    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: WILLIAM J. CLINTON (2000, Book I)]
    [May 25, 2000]
    [Pages 1021-1025]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Remarks on Proposed Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Legislation and
    an Exchange With Reporters
    May 25, 2000

        The President.  Thank you very much. Senator Daschle, Congressman Gephardt, Members of the House and Senate leadership, and Secretary
    Shalala. Let me say how much I appreciated
    the meeting we had this morning and how much I support the agenda they
    outlined. I'd like to say a few words about it, myself. But before I do,
    I'd like to put it into some larger context of our overall strategy.
        We just have some new evidence that our long-term strategy of fiscal
    discipline, investing in our people, and expanding opportunities for
    American markets' products around the world is working. Revised GDP
    figures released today confirm that our economy grew at 5.4 percent in
    the first quarter and that business investment soared by 25 percent.
    This strategy has now given us over 7 years of growth and investment,
    the longest economic expansion in history. We ought to stay on the path
    that got us here and continue to invest in our people and their future,
    as our leaders have outlined today.
        Last month--I want to emphasize this--just last month the
    distinguished investment firm in New York of Goldman-Sachs estimated
    that that turnaround from record deficits to record surpluses has kept
    interest rates 2 full percentage points lower than they would have been
    without this strategy. Therefore, if we turn away from it and go back to
    the deficits, we can expect a corresponding rise in interest rates. A 2
    percent cut in interest rates on home mortgages, car loans, college
    loans, credit card bills, has been an enormous, effective tax cut to the
    American people and has done a great deal to strengthen our economy.
        That's why we feel so strongly that we should use this moment of
    unprecedented prosperity to lengthen the life and modernize Medicare
    with a prescription drug benefit, to strengthen Social Security, to
    invest in key priorities, especially education, to have a tax cut we can
    afford, and keep paying that debt down to keep those interest rates
    down.
        Now, as you've heard already, we mostly discussed providing
    prescription drugs for America's seniors in that meeting. I want to
    thank these leaders for standing with us on this important issue. This
    is a show of unity and a demonstration of resolve. There is no reason
    that Congress cannot take the necessary steps to ensure that every older
    American has access to the lifesaving, life-enhancing prescription drugs
    they need.
        Now, just a few weeks ago Senator Daschle and Congressman Gephardt
    came here to announce that the Democrats were united in a single
    strategy to provide these prescription

    [[Page 1022]]

    drugs. Today they will be joined by leading architects and backers of
    the plan--all these people behind me who have worked on the details. So
    we now know exactly how we would do this. We know we can afford it, and
    we think the time to act is now. I'll just say this one more time. If we
    were creating Medicare today, there is no way in the wide world we
    wouldn't provide prescription drugs.
        Some of you were with me last Sunday afternoon when I went up to
    Hyde Park. Then I landed in the Poughkeepsie airport. There were
    probably 300 people there, so I had an impromptu town meeting. I went
    down and shook hands with everybody and just sat there and visited with
    them. And the only issue that was mentioned to me more than once--
    spontaneously--over and over and over again, was this prescription drug
    issue. It is a big issue, and it's a big hole in America's social safety
    net. It is totally voluntary, it is driven by the market, and we ought
    to do it.
        We're talking more than three in five of our seniors, who are like
    the Lachnits Tom
    talked about. They may be a particularly egregious case, but over 60
    percent of our seniors don't have affordable prescription drug coverage.
        Now, I think that the case has been made. I don't know how in the
    world we can deny the fact that with the funds we have, with the evident
    obligations we have, with the fact that anybody who lives to be 65 in
    America today has a life expectancy of 82 or 83 years--and that is only
    going to increase, and therefore their need for life-enhancing and life-
    preserving prescription drugs will only increase--this is the best
    chance we will ever have to address this. And we have to do it.
        Now, the budget I presented to Congress will continue our efforts to
    pay off the debt in 13 years. It will make Medicare more competitive, as
    many in this group have urged. But it will also provide this kind of
    voluntary prescription drug coverage.
        Now, last month--or earlier this month--the Republican leaders in
    the House did put forth the plan that had the stated goal of providing
    affordable prescription drugs for seniors, but the policy falls far
    short of the promise. Suggesting a private insurance benefit that
    insurers themselves say they will not offer--and no one will buy if they
    did offer it, because it would be too expensive--is an empty promise.
    Limiting direct financial assistance for prescription drugs to seniors
    below the $12,500 income will leave out over half, including
    the Lachnits.
    Their drug bills alone, if my math is right, are $16,800 a year, and
    that's about what their income is. They wouldn't get a nickel under the
    Republican plan. That's not right, and we can do better.
        So we're here to say we have a full-time obligation to deal with the
    big opportunities and the big challenges of this country, and Congress
    should feel that obligation, even when they go into recess. There is no
    heavier evidence of that today than the need to provide voluntary,
    affordable prescription drug coverage.
        Let me say there are many other priorities, and I want to just
    mention them. The announcement we had on new markets a couple of days
    ago ought to give some impetus to raising the minimum wage, passing
    commonsense gun legislation, expanding health insurance for the parents
    of poor children, passing a strong, enforceable Patients' Bill of
    Rights. And I hope that we will see more action in all these areas.
        Now, today the House and Senate conferees are meeting again on the
    Patients' Bill of Rights. Again, this is like the prescription drugs.
    This ought not to be a bill that's held up by interest groups; it ought
    to be a bill that is passed in the public interest. That's our
    commitment, and you will see it nowhere more intensely than our efforts
    to get this prescription drug coverage in the closing days of this
    Congress.
        Thank you very much.

