[Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: WILLIAM J. CLINTON (1999, Book II)]
[September 30, 1999]
[Pages 1635-1640]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]
Remarks on Signing the Continuing Resolution and an Exchange With
Reporters
September 30, 1999
The President. Good afternoon. I wanted to talk to you before I
leave for New York about two developments affecting our economy and the
progress we are making to build a stronger one.
Today we have further evidence that our economic strategy of fiscal
discipline, investment in our people, and expanded trade is working. In
the 12 years before I came to Washington, irresponsible policies here
quadrupled our debt. That led us to high interest rates and high
unemployment, stagnant wages, and low growth. The Vice President and I
came here determined to change all that, to put the American people
first and give them the tools to turn around the American economy.
Over the last 6\1/2\ years, the results speak for themselves: the
longest peacetime expansion in history, more than 19 million new jobs,
the lowest unemployment in 29 years, the lowest welfare rolls in 32
years, the first back-to-back surpluses in 42 years, the largest surplus
and the highest homeownership in history.
Today I am pleased to announce another economic milestone in the
implementation of this strategy. In its annual study on income and
poverty in America, the Census Bureau reports that a typical household
income rose $1,304 in just one year, from $37,581 in 1997 to $38,885 in
1998. That's a 3.5 percent increase in a year, tied for the largest
since 1978, allowing American families more money for things that
matter,
[[Page 1636]]
sending their children to college, buying a home, purchasing a car,
saving for retirement.
The report also shows that since we launched our economic plan in
1993, median family income is the highest it has ever been, increasing
from $41,691 in '93 to $46,737 in '98. That's over $5,000 more that
hardworking families can put to good use. But the best news is that
these gains finally are being shared with all groups in America, from
the wealthiest to the poorest.
In the 1980's, most working families saw their incomes stagnate,
with the worst performance at the bottom of the economic scale. In the
last 5 years, finally, we have stemmed the tide of rising inequality,
and this new report documents the strong income growth among all groups
of people.
This broadbased growth has helped to lift millions of hardworking
families out of poverty. The report shows that the poverty rate fell to
12.7 percent. That is the lowest poverty rate since 1979, the lowest
rate in 20 years.
While we still have room for improvement, the African-American
poverty rate is now at its lowest level on record; the Hispanic poverty
rate its lowest level in 20 years. And we know that 4.3 million
Americans were lifted out of poverty last year because of our expanded
earned-income tax credit, which was a critical part of the economic
reform plan in 1993. It is now, inexplicably to me, under attack by some
in Congress.
Our economy is now working for all the American people, and it has
to continue. That brings me to my second point.
Today is the last day of the current fiscal year. Because the
Congress has not finished its work, it must send me a continuing
resolution, a temporary spending measure to keep the Government working
for 3 more weeks. But it should be sending me spending bills that meet
the great challenges and opportunities before us, that protect and
strengthen Social Security, that strengthen and modernize Medicare with
prescription drug coverage, that make vital investments in education,
national security, the environment, medical research, and other critical
areas, and that enable us to pay down the American debt so that we can
pay it off, for the first time since 1835, over the next 15 years.
Now, a few minutes ago, just before I came out here, I signed that
continuing spending bill, not because I wanted to, but because it was
the only way to prevent another Government shutdown. Months ago I
presented a responsible budget plan that pays for itself, invests in
education, saves Social Security and Medicare, puts us on the path to
paying America out of debt by 2015*. Regrettably, the majority in
Congress, the Republican majority, has chosen to disregard the way I put
this budget together and to disregard the path of fiscal discipline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
*White House correction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instead of making the difficult choices to finish their work and
crafting a responsible budget, they've resorted to gimmicks and
gamesmanship, like using two sets of books and designating the fully
predictable census, for example, as emergency spending.
But they're doing something else that troubles me more. To disguise
the fact that they're spending the Social Security surplus, the
congressional majority wants to delay earned-income tax payments to
nearly 20 million families. Now, the income and poverty figures I
announced earlier show that 4.3 million Americans were lifted out of
poverty last year, twice the number that were lifted out of poverty by
the earned-income tax credit before we expanded it in 1993.
We've worked hard to eliminate barriers to families who are working
their way out of poverty. We've got record numbers of people moving from
welfare to work, often at very modest wages, eligible for this earned-
income tax credit. Delaying their EITC payments would put one more
roadblock in their way.
So let me be clear: I will not sign a bill that turns its back on
these hardworking families. They're doing all they can to lift
themselves out of poverty, to raise their children with dignity. I don't
think we should be putting more roadblocks in their way. Delaying the
earned-income tax credit payment is more than a gimmick. It is an
effective tax increase on the most hard-pressed working Americans.
