[Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: WILLIAM J. CLINTON (1999, Book II)]
[October 25, 1999]
[Pages 1876-1879]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]



Remarks on the Fiscal Year 2000 Budget and an Exchange With Reporters
October 25, 1999

    The President. Last February I sent to the Congress a balanced 
budget that maintains our fiscal discipline, pays down the debt, saves 
Social Security, strengthens and modernized Medicare with a prescription 
drug coverage, and meets our most pressing priorities: putting 100,000

[[Page 1877]]

teachers in the classroom, another 50,000 community police on our 
street, protecting the environment, and strengthening our national 
security. And everything in the budget I sent is paid for without 
touching a penny of the Social Security surplus.
    Unfortunately, the congressional majority has rejected the approach 
I recommended. And so, in the 8 months since I sent them the balanced 
budget, they have failed to produce a budget of their own that meets our 
Nation's priorities and values. Instead, they have tried one thing after 
another, one unsuccessful scheme after another, to meet the budget 
priorities.
    Now the majority wants an arbitrary across-the-board cut in all 
Federal investment. The plan would cut military recruiting and, 
according to the Department of Defense, would cut as many as 70,000 men 
and women from our Armed Forces. Their plan would cut off thousands of 
children from the benefits of Head Start, cut childhood immunizations 
and our cleanup of toxic waste. It would do something they have pledged 
not to do. With all these cuts, it would still spend the Social Security 
surplus, as their own Congressional Budget Office has said it would do.
    And yet, in spite of this, Congress has seen fit to fund its own 
pork-barrel projects, like a ship the Pentagon says it doesn't need and 
aircraft it didn't ask for. They've found a way to fund corporate 
welfare for oil companies and other special interests and to fund their 
own pay raise.
    Now, the American people sent us here to make tough choices. But 
these are the wrong choices. I will not allow Congress to raise its own 
pay and fund its own pork-barrel projects and still make devastating 
across-the-board cuts in everything from education to child nutrition to 
the FBI. I will not sign any budget that puts special interests above 
the national interest.
    Now, this week I may be forced to veto several of the appropriations 
bills because they fail to meet our most pressing national priorities. I 
have decided to sign into law the Department of Defense appropriations 
bill, and I have just done that, because in good conscience I cannot 
allow our national security needs to be held hostage to this budget 
battle. This legislation provides funding for our most critical military 
needs, including weapons procurement and modernization, research and 
development, and, importantly, a much needed pay raise for our men and 
women in uniform.
    I had proposed the first sustained increase in defense spending in a 
decade, and this bill will help to maintain that. Still, what Congress 
sent me is far from perfect. The legislation is loaded with things the 
Pentagon didn't ask for and doesn't need. It applies accounting gimmicks 
to important areas.
    For example--listen to this--Congress designated the $7.2 billion 
for base operations and basic training, something our military needs and 
depends upon every year, year-in and year-out, as an ``unforeseen 
emergency'' expense.
    Despite my reservations, I am signing this bill--I have signed it--
because it's crucial to our national security and our military 
readiness, because the troops that defend our interests abroad deserve 
the strongest support we can provide here at home.
    The second action I have just taken is on the appropriations bills 
for the Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce. Today I vetoed that 
bill. I vetoed it because it fails to fund the additional 50,000 
community police we need to keep crime going down in our communities. We 
have the lowest crime rate in 30 years, but we can't stop until America 
is the safest big country in the world.
    This bill fails to provide the funding to give the American people 
their day in court against the tobacco companies. It fails to take a 
strong stand, indeed, it fails, inexplicably, to take any stand, 
whatever, against hate crimes. And by failing to provide for our 
obligations, including our U.N. dues in arrears, it imperils not only 
our vote in the United Nations but the ability to meet our obligations 
and, therefore, to maintain our national security.
    The appropriations bill for the Interior Department is no better. If 
Congress sends it to me in its current form, with provisions that 
weaken, rather than strengthen our environmental programs, I will have 
to veto that, too.
    On Friday the temporary resolution that keeps the Government running 
again will expire. That's the second such measure to have come and 
gone--another week, another deadline--and still we don't have a budget 
like the one I proposed that pays down the debt, saves Social Security, 
reforms and modernizes Medicare, and meets our most important national 
priorities.
    They have not lived up to their obligations and the commitment they 
made last year to

[[Page 1878]]

put 100,000 teachers in our classroom. They have not provided for 
another 50,000 community police to keep crime going down in our 
community. They have not done what is necessary to protect our 
environment.
    Now, even though time is short, we still have a good chance to meet 
these goals. Today my budget negotiators are continuing to work with 
Congress to finish the job. I hope that the Members of Congress will 
work with us in good faith to make this a season of progress. And I 
remain committed to that end.
    Thank you very much.

Learjet Crash in South Dakota

    Q. Mr. President, was there a possibility you might have had to 
order an attack on that plane, the Learjet, as it was flying north?
    The President. Well, let me say, first of all, I am profoundly sorry 
for the loss of Payne Stewart, who has had 
such a remarkable career and impact on his sport, and a remarkable 
resurgence in the last couple of years; and the members of his group, 
including the two pilots and two others who were with him. This is a 
very sad day.
    I am very grateful for the work the FAA did and for the two Air 
Force pilots and the others in the Air Force that monitored this plane 
and made every effort to try to make contact with it. They did 
everything that could humanly be done, and they were looking out for the 
safety of everyone involved. And I'm just sorry that it crashed and what 
happened, happened.

