[Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: WILLIAM J. CLINTON (2000, Book II)]
[July 26, 2000]
[Pages 1469-1474]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]



Remarks on Fiscal Responsibility and an Exchange With Reporters
July 26, 2000

    The President. For more than 7 years now, our Nation has stuck to a 
course of fiscal discipline, making tough choices that have resulted in 
the elimination of record deficits, investing in our people, and paying 
down our debt.
    Clearly, the strategy is paying off. It has given us the longest 
economic expansion in our history, over 22 million new jobs, and the 
largest budget surplus in history. Now, we have the chance to pass 
responsible tax cuts, continue to pay off the national debt, and keep 
our prosperity going.
    Instead of following the path that got us here, congressional 
Republicans want America to take a U-turn. Over the past 2 weeks, they 
have pushed through a series of expensive tax bills,

[[Page 1470]]

one after another. They've been in a rush to get these bills passed 
before their convention, but they've been in no rush to get them to my 
desk, because they fear what will happen when the American people have a 
chance to add them all up and do the math.
    Taken together, Republican tax bills now stacking up from this 
Congress would cost nearly $2 trillion over 10 years. By our accounting, 
that would put America back into deficits. Even by their own rosy 
scenario, the Republican tax bills consume every dime of the surplus the 
American people have worked so hard to create. That's what this chart 
shows.
    However you add it up, a $2 trillion tax plan is too big, too 
reckless, too irresponsible. It leaves nothing for lengthening the life 
of Social Security and Medicare to make provision for the baby boomers' 
retirement. It leaves nothing for adding a prescription drug benefit to 
Medicare. It leaves nothing for greater investment in education or the 
environment or science and technology or health. It would make it 
impossible for us to get America out of debt by 2012.
    Now, if the congressional Republicans truly think these tax cuts are 
good policy, instead of just good politics, they should put them 
together and send them down to me right now, before they break for their 
convention. Then the American people can add up the costs and draw their 
own conclusions. But if they adjourn for the summer and the bills aren't 
on my desk, the American people will know that they're playing politics 
with our surpluses.
    Remember something else--and this is very important--these are 
projected surpluses. It's not money we have now but money we might have 
over the next 10 years. Think about it. If you got one of those 
sweepstakes envelopes from Ed McMahon in the mail saying you may have 
won $10 million, would you go out and spend it? Well, if you would, you 
should support their tax plan, but if you wouldn't, you should think 
again because that's what the congressional Republicans want us to do, 
commit right now to spend all the money that we might get over the next 
10 years.
    In good conscience I cannot sign one of these tax breaks after 
another without any coherent strategy for safeguarding our future and 
meeting our other national priorities. At this rate, there will be no 
resources left for extending the life of Social Security and Medicare, 
for adding a real prescription drug benefit to Medicare, for investing 
in education, or for getting us out of debt. And getting us out of debt 
will keep interest rates low and keep our economy growing. That could 
give the American people the biggest tax cut of all.
    Lower interest rates, in a way, are the biggest tax cut we can give 
to most Americans. Because of the deficit and debt reduction already 
achieved, the average American family--listen to this--the average 
American family is already paying $2,000 less a year in mortgage 
payments, $200 less a year in car payments, and $200 less a year in 
student loan payments.
    If we keep interest rates just one percent lower over 10 years, 
which is about what my Council of Economic Advisers thinks we'll do if 
we keep paying down the debt instead of giving it all away in tax cuts, 
homeowners--listen to this--homeowners will save $250 billion over the 
next 10 years in lower home mortgage rates alone. That's $850 a family a 
year in lower mortgage payments.
    And then to see what people are getting, you would have to add 
proportionally lower car payments, lower college loan payments. And of 
course, with lower interest rates, businesses will be able to borrow 
more easily and invest more, creating more jobs to sustain our 
prosperity. The more you do the math the less sense the Republican tax 
plan makes.
    Consider this: The typical middle class family will get $220 a year 
from the tax cuts the Republicans have passed this year--just the ones 
they've passed this year, not in this Congress. If interest rates went 
up because of the Republican plan one-third of one percent, just one-
third of one percent, then that average family's mortgage payments would 
go up by $270, completely wiping out the tax cut and leaving the average 
family worse off than they were before. It does not have to be that way.
    I have proposed tax cuts to give middle class Americans more 
benefits than the tax bills the Republicans have passed at less than 
half the cost. Two-thirds of the relief of our proposal will go to the 
middle 60 percent of Americans, including our targeted marriage penalty 
tax relief.
    Our tax cuts would also help send our children to college with a tax 
deduction for up to $10,000 in college tuition a year, help to care for 
sick family members with a $3,000 long-term care tax credit, help to pay 
for child care and to ease the burden on working families with