Now, one of the most interesting developments of the last week in
this budget fight, which as I said I was hoping would not be a fight and
I still hope will be resolved, but one of the most interesting things to
me about this last week is that the Republican majority actually
launched an ad campaign that plays the worst kind of politics with this
issue. Instead of spending their time creating an honest budget, they're
spending millions of dollars creating phony ads to accuse the Democrats
in Congress,
[[Page 1637]]
who are in the minority, of doing what the Congressional Budget Office,
their own Congressional Budget Office, says they are doing: that is,
spending the Social Security surplus.
In fact, just yesterday, the very day they were announcing these
misleading and unfair ads, their own Congressional Budget Office sent
them a letter that shows they are spending $18 billion from the Social
Security surplus. Now, I can't help noting that these are the same
people who told us they could spend all this money and cut taxes $792
billion and never touch the Social Security surplus.
Let's back up and look at where we are here, really. I had a lot of
difficult decisions in my budget. I had a cigarette tax; I had a tax on
polluters to clean up toxic waste dumps. Why did I put that in there,
knowing it would be controversial? Because there was a general consensus
here that with the second year of a budget surplus, we ought to move as
quickly as possible to divide the surpluses, if you will, the Social
Security from the non-Social Security, and that we would move this year
to try to stop spending Social Security funds that the Government had
been spending since 1983, at least since 1983, when the revenues were
raised.
And so we all said, ``Okay, let's try to do it this year.'' And so,
I knew it would be hard, but I said, ``Okay, I'll do my part. I'll try
to do this. But we're going to have to make some tough decisions here if
we're going to meet the need of people in both parties: the investment
priorities.''
Then they said, ``No, we don't want to do that.'' The Republican
majority said, ``No, we don't want to do that. We don't want a cigarette
tax, and we don't want to ask the polluters to pay more for the toxic
waste.'' Once they said that, to be fair, there was no way they could
avoid at least one more year of spending Social Security funds.
Now, that's where we are on this. That's really what's going on. And
there is another way. We don't have to do this. We don't have to get
into an ad war where they accuse us of doing what they're doing, that
their own Congressional Budget Office says they're doing. And they don't
have to act like if they get caught doing it, they've, in effect,
committed a felony.
There was a decision they had to make. When we decided we were going
to try to get out of spending Social Security funds this year, instead
of next year, they had to make a decision. And the decision was to close
corporate loopholes, deal with the toxic waste dumps by asking polluters
to pay more, and raise the cigarette tax. If they weren't willing to
make that decision, they were going to be in the pickle they're in now.
Now, that's what happened.
It doesn't have to be this way. We can work together. We can fashion
a budget that builds on our economic prosperity and eliminates the
public debt by the year 2015 and extends the life of the Social Security
Trust Fund to 2050, past the life expectancy of the baby boomers,
rendering this momentary debate completely irrelevant by dealing with
the long-term security of the country. And that is what we ought to do.
I also would say it is profoundly important that we fund the right
kind of education budget that has 100,000 teachers, that supports our
efforts to mentor poor kids and get them to college, that supports our
efforts to help young people read, and that gives our kids access to
after-school programs; that doesn't undercut our efforts to connect all
the classrooms to the Internet next year, that helps us to build or
modernize 6,000 schools, that helps us to have some real accountability
so we get what works and we stop funding what doesn't.
That's the other big, outstanding question in this budget debate
that has nothing to do with what the ads are about: What kind of
education policy we're going to have; what kind of future are we going
to give our kids? Then there's the whole criminal justice issue which
we've argued about since 1994, that we've got the lowest crime rate in
26 years, but it's still too high, and I want to fund another 50,000
police to go out there in the most dangerous neighborhoods to prevent
crime from happening in the first place, through the community policing
program.
So that is what I wanted to say. We don't need gimmicks in the
budget, and we don't need gimmicks on the airwaves. What we need to do
is to roll up our sleeves and go to work together and make decisions and
tell the American people why we made them and what they are and what the
long-term consequences are.
The Congress now has 3 weeks to finish the job the American people
sent them to Washington to do. I will work with Congress on a budget
that honors our commitments, that protects Social Security and Medicare.
If we work together to meet these objectives--keep in
[[Page 1638]]
mind, if we work together to meet these objectives, we could pass a
long-term budget that not only gets us out of debt by 2015 but actually
has an affordable program for middle-class tax relief.
But this argument that's being held now, and this sort of ad war is,
I think, the worst kind of--first of all, it's misleading. And secondly,
it's a waste of time and money. What we need to do is to roll up our
sleeves and do the job the American people sent us here to do.
So, thank you.
