President William J. Clinton

small picture of President Clinton President Clinton's Remarks on Social Security- 2000
1.
 2.
PRESS CONFERENCE BY THE PRESIDENT--February 16, 2000  
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT -- March 15, 2000
8.
9.
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT -- March 22, 2000
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT--September 7, 2000
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT--November 19, 2000

PRESIDENT CLINTON'S 1993-1998 STATEMENTS

PRESIDENT CLINTON'S 1999 STATEMENTS



1. RADIO ADDRESS BY THE PRESIDENT TO THE NATION--Saturday, January 22, 2000

Pasadena, California

(Audio recording of the broadcast--in RealAudio format)
(Audio recording of the broadcast--in Windows Media format)

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. In just a few days, I will report to the American people and the Congress on the State of the Union, and I'll propose new ways to meet the many challenges of this exciting new century. One of the most important challenges we have is strengthening and modernizing Medicare. Today I want to give you a progress report on our efforts to do just that, through our ongoing fight against fraud, waste and abuse in the Medicare system.

For more than 30 years now, Medicare has helped us fulfill one of our most fundamental obligations, to protect the health of older Americans. But when I became President, Medicare was projected to go bankrupt by 1999. Since I took office we have made tough choices to strengthen Medicare. We've extended the life of the trust fund until at least 2015, with better management not only of Medicare, but of the economy, and by waging a sustained campaign against Medicare fraud.

Medicare fraud and waste are more than an abuse of the system, they're an abuse of the taxpayer. By over-billing, charging for phony procedures and selling substandard supplies, Medicare cheats cost taxpayers hundreds of millions a year. That's why we've assigned more federal prosecutors and FBI agents than ever to fight this kind of fraud, and why we've invested in new tools to investigate and prosecute these crimes. All told, our efforts have prevented the wasteful spending of an estimated $50 billion. And aggressive enforcement has recovered nearly $1.6 billion for the Medicare trust fund.

Today I'm releasing two reports that show just how effective this fight against fraud has been. Americans can be proud. The first report shows that in 1999, we recovered nearly half a billion dollars in fines and settlements, and returned three-quarters of that to the Medicare trust fund. The second report, on Medicare integrity, shows our success in catching fraudulent claims and preventing $5.3 billion worth of inappropriate payments in the last year alone. So when it comes to prosecuting fraud and abuse, we're doing more than filing cases; we're also winning convictions.

In the last year, convictions in health care fraud cases shot up by a fifth, for an increase of more than 410 percent since I became President. Just this week, the Department of Justice won another important victory for Medicare beneficiaries. A health care company had been bilking Medicare by sending patients for needless tests and procedures. The more tests providers ordered, the more kickbacks they got in return -- lavish dinners, yacht trips. Federal prosecutors took the company to court and won the largest such settlement in history, recovering nearly a half a billion dollars.

The more cases we win, the more criminals we convict, the clearer the message becomes: Medicare fraud is a serious crime with serious consequences.

Though our efforts are stronger than ever, Medicare contractors still pay false claims totaling in the billions. That is simply unacceptable. So today, I'm announcing a new initiative to crack down on fraud and abuse in Medicare. My balanced budget for 2001 will create a team of Medicare fraud fighters -- one in the office of every Medicare contractor in America -- and take other new steps to ensure that our response to fraud is coordinated and quick. The budget also funds new technologies to track false claims.

I urge Congress to make these investments, and to give Medicare the authority to bid competitively for contractors who administer the program, as well as for services provided directly to beneficiaries.

Medicare is vital to the health of our nation. It's too important ever to be compromised. If we take these steps to reform and strengthen Medicare, and if we modernize it with a voluntary prescription drug benefit, then we will adapt a program that has worked in the past to the needs of the future.

Thanks for listening.


2. PRESS CONFERENCE BY THE PRESIDENT--February 16, 2000

The East Room 2:25 P.M. EST

Good afternoon. I would like to cover a couple of topics in an opening statement, and then I will take your questions.

First, let me say that we all know that we're in the midst of the longest and strongest economic expansion in our history, with nearly 21 million new jobs, unemployment at 4 percent, and solid income growth across all income groups.

Americans in public service and in the private sector must remember that our success in promoting peace and prosperity is not the result of complacency, but of our common commitment to dynamic action rooted in enduring values. If we want to continue to enjoy success, we must continue our commitment to dynamic action.

There is important work to be done in America this year, and in Washington, D.C. this year. First, we must stay on the path of fiscal discipline that got us to this point. If we stay on that path, we can make America, in just 13 years, debt free for the first time since 1835. Then we can use the benefits of debt reduction to preserve two of the most important guarantees we have made to the American people -- Social Security and Medicare -- something that will be a challenge as we see the number of people over 65 double in the next 30 years with the retirement of the baby boom generation.

Specifically, we can make a bipartisan down payment on Social Security reform by crediting the interest savings from debt reduction to the Social Security trust fund, to keep it strong and sound for 50 years, beyond the life span of all but the most fortunate of the baby boom generation. As a first step toward a comprehensive solution, I believe we should do something I called for in my 1999 State of the Union address, to end the earnings limit for Social Security retirees between the ages of 65 and 69.

To strengthen and modernize Medicare, I propose to implement important reforms and to dedicate more than half the non-Social Security surplus to Medicare, over $400 billion, to keep it solvent for another decade, past 2025, and to add a voluntary prescription drug benefit. I'm pleased Congress is beginning to take up this issue, and I ask them to move quickly, and to resist the temptation to spend large portions of the surplus before we have lived up to our commitment to prepare for the undeniable health and financing challenges that Medicare will bring. . . .








3. TEXT OF A LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT TO THE SPEAKER AND DEMOCRATIC LEADER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE MAJORITY AND DEMOCRATIC LEADERS OF THE SENATE -- February 29, 2000

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. Leader:)

I am pleased that Congress is moving forward with a bill that eliminates the retirement earnings test above the normal retirement age. As I said in my 1999 State of the Union Address, "we should eliminate the limits on what seniors on Social Security can earn." The retirement earnings test was created during the Great Depression to encourage older workers to retire in order to open up more jobs for younger workers. As the baby boomers begin to retire, it is more important than ever that older Americans who are willing and able to work, should not have their Social Security benefits deferred when they do.

We should reward every American who wants to and can stay active and productive. I encourage Congress to send me a clean, straightforward bill to eliminate the retirement earnings test above the normal retirement age.

Eliminating the retirement earnings test above the normal retirement age is a first step toward Social Security reform. I remain committed to making bipartisan progress on Social Security this year. I ask Congress to pass legislation that would extend the solvency of Social Security to about 2050 while taking significant actions to reduce poverty among elderly women. Last year I transmitted legislation to Congress that would have used the interest savings earned by paying down the debt to make Social Security stronger. If we agree to this simple step, we can extend the life of Social Security to the middle of the next century while also modernizing Social Security to reduce poverty among elderly women.

Moving forward on these two, simple steps would be a substantial down payment on Social Security reform. It would demonstrate that we can work together, building the bipartisan trust necessary to finish the job of meeting the long-term Social Security challenge.

Sincerely, WILLIAM J. CLINTON




4. REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT ON MEDICARE UPON DEPARTURE -- February 29, 2000

The South Lawn 9:46 A.M. EST

Good morning. I would like to say just a couple of words about two subjects vital to the health of the American people: Medicare and tobacco.

Throughout the life of this Administration Vice President Gore and I have done everything we could to protect our children from the dangers of tobacco. Five years ago, we put forward a landmark rule affirming the FDA's authority to regulate tobacco products.

Since that time, the tobacco industry has fought our efforts at every turn. I am heartened today by news reports that the nation's leading cigarette maker is now willing to accept government regulation of tobacco.

If Philip Morris is ready to support the FDA provisions of the tobacco bill the industry and the Congressional leadership killed just two years ago, that is an important step forward.

Every day, 3000 young people smoke for the first time, and 1000 of them will die earlier as a result. We have a duty to do everything we can to save and lengthen their lives by protecting our young people from the dangers of tobacco.

I also want to comment briefly about an important new report I am releasing today on the future of Medicare. I am pleased to be joined here today by some of the nation's foremost leaders on behalf of our senior citizens, along with a number of seniors who know from personal experiences what Medicare means to their lives.

In the 34 years since it was created, Medicare has eased the suffering and extended the lives of tens of millions of Americans. It has given young families peace of mind knowing they will not have to mortgage their children's futures to pay for their parents' health care.

If we want our children to have the same peace of mind when our generation retires, we must act now to strengthen Medicare. When I became president, the Medicare Trust Fund was scheduled to go broke last year, 1999. Because of the tough actions we have taken, the life of the Trust Fund has been extended by 16 years.

Still, we must do more. The Trust Fund is projected to go broke now by 2015, and the new report I am issuing shows why. Not only will the senior population nearly double over the next 25 years, but already today, in 40 of our 50 states, one in ten Medicare beneficiaries is 85 years of age or older. This is the fastest-growing group of seniors. And they require the greatest amount of care. And they will spend -- consider this -- almost a quarter of their lives on Medicare. The report also shows that in every state in America, there are more women on Medicare than men; on average 57 percent women, 43 percent men.

This report is the most compelling evidence to date that we must strengthen and modernize Medicare for the long run, including adding a voluntary prescription drug benefit. With our economy strong, our budget balanced, our people confident, now is the time to deal with this important issue. The budget I propose does just that while maintaining our surplus and paying down our debt over the next 13 years to make us debt free for the first time since 1835. It uses the savings from debt reduction to lengthen the life of Social Security and Medicare. It uses competition and the best private sector practices to control costs and improve quality in Medicare.

And it provides funds to give every older American, at long last, a choice of affordable coverage for prescription drugs. These drugs are an indispensable part of modern medicine. No one creating a Medicare program today would think of creating a program without prescription drug coverage. Yet more than three in five Medicare recipients now lack dependable drug coverage which can lengthen and enrich their lives. It is even worse for seniors in rural areas, who have little or no option to purchase private prescription drug coverage. And as today's report shows, nearly a quarter of our nation's elderly live in rural areas.

Our budget would extend seniors the lifeline of optional prescription drug coverage. It creates a reserve fund of $35 billion to build on this new benefit, and protect those who carry the heavy burden of catastrophic drug costs.

I have been gratified to see the growing bipartisan support for adding prescription drugs to Medicare since I first proposed it last year. But I am concerned, frankly, about two things.

First, some in the Congressional majority have talked about providing drug coverage only to the very poorest of our seniors. This report shows that doing so would mean denying a prescription drug option to the nearly half of all seniors who have modest, middle incomes between $15,000 to $50,000 -- the majority of whom lack dependable drug coverage as well. I think it would be wrong to deny them the opportunity to get that drug coverage.

Second, the majority party in Congress has begun talking again about spending the surplus on huge, risky tax cuts, which would make it impossible to pay down our debt. That would leave nothing left for extending the life of Social Security and Medicare, nothing for a voluntary drug benefit. I believe that when they read this report they will understand what the consequences of such a decision would be.

The American people have worked hard to turn our economy around and turn our deficits into surpluses. Now, we have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to both pay down the national debt and to reform Medicare, lengthen the life of Social Security, and add a voluntary prescription drug benefit to the Medicare program. We owe it to the American people to seize this opportunity this year. And I thank all of these fine people who are with me for the contributions they are making to that effort.

Thank you.



5. RADIO ADDRESS OF THE PRESIDENT TO THE NATION--March 11, 2000

Audio clip in RealAudio format

The Oval Office
10:06 A.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. In just a few days, Congress will begin to write the next year's budget. This is an important challenge we in Washington take up every year, with important consequences for the
American people. Today, I want to talk to you about the outcome I seek for our families and our future.

I've always thought you could tell a lot about people's priorities by what they do first. For me, above all, that means maintaining the fiscal discipline that has brought us to this point of unprecedented prosperity -- with 21 million new jobs, the lowest unemployment in 30 years, the longest economic expansion in history. It means staying on the path to make America debt-free by 2013. It means saving Social Security, strengthening Medicare, modernizing it with a voluntary prescription drug benefit that so many of our seniors need and too few
can afford. And it means continuing to put the education of our children first, with higher standards, more and better trained teachers, after-school and summer school programs, modernizing our schools.

These are my first priorities. I think they're most Americans' first priorities. But it seems the congressional majority has hardly gives them a second thought. Before Republican leaders have put a single penny toward strengthening Social Security or Medicare; before they put a single penny toward a prescription drug benefit; before they put a single penny toward educating our children, they've allocated nearly half a trillion dollars to risky tax cuts. More than half our money already spent -- and not a penny on our most pressing priorities.

Unfortunately, the majority tried to take us down this road before. Last year, they went for one big tax cut with one big grab. This year, they're doing it piece by piece, one tax cut after another. Just this week, we saw Republican leaders attach special-interest tax breaks to what should have been a simple raise in the minimum wage. Now, all these cuts together add up to a serious threat to Social Security and Medicare. They would make it impossible to pay down the debt by 2013, or make vital investments in education, fighting crime, protecting public health and the environment, and other urgent national priorities.

As the budget process begins, I urge Republican leaders to change their course, and steer clear of a fiscal dead-end. It's wrong for America -- it was wrong last year, and it's wrong this year. Let's do first things first.

I urge Congress to write a budget that puts aside enough funds from our hard-won surplus to eliminate the debt by 2013; to write a budget that strengthens and modernizes Medicare with a prescription drug benefit; to write a budget that extends the solvency of Social Security; one that invests in education, extends health coverage to more American families and meets other pressing priorities.

Of course, Congress still has plenty of time to get its work done right, and get it done on time. I hope it will do so. If Congress takes care of first things first, we can also give targeted tax relief to America's families: a tax credit to help pay for college or save for retirement; a tax credit to help care for aging or ailing loved ones; a
tax relief to reduce the marriage penalty; tax relief to reward work and family with an expanded earned income tax credit, an increased tax credit for child care expenses.

I will work with any member of either party to get these things done. We can get them done -- but only in the context of a realistic, responsible, balanced budget: one that maintains our fiscal discipline and makes the most of this great moment of prosperity. Now, that's a budget that makes sense. One that works for working Americans.

Thanks for listening.

END
10:11 A.M. EST


6. REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT TO THE CLEVELAND COMMUNITY ON PRESCRIPTION DRUG BENEFIT -- March 13, 2000
City Public Library Cleveland, Ohio
2:55 P.M. EST


THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Thank you. First, I think Wanda did a pretty good job, don't you? Let's give her another hand. (Applause.) I am delighted to be here in Cleveland. I want to thank all the people who are up her with me -- Alice Katchianes, thank you for being here. And, Mr. Venable, thank you for your welcome. If I could sing like that I'd be in a different line of work. (Laughter.) I thought that was great.

I want to thank Congressman Sherrod Brown and Congressman Dennis Kucinich; Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones; my great friend, Lou Stokes; all the other officials who are here today. State Representative Jack Ford; County Commissioner Jimmy Dimora; State Senate candidate Donna MacNamee, a woman I met at the dedication of the FDR Memorial, at President Roosevelt's wheelchair. I'm glad to see her here.

I want to say a special word of appreciation to Congressman Dick Gephardt for his leadership and his passionate commitment to this and so many other good causes. Without him and these other members of our caucus, we wouldn't have a prayer of passing this proposal today. And I thank him.

And I want to say, obviously, how pleased I am to be here with Donna Shalala, who is, as Dick Gephardt suggested, not only the longest serving, but by a good long stretch, the ablest and best Secretary of Health and Human Services this country has ever, ever had. (Applause.) And I love to see her mother, and I'm glad she made room for me at tax time. (Laughter.) I told her, I said, you know, when I get out of this job, I hope I need the services of a tax lawyer. (Laughter.) Right now, it's all pretty straightforward. But that was, without a doubt, the shortest speech I ever heard a lawyer give, what she said to me. (Laughter.) You probably doubled your business just by being here today.

I do love coming to Cleveland, and you heard Donna say that we have a lot of people in this administration from Cleveland, including my Deputy Chief of Staff, Steve Ricchetti, who is here today. But Clevelanders, they may go anywhere, but they never get it, Cleveland, out of their soul.

If you go into Steve's office, there is a great photograph from the opening day of baseball at Jacobs Field in 1994. Now, I remember that because I threw out the first pitch. But Steve's got the picture on the wall because when I threw the pitch, everyone was absolutely stunned that it didn't hit the dirt -- (laughter) -- and Sandy Alomar caught it. So he really got -- I'm incidental to the picture. He's got Sandy Alomar catching a ball which he was convinced would go into the dirt. I thought I did pretty well for a guy who played in the band, myself. (Laughter.)

Let me say, this is a great time for this city and a great time for our nation. As I said in the State of the Union address, I hope this time will be used by our people to take on the big challenges facing America. One of those big challenges is what to do about the aging of America, which is a high-class problem. That is, we're living longer, we're living better -- and the older I get, the more I see that as an opportunity, not a problem. But it does impose certain challenges on us.

There is also a challenge to modernize our health care systems and to do other things to increase the health care of the American people. And that's what we're here to talk about today.

But because this is my only formal opportunity to be before -- thanks to you -- before the press and, therefore, the American people, I would like to just refer to another issue that relates to the health and safety of the American people, just briefly.

I have been fortunate enough to have the support of the members of Congress on this stage in our efforts to drive the crime rate down, to make our streets safer in Cleveland, and every other major city in America is a safer place than it was seven years ago. We have a 25-year low in crime, a 33-year low in the gun death rate. And I am grateful for the support I have received to put more police on the street, to have more summer school and after-school programs for young people, and to do more to keep guns out of the hands of criminals -- banning the cop-killer bullets, the assault weapons ban, the Brady Bill -- which has kept half a million felons, fugitives and stalkers from getting handguns.

Now, all of you know we had some tragic deaths last week. We had that six-year-old girl killed in Michigan by a six -year-old boy, who was a schoolmate of hers. We had terrible shootings in Memphis. And just in the last year we had the horrible incident at Columbine High School, almost a year ago; and in the year before that, lots and lots of school shootings.

Now, after Columbine, I suggested that what we ought to do is to, number one, make sure there were child safety locks on these guns; number two -- which would have made a big difference in the case of children getting the guns. Number two, make sure we ban the importation of large ammunition clips which make a mockery of the assault weapons ban because they can't be made or sold here in America, but they can be imported. Number three, close the loophole in the background check law, the Brady law, which says people can buy handguns at gun shows or urban flea markets and not have to do a background check. It's a serious problem. And fourth, I think when adults intentionally or recklessly let little kids get a hold of guns, they should have some sort of responsibility for that.

And so I asked the Congress to do that. Eight months ago, Vice President Gore broke a tie in the Senate and passed a pretty strong bill, and then a bill passed in the House that was weaker. And I asked them to get together and pass a final bill. And they never even met until last week when we got them together, after this last round of horrible shootings.

And I ask all Americans to join me, because I think these things are reasonable. This won't affect anybody's right to hunt or sport-shoot or anything, but it will save kids' lives.

The response we got from the National Rifle Association was to run a bunch of television ads attacking me. And yesterday morning I went on television again to talk about these measures. I'm not trying to pick a fight with anybody; I'm trying to fight for the lives of our kids. But I want you to see what we're up against whenever we try to change here.

The head of the NRA said yesterday -- I want to quote -- he said that my support of these measures was all political, and he said this: "I have come to believe that Clinton needs a certain level of violence in this country. He's willing to accept a certain level of killing to further his political agenda -- and his Vice President, too."

Well, he could say that on television, I guess. I'd like to see him look into the eyes of little Kayla Rolland's mother and say that. Or the parents at Columbine, or Springfield, Oregon, or Jonesboro, Arkansas. Or the families of those people who were shot in Memphis.

I say that, again, to emphasize change is hard, but sooner or later, if you know you've got a problem, you either deal with it or you live with the consequences. And the older you get, the more you understand that.

We do not have -- I'm grateful that our country is a safer place than it was seven years ago. I don't think it's safe enough. I don't think you think it's safe enough. I don't think you think it's safe enough for seniors; I don't think you think it's safe enough for little kids. And if we can do more things to keep guns away from criminals and children, that don't have anything to do with the legitimate right of people to go hunting or engage in sports shooting, we ought to do it. And we ought not to engage in this kind of political smear tactics. (Applause.)

Now, I feel the same way about this issue. And I want to try to explain to you what is going on now with this issue, because most people in America -- you heard Dick Gephardt talk about it -- most people in America think, well, why are we even arguing about this? Well, all health care issues are fraught with debate today. I know you're having a big debate here about hospital closures in Cleveland, and I don't know enough about the facts to get involved with it, but I'll tell you this. One of the problems we have is, there's too much uncompensated care in America.

And we're trying to -- we're trying hard, the people you see on this stage, we're trying hard to make sure every child that's eligible is enrolled in the Children Health Insurance Program that was created in 1997. We want Congress to let their parents be insured under the same program. We want people over 55 but under 65 who aren't old enough for Medicare, but have lost their insurance on the job, to be able to buy into Medicare, and we want to give them a little tax credit to do it. If we do things like this, then, whatever happens, in Cleveland or anyplace else, will have to be determined based on the merits of the case, but at least the people who need health care will be able to know that the people who give it to them -- whether it's hospitals or doctors or nurses or whoever -- will be able to get reimbursed for it. And that's a very important thing. I hope you'll support us in that.

And then we come to the issue at hand. Now, what's this about, this prescription -- you all know what it's about. If we were starting -- suppose I came here today as President and I were in my first year as President and I proposed Medicare, just like President Johnson did in 1965, in the first full year after he was elected -- and I told you in 1965 what he said, it would be fine. But in 2000, if I said, okay, I'm going to set up this health care program for senior citizens, and you can see a doctor and we'll pay for your hospital care, but even though we could save billions of dollars a year keeping people out of hospitals and out of emergency rooms by covering the medicine, we're not going to cover medicine.

If we were starting today, given all the advances in prescription drugs in the last 35 years, you would think I was nuts, wouldn't you? The only reason that prescription drugs aren't covered by Medicare is that it was started 35 years ago, when medicine was in a totally different place. That's the first thing.

The second thing I want to say is that it has really cost us a lot not to cover these seniors. And you see American seniors, for example, who live in New York or Vermont, going to take a bus trip to Canada because they can buy drugs made in America for 30 percent less -- because very often the seniors, the people that are least able to pay for these drugs, are paying the highest prices for them.

Now, that's why our budget has this plan. And I want to tell you exactly what we propose, and what we're all up here on this stage supporting today. We want to provide with Medicare a prescription drug benefit that is optional, that is voluntary, that is accessible for all -- anybody who wants to buy into it can -- a plan that is based on price competition, not price controls -- that is, we don't want to control the price, but we want to use the fact that if we're buying a lot of medicine, seniors ought to be able to get it as cheap as anybody else. (Applause.) And we also want it to be part of an overall plan to continue to modernize Medicare and make it more competitive.

Because, I can tell you, I'm the oldest of the baby boomers, and people in my generation, we're plagued by the notion that our retirement could cause such a burden on our children, it would undermine their ability to raise our grandchildren. We don't want that.

Now, medically speaking, this is not just the right thing to do, it is the smart thing to do. As I said, we already pay for doctor and hospital benefits. But an awful lot of seniors go without prescription drugs -- and preventive screenings, I might add -- that ought to be a part of their health care. We've worked hard to put preventive screenings back into Medicare, for breast cancer, for osteoporosis, for prostate cancer. These are very, very important. But not having any prescription drug coverage is like paying a mechanic $4,000 to fix your engine because you wouldn't spend $25 to change the oil and get the filter replaced.

In recent months I have been really encouraged because a number of Republicans have expressed an interest in joining us to do this. And we can't pass it unless some of them join us, because we don't have enough votes on our own. But so far, the proposals they're making, I think, are not adequate, and I'll explain why.

There are two different proposals basically coming out of the Republicans. Some of them propose giving a block grant to the states to help only the poorest seniors, those below the poverty line. That would leave the middle-income seniors, including those that are lower-middle-income, just above the poverty line, to fend for themselves. And here in Ohio, 53 percent of all the seniors are middle-income seniors. None of them would be covered by this plan.

In 1965, when Medicare was created, some in Congress used these very same arguments. They said, we should only pay for hospital and medical care for the poorest seniors. They were wrong then, and they're wrong now. More than half the seniors today without any prescription drugs at all are middle-class seniors. I want to say that again. More than half the seniors without any prescription drug at all are middle-class seniors. On average, middle-class seniors without coverage buy 20 percent less drugs than those who have coverage, not because they're healthier, but because they can't afford it.

And even though they buy 20 percent less medication -- listen to this -- because they have no insurance, their out-of-pocket burden is 75 percent higher. Without insurance, 75 percent higher.

So I say, let's do this right. This is voluntary; we're not making anybody do it. But we ought to offer it to everybody who needs it. It doesn't take much, if you're a 75-year-old widow to be above the so-called federal poverty line. You can have a tiny little pension tacked on your Social Security and you can be there. But if you've got -- as you've just heard -- $2,300 worth of drug bills a year -- and a lot of people have much higher -- it's a terrible problem.

Now, some other members of Congress are proposing a tax deduction to help subsidize the cost of private Medigap insurance. If any of you own Medigap, you know what's the matter with that proposal. This proposal would benefit the wealthiest seniors without providing any help to the low- and middle-income seniors. And the Medigap marketplace is already flawed. Today -- listen to this -- in Washington, the General Accounting Office is releasing a report that shows that Medigap drug coverage starts out expensive and then goes through the roof as seniors get older. On average, it costs about $164 a month for a 65-year-old to buy a Medigap plan with drug coverage, and premiums rise sharply from there.

For example, in Ohio, an 80-year-old person would pay 50 percent more than a 65-year-old person for the same coverage under Medigap. This is not a good deal, folks. We don't want to put more money into this program. It is not a good deal. Even those who offer Medigap plans say the approach wouldn't work, because it would force Medigap insurers to charge excessively high premiums for the drugs or to refuse to participate at all.

Now, there's another problem that we have in the Congress, which is that the congressional majority just last week voted on budget resolutions that together allocate nearly half a trillion dollars to tax cuts. And if we cut taxes that much, we won't be able to afford this. And we may not be able to save Social Security and Medicare and pay down the debt, and have money left over to invest in the education of our children.

I'm for a tax cut, but we've got to be able to afford it. And we, first of all, have got to keep this economy going. We need to pay down the debt. We can get out of debt for the first time since 1835, within a little more than 10 years, if we just keep on this road. A lot of you never thought you'd ever see that.

We can lengthen Social Security out beyond the life of the baby boom generation. We can put 25 years on the Medicare program, which is longer than it's had in blows and blows, a long time. And we can add this prescription drug coverage. But we can't do it if the tax cut's too big, and we shouldn't do it in the wrong way and say you can only get it if you're really poor, or you can only get it if you buy into Medigap.

Now, let me tell you why this is such a big deal. The average 65-year-old in America today has a life expectancy of 82 to 83 years. The average 65-year-old woman has a life expectancy higher than that. The fastest-growing group of American seniors are those over 85. So to knowingly lock ourselves into a program that would get 50 percent more expensive as you got older and older, and needed more and more medicine and had less and less money does not make much sense.

We have given them a good program. It is the right thing to do. And so I would like to ask all of you to help all of these members of Congress on the stage, and to tell the people in Washington, look, this is not a partisan issue. You know, a lot of people say, we don't want to do this; this is an election year. Look, they can name this prescription drug program after Herbert Hoover, Calvin Coolidge and Warren Harding. It's fine with me. I don't -- put some Republican's name on it. I don't care. Just do it, because it's the right thing to do for the seniors of this country. (Applause.)

So I would just implore you, help us pass this. Write to your United States senators. Tell them it's not a partisan issue. Tell them what life is like. Tell them it's not right for seniors in Ohio to pay 30 to 50 percent more for medicine than seniors in Canada pay for the same medicine that's made in America in the first place. Tell them it's not right for you to need something you can't have, so you get sick, but then when you show up at the emergency room, it gets paid for.

We can afford this. Everybody in America has worked hard for it. We've got this budget in good shape. We can make a commitment to our future. If you think is necessary now, imagine what it's going to be like when the number of seniors doubles in 30 years. That's the last point I want to leave you with. Look how many seniors there are in Cleveland today. In 30 years, the number of people over 65 will double, and Donna Shalala and I hope to be among them. (Laughter.) And you think about it. And then the average age in America will be well over 80.

Now, if we have to take care of all these people by waiting until they get sick and they go to the hospital, instead of worried about hospitals closing, 30 years from now you'll worry about the city going bankrupt because everybody will be in the hospital. We've got to be healthier, we've got to keep people healthy. We need to keep them playing tennis, like Lawyer Shalala there; but we also need to be able to give people medication to keep them out of the hospital, and to manage people in a way that will maximize their health. This will be a huge issue.

So I implore you, this country -- this is the first time we've been in shape to do this in 35 years. We can do this now. And we can do it now and take care of the future. We can help the seniors of today and take a great burden off of tomorrow. But we need your help to do it.

Again, I implore you, talk to your members of Congress, talk to your senators. Tell them it's not a partisan issue, it's an American issue, it's a human issue and it's a smart thing to do.

Thank you and God bless you. (Applause.)
END 3:17 P.M. EST


7. STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT -- March 15, 2000

Today, the Republican Congress took a first step on a risky budget that threatens to undermine the fiscal discipline that has lead to our current economic prosperity. The budget blueprint they have endorsed fails to strengthen Social Security or Medicare, takes us off the path to paying down the debt by 2013, and threatens to slash key priorities like education, law enforcement, and the environment. It was the wrong approach for America last year -- it is the wrong approach for America this year.

Republican leaders should work with me on a responsible budget that strengthens Social Security and Medicare, adds a prescription drug benefit, pays down the debt by 2013, and invests in education and other key priorities. Let's work together to meet America's long-term challenges and keep our economy strong.


8. TEXT OF A LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT TO THE MAJORITY AND DEMOCRATIC LEADERS OF THE SENATE -- March 21, 2000
New Delhi

Dear Mr. Leader: I am pleased that the Senate is moving forward with consideration of H.R. 5, a bill that would eliminate the retirement earnings test above the normal retirement age. On March 1, 2000, with strong Administration support, the House passed H.R. 5 by a vote of 422-0. I now urge the Senate to follow suit and quickly pass H.R. 5. This will ensure enactment of a clean, straightforward bill to eliminate the retire-ment earnings test above the normal retirement age, which I will promptly sign into law.

I called for the elimination of the earnings test for seniors in my State of the Union address in 1999. I believe that the test is confusing and outdated. As the baby boomers begin to retire, it is more important than ever that older Americans who are willing and able to work should not have their Social Security benefits deferred when they do.

Our work together on eliminating the retirement earnings test can help establish bipartisan momentum toward Social Security reform. We should build on this foundation to pass legislation that would extend the solvency of Social Security to about 2050 while taking signifi-cant actions to reduce poverty among elderly women. Last year, I transmitted legislation to Congress that would have used the interest savings earned by paying down the debt to make Social Security stronger. If we agree to this simple step, we can extend the life of Social Security to the middle of the next century while also modernizing Social Security to reduce poverty among elderly women.

These simple measures would be a substantial down payment on meeting the long-term Social Security challenge. I hope we can continue to work together on this issue.

Sincerely,
WILLIAM J. CLINTON


9. STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT -- March 22, 2000

I am pleased that the Senate has followed the House in passing a measure to eliminate the retirement earnings test for seniors. In my 1999 State of the Union Address, I asked Congress to work with me to end this confusing and outdated policy that discourages healthy senior citizens from continuing to work past 65 if they choose to do so. I look forward to opening a new era of opportunity for older Americans by signing this measure into law.

