[Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: WILLIAM J. CLINTON (2000, Book I)]
[June 22, 2000]
[Pages 1208-1212]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]



Remarks on Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit and Tobacco Litigation 
Legislation and an Exchange With Reporters
June 22, 2000

    The President.  Good morning. Before I leave, I would like to make a 
couple of comments about two questions now before Congress: first, 
whether to provide a voluntary prescription drug benefit to Medicare 
beneficiaries; and second, whether to hold tobacco companies, not 
taxpayers, accountable for the costs of tobacco.
    Both issues require a bipartisan response. Both are important to the 
health of our people. Both require Congress look for the public 
interest, not the special interest. That's especially true when it comes 
to our seniors and their need for affordable, dependable prescription 
drug coverage. I have proposed that all our seniors have that option 
through Medicare, wherever they live, however sick they may be.
    Now, Republicans in Congress say they, too, want a prescription drug 
benefit. They've even hired pollsters, according to your reports, to 
teach them all kinds of new words to convince the American people they 
are in favor of it. But the latest plan doesn't measure up to the 
rhetoric.
    Last night, in a completely party-line vote, the House Ways and 
Means Committee approved a private insurance benefit that many seniors 
and many people with disabilities simply will not be able to afford. 
It's a benefit for

[[Page 1209]]

the companies who make the drugs, not the seniors who need them most. 
Moreover, their bill would do nothing for the hospitals, home health 
care agencies, and other providers who clearly need extra help to 
provide quality care under the Medicare program.
    I hope when the full House considers this issue, it will reject this 
false promise and vote instead for a proposal that provides a real and 
meaningful Medicare prescription drug benefit on a voluntary basis, but 
one that is affordable and available to all seniors who need it.
    If the House acts to protect the public health, it would be 
following the fine example it set earlier this week when it permitted 
the Department of Veterans Affairs to help to fund the Justice 
Department's litigation against the tobacco companies. This modest 
investment of VA funds can help our veterans and other taxpayers recover 
billions of dollars in health care costs, a substantial sum that will 
improve health care for veterans and for all Americans.
    This shows what we can accomplish when we put the public interest 
ahead of special interests, the public interest ahead of partisan 
disputes. But it's only a first step. Today the House can move further 
ahead if it votes to allow the Justice Department to receive these and 
other funds.
    Tuesday's victory for veterans and taxpayers will prove to be hollow 
if today the House reverses itself. The tobacco companies and their 
powerful allies in Congress are working overtime to pass special 
protections to shield them from financial responsibility for the harm 
they've caused. So again I ask Congress, just let the American people 
have their day in court. The legal responsibility of the tobacco 
companies should be decided by judicial process, not by the political 
process.
    The health of our people is a precious resource. Those of us in 
public life should be doing everything we can to work together, whether 
we're working to provide affordable prescription drug coverage or to 
demand accountability for the health care costs of tobacco. In the days 
and months ahead, I will continue to work with members of both parties 
to achieve these goals.
    Thank you very much.

Gasoline Prices

    Q.  Sir, on gasoline prices, the Vice President was very direct and 
forthright yesterday, sir, in his accusations that there is collusion 
among the oil companies to inflate prices. Do you share those 
sentiments, and what are your thoughts on this becoming a preeminent 
issue in the Presidential campaign?
    The President.  Well, first of all, let's look at the problem here. 
This is a big problem, because there are a lot of Americans that have to 
drive to make a living. They have to drive distances just to make a 
living. Then you've got all these truckers out there that have to pay 
big fuel costs to make a living. And something that there hasn't been a 
lot of talk about, but if this thing can't be moderated, it's also going 
to have, I think, quite a burdensome impact on the airline companies, on 
the cost of air travel. So this is going to rifle throughout our 
economy.
    I have said repeatedly, and I will say again, I think that it is in 
the best interest of the people of the United States, but also the oil-
producing companies, to have oil prices somewhere in the neighborhood of 
$20 to $25 a barrel. That gives them the revenues they need. It keeps 
the incentives in our economy to continue to become more energy 
efficient, and it doesn't bankrupt people that have to have fuel in 
substantial quantities. So this is a big problem.
    Now, I have a lot of concerns about the speed with which this runup 
occurred. I expected some upward pressure on prices because our economy 
is doing well and because the Asian economy is coming back, the European 
economy is coming back, so there would be a bigger global demand for oil 
and there would be some upward pressure. But it doesn't explain, by a 
long stretch, the dramatic increase in prices. Neither does the 
requirement for special additives to reduce air pollution even come 
close to explaining the increase in the Chicago-Milwaukee area. We're 
talking about 2 or 3 cents a gallon for the environmental requirements, 
and that won't come close to explaining prices that are 50 cents a 
gallon higher than they are in other places.
    So the proper thing to do, I think, is to have a vigorous inquiry by 
the Federal Trade Commission; they're going to do this. If you've 
noticed, there's some indication that the best evidence to support the 
statement the Vice President made is that 2 
days after the call went out for the Federal Trade Commission to 
investigate this, there was a 16-cent-a-gallon

