new life and sustenance to a spirit of optimism. An entrepreneurial renaissance is spreading across our land. A powerful economic expansion is lifting America out of the devastation of a decade of high tax policies and enabling us to build on a solid base of noninflationary growth. Here is a piece of especially good news. The Democratically controlled House Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families rated all the different tax plans that are presently floating around up there on the Hill and found that ours was by far the most profamily of all of the tax proposals. By raising the standard deduction to $4,000 for a married couple filing jointly and nearly doubling the personal exemption to $2,000, we will make it so that a family of four does not pay one penny in Federal income tax on the first $12,000 of earnings. We are also giving nonwage-earning spouses equal access to IRA's, those tax deductible savings accounts. But alongside the pension reform passed in the last Congress, this will go a long way toward alleviating poverty by allowing women the means to care for themselves in retirement years. Another report may be of special interest to you as State legislators. Our proposal to eliminate the State and local tax deduction has been getting a lot of flack from some quarters. Well, it turns out that the New York State government has a study by its own comptroller. It found that under our proposal, taxpayers in New York would save $588 million a year. If the individual taxpayers in your States benefit, your States and localities as a whole benefit.


There is no logic to fighting tax fairness, to fighting a plan that would increase economic growth, create more jobs, give families a much-needed break, and take the working poor off the tax rolls completely. Of course, we still have a job to do in Congress getting spending under control. In that regard, on the revenue side, I'd like it known that I could immediately deposit $1.2 billion in cash in the Treasury if Congress will support this administration's decision to sell Conrail back to the private sector, where it belongs. I was only a small boy the first time the Federal Government tried to run the railroads. That was during World War I, and it was a disaster. So, we have an offer of that amount already. We can sell, if they will only give the word. As Everett Dirksen might have said, A billion here and a billion there and pretty soon you are talking real money. Some in Congress seem to think they can proceed as usual, indiscriminately spending taxpayer dollars, and that sooner or later they will all be bailed out with a tax hike. Well, for at least 31/2 years they will not . We Republicans have always looked for the long-range solutions, and this tax plan is one of those which will be working long after we have left office. As State legislators, you know that programs closer to home are more cost-efficient, better planned, and offer more assistance. But the gluttonous Federal tax system has robbed you of the base for local programs. We must continue to move this wheel of government in the interest of what is right for America. And this is the time for which all of us have worked, the moment in which we can build a partnership between the levels of government with a growing economy to give America the momentum for the next century. And now I am going toyouknow, in the business I was always in, you wanted a tag line to get off that would be popular- appreciated. It is, we are going to have dessert now.


I am very honored to be here on this occasion. And before I begin my formal remarks, if I could be permitted to say that I am very happy to see so many from the United States, the dependents, the wives, the children, and the rest, and I bring you the best greetings from all of your friends back home in the United States. I know that you must have been as impressed as I was, and as moved as I was, by the pageantry that we have just witnessed, of the great nations that were represented by the forces that we saw pass in review. I know, too, that you realize that that pageantry has something behind it. NATO is 21 years of age. In fact, most of the people here in this audience were born since NATO came into being. And when we consider NATO, we must realize that because of its strength and its purpose, Europe has enjoyed a generation of peace since it came into being. Now, at the present time, we live in a period of change. A period of change can be welcome. It can mean to this part of the world, to Europe, that we move from a period of confrontation to one of negotiation; that we move from a period in which Europe seems to be permanently divided by rigid blocs to a period in which the nations and the peoples of Europe join together in cooperation and communication. A period of change also, however, can be one of very great danger, because in a time of change there is turmoil; there is also the lack of confidence that comes when instability seems to be the order of the day. The great question before us in NATO and in the free world today is whether in this period of change in Europe and in the world we shall be masters of change and masters of our fate or whether we shall be the victims of change. That brings me back to this pageantry that we just saw and what it represents-what it represents not just to us from the United States, but from our friends in Europe and to our friends in Europe. What we must realize is that in a period of instability, of uncertainty, and of possible lack of confidence, that what is needed is an institution that people can believe in, an institution that is strong, an institution that is stable, that men and women can hang onto; and NATO is such an institution. It is strong, it is united, it represents the best of all of our people.

Remarks on Arrival at the NATO Southern Command in Naples, Italy


It has power, but it is a power that exists for the purpose of peace; and because it exists for the purpose of peace, it serves the very best ideals of all of the great peoples that are proud to be members of the NATO organization. My trip as President of the United States to this NATO Command underlines the American commitment to a Mediterranean that will not be our sea speaking of an American sea, but a sea that will belong to all people. My trip, also, to this NATO Command represents a firm American commitment to this great institution, to which the credit must be given over these past 21 years for a period of peace in this continent, in Europe, which has suffered so much from war in the past. World War I, World War II, Korea, and now Vietnam . The great goal that we have is to develop the policies that will provide the opportunity for your generation to experience that full generation of peace. But it will be possible only if the United States remains strong and firm in its commitments to its alliances and particularly strong and firm in its commitment to the great alliance of NATO, perhaps the most successful in its purpose of any alliance in the history of the world. I am proud to be here standing with our NATO allies and friends, and I say that this trip and my presence here speaks for a United States of America, united behind a great principle of strength, strength which exists for peace in Europe, and as it exists for peace in Europe which can contribute to that peace in the whole world that all of us want for ourselves and, most of all, for our children. I would like to say that I wish that our schedule permitted the time for meeting all of the people that are here. It is not quite possible because we have a meeting first with the NATO Command and then with all of our ambassadors from the Mediterranean area. But I do want you to know how very good it is to come to a country, a great, friendly country like Italy, and see so many friendly Americans right here abroad.


