The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
_____________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release February 6, 1996
Press Briefing
By Mike Mccurry
The Briefing Room
1:23 P.M. Est
Mr. Mccurry: All right. Thank you to Sandy Berger for
that briefing, and I don't have anything else that I'm adding to the
mix from here. Any questions you all have?
Q The President sure gave short shrift to the
governors' proposals --
Mr. Mccurry: Short shrift? I believe he called it a
huge step in the right direction; did he not? Did I miss that?
Q That's all he said. I mean, doesn't he have any
more interest in the details?
Mr. Mccurry: No, he has -- he complimented the
governors on their very good work in a bipartisan way to address the
issues of Medicaid and welfare reform. Like Senator Dole, he
indicated that there is reason to believe that that type of common
ground effort can bridge some of the differences that exist in this
debate. And he's very encouraged by their willingness, most
importantly, to move away from the concept of a static block grant
and towards an individual guarantee that will assure that Americans
have the health care that they need.
Now, as the President indicated, and also as Senator
Dole indicated, there are likely to be some concerns that will have
to be addressed as this moves forward. This will have to be
evaluated in the context of discussions about the balanced budget and
I assume Congress may want to look very carefully at the ideas that
the governors have now put forward. And we'll have some specific
concerns as the President indicated, that we'll need to address. But
we're very pleased that they've passed a resolution that reaffirms
our view that there needs to be a national commitment to guarantee
health care coverage under Medicaid.
Q Well, is there anything cooking on the budget
front?
Mr. Mccurry: Well, as you can tell from Senator Dole's
statement today, and the President's statement, there are both sides
in the budget discussions going on between the administration and the
Congress. We're very keen on learning the views of the governors.
So that has been a very important piece of work and I wouldn't
underestimate the value of the work that they've done.
Q But, Mike, for Senator Dole and the President and
the governors to be roughly in sync is not really that surprising.
That hasn't been the issue right along, as Senator Dole has been the
first to say. So whether the House Republicans and, you know, have
they given the governors short shrift or are they --
Mr. Mccurry: Well, I gathered from Senator Dole's
remarks that he had been in contact with Speaker Gingrich. And I
believe it is important for Speaker Gingrich to respond to the very
positive comments that Senator Dole made today. This may, in fact,
be a way to move forward. But, again, the issue will be how do we
address the details. And we'll have some very specific concerns
where we're not quite sure that the governors' proposal meets some of
the elements that the President is concerned about, as he indicated.
But we'll hope the conversations move forward.
Q Is this the kind of thing where the President would
call the Speaker, or Mr. Panetta would call -- you know, discuss with
the budget negotiating people, gee, you know, look at this, if a
broad bipartisan consensus of all the 50 states you guys are saying
this kind of stuff, shouldn't we listen?
Mr. Mccurry: Well, it may be a little premature to
suggest we'd move to that level of dialogue instantly. We'll be
interested to see how Congress pursues the ideas that Congress has
put forward and how willing the Congress will be to address some of
the concerns we will. And, most importantly, how willing will the
governors be as they put more flesh on the details of this proposal
to address some of the concerns that we have. Specifically, the
President's got -- I mean, he identified some areas that he has but
the resolution that the governors put forward does call on a
bipartisan group of six governors to continue working through the
details, and my guess is that's going to be the venue in which the
administration would be able to address some of its items.
Q Mike, with regard to Medicare, Senator Dole
suggested this morning that that basically be taken off the table, or
be taken out of politics, as he put it, and be assigned to a
Greenspan-type commission ala 1983 with regard to Social Security.
The President has indicated, you know, when he talks about the baby
boom challenge to Social Security solvency, has indicated a similar
view. My question is, is the administration willing to do this this
year, or are you going to wait until after the election to move to a
bipartisan commission on Medicare?
Mr. Mccurry: We need to take first things first. The
President has identified in the area of entitlement reform, has
identified savings that can come from the Medicare program and that
we believe those are very necessary part of any agreement to balance
the budget.
