    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1996, Book I)]
    [January 18, 1996]
    [Pages 68-70]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Remarks on the Budget Negotiations
    January 18, 1996

        Good morning. Although I am disappointed that the Republican
    congressional leaders walked away from our negotiations yesterday, I am
    not entirely discouraged. After all, it is clear that a 7-year balanced
    budget, scored by the Congressional Budget Office, one that gives the
    American people modest tax relief and still protects the fundamental
    priorities of Medicare, Medicaid, education, and the environment, that
    this kind of budget is clearly within our grasp right now. Republicans
    and Democrats have already agreed to far more than $600 billion in
    savings. That is more than we need to balance the budget and to provide
    modest tax relief.
        We set out to find a common-ground approach to balancing the budget.
    We were successful in agreeing on more than enough cuts to do the job.
    As the charts that all of you have show, I have gone the extra mile. The
    Republicans asked for a plan from us that balanced the budget in 7
    years. They then said they disagreed with our economic assumptions, and
    they asked for a plan based on their economic assumptions. They then
    made some move themselves toward us, and so I made further moves, as you
    see in that document. To say that there has not been a good-faith effort
    here is not credible. We have given a 7-year balanced budget based on
    the Congressional Budget Office's own estimates, and we have shown here
    some further movement.

    [[Page 69]]

        Now let me say again: A lot of good has come out of these talks. It
    is plain now to the whole country that not only Americans in every
    community in our country but people here in Washington are committed to
    a balanced budget in 7 years.
        There are areas of disagreement, and they involve more than money.
    They also involve policy. You already know, as I said, that we have
    moved toward them in trying to show good faith and reach agreement on
    the dollars. There are still significant money differences, and they are
    the same money differences that we started with. I believe that the
    Republicans are insisting on reductions in Medicare, Medicaid,
    education, and the environment which are clearly not necessary to
    balance the budget and not necessary to give a modest tax cut. And I
    believe that those reductions are in effect being put into this budget
    to pay for a tax cut that is larger than is warranted under these
    circumstances.
        But let me say there are also some policy differences. And I'll just
    mention a few. There are more, but let me mention a few. Their Medicare
    program could require elderly people who choose to go into managed care
    programs to pay extra fees to see the doctor of their choice, something
    which is not required today. The medical savings account and fee-for-
    service options they would provide to all seniors on Medicare could lead
    to the healthiest and most well off of our senior citizens taking money
    out of the program which would not be spent in any given year and
    leaving in the program people with higher medical costs with a lower
    financial base to cover it. If enough of this happened, it literally
    could cause the Medicare program to wither on the vine.
        They would repeal Medicaid's guarantee of adequate medical coverage
    for poor people, including poor children, pregnant women, and the
    disabled. With block grants in Medicaid and lower levels of funding,
    States would be able to and actually might feel constrained to cut back
    on services to people who need mental health services, including
    hospital services. If the history that we all have, the modern history,
    is any indication, those would be the services that would be most
    vulnerable in tight budgetary times.
        Their budget would dramatically cut programs that are designed to
    prevent drugs and violence in our public schools. It would deny
    preschool education through Head Start to about 200,000 young 3- and 4-
    year-old children from poor backgrounds and we know will be helped by
    it. It would impose great cuts in aids to poor schools that could cause
    class sizes to climb and certainly will undermine our efforts to put
    computers in all the classes of the United States as soon as we can in
    the next decade.
        It ends the Goals 2000 program, which is the administration's
    program to meet national educational standards which have finally been
    set but to do it through grassroots reforms. It ends the national
    service program, which this year is providing 20,000 young people the
    opportunity to serve their communities and to bring in more volunteers
    to serve their communities in grassroots effort and earn money to go to
    college.
        It would no longer require companies to pay for the cleanup of toxic
    wastes if the waste had been lying around 9 years or more. We know that
    10 million children now live within 4 miles of a toxic waste site. Under
    their plan, the taxpayers would have to pick up the tab for these toxic
    dumps that were in existence before 1987. It would dramatically cut
    environmental enforcement to guarantee clean air and clean water. It
    would take the environmental police off the beat with cuts of about 30
    percent.
        So these are the policy issues involved, and these are just a few of
    them. When I submitted the plan to balance the budget in 7 years that
    the Congressional Budget Office agreed did that, I thought that would be
    the basis for our moving quickly to an agreement based on what we could
    agree on. I am still committed to that, but let me say--I heard the
    leaders of the Republican Congress say over and over again, ``We have to
    balance the budget; we have to balance the budget. Why won't the
    President agree to balance the budget in 7 years? Why won't the
    President agree to the Congressional Budget Office numbers?'' Now it is,
    ``Why won't the President agree to bigger reductions in Medicare and a
    bigger tax cut?''
        Now, if the job is balancing the budget, we know there will be
    differences between the two parties. These are healthy differences. We
    ought to have a lot of debates here. But I would remind you, there was
    only one hearing, only one, on the congressional Medicare plan.
        So we can debate some of these policy differences all year long, and
    the American people can make their decision about what is or is not the
    right course to follow. But we already

    [[Page 70]]

    have agreement on way more than enough budget savings to balance this
    budget and to give a modest tax cut. It is wrong for us to defer this
    because of disagreements that are not necessary to resolve in order to
    have a balanced budget or a modest tax cut.
        I am committed to finishing this job. I am committed to working to
    resolve the remaining problems with the Congress. I did have a
    constructive 40-minute telephone conversation yesterday. And to the
    Republicans in Congress, let me say again: My door is open. It is open.
    It will stay open. I have spent 50 hours on this working with them, and
    I am committed to continuing to work with them until we get the job
    done.
        Thank you.

    Note: The President spoke at 11:37 a.m. in the Briefing Room at the
    White House.