May I thank Sheriff Larry Deens for that wonderful introduction and thank him and the other law enforcement officers who are here to back me up. We back up the law enforcement officers of this country, and we ought to continue to back up the law enforcement officers of this country that are giving their lives for us every single day. I am also proud to be here with Jim McCrery. We need him in the United States Congress. He is doing a first-class job, not just for Louisiana but for the values and the programs we hold so dear. May I thank Mayor Hazel Beard of Shreveport, delighted to be with her, and former Governor Treen, one of the great Governors of this State, an old friend of Barbara's and mine, glad to see Dave; Mayor Dement, Mayor George Dement. It is great to be here in Shreveport. Let me say to those law-and-order, sound, sensible, conservative Democrats who are with us at this rally and standing with me here, I am grateful to each and every one of you for your loyal support. I will not let you down. You know, for the last few weeks I have been traveling the length and breadth of America, stumping for the economic ideas that I believe in. We call it the Agenda for American Renewal. We must renew America, and with these economic ideas and your support, we can do just exactly that. Here are some of the fundamentals. We want to open up new markets for American products and in the process create new jobs for American workers, and that means the North American free trade agreement with Mexico. Louisiana sells a lot there now. With this trade agreement we are going to sell a lot more, and that means more jobs for the people of Louisiana. I believe that Government is too big and spends too much of your money. And he thinks, and he has already advocated big tax increases and big spending increases. Frankly, I want to see us cut those taxes and provide incentives, especially for those of you in the oil industry. Housing starts made the largest increase in the last 18 months, strong improvement in housing. Our economy is poised for a takeoff if we make the right choices in November. The answer, the way to do that is to get the President and get the Members of Congress that will give small businesses relief from taxation, from regulation, and yes, from litigation. We are suing each other too much and caring for each other too little.

Remarks on Arrival in Shreveport, Louisiana


You know, we spend up to $200 billion, $200 billion a year on lawyers and lawsuits. People are afraid to coach Little League, doctors afraid to deliver babies because they are going to get sued by some crazy lawsuit. We have got to put an end to it, and we have got to stand up against the lobbies that are keeping that from happening. When you see the young people that are here or any of the crowds across this country, I want to give our kids what they deserve, the best, the very best education in the entire world. I want every parent to have the freedom to choose the school of their choice, whether it is public, private, or religious schools. So these are just a part of what we call the agenda. These are just a part of what we call the Agenda for American Renewal. While I have been outlining these positive ideas, my opponent has chosen to focus his energies on the past. Month after month, 11 straight months, Governor Clinton has persisted in his attacks on me, unrelenting attacks, many of them very personal in nature. He is distorted the record. And this week he launched the first one in the Presidential year, the first negative campaign commercials, the first ones. So far I have kind of resisted the urge to focus heavily on his record. I am tired about the exaggerations; I am tired about the lies, and I am ready to fight back and tell the truth about his record in Arkansas. So this morning up in Springfield, Missouri, I laid out the Clinton record. I am stopping by some States that are neighbors of Arkansas, including my State of Texas and your State of Louisiana, so that we can move beyond the rhetoric and see what he is really done for the good people of Arkansas or, put it this way, what he is done to the good people of Arkansas. Look, my argument is not with them at all. They deserve better treatment than they have received from Governor Clinton. I have debated every time we have had elections, and we will probably have debates. We are not going to do it on his terms alone, but we will have debates. candidate Clinton, standing here, debating Governor Clinton and his record, standing over here. And here is what we will get.


Here in Louisiana I'd like to talk a moment about the struggle of importance to every parent, every teacher, every student, and that is the hard-fought battle to take back our streets from the druggies and the crackheads and the thugs that are criminals in this country. The good sheriff knows what he is talking about. Candidate Clinton likes to talk tough on crime. You will hear him criticize me about support for local law enforcement. Well, those criticisms are off the mark. The brave men and women in law enforcement, police officers, sheriffs, whatever they may be, do not need our rhetoric. They need equipment, and they need manpower, and they need the support of every law abiding citizen. Well, candidate Clinton does not acknowledge this record. But you will hear candidate Clinton make some pretty impressive claims about crime control in Arkansas. When it comes to crime, I just wish that candidate Clinton out around the country, the Doberman pinscher, would meet Governor Clinton, the chihuahua. Let me tell you what I mean. Here are the facts, and I challenge that reaction squad of his to tell me what is wrong. During the 1980, the Nation's overall crime rate actually went down, but not in Arkansas. In fact, Governor Clinton's State had the biggest increase in the overall crime rate in the entire Nation, nearly 28 percent. Arkansas violent crime rate went up more than 58 percent, one of the worst records in the entire Nation and a heck of a lot worse than where we are standing right here in Louisiana. You have done a much better job here. I do not believe Governor Clinton is committed to the issue. for prisons, 46th; for judicial and legal systems, 50th; and when it comes to per capita spending for police officers, Arkansas ranks 49th. That is not good enough for the United States of America. Here is another one, and these good law enforcement officers know what I am talking about. In Arkansas when the prison doors slam shut on a convicted criminal, he knows it will not be long before the door opens up again. As incredible as it may seem, most inmates in Arkansas serve less than one-fifth, one-fifth of their sentences behind bars. That does not happen in Louisiana. That does not happen in Louisiana. It does not happen in Texas, and it does not happen in Mississippi. When it comes to keeping criminals behind bars, Governor Clinton has the worst record in the entire Nation.


Do not let him do that to the United States of America. You know, if you play Monopoly in Little Rock, the card would read like this, Do not pass go. And then you'd turn it over and it says, Do not worry. You will be back in a minute. You will be back out in a minute. Look, contrast that with what we have been doing on the Federal record. I am very proud to talk about my record in law enforcement. Most Federal inmates serve at least 85 percent of their full sentences. Sure it costs money, but it takes a real commitment. If someone takes liberty with the law, we ought to put them behind bars, and we ought to make them stay there and stare at the ceiling for a good, long time, because, you see, I think we ought to have less sympathy for the criminal and a lot more sympathy for the victims of crime. When you look at his record on law enforcement, it is not surprising that last week the Fraternal Order of Police in Little Rock endorsed me for the President of the United States of America. That is how the police in his own backyard feel about it. So when you hear candidate Clinton's rhetoric about being tough on crime, just remember Governor Clinton's record. You know, in the White House I have found something out. You cannot be on all sides of each question. You cannot say on the one hand I am for this and on the other hand for that. When it comes to making a call on something as tough as Desert Storm, you have got to say, Here is what we are going to do. You cannot do what this Governor does, take one side of the issue one day and another side the other. You cannot be all things to all people. You know, I kind of enjoy this after 11 months of hearing them bash my brains out up there. It is wonderful to be able to stand up and say the truth about this record. He talks a good game, but his actions betray his words. And he travels the Nation making all kinds of promises. You have got a special group, call him. He will be for whatever you are for. And while he travels the Nation, Arkansas' workers' income slumps; their children's test scores slide in comparison to other States; their rivers grow more polluted. The fish light up at night over there. Their crime rises faster than every other State, and that is a fact.