Korean War Massacre
Q. Mr. President, what's you're reaction to the Associated Press
report of a massacre of hundreds of refugees by American servicemen
during the Korean war? There is--a dozen veterans of that war are quoted
as corroborating this account. Do you think there should be an
investigation?
The President. Yes. The most important thing you need to know about
that is--I was briefed on it this morning--is that Secretary
Cohen has said that he wants to look into
this. He wants to get to the bottom of it. He wants to examine all the
available information and evidence. And he has assured us that he will
do that. And that was his immediate instinct, too. And I appreciated it.
2000 Presidential Election
Q. Mr. President, the Vice President seems to be in some political
trouble, despite the good economic numbers that you cite. Mr. Bradley,
former Senator Bradley, has out-raised him in the last quarter. I would
like to know whether you counseled him to move his headquarters, whether
you thought he panicked, and why you think that people like Senator
Moynihan say that he can't be elected--Senator Moynihan who, of course,
backs Mrs. Clinton?
The President. I gave you enough time to put all of your little
twists in there, didn't I? [Laughter]
First of all, let me say I think it's a good decision, the decision
he made to move his headquarters to
Tennessee. I suppose I think that because I had such a good experience
when I stayed home and close to my roots. We discussed it a long time
ago. But I can tell you I'm absolutely--he called me yesterday morning,
he said that he had made a decision to do this. And we had not discussed
it in, I don't know, a good while. I'm absolutely--he told me a week or
so ago that he was thinking about some things that he thought would help
his campaign and make it more consistent with the kind of message that
he wanted to convey to the American people and the kind of campaign he
personally wanted to run. And he announced those three decisions
yesterday, and I approve of all of them. I think they were good
decisions. And I think they'll get good results. And the most important
thing is, he made them, and he believes in them. And that's all you can
do in one of these campaigns.
Q. What's the problem? Has it been you? Has it been the record of
the administration?
The President. Well, first of all, I think he's, by all reports I get, he's personally doing quite well
out there, and I think he will continue to do well. So I don't have the
same take on it you do. I'm not a political analyst anymore. I have to
stay here and do my job. But the only thing I would say is, when you run
for President, you need to know what you want America to look like, and
then you need to have good ideas, and you need to try to share them with
people in a way they can relate to. And I believe he'll be--I believe
he'll do quite well.
Keep in mind, we're a long way from the end of the road here.
Tax Policy and Federal Spending
Q. On the budget, if the Republicans won't give you the taxes you
want, what's the alternative? Cut back on the spending you want? How do
you get out of this pickle?
The President. Well, the alternative is, just mechanically--if they
won't raise money, the alternative is, you either have to say--well, let
me say what the alternative is not, first. The alternative is not their
gimmicks, and then we'll come up with our gimmicks, and we'll all see
who can out-gimmick someone else. That is not the alternative.
The alternative should be that we decide we're going to cut back on
the spending for a year. Or if it's too severe--and from what we hear
out there in the country from--and what we know about the needs of
education, what we know about what we both want to do to help restore
our ability to recruit in the military and help our military families
with a pay increase there, what we know in a number of other areas--if
we decide to spend this
[[Page 1639]]
money together, if we jointly agree on it, and it won't allow us to have
a divided surplus, which keep in mind, we want to do this year, then
both parties need to agree on that.
Now, I strongly prefer to go on and get out of the Social Security
surplus this year. And what I proposed is not all that onerous--I mean,
dealing with--the corporate loopholes I proposed to close, the cigarette
tax, and the toxic waste dump fees. That's not all that bad. You could
always compromise. You could raise less and spend a little less.
But my point is, the most important thing is, we should be
straightforward with the American people about this, and we shouldn't
try to get them all tied up in knots and pretend that something is going
on that isn't. We know we are going to now have, in the future years, a
surplus that will--except when we have economic downturns--but on
average, a surplus that will be large enough, projected, that we can
meet the future needs of education, the environment, national security,
out of non-Social Security revenues.
Now, this is a--let me remind you all, this is a new development.
When we were in the deficit spending mode all during the eighties--all
of you know this; you wrote about it a lot--the deficits were made to
seem smaller than they were because Social Security revenues were in
surplus over Social Security payments. They are still in surplus over
Social Security payments, but now other revenues are in surplus over
other spending this year.
But the '97 budget caps were very tight. They were for the teaching
hospitals; they were for a lot of other things; they were--when it comes
to continuing to improve education--and we do need to spend some more on
national defense, as all of you know. At least I feel that way and the
Republicans do, too, because of the problems for the military families
and some modernization problems. So this whole question that there is
just so much agitation on and all these ads filling the airwaves, it's
really about the fact that when they started looking at their budget,
they couldn't get out of the Social Security funds until next year
either unless they were willing to raise some money this year from the
cigarette tax, from closing corporate loopholes, or the toxic waste
dumps.