Eliminating the earnings limit is an important first step in undertaking comprehensive Social Security reform this year. The work on the retirement earnings test shows that Congress can work together to further the people's business. We should build on this bipartisan spirit to make further progress on Social Security. Last fall, I sent Congress legislation that would use the benefits of debt reduction to extend the life of Social Security to the middle of the next century. Today, I call on Congress to work with me on this simple plan to extend the solvency of Social Security while strengthening benefits to reduce poverty among elderly women.


10. REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT DURING DNC LUNCHEON -- March 30, 2000
Private Residence New York, New York
1:27 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Well, thank you, Denice. If I come here one more time -- (laughter) -- we should allocate part of the property tax assessment to me. I love coming here to this beautiful, beautiful place. I want to thank you and I want to thank all the people who served us today and provided this wonderful meal. I want to thank the WLF -- Laura, Betsy, Sharon, Susan and Agnes, particularly. I want to thank Judith Hope, who has proved that someone from Arkansas can make it in New York. (Laughter.) Which is becoming an increasingly important precedent in my mind. (Laughter.)

Thank you, Mayor Rendell, and thank you Carol Penske. I was trying to think of what I could possibly say, since most of you have heard me give this speech 100 times. And I was remembering, oh, 12-13 years ago, maybe a little longer -- Tina Turner came to Little Rock when she -- you know, she went away for a long time and she was abused in her marriage and she had a lot of really tough times.

And then she made an album after many years of being silent, called "Private Dancer," which made her a big international star again. So she was taking and making her tours around, and so she came to Arkansas, to this place where we always had concerts. And the guy who ran the place knew that I just loved her. So Hillary was out of time, I remember, and he gave me like eight tickets on the front row, and I took all my pals and sat on the front row.

So she sings all her new songs, everybody goes nuts. At the end, she starts to -- the band starts to play "Proud Mary," which was her first hit. So she comes up to the microphone, and everybody cheers -- she backs away. And she comes up again, everybody cheers again and she said, you know, I've been singing this song for 25 years, but it gets better every time I do it. (Laughter.) Anyway -- I've got to do it. (Applause.) Very instructive, I'll never forget it.

I want to tell you, we're in this beautiful surrounding -- I want you to know where I was last night. Last night, I was in the Bishop John Adams Hall of Allen University, an African Methodist Episcopal, AME college in Columbia, South Carolina. That's where I was last night -- at a dinner, sponsored by the state Democratic Party, with the new Democratic Governor there, Inez Tenenbaum -- some of you may know her, she's the Commissioner of Education now for South Carolina -- longtime active in American Jewish colleges, a friend of mine for many, many years, and many others, in honor of the African-American Congressman Jim Clyburn from that district. It was a real picture of a new South, a different place than we have been treated to for the last several years in national politics. It was fascinating.

And I was talking to them about going to Selma a few weeks ago for the 35th anniversary of Bloody Sunday, and walking over the Edmund Pettus Bridge with John Lewis and Hosea Williams and Dick Gregory and Coretta Scott King and Jesse Jackson -- all the people that were in Selma 35 years ago. And this whole issue of the Confederate flag being on a flagpole in South Carolina was there. And I said, I can't say anything better to you than when the waving symbol of one American's pride is the shameful symbol of another American's pain, we still have another bridge to cross. And the crowd exploded, and said, we're going to take that flag off the flagpole. And it really made me feel proud to be an American, proud to be a Democrat, and proud to be a Southerner.

And to see that the old -- what we know now about South Carolina, most Americans who aren't from there, is that President Bush went to Bob Jones -- I mean, Governor Bush went to Bob Jones University. President Bush went there, too. And President Reagan went there, too. Bob Dole went there, too -- and I let him get away with it because I didn't know it. (Laughter.) If I had known it, I wouldn't have.

You can't imagine what a big deal this was to a Southerner. Anybody that went through the civil rights revolution was more offended by that, I think, than anything else -- because -- it's okay. I'm sure there are a lot of -- you know, there are good people everywhere. But if you're going to go there, you should say, I don't agree with your racial and religious policies.

But what I want you to know is, there's a whole other group of people down there. And they're involved in a struggle, mano a mano, with the Republicans for defining the future of that state, and how they define it might have a lot to do with what America looks like in the future. And this is the struggle that's going on throughout the country.

I would also tell you that the second-biggest hand that anything got in the evening was when the Congressman said that he certainly hoped Hillary would be elected to the Senate from New York. And that South Carolina crowd erupted. (Applause.)

I say that to tell you that the reason I love being a member of this party, and the reason that I am so grateful that I have had this chance to serve our country, is that we really are, now, the only available national vehicle for the common aspirations of all Americans. People can come to a wonderful lunch like this; people who serve the lunch that could never afford to come to one; all kinds of people in between.

And I just want to say, tell you very briefly -- because I'm not on the ballot. I'm not running for anything. Most days I'm okay with it. (Laughter.) Some days I'm not so sure. (Laughter.) But what I thought I would do today is to try to just give you a little ammunition in an organized fashion -- based on what's now going on in Washington right now, and what certainly will be at issue in this election -- about what the differences are, the practical differences, and what the evidence is in terms of what works. And I'll start with an interesting thing, particularly -- it always amazes me at these events. You could all be at one of their events and get a bigger tax cut. So let's start with their tax policy.

What's our tax policy? Our tax policy is, we've got a surplus, we can afford a modest tax cut as long as it doesn't interfere with our ability to balance the budget, keep paying down the debt, and save Social Security and Medicare, and have enough money to invest in education, health care and the environment, science and technology and medical research. And if we've got any -- but we can have one.

But we think it ought to be concentrated on increasing the earned income tax credit, which is what low-income working families get so they can support their kids. We think we need a much bigger child care tax credit, and it ought to be refundable, because paying child care costs is still one of the biggest challenges that working families face.

With more and more people living longer, the number of people over 65 slated to double in the next 30 years, and I hope to be one of them -- (laughter) -- more and more families making the loving, but expensive choice to care for their relatives, we want a $3,000 a year tax credit for long-term care.

We want a tax reduction that will extend all the way to upper middle class people for up to $10,000 for the costs of college tuition. We have made with our tax credits, effectively, we've made two years of college, at least at the community college level, universal in America, one of the major achievements of the Clinton-Gore administration. If this passes, we'll make four years of college access universal. It's very important.

So those are the kinds of tax cuts we want. We want to give people who have money big tax breaks if they will invest in the poor areas in America that are not part of our prosperity yet. I believe that you ought to have the same tax incentive to invest in inner-city neighborhoods in New York or Chicago or the Mississippi Delta, or Appalachia or the Rio Grande Valley, or the Native American reservations where unemployment rates still run as high as 70 percent on some of them -- you ought to have the same tax incentives to invest in those areas that we will give you today to invest in Latin America or Africa, or Asia -- not that I want to take the others away, I just want the same incentives here in our country.

Their tax program, under the guise of marriage penalty relief, is to get rid of the estate tax entirely and have other things that are concentrated overwhelmingly toward upper income people. There's a difference, a real difference. And it says a lot about most of you that you're here, because most of you would benefit more in the short run if you were there with them.

So what does that tell you about the Democrats? When I ran in '92, I said that I had a vision of 21st century America in which every responsible citizen had an opportunity, in which we would be a community of all people, and in which we would continue to lead the world for peace and freedom. And I think that we think that way because, basically, we believe everybody counts, that everybody should have a chance, that everybody should have a role to play, and we all do better when we work together. That's what we really believe.

And it matters. You should know, there's a huge, gaping difference on tax policy. Now, am I right or are they right? We've had a lot of tax cuts since I've been President. Hope Scholarship tax credit, we've doubled the earned income tax credit, we gave a $500 per child tax credit, and there was a survey that came out the last day of my trip when I was gone that said that on ordinary Americans, the income tax burden in America, the percentage of income going to income tax -- now, that's not Social Security or Medicare, but just income tax, is the lowest it's been in 40 years.

So I think we're right. And I'm not running -- I can't make that case. But you can and you must. What about the budget? What's our budget policy? I want us to pay down the debt for the first time since 1835. And I think it's a liberal thing to do, not a conservative thing to do. Why? Because if we do that in a global economy, interest rates will stay down and ordinary people will be able to make their money go further. They'll be able to buy cars. They'll be able to take college loans. They'll be able to buy homes. And we'll have more money available for businesses to borrow at lower interest rates, because the government won't be doing it, which means more jobs will be created. I think it's the right thing to do.

And I want to also save enough money so that when the baby boomers all retire, we'll be able to preserve Social Security and Medicare, and we'll have enough money to invest in education. We've got -- this administration has done more work in more areas in education, I think, than anyone in history. And I've got a big program up there now, designed to help school districts turn around failing schools or shut them down; to provide after-school programs and other remediation programs to every kid in every troubled school in America; to finish our work of hooking all the schools up to the Internet; to repair 5,000 schools a year for the next five years, and to build 6,000 new ones. And this is important.

Now, what's their program? Their program is -- their nominee, just as recently as last week, has reaffirmed that he supports a tax cut even bigger than the one I vetoed last year. And I can tell you what will happen if it passed. Here's what will happen. If it passes, we will go back to either running government deficits, or there will be vast cuts in education -- where Governor Bush says a lot of things, virtually endorsed our program in education, to only give out federal money to the schools if they support what works. The problem is, he can't keep his commitments, because he's for a tax cut that will mean they'll have to cut education. And not just a little bit; I'm talking a lot. They won't have any money to help Social Security and Medicare when the baby boomers retire, but that's okay with them, because they want to privatize both of them. And I think it's a mistake.

They can't support our plan to provide a prescription drug benefit with Medicare -- which 60 percent of the people on Medicare need, by the way. Not just poor people on Medicare; there are a lot of people who have middle-class incomes, who have huge medical bills, that are severely distressed by them. And they cannot get affordable coverage for medicine when they get older.

They can't support our program to let the parents of poor children that are in our children's health program buy into health insurance -- because they don't have the money; because they're going to give it all away in a tax cut. And we'll still have a deficit. Now, there's a big difference there. And it's not like we don't have any evidence here. Our economic policies -- we have doubled our investment in education; we've got the first back-to-back surpluses in 42 years. And I think the economic performance speaks for itself. The longest expansion in history and 21 million new jobs. So why are we even having this argument? Because we really have honest differences here.

If you look at other issues -- I could just mention two or three more. Our view of the world -- I got tickled the other day. I just got back from India and Pakistan and Bangladesh, and I stopped in Switzerland to try to make another effort on the Middle East peace. And I noticed a member of the other party in the Senate was criticizing me for going to India and Pakistan, because I didn't "get anything for it." That is, they didn't agree to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, or to the other efforts that I'm making to try to stop them from building up nuclear weapons.

Well, they didn't. What he didn't point out is that I lost all the leverage I had when the Republican Senate defeated the ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. I thought, that is real gall. Man, for a guy -- (laughter) -- to stand up and say that. That requires a lot of moxie, you know. (Laughter.) One of their great strengths is, by the way, they have no guilt and no shame. I mean, they'll say anything. (Laughter.) You know, you'll never see them blink about it.

But I want to say, there are differences in that. And we do have some things in common. I compliment the Republicans that are trying to help me help Colombia, to reduce the drug flow into America and to shore up a brave democratic government's fight there. And the people who are criticizing this, saying it's another Vietnam, are just wrong. We're not sending soldiers there. All we're doing is supporting the police and other efforts to build a civil society and give those farmers some reason to stop growing coca and grow something else. I support -- I thank the Republicans who have helped me with the China agreement, because I think it's very important to bring China into the World Trade Organization.

But we have big differences. You know, I want to support the U.N. more, most of them want to support it less. I think we were right to go into Kosovo, and save the lives and the livelihoods of a million Muslims. Most of them thought it wasn't worth the trouble -- not all of them, but most of them.

And so there are real differences here. And the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is the most stunning one. I mean, I cannot imagine a reason for the United States not to sign on to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty unless you believe that we will be more secure because you think we can always win any arms race, so it's okay if everybody else starts to get in the nuclear business as well. These are differences.

I'll just give you two or three others of these things we're fighting. The patients' bill of rights -- about 190 million Americans in these managed care plans. I believe they ought to have access to a patients' bill of rights that's really strong and enforceable. And we're still fighting that. We may get it, but we're not there yet.

I think we ought to raise the minimum wage a buck over two years. You know, the last time I did it, they said it would wreck the economy. Since then, the economy's grown even faster than it did before we raised the minimum wage. (Laughter.) It's not like there's an argument here that has any evidence behind it. The gun safety legislation -- you all know about that. I mean -- they asked me in my press conference yesterday what I thought about all these terrible things Charlton Heston is saying about me, and I said, I still like his movies and I watch them every chance I get. (Laughter.)

But if you look at it -- forget about the NRA, here. If you look at this view -- should we close the gun show loophole and doing background checks. Well, when I signed the Brady Bill, they all said, oh, it was the end of the world as we knew it. The hunters would be bereft, because they would be -- their lives would be messed up. Nobody's missed an hour in the deer woods yet, and a half a million people who were felons, fugitives or stalkers, haven't gotten handguns. And gun crime is at a 30-year low in America because of that.

But a lot of them still pick up these guns at urban flea markets and at these gun shows. And the technology is there to do the background check. You know, people thought the assault weapons ban was terrible. But, frankly, it's not as effective as it ought to be, because you can still import large-capacity ammunition clips and then adapt the guns. And we ought to ban them.

We ought to have child trigger locks. We ought to be investing in safe gun technology so if somebody buys a handgun, you can equip it in a way that you have to show your fingerprints on the gun before it will fire. These things are worth doing. And the difference I have -- and the Republicans say, well, but you just ought to enforce the existing laws now.

And a lot of you have heard me say this, but I want to hammer this home. It's a big issue. We have enforced the gun laws more than they were before. Prosecutions are up. I've asked for another 1,000 prosecutors and more investigators to enforce the existing gun laws, to get -- the surprising number of guns used in crimes come out of just a few dealers. There's something to that. But their position is that guns are the only area of our national life where there should be no prevention.

I said this in the press conference the other day, but I want to say it again: If I gave you the following speech, you would think I was crazy. If I said, you know, I've been flying on airplanes all my life. And most people who fly on airplanes are really good people. And it's a real pain, especially when you're late and airports are crowded to have to go through these airport metal detectors. And if you've got a big old buckle or a highly metallic money clip, you may have to go through two or three times. You empty your pockets and everything. And 99.99 percent of the people in those airports are good, honest people.

Let's just rip those metal detectors out there, and the next time somebody blows up an airplane, we'll throw the book at them. Now, you think about that. That's the argument, right? But most people believe that you should prevent as many bad things from happening as possible in life. And it's far better to prevent bad things from happening, and then if something does happen bad, then you do what's appropriate.

But these are huge differences. The choice issue is going to be huge. The next president will appoint somewhere between two and four justices in the Supreme Court. And their nominees have said repeatedly that Roe v. Wade was a bad decision, he'd like to see it repealed, he'd like to see it changed, and I can tell you, I've seen those guys work up there. This is -- I'll put in a little plug for Hillary -- (laughter) -- no matter whether a Republican senator says he's pro-choice or not, they will make their lives miserable, should they win the White House if they don't back the White House.

And if you can't imagine -- I have seen them dance -- I have seen these things happen where I've had these Republicans come up to me in virtual tears and apologize for the way they were voting on first one thing and then another, and just say they had to do it because they didn't want to lose their committee position, or they didn't want to lose this, that or the other thing that was being done.

Now, I don't think we're going to have a Republican President, I think Al Gore's going to be elected. (Applause.) But if you care about this issue, you should work harder for Al Gore and for people in the Senate that would support that position.

Now -- and I'll just give you one other example -- Ed Rendell was talking about the log cabin Republicans. I know that there have been a lot of people in America who won't support me because of the position I have taken on gay rights. But I have to tell you, I just don't see how you can run a democracy if you say that certain people -- no matter how law-abiding they are, no matter how honorable they are, no matter how talented they are -- ought to be discriminated against. I just think it's wrong. (Applause.)

I don't think it's really complicated, and I think we ought to pass the employment nondiscrimination act and the hate crimes bill. And I stood on the tarmac -- let me just say this -- I stood on the tarmac in Austin, Texas at the airport, and embraced the weeping daughter of James Byrd, who was dragged to death in Texas, who came all the way back from Hawaii to lobby for the hate crimes bill, pleading with the Governor to meet with her. He refused. Finally, he did, because it was a pretty hard case to make, why he wouldn't meet with her. And all he had to do was lift his hand, and they would have had a hate crimes bill. And it did not pass because they did not want it to pass. Because they did not believe that gays and lesbians should be protected by hate crimes legislation.

Now these are facts. And the American people can simply make up their own mind. But what you need to know is: when it comes to taxes, when it comes to the budget, when it comes to these other specific issues -- there are huge differences.

And I don't have to condemn them and engage in the kind of politics of personal destruction that others find so helpful. I think most of them are good people who really just disagree with us. I don't think that somebody with a different political view is an evil person. I think our country's really been hurt by all this sort of attempt to believe if you don't destroy your opponent, there's something wrong with you.

I don't believe, by the way, that John McCain is against breast cancer research, either, which was the main thing I heard about in the New York Primary. And I might tell you, that program was supported by me; it was in the defense budget. But that was a total misrepresentation of what was going on. It was completely unfair. And that's the most charitable word I can think of to characterize it.

But you need to understand here, I'm not running for anything, but I care a lot about what happens to my country. Yes, I want Al Gore to be president, because he's been the best Vice President in history, and because I love him; but also, more important, because he understands the future, and he's strong enough and experienced enough and smart enough, and he cares enough about the policy issues, to lead us there.

I'll just leave you with this thought: when we celebrated in February the longest economic expansion in American history, and all my economic advisors came in and said that, and they were all jumping up and down. I said, well, when was the last longest expansion in American history? For a long time, it had been the longest peacetime expansion in history. I said, when was the longest expansion of any kind in American history? You know when it was? Nineteen sixty-one to 1969.

Now, here's what I want to tell you about this. A few of you are around my age, anyway. I graduated from high school in 1964. John Kennedy had just been assassinated. But the country had united behind President Johnson -- and I was very proud of him. You know, he was from my neighboring state, passionately committed to civil rights.

And when I finished, in 1964, in high school, every kid my age was full of optimism. Unemployment was low, inflation was low, growth was high. We believed that all the civil rights problems would be solved by the Congress and in the courts, peacefully. We believed we would win the Cold War because of America's values. And no one thought that there would ever be any trauma coming out of Vietnam. In other words, we were pretty relaxed about being, then, at the high point of the longest economic expansion in American history. We thought things were just going to take care of themselves.

Now, a year later there was Bloody Sunday in Selma. Two years later, there were riots in the streets. Four years later, when I graduated from college, it was two days after Robert Kennedy was killed, two months after Martin Luther King was killed, nine weeks after Lyndon Johnson couldn't run for re-election because the country was split right down the middle.

And a few months later, Richard Nixon was elected President on the first of what became a whole series of what I called "us-and-them campaigns." You remember what his slogan was? He represented the silent majority. You remember that? Which meant that those of us who weren't for him were in the Loud Minority. And it was a very clever slogan for the time.

But the point is: it was us versus them. And we've been "us-ing and them-ing" for a long time ever since. And I have done my best to end that, here and around the world. Because I think it is dumb, counterproductive, wrong, and I haven't yet met a person who was genuinely happy demonizing other people.

But I'm telling you this to make this point: I have waited 35 years for my country to be in the position that we now enjoy today. Where we can literally build the future of our dreams for our children, where we can be a force for good around the world, where we can take on all these challenges.

But what I want you to know is: I have lived long enough to know that the worst thing we can do is take all this for granted. To believe that no matter what we could do, that there are no consequences to this election, there are no consequences to how we behave in our lives and in our communities, that this thing is somehow on automatic, and everything's just going to be hunky-dory. That's what I thought in 1964, and I have waited 35 years for my country to be in this position again.

So if somebody asks you why you came here today, you tell them what I told you. And you tell them we don't want to blow this chance. We have fewer crises abroad, fewer crises at home, and a greater opportunity to do right. And we're Democrats, and we need to do it. Thank you. (Applause.)

END 1:55 P.M. EST


11. REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES DEPARTMENT CONFERENCE, AFL-CIO -- April 4, 2000
Washington Hilton and Towers
Washington. D.C.
12:25 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Well, the first thing I would like to say is John Podesta told me that he emceed this retirement dinner for Bob Sunday night. And then Hillary came over here for breakfast, and I just kind of got lonesome. Nobody had me come over, so I just thought I would intrude myself on your meeting. And I'm glad to be here. (Applause.)

I want to say I came for two reasons. First of all, I came to thank you for all the support you've given me and for all the work you've done for America and for all the people you represent. I have tried, too, to be a builder -- and the builders of this country, to me, embody the best of America. So I want to thank you, because without your help and your support, none of the good things that have happened that our administration, that the Vice President and I have been part of, would have been possible.

And the second thing I wanted to do was to say a special word of thanks to Bob Georgine as he retires after 29 years. Thank you for your leadership on raising the minimum wage, on school construction, on bringing investment to the new markets of America that have been left out of our prosperity, on the patients' bill of rights, and on all the issues the specifically affect your members and working people.

And I wanted to also thank you for last Labor Day, where you taught me to use an electric screwdriver. (Laughter.) Now that I'm moving into my own home and it's 111 years old, I might need that skill again, before you know it. (Laughter.)

Bob and I are both retiring -- at least he's doing it voluntarily; I'm term-limited. But I tell you, as we look back on the last seven years, it has been a wonderful experience. And, again, I say, we could not have done it without you. What I'd like for you to do now is just take a few minutes with me and think about why we are where we are and where we need to go.

I have my politics, I suppose, partly from the way I was raised by my grandparents and my family; partly from what I've learned as a governor in my home state of Arkansas and as President; partly from what I've observed about human affairs and human nature. But I have come to believe that there are basically two big approaches here to American politics. One is, obviously, from the bottom up; the other is from the top down. We're on the bottom up side.

The other is unite and lift against divide and conquer. I think that most of us believe the way we do because we think everyone counts, everyone ought to have a chance, everyone has a role to play in our society, and we all do better when we help each other. That's why we think everyone should have opportunity and we should have a community of all Americans.

Now, if you think about where we are today, it seems to me that even though I love to hear you cheer for me and for where we are and what we've done, the real issue is, what are we going to do with this moment of prosperity. You know, people can be tested in adversity, but they are also tested when times are good; when you build up a great legacy, what do you do with it. And I've worked as hard as I could for the last seven years to try to first turn this country around. Just remember what it was like when we all -- when Al Gore and I showed up here. We had high deficits; we had high interest rates; we had no job growth; we had social divisions; we had political gridlock. I've worked hard to try to turn it around. The country is moving in the right direction. What are we going to do with it? And that is the real issue.

And I would argue that you have a solemn responsibility in this election season not only to mobilize your members and their families, but to reach out to the larger American community to say, this is not a time for self-indulgence, this is a time to concentrate on our unique ability to meet the big, long-term challenges of America, for the most vulnerable among us, for the children like those children that are in this audience today. And I'd just like to begin with one -- Bob alluded to it.

In the next 30 years, all the baby boomers are going to retire, and we'll only have about two people working for every one person drawing Social Security. Not two people total, but -- (laughter) -- two people. Even I couldn't get that done. (Laughter.) Two people working for every one person drawing Social Security. And so there will be a great question here. How are we going to change that? How are we going to accommodate the aging of America?

Well, I'm about to sign a bill which removes the Social Security earnings limit, so people who want to work in their later years can do so and still draw their Social Security. I think that's a good thing to do. (Applause.) But we also have to recognize that we're going to have to make some changes in order for Social Security to mean, in the 21st century, what it has meant to the 20th century.

We're also going to have to make some changes in the Medicare program, which was established when President Johnson was here, to make it work in the 21st century. And I've asked the Congress, for example, to dedicate the interest savings from paying down the debt to the Social Security trust fund. Why? Because right now, we're paying more in Social Security taxes than we're paying out in Social Security. So as we pay the debt down, I want to take the interest savings from paying the debt down, put it in the trust fund. It would now allow us to add about 54 years to the life of the Social Security trust fund and take it out beyond the life of the baby boom generation. (Applause.)

And I hope you'll talk to the members of Congress. I know a lot of Republicans have supported many of your issues and you have relationships with both Republicans and Democrats. This is not a complicated deal. The only reason for the Republicans not to support this is if they want to privatize Social Security if they can get the Congress and the White House. Now, you need to put the heat on folks to say, we've got the money now, let's dedicate it now to saving Social Security and taking it out beyond the life of the baby boom generation. (Applause.)

The other thing we have to do is to modernize Medicare and add a prescription drug benefit for our seniors on Medicare. (Applause.) Now, we just learned last week that Medicare, which was scheduled to go broke in 1999, last year -- when I took office they said the trust fund would run out of money in 1999. We have now taken it out to 2023, and I'm very proud of that. (Applause.) You know, if we were designing a Medicare program today, no one would even think about designing Medicare without prescription drug coverage.

First of all, because there's been so many dramatic advances in medication. And, secondly, because, again I will say, the nature of people over 55 has changed. When Medicare was originally designed, people didn't live much longer than 65 years, typically, and this was designed for emergency care or for critical care, for hospitals and doctors. Now, any American lives to be 65 has got a life expectancy of 83. And more and more, we need preventive care and chronic care. And more and more of that is prescription medication. No one -- if we were starting all over again today, we we'd never even think about having a Medicare program that didn't provide a prescription drug component.

Now, I've just come from a meeting with the Senate Democrats, and the Senate is taking up the budget today, and the Democrats are going to try to, first of all, say we should not spend the surplus on risky tax cuts, we should first take care of our basic business. Senator Robb is going to offer an amendment today, supported by Senator Daschle, that makes this simple statement: After we modernize Medicare with an affordable, broad-based, voluntary prescription drug benefit, then we can move forward with sensible tax cuts that aren't so big they undermine our ability to save Social Security, pay down the debt and invest in the education of our children. But first things first. (Applause.)

So the Senate is going to get a resolution by Senator Robb today that says, say yes to Medicare and prescription drugs, and no to having a big tax cut first. So I hope you will support that.

Now, interestingly enough, a number of people in the Republican majority are saying, okay, well, I'll go along with the drug program as long as everybody doesn't get it. We ought to stop at the poverty level, or 150 percent of the poverty level, or maybe at the outer reaches, some of them 200 percent of the poverty level. Let me tell you something. They want to say that nobody with an annual income of over $16,700 should get help with this prescription drug benefit. I just think that's wrong.

If you think about it, a lot of you have parents, uncles, aunts -- maybe your older brothers and sisters, that are on Medicare. If they have a $300 or $400 a month drug bill, which is not all that rare, then $16,000 is not all that much money. And since this benefit is voluntary, again I will say I don't think a widow earning $16,000 or even $20,000 a year is less deserving of drug coverage than someone who is below the poverty line.

So I hope you will stick up for the proposition that all of our seniors should have the option of buying into this insurance program. That's what made Medicare work in the first place. That's what made Social Security work in the first place. It was a universal program that helped middle-class people as well as low-income people. And this is an opportunity to improve the process of aging in America in a way that is humane and decent and completely affordable. So we need your help to get prescription drug coverage in the Medicare program this year, in the right way, for all Americans. (Applause.)

I also want to thank you for your devotion to the welfare of people on the other end of life's age line -- for your support for education, and in particular, for the work you have done to build bipartisan support for school construction and renovation.

This year I have sent a budget to the Congress which will enable us to build or modernize 6,000 schools, and to repair 5,000 schools a year over the next five years. This is terrifically important. We've got the largest school population we've ever had. We want to have high standards and high accountability. We want to hook all these schools up to the Internet.

But there are schools in New York City that are still being heated with coal -- with coal. The average age of a school building in Philadelphia is 65 years. I was in a small town in Florida, visiting an elementary school where there were 12 -- 12 -- house trailers behind the school, to take the overflow of the students. One-third of our schools are in serious disrepair; a lot of them literally too old to be wired for the Internet. Other kids in trailers that need to be in modern classrooms.

This is a big issue. We've been working on it for three years now. This week, the Department of Education released a state-by-state report, telling us that the need has grown and grown. Enrollment is growing, facilities are crumbling. Every year we fail to act the problem gets worse. I am very frustrated by those who say in the majority in Congress that this is not a national responsibility. That is not true.

I'm not trying to tell people how to build the buildings, I'm not trying to prescribe the -- we're not trying to micromanage this program. But the school districts of this country do not have the money or the means right now to do what our children need. We have finally more people in the schools than we had during the baby boom generation after World War II. And we cannot expect them to learn in facilities that are unbearable -- and, in many cases, unwireable.

So I asked you to work with me. With your help, we actually have now a strong bipartisan school construction bill in the House. And thanks to you, largely, we have both Republicans as well as Democrats supporting this legislation in the Senate and the House. The House bill would allocate $24.8 billion to help communities build or renovate these 6,000 schools.

So now that you've gotten us some good Republican support, we have to get this to a vote. Once it became obvious on the House floor that we actually had Republicans supporting this bill and that we could pass it, then efforts were made to keep it from coming to a vote. So I say to you, there are a lot of people who believe that this year, because it's election year, should be a year where nothing gets done. And I have challenged every member of Congress who believes that to relinquish his or her salary for a year. (Applause.) Because we didn't get to where we are today by taking a year off. You don't get to take a year off, nobody else gets to take a year off, and everybody's drawing a paycheck every two weeks. There is no reason not to continue to move forward.

Believe me, no matter how much progress we make this year, there will still be significant areas of disagreement between our presidential candidates and between the two parties in all the congressional races. So let's show up for the American people and do what we can. There is no reason -- no reason -- not to pass the prescription drug benefit on Medicare and not to pass the school construction bill this year. And you can help us do it. I hope you will. (Applause.)

Now, I would like to close with the point with which I began. First, with a simple thank you; and, second, with a reminder that this year, this election year, imposes on all of us an historic responsibility. We did not get to where we are today -- with 21 million new jobs and the lowest unemployment rate in 30 years, the lowest female unemployment rate in 40 years, the lowest minority unemployment rate ever measured, highest home ownership in history, the lowest welfare rolls in 30 years, lowest poverty rates in 20 years, lowest crime rates in 25 years -- this didn't happen by accident. It happened because we worked together and we had the right ideas and we were moving in the right direction. It happened because we believed in uniting our people and lifting them up, and not in divide and conquer. It happened because we believed you could be pro-business and pro-labor, pro-work and pro-family; you could grow the economy and improve the environment; you could balance the budget and run a surplus and still invest more in education and give tax relief to middle income families.

A study last week said that the percentage of federal income tax coming out of average families' incomes was the lowest in 40 years. That's why we had a unite and lift, not a divide and conquer theory, and because we kept working. And the only concern I have about this election year is that people will say, well, we've got the first surpluses we've had in 40 years back-to-back, things are going well. Why don't we vote for something that makes us feel good in the moment?

And I just want you all to listen to this, particularly those of you that are about my age. In February, we celebrated the fact that we had the longest economic expansion in American history. And so I had all my economic advisors in, and we were sitting around talking about it. And I said, well, when was the last longest economic expansion in history, before this one? You know when it was -- 1961 to 1969.