[[Page 1210]]

drop in the price of the oil at the refinery level. Now, that hasn't 
manifested itself at the pump yet, because it takes time for this oil to 
be refined and to be distributed and to be sold as fuel. But I'm very 
concerned about it.
    Let me say, I guess the followup question--and I don't want to 
anticipate it, but you know, there are all these stories about, well, is 
this or is this not a political issue, and who does it help or hurt? And 
I think the important thing is, this country should have a bipartisan or 
a nonpartisan interest in a long-term, stable energy policy, and there 
are several things the Congress can do right now to help that. And I 
would like to just go through them, because I mentioned several of them 
earlier this year.
    But let me just mention--first of all, you will remember I sent a 
proposal to Congress earlier this year to encourage more stripper well 
production in the United States. The Congress needs to pass that. We 
need to get some of these American wells back in operation now. The 
price will make it quite profitable, but we can do some things to jump-
start that.
    Secondly, the Congress still has not reauthorized the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve, which ties the President's hands; it undermines one 
of the options we have to maintain downward pressure on the oil prices 
but also to deal with any emergencies that might crop up.
    Thirdly, because of the failure to reauthorize the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve, there is a cloud over the question of whether we can 
establish a regional home heating oil reserve for the mid-Atlantic and 
the Northeastern States that rely so heavily on home heating oil. And if 
these prices in fuel are any indication and the oil prices stay above 
$30 a barrel, we're going to have serious problems in the Northeast this 
winter unless we have that reserve and we can move home heating oil in 
there in a hurry.
    So let me just go through a couple of other things. Fourthly, I have 
for years now asked the Congress to fund research and development into 
alternative energy, into the partnership for new generation vehicles. I 
have proposed for over 2 years a $4 billion set of tax incentives for 
manufacturers and consumers to buy energy-efficient cars, homes, and 
consumer products. I've proposed a total spending of $1.4 billion this 
year for the Department of Energy for renewable energy, for the 
development of natural gas, for distribution of power methodologies that 
will save consumers a lot of money. And on balance, Congress has 
approved about 12 percent of the funds I've asked to be spent for these 
things that will clearly lower energy bills and help the economy.
    And the last thing I would say is, for 2 or 3 years, I've had the 
electricity restructuring bill up there, that we estimate would save 
consumers in America $20 billion a year in energy costs by the more 
efficient distribution and sales of electricity.
    So there are things that the Congress can do, that I would hope they 
would do on a bipartisan basis and do quickly, that would help us to 
have a better long-term energy policy and would begin to show immediate 
benefits for a lot of people who could take advantage of these laws if 
we could just go ahead and pass them. So we need to do the stripper 
wells. We need to pass the tax incentives to buy more energy-efficient 
cars, homes, and other products, and we need to stop spending about 12 
percent a year of what we should be spending to develop alternative 
energy sources. And the electricity restructuring act needs to pass. So 
those are things we could do together in a bipartisan way to show 
movement.
    Meanwhile, we need an aggressive inquiry by the FTC. There is no 
economic explanation I can think of for the runup in the prices, 
particularly in the Middle West, and I want this thing to continue.

Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson

    Q.  Mr. President, Bill Richardson was grilled pretty badly 
yesterday by the Republicans, and even Senator Byrd, and they didn't 
make the Secretary feel very good yesterday. What do you think of the 
hearing, the way it's done, and do you still have full confidence in Mr. 
Richardson?
    The President.  Well, first of all, I think the short answer to your 
question is, yes, I do. He came in there and faced a whole host of 
problems, and I think that in every case he's dealt with them in a 
forthright and aggressive manner. They're getting to the bottom of this 
last issue, I think, pretty quickly with the help of good work by the 
FBI and others.
    But it's a very serious matter, so the administration should expect 
to be asked hard questions about it, and we should figure out not only 
what happened in this case but how to keep such things from happening in 
the future. You

[[Page 1211]]

have to expect that you'll have tough congressional hearings when you 
have something really serious. And I don't have a problem with a tough 
hearing, but I do have confidence in him. He's worked hard on this, 
trying to do the right thing.

China Trade Legislation

    Q.  Mr. President, what is your view of Senator Lott's handling of 
the China trade bill, and are you concerned that the delay is now 
endangering chances for final passage?
    The President.  I was very concerned when I heard that the delay 
might run into September. Now, I believe we have agreement, as you've 
seen reported and as you have reported, to bring up the China bill 
shortly after the Fourth of July recess. Obviously, I wish we could have 
voted on it before the Fourth of July recess, but there are some issues 
there. There are some Members in the Senate that want to offer 
amendments, just like in the House, and there's some work to be done.
    I met with a group of Senators yesterday, a bipartisan group, and 
we'll continue to work it hard. But I think we're on schedule now for a 
timely vote. And I had a good visit with Senator Lott about it, and I think we're on the same page. We're 
working together, and I look forward to a successful conclusion of this 
in July.

