    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: WILLIAM J. CLINTON (2000, Book I)]
    [March 9, 2000]
    [Pages 414-418]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Remarks on Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Legislation and an
    Exchange With Reporters
    March 9, 2000

        The President. Thank you very much. Good morning. Thank you, Senator
    Daschle. Thank you, Senator Akaka, Senator Breaux, Senator
    Bryan, Senator Dorgan, Senator Sarbanes, and Senator
    Wyden, for joining us today. And thank you,
    Secretary Shalala, for the leading role
    you've played in the development of our proposal to provide a voluntary
    prescription drug benefit for seniors under Medicare.

    Minimum Wage Legislation

        I want to make a few comments on Senator Daschle's very fine statement and the principles he outlined. But
    first I'd like to say a word about another debate going on in the House
    today over the minimum wage. Once again, the Republican leadership has
    derailed what should be a simple vote on the minimum wage, with a
    maximum of political maneuvering. The vote is yet to be taken, but we
    all know the results are already in. The special interests will win, and
    the national interests will wait.
        We will raise the minimum wage but not with the Republican bill that
    stacks the deck against our workers. It is loaded with poison pills that
    penalize workers and with risky tax cuts that threaten our prosperity
    and the future of Social Security and Medicare.
        The combined actions of the majority in the House and the Senate on
    all their tax cuts is now far in excess of what I have recommended and
    in excess of what we can afford and still pay down the debt and reform
    Social Security and Medicare and continue to invest in education.
        Congress should send me a bill I can sign, not one I'll have to
    veto, a clean, straightforward bill that raises the minimum wage by a
    dollar over 2 years. If you remember the incredible day we had yesterday
    with Cheryl Costas, there are 10 million
    people that deserve this, and they ought to get it.
        By the end of the day, two things will be clear about the minimum
    wage: We do have the votes to pass it, but the Republicans still have
    the votes to kill it. Today's vote, however, is not the final word, and
    I will continue to work with a bipartisan majority in the Congress that
    supports a real increase in the minimum wage.

    Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit

        Now, with regard to the statement Senator Daschle just made, the
    Senate Democrats have come today to say that they are together on
    principles for a voluntary Medicare prescription

    [[Page 415]]

    drug benefit, something so many seniors need and far too few have. There
    have been a lot of proposals on the table, a good number of good ideas.
    Today we are moving forward together by uniting around common
    principles, setting standards that any prescription drug plan should
    meet. That is a significant step, moving us further toward the day when
    every older American has the choice of affordable prescription drugs.
        More than three in five seniors and people with disabilities still
    lack prescription drug coverage that is dependable, coverage that could
    lengthen and enrich their lives. Our budget would extend them that
    lifeline and create a reserve of $35 billion to build on this new
    benefit to protect those who carry the heavy burden of catastrophic drug
    costs.
        Most important, our plan, as Senator Daschle said, embodies the
    essential principles articulated here today and embraced by the Senate
    Democrats. I think any plan Congress passes should do the same. It
    should be optional, affordable, accessible to all. It should use price
    competition, not price controls. It should boost seniors' bargaining
    power to get the best prices possible. It should be part of an overall
    plan to strengthen and modernize Medicare.
        I think the bargaining power issue is especially important when we
    read story after story of American senior citizens crossing the border
    into Canada to buy drugs, made in America, in Canada at much less cost.
    And if this is not done, then sooner or later, the voters of this
    country will vote with their feet, and the Congress will have a follow
    suit, and you will see huge numbers of people bringing those drugs in
    from Canada.
        No American can understand why you can go to Canada and buy a drug
    made in America for dramatically less than you have to pay for it in
    America. And if our seniors had the bargaining power they deserve under
    this proposal, that gap in prices would evaporate quite quickly.
        We owe it to our people, especially to our seniors, to pass a good
    prescription drug plan. We shouldn't be satisfied with half measures.
    Keep in mind that a tax deduction would help only the wealthiest
    seniors, and a block grant, which some in the majority have proposed,
    would help only the very poorest. Neither alternative would do anything
    for the seniors with modest middle incomes between $15,000 and $50,000 a
    year.
        As Secretary Shalala reminded me today, over half of the seniors who
    lack prescription drug coverage, especially a lot of them in rural
    areas--and you have a lot of these Members here who represent--these
    Senators--States with significant rural areas--over half of those
    without the coverage have incomes in excess of 150 percent of the
    poverty rate.
        So I would like to, again, urge the majority to work with us on
    something that covers everyone, that people can buy into. There is no
    better time to get this done. The economy is strong. People have a sense
    of purpose over this. People talk to me about this everywhere I go. And
    we have an opportunity now not just to pay down the debt and extend the
    life of Social Security and Medicare but to extend the lives of a lot of
    seniors by adding this prescription drug benefit. And I certainly hope
    we'll do it.
        Thank you.

