pd05jy99 Checklist of White House Press Releases...

	Web GovRecords.org

    I had a long talk with Elie Wiesel about this after he came back. He 
went over and toured the camps for me and talked to the people. I think 
that there are people who've been through the Holocaust who can help a 
lot. I think there are people who have been through South Africa and the 
peace and reconciliation commission and 300 years of what those people 
went through there--who can help a lot.
    I think we need to be quite imaginative about--once we get the 
building blocks of security and the building blocks of reconstruction in 
place and the building blocks of civil society in place, then I think we 
need to be quite imaginative about the human, spiritual dimension of 
this. And I will do my

[[Page 1195]]

best to be supportive. I've talked to Reverend Jackson about this--about 
the importance of bringing in religious leaders from all the--not only 
from the Muslim and the Orthodox faiths to come and work together and 
work people through this, but perhaps others as well. So there are lots 
of things that we need to do.
    Can it be done? I believe it can be done. It's going to take a lot 
of courage, and it's going to take some time.
    Go ahead, Sarah [Sarah McClendon, McClendon News Service].

American Families

    Q. Mr. President--[inaudible]--it seems to me that one of our big 
issues is parenting--that causes divorces--[inaudible]--having children 
and breaking up the families. Isn't there any way that we can design a 
national program to educate people--[inaudible].
    The President. Well, you know, it's interesting. On the--to go to 
your point--when Hillary and I decided that we ought to have this 
grassroots campaign to try to protect children against violence, and we 
began to talk to Pam Eakes, who started the Mothers Against Violence 
movement in Washington State, and others, one of the things that we 
learned, obviously, is that a lot of young people wind up being--
especially really troubled young people--can often be almost strangers 
in their own homes. And we assume that people ought to just know how to 
do the most important jobs in life, and they're very often reluctant to 
ask for help.
    But I think one of the things that we have to try to do is to 
develop the kind of supports parents need to do a better job. And it's a 
much harder job now than it used to be--especially since the average 
parent is away from his or her children for 22 hours a week more than 
was the case 30 years ago.
    So I do think that we need to do some more. Most parents, however, 
want to do a good job, really, really want to do a good job. And I think 
when you start with that, one of the things that I hope very much will 
come out of this whole movement against teen violence is more efforts in 
that regard. Of course, that's one of the reasons that Hillary wrote her 
book a few years ago--she knows more about that than I do--and, of 
course, one of the reasons the Vice President and Mrs. Gore had those 
family conferences every year, starting before he joined the ticket with 
me back in '92.
    The short answer to your question is, yes, we should do more to help 
parents do a good job.
    Go ahead, Susan [Susan Page, USA Today], and then John [John King, 
Cable News Network].

Medicare

    Q. Mr. President, a lot of Medicare beneficiaries are enthusiastic 
about the idea of a new prescription drug benefit, but perhaps less 
enthusiastic about paying higher premiums to pay for it. Should Medicare 
beneficiaries, themselves, be prepared to endure some pain to get some 
gain? Should they be prepared to pay higher premiums? And especially, 
should higher income Medicare beneficiaries pay means-tested premiums 
that are higher?
    The President. Well, let me just--if I give you all the details of 
my program Tuesday, you won't cover me Tuesday, and then I'll be bereft. 
[Laughter]
    What we should do is, first of all, make sure that the integrity of 
the basic system is strengthened, because there are a lot of seniors who 
depend upon it. And from my point of view, that means making sure that 
it's good for at least another quarter century. So that's the first 
thing we need to do. And to do that, we're going to have to bring in 
more pressures from competition and other things to modernize it.
    Then we should offer a drug benefit, but we should do it--to go back 
to the former question I was asked, your question--we should do it in a 
way that we're quite clear that it won't and can't break the bank, that 
we'll be able to monitor its cost and see how it's going.
    And as to the other--as you know, I've been publicly open to that 
option since 1992. But I think that I want to ask you to wait until 
Tuesday for the details of the program.
    Go ahead, John.

[[Page 1196]]