So all I'm suggesting is, we need to sort of stop misleading the
American people--they need to--with their television ads; and we need to
sit down and work this out and figure out what's right for the people,
make the right disciplined choices and go forward.
Q. Mr. President, you said you need to sit down and talk, and yet
there are some Republicans on the Hill who make it clear that that's the
last thing they want to do, is to sit down with the White House and
start negotiating. What is the status----
The President. That's the last thing they want to do.
Q. Right.
The President. Yes, that's right.
Q. So what is the status of communication right now, and how can you
get out of this if you all don't start communicating?
The President. Well, I don't think we can if we don't start
communicating. But all I'm telling you is they've had a debate,
apparently, within their caucus in both Houses about whether we ought to
join hands and do the, evidently, right thing for the American people
and also be candid about this budget problem that they have, because
they're philosophically opposed to raising the cigarette tax, and they
don't want to close any corporate loopholes right now. We've just got to
figure out if there is a resolution to that. And then there are those
who believe that they can somehow create this whole other issue,
spending the Social Security surplus, and then say that they're not
doing it, we're doing it, even though they're in the majority and they
approve all the money; or they can say, well, I made them do it somehow.
That's what's going on here.
So there are people who believe in their caucus that somehow they
can make some big political issue out of this. And then there are those
who want to get something done. I had a long talk with a committee
chairman yesterday, and I won't identify him for fear of hurting him.
But we talked a long time about how we need to make an honest effort to
resolve the differences between where they are and where we are on the
areas within his jurisdiction.
So I think there is a difference of opinion. I think a lot of them
would like to just show up for work tomorrow. And that's what I hope
we'll do.
Nuclear Accident in Japan
Q. Has Japan asked for American help in dealing with its nuclear
accident? And how would the United States treat such a request?
[[Page 1640]]
The President. Well, first of all--and I should have said this the
very first thing--we are all very concerned, and our thoughts and
prayers are with the people in Japan today because of this uranium plant
accident. You can only imagine how difficult this must be for them,
quite apart from whatever the facts are. This is going to be a very hard
day for the people of Japan.
And we are doing our best to determine what, in fact, has happened
and what assistance we can give. And we will do whatever we possibly can
that will be helpful to them. And we will try to be as comprehensive and
prompt about it as possible.
Mortgage for New York Residence
Q. Mr. President, what about your mortgage, sir? Do you now
understand why some people felt that it was improper for you to arrange
a mortgage with a loan guarantee from Mr. McAuliffe? And are you now
planning to get a different kind of mortgage?
The President. Well, I will stay with what Mr. Lockhart has told you
about that. We had just a day or two to get that house; a lot of people
wanted it for the same reason we liked it. A lot of people like the
house. It's a nice place. We liked it. So we did what was necessary to
secure it.
Now, we're going to close on it in a little more than a month. And
if we change the financing between now and then, we'll let you know as
soon as we do. But we did not do it before we got an opinion from the
Office of Government Ethics about the mechanics of it, and that it did
not constitute a gift under Federal law.
Q. Why wouldn't Bowles and Rubin help?
The President. They were--I don't have anything to say about that.
McAuliffe called me the first thing when I
was talking to him, and he said, ``Look, if you can get somebody else to
do it, fine.'' I think because everybody thought it was a legitimate
business arrangement. No one thought there was anything wrong with it,
all the people I talked to about it and all the people anybody else
talked to about it.
I think some people didn't want to do it because they know they live
in a world where they live in the Larry Klayman political press world in which what's true is not as
important as whether you can be dragged around; you have to spend a lot
of money you don't have or you'd rather not spend for reasons that have
nothing to do with anything that's real.
It's like this television ad campaign, to go back to the budget
issue. There is the rest of the world and the way it works and the way
people view things, and then there is the way a lot of things around
here work. And so I don't--anybody that's ever been through it knows
that's true.
You're all smiling because you think, I wonder if the President made
a mistake by committing the truth in that last remark. I can see you all
smiling and thinking that. [Laughter] So all I can tell you is, I feel
good about where we are on it. We're going to close on it in a month,
and we're excited about it. And if we change the financing, we'll let
you know.
Thank you.
Note: The President spoke at 12:55 p.m. in the Briefing Room at the
White House. In his remarks, he referred to Larry Klayman, chairman,
Judicial Watch, Inc.; former Chief of Staff to the President Erskine B.
Bowles; former Secretary of the Treasury Robert E. Rubin; and Terence
McAuliffe, loan guarantor of the First Family's residence Chappaqua, NY.
H.J. Res. 68, ``Making continuing appropriations for the fiscal year
2000,'' approved September 30, was assigned Public Law No. 106-62.