    Elian Gonzalez

        Q. Mr. President, today is the day that the case of Elian Gonzalez,
    after many delays, is being heard in a courtroom in Miami. I would like
    your opinion on the subject. You've always said it must go to the
    courts. Do you think we'll get a solution soon?
        The President. Well, I hope so. I can't believe it's in the young
    man's interest for this to be dragged out much longer. But it is in the
    courts, and I think while it's in the courts, we shouldn't comment.
        John [John Palmer, NBC News].

    2000 Presidential Election

        Q. We'd like to get your comments on the Bradley decision to pull
    out of the race and his decision to not release his delegates. We're
    curious to what you think about that.
        The President. Well, I thought, first of all, he made a very fine statement. I heard most of it this
    morning before I had to pull away, and I was very moved by his statement
    and very grateful for the tone and tenor of it and for his support for
    the Vice President.
        The second thing that occurred to me was that if you looked at the
    issues he raised and the way in which he raised
    them, it recalled again how very much more substantive, in my judgment,
    the debate was on the Democratic side on the issues and how much more
    agreement there was. On the Republican side, there was far more
    disagreement, I think, and it was

    [[Page 416]]

    far less rooted in issues that will really affect the American people
    and move forward. So I'm very grateful.
        As to the delegates, I think that he knows
    the Vice President will have enough votes
    to win on the first round. He wants those people to be able to go to the
    convention pledged to him. They ran pledged to him. And then what
    typically happens at a convention is that if there is a united party, is
    at the appropriate time the vote is made unanimous.
        But I can understand why a lot of them probably--I imagine he was
    talking to--a lot of them called him and said, ``Look, we'd just like to
    go pledged to you. We're all going to be together. We're going to honor
    your wishes. We're going to support the nominee of our party.'' But this
    is, I think, a matter of pride for what they have accomplished to date.
    I don't think you should read too much into that. I certainly didn't. I
    thought he gave a very fine statement, and I wish him well.

    President's Upcoming Visit to Pakistan

        Q. Mr. President, your trip to Pakistan, is this some kind of an
    endorsement to the military government? That's what he said in Karachi.
    And also, if it's support for his government, how can you still, Mr.
    President, answer to Nawaz Sharif, who's in jail, and he came specially
    on a special trip to Washington on the Fourth of July? And he did say
    that--and I think Mrs. Sharif also wrote a letter to you, and you have
    spoken with all these leaders. Sir, what do you expect from this visit
    also?
        The President. Well, first of all, it's certainly not an endorsement
    of the military coup. I've made that clear. We made it clear yesterday.
    But it is a recognition, in my judgment, that America's interests and
    values would be advanced if we maintained some contact with and
    communications with the Pakistani Government. And I think that our
    ability to have a positive influence on the future direction of
    Pakistan, in terms of the restoration of democracy, in terms of the
    ultimate resolution of issues in the Indian subcontinent, and in terms
    of avoiding further dangerous conflicts will be greater if we maintain
    our cooperation.
        After all, Pakistan was our ally throughout the cold war. Since I've
    been President, Pakistan on more than one occasion has helped us to
    arrest terrorists, often at some risk to the regime. And as you pointed
    out, the then-Prime Minister, Sharif, pulled
    the Pakistani troops back across the line of control after a July 4th
    meeting with me last year. So I think it would be a mistake not to go,
    but it would be a grave mistake for people to think that my going
    represents some sort of endorsement of a nondemocratic process which
    occurred there. That's not true.
        You, and then the little boy there.

