[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 35, Number 40 (Monday, October 11, 1999)]
[Pages 1920-1922]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Remarks Prior to a Meeting With the National Security Team and an 
Exchange With Reporters

October 4, 1999

Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty

    The President. Is everybody in? I'd like to make a brief statement, 
and then I'll answer your questions.
    Our national security team is about to meet to discuss the 
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to end nuclear weapons testing forever. 
This is very important for protecting our people from the danger of 
nuclear war. That's why so many prominent Americans, including four 
former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, support it.
    For 2 years, the opponents in the Senate have blocked any 
consideration of the treaty. Now, we have been given just 8 days before 
the Senate vote. I will do all I can to get the treaty ratified.
    Our experts have concluded that we don't need more tests to keep our 
own nuclear forces strong. We stopped testing in 1992, and now we are 
spending $4.5 billion a year to maintain a reliable nuclear force 
without testing. Since we don't need nuclear tests, it is strongly in 
our interest to achieve agreement that can help prevent other countries, 
like India, Pakistan, Russia, China, Iran, and others, from testing and 
deploying nuclear weapons.
    The treaty will also strengthen our ability to monitor if other 
countries are engaged in suspicious activities, through global chains of 
sensors and onsite inspections, both of which the treaty provides for. 
This is a crucial decision the Senate is about to make that will affect 
the welfare of the American people well into the next century. I hope 
the American people will pay close attention to this, and I hope the 
Senate will pay close attention and that we will have a careful debate 
as much as possible within the time that's been allotted.
    Q. Mr. President, why do you think the Republicans handled this in 
the way they did and just said, ``Okay, let's go ahead and vote on it in 
a few days?'' And you've been pushing this for a long time. Why is it 
that you're so behind the eightball on getting the votes for it?
    The President. Well, we've been pushing it, but there has been no 
consideration of it. If you look at how other treaties have been handled 
in the past, you have 8 days of hearings in the Foreign Relations 
Committee, 12 days of hearings in the Foreign Relations Committee. The 
Democrats in the Senate were frustrated because the whole thing had been 
stonewalled. And finally, they said, ``Okay, you can have a debate and a 
vote right now or no vote at all.''
    So we decided we would take the ``right now'' and do our very best 
to do it. I don't want to speculate on other people's motives. We'll 
have to ask them why they decided to do it this way.
    Q. Mr. President, you need a lot of Republicans if you're going to 
pass this treaty. How many do you think you have right now?
    The President. I don't know. We don't have enough now; I hope we can 
get them. I think the critical thing is, if you look at all these--
anybody who expresses reservations, there can only be, it seems to me, 
two arguments against it. One is that we have to test and maintain our 
stockpile. And Secretary Richardson is here--the people at the energy 
labs and many other experts say that is absolutely not true. And we are 
spending $4.5 billion a year to make sure it's not true, that we can 
maintain the integrity of our stockpile.
    The other argument that we saw a version of in the press yesterday 
that I think is just a missing point is that maybe somebody,

[[Page 1921]]

somewhere, is doing a very small-scale test, and we won't pick it up. 
Well, the point I'd like to make about that is the following: Number 
one, if you get the really small test, they're hard to pick up. They're 
hard to pick up now; they'd be hard to pick up if this treaty is 
ratified. If this treaty is ratified, there are new tools to monitor the 
testing levels. We'll have monitoring stations; we can do onsite visits. 
There's the deterrent impact of a country signing and then getting 
caught violating it. So we'll have a lot more ability to pick up all 
kinds of testings at all levels and a lot more deterrent against it if 
we ratify the treaty than if we don't.
    There is another thing the American people need to think about and 
the Senate needs to think about. If any of the 44 original signatories 
of this treaty don't sign and don't ratify it, then it cannot enter into 
force. For decades, the United States has led the world against 
proliferation. If the United States Senate votes this treaty down, it 
would be a signal that the United States now wants to lead the world 
away from the cause of nonproliferation. We would be giving the green 
light to all these other people.
    We're not testing anyway. That's why Britain and France and nine 
other of our NATO Allies have already ratified this treaty. They 
understand this. That's why there is such overwhelming support for it. 
So it would be, in my judgment, a grave mistake not to ratify the 
treaty.

Chinese Nuclear Espionage

    Q. Mr. President, on a related matter, I'm sure you've been briefed 
that the FBI is sort of starting all over this week on the Chinese 
espionage investigation. Are you concerned now, looking back, about the 
way the investigation was handled?
    The President. I think the only thing I would say about that, I 
think the only appropriate thing for me to say is, number one, they 
ought to do whatever they can to find our whatever the truth is. Number 
two, this is another lesson that we should not assume anyone's guilt, 
ever. We should let the investigations take their course. And I think 
that's--we just have to support the proper--the investigative process.

Health Care Coverage

    Q. Mr. President, on health care, do the new numbers mean that 
you've failed in your effort to expand coverage to people who are not 
insured?
    The President. Well, first of all, they mean that the First Lady and 
I and all the rest of us were right in 1994 when we told you in 1994 
that if this were voted down, the insurance companies would continue to 
drop people and employers would because of the system we have. So what 
has happened is exactly what we said would happen.
    Now, what are we doing about it? We passed the 1997 Children's 
Health Insurance Program, but it was only this year that all the States 
finally signed up. I do believe you will see this year significant 
numbers of children enrolled in our Children's Health Insurance Program. 
And I've talked with Senator Kennedy and others in the Congress about 
what else we can do to try to get several million more children insured.
    Number two, I do believe that the Kennedy-Jeffords bill will pass 
this year which will allow people with disabilities to go into the work 
force and keep their health insurance, and that will be good.
    Number three, we have before the Congress and have had for 2 years a 
proposal to let people between the ages of 55 and 65, one of the biggest 
problem groups without insurance, buy into the Medicare program. That 
would help a lot if Congress would pass that. Some Republicans have said 
in the past that they favor that sort of approach. I would urge them to 
take another look at this. They ought to allow Medicare buy-in. It's the 
cheapest, least costly, least bureaucratic way for people in that age 
group to get insurance.
    And number four, we have granted to some innovative States waivers 
from the Medicaid program which they have used to let people who are 
lower income working people buy into Medicaid. If we can get some more 
States to do that, that can make a big difference.
    If you look at these numbers, you've got people between the ages of 
55 and 65, you've got people who have moved from welfare to work and 
then get jobs above the income level when they're eligible for Medicaid. 
Then you've got all these middle class people

[[Page 1922]]

who work for companies that are dropping health insurance. So I think we 
ought to keep working on these things. I certainly don't think we ought 
to give up. I do think you'll see the numbers improve with children over 
the next 2 years.
    I think that if we pass Kennedy-Jeffords, which I think we will, 
you'll see that improving. But we need the Medicaid buy-in and the 
Medicare buy-in for the older people and more States could solve this 
problem. We could give them the money through Medicaid waivers to let 
lower income working people buy into that. All those would make a big 
difference.
    Let me also finally say I'm glad to see that this has become a 
source of discussion in the Presidential campaign for the Democrats, and 
I'm proud that the candidates in my party are trying to do something 
about it, and I hope that we will continue to see this debated. But 
these numbers confirm exactly what the First Lady said in '94, and we 
have some specific things we can do about it if the Congress and the 
States will help, and I hope they will.

Note: The President spoke at 4:02 p.m. in the Cabinet Room at the White 
House. A tape was not available for verification of the content of these 
remarks.