[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 36, Number 20 (Monday, May 22, 2000)]
[Pages 1119-1125]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Remarks on Prescription Drug Coverage for Military Retirees and an 
Exchange With Reporters

May 16, 2000

Resignation of Helen Thomas

     The President. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Before we 
start, I would just like to say a few words of appreciation and respect 
about Helen Thomas, who has decided today to leave UPI after 57 years.
    Presidents come and go, but Helen's been here for 40 years now, 
covering eight Presidents and, doubtless, showing the ropes to countless 
young reporters and, I might add, more than a few press secretaries. I 
hope this change will bring new rewards and new fulfillment to her. 
Whatever she decides to do, I know I'll feel a little better about my 
country if I know she'll still be spending some time around here at the 
White House. After all, without her saying, ``Thank you, Mr. 
President,'' at least some of us might never have ended our news 
conferences.

Prescription Drug Coverage

    When I gave my State of the Union Address this year, I said that in 
good conscience we could not let another year pass without finding a way 
to offer voluntary prescription drug coverage to every older American. I 
think we're beginning to make progress toward that goal. And today I 
want to support one step in the right direction, a congressional 
proposal, scheduled for a vote this week in the House, to extend 
prescription drug coverage to all retired military personnel over 65.
    Keeping faith with men and women in America who have served in our 
armed forces is a sacred obligation for all of us. That's why we have 
raised military pay over 8 percent over the last 2 years, why we're 
working to provide our troops with better housing, and taking steps to 
improve access to medical care for all military personnel, families, and 
retirees. We asked them to risk their lives for freedom, and in return, 
we pledged our support.
    Part of that promise is a medical network that helps to provide 
prescription drugs at reasonable costs. Some senior retirees are able 
now to take advantage of that network. But they're out of reach for as 
many as three of four of them.
    This proposal would make sure that we meet our promise to more than 
one million older military retirees across the Nation, providing every 
single one of them with a prescription drug benefit, sharing with them 
the price discounts that the military negotiates with drug companies. At 
a time of unprecedented prosperity, there is no reason for military 
retirees to go without these prescription drugs that they need to live 
longer and healthier lives. We need to show them that they count, and 
they can count on us.
    This initiative is another step for finding a way to offer every 
older American voluntary prescription drug coverage and affordable 
prescription drugs. That ought to be our next goal, because today, more 
than three in five American seniors lack such coverage. Too many spend 
huge percentages of their income on prescription drugs. Too many have to 
choose every month between filling those prescriptions and filling 
grocery carts. Too many are simply not getting the medicine they need.
    If we were creating Medicare today, as I have said over and over and 
over again, we certainly would include a prescription drug benefit to 
give older Americans and people with disabilities access to the most 
cost-effective health care. Prescription drugs help to keep seniors 
mobile and healthy. They help to prevent expensive hospital stays and 
surgical procedures. They promote the dignity that every retired person 
is entitled to--the quality of life all of us want for our own parents. 
We should act this year to make sure all seniors have access to such 
coverage.
    In my budget, I proposed a comprehensive plan to provide a Medicare 
benefit that is optional, affordable, and available to all, based on 
price competition, not price controls; a plan to boost seniors' 
bargaining power to get the best prices possible, just as this military 
plan would; a plan that is part

[[Page 1120]]

of an overall effort to strengthen and modernize Medicare so that we 
won't have to ask our children to shoulder the burden of the baby 
boomers' retirement.
    I'm glad there is growing bipartisan support for providing this 
coverage to all beneficiaries. Both sides say they want to get it done. 
Unfortunately, I still believe that the proposals put forward by the 
congressional majority will not achieve the goal. They'd provide no 
assistance to middle income seniors, nearly half of all those who now 
lack coverage. They'd subsidize private insurance plans that the 
industry itself says it will not offer. This will not get the job done.
    But the bipartisan spirit of this proposal for military retirees 
shows us the way forward for all retirees. In reaching out to extend 
coverage to older military retirees, Congress has recognized that high 
prescription drug costs are a burden for every senior and that we owe 
every military retiree a dignified and healthy retirement.
    Both parties now have agreed that prescription drug coverage should 
be available and affordable to older Americans. We can, surely, come to 
an agreement on the details of how to do this. We all want our seniors, 
all of them, to live longer, healthier lives. And I'm very glad that 
here, as so often before, our armed forces are leading the way.
    Thank you very much.
    Q.  Mr. President, on----
    Q.  Mr. President, you----
    The President.  I'll take them both. Go ahead.
    Q.  Mr. President, you seem to be having a prescription drug event 
each week, now. Is it safe for us to assume that this is the one piece 
of what would be historical legislation--historic legislation--that you 
would like to sign on behalf of your legacy?
    The President.  No. It's safe for you to assume that I think there's 
a fair chance we could pass this, and I think it's the right thing to do 
for America. The Congress will have a chance to cast any number of 
profoundly important votes, including the vote on China and the trade 
relations. And I hope they'll do the right thing on each and every one.
    But you know, my philosophy has always been the same in election 
years as in off-years. I think that we owe it to the American people to 
govern, to do as much together as we can in good conscience, secure in 
the knowledge that no matter how much we get done there will still be 
significant areas of disagreement between the two parties, beginning 
with our Presidential candidates and extending to the Senate and the 
House candidates, on which we can have a marvelous election and a 
rousing debate.
    So, do I want to get this done? Absolutely, I do. But I want to do 
it because we have the money to do it now and we know how to do it and 
because the people need it.
    Go ahead.