    New Markets Initiative/Working With Congress

        Q.  Mr. President, since you mentioned the new markets initiative,
    some Republicans say that that was the product of intense private
    negotiations between your staff and Hill Republicans, and there were
    substantial differences when those debates began. There were no public
    podium events dealing with new markets. And yet they say there have been
    numerous public podium events on these issues--prescription drugs and
    HMO--but no intense private negotiations. Can you tell us why, sir, you
    and your staff have tried to use the podium more than intense
    negotiations?
        The President.  No, I'm more than willing to engage in private
    negotiations, but I don't think that's a fair representation of exactly
    how these issues developed. We did have some interest on the part of
    some Republicans with new markets--I know some of you have to go vote,
    so

    [[Page 1023]]

    as long as you don't say they're abandoning me on the--[laughter]--on
    the Patients' Bill of Rights, I'm going to give the Senators who have to
    leave a pass.
        We did have a lot of interest on the front end in that, and I made
    some calls around myself. But I have actually tried--I have actually had
    several private conversations on these issues, and I will continue to do
    it. I think--I believe we could pass the Patients' Bill of Rights. We
    already passed a strong bill through the House with virtually 100
    percent of our caucus and a pretty good group of Republican votes with
    us. We're having trouble in the Senate, manifest in the conference
    committee, because some of the interest groups are still fighting what I
    think everybody who's looked at this believes is necessary to make a
    good bill.
        But I'm trying to negotiate on that. I had a private meeting on the
    gun safety legislation. I've had several conversations about that. I
    will--I'm willing to do anything to resolve these things. But what we
    can't do here is to--let me just say what the difference is in blunt
    terms.
        There is no great, powerful special interest out there trying to
    beat the new markets legislation. And therefore, what we had was
    people--Washington was able to work the way it ought to work, because
    all we had were our philosophical differences. But we had a common goal.
    So we agreed in the best tradition of the Founding Fathers to let the
    Republicans try their ideas in 40 of their enterprise areas--whatever
    the proper name is--renewal community areas, and 40 for our empowerment
    zones. We agreed to provide for poor areas all over the country--
    including those that aren't here, in either one of those two groups--
    these special incentives of the new markets.
        It was a wonderful example. And if all we ever had to do was
    reconcile our philosophical differences, we could pass all kinds of
    bills up here. But when you have an independent, powerful interest group
    that won't let them go, then we can have all the private talks that we
    want until we're blue in the face; it's still hard to work it through. I
    haven't given up. But if you want to know the difference in new markets
    and those things, it's not that we haven't had private talks; it's that
    there's no overwhelming interest group trying to beat this thing.

    Support for Democratic Party/Legislative Agenda

        Q.  Mr. President, the labor unions are threatening to withhold
    support from Democrats, including Vice President Gore, who opposed them
    on the China trade deal. Do you think those are empty threats?
        The President.  Oh, I think--no. I don't know. You'll have to ask
    them about that. What I think is that there's much more that unites us
    than divides us. And I think that as far as I know, there are no
    divisive issues out there that have remotely the power that the issues
    we talked about today do, particularly the prescription drugs and the
    Patients' Bill of Rights and these other issues we're talking about.
        So I think what we need to do is play it straight, put our issues
    before the American people, and let everybody decide who they're going
    to be for. But I think that you'll see a very united Democratic Party in
    the fall, and I'll think you'll see a united Republican Party. I think
    we'll--and we'll take our debate to the American people, and we'll see
    what happens.
        Q.  May I follow up on that, sir?
        Q. ----you talk about the differences, the interest groups. There
    are only 24 legislative days left. Realistically, sir, how can we expect
    to get this done, and do you think we'll accomplish any of these things
    you just itemized for us?
        The President.  Oh, I think the only time that the power of the
    interest groups fade here is when the majority believes--if the interest
    groups are involved--is when the majority believes that the public
    interest is so intense that action has to be taken. And I think there's
    a fair chance that will happen on one or two of these issues. And there
    are some people in their party who really would like to work with us on
    these, and I think we'll just keep working at it and see.
        You just never--look, for the last 5 years, we've surprised
    everybody, including ourselves, a time or two, and really had
    breakthroughs and gotten stuff done. I'm here opening--asking for
    cooperation, and I think that I speak for our leaders and our Members--
    we're interested in doing something, so we're willing to do what we can
    to do our part on that.
        Yes.