Five months have gone by since I last spoke to the people of the Nation about the state of the Nation. I had hoped to be able to defer this talk until next week because, as we all know, this is Holy Week. But what I want to say to you, the people of the country, is of such immediate need and relates so closely to the lives of human beings and the prevention of human suffering that I have felt that there should be no delay. In this decision I have been strengthened by the thought that by speaking tonight there may be greater peace of mind and the hope of Easter may be more real at firesides everywhere, and that it is not inappropriate to encourage peace when so many of us are thinking of the Prince of Peace. Five years ago we faced a very serious problem of economic and social recovery. For four and a half years that recovery proceeded apace. It is only in the past seven months that it has received a visible setback. And it is only within the past two months, as we have waited patiently to see whether the forces of business itself would counteract it, that it has become apparent that government itself can no longer safely fail to take aggressive government steps to meet it. This recession has not returned us to the disasters and suffering of the beginning of 1933. Your money in the bank is safe; farmers are no longer in deep distress and have greater purchasing power; dangers of security speculation have been minimized; national income is almost 50 per cent higher than in 1932; and government has an established and accepted responsibility for relief. But I know that many of you have lost your jobs or have seen your friends or members of your families lose their jobs, and I do not propose that the government shall pretend not to see these things. I know that the effect of our present difficulties has been uneven; that they have affected some groups and some localities seriously, but that they have been scarcely felt in others. But I conceive the first duty of government is to protect the economic welfare of all the people in all sections and in all groups. I said in my message opening the last session of Congress that if private enterprise did not provide jobs this spring, government would take up the slack that I would not let the people down. We have all learned the lesson that government cannot afford to wait until it has lost the power to act. Therefore, I have sent a message of far-reaching importance to the Congress.

Fireside Chat.


I want to read to you tonight certain passages from that message, and to talk with you about them. overspeculation in and overproduction of practically every article or instrument used by man . . . millions of people had been put to work, but the products of their hands had exceeded the purchasing power of their pocketbooks. Under the inexorable law of supply and demand, supplies so overran demand which would pay that production was compelled to stop. I pointed out to the Congress that the national income not the Government's income, but the total of the income of all the individual citizens and families of the United States every farmer, every worker, every banker, every professional man and every person who lived on income derived from investments that national income amounted, in the year 1929, to eighty-one billion dollars. By 1932 this had fallen to thirty-eight billion dollars. Gradually, and up to a few months ago, it had risen to a total of sixty-eight billion dollars a pretty good come-back from the low point. But the very vigor of the recovery in both durable goods and consumers' goods brought into the picture early in 1937 certain highly undesirable practices, which were in large part responsible for the economic decline which began in the later months of that year. Again production outran the ability to buy. One was fear fear of war abroad, fear of inflation, fear of nationwide strikes. None of these fears has been borne out. Production in many important lines of goods outran the ability of the public to purchase them. For example, through the winter and spring of 1937 cotton factories in hundreds of cases were running on a three-shift basis, piling up cotton goods in the factory and in the hands of middle men and retailers. For example, also, automobile manufacturers not only turned out a normal increase of finished cars, but encouraged the normal increase to run into abnormal figures, using every known method to push their sales. This meant, of course, that the steel mills of the Nation ran on a twenty-four hour basis, and the tire companies and cotton factories speeded up to meet the same type of abnormally stimulated demand. The buying power of the Nation lagged behind. Thus by the autumn of 1937 the Nation again had stocks on hand which the consuming public could not buy because the purchasing power of the consuming public had not kept pace with the production. During the same period the prices of many vital products had risen faster than was warranted.

Fireside Chat.


In the case of many commodities the price to the consumer was raised well above the inflationary boom prices of 1929. In many lines of goods and materials, prices got so high that buyers and builders ceased to buy or to build. The economic process of getting out the raw materials, putting them through the manufacturing and finishing processes, selling them to the retailers, selling them to the consumer, and finally using them got completely out of balance. The laying off of workers came upon us last autumn and has been continuing at such a pace ever since that all of us, Government and banking and business and workers, and those faced with destitution, recognize the need for action. All of this I said to the Congress today and I repeat it to you, the people of the country tonight. I went on to point out to the Senate and the House of Representatives that all the energies of government and business must be directed to increasing the national income, to putting more people into private jobs, to giving security and a feeling of security to all people in all walks of life. I am constantly thinking of all our people unemployed and employed alike- of their human problems of food and clothing and homes and education and health and old age. You and I agree that security is our greatest need; the chance to work, the opportunity of making a reasonable profit in our business-whether it be a very small business or a larger one the possibility of selling our farm products for enough money for our families to live on decently. I know these are the things that decide the well-being of all our people. Therefore, I am determined to do all in my power to help you attain that security, and because I know that the people themselves have a deep conviction that secure prosperity of that kind cannot be a lasting one except on a basis of business fair dealing and a basis where all from top to bottom share in prosperity I repeated to the Congress today that neither it nor the Chief Executive can afford to weaken or destroy great reforms which, during the past five years, have been effected on behalf of the American people.

Fireside Chat.