[[Page 1471]]

three or more children, to pay for desperately needed school 
construction.
    And because our plan will cost substantially less than the tax cuts 
passed by the Congress, we'll still have enough money--and this is 
critical--we'll still have enough money left to provide a Medicare 
prescription drug benefit, to extend the life of Social Security and 
Medicare, to pay for the baby boomers' retirement, and to stay on track 
to be debt-free by 2012, and I might add, to keep interest rates lower 
so that we'll have billions of dollars in lower home mortgages, car 
payments, and college loan payments.
    We should have tax cuts this year. But they should be the right 
ones, targeted to working families to help our economy grow, not tax 
bills so big they put our prosperity at risk. Now, we've tried it our 
way for 8 years, and we've tried it their way for several years before 
then. I say to Congress, stop passing tax bills you know I'll have to 
veto; start working together with us on a balanced budget that cuts 
taxes for middle class families, continues to pay off the national debt, 
and invests in America's future.
    Over the last 7 years, our country has overcome tremendous odds to 
create a moment of unprecedented prosperity and promise. But how we 
respond to good fortune is as stern test of our values, our judgment, 
and our character as a nation as how we deal with adversity. I think 
we'll meet the challenge, and when we do, we'll ensure that America's 
best years are still to come.
    Thank you.
    Q. Are you still going to veto each of the bills if the Republicans 
did send them down to you?
    The President. That is my plan. You know, a lot of these bills, 
individually, have a lot of appeal; I'm sure they do. And maybe, 
collectively, they have a lot of appeal until you know what they cost. 
But it's obvious that if you look at the income tax bill they passed 
last year and all these bills they're passing this year, together, they 
just eat up the projected surplus.
    And let me say, the projected surplus is based on not only--let me 
just make a few more points to you. The projected surplus is based not 
only on, I believe, a very rosy scenario by them, a somewhat less 
optimistic scenario from us; it's also based on an assumption of 
spending which assumes that Federal spending will grow less than the 
economy will grow over the next 10 years, which is, at least if you look 
at the record of even the Republican Congress over the last 4 years, a 
highly questionable assumption.
    So keep in mind, this is before they spend money for anything, 
before they pay for their proposed national missile defense, before they 
pay for the promises being made in this national campaign on the 
domestic side, before they may decide that, at least for the things they 
like to spend money on, like highways and things, they want the spending 
to grow as fast as the economy grows.
    This is a prescription, make no mistake about it, for going back to 
the economic policy of the past and going back to higher interest rates, 
and higher interests rates which will take away the benefit of the tax 
cut to the vast majority of Americans and undermine the long-term 
economic strength of the country. I know that it's not as appealing in 
an election year, maybe, but we're right to pay the debt down. We need 
to keep getting America out of debt. We need to get rid of it. It's the 
right thing to do for the young people of the country.
    Q. Do the increased projected surpluses make it harder for you to 
make this case with every headline saying we're going to see this much 
more than we thought? Does that make it more difficult for you to argue 
that there is no room for these tax cuts?
    The President. Well, again, I think in the beginning it does. That's 
why I'm here making the argument. But it doesn't change the reality. If 
you look at the projected surplus, just look at the spending levels 
alone, the projected surplus is based on, by the Congressional Budget 
Office, and then just--but the main thing I want to say is, once you put 
these tax cuts in, they're in. They're not like spending bills. You 
know, if Congress wants to spend money, they come in next year, and they 
spend money again.
    So if the money turns out to be--let's suppose they spend money in 
2001, and they've got a 5-year program. But in 2002 the revenues tail 
off; well, they don't have to appropriate as much money. They can always 
cut back on spending. But once you put the tax cuts in, they're in. It's 
a lot harder to say, ``Well, I made a mistake. I think I'll raise 
taxes.''
    So there should be a tax cut. No one questions that there should be 
a tax cut. The question is, how big should it be and who should

