[Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: WILLIAM J. CLINTON (2000, Book I)]
[June 14, 2000]
[Pages 1143-1146]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]
[[Page 1143]]
Remarks on Proposed Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Legislation and
an Exchange With Reporters
June 14, 2000
The President. Good afternoon. Senator Daschle, Representative Gephardt,
Secretary Shalala, and I have just met with
these leaders of organizations representing America's seniors, people
with disabilities, and community pharmacists. We spoke about the great
need for Congress to give all Medicare beneficiaries an affordable
prescription drug option. We spoke about the merits and the shortfalls
of new legislative proposals on prescription drugs now emerging in the
House.
Funding for Enforcement of Gun Laws
Before I go into the details of the discussions this morning, I want
to briefly touch on another pressing priority before the House, funding
for enforcement of our gun laws.
For years, the Republican leadership has emphasized the importance
of enforcing our gun laws as a reason for opposing other commonsense gun
safety measures. Yet they have failed so far to put their money where
their words are. Today a House appropriations committee appears to be on
the verge of approving a bill that absolutely guts our administration's
proposal for the largest gun enforcement initiative in history.
Incomprehensible though it may be, their bill fails to provide any
funding at all to hire 1,000 new State and local gun prosecutors to help
take gun criminals out of our communities and put them behind bars. It
undermines our efforts to replicate the success of Richmond's Project
Exile, another key initiative the Republicans have always said they
support. And it fails to provide funding to expand research and
development of smart gun technology.
I ask the Republican leadership to reverse the current course, to
live up to the rhetoric, to fully fund the national gun enforcement
initiative.
Of course, no society can prevent every tragedy or outrage, but we
can save lives with a combination of new commonsense gun laws and
enhanced enforcement of the laws already on the books. We're going to
have to do this in a bipartisan manner, if it's going to get done, and
to recognize the American people want both strong enforcement and strong
prevention.
Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit
Now, back to prescription drugs. The American people here have also
made their intentions clear. Our seniors want affordable, dependable
coverage for the prescription medications that lengthen their lives and
improve its quality. That's the message we heard yesterday from Ruth
Westfall, a retired teacher from rural Idaho,
the message I heard from leaders I met with a few moments ago. That's
certainly what Senator Daschle and
Representative Gephardt are hearing from
their constituents and what they're fighting hard for up on the Hill.
All the leaders here today recognize that adding a voluntary
prescription drug benefit is not just the right thing to do; medically
speaking, it's the smart thing to do. No one creating the Medicare
program today would think of doing so without prescription drug
coverage. Prescription drugs now can accomplish what once could be done
only with surgery.
That's why we have proposed the comprehensive plan to provide a
prescription drug benefit that is optional and accessible to all our
seniors; a plan that ensures that all older Americans, no matter where
they live or how sick they are, will pay the same affordable premiums; a
plan that uses price competition, not price controls, to guarantee that
seniors will get the best prices; a plan that would cover catastrophic
drug costs, as well as regular drug bills; a plan that is part of an
overall effort to strengthen and modernize Medicare, so we won't have to
ask our children to shoulder the burden when the baby boomers retire.
There is growing bipartisan support for prescription drug action
this year, and that's good. But the leaders and advocates here today are
still concerned that the proposals the House Republicans are putting
forward later this week will not ensure that all seniors have an
affordable prescription drug option.
We have grave concerns because the Republican plan builds on the
already flawed private
[[Page 1144]]
Medigap insurance market. As recently as yesterday, the insurance
industry reiterated its belief that a Medigap insurance model simply
will not work for prescription drug coverage--the insurance industry,
itself, has said this repeatedly--and that private insurers will not
willingly participate in such a program. Even if some private insurers
do participate, the premiums inevitably will be higher than those under
a Medicare drug plan. Yesterday you heard Ruth Westfall say what I have
heard countless seniors say, that they can't afford the Medigap coverage
that presently is offered.
We have grave concerns because the Republican plan relies on a
trickle-down scheme that would provide a subsidy for insurers and not a
single dollar of direct premium assistance for middle class seniors. We
have grave concerns because the so-called choice model offered by the
Republicans breaks up the pooled power of seniors to purchase drugs at
the most affordable prices, forcing insurers to constrain costs by
restricting seniors' choice of drugs and choice of pharmacies.
Republicans and Democrats alike say they support an affordable drug
benefit for our seniors. But let's be clear. A private insurance model
simply cannot guarantee affordable coverage for all. To make the promise
of affordable coverage real for all older Americans, there must be a
true Medicare drug option.
If the proposal the Republicans release later this week gives all
seniors the ability to choose an affordable, defined, fee-for-service
drug benefit under Medicare, even if it's just one of several options,
that could certainly serve as a foundation for a bipartisan agreement on
this issue. But anything less would be an empty promise.
Working together, reaching across the aisle, we can use this time of
unparalleled prosperity to do the right thing by our seniors. We should
do it this year for their sake and for the sake of the future of
Medicare.
Now, I would like to introduce Martha McStein, the incoming chair of the Leadership Council of Aging
Organizations, the president of the National Committee to Preserve
Social Security and Medicare. Ms. McStein was Acting Commissioner of the
Social Security Administration during the Reagan administration, after a
very distinguished 39-year career with the agency. In 1965 she served as
one of the first regional administrators of the Nation's then new
Medicare program. Today she's here to speak about why it is so important
that we modernize Medicare with an affordable prescription drug benefit
for all.
Martha.