Federal Budget Surplus Allocation

    Q. Sir, we're told that next week, the administration will announce 
that the Federal budget surplus is even larger than you had previously 
projected. Given that, and given your words today about bipartisanship, 
do you think now it might be possible to tackle Medicare and Social 
Security reform and perhaps reach out to Republicans and open the door 
to a larger tax cut than you have discussed previously?
    The President. First, I'm not against tax cuts. I'm not against 
giving the American people some of this money back from our present 
prosperity right now. The question is, what kind of tax cut? Who 
benefits from it? How should it be designed? And how should it be 
handled to guarantee that we're going to take care of first things 
first--strengthen Social Security and Medicare, paying down the debt, 
continuing to secure the health of the American economy?
    Keep in mind, what produced the surplus was the strength of the 
American economy, the fact that we had the will to do the very tough 
things in 1993, and that we followed it up with a Balanced Budget Act in 
1997.
    So my plan has tax cuts. The USA accounts are worth literally 
hundreds and hundreds of dollars to most families every year. They could 
be worth a quarter of a million dollars to a family over their lifetime. 
It's most progressive inducement to save in the history of the country. 
We have tax cuts fully paid for already for long-term care, for child 
care, for school construction, for investing in the inner city. So I'm 
not against tax cuts.
    We have had tax cuts in the past, big tax cuts, for tuition tax 
credits for college; the HOPE scholarship tax cuts; tax cuts for workers 
and families with modest incomes; the child care tax credit, $500 per 
child. We've had lots of tax cuts. I am not opposed to that.
    What I want to do is to make sure that before we go off and start 
cutting taxes by some arbitrary large amount, we take care of first 
things first. We need to know that we're going to modernize and 
strengthen Social Security for the 21st century, that we're going to 
modernize and strengthen Medicare for the 21st century, and that we're 
going to do it in a way that will enable us to continue to pay the debt 
down.
    There will still be money for a tax cut, and a sizable one. Will I 
work with the Congress on that? Of course, I will. If I want to pass it, 
I have to work with them; they're in the majority. Of course, I will. 
But first things first. We've got to get our priorities in order here. 
The American people plainly expect us, first of all, to keep the economy 
going. And the best way to do that is to send a signal to the markets 
that we've resolved Social Security; we've resolved Medicare; and we're 
paying the debt down. That is the most important thing we could do to 
guarantee long-term, economic growth.
    Secondly--the only other point I want to make is, I do not believe 
that it is responsible to have a tax cut if the impact of the tax cut--
plus the defense increases that we have had to adopt, plus the highway 
expenditures that the Congress wants to adopt--is to cut education or 
cut health care or cut our investments in the environment. There is 
enough money to do all these things and to do it really well, with great 
discipline. But we have to have our priorities in order.
    Go ahead.

President's Political Opposition

    Q. Mr. President, 2\1/2\ years ago, in your Inaugural, you said you 
wanted to help the Nation repair the breach. And this morning, again, 
you called for greater cooperation in Washington. But it seems apparent 
that, for many people, you, personally, remain a polarizing and divisive 
figure in national politics. I was wondering if you've ever reflected on 
why, as Mrs. Clinton, I think, has sometimes noted, throughout your 
career, you've always seemed to generate such antagonism from your 
opponents. And do you assign any responsibility to yourself for what 
this morning you described as the rancorous mood in Washington today?
    The President. Since I have been here, I have tried to work as well 
as I could in an open fashion with Members of both parties. I actually 
have developed quite good personal relationships with some Republican 
Members of Congress. But as you know, from the beginning, from 1991, and 
especially after I was elected, particularly the right wing--I've been 
accused of murder and all kinds of things. And it seems almost that

[[Page 1197]]

the better the country did, the madder some of them got.
    Now, what I think is, we have a new Speaker and I think he wants to 
work with me to get things done. And I've had a very cordial 
relationship with him. I had a nice talk with Senator Lott just last 
week. And all I can tell you is, I don't think much about yesterday. I 
keep telling everybody that works for me, we have no right to harbor 
anger, to keep--the people in positions of public responsibilities are 
not permitted to have personal feelings that interfere with their 
obligations to the public. And I would start tomorrow with any Member of 
Congress who wanted to work with me on anything, to do something that I 
thought was good. And that's all I can tell you. There's not a single 
Member of Congress that I wouldn't be willing to work with to do 
something that I felt was good for America.
    And I think that's what the American people want us to do. And all I 
can tell you is--but it is true, I think generally in our country's 
history, that people who are progressive, people who try to change 
things, people who keep pushing the envelope, have generally elicited 
very strong, sometimes personally hostile, negative reaction. You read 
some of the things people said about President 
Roosevelt--in retrospect, because of the magnificent job he did, and 
because of the historic consequences of the time in which he served and 
what he did for America, we tend to think that everybody was for him. 
That's not true.
    So people say these things. I think you just have to dismiss them 
and go on. And all I can tell you is that we in the White House, we 
try--and I hammer this home all the time--we don't have to like 
everything people say about us, but it can't affect, in any way, shape, 
or form, what we're prepared to do in working with people. That's the 
way I feel. People in positions of responsibility owe the public--owe 
the public--their best efforts every day. And they have no right to let 
their personal feelings get in the way. I try not to do it, and I would 
hope others would do the same.
    Yes, go ahead.