[[Page 1472]]

be helped by it and what are the other interests the country has? We 
shouldn't mislead the American people about our obligations to keep 
interest rates low, because almost all Americans will be hurt more by 
higher interest rates than they can possibly be helped by any of these 
proposed tax cuts. And we shouldn't mislead the American people about 
the money we think the Congress is really going to have to spend.
    This takes into account--what if we have in the next 10 years a 
bunch of farm emergencies, like we've had for the last 3? Let's go back 
and look at the extra money we've poured into spending on agriculture 
alone in the last 3. And if you were in Congress, wouldn't you want to 
at least see education spending grow at the rate of the economy growing? 
And look at the commitments they've made there.
    And so I'd just tell you, the idea that we would say, ``Okay, here's 
the surplus. Now let's pass tax cuts which take it all away, and never 
mind what might happen to the revenues, and never mind what new 
investments we might have to make as a country that we don't even know 
about now for the next 10 years''--I think it's very troubling.

Dick Cheney

    Q. Mr. President.
    The President. Yes.
    Q. Do you think Governor Bush played it safe in choosing Dick Cheney 
as a running mate? And would you advise Vice President Gore to similarly 
play it safe in choosing his running mate?
    The President. Well, first of all, I don't know--I think the most 
important thing about that decision is that it will--and everything I 
know about Mr. Cheney, personally, I like. I actually was kind of 
pleased by the decision, because there's no question that he has many 
years of experience in the Congress and in the previous Bush 
administration.
    But the thing I liked about it was, it further clarified the choices 
for the American people, and I think that's important. I think the most 
important thing you want out of any election is that the voters 
understand what they're doing when they vote, and they understand that 
there are consequences to their vote. And it further clarifies that 
there are significant choices here to be made. There are big differences 
on the environment, on gun safety, on a woman's right to choose, on 
civil rights enforcement, and on economic policy. That's what I think 
the election ought to be about.
    I think this ought to be a positive election where people say good 
things about their opponents, personally, and say they have honest 
differences. And I think having Mr. Cheney coming on the ticket will 
help to clarify that there are big, profound differences between the 
two leaders and 
the tickets, and that those differences will have real consequences for 
the country. And I think because he's a good man, we can further 
dispense with the 20 years of politics of personal destruction and focus 
on the differences between the people that are running and the parties 
and how it will change life in America.
    So I think anything that clarifies the debate, lifts it up, focuses 
it on the issue differences, is positive. And there are real, huge 
differences, and I think this will help to clarify them, and I think 
that's positive.

Recess Appointments

    Q. Mr. President, you've complained that Congress has been slow to 
act on your appointments for judgeships and ambassadorial posts. If they 
don't act, do you feel in a mood to do this by recess appointments?
    The President. Well, first, I have made no decision on this. I 
haven't made any kind of--I haven't had a meeting about it. As you know, 
I've been otherwise occupied the last couple of weeks. I'd like to begin 
by just citing the record here.
    I have bent over backwards to respect the constitutional senatorial 
appointment process. The record will reflect that I have made less use 
of recess appointments than either President Bush or President Reagan, 
even when I had a Republican Senate the way they had Democratic Senates. 
I think the record will reflect that I have shown more restraint in 
that, even when I've had a little more partisan differences with the 
Senate than they did on the appointments process--my predecessors.
    So I have shown a reluctance to make robust use of that option. And 
I just have--to be perfectly candid, I've been so absorbed with other 
things, I have not--I don't even know for sure what my options are, 
what's out there, what irrevocable consequences could result if I don't 
use it during this session, in terms of unfairness to particular 
individuals or to the public interest. So I've just got to look at the 
facts and make