Now, let me tell you what happened then. In 1964, I graduated from high school, at the peak of this economic expansion. We had low unemployment, low inflation, high growth. Everybody thought the growth would go on forever. We had a civil rights challenge at home, but Lyndon Johnson was President, he'd united the country after President Kennedy's assassination, and people believed that the civil rights challenge would be met in the Congress and the courts, not in the streets. We were sort of involved in Vietnam, but people thought that was a long way away, and nobody dreamed it would divide the country, and people thought that we would win the Cold War because our values and our system were superior, and things would just rock right along.

That's what we thought in 1964. Four years later, in this city, I graduated from college on June the 8th. It was two days after Robert Kennedy had been killed, two months and four days after Martin Luther King was killed -- today is the 32nd anniversary of his death. It was nine weeks after Lyndon Johnson said he couldn't run for president anymore, because the country was divided right down the middle over Vietnam and there were demonstrations everywhere.

It was a few weeks before Richard Nixon was elected President on one of those divide and conquer platforms. And I know a lot of you probably voted for him if you were of voting age -- that age. But let me just remind you of what the message was. The message was, I represent the Silent Majority, which meant that those of us what weren't for him, we were in the loud minority. So there was "us" and there was "them." And then we had all those "us" and "them" elections.

Al Gore and I came along and said, we want to put people first. We want to unite, not divide. But just a few weeks after that election, 1968, boom, the longest economic expansion in American history was over.

What's the point of all that? I'm not trying to get you down. I want you to be up. There's nobody more optimistic than me in this room today. But we need to have a little humility and gratitude for this moment we're in. And we need to understand that these things can get away from us. And we need to be resolved to make the most of this. This is a moment for making tomorrows -- not a moment for being distracted or indulging ourselves, but for making tomorrows.

We have a chance to build a future of our dreams for our children. And the reason I told you that story about the 1960s was not only to remind you that nothing lasts forever and you have to make the most of these things, but to tell you that -- not as your President, but as a citizen -- I have been waiting for 35 years for my country to have this chance. And you can make the most of it.

So in everything you do this year, you remember this little story I told you. And you remember that we have the chance of a lifetime that we should be grateful for. And everyone you talk to, and everyone you touch, and everything you say, remind people: this is our moment for making tomorrows.

Thank you and God bless you. (Applause.)
END 12:48 P.M. EDT




12. REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT AT BILL SIGNING FOR SENIOR CITIZENS FREEDOM TO WORK ACT OF 2000 -- April 7, 2000
Presidential Hall
Old Executive Office Building
11:00 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Let me say, first of all, to Flo Mallonee, I thought she did a great job. Her family must be very proud of her. And if you get tired of the job you're in, you might consider elected
office. (Laughter.)

I'd like to welcome all the former Social Security commissioners here, and say a special word of appreciation to our current Commissioner, Ken Apfel, and Deputy Commissioner Bill Halter. I'd also like to acknowledge the contributions of Jim Roosevelt -- until recently, the Associate Commissioner for Retirement Policy at the Social Security Administration, something that would have made his grandfather very proud of him -- and former Representative Barbara Kennelly of Connecticut, who is the current Associate Commissioner for Retirement Policy.

There are many leaders of the aging community here today; I welcome them. But most of all, I want to welcome this very large delegation from the United States Congress, and at risk of -- if I forget anybody, do not be shy. But my notes say that present here today are Chairman Bill Archer; our Minority Whip, David Bonior; Representative Ben Cardin from Maryland; Representative Mack Collins from Georgia, who is here with his granddaughter -- who is happy that her grandfather can continue to work into his later years. (Laughter.) Representative Joe Crowley from New York; Representative Sam Johnson from Texas; Representative Sandy Levin from Michigan; Representative John Lewis from Georgia; Representative Ron Lewis from Kentucky; Representative Bob Matsui from California; Representative Jim Ramstad from Minnesota; our subcommittee chair, Representative Clay Shaw from Florida; Representative John Spratt from South Carolina; Representative Jerry Weller from Illinois.

I don't think I've missed anybody. And you should give them all a big hand, they did a fabulous job, (Applause.)

Over seven years ago now, when I took office, the Vice President and I made a commitment to a 21st century vision of America, with opportunity and responsibility for all American citizens, and a community of all American citizens. To do it we thought we would have to reward both work and family, and create a government that would borrow less and invest more. For seven years, we've worked hard on that.

Today, the size of the government is about what it was in 1960, 40 years ago -- thanks, in large measure, to higher productivity from the federal work force and the advent of new technologies. Thanks to strong cooperative efforts in the Congress, we have turned record deficits into surpluses and we've enjoyed the longest economic expansion in history.

We've tried to find ways to reward work and family, doubling the earned income tax credit for working families with modest means, passing the Family and Medical Leave Act, improving the college loan program and
providing tax credits for college costs that were never there before, and many other initiatives. But we know, increasingly, how we deal with Social Security will be a test of our commitment to family and, increasingly, to
work.

In the 65 years since President Roosevelt signed it into law, Social Security has dramatically transformed the lives of older and disabled Americans. Seniors were once the poorest people in America. Today, thanks to Social Security, they are the least likely to live in poverty. In spite of the fact that many seniors enjoy other sources of income, if there were no Social Security in America, almost half the seniors in the country would be below the poverty line.

Thanks to Social Security, many of our seniors have a level of independence that few older Americans could even have dreamed of 65 years ago. And thanks to Social Security, we Americans continue to uphold the
sacred compact between the generations.

But FDR himself said, and I quote, that "Social Security represents a cornerstone in a structure which is by no means complete," and that "new conditions impose new requirements upon government and those who
conduct government." He would have been the first to agree, I believe, that Social Security must change to keep pace with changing times in America.

The system originally was designed to encourage older Americans to retire by withholding benefits from those 65 and older who worked. Keep in mind, 65 years ago, when Social Security was initiated, the life expectancy in this country was not 65. The so-called retirement earnings test made some sense in the Great Depression, when the nation was desperate to find jobs for young workers with families, and the unemployment rate in
our nation was 25 percent.

Conditions today could hardly be more different. The economic is booming, the unemployment rate at its lowest point in 30 years, companies desperately need more workers. Older Americans have the skills and the
experience that businesses need. Indeed, one of the most interesting things that was said to me today before we started is -- Flo said it's a good thing we did this, because she'd be hard to replace at her present position. (Laughter.)

That's true. Increasingly, older Americans want to work. Many of them for various reasons need to work. And we know, as a practical matter, that unless they're in terrifically physically draining jobs, that continuing to work may well add not only to the length, but to the quality of their lives.

Today, one in four Americans between 65 and 69 has at least a part-time job. Eighty percent of the baby boomers say they intend to keep working past age 65. And I'm the oldest of the baby boomers, so I can
speak for our generation. One of the reasons I went to law school is so nobody could ever force me to retire. (Laughter.) Although, I spent the better part of my life trying to escape law practice -- (laughter) -- I still remember vividly how I felt about it, even as a young man, and I still have some solace in that.

Yet, because of the Social Security retirement earnings test, then system withholds benefits from over 800,000 older working Americans, and discourages countless more -- no one knows how many -- from actually
seeking work. It has longed seemed senseless to me.

In the 1992 campaign, Vice President Gore and I campaigned on scrapping the retirement earnings test. When it became obvious that the work that we had all done together to balance the budget and run a surplus and to stabilize the fund would make it possible to do so with no adverse impact, in my 1999 State of the Union address I proposed it.

But what has happened here is truly astonishing. I hope this will go out all across America today. All you ever hear is how much we fight up here. This bill passed unanimously. Nobody was against this. And it is a tribute to the people who work on these issues in the Congress, and those who have listened to them, but also it shows that there is a keen awareness here of how the aging of America and the improved financial condition of our country and our government has totally changed the landscape.

But I think it also reflects the understanding that this is a genuine human rights issue. We want people to have this right to choose the life they want, or they need. The Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act means that hundreds of thousands of older working Americans will get checks next month reimbursing them for all the Social Security benefits withheld this year.

Yesterday morning, in Chappaqua, New York, I went to get my morning cup of coffee in my new little village -- (laughter) -- and a lady came up to me and said, you know, I'm a public school teacher, and my district needs me. But I'm 65 years old. Are you guys ever going to get around to lifting that earnings test? And you know, it's terrible, I'm embarrassed to tell you this, but I can hardly keep up with my schedule from one day to the next, and I didn't remember that I was doing that I was doing it the day after tomorrow. I said, in just a few days I think you'll be very happy. (Laughter.) So if you're looking at me today -- (laughter) -- we did it.

This bill not only means that our seniors will be able to enjoy extra income and personal fulfillment that comes with work without being penalized. It means companies with labor shortages will have a fresh supply of experienced workers, increasing our ability to grow without inflation. In the future, it will mean more baby boomers working longer, contributing more to the tax base and to the Social Security trust fund at precisely the time when the percentage of younger workers paying into the system will be dropping.

This is a big deal. If present work rates continue, and present birth rates and present immigration rates continue, when all the baby boomers get in here, there will only be two people working for every one person drawing Social Security. This may also change that, and help to further stabilize the Social Security trust fund itself.

The retirement earnings test means higher benefits for -- ending it means higher benefits for working seniors with no negative effects -- I say this again -- no negative effects on the long-term fiscal health of the Social Security trust fund. So it's the right thing to do for seniors, but it's also a smart thing for our nation.

I'm also pleased today to announce another important innovation to upgrade Social Security for the Information Age. Beginning today, Americans of any age can find out in seconds what their Social Security benefit levels will be in the future. All they have to do is to log on to the Social Security Administration's web site, www.ssa.gov, and click on the new Social Security retirement planner. It provides estimates of future benefits based on your past, present and estimated future income, and a new tool for the growing legion of Americans who are learning to use new technologies to make their own investment decisions and retirement
plans.

Two days ago, at the White House Conference on the New Economy, I discussed with leading experts on technology how government could use the Internet to empower individuals and strengthen civil society. This new
retirement planner is just a small, but powerful example of the kind of innovations that I believe have the potential to transform the relationship between the United States government and the American people.

Let me, finally, just add one cautionary and hopeful note. These steps today are profoundly important, but I believe we should do more to strengthen Social Security. I think we should extend the life of the trust fund well into the middle of this century, while strengthening benefits for older women living alone, who are still much more likely to be in poverty than other seniors.

Last fall, I proposed legislation to pay down our debt for the first time since 1835, and use the benefits of debt reduction, which would now -- if we took the benefits of debt reduction that we're getting because of the surplus in Social Security tax collections now, the benefits are manifested in lower interest payments for the United States on this debt as we pay the debt down. If we took those lower interest payments, that benefit, and we put it into the Social Security trust fund, we could extend the life of the trust fund to 2054, which will be well beyond the life expectancy of all but the most fortunate baby boomers.

I hope we can work with Congress to pass that plan this year. It is a simple measure. Some of us would like to do more. We may not be able to do more in an election year, where there are genuine and honest differences between the two parties and even within the parties about how to proceed on this issue. But at least if we could simply take the interest savings the American people have given us with their Social Security taxes, which are now in surplus over distribution, and pay the interest savings from paying down the debt into the trust fund, think of it -- we'd have 54 years on the life of the Social Security trust fund. So I hope we can do that.

I also hope we can strengthen incentives for working families to save by passing the retirement savings plan that I recommended. And I hope we can expand high-quality pension coverage for millions of workers. I have proposed tax credits for small businesses to establish good pensions for their employees. It's harder for them, and I think we ought to give them more help to do it.

Again, I say, conventional wisdom says that nothing important happens in Washington in an election year. Today we have proved the conventional wisdom wrong. This is an election year; this is important and it happened by unanimous vote of the United States House of Representatives and Senate. So, so much for the conventional wisdom, and good for the seniors in America and those of us who hope to be part of the doubling of the senior population in the next 30 years.

Let me also say, I think it's important to point out that it's not just seniors who should be happy about this -- and I'm glad Flo has got her whole family here. One of the most profound worries of the baby boom generation is that because we are so large, when we retire, if we haven't made adequate provision for it, our retirement will impose a big burden on our children and their ability to raise our grandchildren. So this should be a happy day for Americans of all ages today, because a very good thing has been done for the future.

So I thank you all for being here. I look forward to working with you to further strengthen Social Security, to strengthen Medicare. I hope we can agree to add a prescription drug benefit there. I hope we can reauthorize the Older Americans Act. I hope we can do a lot of other things this year. But the spirit -- again, I want to thank the members of Congress, the Republicans and the Democrats, for the spirit behind this action. This is how America is supposed to work. You have done a good thing today.

Thank you very much. (Applause.)

Now I'd like to invite the members of Congress to come up here for the bill signing. And I'd like to invite the seniors to go over this way and kind of stand behind me, too.

(The bill is signed.) (Applause.)

END 11:15 A.M. EDT

13. REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT AT DNC LUNCH--April 8, 2000

Private Residence New Orleans, Louisiana
1:05 P.M. CDT

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Well, thank you very much, Arnold. And, Celia, thank you. We would have all come here today just to see your beautiful home. And unless you're lucky, half of us may take a swim before we leave. (Laughter.) But I thank you so much for opening your home and for reminding me of that speech that I gave. It seems like a long time ago in one way, and another just like yesterday.

I want to thank my good friend, Sheriff Henry Lee, who proved to me that you could get bad press and the people would stay with you. (Laughter and applause.) So I simply decided to test the theory. (Laughter.) And it got a little out of hand. (Laughter.) Now, that's a crack I probably wouldn't make anyplace in America -- (laughter) -- outside of Louisiana. (Laughter.)

I got tickled when Mayor Rendell said he'd never met anybody like Ray Reggie. I thought, that's true, but if you stayed down here long enough -- (laughter) -- you'll meet 400-500 people you never met like before and never will again. (Laughter.)

So, Ray, thank you. Thank you, David Young. Thank you, Mary Lou Winters. I want to congratulate our young state representative, Karen Carter. Her father has been a friend of mine forever, and once Karen came up and accosted me and chewed me out over something she thought I was wrong about, and then she later thought maybe she'd gone too far. And I told her Daddy that I'd be proud if my daughter could talk to the President that way. (Laughter.) Not because -- because she wasn't disrespectful, she was just aggressive and articulate. And I'm glad to see her being so successful.

And, Mrs. Morealis (phonetic), nice to see you. I want to say a special word of thanks to Bill and Andrea Jefferson for being here. Bill Jefferson was for me when only my mother thought I could be elected President. (Laughter.) In our immediate household, it was a close call -- (laughter). So I thank him for all of his friendship and support over the years.

And I thank all of you who worked so hard to raise these funds for our party. I want to thank all the young people who worked on this event. And my friend, Mayor Rendell. You know, when I first met Ed Rendell we went to Philadelphia -- I was running for President and he took me to a neighborhood where he had worked to eradicate gangs and drugs, in a very poor neighborhood. And we walked down the street and I could see his evident pride that he had helped to change the lives of people who were very often over looked by other public officials.

And then we got to the end of the street and he challenged me to shoot baskets -- there was a little park there. And even though he knew I might become President, he beat me anyway -- (laughter) -- which I sort of respected. And we've been friends ever since. And I have been waiting for eight years for a chance to get even. And when I talked him into becoming Chairman of the Democratic Party I said, you know, it's just a little part-time job, it won't take much work. (Laughter.) He had a full head of hair when he took this job. (Laughter.)

But he's really been wonderful. And I think it's a great thing to have our party headed by someone who's actually been elected to something, served people at the grass-roots level, understands the problems and the promise of all different kinds of people. And Philadelphia is a magnificent city, that's been very good to me and to the Vice President, so I want to thank him.

I've been to Louisiana a lot since I've been President, about half as many times as I would have liked to have been. And I want to thank you all, and through you and the media here, to all the people of this state for voting for me twice for President, and for giving me the chance to serve.

I am a little perplexed some days that this is the first time since 1974 they've held an election and my name hasn't been on a ballot. (Laughter.) I like to joke that most days I'm all right about that. So today I'd like to talk to you from the perspective of someone who is not a candidate, but is profoundly grateful for what this country has given to me and for what this state has done for me. I'm grateful that I had the chance to serve at a very crucial moment in American history, when we were in need of making some difficult decisions about what kind of country we were going to be and how we were going to prepare for a new century.

And I guess I want to make just two or three brief points, because when you come to a deal like this I'm sure maybe for a few days afterward people say, well, what was it like and what did the President say and was it really worth all the money it cost you to go, and why did you do such a stupid thing. (Laughter.) I'm sure you get asked all those questions. So I'd just like you to think about a few things.

First of all, this country is in a lot better shape than it was in 1992. We had high unemployment, high interest rates, low growth, almost no new jobs, our social problems like crime and welfare were getting worse, and we didn't seem to have any governing vision for taking us into the new century. And I think ideas matter a lot.

You mentioned -- Ed Rendell made the remark about what a diverse group we have here, and he made a remark about the contributions of people who have brought lawsuits on behalf of injured people that I agree with, but I -- sometimes I get criticized from the other side because I want to pay America's debt off. One columnist, a couple of weeks ago, who is a friend of mine, a man I admire very much, accused me of embracing Calvin Coolidge economics. I'll explain why, I'm going to do it in a minute.

But the point is, when I ran in '92, I had been, as President Bush said, the governor of a small southern state, somewhere to the north of here. And I was so dumb, I thought he was complimenting me when he said that. (Laughter.) I was kind of proud of it, myself. I still am, to tell the truth. And the way Washington worked didn't make a lick of sense to me. I mean, there was a liberal position and a conservative position; there was a Democratic position and there was a Republican position. And the one thing that you couldn't do without being accused of heresy is try to unlock the differences, or come out with a third position that would go beyond both of them. And it looked to me like it was a very serviceable setup for politicians who needed to get on the news for 15 seconds every night because only conflict will guarantee you a place on the airways. But it wasn't doing very much good for the American people.

And so I asked the people to give me a chance to try a different way. I really believed we could have a country that could get rid of the deficit and still increase our investment in education and our children and their future. I believed we could grow the economy and improve the environment. I thought we could be pro-business and pro-labor. I thought we could get rid of unnecessary government bureaucracy and still be more vigorous in the pursuit of those things we saw to be pursued. I believed all that.

And I remember when I first started giving these talks, the people who had been covering politics for years looked at me as if I were some sort of heretic or it was just political gobbledy-gook. The first thing I want to say is ideas matter. Because after eight years we have, instead of record deficits and a debt that was quadrupled under the previous administrations and their theories, we've got the first back-to-back surpluses in 42 years, and the longest economic expansion in history, and the lowest minority unemployment ever recorded, and the lowest overall unemployment in 30 years, the lowest female unemployment in 40 years.

So we did it by being pro-business and pro-labor. We did it by getting rid of the deficit, and we've about doubled our investment in education and training for our children, and dramatically increased access to college and raised the standards for education. So you can do these things.

The air is cleaner, the water is cleaner, the food is safer. We've tripled the number of toxic waste dumps we cleaned up over the previous two administrations. And the economy is stronger. So it makes sense. We've got a stronger federal government, but it's the smallest government since 1960. We've eliminated hundreds of programs, and I will give anyone here the ticket price here, I'll give you your money back if you can stand up right now and name three of them. Any takers? (Laughter.)

I say that because I didn't think it was anti-Democratic or anti-progressive to recognize that we had programs on the book that were no longer serviceable, that just kept getting funded because people couldn't think of anything better to do with the money. And we were up to our ears in debt and we had to get out. And we needed the money for education; we needed the money for health care; we needed the money for the environment; we needed the money for helping poor people move from welfare to work.

So that's the first thing I want to say to you. Ideas really matter. I've learned that in over 20 years of public life and over seven years of being your President. One of the reasons that I support the Vice President is that he understands the future, he understands the importance of ideas, he knows how to get us there. These things aren't just slogans to him. I've spent too many hours with him doing too much work, making too many difficult decisions.

The second thing I want to tell you is, our adversaries are smart and they want back in in the world's worst way. And they figured out the way to do it is to try to blur the differences within the party, until they get in and they start appointing their judges and passing their bills and doing their thing. But, in the meanwhile, they'd like to blur the differences.

So I want to tell you there are differences. Let me just cite a few. We worked hard to turn this deficit around and start running these surpluses. And we're paying off the debt at a rapid rate. Now, I'm not against a tax cut -- I'm actually for a tax cut if it's small enough to enable us to save Social Security, reform Medicare and add a prescription drug benefit to the 70 percent of our seniors that can't afford it today; continue to invest in education, health care and the environment and science and technology and research; and pay the debt off. We can get out of debt for the first time since 1835, in 12 years.

And I think we ought to do it, not just because it sounds good, but because if we keep paying the debt down we'll keep interest rates down and there will be more money for people to borrow to start businesses, to hire people, to invest in their equipment, to move the economy along. That's what I think.

Now, in spite of all that, I still have offered a tax cut, and the Vice President has offered one, I think, in the campaign, in the same range. We could give people a $3,000 tax credit for long-term care costs for their parents or disabled relatives; let people deduct the cost of college tuition for their kids, up to $10,000 a year; increase the child care tax credit; increase the earned income tax credit for lower-income working people. Nobody who works for a living and has kids at home should be in poverty. The tax system ought to take them out. That's what I believe.

We still have a sizeable tax system -- we could even give them some relief on the marriage penalty, an issue where our Republican friends say they're interested. But I don't think we ought to do that at the expense of what got us here. We've got the longest economic expansion in history because we said we're going to get rid of the deficit, invest in education and technology, and sell more American products around the world. That's how we got here. And so there's a big difference.

What's the difference? The other party wants a tax cut even bigger than the one I vetoed last year. Even bigger. Now, they'll tell you they're for education, they're for the environment, they're for this, that, and the other thing. The truth is they're not going to have any money. They promised this huge tax cut and even bigger increases in defense than I've advocated, and the money won't be there. Or if they do spend this money, it means that we won't be able to save Social Security for the baby boom generation's retirement. Or it means we go back and start running a deficit again, and we'll have all the same problems we had the last time we did that.

Now, so I would say to you, I don't think this is rocket science. What they're running on -- now, they're using different words and blurring the distinctions, but what they're running on is the exact same economic program they pursued for the last 12 years the last time -- and so the American people -- when they ask you why you're here, you say, well, I think we're better off than we were eight years ago, and we've got a choice that's the same choice we had before about which economic strategy we're going to follow. Except in 1992, you took a chance on me, but in 2000, you now have evidence about how their system works and how ours works. And you need to tell people about this.

Because every day all these folks are going to be saying different things -- all the ones running for Senate and Congress and President, they're going to be emphasizing this issue and that. But I'm telling you, I've been there. You can make promises until the cows come home, but if you're going to deliver the promises there is a price tag on it and it all has to add up in the end. Or if it doesn't add up, you're going to cut something else or start running deficits again.

The central thing you need to know about the economic differences between the parties is, after I vetoed that huge tax cut last year to keep the economy going -- and I might add, after I did it, the economic growth in the last quarter of last year was 7.3 percent, the biggest in a coon's age. Nobody can remember when that was -- (laughter.) For ever and ever. Nobody can remember that. (Applause.)

Now, they come back and say, that tax cut he vetoed wasn't big enough, we want a bigger one. And let me tell you what's on the other side. The number of people over 65 in this country is going to double in the next 30 years -- I hope to be one of them. There will be two people working for every one person drawing Social Security. The baby boom generation -- that's anybody here between the ages of 54 and 36 -- and I can only tell you about the older baby boomers, because I was born in the first generation of them -- we are panicked about the prospect that our retirement might undermine our children's ability to raise our grandchildren.

Now, we've got the money right now, if we don't throw it away we have the money right now to pledge the interest savings from paying down the debt to the Social Security trust fund and take it out to 2054 -- 54 years from today -- beyond the life of all but the most fortunate baby boomers. We ought to do it. And it's more important to your long-term financial health than a tax cut we can't afford.

If we were starting Medicare again today -- now, we're for that; they're not -- if we were starting Medicare again today we would never design a Medicare program without a prescription drug component. When Medicare was set up 35 years ago, it was basically a critical care program, the fund covered doctor and hospital bills. Now, anybody that lives to be 65 years old has got a life expectancy of 83 years and it's going to keep going up.

There needs to be more attention to preventive care, to chronic problems, to all kinds of things that medicine can have a big impact on. And, literally, almost three-quarters of our seniors either don't have any or don't have an adequate and affordable prescription drug coverage. It's a big deal. You overdo the tax cut, you can't cover enough people. And we have differences on how many people we want to cover with them.

In education, it's fine to say you want to have higher standards for our schools and all these other good programs, but you've still got to pay for them. They've still got to be paid for. Our program is, repair our schools that need repairing, build thousands of new schools, hook them all up to the Internet, put another 100,000 teachers out there -- 2 million teachers are going to retire in the next few years, and more kids in the schools than ever before. So I think we ought to help put more teachers in the early grades. Have higher standards, but give schools the help they need for after-school, for summer school, for the reading, the mentoring program, so that you don't blame kids for the failure of the system.

I've got no problem with ending social promotion and having higher standards, but if you're going to do it, you've got to give the kids a chance to succeed. And I think most people believe that. So there are differences. And it all starts on the economic front with this.

There are also differences on a lot of other issues. I'm trying to raise the minimum wage, a buck a year over two years. And they won't just pass a clean minimum wage bill, they're trying to get a humongous tax cut out of it. But, you know, the last time we raised the minimum wage, about six years ago, they said, oh, boy, this will drive up unemployment. Twenty-one million jobs later, we know that if you've got a good economic policy and a strong economy, paying people a decent wage who are working hard does not hurt the economy.

And it's time to raise it again. And do you know if we raise it again, it would still be, in real dollar terms, we'd still only be back where we were about 30 years ago, in terms of the purchasing power. So we ought to raise it. We're for it; they're not.

On the gun issue -- I grew up down here, I grew up in a culture that valued hunting, sport shooting. When I signed the Brady Bill there was the awfulest commotion you ever heard in the assault weapons ban. People said, oh, they were going to lose their guns and all that. We heard all that stuff. Well, nobody has missed an hour in the deer woods. But seven years later, 500,000 people -- felons, fugitives and stalkers -- have not gotten handguns, and it could be a reason why we have a 30-year low in gun death rate. (Applause.)

So now the issue is, should there be child trigger locks on the guns, should we ban the import of large-capacity ammunition clips -- which make a mockery of the assault weapons ban because you just import the clips, then you adjust the gun to take the new clip -- and should we do a background check at the gun shows.

Now, when we passed the Brady Bill, the people that were against it said, it won't do you any good to do a background check of people who buy guns from gun stores because all the criminals buy their guns at the gun shows. I said, oh, surely some buy their guns at the gun stores, and sure enough, a half-million did anyway. (Laughter.) So now I go back to the same people and I say, you remember when you told me seven years ago all these people were buying their guns at the gun shows. Well, we have the technology to do these background checks now, they're not particularly burdensome, let's do them. They said, oh, my goodness, we couldn't do that. It would be the end of civilization as we know it. (Laughter.)

And all I can tell you is I think it will keep kids alive. And I have never done anything, to the best of my knowledge, not one thing in my public life that interfered with the legitimate rights of hunters and other lawful gun owners. That is not what this is about. It's not about scare tactics and slogans.

Somebody asked me the other day what I thought about all the mean things Charlton Heston has said about me. I said, I like his movies very much. (Laughter.) And I actually -- he came to the White House a couple of years ago for the Kennedy Center Honors -- I liked him very much. This is just a difference of opinion here.

I think it's really unfair to even say the Republicans are sort of in the pocket of the NRA, as if they're doing something they don't believe. I think they believe that. We think differently about this. This is a difference of opinion.

They believe that basically this is the one area of our national life -- guns -- where there should be no prevention. All punishment. They do say -- and I've increased gun prosecutions and want to increase them some more, and they're going to support me on that, I think -- give us more prosecutors and all that. But they believe the only answer is wait until somebody breaks the law and throw the book at them. But this is the one area of our national life where we can't have prevention.

Well, you think about that. We have prevention everywhere else. We've got cross-walks for walking across the street, trying to keep people from getting run over. We put seatbelts on when we get in the car, trying to keep our heads from going through the dashboard. We put our kids in these child safety seats, trying to keep them from flying around if we have to slam on the brake. We've got speed limits. We have airport metal detectors. Why do we have all this stuff? Most people are law-abiding, sensible, careful and safe. In every endeavor. But you still do what you can to stop bad things from happening in the first place.

Right? I mean, that's what you do. When it's your family and your life and your kids, that's what you do. And that's what smart societies do. All this is about is whether we're going to do sensible things to prevent bad things from happening. I

said it in my press conference the other day -- I don't know if any of you saw it -- I said, what do you think the country would think of me if I said, you know, I'm really worried about how many people are crowding in our airports and how hot they are and tired they are and pushed together they are; and 99.9 percent of them are the best people you ever want to meet in your life, they're totally law-abiding, they would never think of doing anything; and it drives them nuts to be late for an airplane and go through one of these metal detectors; and they've got a rodeo belt on or a big, old, heavy money clip and they go bing, bing, bing, bing, bing, bing -- they have to go out and you take everything out of your pockets, you go through it, it goes off again, and you have to go out and do it again -- it just drives them nuts. And I just think it's so burdensome, and since almost all of them are law-abiding, let's just take them all out. And the next time a plane blows up, we'll throw the book at them. (Laughter.)

Now, that is the logic -- that is the logic behind not doing these background checks. But, man, this has got nothing to do with the deer season. It's got nothing to do with the gun shows. It's got nothing to do with anything. It's a question of whether you believe there should be prevention in this area of our national life.

See, I believe America could be the safest big country in the world. When I got elected President, nobody even thought the crime rate could go down. I did because I'd been out to places like Philadelphia, I'd seen this. I believe America can be the safest big country in the world now. And if I were running the NRA I would have a whole different take on this. I'd say, I'd like to prove that you can have the safest big country in the world and still have people who like to go hunting, go to these shooting contests and have a good time, own guns lawfully, be trained carefully that use them -- I'd like to prove that. I wouldn't be against all this prevention stuff. I think prevention is an important part of life.

But there are differences here. And you know what the other differences are. So the first thing I want to say is, the country is in better shape. Ideas matter. We've tested our, we've tested theirs. On the economy, they want to do what they did before. And if you do it, you'll get the same consequences you got before. And all the other things they talk about, all of them running for all these offices, you have to view in view of their commitment to a tax cut even bigger than the one I vetoed.

The second thing I want to say is, I think these other issues matter: what you do in education; what you do with the environment; what you do with crime and how you do it.

The last thing I want to say is this. The Democrats have lost some votes since I've been in here, I'm quite sure because we take a very inclusive view of society, and we don't believe that people ought to be discriminated against just because they're female, just because of their race, just because they're handicapped, or even if they're gay -- in the workplace --subject to hate crimes or anything else. That's what we believe. And some people are threatened by that and they don't think we're good Americans and they won't vote for us. But I think most people are with us on this.

My view of this is real simple: I think if you get up every day and you show up for work, and you go about your business, you obey the law, you pay your taxes, you're a good citizen, you ought to have a chance to live in this country and live up to the fullest of your ability, and nobody ought to get in your way doing it. That's what I believe. (Applause.) That's what I believe.

And I believe that -- I think that we define our sense of community in terms of how we live. They, I think, believe we define our sense of community more in terms of whether we say we believe the same things. And all I can tell you is, if you think about the time I've spent since I've been President working on peace around the world, what's the problem in the Middle East, in Northern Ireland, in Bosnia, in Kosovo, in the tribal wars in Africa, all these places? People killing each other because they're different -- racial, ethnic, tribal groups, or religious groups. Different, right?

