[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 36, Number 10 (Monday, March 13, 2000)]
[Pages 498-503]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
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

[[Page 499]]

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 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

[[Page 500]]

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 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

[[Page 501]]

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 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 thing 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.

[[Page 502]]

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 
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

[[Page 503]]

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 Cheryl Costas, minimum wage 
earner; former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif of Pakistan; and Richard A. 
Paez, nominee, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. A portion of 
the exchange could not be verified because the tape was incomplete.