    Minimum Wage Legislation

        Q. You said that there will be some room for negotiation on the
    minimum wage issue in terms of--obviously, your plan, the Democrats plan
    is for 2 years, the Republicans is for 3 years with a tax cut. Do you
    think ultimately we'll see a compromise?
        The President. I would like to see a bill we can all sign. Our
    side--not just me but our Members of Congress--we offered them some very
    helpful small-business tax cuts. We're not unmindful of the fact that
    one of the reasons we've had this recovery is that every year we've had
    a record number of new small businesses starting, that not all of them
    make a lot of money, especially in the early years. And we responded to
    their desire to have small-business tax incentives and cuts with a
    rather generous proposal, and we got nowhere. They, instead, put this
    highly regressive, overly expensive program through that would increase
    inequality in America at a time when we're trying to reduce it and
    having nothing to do with the minimum wage.
        There are also--let me say, there are other provisions in this bill
    which actually try to make the rest of America's work force pay with
    reductions in worker protections in return for the minimum wage workers
    getting a pay increase, and I don't think that's right, either. We
    shouldn't be pitting one group of workers against another.
        And are we willing to talk? Of course. Always. Keep in mind, I had
    the conferees here on the gun safety issues this week, and we're trying
    to get the conference up and going there, and we're working our hearts
    out on it. But we have to--yes, we're willing to work on it. But I'm
    telling you, it is wrong, as well as this country is doing, with the
    lowest unemployment rate in 30 years, more wealth being created than any
    time in history, any time in the history of this country, any time in
    the history of the

    [[Page 417]]

    world, not to raise the minimum wage. It's wrong.
        Young man, did you have a question?

    President's Autograph

        Q. May I please have an autograph for my little sister?
        The President. Absolutely. [Laughter]

    Gays in the Military

        Q. There is a report this morning that there is a rise in the
    military of harassment, both physical and verbal, of gay and lesbian
    members of the military. First of all, are you concerned about that
    report? And do you believe that the military is doing enough to prevent
    this from happening?
        The President. Well, I'd like to make a couple of points. I'm
    concerned about the report. I haven't read it. Secretary Cohen hasn't read it. We will read it and take
    appropriate action. I do want to point out that in the last several
    months the Pentagon has issued new guidelines for implementing the
    policies related to gays in the military, specifically designed to
    reduce harassment. They have started new training programs, and the
    Secretary of Defense has made it absolutely clear what the policy is and
    is not.
        So if--I expect--let me just say, if this report is accurate, I
    would expect to see a substantial improvement this year--substantial.
    But I also want to make sure that we study the report in the White
    House, that the Secretary of Defense
    studies it, and that we take any appropriate action that might be called
    for. But I knew nothing about the report until I read the morning press
    reports, so I can't comment further than that.
        Yes.

    2000 Census

        Q. Mr. President, the census has started, after being politicized
    over the last couple of years. At some point, should this debate of
    statistical sampling versus pure enumeration be resolved so that there's
    a consistency between congressional funding--between Government funding
    and the congressional redistricting?
        The President. Well, of course, it should be. But I think it ought
    to be resolved in favor of what will give us the most accurate count.
    Look, the only reason I favored statistical sampling is because the
    National Science Foundation said that was the most accurate way to count
    people and that we undercounted large numbers of Americans in many
    States last year. I'm for whatever's most accurate.
        And I don't think it should be a political deal. I remember one
    prominent House Member, who should remain unnamed, I think, once
    suggested to me that I was taking a foolish position here, that I ought
    to be for hiring 2, 3, 4, million people who were overwhelmingly
    Democratic voters, in an election year, to go out and knock on doors and
    count people, that this didn't make any sense. And I said, if he thought
    that was such good politics, why was he on the other side of it? And he
    confessed that it was because he thought they would count fewer than
    were actually there, that the statistical sampling would give us larger
    numbers.
        I don't think this ought to be a political issue, not for us, not
    for them. We ought to try to find what is the most accurate way. And of
    course, then these constitutional issues have been raised, but I can't
    believe that can't be dealt with.
        Go ahead, John [John Roberts, CBS News].