Why did that guy in Los Angeles shoot those kids at the Jewish community center and kill that Filipino postman? Why did that guy in the middle West, who said he belonged to a church that didn't believe in God, but did believe in white supremacy, shoot the black former basketball coach at Northwestern and the Korean Christian when he was coming out of church, and three or four other people? Why was young Matthew Shepard stretched out on a rack in Wyoming? And why was James Byrd dragged to death in Texas? And what has all this got to do with us?

I really believe one of the great challenges every person's life faces -- every person, even person who themselves have been discriminated against -- is figuring out how to get it right when it comes to how to deal with people who are different from you. And how to find a way to appreciate other people's differences, enjoy them, and still somehow feel that what we have in common is more important than what is different about it. And that's hard to do. And the more I try to make peace around the world, the more I understand how much progress we've made in this country, for all of our problems. It's hard to do.

And all over the world, people are raised to believe that they can identify themselves as good by having somebody else to look down on; that their religion only has meaning if somebody else's doesn't. They were raised to have pride insofar as it's set off against, in conflict with somebody else. It's not just American -- this is everywhere. And in this most modern of worlds, we are bedeviled by this old conflict.

So I just want you to think about that. IF somebody gave me one wish today, they said, "I'm sorry you can't finish your term, you've got to check out tomorrow" -- and God came down to me and said, "I'm no genie. You're not getting three wishes. I'll give you one" -- I would not wish for prosperity or even a Democratic victory in November. I would wish that this country could truly be one America, across all the lines that divide it. Because we're smart people, we're good people, we work hard; if we could ever get our hearts and minds right about this stuff, the rest of it would work out. That's what I believe.

And I'll just leave you with this thought. The most important question of all in this election is, what are we going to do with our prosperity? Are we going to make one America? Are we going to give everybody a chance to be a part of it? And are we going to meet our big, long-term challenges? The biggest danger for the Democrats in this race is that people will do what they often do when things are going along well, they'll get relaxed. They won't concentrate, they won't feel a sense of urgency. And they'll either stay home or they won't be sharply focused on what this could be about.

How many times -- everybody here over 30, how many times have you ever made a mistake in your life, not because you were under the gun, but because things were going along so well you didn't think there were any consequences to what you did today? Now, that's the big question here. What will we do with this unique moment of prosperity?

In other words, all these differences only matter, that I just went through to you, if we're going to do something about it. And the only thing I'd like to tell you about that is, the older I get, the more my friends pass away, the faster time goes, and the more I realize nothing lasts forever. And I say that not to be morbid -- I'm the most optimistic person you'll ever meet. I believe in the promise of America. I believe no one is irreplaceable. I believe in our country only freedom is irreplaceable. I don't believe there is anybody, including me, who's irreplaceable. But I believe moments come and go.

And the last time we had an expansion like this was in the 1960s. It was the last time we had the longest economic expansion in history. And it's when I graduated from high school, in 1964, where everybody thought the economy would go on forever, we would never get mired down in Vietnam, the Cold War would be over before you knew it because we were good and strong, and civil rights would be solved in the courts and in the Congress -- 1964, middle of the big expansion.

When I graduated from college four years after that, it was two days after Robert Kennedy had been killed, two months after Martin Luther King had been killed, nine weeks after Lyndon Johnson said he couldn't run for President because the country was too divided over the Vietnam War. Mr. Nixon got elected President -- he was a very able man, but he got elected President on one of these "us" and "them" divisive campaigns. He represented the Silent Majority, and those of us that were on the other side, we were in the loud minority, we were kind of out of the club there. And a few months later, the longest expansion in American history was over, boom. And we blew a chance to solve a lot of our problems in a wholesome, peaceful way.

Now, I'm not running for anything, but as an American citizen, I want to tell you, I've waited 35 years for that opportunity to roll around again for my country. Where we could build the future of our dreams for our children. Ideas matter, there are differences. We've got to do this together.

The most important thing right now is that we focus on the importance of this election. Do not take our prosperity for granted. Do not take our social progress for granted. Do not take your ability to even come to something like this for granted. We've got to make the most of this. If we do, we'll be proud for the rest of our lives. If we don't, we'll never forgive ourselves. This is a moment for making tomorrow. That's why you came today. If somebody asks, you tell them that. Thank you very much.

(Applause.) END 1:37 P.M. CDT




14. REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT TO AMERICAN SOCIETY OF NEWSPAPER EDITORS-- April 13, 2000
J.W. Marriott Hotel Washington. D.C.
11:45 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, Chris. And thank you for asking me again -- I think. (Laughter.) I want to say I am delighted to be here. And I'm glad you said it was the 6th time -- I knew I had been here more than half the time, but we were talking on the way in about how, when you live a busy life, how memory fades. And I've enjoyed these six occasions, or at least the previous five, and I think I'll enjoy this one.

I was asking myself on the way over here, why am I doing this, I'm not running for anything. (Laughter.) And I read the Vice President's speech to you and the jokes that he made, the joke he made about Chris and the Orange County Register. I was so delighted to carry Orange County, I didn't care whether the newspaper was for us or not. (Laughter.) And surprised.

But I am delighted to be here. And I want to talk primarily today about the present debate over the budget and tax proposals on Capitol Hill. But I would like to say one thing very briefly at the outset about the census and to ask for your help.

Because the census is, at its core, information about who we are as a democracy, I would imagine everyone in this room is particularly interested in it. The information especially from the long form helps home towns do everything from design mass transit systems to provide 911 emergency services. The census helps us to calculate cost of living increases for Social Security, military retirement, veterans' pensions. It serves as a foundation for a variety of economic surveys, including the monthly jobs reports, and it's important in the calculation of the Consumer Price Index.

So far, about 3 of 5 census forms have been returned. That means about 40 percent have not. We want everyone to count, and we hope that you will help us to reach them. So I would just say anything you can do to help encourage the people who read your papers to fill out their census forms, every one of them, would be very much appreciated.

More than 35 years ago, President Johnson spoke before the American Society of Newspaper Editors. At a time, superficially, not so unlike this time. Unemployment was low, inflation was low, growth was high. The economy was humming in the middle of what was then the longest -- to prove to be the longest economic expansion in our history. It lasted from 1961 to 1969.

President Johnson spoke of our obligation to look beyond the moment, to think of America as what he called "a continuing community" -- to see how decisions affect not only today's citizens, but their children and their children's children; "to build for tomorrow," he said, "in the immediacy of today." I think that's a good way of capturing what it is I believe we should be doing today -- building for tomorrow in the immediacy of today.

It was very different seven years and three months ago when I came to office. The economy was in trouble; the society was divided; the politics appeared to be paralyzed here. I had a vision of 21st century America, and a road map I thought would help get us there. I saw an America where the American Dream of opportunity was alive for every person responsible enough to work for it; an America strong, of strong communities with safe streets, good schools, a clean environment; and a national community, which not only respected, but celebrated our diversity and found even greater hope in our common humanity. And I saw an America still leading the world toward peace and freedom and prosperity.

We had a strategy to achieve that vision, one rooted in opportunity, responsibility and community. The road map included economic reforms, education reforms, welfare reforms, health care reforms, reforms in criminal justice, reforms in environmental policy; greater efforts to strengthen the combined roles of work and family in the modern world; efforts to support our American community through community service; and initiatives in foreign policy against wars rooted in racial and ethnic conflicts, against terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, and for peace processes all across the world -- efforts to build new partnerships in Asia and Latin America, to advance the cause of world health and to relieve the debts of the poorest countries in the world.

We also had an idea to reform the role of the federal government to make it smaller, but more empowering, and more aggressive in creating the conditions and the tools within which people could make the most of their own lives.

Strengthening the economy, of course, was key to realizing our vision. Doing that made all the rest of this possible. Our strategy was quite simple. We wanted to pursue a course of fiscal discipline, the greatest possible investment in education, and technology, science and other things that would advance our objectives, and to expand trade in American products and services around the world.

Now, we are in the midst of the longest, strongest economic expansion in history, with 21 million new jobs, the lowest poverty rate in 20 years, the lowest unemployment rate in 30 years, the lowest welfare rolls in 30 years, the lowest female unemployment rate in 40 years, the lowest African American and Hispanic unemployment rates on record, the highest homeownership in history. We also have the lowest crime rate in 25 years. Gun crime is down 35 percent since I took office. We have cleaner air, cleaner water, fewer toxic waste dumps, greater land preservation in the lower 48 states than in any other period, except the presidencies of Franklin and Theodore Roosevelt.

Twenty-one million people have received the benefits of the Family and Medical Leave law; 150,000 young Americans have earned money for college by serving in AmeriCorps. Two million children, with 2 million more on the way, have been given health insurance under the Children's Health Insurance Program. Ninety percent of our children are immunized against serious childhood diseases for the first time in history. In our schools, test scores are up, college-going is up, and America has been a source of support for peace and freedom in the Middle East, Northern Ireland, the Balkans. We have done it with the smallest federal government in 40 years.

In the course of all this, the nature of the economic debate has changed radically. If I had come here the first time I spoke with you and said, give me a few years, and we will eliminate the deficit, run three surpluses in a row for the first time in half a century, double our investment in education, and we'll have tax relief for middle-class and lower-income working people, including the earned income tax credit, the HOPE scholarship tax cut, the child tax credit, and we'll actually lower the tax burden on average American families -- and according to the Treasury Department, income taxes for a typical family of four are the lowest percentage of income they have been since 1965 -- if I had said that -- and I had said, now, give me a few years and the main question we will be debating is, what are we going to do with our surplus -- you would have been forced to write editorials complaining that the new President was slightly deranged, but he seemed like a pretty nice fellow. (Laughter.)

Now, nonetheless, that is now the subject of debate in Washington -- what do we do with the surplus? The question really, I think, is a larger one: What do we make of this moment? Do we believe, as President Johnson believed when he came here in the early '60s, that we should plan for tomorrow in the immediacy of today?

To me, the answer to that question is clear. We should be looking at our long-term challenges and opportunities, the ones I outlined in the last State of the Union address -- the challenge of the aging of America. The number of people over 65 will double in the next 30 years. There will be only two people working for every one person drawing Social Security, at present rates of Americans maturing and immigration and retirement.

We can extend the life of Social Security beyond the expectancy of the baby boom generation, and we can extend the life of Medicare and add a prescription drug benefit so that baby boomers, when they retire, are not a burden to our children and their ability to raise our grandchildren.

We have the challenge of expanding opportunity for all the children of America, the most racially and ethnically and religiously and linguistically diverse group of children ever in our schools. We can give every child a world-class education and, now, unlike 15 years or so ago, when we started the education reform movement of the late 20th century, we actually know how to do it. And we know that all children can learn; we know what strategies work and we have evidence, abundant evidence all across the country.

We have the challenge of securing the long-term health of America. I believe to do it we ought to continue to pay down the national debt and make America debt-free for the first time since 1835. And I believe we have a challenge to extend economic opportunity to people and places that have not been part of this recovery even yet, which is the heart of my New Markets Initiative.

We have the challenge of continuing to help people balance work and family, and eliminating what is still a scourge of child poverty in the United States. We have a challenge of proving that we can meet our environmental challenges, including global warming, and still grow the economy; a challenge of making our country the safest big country in the world; a challenge of accelerating our leadership in science and technology, and spreading the benefits of it not only across America, but to every corner of the Earth; the challenge of continuing to lead the world toward peace and freedom and continuing to build one America here at home. Now, I think that's what we ought to do with this magic moment of possibility.

In large measure, the decision about what to do and whether we continue on that course is what the budget debate in Congress is all about and what the election of 2000 is all about. There are those who say, well, even if the tax burden is a percentage of income, it's the lowest it's been in 35 years for most Americans. We still ought to give some of this money back to the American people. We can do that, but I believe the tax cuts should be responsible and targeted, to help working families raise their children, provide for long-term care for their parents, tax deductibility for college tuition and better child care.

I think there should be incentives to wealthier Americans to solve our common problems. For example, to invest in new technologies, to help us combat global warming and promote environmental protection, and to invest in our global vaccine initiative, to help eradicate AIDS, TB and malaria from the world, and especially to invest in the poor areas of America which have not yet fully benefitted from our recovery.

We can do all that, and it will actually reinforce our efforts to meet our long-term challenges. But I believe the budget now being debated in Congress and put forward by the majority takes us in the wrong direction and risks safeguarding this unique moment in our history, primarily because the tax cuts that are proposed in the aggregate would take us back to the policy that I have worked for over seven years to reverse.

I vetoed their tax bill last year because it would have ended the era of fiscal discipline that has served our economy so well. This year, Congress is working on last year's tax bill page by page, piece by piece. In separate measures, it is already voted to spend in the aggregate nearly half a trillion dollars, more than half the surplus. And we don't know how much is on the way because their budget, unlike the projections I try to do, only covers an extra 5 years rather than 10 years.

Last year, their tax cut cost about $150 billion over 5 years, but it would have exploded to nearly $1 trillion over 10 years.

This year, from Capitol Hill to the campaign trail, we're hearing positive statements about investing in health care and prescription drug coverage and education. But after a $1 trillion tax cut -- and I believe the one they're running on this year is even bigger -- there will be no room left for these investments, or for saving Social Security and Medicare, unless we're prepared to go back to the bad old days of deficits.

Congress has a responsibility now to show us how all these separate proposals add up; how the choices made today will affect our ability to meet the challenges of tomorrow. Before we talk about massive tax cuts that would derail our hard-won economic prosperity, I say again we should put first things first.

First, we should strengthen the solvency of Social Security and Medicare. These two programs represent the bedrock of our commitment to seniors, and to millions of Americans with disabilities. Fiscal responsibility has been the foundation to keep these programs strong.

When I came to office, Medicare was projected to go broke last year, 1999. We have taken action to put Medicare and Social Security on a better path to the future. Just last month, the Social Security trustees announced that the economic has now added three years to the life of the Social Security trust fund. It is now solvent until 2037. The Medicare trustees announced that Medicare is now solvent until 2023 -- 24 years beyond where it was projected to be in 1993. That's the strongest Medicare has been in 25 years.

Now, to be fair, there is a consensus in Congress that we should use all the Social Security surplus for debt reduction, and that is a good thing. But my budget goes one step further. It's an easy step, I believe, but one the congressional majority has not yet embraced. Debt reduction produces interest savings. Rather than using those savings to pay for an exploding tax cut or a spending increase, my budget locks away the interest savings from the Social Security surplus to lengthen the life of Social Security to at least 2054. This would cover all but the most fortunate baby boomers. I'd have to live to be 108, to run out the Social Security trust fund.

My proposal also lengthens the life of the Medicare trust fund to at least 2030, by investing a significant portion of the surplus while also making Medicare more competitive and efficient. For example, we'd allow seniors to shop around for health plans that meet their needs. If they find a plan that saves money, they'd pay a lower Medicare premium. This would increase competition, give us better quality and lower costs. We would also modernize Medicare by creating a voluntary prescription drug benefit, something we plainly would provide if we were creating Medicare in the first place today.

Medicare was created at a time when it was basically designed for acute care, for hospital and doctor costs. Today, the average person who lives to be 65 has a life expectancy of 83. And the crying need is for chronic and preventive care. And, today, unlike 35 years ago, pharmaceuticals can very often dramatically increase not only the length, but the quality of life.

So one of my problems is that the budget, pushed by the congressional majority this year, would not extend the life of Social Security or Medicare by a single day. It is very important that everybody understands it. It's one thing to say you're saving the Social Security surplus and you're not spending it. That does not add a day to the life of the trust fund. It does help you pay down the debt, and I like that. And I'm glad we've got bipartisan, virtually unanimous support for it. But if you really want to solve the problem of the aging of America, you have to take the interest savings that come from paying down the debt from Social Security taxes, which all of you are paying in excess of what we're paying out every month, and put it into the trust fund so we can take Social Security out beyond the life of the baby boom generation.

The second thing we ought to do, I believe, is to stay on course to eliminate all of our publicly held debt by 2013. By the end of this year alone, we will have repaid $300 billion in our national debt. This is having a real impact. For our economy, it's set in motion a virtuous cycle of reduced interest rates, more capital for private investment, more people investing in new businesses and new technologies.

For families, debt reduction has meant more money -- on average, $2,000 less in home mortgage payments every year for the typical family, $200 less in car payments, $200 less in student loans, than would have been the case had we not reduced the debt. That amounts to a sizable tax cut for American families. We need a fiscally responsible budget, not one that risks economic growth and makes it impossible for us to continue to pay down the debt.

Third, we need to continue to invest in key priorities that are clearly essential to our future -- education, health, law enforcement, science and technology. The budget proposed by the Republican Majority has nearly a 10 percent average cut in virtually all domestic priorities. This would lead to serious cutbacks in everything from reducing class size to cleaning up toxic waste dumps, to putting more police on our streets.

Furthermore, the budget is based on the assumption that the cuts will grow even deeper over time. This is very important for all Americans to understand. It is one thing to go out and propose all these programs that cost money, and quite another to say, but we have to have a tax cut first. And somehow, I'm sure it will work out.

We tried it that way before, and it didn't work out. So if you have $1-trillion, or even a larger, even bigger than a $1-trillion tax cut over a decade -- plus, keep in mind, their defense spending increases proposed are even bigger than the ones I have proposed, and I proposed an increase in defense every single year I've been here, and they've never failed to do that, to fund that -- then you're either going to have to drastically cut all these programs -- education, health, the environment -- or go back and start running deficits, or have a combination of both.

In other words, as I found out the hard way when I put together the budget in 1993, if you're going to be fiscally responsible, sooner or later arithmetic intrudes on politics. (Laughter.) And this is very important. Far be it from me to tell you how to do your job, but I hope that arithmetic will be part of this year's campaign debate as well.

The proposal, from my point of view, defies common sense. I think the argument is over. We had a test run. We had 12 years of their proposals -- do the big tax cuts first, and it will all work out -- and we had eight years of arithmetic in public policy. And I think if you compare the results, the argument should be over. Our commitment is to fiscal discipline, and to investment to move the country forward.

Still, in spite of all this hard evidence, later today the Republican majority will vote on a budget resolution that is loaded with exploding tax breaks and untenable cuts in critical investment. It will take us back to an approach that failed before and will fail again; back to ideas that didn't work before and won't work now; back to putting Medicare and Social Security on the back burner, instead of up front where they belong.

So I say again, we cannot afford to veer from the proven path onto a trail of unmet obligations, unrealistic cuts and unnecessary giveaways. We can't squander the moment by squandering the surplus. We can't go back to the rosy scenario of the 1980s. The new scenario bases tax cuts we can't afford under the assumption that unrealistic spending cuts will be made at the very time, they're out there in the election season telling us that they want to spend more on education and health care and the environment.

But the bottom line is this: The choices Congress will make this spring are fundamentally the choices that Americans will make this fall. What are our priorities? Will we maintain our commitment to fiscal discipline? In a larger sense, what is our vision? There is a room in the vision I have outlined for the best ideas from both parties. When we have determined to do it, we have worked together -- in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, which passed both Houses by big majorities from both parties; in the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, which passed both Houses by big majorities in both parties; in the fundamentally education budgets of 1998 and 1999, which passed both Houses by big majorities in both parties. We can do this, but we have to make up our mind to stay within the framework of what has served us so well for the last several years.

When I started, I quoted President Johnson who said, "We should plan for tomorrow in the immediacy of the moment." And I told you that when he spoke those words in the early '60s, it was in the full flush of what was at that time the longest economic expansion in history.

In February, when we celebrated the longest economic expansion in history, I asked my economic team when the last longest expansion was -- and they told me, it was '61 to '69. And I got to thinking about that. We tend to think about yesterday, I suppose, as we get older. But while I think we should keep focused on the future, we shouldn't forget the past.

There is a tendency, when you're in the middle of a boom like this, to think that you have to do nothing to shore it up, that it will last forever, and that there are relatively few consequences to whatever you decide to do or not to do. So indulge me just for a moment before I take your questions. And let me remind you of what happened the last longest economic expansion in history.

Johnson was here, speaking to this group in the early '60s, about the time I graduated from high school in 1964. Unemployment was low, inflation was low, growth was high. Vietnam was somewhere in the outer range of our consciousness. No one really doubted that we would win the Cold War because our ideas were superior and our values were superior, and no one expected the country to be rendered by that conflict. And at the time, we had a serious civil rights challenge, but most people believed then in the optimism of the moment that it would be solved in the Congress and in the courts in a peaceful manner.

A year later, we had Bloody Sunday in Selma. Two years later, we had riots in the street. Four years later, I was here in Washington, graduating from college, two days after Robert Kennedy was killed; two months after Martin Luther King was killed; nine weeks after Lyndon Johnson said he couldn't run for President anymore because the country was split right down the middle over the Vietnam War. And so we had a presidential election with three candidates amidst all the turmoil of the moment, and in a few months, the longest economic expansion in American history was over.

If I seem insistent about this, it's because not as President, but as a citizen, I have waited for 35 years for my country to have the chance to build the future of its dreams for our children, and to have the kind of positive role in the world I believe we can now have. I have worked as hard as I can to turn the situation around, and get us pointed in the right direction. And I just don't want us to do anything to squander this moment, as it was once squandered before in my youth.

We have a chance that none of us may ever see again in our lifetimes. And we have to make the most of it for our children.

Thank you very much. (Applause.)




15. REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT ON PRESCRIPTION DRUGS BENEFITS--April 26, 2000
The Roosevelt Room
9:55 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Thank you. I am on my way to North Carolina for another leg of our New Markets tour to close the digital divide. But before I leave I want to say a few words about an important study that Senator Daschle, Congressman Gephardt and I have just been briefed on regarding the growing cost of prescription drugs and the burden these costs are placing on seniors and on disabled Americans.

The study is from Families USA. It is a careful and compelling piece of work. And I thank Families USA president Ron Pollock for providing it and for being here with us today.

For over a year now I have been arguing that we as a nation ought to use this historic moment of strength and prosperity to meet our long-term challenges, especially the challenge of helping all our seniors afford prescription drugs that can lengthen and enrich their lives. More than three in five American seniors today lack affordable and dependable prescription drug coverage. Today's report shows that the burden on these seniors is getting worse.

According to the report, the price of the prescription drugs most often used by seniors has risen at double the rate of inflation for six years now, including this past year. The burden of these rapidly rising prices falls hardest on seniors who lack drug coverage because they don't receive the benefits of price discounts that most insurers negotiate. Indeed, the gap between drug prices for people with insurance versus those without insurance nearly doubled from 8 to 15 percent between 1996 and 1999.

Seniors living on fixed incomes simply can't cope with these kinds of price increases forever. That's why we should take action to help them and do it now. In my budget, I propose a comprehensive plan to provide a prescription drug benefit that is optional, affordable, and accessible for all. A plan based on price competition, not price controls; a plan that will boost seniors' bargaining power to get the best prices possible; a plan that is part of an overall effort to strengthen and modernize Medicare so we will never have to ask our children to shoulder our burden when the baby boom generation retires.

I'm gratified to see growing bipartisan support for adding a prescription drug benefit to Medicare. But earlier this month, leaders in the House put forth the outlines of a plan that has as a stated goal providing access to affordable coverage for all seniors. It's good if we agree on the goal. Unfortunately, the plan they propose won't achieve the goal. Instead it would subsidize insurance companies to offer prescription drug only policies for middle-income seniors, for policies the insurance industry itself has already said it will not offer.

And because the plan would provide direct premium support only to low-income seniors and disabled Americans, it would do nothing for those seniors with modest middle-class incomes between $15,000 and $50,000. Nearly half of all the Medicare beneficiaries who lack prescription drug coverage fall into this category. For them, rising drug prices are eating away at financial independence.

For example, according to this new report, a widow taking medication for diabetes, hypertension and high cholesterol, who lives on $16,700 a year, must spend about $2,000 a year, or 14 percent of income, on these drugs. That's not unusual, and for a nation that cares about seniors, it's not acceptable. A person like that should be covered in our initiative.

The majority's plan also is a phantom as long as the leadership insists on moving forward with a budget resolution that would spend every dime of the surplus, and then some, over the next 10 years on tax cuts. If the responsible and unrealized realistic spending cuts this budget calls for don't materialize, the tax cut will make it impossible to pay down the debt, it would leave nothing left for prescription drug benefit. Any prescription drug plan that is not adequately financed, if not available in fact, is not affordable to all, and therefore, is not a real plan at all.

The balanced budget I propose would provide a voluntary benefit for all seniors, with plenty left over to pay down the debt, lengthen the life of Social Security and Medicare, and increase investments in education, as well as finance a responsible tax cut. It provides a prescription drug benefit that all seniors can afford in a way America can afford.

I'm encouraged by the progress we've made on this issue. Now both parties have come to support the idea of adding voluntary prescription drug benefits to Medicare. Both parties have agreed to the principle that the benefits should be available and affordable to all Americans. There's no reason we can't come to an agreement on the details of how to provide it. Fundamentally, again, as with so many of the things we deal with here in Washington, this should not be a Republican or a Democratic partisan issue. It should be an American issue.

I want to thank Senator Daschle and Representative Gephardt for their support and their leadership on this issue, and I'd like to ask them now to say a few words, beginning with our leader in the House, Mr. Gephardt.

REPRESENTATIVE GEPHARDT: Thank you, Mr. President. Welcome, everyone. We have just received a briefing from Ron Pollock of Families USA, with new numbers on drug prices. The new numbers are, frankly, bad news for America's senior citizens. As you've just heard, on average, the prices of the top 50 drugs taken by seniors increased by nearly twice the rate of inflation in 1999, and this is just the average. Nearly one-third of the drugs rose at three times inflation, and one-fifth of them rose at four times inflation.

We've been saying it for several years now, seniors are having serious trouble paying for their prescription drugs. What we have today is more evidence that the problem is not going to go away by itself. Seniors need help affording their prescriptions, and they deserve help. And we're here today to reaffirm the Democrats are determined to give them that help.

We propose offering any senior -- any senior -- who wants it a new Medicare prescription drug benefit, coverage that will use the clout of volume discounts to end price discrimination against seniors, and make needed prescriptions affordable for all seniors. This is a benefit that is the most efficient and cost-effective when offered through Medicare.

It's sometimes hard to remember, but in 1963, before we enacted Medicare, half the senior citizens in the country had no health insurance. Democrats responded, often over the prolonged opposition of Republicans, by creating Medicare. In the more than 30 years since, Medicare has dramatically improved the lives and the quality of lives of all of our seniors. Today about half the seniors have no prescription drug coverage, just like half the seniors in 1963 had not health insurance coverage.

Democrats have responded once again, over Republican opposition, with a proposal to update Medicare with a drug benefit. Such a benefit would offer real help to the majority of seniors who don't have meaningful coverage today. The most recent Republican proposal, as the President said, would not.

Apparently, we're close enough to the election next fall that Republicans have decided that they can't continue simply to stonewall on prescription drug coverage. Unfortunately, their program is fundamentally flawed. They propose to over inadequate subsidies to a limited number of seniors to buy an undefined private policy that, if you listen to the insurance industry, probably won't be offered anyway. And they've yet to prove that they're serious about paying for any benefit at all. Their budget was an empty gesture, but their massive tax cuts show us where their priorities really are.

Talk is cheap; prescription drugs are not. They're expensive, and they're getting more expensive every day. Seniors need help now. Every time I'm home, as I was last week, I have senior citizens come up to me and say, can you get this bill passed this year? If you're a senior and you need prescription drugs that you can afford now, you need it now. You can't wait for next year. If congressional Republicans will agree to work with us in a meaningful way to make compromises, to do the hard work to achieve a consensus between the parties and between the views, we can get a bill done this year -- in fact, this summer.

We look forward to that. And I look forward to the day we can meet here with the President with a bill that gets the job done. I'd like to now call on Tom Daschle.

SENATOR DASCHLE: I want to thank the President for making time today to hold this very important conference, and thank him for his continued efforts to highlight the need for dependable, affordable prescription drug coverage for all Americans, especially our older Americans.

I also want to thank Families USA for this eye-opening report. The rising cost of prescription drugs is on the list of concerns of just about every older American. By showing how fast those costs are escalating, you are helping move affordable prescription drugs higher up on Congress' list of priorities.

You almost need to take a nitroglycerin tablet just to read this report. Some of the numbers are truly shocking. In one year, from January of 1999 to January of 2000, prices for the 50 prescription drugs most commonly used by seniors rose twice as fast as inflation. One drug, a potassium replacement medication, rose 20 times faster than inflation. Price increases like these could be difficult for many people to absorb, but for seniors living on fixed incomes, they are an even bigger hardship.

The bottom line is there has never been a great need for an affordable Medicare prescription drug benefit than now. Fortunately, there is also never been a greater opportunity than we have right now because of the surplus to create such a benefit.

Mr. President, you have done your part. You have presented Congress with your plan for a Medicare prescription drug benefit and asked us either to work with you to pass your plan or to come up with one of our own. On behalf of Senate Democrats and working with House Democrats, I am pleased to inform you that we will do our part as well.

We are in the final stages of developing our own plan to add a voluntary, affordable and universal Medicare prescription drug benefit. Our plan is similar in many ways to the one that you have proposed. We hope to unveil it in the very near future. We hope our Republican colleagues will work with us to come up with a plan that we can all support and pass this year.

A year ago, prescription drugs weren't even on their agenda. We think it's a sign of progress the Republicans are at least now talking about prescription drugs. We're concerned, though, that their actions, as the future Speaker said, don't match their words. On the Senate floor, Republicans refused even to offer amendments that would provide for a Medicare drug benefit. Ironically, they have even referred to our prescription drug amendments as "poison pills" in their effort to pass more tax breaks for the wealthy.

At the same time, they've proposed a budget that uses virtually every penny of the surplus for tax cuts, leaving nothing for prescription drugs. It's still early in the budget process; we hope the numbers in this report will persuade Republicans to rethink the numbers in their budget.

We need to put an affordable prescription drug benefit ahead of even bigger tax cuts for those who need them least. More importantly, we hope this report will bring about the consensus we need -- a consensus on this important health benefit this year.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Before I close I would just like to ask all of you to join me in expressing our appreciation to Ron Pollock and Families USA. They've been there on these issues year in and year out. I don't think they get as much acknowledgement as they deserve. But this is further evidence that the proposal we have is right for America from a source that everybody can trust.

Thank you, Ron. (Applause.) END 10:15 A.M. EDT




16. STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT--May 1, 2000

Today the Department of the Treasury is announcing that the United States will pay off $216 billion of debt this year -- the largest debt pay down in American history. This will be the third consecutive year of debt reduction, bringing the three-year total to $355 billion.

This important news offers yet more evidence that our strategy of fiscal discipline, investing in people, and opening markets abroad is working. The debt quadrupled in the twelve years before I came into office and was projected to rise still further. As a result of the 1993 and 1997 budgets, and tough choices in each and every year, the debt is now $2.4 trillion lower than it was projected to be. As a result, interest rates are lower, leading to stronger investment and growth while saving money for American families.

We should not jeopardize the longest economic expansion in history with risky tax cuts that threaten our fiscal discipline. We should take advantage of this historic opportunity to use the benefits of debt reduction to extend the life of Social Security and Medicare and pay off the entire national debt by 2013 for the first time since Andrew Jackson was President. Lifting the burden of debt from our children and grandchildren is one of the most important investments in the future we can make.




17. REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT TO INDEPENDENT INSURANCE AGENTS OF AMERICA CONFERENCE--May 2, 2000
Grand Hyatt Washington. D.C.
8:55 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very, very much. Ladies and gentlemen, I am delighted to be here. And I thank you, President Houston, and I thank your CEO, Paul Equale, whom I see all the time here in Washington, leading your cause. And I thank my old friend, George Frazier. I heard that introduction. The truth is that only he and my mother thought I had a chance to be elected President when I ran. (Laughter.) But it's nice to have someone like that in your corner.

I came here today, in part, on a sentimental journey. I couldn't hear everything George said, but the first speech I gave outside Arkansas as an elected official was in 1977, when I flew to California to speak for George when he was President of your organization. So, in a real sense, my political career began with George Frazier's presidency and ended with my own. And I am delighted to be here.

I also want to acknowledge and thank another member of this group from Arkansas, my friend, Lib Carlisle, who agreed to become chairman of the Democratic Party when I was reelected governor in 1982. I told him that it would just be about a half a day a week job. The truth was he had about a half a day a week left to devote to this job. And I'm surprised as a result of his public service that he could afford the airplane ticket up here. (Laughter.) But I am delighted that he and all of you are here.

I also want to say I'm glad I got here for a few minutes of Senator Hatch's speech. Believe it or not, we're good friends. (Laughter.) And it's nearly ruined him in the Republican Caucus. (Laughter.) And so he has to give me a little grief when he shows up. I would say in my own defense that it is true that tax receipts -- I heard him talking about the tax burden -- it is true that tax receipts as a percentage of national income are up. But the reason is unemployment is low and incomes have grown so much. The actual percentage of income being paid by middle-income families is the lowest it's been in over 35 years. So I think that's worth pointing out. (Applause.)

I also would say, on the education issue -- I heard what he said about burden of regulations -- the Secretary of Education, Dick Riley, who was governor of South Carolina for many years, has cut two-thirds of the regulations and paperwork burdens on local school districts that existed when we became the new administration in 1993. And, in fact, our administration, even though we've had to promulgate some new regulations over the whole federal government, has gotten rid of more regulations, some 16,000 pages of them, in every federal agency than were eliminated in the previous 12 years. And we have the smallest government since 1960. So I think the record will look pretty good on that score.

But I also want to say I appreciate the fact that Orrin Hatch has worked with me particularly to try to encourage the orderly confirmation of judges, when so many people would rather not deal with that issue. I've done my best to take that out of politics, and I think it's important. I want to thank you for several things. If I could begin, I want to thank you for what you do every day when you're not being politically active.

I want to thank you for what you do day in and day out to give personal insurance service to people across this country. I want to thank you for the work you're doing to modernize insurance, to build a presence on-line and in e-commerce. And I want to ask you to continue to help to preserve the privacy of your clients in the face of this new technology.

On Sunday, I went to Eastern Michigan University, in Ypsilanti, Michigan, not too far from Detroit, to talk about the promise of the Internet age and the challenges to our privacy, including our financial privacy, that it presents. And I think it's very, very important that we maximize the possibilities of technology without giving up the American people's right to determine what basic information is or is not in the hands of people that they don't know and whom they have not approved to receive the information.

I also want to congratulate you for diversifying this organization, by reaching out to the National African American Insurance Organization and by appointing the first woman to your board. The First Lady, particularly, thought that was a good idea. (Laughter.)

And I want to thank you for the quality of representation you have here in Washington. We have not always agreed over the last seven years, but I have always been impressed by the straight talk and the honest, open effort that I have seen from your organization to try to work out difficulties, work out genuine differences. And when we have worked together, we have done some very good things indeed.

We've worked together to get our economy moving again. When I became President, we had a $295 billion deficit. It was scheduled to be nearly $400 billion this year. The debt of the country had quadrupled over the previous 12 years. And I knew there was no easy way to get rid of it. So we passed an economic plan in 1993 that took us about 70 percent of the way there, and then we passed a bipartisan balanced budget in 1997 that had big majorities in both parties in both houses supporting eliminating the deficit entirely.

We've now run the first back-to-back surpluses in over 40 years, and this year we'll make it three in a row. The United States this year is going to pay off $216 billion of our national debt. That is the largest debt repayment in American history. (Applause.) This will bring the three-year total to $355 billion, and it's further evidence, I believe, that the country ought to have a bipartisan economic strategy of paying off the debt and investing in our people -- in education, in science and technology -- and in opening new markets at home and abroad.

Four years ago, you put yourselves on the line for the Kennedy-Kassebaum bill. I want to thank you for that. Your support has made a difference all across this country, and I am very grateful. Again, we had not only the Democrats, Vice President Gore and I, but a substantial Republican support. And we reached agreement, and it made a difference for ordinary Americans. And I'm very grateful.

It seems to me that this year the large question before the American people is what are we going to do with these good times? What will we make of them? You can probably recall some time in your own life or your own business when you've gotten into a little bit of trouble, not because things were so tough, but because things seemed to be going well, and therefore, there were no consequences to breaking your concentration or taking a little time to stop thinking about tomorrow.

And I feel very strongly -- and I think I can say this with some credibility since I'm not on the ballot -- and most days I'm okay with it -- (laughter) -- but I think I can say to me the importance of this election is that America now knows that we can solve problems together. We know we can make real progress. When I became President, if I had said in my inaugural address in 1993, you know, if you will just stick with me folks, in seven years we'll have three years of surpluses, and we'll be in a position to get this country out of debt for the first time since 1835 -- you would have said he seems like a nice young man, but we have a delusional person in the White House. (Laughter.)

If I had said the crime rate will come down seven years in a row and we'll cut the welfare rolls in half, you wouldn't have believed that. If I had said, we'll find a way to work with the private sector to improve the quality of our air, water and land, and still have the longest economic expansion in history, you might not have believed that. So we know now, because of the success our country has had, that if we work together and we set common goals we can achieve them. The level of skepticism or cynicism that was present in 1992, because of the difficulties that we've had for some years, is simply not there anymore. But the question now is, what are we going to do with a truly magic moment of prosperity?

And I won't repeat the whole State of the Union address here, but I just want to mention two issues to you. First of all, we have to keep the economy going. It makes so much else possible. I did a police event the other day here in the District of Columbia, and I complimented them on having the lowest murder rate in over 30 years, and the lowest crime rate in nearly 30 years, a big decline in gun violence; and all the things they've done. We've helped them put several hundred police on the street. And on the way up, this police officer said, well, thanks for all the nice words, but the economy didn't hurt. It's very important that we do that.

We already have the longest economic expansion in history -- by far, the longest, without any kind of war involved, but including all the ones which mobilized the country for wartime. So how do we propose to keep this going?

I personally believe it's very important that we continue to pay down this debt. Why? Because Americans finance a lot of their purchases through personal debt. We finance a lot of new equipment and business expansion through business debt. The personal savings rate in America is too low and I would like to see it go up, and I would support initiatives in the Congress to try to help it increase.

But, meanwhile, when we pay down the national debt it increases the overall savings rate of America; it keeps interest rates down; it makes money more available -- the government is putting money back into the economy instead of taking money out -- and it works as an effective tax cut when you pay the debt down.

The fact that we have gotten rid of the deficit and paid down the debt, according to the latest economic analysis I saw, saves the average homeowner about $2,000 a year in lower mortgage payments and interest rates being lower than they otherwise would, and a couple hundred dollars a year on car payments, and a couple hundred dollars a year on college loan payments. And, of course, the availability of capital for business expansion is profoundly important. So I hope in the midst of all this debate this year, you will try to sort through whether, when it's all said and done, whether the commitments made by various people all add up and we can continue to do that.

Secondly, I think it's important, when we ask ourselves, how are we going to keep this economy going, that we continue to expand the base of America's customers. A nation in that sense is not much different than your enterprise. If you want to keep expanding, you've got to have somebody buying what you're selling. We have 4 percent of the world's population and 22 percent of the world's income. So it should be obvious, you don't have to be an Einstein to figure out you've got to have more markets all the time in that sort of environment.

In that regard, there are two initiatives before the Congress today that have bipartisan support, and at least one -- maybe both, but certainly one -- that has bipartisan opposition. The first is the proposal to bring China into the World Trade Organization. That may not be something that you think is of immediate concern to insurance agents, but since you care so much about the economy, it's very important.

China's going to get into the World Trade Organization, whether we vote to give them normal trading relations every year or not. And the deal we negotiated with them does not give them one bit of increased access to our markets, but gives us huge increased access to their markets.

If you saw the deal, you would ask why they signed it. The reason they signed it is, you can't get into the World Trade Organization unless you're willing to trade. So they have a more closed economy -- they sell a lot of stuff to us; our biggest trade deficit now usually is with them. And they have to open their markets. And we negotiated a very strong deal that will mean more jobs, more businesses, more investments for America. And from a national security point of view, it would, in my view, be a very, very unwise and precarious move to say that the United States doesn't care whether they're a part of the world community or not. You don't have to agree with another country on everything to say you prefer to trade with them, than have an arms face-off with them and constant conflict with them.

So it's in our national security interests, but it's necessary to keep our economy going. There are 1.2 billion people over there, and increasingly, more and more of them will be able to buy what Americans can sell. And as people sell more over there, they'll have more to buy insurance with. It's very important. (Laughter and applause.)

The second thing that's important is that we should not forget that there are people and places in this country -- many of them served by members of this organization -- that have not fully participated in this economic recovery. And, to some extent, there are local reasons for that, that have to be dealt with at the state and local level. But there are things we can do here nationally, and there is a substantial bipartisan effort to pass some version of what I have called for two years my New Markets Initiative -- to basically go to places like the Mississippi Delta or Appalachia or inner cities or upstate New York, or the Native American reservations -- to go in there and say, first we're going to put in the infrastructure of growth.

I was in rural North Carolina the other day, and the Governor and I announced that his telephone companies were going to give broadband access to every rural community in North Carolina, which will enable a lot of businesses that are otherwise physically isolated to do Internet transactions that otherwise would not be available to them.

When I was on the Indian reservation, Shiprock, in northern New Mexico the other day, the Navajo reservation, I learned that 70 percent of the people there did not have telephones. I was introduced by a 13-year-old girl who had won -- a brilliant young girl who had won a computer in a contest. And she couldn't log on to the Internet because there wasn't a phone line in her home.

We forget that a lot of our fellow citizens have not participated in this economy. And so we announced there that we were going to be able to provide basic phone service to those folks for a dollar a month, and we will be able to do a lot more -- even though they are long way from most urban areas -- we'll be able to do a lot more business for them because of e-commerce once we get them all hooked up.

But the main thing that we have before the Congress is some way of giving tax incentives for people who have money to invest, to invest in these poor areas in America that are equal to the tax incentives we now give people to invest in poor areas in Latin America or Asia, or Africa. I'm all for encouraging investment in developing countries overseas, but we ought to be giving the exact same dollar-impact investment incentives to invest in developing communities here in America. They're the nearest markets we've got, and we ought to do it. (Applause.)

And let me say finally, on the health care issue, I think it's quite important that we continue our efforts to provide health insurance and coverage and care to people who don't have it. We still have over 40 million Americans without any health insurance. There are still too many children, and too many working parents, who don't have any. And more and more older Americans and their families are overwhelmed by the costs of long-term care, and overwhelmed by their medical costs, especially for prescription drugs.

So I hope this year that in this Congress we'll find a way to extend coverage to more Americans. I hope we can do a better job to make sure that every child who is eligible for coverage receives it. Of the some 10 million children in America who do not have health insurance, public programs now in place -- the Children's Health Insurance Program that's run by the state in all your states, and the Medicaid program, which is administered by them -- would cover about half those kids today. Today. With programs already in place. And it is very important that we continue to do a better job.

I also believe that we should pass the initiatives in Congress to provide a $3,000 a year tax credit for long-term care. This is something that I think has broad bipartisan support. More and more families are having to deal with this as we live longer -- and it really is a high-class problem in that sense. But it can be a very difficult and expensive one. And again, I think there's bipartisan support for this. I hope it will pass, and I ask for your support.

And finally -- I'm sure that Senator Hatch talked about this a little bit, because we're having a dispute about what the best way to do it is -- but I think it's important that we add some prescription drug coverage to Medicare this year. And I feel very strongly that we ought to offer a completely voluntary program that's available to any senior who needs it, with the most being done, obviously, for people with the least money. But we're having an argument about exactly how to do it.

I think you ought to know the facts. More than 60 percent of the senior citizens in America today lack access to affordable prescription drugs. If there were no Medicare program and we were all starting again tomorrow, we would never design one today that didn't have prescription drug coverage. Thirty-five years ago, when Medicare was set up, it was for people who had acute problems. It was basically a doctor care, a hospital care program. Today, more and more seniors face chronic problems. Anybody that lives to 65 in this country today has a life expectancy of 82 to 83 years -- you know more about these tables than I do.

And, believe me, if you just take the medical breakthroughs that I think are likely to occur in the next five years -- sometime in the next few months we'll announce the sequencing of the human genome. We've already identified the defective genes that cause breast cancer, Parkinson's, may lead to Alzheimer's and other things. Before you know it, when young mothers come home with their babies from the hospital, they'll have a genetic map which will say your child has these potential problems and these potential strengths, and if you do the following 10 things you will cut by 90 percent the chance that your child will get the following conditions. I mean, it's going to be a whole different world out there. And you may have life expectancy go up in the 21st century even more than it went up in the 20th century.

There have been a lot of studies to try to determine how long the human body would last if nothing bad ever happened. And the answer is, about 120 years. That is, if you factor out environmentally-caused cancer, accidents, and crime leading to death, and we all had perfect nutrition and took good care of ourselves, our systems -- most of us -- would still stop functioning somewhere around 120 years. They've done a lot of tests with animals that show that no matter how well you take care of them, someday they just conk out. (Laughter.) But that means that we've got quite a long way to go. I expect George Frazier to live about 120 years. (Laughter.) But the rest of us are going to need a little help. (Laughter.)

And so I think that will completely change the insurance business. You think about it. It will totally change health and life insurance, if the average life expectancy goes up another eight years. And it's why we also -- I agree with one thing Orrin Hatch said -- I hope we can avoid politicizing this whole Social Security debate. I think it ought to be discussed, and policy options ought to be taken care of.

One of the things that I've been trying to convince Congress to do is take the interest savings off the debt -- since we're paying down the debt because not only we've cut spending, but you're still paying more in Social Security taxes than we're paying out -- so I think we ought to take that portion of debt reduction, so we don't have to pay interest on the debt anymore, that's due to Social Security taxes, and put it in the trust fund.

And then we could take the Social Security trust fund out to 2054, and then we could decide what else to do to try to increase the return, because when all the baby boomers retire, there will be two people working for only one person drawing Social Security. The ratio has normally been three or four to one; it's going to go down to two to one. There are a lot of challenges there.

But the point I want to make is, this whole thing is going to change, and the emphasis, more and more and more, will be on keeping people well in the first place -- letting them manage their own care, letting people stay at home, not overwhelming the hospital system and the medical care system. You would never, today, set up a Medicare program without prescription drug coverage.

So basically what we're having a debate about here is at what level to stop the coverage, and how best to deliver it. And the only thing I'd like to say about the level, because I think that's very important, is that if you stop at 150 percent of the poverty line, it sounds reasonable, but that means that seniors over $15,000 in income can't buy any medical coverage. Half of the people who don't have prescription drug coverage today are between the incomes of $15,0000 and $50,000. And if you're on a fixed income of $30,000, you may think you're sitting pretty if you're 75 years old. But if you get a $2,000 a month medical bill, because you've got a chronic problem, all of a sudden you don't have much money left. And I'm sure you all know this, so I hope we can find a way this year -- I think there's a fair chance we can -- to put this issue beyond partisan politics and also to get a program that works.

I also have to tell you that a lot of people in the insurance industry have been very forthright in saying that they think that our proposal is probably more workable. But the reason that the prescription drug people don't like it -- the pharmaceutical companies don't like it -- is they think that it would cover so many people that we would have too much bargaining power and we'd get the drugs too cheap. And if you listen to their argument, they think that that might mean that they wouldn't have enough profit margin to continue to develop new drugs. I don't want to paint them as the bad guys here; we're having a genuine argument.

But I think that if we are to design -- if we design a program that doesn't work, then we wind up with the worst of both worlds. And the insurance industry could be left holding the bag if you're expected to offer policies that are not practical, that won't sell, and if they do sell, won't do what people want. That's why we've actually had quite a lot of really good dialogue with people in the insurance industry about that, and I'm very grateful for it.

But I just want to say to you, this is a national problem that deserves a national solution. We should not have a program to cover senior citizens and disabled people's medical benefits that doesn't cover prescription drugs. We need to do this. This is a sort of measure of what we do with good times.

There are lots of issues I could mention, including the education of our children, the continued work to make America a safer country. I don't think we should stop on this crime deal until we have the safest big country in the world. We've still got a lot of work to do. And there are so many other challenges out there. But if we could just think about, here, keeping the economy going, extending its benefits to people in places left behind, and continue to make progress on health care -- those are great goals worthy of a nation that is grateful for the success it has enjoyed.

And as I leave office, that's all I really want. I don't want to think that we squandered this enormous opportunity. For the last seven years, Al Gore and I and all the people that have worked with us, we've tried so hard just to turn this country around and get it moving in the right direction. And now, as I leave at the end of the year, what I'm thinking of is how will we deal with the prosperity? It's a great measure of a great nation. And I hope you'll do what you can to make sure we deal with it in an appropriate way.

Now, before I sit down, I want to ask your President to join me. Bill, come up here. We've got a little surprise for George Frazier. George is thinking about retiring after 46 years as an independent agent. I'm against that. I don't know if you know -- you're not term-limited, why quit? (Laughter and applause.)

As you heard him say, I've known him all my life, since I was a little boy in Hope, Arkansas. And for all those years, I have known him as a person who always, always cared more about other people than himself, and always gave more than he took -- whether it was a Little League team that needed a sponsor, or a hospital that needed a new wing, or a young man starting out in public life who needed advice and friendship. He has been there for a lifetime.

I want to say that he and his wife, Effie, who are here today, are literally two of the finest people I have ever known in my life. And, as I said, I had the honor of swearing him in 23 years ago as the President of your organization. And I think it's quite fitting that I started my career with his presidency and ended it with my own. I'm more surprised about mine, than his. (Laughter.) And I am very grateful to him for what he has been professionally and, even more, for what he has been as a citizen, as a human being.

So, George, Hillary and I love you. And if you will come up here, I want to present to you a beautiful resolution that this organization is giving you for your years of dedication and service. (Applause.) (The presentation is made.)

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Thank you. (Applause.) END 9:28 A.M. EDT




18. OLDER AMERICANS MONTH, 2000--May 2, 2000

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA A PROCLAMATION

Older Americans are a treasured link to our past. With courage, hard work, and unwavering devotion to family, community, and country, our older citizens helped to make the 20th century the American century. They preserved our freedom through the crucible of World War II; opposed Communist aggression in Korea and through the long, dark years of the Cold War; marched for labor reform and civil rights; raised their families, volunteered in their communities, and often postponed their own dreams to fulfill the dreams of their children. Their character, values, and patriotism laid the foundation for the peace and prosperity we enjoy today.

Older Americans have indeed contributed much to the story of our past; and they have much still to offer our future. Today, people are living longer, more active, and more independent lives than ever before, and one in four Americans between the ages of 65 and 69 has a job, either part-time or full-time. Many older Americans want to work, are able to work, and have skills and experience that businesses need in today's booming economy.

Recognizing the changing role of older men and women in our society, this year the Congress unanimously passed, and I was pleased to sign into law, the Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act of 2000, which ushers in a new era of opportunity for older Americans. Before passage of this landmark legislation, seniors who continued to work after age 65 risked having some of their Social Security benefits withheld until they stopped working or turned 70 years old. By eliminating this confusing and outdated retirement earnings test, the new legislation will ensure that millions of older workers who wish to continue working will be able to keep their full Social Security benefits regardless of their age or earning level.

It is appropriate that we enact this new law in the year when we celebrate the 65th anniversary of Social Security and the 35th anniversary of Medicare, Medicaid, and the Older Americans Act. Millions of older citizens have been assisted by these programs, and, as the baby boom generation ages, millions more will be relying on them in this new century.

To recognize the profound debt our Nation owes its older citizens, and to prepare wisely for the impact that increasing longevity will have on nearly every aspect of our society in the coming years, we must reaffirm our commitment to saving Social Security, strengthening Medicare -- including a prescription drug benefit -- and modernizing, improving, and reauthorizing the Older Americans Act. We must also enact my Administration's long-term care initiative, which, among other important measures, provides tax relief and support services to the millions of family caregivers who devote countless hours to helping older loved ones remain in their homes and communities. By doing so, we can both honor the immeasurable contributions that older men and women bring to our national life and ensure that they lead independent, active, fulfilling lives for many years to come.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, WILLIAM J. CLINTON, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim May 2000 as Older Americans Month. I urge Government officials, business people, community leaders, educators, volun-teers, and all the people of the United States to celebrate the contributions older Americans have made, and continue to make, to the progress and prosperity of our Nation.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this second day of May, in the year of our Lord two thousand, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and twenty-fourth.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON




19. REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT AT DCCC LUNCH--May 19, 2000
City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
1:18 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you so much. I told the folks at our table here that I have been in this room many times -- the first time I came here was long before I was President, but I've been here a lot since I've been in office. I've been to a lot of dinners, lunches, meetings. I love this City Hall and I love this room, and I never tire of coming here.

I want to thank all of you, and in their absence, the Mayor and your former Mayor as well, Ed Rendell. He's doing a great job as the Chairman of the Democratic Committee. I thank the Pennsylvania and Philadelphia officials who are here. And I particularly want to say how much I appreciate my good friend, Susan Bass Levin, running for Congress in New Jersey; and Pat Casey and Ed O'Brien, running here. I thank Bob Borski and Bob Brady and Chaka Fattah and Ron Klink for being my friends and allies in the United States House.

And let me say to all of you, this is an important occasion, and I want to say just two personal words, if I might, before I begin. First, I'd like to express my deepest condolences for the crash of Pier 34 last night, the loss of life, the people who have been injured. The Coast Guard has been up here helping with the search and rescue, and I've been informed and kept monitored on it. But I know it's a painful thing for the city, and I just wanted to tell you how sorry I am.

I'd also like to say to the Casey brothers here that Hillary and I send our prayers and best wishes to your mother and your father. He has been astonishing these last seven years. I think his survival and courage in the face of his illness is as important as the remarkable persistence he showed in his political career. (Applause.) I'm going to -- Congress Borski was saying, I've been to a lot of great events in Philadelphia. We've had a lot of hot rallies and enthusiastic moments. But this is a fairly early period in the election process. And so I'm going to do something a little unconventional today, but what I would like to do is to kind of just have a talk with you as a person who is not on the ballot this year. And most days I'm okay about not being on the ballot. (Laughter.) The other days that I'm not okay about it, you have the Constitution to protect you. (Laughter and applause.)

What I'd like to do is just take a little time to have a talk. I would like to tell you what I think this election is really about, what the big issues are and, without going into an enormous amount of detail, what the major differences are. Because this is a profoundly important election -- we're electing a President who will serve the first full term of the 21st century. We have a chance to change control of the House of Representatives with a shift of just five seats. We have a chance, believe it or not, to be even-up, or even to be one ahead in the United States Senate, which is why Ron Klink's election is so important.

And I can tell you -- I think I know a little something about Pennsylvania. You've been very good to me and voted for me twice. It's my opinion that if his race is competitively funded, I believe he'll win. And so I hope you'll help him be competitive, because we need to win. There are -- I was just sitting here thinking, off the top of my head, there are one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight other seats that could shift from Republican to Democrat. There is, I think, a reasonably good chance that five of them will do so, if our candidates are well-funded.

There are about four seats that the Republicans believe they have in play, and I think a better than 50-50 chance only one of them will shift. And maybe none. I think the Senate candidate in New York's doing a pretty good job of trying to hold on to -- (laughter and applause.) And a number of you in this room have helped her, and I'm very grateful for that as well, and I thank you.

So this is a big election. Now, very briefly, here's what I want to say to you about it. But I do want you to try to remember some of these things, because people are going to talk to you about this, and they're going to ask you why you came, and they're going to ask you why you are where you are.

It's clear that our country's in better shape than it was eight years ago; that we are moving in the right direction; that we not only have the longest economic expansion in history and the lowest unemployment rate in 30 years, we've got declining poverty, declining inequality, the lowest minority unemployment rates we've ever recorded. We have the highest home ownership in history. We've got the lowest crime rate in over a quarter-century -- eight years of decline in a row; welfare rolls about half the size they were seven and a half years ago. Ninety percent of our kids are immunized against childhood disease, with over two million kids with health insurance that didn't have it before. And I could go on and on.

We set aside more land than any President in history, any administration in history, except those of the two Roosevelts -- in the continental United States -- something I'm quite proud of. (Applause.)

Now, the first point I want to make is, a lot of you have been very good to me over many years, and you have supported me and you have been my personal friends. And I am very grateful for that. And you might have been, without regard to the ideas we had or the policies we advocated. But the results would not be this, what they are, if we hadn't stood for the right things. So what has happened is far bigger than my presidency.

Al Gore deserves a lot of credit for it. He's had, by far, more influence on the affairs of the nation than any person who ever served as Vice President in that job -- by far, not even close. The Congress deserves a lot of credit for it. The other people who helped -- those of you that helped us to be elected and reelected. It was a common endeavor, but the consequences that flowed from it happened because what we did was right.

And we were right in the economic fight of '93, when not a single Republican voted with us. We were right in the crime bill fight in '94, when a handful of them voted for us, but not many. We were right to insist that if we're going to reform welfare and require able-bodied people to work, we shouldn't hurt the kids. We should guarantee their food and their medicine and that their mothers have child care and transportation if they're going to go into the workplace. And I could give you dozens of other examples. So there is a difference.

Now, I believe the outcome of this election will be determined, in large measure, by what people think the election is about. No one else will ever tell you that. They'll say, well, this week Bush is up, Gore is down; last week Gore was up, Bush was down; next week it will be something different. The Democrats are here, the Republicans are there -- you hear all this handicapping. I believe that in important elections, as you get toward the end, the people come to some sort of conclusion about what the stakes are, what is it about, anyway. And the question that they ask and answer may determine the people they vote for.

I believe that this question is, what are we going to do with this moment of prosperity. Most of us have never seen anything like it in our lifetime. Something like this comes along once in a lifetime. What is it that we propose to do with it? And I hope the answer is, as I said in the State of the Union, we're not going to squander it, we're not going to indulge ourselves with it; we're going to take on the big challenges and seize the big opportunities so that we can build the future of our dreams for our children.

Now, if that's the question, then I believe the Vice President will be elected, because he understands the future and he knows how to get us there. I believe the Democrats will win the congressional races, because they're right on the issues. But the question is important. Now, let me just give you a couple of examples.

Clearly, one big issue is how can we keep this economic growth going, and can we extend it to people in places that have been left behind? Big question. Is there any difference in the approach of the two parties? Absolutely. What's our belief? Our belief is that we ought to have a targeted tax cut that will help people do the essential things: take care of elderly or disabled family members; send their kids to college; pay for child care; help them raise their children if they're making very low incomes. But we ought to save enough money to also invest in education and new technologies and scientific and medical research, and most important, we've got to keep paying this debt down to keep the interest rates down.

You see right now, every time the Fed meets, there's this big debate about whether they should keep raising interest rates because how long can this economy grow without inflation. If we keep paying the government's debt down, we can make it possible for you to borrow money at lower interest rates to finance personal costs like cars and homes, or expansion of businesses. This is a big deal.

Their position is we should have a huge across-the-board tax cut, and other costly items that I believe would ensure that we would go back to deficit spending, and that would drive interest rates up again. It would make it very difficult to keep the expansion going.

Now, I do have some hope that we'll have a bipartisan agreement on what I call the New Market's Initiative to help provide incentives for people who invest in the neighborhoods in America, in urban American and rural America, that haven't grown. But we still won't be able to get that done unless the overall economy keeps growing.

So there's a huge difference here in economic policy, and it cannot be papered over. And the people need to sort of say, well, do we think this whole thing is an accident, or do we think this economic policy is on automatic and you couldn't mess it up if you tried and, therefore, there are no consequences?

I can tell you, I don't believe that. I have worked day and night for seven and a half years to make good economic decisions for America. And I believe it is imperative that we have a tax cut that we can afford; that we invest as much as we can afford, but that we keep paying this debt down; and make sure that even as we save Social Security and Medicare for the baby boom generation, we're continuing to keep the economy strong.

And there is a serious difference here in economic philosophy. And so you can decide whether you would like to go back to the -- their theory is that if they have a huge across-the-board tax cut, and people with a lot of money, including more than half of you in this room who would get a lot of the money --if you get even more and have lower taxes, that you will invest it, and even if interest rates go up and inflation goes up, that it will be all right.

I believe that we ought to confine the tax cut to what we can afford; keep investing in education and technology; and keep this debt coming down, because that's going to keep the economy stronger. And it's a big tax cut. You know, the average person is paying $2,000 less in home mortgages, $200 a year less in college loan payments and car payments than they would have paid if we hadn't gotten rid of the deficit. So it's a big deal.

Now, this is not what you see in the daily headlines, but it's a serious issue. And you guys -- you ought to be discussing it.

The second thing is, how are we going to deal with the challenge of the aging of America? Now, this is beginning to be discussed in a serious way in the headlines, and I like that. That's good for America. There are two big -- from our point of view -- the next President and the next Congress will have to deal with the challenge of the aging of America primarily in three ways: One, the big issue is how are you going to reform Medicare, and are you going to add a prescription drug benefit? Two, how are you going to make Social Security doesn't go broke, and what else do you want to do with it? And three, how are you going to help people deal with elderly or disabled family members that need long-term care?

Now, on those issues I think there are differences, and I'll just go through them real quick. There is a chance that we'll reach a bipartisan agreement on a long-term care tax credit. If so, I'll be thankful for it. It's a good thing to do and we ought to do it.

On Medicare, our differences, largely, today are over the nature of the structural reforms on Medicare -- because I think it's important not to mess it up, and the truth is, I think a lot of the health care providers need more money to pay for the Medicare program, not less. And I believe we should add a prescription drug benefit which I think, over the long run, will save money -- because we would never design a program for seniors today that didn't have prescription drugs.

Thirty-five years ago, when we set up Medicare, it was basically to help people when they got real sick -- for doctor bills and hospital bills. Now, when people are living longer than ever before, we want to keep people well, and minimize the costs they impose on the health care system and increase the length and the quality of their lives.

So we've got a big difference between the two parties on this. They say we should help people up to 150 percent of the poverty line with their medicine, but it would be too costly to go above that. We say half the people in the country who lack affordable prescription drug coverage -- half -- are over 150 percent of the poverty line. And if you're living on $15,000 a year and you've got a $300 month drug cost, or a $500 a month cost, you don't have much money left, and you should get help, too.

They say our program is too costly; we say theirs doesn't really do the job, and that we have the money and that we set it aside, and we can pay for it and still pay the debt down and still -- and I think I ought to get some -- I think we, the Democrats, including the Vice President and the members of Congress, should be entitled to the benefit of the doubt on this. Why? Because when we took office in '93, Medicare was supposed to go broke in '99, last year. Now it's projected to be alive and well until 2024. So we have shown that we can control costs, make tough decisions. And as I said, I'm not sure we didn't overdo it. I think we're going to have to give the health care providers a little of that money back. We tried to do it in the budget last year.