In our rehabilitation of the banking structure and of agriculture, in our provisions for adequate and cheaper credit for all types of business, in our acceptance of national responsibility for unemployment relief, in our strengthening of the credit of state and local government, in our encouragement of housing, slum clearance and home ownership, in our supervision of stock exchanges and public utility holding companies and the issuance of new securities, in our provision for social security, the electorate of America wants no backward steps taken. We have recognized the right of labor to free organization, to collective bargaining; and machinery for the handling of labor relations is now in existence. The principles are established even though we can all admit that, through the evolution of time, administration and practices can be improved. Such improvement can come about most quickly and most peacefully through sincere efforts to understand and assist on the part of labor leaders and employers alike. The never-ceasing evolution of human society will doubtless bring forth new problems which will require new adjustments. Our immediate task is to consolidate and maintain the gains achieved. In this situation there is no reason and no occasion for any American to allow his fears to be aroused or his energy and enterprise to be paralyzed by doubt or uncertainty. I came to the conclusion that the present-day problem calls for action both by the Government and by the people, that we suffer primarily from a failure of consumer demand because of lack of buying power. It is up to us to create an economic upturn. How and where can and should the Government help to start an upward spiral? I went on to propose three groups of measures and I will summarize the recommendations. First, I asked for certain appropriations which are intended to keep the Government expenditures for work relief and similar purposes during the coming fiscal year at the same rate of expenditure as at present. That includes additional money for the Works Progress Administration; additional funds for the Farm Security Administration; additional allotments for the National Youth Administration, and more money for the Civilian Conservation Corps, in order that it can maintain the existing number of camps now in operation. These appropriations, made necessary by increased unemployment, will cost about a billion and a quarter more than the estimates which I sent to the Congress on the third of January. Second, I told the Congress that the Administration proposes to make additional bank reserves available for the credit needs of the country.

Fireside Chat.


About one billion four hundred million dollars of gold now in the Treasury will be used to pay these additional expenses of the Government, and three-quarters of a billion dollars of additional credit will be made available to the banks by reducing the reserves now required by the Federal Reserve Board. These two steps, taking care of relief needs and adding to bank credits, are in our judgment insufficient by themselves to start the Nation on a sustained upward movement. Therefore, I came to the third kind of Government action which I consider to be vital. You and I cannot afford to equip ourselves with two rounds of ammunition where three rounds are necessary. If we stop at relief and credit, we may find ourselves without ammunition before the enemy is routed. If we are fully equipped with the third round of ammunition, we stand to win the battle against adversity. The third proposal is to make definite additions to the purchasing power of the Nation by providing new work over and above the continuing of the old work. Third, to add one hundred million dollars to the estimate for federal aid highways in excess of the amount I recommended in January. In recommending this program I am thinking not only of the immediate economic needs of the people of the Nation, but also of their personal liberties the most precious possession of all Americans. I am thinking of our democracy and of the recent trend in other parts of the world away from the democratic ideal. Democracy has disappeared in several other great nations-not because the people of those nations disliked democracy, but because they had grown tired of unemployment and insecurity, of seeing their children hungry while they sat helpless in the face of government confusion and government weakness through lack of leadership in government. Finally, in desperation, they chose to sacrifice liberty in the hope of getting something to eat. We in America know that our own democratic institutions can be preserved and made to work. But in order to preserve them we need to act together, to meet the problems of the Nation boldly, and to prove that the practical operation of democratic government is equal to the task of protecting the security of the people. Not only our future economic soundness but the very soundness of our democratic institutions depends on the determination of our Government to give employment to idle men. The people of America are in agreement in defending their liberties at any cost, and the first line of that defense lies in the protection of economic security. Your Government, seeking to protect democracy, must prove that Government is stronger than the forces of business depression.

Fireside Chat.


History proves that dictatorships do not grow out of strong and successful governments, but out of weak and helpless ones. If by democratic methods people get a government strong enough to protect them from fear and starvation, their democracy succeeds; but if they do not, they grow impatient. Therefore, the only sure bulwark of continuing liberty is a government strong enough to protect the interests of the people, and a people strong enough and well enough informed to maintain its sovereign control over its government. We are a rich Nation; we can afford to pay for security and prosperity without having to sacrifice our liberties in the bargain. In the first century of our republic we were short of capital, short of workers and short of industrial production; but we were rich in free land, free timber and free mineral wealth. The Federal Government rightly assumed the duty of promoting business and relieving depression by giving subsidies of land and other resources. Thus, from our earliest days we have had a tradition of substantial government help to our system of private enterprise. But today the government no longer has vast tracts of rich land to give away and we have discovered that we must spend large sums to conserve our land from further erosion and our forests from further depletion. The situation is also very different from the old days, because now we have plenty of capital, banks and insurance companies loaded with idle money; plenty of industrial productive capacity and several millions of workers looking for jobs. It is following tradition as well as necessity, if Government strives to put idle money and idle men to work, to increase our public wealth and to build up the health and strength of the people and to help our system of private enterprise to function. It is going to cost Something to get out of this recession this way, but the profit of getting out of it will pay for the cost several times over. Every day that a workman is unemployed, or a machine is unused, or a business organization is marking time, is a loss to the Nation. Because of idle men and idle machines this Nation lost one hundred billion dollars between 1929 and the spring of 1933. This year you, the people of this country, are making about twelve billion dollars less than last year. If you think back to the experiences of the early years of this Administration you will remember the doubts and fears expressed about the rising expenses of Government. But to the surprise of the doubters, as we proceeded to carry on the program which included Public Works and Work Relief, the country grew richer instead of poorer.

Fireside Chat.


