[Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: WILLIAM J. CLINTON (1999, Book II)]
[October 5, 1999]
[Pages 1680-1683]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]



Remarks on Proposed Patients' Bill of Rights Legislation and an Exchange 
With Reporters
October 5, 1999

    The President. Good afternoon. I am delighted to be joined this 
afternoon by Secretary Shalala, Secretary 
Herman, and leaders of some of our Nation's 
top health, consumer, and provider organizations, including Dr. Thomas 
Reardon of the American Medical 
Association; Beverly Malone, the president of 
American Nurses Association; Judy Lichtman, 
the president of the National Partnership for Women and Families; John 
Seffrin, the CEO of the American Cancer 
Society; and Ron Pollack, the president of 
Families USA.
    Before I leave for the Pentagon to sign legislation to enhance our 
national security, I want to say a few words about legislation to 
enhance the security of patients and the health of our families.
    Tomorrow the House is set to begin the long-awaited debate on the 
Patients' Bill of Rights. We are here today to urge Congress to act 
responsibly and pass strong, enforceable, bipartisan legislation to 
protect working families with the real health care protections they 
sorely need.
    We have had enough of tragic stories from every corner of our land, 
families forced to

[[Page 1681]]

switch doctors in the middle of pregnancy or cancer treatment, parents 
whose children had to bypass one or more emergency rooms before they 
received care, Americans who saw their loved ones die when their health 
plans overruled a doctor's urgent recommendations. The fact is Americans 
who are battling illness shouldn't have to also battle insurance 
companies for the coverage they need.
    Our administration has done everything we could to protect patients. 
Through executive action, we've granted all of the safeguards in the 
Patients' Bill of Rights to more than 85 million Americans who get their 
health care through Federal plans. This past week I announced we'll 
publish rules to extend similar patient protections to every child 
covered under the Children's Health Insurance Program.
    Many States are also making progress. But no State law, no executive 
action, can do what Congress alone has the power to achieve. Only 
Federal legislation can assure that all Americans, in all plans, get the 
patient protections they need and deserve.
    Congressmen Charlie Norwood> 
and John Dingell have a bill to do just 
that. It's a bipartisan Patients' Bill of Rights that would guarantee 
Americans the right to see the medical specialist they need, the right 
to emergency care wherever and whenever a medical crisis arises, the 
right to stay with a health care provider throughout a program of 
treatment, the right to hold a health plan accountable for harmful 
decisions.
    But before Americans can be assured these fundamental rights, the 
Norwood-Dingell bill must be assured a fundamental right of its own, and 
that's the right to be offered on the House floor, with a straight up or 
down vote. No legislative poison pills. No weakening amendments. No 
parliamentary sleights of hand.
    Let's be clear: This is about more than congressional rules or 
legislative prerogatives. It's about providing Americans basic rights. 
It's about making sure medical professionals are able to do their jobs, 
about providing families with the quality care they deserve, and above 
all, about putting patients' interests above special interests. That's 
what all of us standing here and our allies in both parties in the House 
of Representatives are committed to.
    Now, I'm told this morning some Republican leaders sat down with 
insurance company lobbyists who are fighting to defeat a strong 
Patients' Bill of Rights. On the eve of this vote, I'd like to ask them 
to think about sitting down with America's families instead.
    This is not a partisan issue anywhere in the United States except 
Washington, DC. The legislation that we endorse has the endorsement of 
more than 300 health care and consumer groups across America, including 
groups where I would imagine most of the members are in the Republican 
Party.
    The support for this legislation across America is broad and deep. 
We cannot allow a small group in Congress, representing a large, well-
financed special interest, to thwart the will of doctors, nurses, 
medical professionals, and working families. We can't allow some 
parliamentary trick to litter this bill up like a Christmas tree and 
then have people vote for it to give people the impression they are for 
the Patients' Bill of Rights, when they are, in fact, against it.
    So again, I ask Republican leaders to be straight with the American 
people. Instead of watered-down provisions, just give the people an up 
or down vote. Let the will of the people prevail. Let them see where 
every Member of the House stands on this profoundly important issue. 
Let's have a fair vote. If we have a fair vote, there will be a 
bipartisan majority for the Patients' Bill of Rights in the House of 
Representatives that reflects the overwhelming bipartisan, even 
nonpartisan, feeling for it out in the United States of America.
    Thank you very much.

Medicare Reform

    Q. Mr. President, do you believe after meeting with Senator Roth 
today that you'll get a competent Medicare reform program this year? And 
where might you be willing to compromise to get that?
    The President. Well, first of all, I had a very good meeting with 
him, and I'm going to put out a 
statement about it. We talked about Medicare reform. He and Senator 
Moynihan assured me they're still 
committed to that and will work on it in a timely fashion. They also 
talked to me about the need to restore some of the restrictions or cuts 
in funding from the '97 Balanced Budget Act to some of the medical 
providers. I strongly agree with that, and I think we should do it.
    We talked about some trade issues, the importance of the research 
and experimentation tax credit, and a number of other issues that I 
think

[[Page 1682]]

are quite important that affect all Americans. So we had a good meeting, 
and I prepared and signed off on a statement which goes into greater 
detail about it.

Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty

    Q. Mr. President, do you think you could try to postpone the vote on 
the treaty?
    The President. On the test ban treaty?
    Q. Yes.
    The President. Well, let me say this: I think for the Senate to 
reject it would send a terrible message. It would say to the whole 
world, ``Look, America's not going to test, but if you want to test, go 
right ahead. We're not interested in leading the world toward 
nonproliferation anymore.''
    I'm going to have a dinner tonight and talk to a number of Senators 
about it. I think a lot of thoughtful Republicans who normally support 
us in matters like this are, number one, under enormous political 
pressure not to do so, and number two, have the legitimate feeling that 
this very important issue, which in previous Congresses would have 
received 8, 10, 12 days of hearings, a week or more of debate, is for 
some reason being rushed at an almost unprecedented pace.
    So we're going to talk through this. I'm going to make the best case 
I can. I'm going to tell them why I think it's in the national interest. 
But I think it is a very curious position that some of the leaders of 
the opposite party are taking that they don't really want us to start 
testing again, and they know we have the most sophisticated system in 
the world for maintaining our nuclear stockpile without testing, but 
they don't want to vote for this treaty even if that says to Pakistan, 
to India, to China, to Russia, to Iran, to everybody else, you all go on 
and do whatever you want to do, but we're not going to do it. I think 
that's a very curious thing to do and would be very, very damaging to 
the interests of the United States and, even more important, to the 
safety of children in the 21st century all across the world.
    We have been a leader for nonproliferation, including for the 
concept of a test ban treaty since the time of Dwight Eisenhower. He's 
the first person who recommended this. And before this Congress, it 
would have been unthinkable that a treaty of this kind, with these 
protections--particularly with the strengthening reservations that I 
have offered to work with Congress to put in--it would have been 
unthinkable before this Congress that such a treaty would not pass. So 
I'm going to work and do the best I can, and we'll see what happens.
    Q. Sir, there seems to be the compliance, it cannot be verified, and 
that the integrity of the arsenal cannot be maintained absolutely----
    The President. Well, I would like to respond to those two things. 
Number one, on the compliance issue, keep in mind what the reports say--
that you cannot, with 100 percent certainty, detect small nuclear tests 
everywhere in the world. That's all they say. Our national security 
people, including all of our people at the Pentagon, say that any test 
of the magnitude that would present any sort of threat to the United 
States could in fact be detected, number one.
    Number two, if we don't pass this treaty, such smaller tests will be 
even more likely to go undetected. Why? Because if the treaty goes into 
force, we'll have over 300 sophisticated sensors put out in places all 
across the world, and we'll have the right to onsite inspection, and we 
will also have the deterrent effect of people being found violating the 
treaty. Now, if you don't put the treaty into force, no sensors, no 
onsite inspections, no deterrent, and if the United States walks away 
from it, the rest of the world will think they've been given a green 
light. So I think that argument has literally no merit, because nothing 
changes except our ability to increase our determination of such tests 
with the passage of the treaty.
    Now, on the first argument--the idea that, some say, we can't with 
absolute 100 percent certainty maintain the integrity of the 
stockpiles--that is not what the people who lead the energy labs say. 
That's not what the Joint Chiefs say. Some people disagree--they do. 
They say they're not sure that forever-and-a-day we'll be able to do 
that. I have offered the Senate a reservation to the treaty which makes 
it clear that if ever there comes a time we think we can't preserve the 
integrity of our nuclear stockpile, we can take appropriate steps to do 
so, number one.
    Number two, we spend $4.5 billion a year, with by far the most 
sophisticated system in the world, to maintain that. Now, if all the--
this treaty doesn't go into effect unless all the nuclear powers and 
several dozen other countries agree to it; 44 in total must agree. If 
they all agree, I'm sure that all the people who are making this 
argument would acknowledge that

[[Page 1683]]

our system of maintaining the integrity of our stockpile without tests 
is far in advance of what anybody else has. So our relative security 
will be increased, regardless.
    Final point I want to make: None of these people will stand up and 
say, let's start testing again. So what they're saying is, ``Okay, 
America won't test, but if everybody else tests, well, so be it.'' I 
think it would be a big mistake.

Note: The President spoke at 3:13 p.m. in the South Portico at the White 
House prior to departure for the Pentagon. In his remarks, he referred 
to Thomas R. Reardon, president, American Medical Association; and 
Ronald F. Pollack, executive director, Families USA.