But that's a big difference. Now, on Social Security, there's a very interesting debate emerging where the Republican position is essentially for younger people paying into the Social Security system -- younger is, I guess, a relative term. I think younger is anybody today younger than I am. (Laughter.) But it hasn't been worked out yet, but basically, they say, look, we'll guarantee everybody who is on Social Security now and people who are near retirement, their retirement benefits. And everybody else, we're going to give them 2 percent of payroll back and let them invest it, because they can get a higher rate of return than Social Security could.

And it sounds reasonable. And a lot of you who have made money in the stock market, it may sound great to you. And they point out Social Security is supposed to go broke in 2034, that the baby boomers when they retire, there will be two people working for every one person retired. And the rate of return that you get for your investment in Social Security they say is very low.

Now, here's what we say -- generally, although there are differences in our crowd about this -- what we say is, you can't measure Social Security's rate of return the way you do everything else, because a third of Social Security money goes to take care of disabled people. Don't forget that. This is not just a Social Security retirement program, this is a program -- if you have a child who, God forbid, has a paralyzing accident, and you're in a limited income group, Social Security will help you. A third of this money goes to people with disabilities. So a lot of these arguments that are made about what a bad investment Social Security is obscure the fact that it is something all of us pay to benefit the minority of us that are going to have something really difficult happen to our family members.

But if you just look at the retirement fund, they say, well, the stock market always out-performs government investments over a 30-year period, which is true. We say, what about the poor suckers who retire in the bad times when they don't get the 30-year period?

Let me just say -- and they say Americans ought to be able to create wealth, lower-income Americans ought to be create wealth, just like we can. And they're right about that. But there's another way -- but we say there's another way to do it. This is a serious debate. Here's what I want to tell you.

Here's the problem with the proposal that they made, in my view. Keep in mind, Social Security is supposed to go broke anyway in 34 years, right? So if you give everybody under 40, or everybody under 50, 2 percent of their payroll back, you will shrink the number of years it takes for the thing to go broke, because there will be less money being paid into Social Security.

So they have to pay what are called big transition costs, if they want to guarantee the Social Security payments for everybody that retired or is about to retire -- hundreds of billion of dollars. If you put that on top of the big tax cut they proposed, we'll certainly be in deficits. If the economy goes down, all these discussions become academic, because the numbers just get terrible. You may think this is a highly technical discussion, but this your life we're talking about here.

Here's what I think ought to be done. I think that we should allow low-income people a chance to accumulate wealth, but we ought to do it outside the Social Security system, with the proposal I made the year before last to let people set up savings accounts. And I think -- and something else you should know -- if Congress would simply vote to put the interest savings that we get from paying the debt down because of your Social Security taxes into the Social Security trust fund, we could take the life of the Social Security trust fund out way beyond the life expectancy of the baby boom generation.

If you spent money directly to give lower-income people money to save and invest, you could give them a chance to participate in the wealth of the country and you could, in other words, fix the problem without running the risk. And the only problem would be for that is that those of us in higher-income groups would not get 2 percent of payroll that we pay in Social Security to invest in the stock market -- but most of us have already got money or can find money or have the capacity to save.

So this is a big difference. And I welcome this debate, but I believe we have the better side of the argument here. I hope you can see -- I'll just give you -- economic policy, Medicare, Social Security, huge differences. I haven't even talked about the environment, where there are massive differences; or whether we're going to continue to provide more affordable health care for working families and children, where there are huge differences; or whether we should pass hate crimes legislation, where there are huge differences; or patients' bill of rights; or raise the minimum wage.

What should our crime control policy be? When I was walking the streets with Ed Rendell in 1991, people just took a chance on this. We've now had eight years of declining crime in a row. What works? A comprehensive policy -- put more police on the street, punish people who should be punished, enforce the laws that are there, have common sense measures to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and children. That's our policy.

Their policy is -- I have to drag them kicking and screaming to get any more for police -- increase the penalties for everything, do nothing else to help keep guns out of the hands of criminals and children. I think we should close the gun show loophole. I think that people that get handguns ought to have a photo ID that proves that they don't have a problem in their background and that they can use the gun safely. I think that's reasonable.

I think we ought to put 50,000 more police on the street. Even our Democrats who disagree with me on the gun issue are for putting more police on the street. So there's a difference between us and them on crime.

And let me tell you an issue that is almost never at stake in an election, but we have serious differences on world peace and security this year. Yesterday -- I don't know if you saw it, but I'm very grateful -- I had a handful of Republicans, and I want to thank them for joining the overwhelming number of Democrats in voting to support the mission we undertook in Kosovo. I know it wasn't popular when I did it, but it was the right thing to do. A million people got run out of their homes because of their religion and their ethnic background. The last time we let that happen in Europe and didn't do anything to stop it, the results were not very salutary. And I'm proud of what we did in Bosnia and Kosovo, and it was the right thing to do. A majority of our party was for my position; a majority of theirs was against it.

They defeated the Comprehensive Test ban Treaty. I think that's a terrible mistake. I think we should continue to reduce the risk of nuclear weapons. They believe it's an anachronistic document. They honestly believe that. It's not a personal attack, I'm saying we have honest differences. The only place where our party is still divided over trade -- and you all know about that -- I'm for the China trade agreement because I think it's a good deal, economically, and I know it's important to our national security.

But that masks a larger issue that I urge you to look for also in this election, which is that we Democrats, even those who disagree with me on China, we believe it's going to be impossible to create a global economy without also having some sort of global society. And therefore, we believe we should be moving toward not only an integration of the global economy, but a lifting of labor standards, an abolition of child labor, an abolition of other labor abuses, lifting of environmental standards across the world, so that people all over the world share this. And I think our party is united on this. Most of the folks in the other party think that that will probably happen anyway if there's more trade, and we shouldn't push it. Now, I know most of you probably thought you were just coming to a political rally today and not a seminar on trade and all this other stuff. (Laughter.) But I'm telling you, this is what the election is about. If you're worried about how your kids and your grandchildren are going to live, and what kind of country you're going to live in, it really matters. There are differences in economic policy, differences in how we'll handle the aging of America, differences in how we'll handle health care, the environment, minimum wage, other family-related policies, and big differences in what we want to do in education, which I didn't even get into.

Philadelphia, the average school building is 65 years old. We want to help you build and repair thousands of schools in this country; they think it's not a federal responsibility. We want to give families a $10,000 tax deduction to send their kids to college. That's a tax cut we're for. So far we haven't sold them on it. So there are big, big differences.

You look at the kids in this room -- I'm just telling you, I worked for seven and a half years to try to turn this country around. And I'm not on the ballot, and I'm talking to you as a citizen -- I have waited all my life to see our country in a position to build a future of our dreams. And what I hope will happen is that we will not have a mean election, we don't have to say they're bad people; we should assume they're honorable people and that they mean to do exactly what they say. And they should assume the same about us. But we should deal with everything they say, not just what comes out in the general election, as opposed to the primary. It ought to be a comprehensive record here. But we should assume we have two honorable people running for President, honorable people running for Congress. We intend to do what we say; they intend to do what they say. And you need to say, where are the differences and what are the consequences.

And when you leave here, if somebody asks you what do you think the election is about, I hope you'll say, it's what are we going to do with our prosperity -- whether we're going to build the future of our dreams for our kids. I want to vote for people who understand the future, who can take us there. I don't believe we ought to jeopardize the economic policy that has brought us this much prosperity. I think we ought to deal with the aging of America in a way that helps promote both opportunity and guarantees for people who need it. I think we ought to do more to improve excellence in education for everybody. We ought to bring economic opportunity to the people who have been left behind. I think the Democrats are right on these things, and that's why I'm staying here. Look at the minimum wage, look at patients' bill of rights, look at all these other issues. That's what I hope you will say.

But whatever happens, I hope every single solitary soul you talk to between now and November, you will tell, look, do not blow this. This is the American people's chance to conduct vastly important job interviews that will determine what kind of people we're going to be in 10, 15 or 20 years. And we've never had a chance like this before -- at least in my lifetime -- so I want us to make the most of it.

We need a Democratic majority in the House; we need to win these other elections -- not for partisan reasons, but because the divides between us, I think, are clear, and I believe we're right. If you think that, don't leave your activity when you walk out the door here; keep talking about it.

Thank you, and God bless you. (Applause.) END 1:47 P.M. EDT




20. REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT ON PRESCRIPTION DRUGS--May 25, 2000
The Rose Garden
10:52 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Senator Daschle, Congressman Gephardt, members of the House and Senate leadership, and Secretary Shalala. Let me say how much I appreciated the meeting we had this morning and how much I support the agenda they outlined. I'd like to say a few words about it, myself. But before I do, I'd like to put it into some larger context of our overall strategy.

We just have some new evidence that our long-term strategy of fiscal discipline, investing in our people, and expanding opportunities for American markets' products around the world is working. Revised GDP figures released today confirm that our economy grew at 5.4 percent in the first quarter, and that business investment soared by 25 percent. This strategy has now given us over seven years of growth and investment, the longest economic expansion in history. We ought to stay on the path that got us here and continue to invest in our people and their future, as our leaders have outlined today.

Last month -- I want to emphasize this -- just last month, the distinguished investment firm in New York of Goldman-Sachs estimated that that turnaround from record deficits to record surpluses has kept interest rates two full percentage points lower than they would have been without this strategy. Therefore, if we turn away from it and go back to the deficits, we can expect a corresponding rise in interest rates. A two percent cut in interest rates on home mortgages, car loans, college loans, credit card bills, has been an enormous, effective tax cut to the American people and has done a great deal to strengthen our economy.

That's why we feel so strongly that we should use this moment of unprecedented prosperity to lengthen the life and modernize Medicare with a prescription drug benefit, to strengthen Social Security, to invest in key priorities, especially education, to have a tax cut we can afford and keep paying that debt down to keep those interest rates down.

Now, as you've heard already, we mostly discussed providing prescription drugs for America's seniors in that meeting. I want to thank these leaders for standing with us on this important issue. This is a show of unity and a demonstration in resolve. There is no reason that Congress cannot take the necessary steps to ensure that every older American has access to the lifesaving, life-enhancing prescription drugs they need.

Now, just a few weeks ago, Senator Daschle and Congressman Gephardt came here to announce that the Democrats were united in a single strategy to provide these prescription drugs. Today, they will be joined by leading architects and backers of the plan -- all these people behind me who have worked on the details. So we know exactly how we would do this; we know we can afford it, and we think the time to act is now. I'll just say this one more time. If we were creating Medicare today, there is no way in the wide world we wouldn't provide prescription drugs.

Some of you were with me last Sunday afternoon when I went up to Hyde Park. Then I landed in the Poughkeepsie Airport -- there were probably 300 people there, so I had an impromptu town meeting. I went down and shook hands with everybody and just sat there and visited with them. And the only issue that was mentioned to me more than once -- spontaneously -- over and over and over again, was this prescription drug issue. It is a big issue, and it's a big hole in America's social safety net. It is totally voluntary; it is driven by the market; and we ought to do it.

We're talking more than three in five of our seniors, who are like the Lachnits Tom talked about. They may be a particularly egregious case, but over 60 percent of our seniors don't have affordable prescription drug coverage.

Now, I think that the case has been made. I don't know how in the world we can deny the fact that with the funds we have, with the evident obligations we have, with the fact that anybody who lives to be 65 in America today has a life expectancy of 82 or 83 years -- and that is only going to increase, and therefore, their need for life-enhancing and life-preserving prescription drugs will only increase -- this is the best chance we will ever have to address this. And we have to do it.

Now, the budget I presented to Congress will continue our efforts to pay off the debt in 13 years; it will make Medicare more competitive as many in this group have urged. But it will also provide this kind of voluntary prescription drug coverage.

Now, last month -- or earlier this month -- the Republican leaders in the House did put forth the plan that had the stated goal of providing affordable prescription drugs for seniors, but the policy falls far short of the promise. Suggesting a private insurance benefit that insurers, themselves, say they will not offer and no one will buy if they did offer it because it would be too expensive is an empty promise. Limiting direct financial assistance for prescription drugs to seniors below the $12,500 income will leave out over half, including the Lachnits. Their drug bills alone, if my math is right, are $16,800 a year. And that's about what their income is. They wouldn't get a nickel under the Republican plan. That's not right, and we can do better.

So we're here to say we have a full-time obligation to deal with the big opportunities and the big challenges of this country, and Congress should feel that obligation, even when they go into recess. Thee is no heavier evidence of that today than the need to provide voluntary, affordable prescription drug coverage.

Let me say there are many other priorities, and I want to just mention them. The announcement we had on New Markets a couple of days ago ought to give some impetus to raising the minimum wage, passing common-sense gun legislation, expanding health insurance for the parents of poor children, passing a strong, enforceable patients' bill of rights, and I hope that we will see more action in all these areas.

Now, today the House and Senate conferees are meeting again on the patients' bill of rights. Again, this is like the prescription drugs -- this ought not to be a bill that's held up by interest groups, it ought to be a bill that has passed in the public interest. That's our commitment, and you will see it nowhere more intensely than our efforts to get this prescription drug coverage in the closing days of this Congress.

Thank you very much.


21. REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT ON PRESCRIPTION DRUG BENEFIT--June 14, 2000
The Roosevelt Room
2:55 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon. Senator Daschle, Representative Gephardt, Secretary Shalala, and I have just met with these leaders of organizations representing America's seniors, people with disabilities, and community pharmacists. We spoke about the great need for Congress to give all Medicare beneficiaries an affordable prescription drug option. We spoke about the merits and the shortfalls of new legislative proposals on prescription drugs now emerging in the House.

Before I go into the details of the discussions this morning, I want to briefly touch on another pressing priority before the House -- funding for enforcement of our gun laws.

For years the Republican leadership has emphasized the importance of enforcing our gun laws as a reason for opposing other common-sense gun safety measures. Yet they have failed so far to put their money where their words are. Today a House appropriations committee appears to be on the verge of approving a bill that absolutely guts our administration's proposal for the largest gun enforcement initiative in history.

Incomprehensible though it may be, their bill fails to provide any funding at all to hire 1,000 new state and local gun prosecutors to help take gun criminals out of our communities and put them behind bars. It undermines our efforts to replicate the success of Richmond's Project Exile, another key initiative the Republicans have always said they support. And it fails to provide funding to expand research development of smart gun technology.

I ask the Republican leadership to reverse the current course, to live up to the rhetoric, to fully fund the national gun enforcement initiative.

Of course, no society can prevent every tragedy or outrage, but we can save lives, with a combination of new common- sense gun laws and enhance enforcement of the laws already on the books. We're going to have to do this in a bipartisan manner if it's going to get done, and to recognize the American people want both strong enforcement and strong prevention.

Now, back to prescription drugs. The American people here have also made their intentions clear. Our seniors want affordable, dependable coverage for the prescription medications that lengthen their lives and improve its quality. That's the message we heard yesterday from Ruth Westfall, a retired teacher from rural Idaho; the message I heard from leaders I met with a few moments ago. That's certainly what Senator Daschle and Republican Gephardt are hearing from their constituents and what they're fighting hard for up on the Hill.

All the leaders here today recognize that adding a voluntary prescription drug benefit is not just the right thing to do; medically speaking, it's the smart thing to do. No one creating the Medicare program today would think of doing so without prescription drug coverage. Prescription drugs now can accomplish what once could be done only with surgery.

That's why we have proposed the comprehensive plan to provide a prescription drug benefit that is optional and accessible to all our seniors; a plan that ensures that all older Americans, no matter where they live or how sick they are, will pay the same affordable premiums; a plan that uses price competition, not price controls, to guarantee that seniors will get the best prices; a plan that would cover catastrophic drug costs, as well as regular drug bills; a plan that is part of an overall effort to strengthen and modernize Medicare, so we won't have to ask our children to shoulder the burden when the baby boomers retire.

There is growing bipartisan support for prescription drug action this year, and that's good. But the leaders and advocates here today are still concerned that the proposals the House Republicans are putting forward later this week will not ensure that all seniors have an affordable prescription drug option.

We have grave concerns because the Republican plan builds on the already flawed private Medigap insurance market. As recently as yesterday, the insurance industry reiterated its belief that a Medigap insurance model simply will not work for prescription drug coverage -- the insurance industry, itself, has said this repeatedly -- and that private insurers will not willingly participate in such a program. Even if some private insurers do participate, the premiums inevitably will be higher than those under a Medicare drug plan. Yesterday, you heard Ruth Westfall say what I have heard countless seniors say -- that they can't afford the Medigap coverage that presently is offered.

We have grave concerns because the Republican plan relies on a trickle-down scheme that would provide a subsidy for insurers and not a single dollar of direct premium assistance for middle-class seniors. We have grave concerns because the so-called choice model offered by the Republicans breaks up the pooled power of seniors to purchase drugs at the most affordable prices, forcing insurers to constrain costs by restricting seniors' choice of drugs and choice of pharmacies.

Republicans and Democrats alike say they support an affordable drug benefit for our seniors. But let's be clear: a private insurance model simply cannot guarantee affordable coverage for all. To make the promise of affordable coverage real for all older Americans, there must be a true Medicare drug option.

If the proposal the Republicans release later this week gives all seniors the ability to choose an affordable, defined, fee-for-service drug benefit under Medicare, even if it's just one of several options, that could certainly serve as a foundation for a bipartisan agreement on this issue. But anything less would be an empty promise.

Working together, reaching across the aisle, we can use this time of unparalleled prosperity to do the right thing by our seniors. We should do it this year for their sake, and for the sake of the future of Medicare.

Now, I would like to introduce Martha McSteen, the incoming chair of the Leadership Council of Aging Organizations, the president of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. Ms. McSteen was acting commissioner of the Social Security Administration during the Reagan administration, after a very distinguished 39-year career with the agency. In 1965, she served as one of the first regional administrators of the nation's then new Medicare program. Today, she's here to speak about why it is so important that we modernize Medicare with an affordable prescription drug benefit for all.

Martha.




22. PRESIDENT CLINTON NAMES THREE MEMBERS TO THE TICKET TO WORK AND WORK INCENTIVES ADVISORY PANEL--June 14, 2000

The President today announced his intent to appoint Sarah W. Mitchell (as Chair and Member), Bryon R. MacDonald and Thomas P. Golden to serve as Members of the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Advisory Panel (TWWIAP).

Ms. Sarah W. Mitchell, of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has served since 1994 as the Executive Director for New Jersey Protection and Advocacy, Inc., the designated protection and advocacy system for the State of New Jersey. From 1986 to 1994, Ms. Mitchell served as the Division Director of the New Jersey Department of Public Advocate where she was responsible for providing legal representation and advocacy services for people with disabilities. From 1993 to 1996, Ms. Mitchell served as President of the Board of the National Association of Protection and Advocacy Systems.

Ms. Mitchell received a B.S. from the University of Pennsylvania, an M.S.W. from the University of Michigan and a J.D. from the University of Pennsylvania Law School.

Mr. Bryon R. MacDonald, of Oakland, California, serves as the Public Policy Advocate of the World Institute on Disability, where he works on state wide systems advocacy and public education on disability issues. From 1996 to 1999, Mr. MacDonald served as the community advocate for the Center for Independent Living Berkeley/Oakland area where he worked on consumer training in self-advocacy skills, social security, employment, and appeals regulations. From 1990 to 1996, Mr. MacDonald served as the mental health advocate for the Mental Health Association.

Mr. MacDonald received a B.A. from Fordham University.

Mr. Thomas P. Golden, of Waverly, New York, has been at Cornell University in the School of Industrial and Labor Relations at the Program on Employment and Disability, since 1991. In his position at Cornell, Mr. Golden has directed several state and national projects that deal with employment and disability issues. Mr. Golden has been the author and/or editor of many publications addressing career development and the pursuit of employment for people with disabilities. Mr. Golden is a certified rehabilitation counselor and is pursuing his doctorate in Education leadership at Binghamton University.

Mr. Golden received a B.A. from Eastern Nazarene College and an M.S. from Syracuse University.

The Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-170), establishes the TWWIAP within the Social Security Administration. The TWWIAP is to advise the President, the Congress, and the Commissioner of Social Security on issues related to work incentives programs, planning, and assistance for individuals with disabilities, including work incentive provisions.



23. RADIO ADDRESS BY THE PRESIDENT TO THE NATION--June 24, 2000
Los Angeles, California

(Audio recording of the broadcast--in RealAudio format)
(Audio recording of the broadcast--in AU format) (2.0 mg. file)


THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. This week we mark the beginning of summer, another summer of national prosperity, continuing the longest economic expansion in our history. The big question now is what we intend to do with this economic prosperity. One of our most pressing needs, clearly, is providing voluntary prescription drug coverage under Medicare for older Americans. We should do it this year.

The American people have made their feelings clear. They know our seniors are paying too much for prescription drugs that help them live longer, healthier, more fulfilling lives. Three in five older Americans don't have dependable insurance coverage for prescriptions, and too many seniors simply aren't getting the drugs they need.

Again and again I've said it should be a high priority to add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare this year. But we must do it the right way, by making the benefit affordable and available for everyone who needs it.

I'm deeply concerned that the proposal House Republicans put forward this week will take us down the wrong road. What they have proposed is not a Medicare benefit; it's a private insurance program which many seniors and people with disabilities simply won't be able to afford. It will not offer dependable coverage to every American in every part of the country. Rural Americans will be at particular risk because private insurance is often unavailable to them or very, very expensive.

The plan doesn't ensure that seniors will be able to use the local pharmacist they trust. Insurance companies have already said this model won't work; it benefits the companies who make the drugs, not the older Americans who need to take the drugs.

There is a better way. I propose giving all our seniors the option of a prescription drug benefit through Medicare, wherever they live, however sick they may be. My plan would be affordable and dependable, and give every senior equal coverage.

Because our economy is so strong, and because we worked hard to put the Medicare trust fund back on sound footing, we have the money to do this now and do it right. We should use a part of our hard-earned budget surplus to meet America's most pressing priorities, like paying down the national debt, strengthening Medicare, and providing a prescription drug benefit.

That's why next week I will propose using the surplus to improve my plan. I will unveil specific protections for catastrophic drug expenses, to ensure that no senior pays more than $4,000 in prescription drugs and keeping premiums at $25 a month. And I'll propose making that benefit in the full prescription drug initiative available in 2002, instead of 2003. To do that, I'll ask Congress to add about $58 billion to our funding for Medicare over the next 10 years.

Providing a voluntary prescription drug benefit is only one of the challenges we must face to keep Medicare healthy for generations to come. We also have to increase payments to hospitals, teaching facilities, home health care agencies, and other providers, to make sure Medicare patients get high-quality care. Earlier this week I proposed that we use $40 billion of the surplus to do that.

We should also follow Vice President Gore's proposal to take Medicare off-budget, like Social Security, so that the Medicare taxes you pay cannot be diverted for irresponsible tax cuts or other government spending that could lead us back to the bad old days of deficits and give us higher interest rates. This will protect Medicare and make a major contribution toward paying down the debt. And I propose using the savings from debt reduction to extend the life of the Medicare trust fund through at least 2030, when the number of Medicare people will be double what it is today.

We're fortunate -- very fortunate -- to live in a time of budget surpluses and remarkable prosperity, but we didn't get there by accident. We maintained our fiscal discipline, invested in our people, made good on the commitments that matter most. We can't let up now. And we have few responsibilities more important than helping our older Americans live out their lives with quality and in dignity.

We have the opportunity to meet that responsibility with a straightforward plan that all seniors can buy into. We have growing bipartisan agreement in the Senate that this is the way to go.

I hope as we mark the 50th anniversary of the Korean War tomorrow we'll remember that a generation of Americans who did not let us, their children and grandchildren, down. And in return, we owe it not to let them down.

Thank you for listening.




24. REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT ON MIDSESSION REVIEW OF THE BUDGET--June 26, 2000
The Rose Garden
12:40 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon. This is a great day for America. First we had the announcement of the sequencing of the human genome; now I have just received a report from my Chief of Staff and other members of my economic team on our latest budget projections, and it's more good news.

In 1993, when I became President, the federal budget deficit was $290 billion. It was projected to rise to $455 billion this year. The American people wanted a better future, and we offered a new economic course of fiscal discipline, expanded trade, and greater investment in our people and our future.

The result has been the longest economic expansion in history, a fiscal turnaround that is stronger, frankly, than any of us had imagined. In fact, in each year since 1993, both economic growth and federal revenues have surpassed our forecast. And this year is no exception.

Today, as required by law, I am releasing the midsession review of the budget that shows that our overall budget surplus this year will be $211 billion, more than a $700 billion improvement over where we projected to be in 1993. And we're forecasting a surplus for the next 10 years that is over a trillion dollars larger than was forecast just four months ago.

The American people should be very proud of this news. It's the result of their hard work and their support for fiscal discipline. It's proof that we an create a better future for ourselves when we put our minds to it, and it provides a tremendous new opportunity to build an even brighter future if we sustain our prosperity by maintaining our fiscal discipline.

These new surpluses put us in a position to achieve something that would have seemed unimaginable in 1993. As this chart shows, we can now pay down the debt completely by 2012, a year earlier than we projected just four months ago. This is my last drawing as President. (Laughter.)

Now, why should we do this? Because by paying down the debt we can keep interest rates lower and free up more capital for private sector investment, creating more jobs and economic growth for years and years to come. We can eliminate the burden of paying interest on the debt, which today takes up 12 cents of every federal tax dollar. And we can use part of this savings, as I have suggested, to extend the solvency of Social Security to 2057, and of Medicare to 2030.

Now, think about what this means. A six-year-old today -- we may have some out here -- is living in an America that is $3.5 trillion in debt. If we follow the course I'm laying out, we can eliminate that debt by the time the child enters college. The economy will be stronger, his parents' incomes will be greater, the interest rates on college loans will be lower. And 12 years from now people of my generation will be entering retirement knowing that Social Security and Medicare will be there for them.

Quite simply, an economic plan that invests in our people and pays down the debt is the wisest choice we can make to honor our values and ensure a better future for our children.

To that end, I propose that we follow Vice President Gore's recommendation and lock away that portion of the surplus that comes from the Medicare taxes people pay. Medicare payroll taxes should not be used to finance tax cuts or other spending. They should be saved for Medicare, and Medicare alone. There is already broad bipartisan support for saving the Social Security surplus for debt reduction. It's time to do the same for Medicare by taking Medicare off budget. By protecting both the Social Security and Medicare surpluses, we can lock in $2.7 trillion of debt reduction in just the next 10 years, enabling us to get the debt entirely gone by 2012.

Before we make any other major budget decisions this year I ask Congress to come together across party lines to protect the Medicare surplus. Now, a lot of people are saying that because this is an election year Congress won't get much done. It does not have to be that way. Today I called House Speaker Hastert and Senator Lott with a proposal to break the logjam and do what we all say we want to do.

We all say we want to provide prescription drug coverage to the millions of senior and disabled Americans on Medicare who currently lack it. I have presented my plan; the Republicans have presented theirs. We all say we want to end the marriage penalty. I presented my plan; the Republicans have presented theirs. I believe their marriage penalty, standing on its own, and not part of an overall commitment to fiscal discipline, and also tilting, I believe, too much toward upper-income Americans, is too big and not targeted toward those who need it most.

But if we can all agree to take Medicare off budget and not use Medicare money for tax cuts or for other spending, then I've told the Republican leaders I would like to make a simple offer. If Congress will pass a plan that gives real, voluntary Medicare prescription drug coverage, available and affordable to all seniors and consistent with the principles of my plan, costing roughly $250 billion over 10 years, then I will sign a marriage penalty relief law, which also costs roughly $250 billion over 10 years. This is a proposal for true compromise. It asks each party to accept some of the positions of the other party in the name of progress.

By adopting the Vice President's plan to save the Medicare surplus, we will achieve the most significant strengthening of Medicare since the proposal was created in 1965, and deliver the largest tax relief to families in decades. These are goals that both parties and all Americans agree on. It would be wrong to let politics keep us from seizing the opportunity to achieve them. We can take these actions and still have, according to our new budget projections, substantial resources left over for future budget priorities.

Now, I want to remind the people, however, that this is just a budget projection. It would not be prudent to commit every penny of a future surplus that is just a projection and, therefore, subject to change. Fiscal discipline helped to create these surpluses; fiscal discipline is what we should continue as we determine how best to use it.

In my Midsession Review, therefore, I propose to set aside a $500-billion reserve for America's future -- a fund that could eventually be used for any number of key priorities from retirement savings to tax cuts, to investments in education, research, health care, and environmental protection, to further debt reduction.

We should set aside this reserve fund. At this late date in the fiscal year, with elections looming, it would be unrealistic and imprudent for those of us in Washington to decide what to do with this money. That's something that should be debated in the coming months, and decided on by the American people this fall. Our obligation is to move forward on those issues that have been fully debated, where there is bipartisan agreement for action.

So this summer let's set aside the Medicare surpluses and pay down the debt. Let's pass a voluntary prescription drug benefit for seniors and disabled Americans on Medicare, and marriage penalty tax relief for American families. When that's done, I hope we will also raise the minimum wage; pass a strong enforceable patient's bill of rights; pass a juvenile justice bill that closes the gun show loophole; hate crimes legislation and the New Markets legislation; and make key investments in education, health care and the environment.

Then in the election, let's have a vigorous debate about how the remainder of these new surpluses can best be used to advance our nation. It's the right debate to have and I think we can all agree that it's a debate we are very fortunate to be able to have.

How we use these surpluses in this moment of prosperity will determine America's future for decades to come. Nothing will more surely determine it than making the right choices, if we do the right things to keep our prosperity going, to extend its benefits to people in places not yet fully part of it, to help Americans balance the demands of work and family, to seize the remarkable potential and meet the challenges of globalization and the revolutions of science and information technology.

This is a good day for America. We ought to preserve it for the future and make the most of the moment. Thank you very much.




25. REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT AT DSCC LUNCH--June 30, 2000
Private Residence Newark, New Jersey
2:47 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. (Applause.) Well, thank you very much, John. Thank you for running. I'm going to say more about it in a moment. I'd like to begin by thanking Hilary and Orin for having us in their home. What a beautiful, beautiful day this is. Not too hot. It's been real hot in Washington. And I want to thank all of you for coming.

Some of you, I think, are here because you're John's friends. Some of you are here because you're good, loyal supporters of the national and the New Jersey Democratic efforts. And I hope all of you are here because you believe in what's at stake.

I want to say, I've never had a chance to say this in his district before, but I am very impressed and grateful for the work that Representative Rothman is doing in the House of Representatives, and I think he's great and I thank you for doing it. (Applause.) And I'm glad Bob Janisczewski (phonetic) and Ray Lesniak are here. They were for me for President when my mother was the only person in America who thought I could run. (Laughter.) And I lost my voice and couldn't even talk, and no one knew who I was. It's very hazardous to lose your voice when you have zero name recognition. (Laughter.)

Senator Byron, thank you for being here, and Assemblyman Zisa, thank you. And, Assemblywoman Weinberg, I thought that was great about you representing Sharpe James. That was really good.

Reverend McKinney, thank you for the prayer. It got me in a good frame of mind. And I thank all of you who worked on this event. And I'd like to say, Mr. Mayor, I'm glad to be in Englewood; it's a truly beautiful city. And I'm delighted to be here. And you've got to forgive Senator Torricelli; we've got to pass that bill today. It's actually quite important, what's going on in the Senate today. We have a chance to reach a bipartisan agreement to assist the democratic movement and the antidrug movement in Colombia in a way that, contrary to what the critics say, does not in any way, shape or form involve America in the civil war down there, but gives us a chance to save the oldest democracy in Latin America.