It is worthwhile to remember that the annual national people's income was thirty billion dollars more in 1937 than in 1932. It is true that the national debt increased sixteen billion dollars, but remember that in this increase must be included several billion dollars worth of assets which eventually will reduce that debt and that many billion dollars of permanent public improvements schools, roads, bridges, tunnels, public buildings, parks and a host of other things meet your eye in every one of the thirty one hundred counties in the United States . No doubt you will be told that the Government spending program of the past five years did not cause the increase in our national income. They will tell you that business revived because of private spending and investment. That is true in part, for the Government spent only a small part of the total. But Government spending acted as a trigger to set off private activity. That is why the total addition to our national production and national income has been so much greater than the contribution of the Government itself. I want to make it clear that we do not believe that we can get an adequate rise in national income merely by investing, lending or spending public funds. It is essential in our economy that private funds be put to work and all of us recognize that such funds are entitled to a fair profit. The Government contribution of land that we once made to business was the land of all the people. And the Government contribution of money which we now make to business ultimately comes out of the labor of all the people. It is, therefore, only sound morality, as well as a sound distribution of buying power, that the benefits of the prosperity coming from this use of the money of all the people should be distributed among all the people- at the bottom as well as at the top. Consequently I am again expressing my hope that the Congress will enact at this session a wage and hour bill putting a floor under industrial wages and a limit on working hours to ensure a better distribution of our prosperity, a better distribution of available work, and a sounder distribution of buying power. You may get all kinds of impressions in regard to the total cost of this new program, or in regard to the amount that will be added to the net national debt. Last autumn in a sincere effort to bring Government expenditures and Government income into closer balance, the Budget I worked out called for sharp decreases in Government spending. In the light of present conditions those estimates were far too low.

Fireside Chat.


This new program adds two billion and sixty-two million dollars to direct Treasury expenditures and another nine hundred and fifty million dollars to Government loans and the latter sum, because they are loans, will come back to the Treasury in the future. between now and July 1, 1939 fifteen months away the Treasury will have to raise less than a billion and a half dollars of new money. Such an addition to the net debt of the United States need not give concern to any citizen, for it will return to the people of the United States many times over in increased buying power and eventually in much greater Government tax receipts because of the increase in the citizen income. What I said to the Congress in the close of my message I repeat to you. Let us unanimously recognize the fact that the Federal debt, whether it be twenty-five billions or forty billions, can only be paid if the Nation obtains a vastly increased citizen income. I repeat that if this citizen income can be raised to eighty billion dollars a year the national Government and the overwhelming majority of State and local governments will be 'out of the red.' The higher the national income goes the faster shall we be able to reduce the total of Federal and state and local debts. Viewed from every angle, today's purchasing power the citizens' income of today is not sufficient to drive the economic system at higher speed. Responsibility of Government requires us at this time to supplement the normal processes and in so supplementing them to make sure that the addition is adequate. We must start again on a long steady upward incline in national income. . . . And in that process, which I believe is ready to start, let us avoid the pitfalls of the past the overproduction, the overspeculation, and indeed all the extremes which we did not succeed in avoiding in 1929. In all of this, Government cannot and should not act alone. We need more than the materials of recovery. We need a united national will. We need to recognize nationally that the demands of no group, however just, can be satisfied unless that group is prepared to share in finding a way to produce the income from which it and all other groups can be paid. You, as the Congress, I, as the ENTITY, must, by virtue of our offices, seek the national good by preserving the balance between all groups and all sections. We have at our disposal the national resources, the money, the skill of hand and head to raise our economic level our citizens' income.

Fireside Chat.


Our capacity is limited only by our ability to work together. The time has come to bring that will into action with every driving force at our command. And I am determined to do my share. . . . Certain positive requirements seem to me to accompany the will- if we have that will. That is the discipline of a democracy. Every patriotic citizen must say to himself or herself, that immoderate statement, appeals to prejudice, the creation of unkindness, are offenses not against an individual or individuals, but offenses against the whole population of the United States. Self-restraint implies restraint by articulate public opinion, trained to distinguish fact from falsehood, trained to believe that bitterness is never a useful instrument in public affairs. Finally I should like to say a personal word to you. I never forget that I live in a house owned by all the American people and that I have been given their trust. I constantly talk with those who come to tell me their own points of view; with those who manage the great industries and financial institutions of the country; with those who represent the farmer and the worker; and often with average citizens without high position who come to this house. And constantly I seek to look beyond the doors of the White House, beyond the officialdom of the National Capital, into the hopes and fears of men and women in their homes. I have traveled the country over many times. My friends, my enemies, my daily mail, bring to me reports of what you are thinking and hoping. I want to be sure that neither battles nor burdens of office shall ever blind me to an intimate knowledge of the way the American people want to live and the simple purposes for which they put me here. In these great problems of government I try not to forget that what really counts at the bottom of it all, is that the men and Women willing to work can have a decent job to take care of themselves and their homes and their children adequately; that the farmer, the factory worker, the storekeeper, the gas station man, the manufacturer, the merchant big and small the banker who takes pride in the help he gives to the building of his community, that all these can be sure of a reasonable profit and safety for the savings they earn not today nor tomorrow alone, but as far ahead as they can see. I can hear your unspoken wonder as to where we are headed in this troubled world.

Fireside Chat.


I am sorry about the rain. I will make this brief, but I want to take a moment before I leave to comment on the outcome of the climate change negotiations that have just been completed in Japan. I am very pleased that the United States has reached a truly historic agreement with other nations of the world to take unprecedented steps to address the global problem of climate change. It reflects a commitment by our generation to act in the interests of future generations. The United States delegation, at the direction of the Vice President and with the very, very skilled leadership of Under Secretary of State Stu Eizenstat, showed the way. The momentum generated by the Vice President's visit helped to move the negotiations, and I thank him very much. I am particularly pleased that the agreement strongly reflects the commitment of the United States to use the tools of the free market to tackle this problem. It is essential that they participate in a meaningful way if we are to truly tackle this problem. But the joint implementation provisions of the agreement open the way to that result. The industrialized nations have come together and taken a strong step, and that is real progress. Finally, I cannot say enough about the extraordinary leadership of Prime Minister Hashimoto. The people of Japan should be very proud of the spirit and the work that their country's leaders did to make this historic day possible. And the agreement we made is actually, because of the way the details are worked out and what counts against the total, even though we have committed to a 7 percent reduction, it is actually closer to our original position than that indicates. We will make some reduction. We got what we wanted, which is joint implementation, emissions trading, a market-oriented approach. I wish it were a little stronger on developing nations' participation. But we opened the way, the only way we can get there, through joint implementation of projects in those countries. It is going to be possible for us to do this and grow our economy. We should be very, very proud of this.