    [[Page 1024]]

    Peruvian Elections

        Q.  Mr. President, you've been a great proponent of democracy,
    especially in Latin America. Peru is going to supposedly hold elections
    on Sunday. An OAS mission is there. There are a lot of problems. There
    have been a lot of criticism from your own government toward the
    Peruvian elections. What do you say at this moment?
        The President.  I think what I should say at this moment is that,
    first, obviously it's troubling that one of the candidates said he didn't really want to participate on the
    runoff election; and secondly, I think we should wait until we get a
    report from the people that are monitoring the elections, and then I'll
    have more to say about it.
        Yes.

    Permanent Normal Trade Relations With China

        Q.  Mr. President, a followup on the China trade matter. What can
    you say to American workers in industries that will continue to lose
    jobs to China, perhaps in spite of the pact, but who will continue to
    lose jobs to China and elsewhere, and in particular, the textile
    industry workers, who feel they're the sacrificial lambs of the trade
    pacts you've worked out?
        The President.  The first and most important thing is that nothing
    in this legislation, in this debate, proposed to close our markets to
    imports that are coming in from China or anywhere else, so that there
    was nothing in this vote that would have affected them one way or the
    other.
        And if you look at--what we have to do is to hold as many jobs as we
    can by doing whatever we can to support the industries that are
    competitive. And if people lose their jobs, we believe--all of us
    believe we ought to spend more money more quickly to retrain our workers
    and to get more investment into areas that lose them.
        One of the things that I think that will be most helpful with this
    new markets initiative is, we'll be able to say to investors all across
    America, if a plant closes down, for example, in a rural area, ``Hey,
    now if you go back and invest and give these people another job, we'll
    give you a 30 percent tax credit to do it. If you have to borrow money,
    we'll guarantee two-thirds of the money you borrow, and you get lower
    interest rates.'' And if we have an adequate, intense, immediate effort
    to retrain people, and we have that, I think that the dislocation
    periods will be shorter, and their ability to get good jobs if plants
    close will be greater.
        But there was nothing in this bill--what this bill did was to lower
    tariffs for other products, so it will save other manufacturing jobs.
    And it didn't--no one has suggested raising any barriers.
        We've got to do a better job in our country of making sure that we
    shorten the period of dislocation and increase the likelihood that
    people get a job as good or better than the one they lost. And that's
    what we're working on. All of us have worked on that for 7 years, and
    we're making some progress there.

    Working With Congress

        Q.  Mr. President, as a followup to my first question, are you
    saying on the prescription drug and HMO issue that there are no
    philosophical differences from Republicans, and they're simply beholden
    to special interests?
        The President.  No, no, no, no, no, no. There are genuine
    philosophical differences. I would never say that. No. What I said is,
    when all we have are philosophical differences, we have an easier time
    of working through them and accommodating them, as we did on new
    markets, than we do if there are both philosophical differences and very
    powerful interest group resistance.
        Oh, no, I would never say--no, they have honest philosophical
    differences on these things. But you asked me why we couldn't work them
    through, and I don't think it's lack of private meetings. I think it's
    philosophical differences plus an interest group anchor.

    Death of American Journalist in Sierra Leone

        Q.  Mr. President, Kurt Schork, the American journalist killed in
    Sierra Leone yesterday--do you have any thoughts on that and ideas on
    its significance?
        The President.  First of all, I knew that journalist over 30 years
    ago; we were in Oxford together. And I'm very sad today. He was a good
    man, and if you look at all the many posts that he occupied, he was a
    brave man. He went to a lot of places, a lot of the troubled and
    dangerous places of the world, to bring the news to people. And I am
    very sad about it.
        But let me say, in a larger sense, I think it shows how important it
    is for the United

    [[Page 1025]]

    Nations missions to succeed. I appreciate very much the willingness of
    the Nigerians to go back in there, and we are aggressively committed to
    providing the support necessary to take the Nigerians and other troops
    into Sierra Leone and to support the United Nations mission in other
    ways and to contribute our share and maybe a little over that to try to
    stabilize the situation.
        I think that it's obvious that the RUF have--these are just the last
    in a long line of their victims, many of whom are innocent children who
    had their limbs chopped off. And they had a chance to participate in a
    peace process which was more than generous to them in terms of giving
    them an opportunity to walk away from what they had done, and they
    didn't take it. And I think the United Nations mission has to prevail. I
    will do everything I can to support it.
        Thank you.

     Note: The President spoke at 10:52 a.m. in the Rose Garden at the White
    House. In his remarks, he referred to Medicare recipients Ronald and
    Eunice Lachnit; and Peruvian Presidential candidate Alejandro Toledo.
    The President also referred to RUF, the Revolutionary United Front. A
    reporter referred to OAS, the Organization of American States.