And most of the cocaine and most of the heroin that flows into the bodies of the young people in America comes out of Colombia. They have lost control of approximately one-third of the land. And you've now got some people down there that are willing to risk their lives, and they literally have to risk their lives. We've had 500 police officers murdered in the last couple of years in Colombia by the drug-traffickers and their allies in the guerrilla movement. That's, anyway, what they're doing, and it's very, very important and I'm very grateful.

I'd like to make just a couple of points today. You know, I do have a passing interest in that Senate race in New York, and I've got a passing interest in this one in New Jersey and in Senator Robb's election in Virginia.

I think that -- people ask me all the time who is going to win. I told them, John, I thought you were going to win early. I told them that you were the nominee, I thought you would be senator. People ask me and I say I think Hillary's going to win. I do.

When Al Gore was 18 points behind in the polls, I said I thought he would win. I did then and I do now. But I want to talk about what's underneath that, because that's what's really important. Because when you leave here today, people may ask you why you came, and you could obviously say that, well, Orin harassed you and you wanted to do some event -- I've got this written down -- you were dying to do something that was devoid of social cache. (Laughter.) That's why -- when I ran for President -- that reminds me of what President Bush said. He referred to me as a governor of a small southern state. And I was so naive I thought it was a compliment. (Laughter.) And I still do.

So I'm glad you're doing this event, devoid of social cache. Maybe you did it because you didn't want Deborah to call you any more. (Laughter.) But maybe you did it just because you love John and Joanne, but somebody is going to ask you. And as grateful as we are for your money, I think it's fair that -- I believe that you can do just as much good if on every conceivable occasion between now and November you take the opportunity to talk to people you know about why you're here, why you wrote this check, why you're doing what you're doing.

And if I might, I'd just like to offer a couple of observations to build on the remarks John made. And I hope they will be taken somewhat seriously since I'm not running for anything. Most days I'm okay about it. (Laughter.) For the first time since 1974 there is an election coming and going I'm not a part of -- except I'm becoming the surrogate-in-chief for Hillary, for her so she can campaign.

But let me just say, to build on what John said -- in 1992, when I was elected everybody knew what we had to do. The economy was in the tank; all the social trends were going in the wrong direction; Washington was divided in a pitched battle, and the Democrats and the Republicans seemed to operate according to kind of a rule of combat that went something like this: I've got an idea, you've got an idea. Let's fight, maybe we'll get on the evening news.

And it's hard -- you ask Mr. Rothman there what it's like. If he gets in a fight, he can make the news. Even the President sometimes can't get on the evening news unless you're in a pitched battle. I remember one of the most important days of my presidency to me personally was the day I signed the bill creating the national service program, AmeriCorps, for young people. And I knew it was a big deal. And we had all these kids in this volunteer program that had been a model for what we did march up there with me. And Senator Kennedy was there, and I had the pen that John Kennedy used to sign the Peace Corps Act.

And in four years, we had 150,000 young people serve their country in community service in AmeriCorps. It took the Peace Corps over 20 years to reach the same number. And yet, the visibility of the Peace Corps was greater than the visibility of AmeriCorps because the people that night decided this was a good news story, what did it belong on the evening news for. So I understand this. But it didn't make any sense to me because I thought the country was in trouble.

So we all knew what we had to do. We had to fix the economy, and we had to try to change the crime policy, the welfare policy, the education policy of the country, and we had to try to have the government work in a different way. And we had to be engaged in the rest of the world in a different way.

And so we brought this whole set of ideas there, Al Gore and I and the rest of our crowd. And lo and behold, most of them worked pretty well. And I'm very grateful for that. I am profoundly grateful that I had the chance to serve. I am so grateful that we've got over 22 million new jobs and the lowest welfare rolls in 32 years, the lowest crime rates in 25 years, the lowest African American and Hispanic unemployment rates ever recorded, and the lowest female unemployment rate in 40 years, the lowest poverty rate in 20 years. I'm grateful for that. (Applause.)

But the issue that we face is, now what? And I guess what I would like to say to you is that I believe what a nation does with its prosperity is just as stern a test of its judgment, wisdom and character as what a nation does in adversity. There's nobody here today, over 30 years old at least, who cannot recall at least one time in your life when you made a fairly significant mistake, either personally or professionally, not because things were going so badly, but because things were going so well you thought there was no penalty for the failure to concentrate. If you live long enough you'll make one of those mistakes.

And the thing that really bothers me about this election -- I listen to people talk about this election -- I had a friend of mine from Chicago spend the night with me a couple of nights ago. He's 41 years old, he wasn't particularly political before I became President. We got to be very close. None of his friends are politicians, they're not active in the Democratic or the Republican Party. He's just tearing his hair out. He says, all these guys I run around with, they don't think there's very much difference between these two guys. And they sort of say, they seem kind of nice, maybe -- it's like your fraternity had it for eight years, maybe we should give it to their fraternity for a while.

So the first and most important thing I want to say to you is, this is a big election. I've been following this stuff since I was a boy. Not in my lifetime, not one time, have the American people ever had this much economic progress, this much social progress, this much national self-confidence, with so little internal crisis or external threat. We don't know whether this will come along again in 50 years. We don't know if this will come along again in 100 years. And the pastor there will tell you that nothing lasts forever.

Now, when you're in a tight, and I've been in a few in my life, that kind of keeps you going -- thank God this can't last forever. (Laughter.) But neither does anything good. Nothing lasts forever. And I submit to you that those of us who are of age will be judged and held at quite a high standard on the question of what we do with our prosperity, what we do with this magic moment. That's what this whole election ought to be about.

And I believe the reason that John has done so well is that people say, here's this guy that could be off making a gazillion dollars, and laying around three days a week, and he actually cares about whether poor kids get a decent education and whether parents have a safe place to make a home, and all that other stuff. I mean, this is a big deal.

What do you think we should do with this prosperity? Now, in elections, very often the answer depends upon what the question is. We've got a leg up if people really believe that's the question and if they understand what a very, very serious moment this is for our country -- first one I want to make.

The second thing I would like to tell you is that we don't have to run a negative campaign this year, we can just run a campaign on the issues. I think for 20 years, we've had too many of these really hateful campaigns where one candidate would be trying to convince the voters that his or her opponent was just one notch above a car thief. You've seen a lot of those. You've maybe participated in a few.

But this year, we've got a gift here. We can say, look, let's assume from the presidential candidates to the Senate candidates, to the House candidates, everybody is honorable and good. And let's just look at where we differ on what we should do with our future. And I'm just here to tell you, there are real differences, and I'll just mention a couple.

First of all, on economic policy. The Republican -- Governor Bush and the Republican congressional program ought to have a lot of appeal in New Jersey because there are a lot of wealthier people here. And, basically, what they say is, vote for me and I'll give you a $1.5-trillion tax cut, three times what the Democrats will give you -- more than three times. And I'll partially privatize Social Security and you will do well with that. But you should know that when you do that, all of us who might take our two percent out, somebody's got to fill that up to keep this program from going broke, so that will cost another $1 trillion over the next decade.

But it sounds good. Their message is, you couldn't mess this economy up with a stick of dynamite. Nobody's going to mess it up; it's on automatic. Information technology is surging ahead. Biomedical technology is surging ahead. This thing is rocking along. Nobody can mess this economy up. Vote for me and I'll give you your money back. That's basically their message.

Our message is, we don't think that this economy happened by accident. We think it happened by prudence and discipline and vision, and we'll give a more modest tax cut, keep paying down the debt to save Medicare and Social Security for the baby boomers, and we think we've got to invest in America.

We've got to give all our kids a world-class education, we've got to make sure we can grow the economy and preserve the environment, we've got to deal with the health and other challenges that families face. There's a whole bunch of investment issues out there.

Now, their argument is, hey, I'm trying to give you money. Have you been listening to me? This is a good economy, I'll try to give you a bunch of money. That's their argument. Our argument is, well, I'll just ask you this. Don't answer out loud, but think to yourself. What is your projected -- do you have an opinion of what your projected income is for the next 10 years? Have you thought about that, what you think you will actually make in each of the next 10 years? That's what all these proposals are based on. You need to know that. Our projected income.

So what do you think your projected income is going to be for 10 years? Now, what's your level of confidence that that's your projected income? How would you feel -- let's assume all of you have a level of confidence over 50 percent -- how would you feel if I asked you to come up here right now and sign a contract committing to spend all your projected income for the next 10 years? That's what the Republicans are asking you to do. And I don't believe I have many takers. That's what they're asking you to do.

And let me just point out this: If by continuing to practice prudence, we keep interest rates one point lower, that's worth $250 billion in lower home mortgages alone. That's a $250-billion tax cut. Just for home mortgages. That doesn't count student loans, car loans, business loans and all the economic benefits attendant there. So that's a huge issue.

I think John's right. I think we're right. I think -- and I think we have certain responsibilities to people who haven't fully participated in this economic recovery. We've got the biggest bunch of school kids in our country's history. They are the most diverse group ever, they're our meal ticket to the future -- if we can prove they can all get a world-class education.

These are big issues. We differ on patients' bill of rights, we differ on the Medicare drug benefit, we differ on the nature of environmental protection that we should have, we differ on so many issues. We differ on whether we should take extraordinary efforts to ensure equal pay for women for equal work -- big issue for our people. The average woman is still working 17 weeks a year longer for the same income as the average man in America, for all of the progress we've made. So there are real differences.

And the last point I want to make is this: It would be interesting to see if this is true in New Jersey. Most of the Republicans don't want you to know what the differences are, and that's a dead giveaway about who would win if the people knew what the differences were.

And so, here comes John, riding in on his horse. The guy has never run for office before -- actually committing the unpardonable sin of saying exactly what he thinks, even when it gets him in trouble, and trusting the people to get it right. And what my experience is -- and I encouraged him once I knew he was getting a little weary from the cost as well as the strain of the primary campaign, and I said: Look, what makes democracy work? This is why this campaign finance reform issue is important -- what makes democracy work? When the people have enough time and information -- and they need both -- they nearly always get it right. Otherwise, why would we still be around here after 200 years? People nearly always get it right.

So this big election, there are real differences. If the voters know what they are, I think they will make the right decision. I just want to make two final points. I want to say a word for the Vice President; then I hope people may ask you about that. I just want you to know, I believe I know him better than anybody outside his family now after eight years.

And there are four things I want all of you to know about that -- four reasons I think he should be elected. Number one is, our Now, when you're in a -- and I've been in a few in my life, that kind of keeps you going. Thank God this can't last forever. (Laughter.) But neither does anything good. Nothing lasts forever. And I submit to you that those of us who are of age will be judged and held at quite a high standard on the question of what we do with our prosperity, what we do with this magic moment. That's what this whole election ought to be about.

And I believe the reason that John has done so well is that people say, here's this guy that could be off making a gazillion dollars, and laying around three days a week, and he actually cares about whether poor kids get a decent education and whether parents have a safe place to make a home, and all that other stuff. I mean, this is a big deal.

What do you think we should do with this prosperity? Now, in elections, very often the answer depends upon what the question is. We've got a leg up if people really believe that's the question and if they understand what a very, very serious moment this is for our country -- first one I want to make.

The second thing I would like to tell you is that we don't have to run a negative campaign this year, we can just run a campaign on the issues. I think for 20 years, we've had too many of these really hateful campaigns where one candidate would be trying to convince the voters that his or her opponent was just one notch above a car thief. You've seen a lot of those. You've maybe participated in a few.

But this year, we've got a gift here. We can say, look, let's assume from the presidential candidates to the Senate candidates, to the House candidates, everybody is honorable and good. And let's just look at where we differ on what we should do with our future. And I'm just here to tell you, there are real differences, and I'll just mention a couple.

First of all, on economic policy. The Republican -- Governor Bush and the Republican congressional program ought to have a lot of appeal in New Jersey because there are a lot of wealthier people here. And, basically, what they say is, vote for me and I'll give you a $1.5-trillion tax cut, three times what the Democrats will give you -- more than three times. And I'll partially privatize Social Security and you will do well with that. But you should know that when you do that, all of us who might take our two percent out, somebody's got to fill that up to keep this program from going broke, so that will cost another $1 trillion over the next decade.

But it sounds good. Their message is, you couldn't mess this economy up with a stick of dynamite. Nobody's going to mess it up; it's on automatic. Information technology is surging ahead. Biomedical technology is surging ahead. This thing is rocking along. Nobody can mess this economy up. Vote for me and I'll give you your money back. That's basically their message.

Our message is, we don't think that this economy happened by accident. We think it happened by prudence and discipline and vision, and we'll give a more modest tax cut, keep paying down the debt to save Medicare and Social Security for the baby boomers, and we think we've got to invest in America.

We've got to give all our kids a world-class education, we've got to make sure we can grow the economy and preserve the environment, we've got to deal with the health and other challenges that families face. There's a whole bunch of investment issues out there.

Now, their argument is, hey, I'm trying to give you money. Have you been listening to me? This is a good economy, I'll try to give you a bunch of money. That's their argument. Our argument is, well, I'll just ask you this. Don't answer out loud, but think to yourself. What is your projected -- do you have an opinion of what your projected income is for the next 10 years? Have you thought about that, what you think you will actually make in each of the next 10 years? That's what all these proposals are based on. You need to know that. Our projected income.

So what do you think your projected income is going to be for 10 years? Now, what's your level of confidence that that's your projected income? How would you feel -- let's assume all of you have a level of confidence over 50 percent -- how would you feel if I asked you to come up here right now and sign a contract committing to spend all your projected income for the next 10 years? That's what the Republicans are asking you to do. And I don't believe I have many takers. That's what they're asking you to do.

And let me just point out this: If by continuing to practice prudence, we keep interest rates one point lower, that's worth $250 billion in lower home mortgages alone. That's a $250-billion tax cut. Just for home mortgages. That doesn't count student loans, car loans, business loans and all the economic benefits attendant there. So that's a huge issue.

I think John's right. I think we're right. I think -- and I think we have certain responsibilities to people who haven't fully participated in this economic recovery. We've got the biggest bunch of school kids in our country's history. They are the most diverse group ever, they're our meal ticket to the future -- if we can prove they can all get a world-class education.

These are big issues. We differ on patients' bill of rights, we differ on the Medicare drug benefit, we differ on the nature of environmental protection that we should have, we differ on so many issues. We differ on whether we should take extraordinary efforts to ensure equal pay for women for equal work -- big issue for our people. The average woman is still working 17 weeks a year longer for the same income as the average man in America, for all of the progress we've made. So there are real differences.

And the last point I want to make is this: It would be interesting to see if this is true in New Jersey. Most of the Republicans don't want you to know what the differences are, and that's a dead giveaway about who would win if the people knew what the differences were.

And so, here comes John, riding in on his horse. The guy has never run for office before -- actually committing the unpardonable sin of saying exactly what he thinks, even when it gets him in trouble, and trusting the people to get it right. And what my experience is -- and I encouraged him once I knew he was getting a little weary from the cost as well as the strain of the primary campaign, and I said: Look, what makes democracy work? This is why this campaign finance reform issue is important -- what makes democracy work? When the people have enough time and information -- and they need both -- they nearly always get it right. Otherwise, why would we still be around here after 200 years? People nearly always get it right.

So this big election, there are real differences. If the voters know what they are, I think they will make the right decision. I just want to make two final points. I want to say a word for the Vice President; then I hope people may ask you about that. I just want you to know, I believe I know him better than anybody outside his family now after eight years.

And there are four things I want all of you to know about that -- four reasons I think he should be elected. Number one is, our country has had Vice Presidents who have done great things as President -- Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson gave us the civil rights legislation and the federal aid to education and Medicare. But our country has never, not in over 200 years, never had anybody who made nearly anywhere near as difference in a positive way as Vice President as Al Gore. He is by far the most positively impactful Vice President the country ever had. It's not even close.

And I've spent a lifetime studying the history of my country and the institutions of national government. From breaking the tie on the economic plan in '93, to running our employment zone programs to bring economic opportunity to people and places left behind; to ramming through a telecommunications provision to guarantee that the poorest schools in America could be hooked up to the Internet -- something I learned coming to New Jersey when I saw the benefits in some of the schools here -- to managing a lot of our relations with Russia and Egypt and South Africa. No Vice President ever had remotely as much responsibility or done as much good.

The second thing I want to say to you is he shares John's economic philosophy. We don't believe we should go to the American people and say, you guys figure out your projected net income, now let's sign it away for 10 years right now. Because it's all projected, you might get it and you might not. And we don't want to get back into deficits and high interest rates, and give away all the money we need to be investing in our future.

The third thing I want to say is this: You need somebody in office -- another argument for John -- you need somebody in office in 2000 that understands the future. Let me just give you a couple of examples. You see where we announced the human genome sequencing last week? I had to study that stuff for a year just so I'd understand what I was saying at the press conference last week. (Laughter.) It's the most fascinating thing I've ever studied in my life. And I really do believe that those of you who are young enough to still be having kids, I think that it won't be 10 years before American children will be born with a life expectancy of somewhere around 90 years. Within 20 years, I'm confident American children will be born with a life expectancy of 100 years. Anybody who lives to be 65 today has a life expectancy of 83.

It's going to change everything. But people will know that all this genetic information is somewhere in somebody's computer. Don't you think that you ought to have the right to say yes before somebody gets to it, and that people shouldn't be denied jobs or promotions or health insurance because of their genetic profile? And don't you think we ought to have somebody in the White House that really understands this stuff?

Or, you take the Internet. When I became President, there were 50 -- Web sites on the Worldwide Web, in 1993. There are now 10 million -- 50 to 10 million. Now, Al gore understands this as well as anybody in American life. All of our medical and economic information is going to be on somebody's computer. Don't you think you ought to have to say yes before somebody gets your financial information or your medical records, and don't you think somebody ought to be present who understands it?

And the last thing I'll say -- and it's the thing that I really love about John, because life's been good to him, and he didn't go around being sanctimonious about being successful. I can't stand these successful people who want you to believe they were born in a log cabin they built themselves. And you've all heard a lot of that.

We need a president and we need a Congress who understand the future, who will keep the economic prosperity going, but who also want us all to go along for the ride. That's what the hate crime legislation is all about. That's what the employment nondiscrimination is about. That's what the appointments to the Supreme Court are about. Twenty cases decided this term by one vote. Twenty by one vote. (Applause.) Twenty. And the next president gets between two and four judges.

So whichever one of them gets elected, it's going to change the balance of the Supreme Court. For you to pretend otherwise is to be living in a dream world. And I think we ought to have a president and I think we ought to have a senator from New Jersey and New York, and a Senate and a House that think we all ought to go along for the ride. When you really strip it all away, that's basically why most of us are Democrats. We know we're lucky.

Shoot, man, people ask me, in the toughest days of my presidency, weren't there days that I regretted it. I said, regretted it? Are you kidding me? Another turn in the road and I could be home doing $200 divorces and deeds and stuff. (Laughter.) This is the cost of doing business. The Republicans have decided to impose a certain cost of doing business if you want to be a Democrat and be President. I wouldn't take the world for it. I've had a wonderful time.

But I'll tell you what -- on the good days and the bad days, I wanted everybody along for the ride. And that's another thing about this prosperity -- we need to take everybody along. That's what John will do; and that's what Al Gore will do. Thank you very much. (Applause.) END 3:10 P.M. EDT

26. RADIO ADDRESS BY THE PRESIDENT TO THE NATION--July 8, 2000
The Oval Office
10:06 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. With fewer than 40 days left on the congressional calendar, I'd like to speak with you about how we can seize this moment to modernize Medicare and help all seniors afford the
prescription drugs that can lengthen and enrich their lives.

It was just 35 years ago this month that President Johnson signed the Medicare Act into law. He spoke of Medicare joining Social Security as a cornerstone of our society upon which the hopes and dreams of generations of seniors could securely rest. He directed our nation, in his words, "never to ignore those who suffer untended, in a land that is bursting with abundance."

Over these past 35 years, Medicare has proven to be a remarkable success. Before Medicare, nearly half of America's seniors didn't have any health coverage at all. Serious illness often wiped away in an instant all the savings families had put away over a lifetime of hard work. Today, nearly every senior has the security of basic health coverage. And since that time, elderly poverty has fallen dramatically, and Americans over 65 have the highest life expectancy anywhere in the world.

Yet, for all its successes, Medicare has not fully kept pace with the miracles of modern medicine. The original Medicare law was written at a time when patients' lives were more often saved by scalpel and pharmaceuticals; when many of the life-saving drugs we now routinely use did not even exist.

No one creating Medicare today would even consider excluding coverage for prescription drugs. That's why we've proposed a comprehensive plan to provide voluntary prescription drug benefits that are affordable for all seniors -- a plan that ensures that all Medicare beneficiaries, no matter where they live or how sick they are, will pay the same affordable premiums; a plan that covers catastrophic drug costs; a plan that is part of an overall effort to strengthen and modernize Medicare so we won't have to ask our children to shoulder our
burden when we retire.

Across the nation we've seen a great outpouring of support for adding such a prescription drug benefit. And yet I'm increasingly concerned that efforts in Congress are bogging down. One reason for this is clear: the pharmaceutical industry has unleashed a shameless, scorched-earth campaign to thwart the will of the American people.

And industry-funded group calling itself Citizens for Better Medicare -- can you believe that? -- has flooded the airwaves with negative ads against our plan. Just this week we learned that the drug companies have enlisted nearly 300 hard-gun lobbyists -- more than one for ever two members of Congress -- and paid them to do everything in their power to block all meaningful reforms. All told, the drug industry has spent a staggering $236 million on its lobbying efforts. These millions would be a lot better spent on research for new
medicines.

The pharmaceutical industry is pushing Congress to adopt a private insurance program, rather than a Medicare prescription drug benefit. Insurers, themselves, however, say this won't work, and they won't participate. Just today we learned that the state of Nevada is using a private insurance model that's very similar to the plan passed by the Republican majority in the House of Representatives last week. Not surprisingly, it has not found one single qualified insurer willing to participate.

You have to give it to the insurance companies; they have been honest here. They have said that the Republican plan won't work. It's a plan designed for those who make the drugs, not for the seniors who
need to take them.

So today I call on Congress to reject that approach and the reckless campaign of narrow special interests, and act together in the public interest. We need a prescription drug benefit that works for seniors and people with disabilities, not just for the pharmaceutical industry.

A few weeks ago I put forth a good-faith proposal to do just that. I said that if Congress will agree to pass a plan that offers affordable Medicare prescription drug coverage to all seniors and people with disabilities, while protecting our hard-won fiscal discipline, then I will sign a marriage penalty relief law of equal size.

At this time of year it's natural that we begin to think ahead to Election Day, but let's keep in mind, as well, the spirit of common purpose we just celebrated on Independence Day. That's the spirit I hope members of Congress will bring back to our Nation's Capital when they return to work Monday. At a time when America is once again bursting with abundance, there shouldn't be a limit on what we can achieve.

Thanks for listening.

END 10:11 A.M. EDT

27. RADIO ADDRESS BY THE PRESIDENT TO THE NATION--July 15, 2000
Camp David, Maryland

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Today I want to talk about what we as a nation must do to keep our economic expansion going, and extend its benefits to every American.

For more than seven years now, our nation has followed a course of fiscal discipline that has paid tremendous dividends for the American people. We made tough choices, cut our deficits, paid down our debt. We've strengthened and extended the life of Social Security and Medicare. And we made the investments that matter most for America's future -- in education, in health care, in the environment, in science and technology, and in targeted tax cuts.

But in recent weeks, the Republicans in Congress have done an about-face on our strategy of fiscal discipline. Having already passed more than half a trillion dollars in reckless tax cuts, this week they passed a fiscally irresponsible plan to repeal the entire estate tax. Its costs would explode to $750 billion after 10 years. And every year fully half its benefits would go to just 3,000 families.

But they haven't been able to provide an affordable Medicare prescription drug benefit for tens of millions of Americans. They haven't been able to add even a day to the life of Social Security or Medicare. They haven't done anything new to improve our schools, increase the minimum wage, expand health insurance coverage for children or parents whose children have coverage, or even to pass a meaningful patients' bill of rights. And now they seem ready to give up on our bipartisan plan to use Social Security and Medicare surpluses for debt reduction. All these actions are serving special interests, not our
national interest.

As we look to the future, if we want to keep this economic expansion going, we have got to keep fiscal discipline at the forefront. That's why I want to stay on track to pay off our national debt by 2012. That's why we should dedicate Social Security surpluses to paying down the debt, and use savings from debt reduction to extend the life of Social Security to 2057. Also, I support Vice President Gore's proposal to take Medicare funds out of the budget as well, and to use saving from debt reduction to help extend the life of the Medicare trust fund out beyond 2030.

Now, their plan would take all of our projected surplus and spend it all for tax cuts and for the cost of privatizing partially the Social Security system, and other spending. Let me ask you something. If someone asked you to sign a contract committing you to spend every penny of your projected earnings for the next 10 years, would you do it? Unfortunately, that's what the congressional Republicans want us to do. Most of us would not sign away money we don't have, and neither should America.

That's why I've proposed setting aside $500 billion as a reserve for America's future -- so we can have a national discussion of our priorities, and so we're prepared for a rainy day. If we do it responsibly, we'll still have the resources to meet key needs of American families. We can increase our investments in education and health care. We can have the right kind of targeted tax cuts to help Americans modernize our schools, send our children to college, care for sick family members, pay for child care. And we can offer every older American the option of affordable, dependable prescription drug benefits through Medicare.

There's a growing consensus, in the Senate and all across America, that we need a real Medicare prescription drug benefit -- not a flawed private insurance program that even the insurance companies admit won't work. I also think we can agree to protect our hard-fought fiscal discipline by pledging to use Medicare surpluses only for debt reduction, as Vice President Gore has urged. I hope Republicans and Democrats would start from there and move forward together on America's other priorities.

In that spirit, I've reached out to Congress and said that if they'll agree to pass a plan that offers affordable Medicare prescription drug coverage to all seniors and people with disabilities, while protecting our hard-won fiscal discipline, I will sign a marriage penalty relief law.

As yet, the Republican leaders have not yet responded to the nation's call for a real prescription drug plan. But it's not too late to put progress over partisanship. The American people know what they need -- a Medicare prescription drug benefit, investments in health and education, and targeted tax cuts that don't take us off the path of fiscal discipline and debt reduction.

Some people here in Washington already are looking ahead to Election Day. But let's not get ahead of ourselves. We did not reach this moment of prosperity by accident -- but we could lose it through inattention. Remember, how a nation deals with prosperity is just as stern a test of its judgment and values as how it deals with adversity. If we fail that test, the losers won't be political parties or special interests, they'll be our children, and our future. But if we succeed, America's best days are still ahead.

Thanks for listening.

28. REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT TO THE COMMUNITY OF THE BARKSDALE SPECIAL PROGRAMS CENTER--July 31, 2000
David Barksdale Senior Center
Tampa, Florida
12:00 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: . . . Thirty-five years ago when President Johnson signed Medicare into law, he created a cornerstone upon which generations of Americans could safely rest. Since then, Medicare has been a remarkable success and a solid guarantee. Before Medicare, more than half of our seniors had no health care coverage at all. Serious illness often wiped away in an instant all the savings families had put away over a lifetime of hard work.

Today, nearly every senior has the security of basic health coverage. Poverty among elderly has fallen dramatically as a result. And Americans over 65 have the highest life expectancy of all the world's seniors. Any American who lives to be 65 today has a life expectancy in excess of 82 years. People over 80 are the fastest growing group of people in America in percentage terms. I hope to be one of them one of these days. (Laughter.) Yet, for all its success, as Bill Nelson made clear, Medicare simply has not kept pace with the growing miracles of modern medicine.

The Medicare law was created at a time when patients' lives were more often saved by a surgeon's scalpel than by pharmaceuticals, when many of the lifesaving drugs we now take for granted did not even exist, indeed were not even thought of. Prescription drugs today can accomplish what once was done through expensive surgery and no one -- if we were creating the Medicare program today, starting from scratch, it would not even occur to anyone to create a Medicare program without a prescription drug benefit.

Adding a voluntary prescription drug benefit is the right thing to do, but it's also the smart thing to do. Today, fully half of Medicare beneficiaries don't have prescription drug coverage for part or all of the year. And the cost of prescription drugs is taking too big a bite out of the fixed incomes of too many seniors and people with disabilities. You heard that today in the remarks that were made before I came up here, in ways more eloquent than I could possibly express.

Sylvia's story is not unique to her. I'll bet it's repeated among a lot of you in this audience, and I can promise you all across America, there are millions and millions and millions just like her. Too many people literally are forced to choose on a weekly basis between filling their prescriptions and filling their grocery carts.

A Family USA report released today shows that the cost of prescription drugs is continuing to increase. According to this report, older Americans now pay an average of more than $1,200 a year for prescription drugs, up from $559 in 1992. The amount is projected to increase to more than -- listen to this -- $2,800 over the next decade. Here in Florida, hundreds of thousands of seniors lack the benefits of dependable prescription drug coverage. Thousands of others try to get coverage through private Medigap insurance plans and managed care. Some have succeeded only to be dropped later by their private care plans and left with nothing more than an empty medicine chest.

In fact, just this year, nearly a million Medicare beneficiaries around America, more than 85,000 in Florida alone, were dropped by their managed care plans. For most seniors, that leaves only one alternative to drug coverage -- they can buy into a private Medigap program, which can cost hundreds of dollars a month for a benefit with a $250 deductible and no protections against catastrophic drug costs.

Now, most of us tend to think of Medicare beneficiaries as seniors, but in fact, 5 million of them are people with disabilities under the age of 65. A quarter million of them live right here in Florida, too. As difficult as it is for seniors to get affordable and dependable prescription drugs, it's an even greater challenge for Americans with disabilities.

Today I'm releasing another report that documents how Medicare beneficiaries with disabilities are in poor health, require more prescriptions, and are less likely to have private prescription drug coverage. The report also shows that people with disabilities purchased 40 percent more drugs than the typical Medicare beneficiary. And like seniors who lack drug coverage, they, too, pay more for the drugs they do get.

On average, Medicare beneficiaries with disabilities who lack coverage spend 50 percent more out of pocket for 50 percent fewer prescriptions than those who have coverage. Let me say that again. People without coverage spend 50 percent more out of pocket for 50 percent fewer prescriptions than those who have coverage. These drugs aren't only lifesaving; they can help people with disabilities return to work and make even greater contributions to their communities -- people like Patricia Fell, over here to my right who came up with me, on the stage, from Clearwater. She suffers every day from a very painful hip condition. She has been a foster mother -- listen to this -- to 87 children. (Applause.) And her daughter is here with us today and we welcome her.

She uses her disability check to pay her $4,300 annual prescription drug bill. She would work full-time, but if she did, she'd lose her disability check. That's what pays for the prescription drugs she desperately needs. She told me that this is continuing to be an agonizing choice for her.

Now, people like her, who have done their part for our country and done way more than most people have to help children in need, shouldn't have to make a choice between health and work. A Medicare drug benefit would give Pat the chance to be as healthy, active and productive as she could possibly be.

That's why I have proposed a plan to provide a Medicare prescription drug benefit that is voluntary and accessible to all seniors and all Americans with disabilities; a plan that ensures that all older Americans and other eligible Americans with disabilities, no matter where they live or how sick they are, will pay the same affordable $25 a month premium; a plan that uses price competition, not price controls, to give seniors and people with disabilities the best price as possible; a plan that would cover catastrophic drug costs; a plan that provides beneficiaries the prescriptions they need at the pharmacies they trust; a plan that is part of an overall effort to strengthen and modernize Medicare and lengthen its life so that we will not have to ask our children to shoulder the burden of the baby boom generation when we retire.