Remarks on the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change and an Exchange With Reporters in New York City


Nearly 1 year ago, we made a commitment to commit not only to build a better infrastructure, but to build a better future, one rooted in opportunity, security, and prosperity for all. And thanks to all the public and private partners around this table and many more around the world, we have already begun to deliver. Together, we have initiated quality and sustainable infrastructure projects across Africa, Asia, and the Americas. And we are strengthening our shared climate security, health security, and food security and economic security. We started to engage more private investors to better de-risk and leverage additional capital. And I see at least two from the United States here that are de-risking a lot. And I am proud to announce that the United States has already mobilized more than $30 billion in investments to date. Together, we have a lot of work to do to close the infrastructure gap and for-in low- and middle-income countries. And as we begin the next year, our partnership-we need to find new ways-new ways to maximize investments-our investments. That is why, moving forward, the United States will enhance our focus on investing in key economic corridors. In practice, that means making game-changing investments in regions that could lead to positive impacts across multiple sectors in multiple countries. We have already started working with our partners to make this happen. For example, in sub-Saharan Africa, the U.S. Development Finance Corporation is looking to invest in this first railway project on the continent. The rail line would extend from the western shores of Angola to the border of the D.R.C. and Zambia, with the goal of ultimately reaching the Indian Ocean, connecting the continent east to west for the first time. This project would not only quickly promote trade and create jobs. Over time, in my view, it will strengthen supply chains, incentive-and incentivize investments in agriculture and promote food security. And it is going to enable, in my view, us to better access clean energy and digital connectivity across the entire region, creating more security, more prosperity, more opportunities for generations to come. investing in near-term solutions that pay long-term dividends. It is not only in Africa. We are starting similar work in Costa Rica, Ecuador, Indonesia, and other places I will not bore you with now. And let me close with this. climate change, food security, gender inequality, economic resilience, digital connectivity, and global security.

Remarks at the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment Meeting in Hiroshima, Japan


Gentlemen, I do know that from the schedule that I have read that you have been exposed to a great amount of material already with regard to some of our domestic programs. I know, too, that you are aware of the fact that this is the first of four regional briefings we are going to have on domestic policy, just as we previously had four on foreign policy, and perhaps we will be able to repeat these from time to time in the future as various issues develop. Now when I read your schedule, I could see that there was not much left for me to talk about, because Governor Romney, of course, covered various aspects of revenue sharing; and Secretary Hodgson covered other aspects of manpower training; Herb Stein knows all about the economy--I wish he would tell me, but he knows all about it--and, of course, John Ehrlichman, in terms of Government reorganization and the other issues, has talked to you and answered questions; and I know that Herb Klein, too, has filled you in on some aspects of it. What I would like to do is to try to put these domestic programs in this period of the seventies in a broader perspective. In order to do so, it will be necessary for me to talk about foreign policy first, not in precise details, as would be the case in a foreign policy briefing, but in more general terms, so that we can see why domestic programs of the types you have been hearing about today, programs that normally just do not make the first lead on television or a front page today in the newspapers due to the overwhelming interest in foreign policy, why that domestic policy is so important for the future. I begin with the developments in foreign policy with which you are all familiar. While it must seem at times that the more things change in foreign policy, the more they remain the same, I think that a sophisticated observer would have to agree that historians in the future will look to this period, and they will probably write that the American people--and through the American people, through their relations with other people in the world--were going through a very historic change insofar as our relations with other nations in the world were concerned. I will only say that if there was ever a new era in the field of foreign policy, we are now in the middle of it. We are on the threshold of it.

Remarks to Southern News Media Representatives Attending a Briefing on Domestic Policy in Birmingham, Alabama


I think the most significant changes in American foreign policy and the most significant changes in the relations between major nations in the world are taking place now than at any period since World War II. I speak of we in terms of this Administration. We played a role, but what has happened here is that we see a number of developments coming together contemporaneously. The one that of course is first and foremost in your minds, and should be, is the war in Vietnam. There is no argument, however, among any sophisticated observers on the point that the war in Vietnam, after a long period---5 years--in which no end was in sight, in which more and more Americans went to Vietnam, and in which more and more casualties occurred in Vietnam, that now the situation is changed. Casualties are going down, and we can say confidently today that the war in Vietnam will be ended. You know the arguments, and I will not go into them now, why we cannot, in our national interest, accept the proposition of setting a deadline as far as our own withdrawal is concerned. I will only say that there is no question but that this Administration's policy is succeeding and bringing the war to an end and bringing it to an end in a way which I believe will contribute to our goal of discouraging that kind of war, that kind of aggression that brought this war on, in the future, and thereby bringing it to an end in a way that will not guarantee--we can never guarantee anything in world events--but that will give us a chance to have a more peaceful Southeast Asia, a more peaceful Pacific. Now, if we are able to accomplish this goal--and I am confident that we are accomplishing it and that we can see it now in sight--this is in itself, by itself--although by itself it is not the major development which we are presently seeing-but this by itself has enormous significance, because both World War II and the Korean war, as far as the United States was concerned, did come from the Pacific, and so did Vietnam. So a peaceful Pacific and an end to this conflict in a way that will maintain the position of confidence of the United States in the Pacific is enormously important in terms of achieving our broader goal of peace in the world. The second point, of course, that has been much in the news this past week is our relations with the Soviet Union. Here, the announcement that I made last week deliberately was brief.