    White House E-Mail

        Q. Sir, what's your response to Congressman Burton on the issue of
    these E-mails?
        The President. Well, I just got the letter, and my understanding is
    that there will be a response to him, and that it
    will all be handled in an appropriate way. And I have referred all the
    questions to the Counsel's Office, but I think they will handle it just
    fine.
        Yes, go ahead.

    Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit

        Q. On prescription drugs, have you had any, in light of the
    principals here, have you had any conversation with the Republican
    leadership, either in the House or Senate, on this, and do you have any
    sense of how close you might be?
        The President. I haven't talked to them in the last couple of weeks.
    But earlier, I did when we were getting the year started off. And I
    think that we might be able to do something. There is some interest
    there in doing something.
        Now, some of the Republicans said they wanted to do a very limited
    program only for very low income seniors, and the problem for that, as I
    said, is that half the people that can't get coverage are above 150
    percent of the poverty line. If you've got a substantial drug bill and

    [[Page 418]]

    you're 75 years old and you're living on $15,000, that's not all that
    much money.
        Look, this is, again, this is like this gun issue. This is something
    that, if we want to get an agreement that moves the American people
    forward and makes this a more just and a more healthy society, we can
    get an agreement. Everybody wanted an agreement in '96 on welfare
    reform. We got it. We wanted an agreement on the minimum wage. We got
    it. We wanted an agreement on the balanced budget in '97, which had
    substantial tax cuts that benefited middle class American families, and
    we got it. If they want an agreement, we'll sit down, and we'll work
    through this, and we'll get an agreement. We can do this.
        Q. Will the pressures of an election year work for or against
    getting something done on prescription drugs?
        The President. I think, on balance, in favor, if we all work at it.
    That is--that's what I think. Do you agree with that? I'm not--see, I
    haven't given up on Medicare reform yet. I haven't given up on getting
    big things done here.

    Minimum Wage Legislation

        Q. Mr. President, do you think that most Republicans who do vote for
    a higher minimum wage will do so confident in the knowledge that you
    would veto the bill, and that, in fact, they don't really want the
    higher minimum wage?
        The President. First of all, I've always been reluctant in politics
    to evaluate other people's motives. I think you have to judge their
    actions and evaluate what they do. I think it's a very hazardous thing,
    talking about people's motives. But my belief is based on what I have
    heard said, is, I think some of them may be doing that, and some of them
    may really believe in both the weakening of worker protections that's in
    this bill and the shape and structure of their tax cut.
        But I have to add up all these tax cuts they're passing, as well as
    evaluate them on the merits, and as I said, I can't allow one group of
    American working people to be pitted against another. I don't think a
    price for raising the minimum wage should be weakening worker
    protections for others in the work force.
        So they may believe these things, but I don't, and I can't let it
    happen. I don't think it's right. And so if they believe in the minimum
    wage, the best thing to do is to send a straightforward minimum wage
    bill. If they want tax relief for small business, the best thing to do
    is sit down and negotiate with us, and we'll give it to them, but it
    will be at a more affordable level in a more targeted way. But it will
    be very helpful, generous, and positive. So I'd like to see that done.
        But it's not just me--the Congress, the Democrats in Congress have
    offered a small business tax relief package that I thought was quite
    good and one that wouldn't undermine our goal of paying the debt off and
    having the funds to save Social Security and Medicare.
        Thank you.

    Judicial Nomination

        Q. Mr. President, do you have anything to say to Congress on the
    Paez vote?
        The President. It's time, he's waited
    long enough. It's 4 years, and it must be a happy day for all of us. I
    hope that, and I believe, we have the votes.

    Note: The President spoke at 11:50 a.m. on the South Grounds at the
    White House. In his remarks, he referred to minimum wage earner Cheryl
    Costas; Cuban youth Elian Gonzalez, rescued off the coast of Florida on
    November 25, 1999, whose custody the Immigration and Naturalization
    Service decided in favor of his Cuban father; former Senator Bill
    Bradley; former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif of Pakistan; and Richard A.
    Paez, nominee, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. A reporter
    referred to Gen. Pervez Musharraf, army chief of staff, who led a coup
    d'etat in Pakistan on October 12, 1999. A portion of the exchange could
    not be verified because the tape was incomplete.