Interest Rates

    Q.  Sir, on the economy, are you concerned that if the Fed 
Chairman's efforts to slow this economy down have the desired effect, it 
might negatively impact the Vice President's campaign going into the 
November election and really give the Republican challenger some 
ammunition to go after Mr. Gore with?
    The President.  No, because what we've done is to minimize inflation 
by paying down the debt and keeping our markets open. And I think that 
if anything, the Chairman of the Fed has made it clear that if you had a 
huge tax cut, it would cause even higher interest rate increases. So I 
think--you know, the Fed will do its job, and we will do ours. And I'm 
going to let them make whatever decision that Chairman Greenspan and the 
others think is warranted.
    But I think it should remind us all of the wisdom of continuing to 
pay down the debt, because the more we pay down the debt, the more we'll 
keep interest rates as low as they can, the more we'll keep inflation 
down. It's also a good argument for passing the normal trade relations 
with China and continuing to expand our trade.

2000 Presidential Election

    Q.  Mr. President----
    Q.  Mr. President--excuse me--poll after poll continues to show that 
Governor Bush is ahead of Vice President Gore. Do you think his campaign 
strategy, the Vice President's, is working?
    The President.  I don't want to comment on the campaign. It's a long 
time before it's

[[Page 1121]]

over, and I think that in these elections the fundamentals tend to take 
over, and the American people tend to take the measure of both the 
candidates, especially in the course of the debates. And you know, I 
trust them to make the decision. I don't have anything to comment about 
that.
    Q.  Sir, are you a registered voter in New York, sir?
    Q.  Mr. President, on----
    The President.  Go ahead, I'm sorry.

Permanent Normal Trade Relations With China

    Q.  Mr. President, on the Chinese vote, how are you doing? And could 
you elaborate on your statements of the other day that China could still 
get WTO membership, and the U.S. would be hurt if the Congress doesn't 
pass it?
    The President.  Sure. China could get into the WTO and will get into 
the WTO, but the United States would not be able to claim the benefits 
of the agreement we negotiated. So all those big cuts in agricultural 
tariffs, all that right to sell automobiles in China without putting 
plants up there or transferring technology, all the access to what will 
clearly be the biggest telecommunications market in the world--all those 
benefits we negotiated will go to the Europeans, the Japanese, and 
others who will be in a position to take advantage of them.
    So that, it seems to me, is clear. You can't--if they go in, they 
have to be accepted on membership terms that apply to everyone else, and 
that's fair, because we expect them to follow the rules that apply to 
everyone else. And therefore, any nation that withholds those membership 
terms doesn't get the benefit of the agreement that was negotiated. And 
it would be quite significant.
    Q.  How hard are you finding this China trade fight? And when you 
meet one-on-one with Democrats, are they saying they're just facing 
terrific pressure from the labor unions? Are you losing some of those 
one-on-ones? And what's your prediction for the outcome?
    The President.  I'm losing some and getting some. My view is that in 
the end it will pass, not only because the economic benefits are clear 
and overwhelming but in a larger sense, because the national security 
interests are so clear.
    Let me just say again, I think it's quite interesting that for all 
the differences the Taiwanese and the Chinese have had, and the tensions 
between them, everyone, beginning with the President-elect of Taiwan, 
wants us to approve China going into the WTO. Why is that? They think 
it's good for them economically, but in a larger sense, they think it 
will reduce tensions along the Taiwan Straits and maximize the chance 
that the Chinese and the people of Taiwan will have a chance to work out 
their differences in a peaceful way, which is consistent with over 20 
years of American policy. I think it's interesting that Martin Lee came 
all the way over here from Hong Kong, a man who cannot even legally go 
to China, who has never met the Premier of China, to say to us, we had 
to support this because China had to be brought into a system that 
extols the rule of law. And that was the beginning of liberty.
    I think it's interesting that Chinese dissidents in China, people 
who have been subject to abuses we would never tolerate in our country, 
whose phones have been tapped, who can't sponsor public events, still 
implore us to support this, because they know it is the beginning of the 
rule of law and change in China, and ironic that the people in China who 
do not want us to vote for this are those that hope they will have a 
standoff with us and continuing control at home, the more reactionary 
elements in the military and in the state-owned industries.
    So I think the national security arguments are so overwhelming that, 
notwithstanding the pressures, and especially given the economic 
realities of this agreement, in the end that Congress will do the right 
thing. I believe they will.
    Q.  Mr. President, Charlie Rangel came out today and said he's going 
to go ahead and support normalizing trade relations with China. Can you 
tell us how you feel about that, and how it may affect other Democrats?
    The President.  Well, I think it's an enormously important decision 
by Mr. Rangel. If we're successful in the elections in November in the 
House, then he would become the chairman of the Ways and Means 
Committee. I think his decision will affect other