I will not expand on it now, because that would not be in the interest of achieving the goal that the announcement set forth. Suffice it to say that now at the highest level of the two super powers, the Soviet Union and the United States, the leaders have committed themselves to taking a first, very significant step toward limiting both defensive and offensive nuclear weapons. That commitment, having been taken publicly, thereby gives us at this period-since it was committed publicly in terms of attempting to achieve it and hoping to achieve it this year--it gives us an idea as to what could develop from now on out between the two super powers. Again, it does not guarantee that because the two super powers may agree that their mutual interest will be served by a limitation, on the one hand, on our part of defensive weapons and a limitation on the part of the Soviet Union as far as offensive weapons are concerned, that the two powers are not going to have other differences. It does not guarantee that they will agree on everything else, that they will agree on the Mideast, that they will agree on East-West relations insofar as Europe is concerned, et cetera. But the fact that this step is being taken in the field of negotiation is enormously significant simply because it has happened. The announcement is significant; the commitment on the part of the leaders is significant; but even more important, if that commitment can become a reality-and it will take hard negotiating on the part of both sides to bring that reality into being--but if that can become a reality, then the two super powers, not by rhetoric, and we have had cool rhetoric ever since this Administration came into Washington, but in deeds the two super powers will have entered into a new period of better relations. You can see what that would mean in contributing to the peace of the world, because wherever the two super powers rub against each other, whether it is in the Mideast or whether it is in the Caribbean or whether it happens to be tangentially in a place like Vietnam, where it is tangential as far as the Soviet is concerned, but nevertheless real, or whether it is where the blue chip is involved in the heart of Europe, all of this, of course, potentially carries within it the danger of conflict at the very highest level.


And so making movement toward reducing or limiting arms, making this kind of step indicates and gives us at least some hope that a different relationship between the two powers will, on a step-by-step basis, develop in the years ahead. A few weeks ago you all, of course, covered in your newspapers, on your television and radio programs, the developments with regard to China, Mainland China. In a recent press conference, you may recall that I said that--when asked about what this meant--I said we must realize that what happened was significant; not simply the visit of the table tennis team, that had some significance and, of course, great interest because of its rather bizarre character as far as we were concerned. But because in the field of travel and in the field of trade, in the field of exchange of persons and in the field of trade, to put it more precisely, we see a very significant change occurring for the first time since the Government which presently is in power in Mainland China---the People's Republic of China--for the first time that Government and the Government of the United States have found two areas, exchange of persons and travel, where again, on a precise step-by-step basis, they are beginning to have a different relationship than they had previously. As I put it, what we have done really is broken the ice; now we have to test the water to see how deep it is. More steps will be taken on our part and on their part when it is to the reciprocal interest of both to do so. I do not suggest that any steps are presently being contemplated on either side. That would not be in the interest of having that come about. But I do say that the very fact that the United States and the Government on Mainland China, the People's Republic of China, have finally moved in these limited areas toward a relation of normalcy gives us hope that not immediately--not within a year, for example--but looking to the future, that 800 million Chinese will not be isolated from the rest of the world.


Let me just say parenthetically that when we think of the dangers to peace of the world, I can think of none that would quite exceed the fact that 800 million, and then perhaps in 25 years a billion, of the most capable and able people in the world would be isolated from the rest of the world, living there, not knowing the rest of the world, and with a growing and very dangerous nuclear capability. I do not suggest that the steps that we have taken have dealt with that problem conclusively up to this point, but again we have made movement and more movement will take place as we, on either side, find that it is in our best interest. We look to another area of conflict, the Mideast. Here the Secretary of State has just completed a very significant trip. It did not, and none of the reporters who went with him expected it to happen-and they, incidentally, wrote it very objectively and, it seems to me, in a highly professional way--it did not settle the differences. But when we look at that troubled area of the world, it can be said now that we have had a truce for 9 months and that is some progress. It can be seen that while the two parties are still, it seems, very, very far apart with irreconcilable difference--that is what it seems on the surface-there is still the fact of discussion going on through third parties, but nevertheless going on, which will not resolve those differences completely. And no one suggests that they may be resolved completely at any time in the future, but that may resolve them in part, again on a step-by-step basis. Now let me put all of this together in terms of what it means in foreign policy and then why our own policies in the United States in the domestic field are so important as they relate to this. Let us look to the future, what could happen. Here we must put our hopes high. As I said at Mobile earlier today, every President in this century, and I suppose every President long before this century, has spoken in terms of peace, not only for America but for the world. Woodrow Wilson, I think, honestly felt that the war that he was involved in, World War I, would be a war that would end wars.


Franklin D. Roosevelt felt very strongly that World War II, particularly with the United Nations following it, could be the war that, as far as major powers were concerned, that would be the last great war. And certainly my predecessors, President Eisenhower, President Truman, President Kennedy, President Johnson, were all dedicated to that proposition, as I am. At this time I think we could say that because of these significant developments, one, the end of the American involvement in Vietnam, which we know is coming, and on a basis which, in my view, will contribute to a more peaceful rather than a less peaceful era in the Pacific. Third, a change, not as significant, as far as our relations with the Mainland Government are concerned in China, but nevertheless looking down the road, with great historical possibilities. Fourth, the situation in the Mideast that I have just referred to. With all of these developments occurring, what we in the United States may be facing and may be confronted with-and this is something I guess we would all like to be confronted with--is an era in which we could have peace for a generation. Now having said that, that will also carry with it enormous problems for this country--enormous problems because once you have peace, what do you do with it? How do you maintain it? How do you keep it? Here I think that we have to be---as opinion leaders in the South, I would commend these thoughts to you as they have been commended to me by my advisers-here we must recognize that there will be no instant peace in any part of the world. Once these different relationships occur, if they do, if progress is made with the Soviet Union, later with China, the People's Republic, in the Mideast and in Vietnam and the rest, this does not mean that as a result of these developments that the differences between nations end, that their interests will be the same, and that the need for a continued, strong American presence in the world and strong defense will have evaporated. On the contrary, we must recognize the fact that we are going to continue to have differences, very significant and deep differences with other nations in the world.


