    [Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 36, Number 25 (Monday, June 26, 2000)]
    [Pages 1432-1437]
    [Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

    <R04>
    Remarks on Departure for Phoenix, Arizona, and an Exchange With
    Reporters

    June 22, 2000

    Medicare Prescription Drug Coverage/Tobacco

        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--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.

    [[Page 1433]]

        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 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

    [[Page 1434]]

    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 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 follow-up 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
    jumpstart 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 relies 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.

    [[Page 1435]]

        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 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 the House, and there's some work to be done.
        I met with a group of Senators yesterday, a bipartisan group who
    will 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,''

    [[Page 1436]]

    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 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.

    [[Page 1437]]