Now, we take -- we dispute the Republican view that you
an go well beyond those savings and actually decrease the growth rate
for the program such that you result -- such that the result is true
cuts in the level of services that are available to Americans. That
is an issue that has been imbedded in the budget discussions. But I
think the President's view is let's not set aside the necessary
savings that we've been able to identify in common between our two
approaches; let's enact those. But neither the Republican majority's
balanced budget plan nor the President's balanced budget plan deal
with the problem we have in the next century as baby boomers begin to
retire, as you get beyond the year 2010, 2011, into the second, third
decades of the next century. That's a long-term problem that's going
to require some very serious review of the program, but there is time
to do that.
The issue in the short term is a balanced budget that
will improve the status of the economy, will help all of those baby
boomers that are preparing for retirement earn more money, protect
their pensions, save for their future retirement needs. And that is
the problem that the President has focused upon more urgently.
Q Do you see anything in Dole's idea today where even
in the short term you might come to closure by taking the structural
disagreements that now are on the table and taking them off the
table?
Mr. Mccurry: Oh, the President has very directly
embraced exactly that concept. He said, let's adopt the savings, the
minimum savings that we've identified in common between both plans
and take that issue of fundamentally restructuring Medicare --
whether or not we're going to allow Medicare to wither on the vine
-- and put that over into either the debate this year or, if Senator
Dole suggests a commission, some other venue in which the nation can
have that type of discussion. I would take Senator Dole's treatment
of that issue today to be a warm embrace of the President's own view.
Q Mike, this morning you indicated that the President
would elaborate on this --
Mr. Mccurry: More or less.
Q You indicated this morning the President in his
speech would elaborate on his direct concerns about the governors'
Medicaid proposal. Since he didn't to any great extent, can you tell
us a little bit more about what the concerns are?
Mr. Mccurry: Yes. We would want to see more clarity
around sort of three large issues. The President alluded to those in
his remarks.
There must be a national guarantee to a meaningful
benefit package. We need to really define with more clarity what a
meaningful benefit package will be. There must be national
guidelines for eligibility to protect those who are eligible under
current law -- seniors, the disabled, pregnant women and children.
We're very concerned, in particular, about coverage for three million
children between ages 13 and 17 who are now phased in at different
poverty levels under current law. We're concerned about how the
governors' approach would address that concern, as an example.
But we need to make sure that the guarantee that exists,
the individual guarantee that exists under current law is available
no matter where you live and no matter what -- whether, you know, if
you're covered under the current law you need to continue to be
covered and that guarantee has to be real. That's the bottom line.
Then, third, the third area that the President addressed in his
remarks this morning is enforceability and how we can make sure that
this individual guarantee is, in fact, available, what type of
recourse is available to individuals who want to seek redress in the
courts.
Those are the areas where there needs to be more
specificity. The President is concerned about some of the things we
hear about the way the governors would address that, but we're
confident, as he indicated today, that we can work those concerns out
and come up with an approach on Medicaid that will work. Similarly,
on welfare, on welfare reform there are also issues that pertain to
the approach that the governors would recommend that we need to work
through, but we think we can do it.
Q Well, those are really serious concerns, obviously,
Mike. How can he be so encouraged and calling this a huge step
forward?
Mr. Mccurry: Well, because look at the distance that
the governors have gone. Last time he saw the governors they were
adamant the need for a block grant on Medicaid. They've moved
considerably because, as Governor Thompson indicated, they understand
that there has to be a win-win situation here, that both sides have
to be in a position to say that they've addressed their priorities
and that they've moved ahead. And the President is confident that
can happen.
Q Could you specify the concerns on Medicaid -- can
you specify the concerns on welfare reform that --
Mr. Mccurry: Well, the areas -- no matter whether it's
the governors or whether it's the dispute between the House and the
Senate, the principal areas of concern have been food stamps, the
benefit levels available to immigrants, the type of funding that's
available in the so-called maintenance effort area to ensure that
states have adequate funding to meet the needs of hard-pressed
populations. Those are the same areas. There are some specific
concerns that we've got with respect to welfare reform, but we think
in some respects the governors' approach is better than the Senate
bill; in some cases it's worse than the conference report that the
President vetoed.