And looking again at a very difficult and explosive part of the world, the Mideast, no matter what kind of arrangement is made there, no matter what kind of an agreement is agreed to, because of the historical differences that have existed there for centuries, there is not going to be a period when people are going to have a relationship that can be a completely comfortable one. But on the other hand, we are entering that period when there is a chance to have a live-and-let-live attitude, a settlement of differences by peaceful means, peaceful competition, so on down the road. Now, what must the United States do in this period? First, it is almost a cliche to say that we must maintain our strength. That does not mean we maintain our strength out of any sense of jingoism, but it does mean that we only reduce our strength on a mutual basis. Now there are many well-intentioned people who constantly--whether in the Senate or sometimes in columns in the press or on radio and television--suggest that the way that the United States can demonstrate its interest in disarmament, and thereby in peace, is to discontinue our ABM system, reduce our offensive capabilities in the nuclear area, and that that demonstration will lead others to do likewise. In my view, wherever you have two nations--as you have in the Soviet Union and the United States--wherever you have two nations that are competitive, whose interests are different, where both mutually reduce their forces, that contributes to peace. But where one or the other unilaterally reduces its force, and becomes very significantly weaker than the other, that enormously increases the danger of war. Therefore, the United States--and I would say the same if I were a leader of the Soviet Union--the United States does not serve the cause of peace by unilaterally reducing its forces without at the same time mutually negotiating a reduction on the part of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union leaders, I think, understand that. That has certainly been the way they approached the problem. We understand their position. We do not expect them to reduce their forces unilaterally; we will not ours. So whether it is our forces of a conventional type in Europe or whether it is our nuclear forces, offensive or defensive, the United States, it seems to me, serves the cause of peace by maintaining its strength and reducing that strength only as others who may have different interests reduce theirs.


The second point that I would make is on the economic field. We enter a period when it is enormously important that the United States not lose the position of economic leadership which it presently has in the world. It is being jeopardized perhaps not so much because of our failings, although that may be partially the reason, but it is being jeopardized because the whole situation is changed, and we should be gratified in a sense that it has changed, since World War II. At the present time they are our major competitors in the world, and as they compete and as they become more efficient, the United States finds that as far as its world markets are concerned, and as far also as its markets in the United States are concerned, that Japanese competition, German, and, as Britain enters the Common Market, European competition, is going to be a continuingly more difficult problem. So let me put that in perspective, as far as our economic policy is concerned. First a strong American economy is essential if we are going to be able to maintain the military strength that we need to maintain in order to create the processes that will lead to a peaceful balance in the world, and that is what we seek. Second, it is going to be essential, in order for the United States to maintain the movement forward and upward of greater opportunity, more jobs, higher wages, a higher standard of living to which Americans have become accustomed for 190 years. It is a remarkable program of progress--a few ups and downs, depressions, recessions and the rest, but the trend line is up, and it must continue to go up or we will have problems not only abroad, we will have enormous problems at home where these rising expectations will be bitterly disappointed. So that brings us to our economy. Looking at the economy, I am sure Herb Stein has indicated to you that what we find is that there is argument at the present time not about whether the economy is moving up; there is argument--and this is fortunately a good subject to have the argument on--on how fast it is moving up. The question is whether we can have upward movement in the economy and have it with two major factors that are quite different from upward movements in some periods of growth in the past. First, it will be an upward movement without war and with a decreasing military budget.


I do not suggest that that will happen now, but looking to the future, in the event that some of these relationships that I have indicated do come together, that could be the prospect in the future. But in any event, our goal is a peacetime economy, an economy without war and with the military commitment dependent upon whether we are able to work out concomitant arrangements with other competing powers in the world for mutual reduction of forces. If that happens, on the one side we are most gratified. Most Americans--all Americans would rather have their energies and their creative ability devoted to the works of peace rather than to weapons of war. On the other hand, when you consider the fact that since this Administration came into office, as a result of the winding down of the war in Vietnam, and the reduction of our forces in places like Korea and Thailand and the Philippines and in other parts of the world, as well as in the continental United States, 2.1 million Americans have been added to the labor force, let out of the Armed Forces and let out of defense plants. This has a traumatic effect--we believe temporary--but it is certainly very difficult, particularly while it goes on in the Pacific Northwest, southern California, areas like that with which you are familiar. We will survive it. We will see it through, but it means that we have got to develop within this basic economy of ours new activities that will take up that lag that the military expenditure no longer is filling. How can we have an increasing American economy, an upward movement without reigniting the fires of inflation? The easy one, of course, is wage and price controls, governmentally imposed. The difficulty is that the answer would bring on, in the opinion of most of us, it certainly could well bring on, much worse problems than it was curing. It would have some effect on unemployment. I was just looking at the figures recently and when the OPA was finally discontinued in 1945, there were 57,000 Americans that were working for OPA so we could get at the unemployment to a certain extent by moving to wage and price controls at a national basis. That is not the most significant point to mention if we do not have other problems. But turning to the problem, this means that in two respects the United States must face up to these problems.


By responsible we believe that while the economy is not at full capacity, the Federal Government has a responsibility to spend more than it takes in in order to take up that capacity; that there must be a limitation on how far that goes or otherwise you have, inevitably, inflation. That is why we say that under no circumstances should a budget exceed what the economy would produce at full capacity, or full employment as some describe it. On the other hand, having said that, on simply having a limitation with regard to what the Federal Government spends, it is only part of the problem; there is the problem of monetary policy. I will not get into it except to say it must be also responsible enough to fuel the growing economy yet not so much as to reignite the fires of inflation. Here there is no reason to place blame in any quarter except simply to say that as the United States looks at its competitive position around the world, we must recognize that a wage-price spiral-in other words very significant wage increases which go far beyond increases in productivity--will inevitably have the effect not only of contributing to inflation but of pricing those particular industries out of the world market and, for that matter, out of the domestic market. The upcoming steel negotiations are a case in point. Without getting into those negotiations specifically, we simply can look at what the numbers are. Back 20 years ago, in 1950, and you have to go back only that far, Japan produced 5 million tons of steel and the United States produced 50 percent of all the steel in the world. Today Japan produces 100 million tons of steel; the United States produces only 27 percent of all the steel in the world, and within 2 years, Japan will pass the United States in steel production. That is not bad in and of itself, except to point up the fact that the American steel industry, and certainly we want a steel industry, we need a steel industry--here in this city, in Birmingham, we all understand what steel means; it is a very basic industry. If the United States is going to continue to have a strong steel industry, the wage policies and the price policies--and the productivity insofar as that is concerned and affects it--of the American industry, will have to be reexamined, because we cannot continue to have a wage push and then a price push with the United States getting a continually decreasing share of the world market.