[[Page 1473]]

a judgment. But I have not made a decision yet.
    Q. It does sound like your patience is running out it, though.
    The President. No, but I really haven't made a judgment on this. 
I've never been--if you just look at the record here, I have not been a 
big user of recess appointments, because I respect the whole process by 
which the Senate reviews these things, even when I think it's been 
strained. But I honestly haven't made a decision yet. I just have to 
look and see what the options are.

Middle East Peace Process

    Q. On the Middle East, Mr. President, the Palestinians are saying 
the deal on the table on Jerusalem is just not doable. If that's the 
case, how can there ever be a compromise?
    The President. Well, first of all, let me try to frame this in a way 
that I think that the Palestinians and the Israelis, and I would hope 
other friends of peace around the world, would think about it. We all 
know how hard Jerusalem is because it goes to the sense of identity of 
both the Palestinian and the Israeli people, and in a larger sense, the 
adherence of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity all around the world.
    In a sense, therefore, the city of Jerusalem is not just 
Yerushalayim for the Israelis and Al-Quds for the Palestinians. It is a 
holy place that reaches beyond even the geographical boundaries of the 
city.
    If there is to be an agreement here, it must be one which meets the 
legitimate interests of both parties. And that requires a certain 
imagination and flexibility of defining those interests and then 
figuring out an institutional and legal framework for them that, 
frankly, just takes more time and more reflection and probably less 
pressure than was available in our 15 days at Camp David.
    But in any negotiation, it must be possible for both sides to say 
they got most of what they wanted and needed, that they were not routed 
from the field, that there was honorable compromise. And so, therefore, 
the issues cannot be framed in a ``you have to lose in order for me to 
win, and in order for you to win, I have to lose'' framework. If they 
are like that, you're correct, then we can never reach an agreement.
    But I have spent a great deal of time, obviously, not only studying 
about this but listening to the two sides talk about it, think about it, 
and looking at all the options available for a potential resolution of 
it. And all I can tell you is, I'm convinced that if the issue is 
preserving the fundamental interests of the Palestinians and the 
Israelis and the genuine sanctity of the Muslim, Christian, and Jewish 
interest in the Holy City, then I think we can do that. I just do. But 
we couldn't do it in the 15 days we were there.
    The decision that will have to be made is whether there is a way--
for example, in this case, you mentioned the Palestinians--for the 
Palestinians to win their fundamental interest without also winning the 
right to say they have routed the Israelis, or whether there's a way for 
the Israelis to protect their fundamental interests without also winning 
the right to say they have stuck it to the Palestinians. I believe there 
is, and we're going to explore how we might persuade them, all of them, 
that there is and where we go from here.
    And I hope that just this kind of thing I've been talking about will 
spark a whole range of ``oh'' articles in the press, commentators on the 
TV programs, other people talking and thinking this way, trying to be 
innovative and open and--you know, I realize the incredible pressure 
these people were under in even having this discussion. That is, in the 
end, why I realized we couldn't get it done in 2 weeks. You've got to 
get used to talking about something for a little bit before you can then 
entertain how you can create an edifice that you hadn't previously 
imagined. And I think we'll be able to do it.
    Q. How long are you going to wait before you give it another shot?
    The President. Well, it depends. I can't answer that. I've tried to 
make the judgments here for 8 years based on what I thought would aid 
the process, and I can't yet tell, Mark, [Mark Knoller, CBS Radio] what 
would be most in aid of the process. I just can't tell yet.
    Thank you.

Note: The President spoke at 2:10 p.m. in the Roosevelt Room at the 
White House. In his remarks, he referred to Publishers Clearing House 
Sweepstakes spokesperson Ed McMahon; and Republican Presidential 
candidate Gov. George W. Bush of Texas.

[[Page 1474]]