President's Approval Ratings After Kosovo

    Q. Mr. President, normally when the United States wins a war, that 
victory is accompanied by a surge of approval for the Commander in 
Chief. The war in Kosovo has not produced that sort of bounce for you. 
As a student of the polls, what do you think they're trying to tell you 
here?
    The President. First of all, I don't know that we know that yet. I 
just don't know that we know that. And the important thing for you to 
know is that I did what I thought was right for the United States and 
for the children of the United States and for the future of the world. 
And I'm not responsible for anything but that, including the reaction of 
some after it was over, and we turned out to be right about what would 
and wouldn't work. It's totally irrelevant.
    Abraham Lincoln once said, in a much graver time, that if the end 
brought him out all right, it wouldn't matter what everybody said 
against him. And if it didn't, 10,000 angels swearing he was right 
wouldn't make any difference.
    So I have tried to do what I think is right for my country here. I 
believe that the young people of America are likely to live in a world 
where the biggest threats are not from other countries but from horrible 
racial, ethnic, and religious fighting, making people very vulnerable to 
exploitation from organized criminals, drug runners, terrorists, who 
themselves are more and more likely to have weapons of mass destruction 
no matter how hard we work against it.
    So I think anything I can do to reduce terrorism, to reduce the 
ability of terrorists to have weapons of mass destruction, or to stand 
against racial and ethnic genocide and cleansing is a good thing for our 
future.
    You know, that's all I can tell you. I did what I thought was right. 
I still believe it was right. And I'll keep working to make it work out. 
And the public and the Members of the other party and others, people can 
react however they like. I just have to do what I think is right, and 
that's what I'll do.
    Yes, go ahead.

[[Page 1198]]

Congressional Democrats in 2000 Elections

    Q. Sir, in advancing your agenda you talked about the need for 
bipartisanship, but don't you have a problem with congressional 
Democrats? They say, ``Bill Clinton doesn't have to face another 
election; we do.'' And they want to run against a do-nothing Congress. 
As an experienced political pro, don't you have some sympathy for them?
    The President. I do, except--I have a lot of sympathy for them. But, 
first of all, not all Democrats believe that. You see a number in the 
House, and I think probably a majority in the Senate, do not agree with 
that. But I think you--you have to, first of all, say, what is our 
obligation here to the American people? Our obligation is to work for 
the welfare of the country.
    Secondly, I think that nowhere near half the responsibility so far 
rests on them for the current atmosphere. I mean, they tried--we tried 
on the guns. We tried on a lot of other things--on campaign finance 
reform. We're trying on many other issues. I think that--I wouldn't 
overestimate the extent of that.
    But secondly, just as a--you know, if you look at 1996, where we got 
a lot done for America that year--we didn't just beat the contract on 
America, we actually did a lot of good things for America. The Democrats 
made gains in the Congress in 1998, against all the odds, against all 
the weight of history. We got--we passed a big education budget at the 
end of 1998--100,000 new teachers--and had a program to run on, and the 
Democrats were rewarded--against all the odds.
    So my view is that if you believe that Government has a role to play 
in our national life and you accept the fact that there will be honest 
and legitimate differences between the two parties on outstanding 
issues, no matter how much we get done, you're better off doing what you 
can, that you believe in, so you can go tell the people you did that. 
And then say, but look what still needs to be done; look what still 
needs to be done.
    Elections are always about tomorrow. So I think that--I can only 
tell you that I think both in terms of what is right for the American 
people and what is the best politics, we should keep trying to move 
forward.
    Yes.

Justice Department Tobacco Litigation

    Q. I want to talk to you a little bit about tobacco litigation. You 
had said in your State of the Union Address that the Justice Department 
was going to bring a Federal case against the tobacco companies. But 
what we're hearing is that the Justice Department had serious 
reservations about that case. Are they close to being resolved, those 
reservations, and when do you expect the case to be brought?
    The President. Well, I hope so. Let me say just this--I would not 
have announced it in the State of the Union Address if I hadn't had a 
clear signal from the Justice Department that they thought there was a 
legal basis to proceed. We knew if we needed statutory authority to sue 
under Medicare--a further act of Congress to sue under Medicare, on 
exactly the same grounds all the States have already sued to recover 
under Medicaid, that in this Congress, given the power of the big 
tobacco in this Congress, it would be hard to get.
    So we worked for a year or more with the Justice Department on this, 
arguing back and forth about whether it could be done. We--I and my 
administration--we were prepared to do this way over a year before I 
announced what I did in 1998. Maybe as many as 2 years. I just don't 
remember exactly what the time frame was, but it was quite a long while 
that we wanted to do this.
    So I did not make the announcement in the State of the Union Address 
until I believed, at least, that the Justice Department felt that while 
it would be complicated, big, and difficult, that we did, in fact, have 
a cause of action and we could bring it. So that's all I can tell you. I 
don't know any more.
    Yes.

Other Popular 1999 Presidential Documents Documents:

Other Documents:

1999 Presidential Documents Records and Documents