The most important thing that happened today is that
Senator Dole acknowledged for the first time that the conference
report was inadequate, and that the President may have had good
grounds to veto that conference report because it had inadequate
levels of child care support. Senator Dole more or less indicated
that today by saying he agreed with the governors that they needed to
make improvements in the child care area, and that was a very
important concession by Senator Dole.
Q Mike, considering this is a time in which the
President wants to close corporate loopholes, is he supportive of
Reich's idea of giving corporations tax breaks if they would treat
their employees better in a variety of ways?
Mr. Mccurry: Well, I read a Washington Post story about
a speech that Secretary Reich was going to give, but I talked to
Secretary Reich, and I don't believe he said anything different than
what he's said on prior occasions and what he argued in a very good
New York Times op-ed article not too long ago. And I don't believe
he had a specific tax break proposal in his speech that he gave
today. At least my review of the advanced text didn't indicate that
so I'm not --
Q Does he not have that proposal because he doesn't
advocate it or because the White House doesn't want him to have that
proposal?
Mr. Mccurry: No, it's because he did not intend to
thrust forward with a new policy pronouncement today, in my
understanding. He intended to kind of address an issue generically
the he's talked about a lot: How can we encourage greater corporate
citizenship; i.e, an attitude by corporations that live in
communities and employ people in a neighborhood, what kind of
responsibilities do they have to the neighborhood, to their work
force? It's an issue that he has been very vibrant on as he has
raised different ideas, and he is continuing to stimulate that debate
as he should, as Secretary of Labor.
Q Those particular ideas that are outlined in the
story, is the administration considering them in some larger forum?
Mr. Mccurry: Not that I'm aware. I believe there have
been, in roundtable discussions on policy approaches, that type of
issue has arisen from time to time. And Secretary Reich has talked
to those issues in the past, but I'm not aware of any particular
pending proposal on tax incentives for corporations that take better
care of their work force. Probably not a bad idea, but you'd need to
look at that very carefully and, of course, in a formal policy review
process, there would be a number of Cabinet agencies that would want
to contribute ideas to the mix.
Q While we're on the debt ceiling, have you guys
received it and when is he going to sign it?
Mr. Mccurry: He has received it, and I expect the
action on it shortly, although not today.
Q Tomorrow?
Mr. Mccurry: In coming days. Towards the end of the
week, but not Friday and not tomorrow. So, in coming days.
Q Does the President -- have the President's lawyers
worked out an arrangement with the court in Little Rock on the venue
or the format for the testimony?
Mr. Mccurry: Not that I've heard, but you should ask
them.
Q Is it your preference to do a videotape of that
testimony?
Mr. Mccurry: The President, as his attorney said last
night, will cooperate in an appropriate fashion, and they will define
that in further discussions with all the parties concerned.
Q Why is videotape attractive to you?
Mr. Mccurry: The President is attracted to cooperating
in an appropriate fashion. That will be determined.
Q How important is precedent set by former
presidents?
Mr. Mccurry: Well, previous presidents have done
exactly this. It's become almost a matter of routine now for
presidents to offer testimony in a variety of cases, and done
sometimes through videotape, I guess, back to Thomas Jefferson --
they didn't have videotape -- but back to Thomas Jefferson,
presidents have testified at trial, so nothing unusual about that.
Q Is this to avoid the possibility for
cross-examination?
Mr. Mccurry: I am not aware of any discussions related
to the format of any testimony that might be given if the President
chooses that as the appropriate fashion to cooperate.
Q Mike, was the President in any way surprised by
this, or did he -- had he come to expect it, given --
Mr. Mccurry: No, it just came up, as you know, he was
asked about it at his press conference, so he knew that that
discussion was under way.
Q Actually, I think his answer to that indicated that
he was not aware --
Mr. Mccurry: I think it was -- I think he had not heard
it at that point when he had his press conference with President
Chirac on Thursday, but obviously we've known of it since last
Thursday.
Q Do you have any comment on this quote from Senator
Kerrey in "Esquire" magazine that President Clinton is an unusually
good liar?
