    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: WILLIAM J. CLINTON (1999, Book II)]
    [October 4, 1999]
    [Pages 1678-1680]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Remarks on the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty and an Exchange
    With Reporters
    October 4, 1999

        The President. Is everybody in? I'd like to make a brief statement,
    and then I'll answer your questions.
        Our national security team is about to meet to discuss the
    Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to end nuclear weapons testing forever.
    This is very important for protecting our people from the danger of
    nuclear war. That's why so many prominent Americans, including four
    former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, support it.
        For 2 years, the opponents in the Senate have blocked any
    consideration of the treaty. Now, we have been given just 8 days before
    the Senate vote. I will do all I can to get the treaty ratified.
        Our experts have concluded that we don't need more tests to keep our
    own nuclear forces strong. We stopped testing in 1992, and now we are
    spending $4.5 billion a year to maintain a reliable nuclear force
    without testing. Since we don't need nuclear tests, it is strongly in
    our interest to achieve agreement that can help prevent other countries,
    like India, Pakistan, Russia, China, Iran, and others, from testing and
    deploying nuclear weapons.
        The treaty will also strengthen our ability to monitor if other
    countries are engaged in suspicious activities, through global chains of
    sensors and onsite inspections, both of which the treaty provides for.
    This is a crucial decision the Senate is about to make that will affect
    the welfare of the American people well into the next century. I hope
    the American people will pay close attention to this, and I hope the
    Senate will pay close attention and that we will have a careful debate
    as much as possible within the time that's been allotted.

    [[Page 1679]]

        Q. Mr. President, why do you think the Republicans handled this in
    the way they did and just said, ``Okay, let's go ahead and vote on it in
    a few days?'' And you've been pushing this for a long time. Why is it
    that you're so behind the eightball on getting the votes for it?
        The President. Well, we've been pushing it, but there has been no
    consideration of it. If you look at how other treaties have been handled
    in the past, you have 8 days of hearings in the Foreign Relations
    Committee, 12 days of hearings in the Foreign Relations Committee. The
    Democrats in the Senate were frustrated because the whole thing had been
    stonewalled. And finally, they said, ``Okay, you can have a debate and a
    vote right now or no vote at all.''
        So we decided we would take the ``right now'' and do our very best
    to do it. I don't want to speculate on other people's motives. We'll
    have to ask them why they decided to do it this way.
        Q. Mr. President, you need a lot of Republicans if you're going to
    pass this treaty. How many do you think you have right now?
        The President. I don't know. We don't have enough now; I hope we can
    get them. I think the critical thing is, if you look at all these--
    anybody who expresses reservations, there can only be, it seems to me,
    two arguments against it. One is that we have to test and maintain our
    stockpile. And Secretary Richardson is here.
    The people at the energy labs and many other experts say that is
    absolutely not true. And we are spending $4.5 billion a year to make
    sure it's not true, that we can maintain the integrity of our stockpile.
        The other argument that we saw a version of in the press yesterday
    that I think is just a missing point is that maybe somebody, somewhere,
    is doing a very small-scale test, and we won't pick it up. Well, the
    point I'd like to make about that is the following: Number one, if you
    get the really small test, they're hard to pick up. They're hard to pick
    up now; they'd be hard to pick up if this treaty is ratified. If this
    treaty is ratified, there are new tools to monitor the testing levels.
    We'll have monitoring stations; we can do onsite visits. There's the
    deterrent impact of a country signing and then getting caught violating
    it. So we'll have a lot more ability to pick up all kinds of testings at
    all levels and a lot more deterrent against it if we ratify the treaty
    than if we don't.
        There is another thing the American people need to think about and
    the Senate needs to think about. If any of the 44 original signatories
    of this treaty don't sign and don't ratify it, then it cannot enter into
    force. For decades, the United States has led the world against
    proliferation. If the United States Senate votes this treaty down, it
    would be a signal that the United States now wants to lead the world
    away from the cause of nonproliferation. We would be giving the green
    light to all these other people.
        We're not testing anyway. That's why Britain and France and nine
    other of our NATO Allies have already ratified this treaty. They
    understand this. That's why there is such overwhelming support for it.
    So it would be, in my judgment, a grave mistake not to ratify the
    treaty.

    Chinese Nuclear Espionage

        Q. Mr. President, on a related matter, I'm sure you've been briefed
    that the FBI is sort of starting all over this week on the Chinese
    espionage investigation. Are you concerned now, looking back, about the
    way the investigation was handled?
        The President. I think the only thing I would say about that, I
    think the only appropriate thing for me to say is, number one, they
    ought to do whatever they can to find out whatever the truth is. Number
    two, this is another lesson that we should not assume anyone's guilt,
    ever. We should let the investigations take their course. And I think
    that's--we just have to support the proper--the investigative process.

    Health Care Insurance Coverage

        Q. Mr. President, on health care, do the new numbers mean that
    you've failed in your effort to expand coverage to people who are not
    insured?
        The President. Well, first of all, they mean that the First Lady and
    I and all the rest of us were right in 1994 when we told you in 1994
    that if this were voted down, the insurance companies would continue to
    drop people and employers would because of the system we have. So what
    has happened is exactly what we said would happen.
        Now, what are we doing about it? We passed the 1997 Children's
    Health Insurance Program, but it was only this year that all the States
    finally signed up. I do believe you will see this year significant
    numbers of children enrolled in

    [[Page 1680]]

    our Children's Health Insurance Program. And I've talked with Senator
    Kennedy and others in the Congress about
    what else we can do to try to get several million more children insured.
        Number two, I do believe that the Kennedy-Jeffords bill will pass
    this year which will allow people with disabilities to go into the work
    force and keep their health insurance, and that will be good.
        Number three, we have before the Congress and have had for 2 years a
    proposal to let people between the ages of 55 and 65, one of the biggest
    problem groups without insurance, buy into the Medicare program. That
    would help a lot if Congress would pass that. Some Republicans have said
    in the past that they favor that sort of approach. I would urge them to
    take another look at this. They ought to allow Medicare buy-in. It's the
    cheapest, least costly, least bureaucratic way for people in that age
    group to get insurance.
        And number four, we have granted to some innovative States waivers
    from the Medicaid program which they have used to let people who are
    lower income working people buy into Medicaid. If we can get some more
    States to do that, that can make a big difference.
        If you look at these numbers, you've got people between the ages of
    55 and 65, you've got people who have moved from welfare to work and
    then get jobs above the income level when they're eligible for Medicaid.
    Then you've got all these middle class people who work for companies
    that are dropping health insurance. So I think we ought to keep working
    on these things. I certainly don't think we ought to give up. I do think
    you'll see the numbers improve with children over the next 2 years.
        I think that if we pass Kennedy-Jeffords, which I think we will,
    you'll see that improving. But we need the Medicaid buy-in and the
    Medicare buy-in for the older people and more States could solve this
    problem. We could give them the money through Medicaid waivers to let
    lower income working people buy into that. All those would make a big
    difference.
        Let me also finally say I'm glad to see that this has become a
    source of discussion in the Presidential campaign for the Democrats, and
    I'm proud that the candidates in my party are trying to do something
    about it, and I hope that we will continue to see this debated. But
    these numbers confirm exactly what the First Lady said in '94, and we
    have some specific things we can do about it if the Congress and the
    States will help, and I hope they will.

    Note: The President spoke at 4:02 p.m. in the Cabinet Room at the White
    House prior to a meeting with the national security team. A tape was not
    available for verification of the content of these remarks.