Now, in response, the Republican majority in Congress has passed a private insurance plan that many seniors and people with disabilities simply will not be able to afford. You see that already with the Medigap plan. It won't offer affordable and accessible coverage to all seniors. It relies on a trickle-down scheme that provides a subsidy for insurers, but not a single dollar for middle class seniors and people with disabilities. And let me say this: over half the seniors and people with disabilities who lack affordable insurance coverage today have incomes above 150 percent of the poverty line, which is about $12,600 for an individual senior, about $16,600 for a couple.

Now, I'm President, I'm not supposed to say it's a bunch of baloney, like Sylvia did. (Laughter.) But you might be surprised to know who agrees with her -- the insurance companies, themselves. Even the insurance companies concede that a Medigap insurance model will not work for prescription drug coverage. This is very, very important.

Here's what one insurance company had to say -- and I quote -- "Private, stand-alone prescription drug coverage will not work. Such coverage would constitute an empty promise to Medicare beneficiaries." Insurance companies are refusing to participate in such a program. The state of Nevada tried to implement a private insurance model quite similar to the Republican plan which passed through Congress. They could not find one single qualified insurance company even willing to offer the coverage, because they knew it couldn't be done at an affordable rate and they didn't want to be accused of perpetrating a fraud on the seniors in the state.

It's clear that this plan that passed with the votes of the Republican majority is basically designed for the pharmaceutical companies who make the drugs, not the seniors who take them. Now, why would they do that? Because they believe that if we have a Medicare program, we will be able to buy these pharmaceuticals in bulk and get you a better price, and because charging higher prices for Americans recovers all the research costs of these drugs and that enables them to sell the drugs for a profit at much lower prices in other countries -- which is why I'm sure you've seen all these stories about people taking buses to Canada to buy their drugs. Unfortunately, Florida is nowhere near North Dakota, so that's not an option for most of you. But that's what's going on here. And it's unbelievable to me.

What are we going to do with our prosperity? This week -- and you may hear if you turn on the television, the Republicans when they meet in Philadelphia in convention talking about all their tax cut bills and how wonderful they'd be for you. But what they don't say is that if you take all their tax cut proposals in total, it spends the entire projected surplus of the country for the next 10 years. Congressman Davis just came in, your Congressman -- he was nodding his head. So I want to acknowledge you. Thank you for being here, sir.

They spent -- you know, they're trying to put the heat on him. They're trying to say, well, people in Tampa ought to be mad at him, he's not voting for all these tax cuts, aren't they good? It kind of reminds me of going to a cafeteria. When I go to a cafeteria, everything I see looks good. (Laughter.) But if I eat it all, I'll get sick. (Laughter.)

Now, that's what's going on here. So they talk about all these wonderful tax cuts. If they become the law, there will be nothing left from the projected surplus for a Medicare prescription drug benefit; nothing left to lengthen the life of Social Security and Medicare, so when the baby boomers retire we don't break our kids and our grandkids; nothing left to invest in the education of our children.

There's something else I'd like to say that all of you can probably identify with. This is a projected surplus. This is what we think we'll get over the next 10 years. Did you ever get one of those letters from Ed McMahon? (Laughter.) You know, it probably said, "You may have won $10 million." Did you ever get one? "You may have won $10 million." Now, if you went out and spent the $10 million the next day, you should support their plan. (Laughter.) But, if not, you ought to think again there.

When you cut these taxes, the money's gone. And I think it's wrong to spend it all. Just this week, we released a report that showed that one of their spending proposals, the total repeal of the estate tax, would benefit only 4,300 families in Florida, with an average tax cut of $434,000. Now, I think there ought to be some changes in the estate tax. I think the rate's too high. I think too many family businesses are burdened by it. And I'm all for changing it, I've offered to change it. But to completely repeal it without taking account of the need here for prescription drugs is a big mistake.

While 4,300 families in Florida would benefit from the estate tax repeal, the Medicare prescription drug benefit would provide affordable coverage to more than 2.7 million seniors and people with disabilities in Florida. Their average income is $18,600.

Even by Congress's own optimistic efforts, I will say again, these tax bills leave nothing for Medicare, for lengthening the life of Social Security, and for the drug program, or for education for our children, plus which, they'd make it impossible for us to pay this country out of debt by 2012. One of the things I've been trying to do is get us out of debt. We quadrupled the debt of the country in the 12 years before I took office, and we're trying to get rid of it. If we get rid of it, interest rates will be lower, incomes will be higher, people will pay less for home mortgages -- $250 billion over 10 years, by our estimates-- less for car loans, less for college loans. That's the equivalent of a big tax cut, lower interest rates. So I think this is very, very important.

Now, there is a better way. The budget that I gave the Congress continues our fiscal discipline. It would get us out of debt by 2012, for the first time since 1835, and it would put us in great shape for the 21st century. It would extend the life of the Social Security trust fund by more than 50 years. It would extend the life of Medicare by over 30 years -- Medicare was supposed to go broke last year when I took office.

It provides, believe it or not, tax cuts -- affordable tax cuts -- to help people send their kids to college, pay for long-term care for the elderly and disabled -- a big deal -- pay for child care, pay for retirement savings, allow people between the ages of 55 and 65 to buy into Medicare and give them a tax benefit to do so, because so many of them have lost their insurance, and provide marriage penalty tax relief. And believe it or not, our plan only costs one-fourth as much as theirs does, but it would provide more benefits to 80 percent of the people.

So there is a way to have a tax cut here and have the money to pay for the Medicare prescription drug program, to lengthen the life of Medicare and Social Security, to invest in the education of our children. And believe it or not, I still leave a lot of this projected surplus alone, in my budget, in case it doesn't materialize, or in case it does materialize, the next President and the next Congress can make a judgment about what to do with it. I just don't believe in spending all this money before it comes in. We've tried it before and it didn't work out too well.

So I hope that all of you will raise your voices. This is not a partisan political issue in America. When you go to the pharmacist to fill a prescription, nobody asks you whether you voted Republican or Democrat for the last 40 years. Nobody asks whether you vote at all. You're just a person and you need the medicine. It should not be a partisan political issue in Washington. We have the money; we can do it, provide a tax cut, invest in our children, and still get the country out of debt. All we have to do is decide what our priorities are, how much we care about it, how much people like the people on this stage and in this room matter to us, and what kind of America we want to live in.

So I ask you all, because it's not a partisan issue out here, do what you can with your senators and your representatives, raise your voices, tell them it shouldn't be a partisan issue in Washington. You've got a lot of lives depending on it. And it's only going to become more and more important.

You know, we're on the verge of breakthroughs for Parkinson's, for various kinds of cancers, with the Human Genome Project, which I'm sure you read about -- we've now sequenced the human gene in its entirety -- it won't be long in the next 10 years, it's going to take your breath away what we learn how to correct in terms of human health problems.

I believe that these young children here will, themselves, have children that will have a life expectancy at birth in excess of 90 years. But if we want to do this -- this is a high-class problem -- I believe people with disabilities will find ways to remedy a lot of the disabilities and they will be able to live longer and better lives and have more options. But all of that will require us to rely more heavily on medicine -- not less, more.

We have put this off long enough. We finally have the money to do it. And I think, as a country, we're morally obligated to do it. So I ask you to raise your voices, stick with us, let's keep working on it until we get it done.

Thank you and God bless you. (Applause.)

29. STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT ON THE 65TH ANNIVERSARY OF SOCIAL SECURITY--August 4, 2000

THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 4, 2000

I am pleased to join my fellow citizens across America in celebrating the 65th anniversary of the Social Security Act.

On August 14, 1935, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed into law the Social Security Act and changed the future of America. At that time, during the darkest days of the Great Depression, the prospect of growing old was frightening for Americans, for it meant little economic security and almost certain hardship. Few older-Americans had pensions of any kind, and more than half of our elderly were living on incomes that were insufficient to meet their basic needs.

But Social Security took away that fear and transformed the lives of our senior citizens. Instead of being the poorest people in our nation as they were 65 years ago, older Americans today are the least likely to live in poverty. Instead of facing an uncertain future, Americans now have the ability to plan for their old age, confident that they will have a secure financial foundation on which to build a comfortable retirement.

While it has been a resounding success for older Americans, Social Security is much more than a retirement program; it is also a life insurance and disability insurance program. The death or disablement of a family wage-earner can be both emotionally and financially devastating. In such tragic circumstances, Social Security has been there to provide millions of families with income protection.

We can be proud of all that we have accomplished under Social Security. But on this 65th anniversary, we must also pledge to make those accomplishments enduring ones. As President Roosevelt himself reminded us, "Social Security represents a cornerstone in a structure which is by no means complete" and "new conditions impose new requirements upon government and those who conduct government." Social Security must change to keep pace with changing times in America. That is why Vice President Gore and I have worked so hard to preserve and strengthen Social Security.

Today, 35 million Americans are over the age of 65, but that number will soon double in the coming decades, putting financial pressure on the Social Security system. We should take advantage of this moment of prosperity and our unprecedented budget surpluses to strengthen Social Security so that this visionary program, which served our parents and grandparents so well in the 20th century, will be a source of strength and security for our children in the 21st century.

Best wishes to all for a memorable anniversary celebration.


30. STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT--August 10, 2000

Today, I am pleased that a new study has been released that demonstrates that older Americans are healthier and prospering more than ever before. The findings of the Federal Interagency Forum on Aging-Related Statistics' report "Older Americans 2000: Key Indicators of Well-Being" shows that that the life expectancy for Americans has increased by more than twenty years since 1990 -- women from 51 to 79 years old and men from 48 to 74 years old -- and that the number of older Americans living in poverty has decreased by nearly 25 percent since 1959.

These trends reinforce that our efforts over the last seven years to strengthen Medicare and Social Security, while also paying down the debt, have been successful. However, there is still a tremendous amount to be done to ensure the well-being of all older Americans, which is becoming more critical as the baby-boomers approach their senior years. By 2030, one in five Americans, 70 million people, will be 65 years of age or older.

We need to prepare for the inevitable health and financial challenges that confront Medicare and Social Security. As an important first step in that direction, we should follow Vice-President Gore's suggestion to take Medicare off-budget. If we do, we will ensure that Medicare payroll taxes are only used for Medicare. We should also modernize and strengthen Medicare by making the program more competitive as well as providing for a long overdue and voluntary prescription drug benefit. I urge Congress to work this Fall across party lines to improve our seniors' health security and pass these important reforms.

31. STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT--September 7, 2000

I commend the House members who voted today to reject the majority's flawed estate tax bill. While I support estate tax relief that addresses family farms, small businesses, and principal residences, the approach taken by the majority in Congress is part of a $2 trillion tax plan that would take us back to the days of deficits, high interest rates, and fiscal irresponsibility. This is a misguided bill that provides a huge tax cut for the most well-off Americans at the expense of working families. It is a key ingredient of a Republican tax plan that would leave nothing for Social Security, Medicare, education, or a voluntary, affordable prescription drug benefit.

This back-loaded bill explodes in cost from $100 billion from 2001-10 to $750 billion from 2011-20, just when Medicare and Social Security will come under strain. It benefits only 2% of all estates in America, and provides half of its benefits to about 3,000 families annually, while more than 10 million Americans wait for an increase in the minimum wage and tens of millions of seniors lack dependable prescription drug coverage. Furthermore, studies by economists have found that repealing the estate tax would reduce charitable donations by $5 billion to $6 billion per year.

If the Congressional leadership is serious about estate tax relief for small businesses, family farms, and principal residences of middle-class families that have increased in value, they should work with me in a fiscally responsible manner as Democrats in Congress have proposed. Together, we can strengthen Social Security and Medicare, invest in key priorities, and pay off the debt by 2012. This is the right priority for America.

32. NATIONAL OLDER WORKERS EMPLOYMENT WEEK, 2000
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, A PROCLAMATION

September 22, 2000


As a Nation, we are growing older, and so is our workforce. Today, there are 49 million workers in America aged 45 years or older -- approximately 35 percent of America's labor force -- and by 2008, that number will grow to 62 million, or about 40 percent of the workforce. One in four Americans between the ages of 65 and 69 has at least a part-time job, and 80 percent of the "baby boom" generation intends to keep working past the age of 65. Increasingly, older Americans want to work, and for most, the opportunity to work adds not only to the length but also to the quality of their lives.

The abilities, experience, and strong work ethic of these older Americans are a precious resource for our Nation in today's strong economy. With the unemployment rate at its lowest level in more than a generation, businesses urgently need to hire more workers if they are to keep pace with the demand for their products and services. Too often overlooked or under-utilized, older workers offer employers a broad and diverse pool of talent.

Recognizing the importance of older workers to our Nation and our economy, the Congress unanimously passed, and I was proud to sign into law, the Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act of 2000. This legislation eliminates the Social Security retirement earnings test, a provision that withheld benefits from Americans working beyond the age of 65. It allows older Americans to enjoy the extra income and personal fulfillment that work offers without being penalized, and it ensures that companies facing labor shortages will have a greater supply of experienced workers. The Act will also help our economy grow without inflation and encourage Americans to work longer, thus contributing more to the tax base and to the Social Security trust fund at precisely the time when the percentage of younger workers paying into the system will be decreasing.

Older Americans have contributed much to the life of our Nation and to the extraordinary growth and prosperity we enjoy today. We owe them our respect and gratitude; we also owe them the opportunity to continue working as long as they desire. Through laws such as the Older Americans Act, which I have called on the Congress to reauthorize and strengthen, the Age Discrimination Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and now the Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act, the United States Government guarantees that opportunity. And, through the Senior Community Service Employment Program at the Department of Labor and the Administration on Aging at the Department of Health and Human Services, older workers have access to the programs and services they need to continue making their own vital contributions to the American workplace.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, WILLIAM J. CLINTON, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim September 24 through September 30, 2000, as National Older Workers Employment Week. I urge employers across the Nation to recognize the energy and ability of older Americans and to develop new strategies for recruiting and utilizing older workers. I also encourage public officials responsible for job placement, training, and related services to intensify their efforts throughout the year to assist older workers in finding suitable jobs and training.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-second day of September, in the year of our Lord two thousand, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and twenty-fifth.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON

33. PRESIDENT CLINTON NAMES TWO PUBLIC MEMBERS TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE TRUST FUNDS--September 27, 2000

The President today announced the nomination of John L. Palmer and Thomas R. Saving to serve as public members of the Board of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund (Social Security). They will also be nominated to serve as public members of the Board of Trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund (Medicare).

Dr. John L. Palmer, of Fayetteville, New York, is Dean and Professor of Economics and Public Administration of the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University. Dr. Palmer was a founding member of the National Academy of Social Insurance and served as its President from 1997-1999. He has been a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute. Dr. Palmer served as Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation at the Department of Health and Human Services from 1979-1981. Dr. Palmer received a B.A. degree from Williams College in 1965 and a Ph.D. degree in Economics from Stanford University in 1971.

Dr. Thomas R. Saving, of College Station, Texas, is Director of the Private Enterprise Research Center and Professor of Economics at Texas A&M University. Dr. Saving serves on the Board of Directors of the Association of Private Enterprise Education and is a Co-Editor of the journal Economic Inquiry. He is past president of the Southern Economic Association from 1980-1981 and the Western Economic Association from 1971-1972. Dr. Saving received a B.A. degree from Michigan State University in 1957, a M.A. degree from the University of Chicago in 1958, and a Ph.D. degree from the University of Chicago in 1960. The Board is comprised of the Secretaries of the Treasury, of Labor, and Health and Human Services, the Commissioner of Social Security, and two public members appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.

The Board is responsible for reporting annually to Congress on the financial status of the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Funds, the Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund, and the Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) Trust Fund. The OASI and DI Trust Funds provide financing for the retirement, survivors, and disability benefits under Social Security, and the HI and SMI Trust Funds finance the Medicare program.

34. REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT AT DNC/DEMOCRATIC BUSINESS COUNCIL LUNCH--September 29, 2000
Mayflower Hotel
Washington. D.C.
12:46 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. . . .

Now, today, I have the great pleasure, as Ed Rendell said earlier -- I've had three announcements this week that have made me very happy. First, we announced that this year the budget surplus would be $230 billion. It was projected to be a $455 billion deficit when I took office. And that was good. (Applause.) And over the last three years, we will have paid down $360 billion on the national debt.

Then the next day we announced the poverty figures, which show that poverty is at a 20-year low. It's under 10 percent for seniors for the first time in our history; median income in America is above $40,000 for the first time in our history; and after inflation income has increased by $6,300, more than 15 percent, since 1993; and the gains in the last couple of years for the lowest income Americans and for minority Americans have been greater than the average gains in percentage terms. . . .

So the big question is, now what? What do we do with the surplus? How do we keep the economy going? Can we continue this expansion? Can we spread its benefits to the people and places that have been left behind? Can we now take on some of the big, long-term challenges of the country -- the aging of America, when all us baby boomers retire, two people working for every one drawing Social Security and Medicare? The children of America, the largest and most racially and ethnically and religiously diverse group we've ever had, can we give them all a world-class education? The families of America, can we actually find the ways to balance work and child rearing for all working families?

There are a lot of other questions. Can we meet the challenge of global warming, which the oil companies admit is real now, and still grow the economy? Something we're very sensitive to now because the price of oil has gone up. How much can we do in conservation? How much can we do with alternative energy development? Are fuel cells a realistic alternative and when will they be in cars and how much mileage will they get? What kind of new energy sources do we need and how do we do it without messing up the environment? These are the things that are going to affect your life.

How are we going to continue to increase trade in the rest of the world in a way that gets the support of ordinary citizens, so we don't have a riot every time in every city, we have a meeting of the World Trade Organization or somebody else, some other international group? These are the huge questions that will shape the 21st century. Will the discoveries of the human genome, which will soon lead to a life expectancy, I believe, at birth of 90 years in America -- will we be able to spread those benefits to all people and still protect the privacy rights of Americans who will have all their medical and financial records on computers?

So I ask you to think about that. To me, this election ought to be a feast for the American people. We have worked for eight years to turn this country around and get it going in the right direction. So now you've got the longest economic expansion ever, and the lowest unemployment rate in 30 years, and the lowest minority unemployment rate ever recorded, and the highest home ownership in history, highest small business rate of creation in history -- every year we break records -- lowest crime rate in a quarter century, lowest welfare rolls in 32 years.

So what are we going to do with all this? This election should be an exuberant experience for the American people, including those that are still in distress, because they know there is something we can do about it now.

And what I want to ask you to do is to think about anything you can do between now and November to talk to the people that you know and live and work with, who will never come to an event like this, but who have every intention of voting. They're good citizens, they know they ought to show up and vote, they want to make the right decision, they'll watch at least one of the debates, they'll follow this on the evening news and in the newspapers. But what is the choice here?

And we have very different views. And we ought to talk about it. We have a very different economic policy here. The Vice President wants a tax cut of about $500 billion over 10 years. Governor Bush wants one of $1.6 trillion over 10 years. Most of you would make more money out of the Republican tax cut. Why are you here? (Laughter.) You've got to be able to answer that. You get more money up front out of their tax cut.

What's our argument? Our argument is, number one, we have responsibilities -- to our children and education and health care and the environment. We're going to have to spend more money on national defense. We've already put another $100 billion back in defense, and Vice President Gore has promised to put, so far, twice as much as Governor Bush has. Why is that? Because we got a big benefit from the end of the Cold War, but because we had to deploy our forces in a lot of places, we cut the procurement of new weapons and old equipment back to keep up training, to raise pay, to provide for quality of life, to keep recruitment up because it's harder to recruit people into the service when they can make more money doing other things.

We want to have a tax cut the American people need and can afford, but he knows we have to invest in other things and we should do it in the context of keeping this debt coming down -- running a surplus every year until we get this country out of debt over the next 12 years, for the first time since 1835. Now, that's why you're here. That's your answer to the business people. Why? Because if you do that, as opposed to -- now keep in mind, the projected non-Social Security surplus, the most liberal number is $2.2 trillion. That's the Congress. We think it's much smaller, at $1.8. If you do a $1.6 trillion tax cut, that leaves you $600 billion, right, for 10 years. If all the rosy scenarios are right.

Now that, however, scenario assumes that government spending does not grow at inflation plus population, which it has done for 50 years. If that happens, that takes away another $300 billion. That leaves you $300 billion. Then it assumes that we will not extend the tax credits that are in the law now, like the research and development tax credit. Since the high-tech industry has accounted for one-third of our growth, with only 9 percent of the employment, don't you think we ought to extend it? Of course we should. (Applause.) So we will.

And it assumes, furthermore, that as incomes grow, we won't bump up the level at which the alternative minimum tax takes effect. You really think we're going to let middle class people start paying the alternative minimum tax, so they don't get the basic tax deductions? Of course we're not. That's another $200 billion. That leaves you with $100 billion left.

Then he's proposed a partial privatization of Social Security, which means all of you under X age, let's say 40, can take 2 percent of your payroll and go invest it in the market and try to earn more money than you could from Social Security. The problem is, Social Security runs out in 37 years, so as you take yours out, I'll be retiring, and he's going to promise me that I can keep all that I'm guaranteed under the present law.

So what do you have to do? You have to fill up the hole of everybody taking their payroll tax out. That costs at least $900 billion. So you're $800 million in the hole before you spend a penny for education, health care, the environment, or whatever else. . . .

I think our economic plan is better. I hope you can argue it. It's clear to me that this is the right thing to do. (Applause.) . . .

This Medicare drug issue is a very interesting issue. If you live to be 65 in this country you've got a life expectancy of 82. We know that pharmaceuticals can keep people alive longer and improve the quality of their lives. We know there are lots of people choosing between food and medicine every day. We know this.

Now, so we say, look, we've got the money now under Medicare. When I was elected President, Medicare was supposed to go broke last year. We've added 27 years to the life of Medicare already. We have a plan to add more. We'll have to reform it some. But we say we ought to have a voluntary prescription drug benefit under Medicare, which has 2 percent or less administrative cost, totally voluntary, but everybody that needs it ought to buy it.

They say, well, it might cost more than the Democrats say -- I'll make the best case for their argument -- they say, it might cost more than the Democrats say, so let's cover up to 150 percent of poverty, and then everybody else can buy insurance and we'll give them a little help. Their side sounds pretty good. And why would you deny poor people, the poorest people the right to have health insurance.

Here's the debate. Over half the people who can't afford their medicine are above 150 percent of the poverty level -- that's only about $16,000 for a couple. Over half the people who need the help are above there, number one. Number two, after all the fights I've had with the health insurance companies, I've got to hand it to them, they have been scrupulously honest in this debate. They have told us over and over and over again, you cannot design an insurance policy that is affordable to people that won't bankrupt us on medicine.

The state of Nevada has already adopted the present Republican plan. Do you know how many insurance companies have offered drug insurance under it? Zero, not one. But I've got to give it to them, evidence never phases them, they just go right on. I kind of admire that. (Laughter and applause.) You know, I kind of admire that. Don't tell me about paying down the debt and 22 million jobs and all this. Say, here's the right thing to do, don't bother me with the evidence. (Laughter.) But the truth is, we tried their plan and it doesn't work.

Now, here is what is really going on. What is really going on is that the pharmaceutical companies badly don't want our plan, but they don't want to act like the don't want older people who need medicine not to have it. And they've got a real problem. They do have a real problem. Here's what their real problem is. Their real problem is they're afraid if we have a Medicare drug program and we enroll a lot of people in it, we will acquire so much power in the market that we'll be able to get drugs made in America almost as cheaply as the Canadians pay. (Laughter.)

Now, to be fair to them, it is -- here's their real problem. Look, I'm not demonizing them. I'm glad we've got these pharmaceutical companies in our country. I'm glad they find all these life-saving drugs. I'm glad they provide good jobs to people. I'm glad they're here. They do have a problem. You know what their problem is? It costs a fortune to develop these drugs and they can't sell them in other countries, except under very rigorous price control regimes, in Europe and other places. So the reason that Americans have to pay too much is, they have to recover 100 percent of their research and development costs from American consumers, because of the price controls in other countries. However, once they do that, they can still make good money selling those drugs in other countries.

So I'm sympathetic with their problem. But there's got to be another way to solve their problem than keeping American seniors without the drugs they need. So that's the difference in out two positions. You're not going to read this in the paper very often. They all argue about this other stuff. If you strip it all away, that's the truth.

And you don't have to demonize anybody. They have a problem, and they're worried about losing the ability to recover high profit margins from American sales of drugs made in America, because they can't recover them overseas, even though once they do recover them from us, they can make a lot of money selling the drugs at discounts overseas. That's the real issue. Nobody's explained this to most Americans.

I think the Vice President is right. I think, the most important thing is take care of our people. We have tax benefits, we do a lot of medical research on our own that helps the pharmaceutical companies. So we'll find a way to solve their problem, but let's don't keep old people without the medicine they need. Provide the medicine. We can afford it. Do that, then focus on this other problem. Let's get our priorities in order. There's a big difference between the two parties, and I think we're right, and I think they're not. . . .

Thank you and God bless you.

END 1:18 P.M. EDT

35. PRESIDENT CLINTON NAMES MARK A. WEINBERGER AS A MEMBER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADVISORY BOARD--October 2, 2000

The President today announced his intent to nominate Mr. Mark A. Weinberger to serve as a Member of the Social Security Advisory Board.

Mr. Mark A. Weinberger, of Gaithersburg, Maryland, is currently the Director of National Tax for Ernst & Young LLP. Previously, he served as Chief of Staff and Counsel to the President's 1994 Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform.

Mr. Weinberger also served as Chief Tax and Budget Counsel to Senator John Danforth. In addition, he was a Commissioner of the National Commission on Retirement Policy. Mr. Weinberger is a graduate of Emory University. He received M.B.A. and J.D. degrees from Case Western Reserve University and a M.A. degree in Tax Law from Georgetown University Law Center.

The Social Security Advisory Board, created in 1994, is an independent, bi-partisan Board that is responsible for advising the President, Congress, and the Commissioner of Social Security on matters related to the Social Security and Supplemental Security Income programs.

36. REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT ON THE BUDGET--October 25, 2000
The South Lawn
10:55 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. I want to say just a few words about the budget and the work we still have ahead of us, if we want all our children to have a first-class education.

Way back in February, I sent to Congress a budget that keeps America on the path of fiscal discipline. It would strengthen Social Security and Medicare, pay down the debt by 2012, and make key investments in education, health care, the environment and national security. It would also modernize Medicare with a voluntary prescription drug benefit available and affordable to all seniors who need it.

That was in February. Now we've come to the end of October, nearly a month past the end of the fiscal year, and we still have not seen from Congress a completed budget. Four times they've asked me for an extension of time to finish the work. Today, the latest extension runs out and Congress is about to ask for another. But from this point forward, as I've said, I will agree only to a day-by-day extension, until Congress finishes the job. . .

Q Mr. President, the Democrats are about to launch a concerted campaign effort to discredit Governor Bush's Social Security proposals. I'm wondering if you plan to participate in that effort.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I haven't been asked to do that. To me, the major issue right now -- I had hoped we could get agreement on Social Security reform and I thought that Chairman Archer and I could actually make an agreement. But neither of us had enough support in our caucuses to do that. And this is one of those big issues that I think will have to be resolved in the next four years.

So I decided to do the next best thing, which is to make sure we could keep paying the debt down, and to offer the option to put about 10 years of savings on interest that we get because we're not spending the Social Security taxes now, which we did from 1983 until a couple of years ago. We're not spending the Social Security taxes now, so they're contributing to debt reduction. That means our interest burdens are lower. And what I think should be done at a minimum is that the interest savings should be applied to Social Security. That way you could take it out to 2054 and get it out beyond the life of the baby boom generation, when, after that, the pressures on Social Security will begin to ease because there will be fewer people retired in relation to the number of people working.

Now, if they want to make other changes -- as I learned and Mr. Archer learned when we tried to argue this through -- there will have to be a bipartisan coalition in Congress. And I hope there will be fresh energy when you've got a new President, a new Congress, a new amount of time to work on that.

The central problem here is, there are problems there. And I think that the Vice President and Senator Lieberman and the Democrats in Congress and the experts are perfectly capable of pointing them out. What I'm most concerned about is that we don't get anyone locked into something that would take us back to deficits. And you have to add up the cost of a tax cut and a privatization of Social Security and all the spending programs. And if you do that, and the sum of it is more than
$2 trillion, you're in trouble, you're back in deficits, you've got high interest rates.

That's the thing that I've tried to get the American people to focus on. We've got to keep paying down the debt to keep the interest rates down, to keep the prosperity going. But I think on the details of the plan, that's something that should properly be left to the candidates in this election. And I think that Governor Bush can state his position, the Vice President can state his, and the members of Congress on both sides can argue it out without too much help from me. . . .

Thank you. I've got to run.

END 11:15 A.M. EDT

37. PRESIDENT CLINTON NAMES KRISTIN E. FLATEN AS MEMBER OF THE TICKET TO WORK AND WORK INCENTIVES ADVISORY PANEL--November 9, 2000


THE WHITE HOUSE- Office of the Press Secretary


The President today announced his intent to appoint Kristin E. Flaten to serve as a Member of the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Advisory Panel (TWWIAP).

Ms. Kristin E. Flaten, of St. Paul, Minnesota, serves as the Vice-Chair for the Minnesota State Advisory Council on Mental Health and as a member of the Minnesota State Rehabilitation Council. Since 1997, Ms. Flaten has been working as an employment consultant for Lifetrack Resources, Inc. providing employment services to persons with serious and persistent mental illnesses. Ms. Flaten also started her own small business, INITIATIVES, dedicated to enhancing the lives of persons with mental illnesses by providing educational and support services, advocacy, benefits analysis, and work incentive plans. In 1996, Ms. Flaten published and coordinated An Olive Branch, a small booklet of writings by persons with mental illnesses on their experiences.

Ms. Flaten received her B.A. from St. Olaf College and Master of Divinity from United Theological Seminary in New Brighton, Minnesota.

The Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-170), establishes the TWWIAP within the Social Security Administration. The TWWIAP is to advise the President, Congress, and the Commissioner of Social Security on issues related to work incentives programs, planning, and assistance for individuals with disabilities, including work incentive provisions.

38. STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT--November 19, 2000

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary (Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam)

I congratulate Secretary Shalala on her appointment as president of the University of Miami, a post she will assume on June 1. She is a talented manager and an energetic leader who will bring great experience to the task of leading the university, its students, its faculty and its alumni. I have no doubt she will be a real asset to the university and its community.

For almost eight years, Secretary Shalala has led the Department of Health and Human Services with vigor and skill, always focused on meeting the needs of the American people. During her tenure as the longest serving Secretary in the history of the Department, she has directed the welfare reform process; made health insurance available to 2.5 million children through the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP); raised immunization rates to the highest levels in history; and led major reforms of FDA's drug approval process and food safety system.

As a Medicare trustee, she helped extend the solvency of the Medicare Trust Fund, directing management reforms and launching a campaign against waste, fraud and abuse in the Medicare and Medicaid programs that has already paid enormous dividends. She has strengthened the scientific leadership and budget of the National Institutes of Health, and she has reinvigorated the federal role in public health.

I am also pleased that Secretary Shalala intends to complete her term, staying through January 20 to finish the work we have to do for the American people. I look forward to working with her to protect the privacy of medical records, and to win congressional approval of a budget that increases our investment in biomedical research and other critical public health priorities as well as health insurance coverage to the uninsured.