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.

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

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.

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

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

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.