[[Page 1122]]

Members on the Committee. And I think if we're fortunate enough to get a 
majority of Democrats on the Committee to vote for this, because of 
Charles Rangel's leadership and because some of the others are already 
come out, that surely will have an effect on our caucus, because they 
are in the best position to understand the economic issues involved 
here. And I think it's an immensely important thing.
    And I think if this passes, combined with the bill for Africa and 
Caribbean Basin trade, which was passed with overwhelming majorities 
last week, this Congress will build quite a legacy for itself in this 
area, and one that would be well-deserved for members of both parties 
that vote for it.

New York State Democratic Convention

    Q.  Mr. President, can you tell us how you came to the decision to 
go up to New York tonight, and any thoughts you have on seeing the First 
Lady nominated?
    The President.  I just decided I ought to be there. I mean, it's a 
big deal for her, a big night for her, and I want to be there with her. 
I just want to be there to support her. And I also--a secondary but 
important consideration for me is it's Senator Moynihan's, kind of his 
farewell address to the people in New York who have elevated him to the 
Senate and given him the chance to serve our country in a remarkable 
way. I'd like to hear what he has to say as well.
    But mostly, I just wanted to be with Hillary tonight. It's a big 
night for her, and I just started working on my schedule today to see if 
I could go.

President's Voters Registration

    Q.  Are you yet registered to vote in New York, Mr. President?
    The President.  Excuse me?
    Q.  Are you yet registered to vote in New York?
    The President.  No. But I intend to register so I can vote for her 
in November.
    You know, this was a--Mark [Mark Knoller, CBS Radio], this was kind 
of a difficult issue. I just voted in the last school election in Little 
Rock a few days ago. And for me, it's hard, you know, on a personal 
basis. But this is a commitment that we made together. And it's 
something that she wanted to do and a lot of people in New York wanted 
her to do, and I want to support her in every way I can. And I certainly 
intend to vote for her. And since I'm a tax-paying resident of New York 
now, I'm entitled to vote, and I intend to take advantage of it.

2000 Presidential Election

    Q.  Mr. President, on guns, I know you didn't want to talk about the 
campaign in general terms, but there are a lot of polls that shows Bush 
is doing as well or even better than Mr. Gore on the issue of guns. How 
can that be? What's your take on that?
    The President.  The people don't know what their respective 
positions are. You know, one of the things I said here on Sunday 
morning, before the Million Mom March, is that I think we'd lose, 
particularly in how people vote on this issue, if it gets muddled in 
rhetoric; and we win, if people know what the specifics are. And this 
just--and that's often true about issues in America.
    If you say, do you want more gun control or not, or you want the 
Government to control guns more, we'd probably win that, but it would be 
close. If you say, do you believe we should close the gun show loophole 
and ban large capacity ammunition clips from being imported and require 
child trigger locks, or should we have people who buy handguns get a 
photo ID license showing they passed the Brady background check and a 
safety course, then I think we'd win.
    And I think that it's really interesting--it's very instructive to 
compare this with automobiles. The NRA always talks about the right to 
keep and bear arms. Well, the Supreme Court says there's a 
constitutional right to travel, enshrined in and guaranteed by the 
Constitution. And when we have speed limits, seatbelt laws, child safety 
restraint laws, and drivers have to get licenses, nobody talks about car 
control in ominous terms. You don't hear all the ``there's a big threat 
of car control out there.''
    Now, if I come get your car, park it in my backyard, that's car 
control. Otherwise, it's highway safety. And I have not proposed to 
confiscate the gun or take away the gun or the right to hunt or sport 
shoot or even to have a gun in self-defense for any law-