Midsession Review

    Q.  In the upcoming midsession review, with the additional budget 
surplus you're anticipating, are you planning to propose a speedup in 
the catastrophic coverage under your Medicare prescription drug plan?
    The President.  I'll have some more to say about that next week when 
we've got the formal numbers. But let me say, as you have reported, 
there will be some upward revision in the projections, and that's good 
news.
    I guess in this season we ought to be crowing about it. But we've 
come a long way over the last 8 years by being prudent. And one of the 
things that you can be sure I'll do is to reflect a recommendation that 
the Vice President made, that we wall off that portion of the surplus 
due to Medicare taxes like we've walled off that portion due to Social 
Security taxes so that we can pay down the debt more, and that would 
protect at least 20 percent of this projected surplus from either being 
spent or used on tax cuts.
    But I think the most important thing you should remember is, we 
don't have any of that money yet; that's what we think will happen. 
These are the--keep in mind, when I became President, they were 
forecasting a $400 billion budget deficit for this year alone. And we 
worked very hard to turn that around. We should invest more; we should 
have a substantial tax cut for our people focused on the things that are 
most needed. But we shouldn't remember what got us to the dance here. 
What got us to the dance, what got us to this unbelievable point to have 
this discussion at all, was discipline--fiscal discipline, arithmetic, 
being careful, understanding that a projection is just that.
    I think it would be a grave error to plan to spend every penny of 
this, particularly on tax cuts or other things that are so unavoidable 
because they may not get it back. Now, you can say, ``This is my plan 
for education,'' for example, and if the money doesn't come up, then you 
don't have to spend it. But if you spend all this in tax cuts or some 
other mandated fashion on the front end and it doesn't materialize, then 
you'll be right back into deficits, right back into higher interest 
rates. And I think, frankly, just the whole legislative process, if 
that's the track we're on, would lead to an immediate increase in 
interest rates which would slow the economy down and keep those 
surpluses from materializing.
    So my caution to everybody involved in this is prudence. We got here 
by being disciplined and prudent. Don't get off of that. Keep paying the 
debt down, and there will be more money than there would be if you tell 
everybody how you're going to spend it and then it doesn't show up.
    Q.  Won't there be greater room for debt reduction as well as 
greater tax relief and other changes?
    The President.  Yes, you can have both, but you can't--but I think 
it's a mistake to plan to spend it all. Because what are you going to do 
if it doesn't materialize--particularly if you plan to spend it all on 
the tax side, because if you do that and the money doesn't materialize, 
the tax cuts are still on the law.
    You can say, ``Well, if it comes, I would like to spend it on 
certain things,'' and then if it doesn't show up, you don't spend it, 
because we do the spending every year. So I'll have

[[Page 1212]]

more to say about it next week when we'll have more time to talk about 
it in detail.

Colombia

    Q.  Sir, on Colombia, after the Senate's endorsement last night of 
the appropriation, are you optimistic that you will get the funding for 
Operation Colombia before losing so much ground it will be impossible to 
make it back up?
    The President.  Well, first, I'd like to compliment the Senate and 
the bipartisan vote. I'm grateful for it. As you know, there were some 
differences in the Senate bill and the House bill, first of all, a not 
insubstantial financial difference--I think about $300 million over 2 
years--and then some differences in how the money would be allocated. 
But I'm encouraged that we could maybe get the differences between the 
Senate proposal and the House proposal worked out.
    The second part of your question is really a question that neither I 
nor anyone else is qualified to answer, that is, it requires conjecture. 
I think, as I've said all along, sooner is better than later. The 
quicker we can reach agreement and show that the United States is 
committed to democracy and to fighting the drug wars in Colombia and to 
strengthening the oldest democracy in Latin America, the better off 
we're going to be. The quicker we do it, the quicker the Colombians will 
be able to get Europeans and others who are very sympathetic with them 
to come in and do their part, the more appealing it will be for the 
international financial institutions.
    We haven't had a chance to talk about this much because there are so 
many other things going on. But those people, they're in the fight of 
their lives for their very way of life, with the combined pressure of a 
guerrilla war that's been going on for decades and the rise of the 
narcotraffickers over the last two decades.
    I don't think the average American can imagine what it would be like 
to live in a country where a third of the country, on any given day, may 
be in the hands of someone that is an enemy, an adversary of the nation-
state. I don't think we can even imagine what that would be like. Just, 
you know, driving through Washington, DC, and you've got a one-in-three 
chance of being in a neighborhood that your Government and the law of 
the land doesn't prevail in. This is a huge, huge issue. And again, I'm 
grateful to the Senate, and I'm grateful it was done on such a 
bipartisan basis, and we just need to get it done as quickly as 
possible.
    Now, on Monday or so, I'll be back with something on the midsession 
review, and we'll have a chance for more questions next week.
    Thank you.

 Note: The President spoke at 10 a.m. in the South Portico at the White 
House, prior to his departure for Phoenix, AZ.