[At this point, Ms. McStein, Representative
Richard A. Gephardt, and Senator Thomas
A. Daschle made brief remarks.]
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Q. Mr. President, let me ask you about Los Alamos, sir. Are you
satisfied with the explanations you've had to date about the missing
computer disks?
The President. First of all, this is a very serious issue, and I
think what we have to do is to get an answer. I'm gratified that Senator
Baker and former House Foreign Affairs
Committee Chairman Hamilton are going to
look into this. The FBI is looking into it. And I think it's very
important that it be treated as a serious matter and that the
investigation continue.
Trofimoff Espionage Case
Q. Mr. President, what have you been told about this arrest in
Florida today in this new espionage case and the extent of the damage
alleged to U.S. national security interests?
The President. Nothing yet.
Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit
Q. Mr. President, on prescription drugs, you announced a couple
weeks ago, with Mr. Hastert, an urban renewal bill that you said had
worked out in a very bipartisan manner. Have you made any effort to
address prescription drugs in a bipartisan manner to bring to the table?
The President. Sure. Sure. And I've talked to them, and I still
have some hope we can do it. But so far, they're philosophically
opposed, apparently, to a program that's run through Medicare, number
one, and number two, that is made available to all seniors. And the
problem is, if you only make it available to seniors below a certain
income ceiling, like 150 percent of poverty, you leave about half the
seniors out who really need it, number one. And number two, as I said,
the Medigap programs that are out there now are not particularly
affected. There are lots of Americans that cannot afford the private
Medigap insurance that's offered now.
[[Page 1145]]
So if you go back and look at my statement carefully, I tried to
offer another olive branch. I said, if we would have--if they want to
offer a number of options to people, and one of those options is a true
Medicare program that is available at the same price to all seniors,
then we could talk and we could do some business. And I still hope we
can have a compromise. I don't want to be uncompromising, but neither do
I want to hold out a false hope to the seniors. I don't want to tell
them we're doing something when we're not doing it.
So part of this is perhaps a philosophical difference, but what I
suggested in my remarks is that maybe we could come up with an agreement
where they let our plan be available, and we let some other plans be
available, and we just see which one worked better.
Middle East Peace Process
Q. Mr. President, you're meeting tomorrow with Chairman Arafat. Has
anything in the talks this week led you to believe that the Israelis and
Palestinians may be closer to a Camp-David-style summit, and will that
be on the agenda tomorrow?
The President. Well, obviously, I've never ruled that out, but I
think we need to get the parties a little closer before we can go there.
We don't have a lot of time. We're down to all the hard issues now, and
we're working on it. I'm hopeful, but I don't want to hold out false
hopes. I don't know that I can tell you anything other than that I think
we are making steady progress. We've seen the narrowing of some of the
gaps, but I don't know that we're ready to have the final meeting yet.
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Q. One more on Los Alamos. Are you still confident in Secretary
Richardson's leadership in the Energy Department?
The President. Yes. I think since the review was done before the
general security problems, that the Energy Department has done a lot to
improve the overall procedures. But we don't have the answers we need on
this issue. This is a very serious issue, and that's why the FBI's
looking into it and why I have asked Senator Baker and Representative Hamilton
to look into it, as well. I think they're both widely respected as
experts in the area and also as being fair-minded.
So I think we'll get some more indications there. We've just got to
see this through. It's a serious matter, and I don't think any of us
need to be characterizing anything until we know what happened.
Korean Summit
Q. What did you think of the Korean summit, sir?
The President. I'm very, very pleased. You know, for years--as long
as I've been here, anyway--I've tried to get the North Koreans to speak
with the South Koreans without an intermediary, including the United
States. So I'm very pleased by this, and I think the communique is
hopeful.
Now, they've got a lot of work to do, and it's just a first step,
but it's clearly a move in the right direction. And everyone else in the
world should be encouraged by this. This is a good thing.
Q. [Inaudible]--think it's significant that the two heads----
Q. Does this arrest in Moscow, sir, raise questions about Mr. Putin
and his commitment to press freedom?
The President. Excuse me, I'm sorry. On that, I think we can't know
yet. They talked about family reunifications. That's a huge first step.
That's a good thing.
Now, go ahead.
Freedom of the Press in Russia
Q. The arrest in Moscow, sir, of the media critic of Mr. Putin--
does that raise questions in your mind about his commitment to press
freedoms?
The President. Well, I made a very strong statement when I was in
Moscow about this, and I think, in a way, if anybody ought to have
credibility to defend the freedom of the press, I should. [Laughter] So
I did, and I will continue to.
If there is some other reason for the arrest--I don't know what the
facts are, I don't think we necessarily know all the facts, but I do not
believe people should be arrested solely because of what they say in
exercising their role as members of the press. I don't believe that. And
I think the United States has to take a very firm position on that. I do
not believe democracy is weakened by dissent, even if it is unfair and
sometimes even if it's false, because I think in
[[Page 1146]]
the end, if the debate is open, the people usually get it right. That's
why our democracy is still around here after over 200 years.
Thank you.
Note: The President spoke at 2:55 p.m. in the Roosevelt Room at the
White House. In his remarks, he referred to former Senator Howard H.
Baker, Jr., and former Representative Lee H. Hamilton, appointed to lead
a Presidential Commission to investigate possible security breaches at
the Los Alamos National Laboratory; and Chairman Yasser Arafat of the
Palestinian Authority. Reporters referred to Col. George Trofimoff, USA
(Ret.), who was arrested in Florida on June 14 and charged with
espionage; Vladimir Gusinsky, head of Russian holding company Media-
Most, owner of Ekho Moskvy radio, who was arrested on June 13 and
charged with embezzlement; and President Vladimir Putin of Russia.