[[Page 1123]]

abiding American. I have not made any proposals. Neither to the best of 
my knowledge has anyone else in Congress. So what we're talking about is 
gun safety legislation to keep guns away from criminals and other people 
who shouldn't have them, and out of the hands of kids.
    So my view is that as this debate unfolds, and we have a chance to 
debate the specifics--and I hope we'll do it in a civilized fashion. I 
really enjoyed--I did one of the morning programs last week, and there 
were people on both sides of the issues there. And we actually had a 
chance to talk specifics, and some of them made a couple suggestions 
that I agreed with. And I think that surprised them.
    I think we need to get down to the specifics here and get away from 
the labeling, and I think it will turn out just fine. The American 
people will make the right decision on this if we give them a chance to.

Social Security

    Q.  Sir, Senator Moynihan, who you mentioned, Senator Bob Kerrey, 
many of the Democrats from the DLC wing of the party, like yourself, 
have suggested changes to Social Security not unlike those outlined by 
Governor Bush. Yet the Vice President says the Governor would 
``destroy'' the program. Would Democrats like those recommend changes 
that would destroy Social Security?
    The President.  Well, I'm not sure they are the same. And you know, 
I saw a headline in the paper today that said that the Governor's 
campaign had released more details on Social Security and Medicare, and 
I need the chance to study them before I do.
    I do think--I will say again, to get something done on this in the 
longer term, you need a bipartisan solution. And it's going to have to 
come out of the Congress. And I had hoped we could get it done this 
year.
    But let me just caution you. You have to see all this stuff 
together. I'll say--you know, one thing people all over America ask me 
is, ``What did you do different on the economy that changed America?'' 
And I always say, only half-jokingly, ``We brought arithmetic back to 
Washington.''
    So what you need to do on this is, for purposes of analysis, is take 
the projected revenues over the next decade, when they get--you know, 
and they'll be written up some when the so-called mid-session review 
comes out, because we've had more growth this year than was 
anticipated--subtract the size of both candidates' proposed tax cuts, 
take the Social Security program and see what the so-called transition 
costs are and then the other differences in spending in defense and 
education vouchers and what's inflation going to be, see what you've got 
left and whether you can pay for it, and then what do you think the 
chances are that we won't have this much robust revenue growth over the 
last 10 years, and don't you have to have some sort of guard against 
that, and then evaluate where it is.
    We need to--I think it's going to be a good thing that we'll have a 
Social Security debate. But keep in mind, the people who want these 
private accounts, they argue two things. One is, we ought to have a 
higher rate of return on Social Security because it's going to go broke 
in 2034. Two is, we ought to give more Americans a chance to share in 
the wealth of the country with private savings.
    Now, what I argued back is that if you take the interest savings 
that we get from paying down the debt because of the Social Security 
tax--just that that comes from the Social Security tax; so arguably, 
that's a savings that you're entitled to as a payer of the Social 
Security tax--if you put that into the Trust Fund, you get it up to 
2054, for probably no more cost than the transition costs would be. That 
is, if you let the people start taking money out of the Trust Fund, 
obviously, and you guarantee the rights of the retirees that are here, 
you've got to put something back in from somewhere.
    Then what I suggested, that did not find favor with the Congress, 
was that we have some means of letting the Trust Fund as a whole benefit 
from the markets, up to about 15 percent of the Trust Fund. That would 
increase the rate of return. And then remember, the year before last I 
proposed a very ambitious program--and I proposed a more modified, 
income-limited program this year--that would have the Government support 
private savings and wealth creation outside the Social Security system 
by individual citizens. I still think that's the safer way to

[[Page 1124]]

go, and we could easily get the Social Security Trust Fund out beyond 
the life of the baby boom generation just by doing that.
    So we've got a chance now to have a big debate. I haven't seen the 
Medicare proposals, but I think that we've got to be particularly 
careful with that. We've added 24 or 25 years to the life of the 
Medicare Trust Fund since I've been here, and we need to put some more 
time on that, and do the drug issue. And there are some--I've proposed 
some structural reforms, but we need to be careful with that.
    But just--let me just say, there are four or five different 
variations that I've seen of people who have proposed various kinds of 
private accounts. So I think it's important--again, you've got to get 
behind the labels to the facts and see how everybody's proposal works. 
And that would be my advice on that. I think the way we're--the safer 
way is to take it the way we've done, and it would achieve the other two 
objectives. That is, you could get a higher rate of return on the Social 
Security Fund, and you could open savings and wealth-creation 
opportunities for individual Americans, without actually privatizing the 
fund itself and running some of the risks that are inherent in that.
    But that's a debate the American people will get a chance to 
resolve, if they get together and discuss it, and if they flesh out 
their ideas. I think it's an important debate to have.