Candidacy of Pat Buchanan

    Q. Mr. President, Pat Buchanan announced today he will run for the 
Reform Party nomination. Any comments from you, sir?
    The President. No. [Laughter]

Defense Department Appropriations Bill

    Q. Mr. President, on the defense bill, sir, given your strong 
objections to it, why couldn't you have vetoed the bill and gotten the 
provisions which you wanted by negotiating with Congress? Did you not 
have the Democratic votes to sustain your veto?
    The President. Well, I think we could have sustained a veto, 
although it would have been a close call. I'm fairly confident we could 
have sustained it. But I didn't think it was fair, frankly, to put the 
Democrats in the position of being attacked by the Republicans for being 
against the defense budget that the Democratic Party has basically 
pursued.
    The core of this budget is the policy of our party--not just me as 
President and not just our administration; the President, the Vice 
President, the Secretary of Defense--it's the policy of our party to 
give the military a chance, after 10 years of defense reductions, to 
have the pay increase, to have the improvements in quality of life, and 
to have the military modernization.
    The pork barrel that is in this defense bill is not unknown to 
Capitol Hill. But what is unknown, of course, that we've never seen 
anything like before, is declaring daily operations to be emergencies so 
that they can appear not to be spending the Social Security surplus when 
they are.
    But I felt, on balance, given the urgent need to get the pay 
increase out and to begin the modernization programs, it was the right 
thing to do. I also thought it would show good faith with the Members of 
Congress.
    But I think it is--I will say again, I also felt, as a practical 
matter, that we should focus on the bills where the substantive 
deficiencies are, in the teachers, in the police officers, in the 
environmental programs, in the absence of hate crimes legislation, in 
the failure to pay the U.N. dues. I think we should focus on the bills 
where the real flaws are.
    And I think--and I have made it clear that insofar as I proposed 
increased investments over and above what the Congress has recommended, 
I am prepared to pay for them, and I think they ought to do the same 
with theirs. And we need to work together and get this worked out. We 
can do this. This is terribly important, and we can do it.
    But the idea of just saying, ``Well, we'll have an across-the-board 
cut,'' and using some percentage term that makes it seem smaller than it 
is without considering the consequences, I think, is terrible.
    And let me point out, just on the defense bill, if they put in this 
across-the-board cut, after having mandated that so much money to this 
plane or this boat or this depot or this reconstruction project, the 
Pentagon will have no choice but to lay off, the DOD says, up to 70,000 
people.
    So I don't think that's an acceptable resolution to this, and I hope 
that we can work together and work through this. But I am determined

[[Page 1879]]

to keep fighting for something that we can all be proud of. And we can 
still do it.
    Yes, ma'am.

Alternatives in Budget Negotiations

    Q. Mr. President, you've made clear you oppose across-the-board 
spending cuts, and the Republicans have made clear they don't support 
your revenue proposals. Would you be willing to find common ground in 
spending bills that are based on a combination of OMB and CBO scoring?
    The President. Well, they're already doing--they've used a few OMB 
scoring devices when it worked to their advantage, but I have no 
objection to that, because we think we're right and on balance. Over the 
last 7 years, our scoring has been quite accurate. So I will work with 
them on that.
    I also think there are other alternatives here. There are 
alternatives between turning every ordinary expenditure into an 
emergency and their adopting my proposal for a 55 cent cigarette tax. 
There are lots of other ways that we can bridge these gaps.
    What I have recommended in investments, in the Middle East peace 
talks, in reducing the nuclear threat, in paying our U.N. dues, in the 
100,000 teachers, what I've recommended in this coming year does not 
amount to a great deal of money. I can offer them ways to pay for that. 
And then they need to find ways to pay for some of their extra spending. 
And if we'll work together, we can do this. We can do it in a timely 
fashion, and we won't have to have a whole series of other continuing 
resolutions.
    And I hope we can do it. I think we can do it in the next couple of 
weeks if we put our minds to it.

Third Continuing Resolution

    Q. Mr. President, are you prepared to sign another continuing 
resolution, sir?
    The President. Of course. I think--let me say, I have serious 
problems with a lot of this, as I've said. But I can also tell you, we 
are making some progress. I see the progress being made, and it's just a 
question--they will have to decide if they want to work with me to get 
this resolved. But I think I owe it to them, because we committed to 
work in good faith, to sign another continuing resolution, and I will do 
that.
    Thank you.
    Q. In weeks? Days?
    The President. Well, I don't know how many days it will be. But it 
ought to be an appropriate amount of time for us to finish. And it 
shouldn't be too long, but there needs to be enough time for us to 
finish. And I'll keep working with them.
    Thank you.

Legislative Agenda

    Q. Mr. President, on the hate crimes situation and Pat Buchanan, may 
I just try one more on that? Do you think his campaign at this time is 
going to further incite racial and ethnic hatred?
    The President. Well, I hope not, but that's more up to him than it is to me. And it's also a matter of how we 
respond to it. All I'm saying is, after all we've been through in this 
country in the last couple of years and all the hate crimes we've seen, 
I just don't see how we can possibly walk away from this session of 
Congress and not pass this.
    And I guess I ought to say, in reaction to the previous question 
about the continuing resolution, we should remember that in addition to 
the budgets, the fact that there is a continuing resolution and the 
Congress will stay in session gives us the chance to pass the bill that 
would enable more disabled people to go to work. It gives us a chance to 
pass the Patients' Bill of Rights. It gives us a chance to pass the 
minimum wage. We've got a chance to do a lot of other good things to end 
the year on a very high note and a very positive note for the American 
people. So we have to just keep plugging away.
    And I think all of us have an obligation to try to minimize racial, 
ethnic, and other kinds of discrimination, and we just have to keep 
working at it. And I'm going to do that.

Note: The President spoke at 5:03 p.m. on the South Lawn at the White 
House prior to departure for New York City. In his remarks, he referred 
to Learjet crash victims professional golfer Payne Stewart, his agents 
Robert Fraley and Van Ardan, and the pilots Michael Kling and Stephanie 
Bellegarrigue.