Tobacco Regulation

    Q.  Mr. President, what was your reaction to the first McCain 
tobacco regulation bill, that gives the FDA direct authority to regulate 
tobacco products?
    The President.  Well, you know, I think they should have that 
authority.

Patients' Bill of Rights

    Q.  In your discussions with House Speaker Hastert last week on 
Patients' Bill of Rights, what assurances were you given that he's 
willing to support some form of coverage for everyone?
    The President.  He said that that was his position. And I must say, 
so far he's been as good as his word on everything he said.
    Now, we do have some differences there. You know, he admitted that 
we still don't have the liability issues worked out, and we've got some 
other issues to resolve. But I think he wants legislation to pass, in 
this area and in the new markets area, which is terribly important. 
Again, that's something that could change the face of America. It could 
give us a chance to bring free enterprise to poor areas in a way that 
we've never tried to do before as a nation and to go beyond, even, what 
we've done with the empowerment zones, which has been quite successful.
    So we were just talking, and that's what he said. And I've found 
that when he says something, he normally means it--or he always means it 
when he's talked to me.

Prescription Drug Coverage

    Q.  Sir, on prescription drugs, isn't this similar to a measure that 
you told the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 
that you couldn't afford to put into an already bulging FY 2001 defense 
budget? And how is it that that measure can be afforded now by Members 
of Congress?
    The President.  Well, for one thing, when they--no. What happened 
is, after I had already presented the budget, they asked me about it. 
And I pointed out that under our program all the military retirees would 
be covered by a system very similar to this legislation. But I'm 
certainly not opposed to the military retirees being covered.
    I think that the real question is, how can the Congress, in good 
conscience, provide this coverage in the same way--actually, the 
mechanism works just like what I want to do to cover all seniors. How 
can they do this and say they're not going to do it for people in the 
same situation in the rest of the country, the other senior population, 
when we can do it and do it with the same sort of mechanism that they 
provide here?
    So I'm fine for them to do this, and if they do it in this way and 
then they pass the other, then the cost of the other program will be 
diminished if--for the military retirees who stay in this program. In 
other words, they're not going to be in both programs buying the same 
drugs twice.

[[Page 1125]]

    So what I said was, I didn't--I had already presented the budget and 
that all military retirees would be covered in my program, along with 
all other seniors. But now that Congress is doing this, I think that 
this ought to be evidence that they understand, A, that people over 65 
need this coverage and, B, that this is a good kind of mechanism to 
guarantee that they get the medicine at affordable prices.
    Thank you.

Colombia

    Q.  Mr. President, are you worried about Colombia aid? Mr. 
President, the aid to Colombia?
    The President.  Well, it's funny, I talked to General McCaffrey 
about it this morning, actually. At this time I'm not worried about it, 
but I think it's important, given the continuing difficulties and 
challenges the Government in Colombia is facing, that it pass as soon as 
possible. We need to send a signal to those people down there who are 
fighting for democracy, fighting for freedom, fighting for the rule of 
law, fighting against the narcotraffickers, fighting against terrorism, 
that we're on their side.
    And we also need to signal to them that there is an alternative 
economic way that the people can make a living who've been caught up in 
the drug trade kind of at the grassroots farmer level. And this bill 
does that, so that I think in the end, Congress will pass this bill. But 
I hope it can be put on some bill I'll get as quick as possible so we 
can send the right signal in a very timely fashion. I just don't want it 
dragged out another 3 or 4 months. I think it would be a really bad 
mistake in terms of our national security interests, not just in 
Colombia but throughout the Andean region. People are looking at us to 
see if we're really going to make a serious commitment.
    It also will help Colombia to get the other support it needs from 
the international institutions, from other countries, to make a stand 
there, and in the process, hopefully, to see victory there for a 
democratic government and the rule of law, a reduction in drug 
production and exports, and a stabilization of the democracies that 
surround Colombia in the Andean region.
    Thank you very much.

 Note:  The President spoke at 2:09 p.m. in the Rose Garden at the White 
House. In his remarks, he referred to Gov. George W. Bush of Texas; 
President-elect Chen Shui-bian of Taiwan; Hong Kong Democratic Party 
Chair Martin Lee; and Prime Minister Zhu Rongji of China.