Mr. Mccurry: Haven't read the article yet. Ask me
later in the week.
Q Well, that's all we were asking about is that one
quote.
Mr. Mccurry: I don't -- I think it's really unfair to
take quotes out of context, so I'll read the article and let you know
if we have any reaction.
Q Let me follow up on that with a broader question
about the general civility of Democrats. You also had Hollings
quoted locally as saying if the President's poll numbers were over 60
percent he's told by people at the White House that he could start
dating again. Is that the kind of -- were you one of the people who
told that by any chance? (Laughter.)
Mr. Mccurry: Senator Hollings has always had an
interesting way of putting things. But I imagine they take issue
with things that we say down here sometimes too, so --
Q Now we know why it's self-defeating to try to elect
members of his own party.
Mr. Mccurry: Say what?
Q Now we know why he thinks it's self-defeating to
have his -- (laughter) --
Mr. Mccurry: Well, I think in both cases of those two,
those are two United States Senators who very much embrace a large
part of the agenda that the President has put forward for this
country, and we appreciate the support we get from them.
Q Do you think they were just being cute, or were
they serious?
Mr. Mccurry: I have no idea. I'll have to -- I can
read the article and try to find out, but my guess is that both of
them will be asked by you that question before I have an opportunity
to do so.
Q Does the President want to deliver any bill on
Senator Kennedy --
Mr. Mccurry: I don't think the President knows of
either remark, to be honest with you. I haven't heard him mention
it.
Q Would he be disappointed?
Q Mike, can you confirm a wire story that the
President wrote to Turkish leader Tansu Ciller? And did he write a
letter to any Greek leader?
Mr. Mccurry: I know that the story has come out of
Ankara saying that he wrote to Prime Minister Ciller. I would hasten
to add that he also wrote to President Demirel and to Prime Minister
Simitis, the new Greek Prime Minister. And, again, it was in
furtherance of his discussions with all three last week. We thanked
them for their cooperation and successfully resolving the issue
involving an islet in the Aegean Sea.
Q What does the letter say?
Mr. Mccurry: It says "thank you."
Q Is it a similar or duplicate letter to all three?
Mr. Mccurry: I believe the letters to all three were
virtually identical. It thanks them for following up on the
President's phone conversation and expresses the President's
gratitude for their willingness to address this in a fashion that did
not allow tensions to escalate.
Q And does he go on to ask them to further cooperate
in the process of resolving the Cyprus dispute?
Mr. Mccurry: It reiterated our view that for two such
close and valued allies, we hope that they can address issues in
dispute in a way that avoids tension and avoids escalation. I'm not
aware of the issue made reference to, that the letters made reference
to the Cyprus issue.
Q When the President goes to Tokyo for a state visit,
is there any consideration being given to have a stop over in Korea?
Mr. Mccurry: No. With regret, the President's plans at
this point do not allow for a stop in the Republic of Korea.
Q Mike, back on Medicare and welfare -- Medicaid and
welfare. The governors, by surfacing today with basically incomplete
proposals -- proposals that need refinement and added content and
detail -- are they setting themselves up to have those remaining
details, in effect, nibbled to death by both sides? Wouldn't it
have been better if they'd fleshed out both proposals? I gather they
hadn't even gotten the Cbo scoring on them.
Mr. Mccurry: Well, no, as the President indicated that
their ideas will have to be scored by the Cbo to be injected as an
element in the balanced budget discussion. No, they -- I didn't hear
any of the Republican governors demanding that, you know, or any of
the Republican leaders in Congress, demanding that the Republican
governors submit a seven-year balanced budget proposal scored by the
Cbo.
But their contribution was designed to be a useful one,
and was designed to break what is acknowledged to be an impasse that
exists on those entitlement areas in the budget deliberations. And
so it was useful, and I wouldn't want to say that lacking complete
detail that it was something less than a positive element in the
dialogue.
Q So just to nail down this point, now that they've
got these compromise proposals on Medicaid and welfare reform, and
both Dole and Clinton say that it's encouraging and should help get
balanced budget negotiations back on track, what happens next? How
do you get -- what is the next step in getting the negotiations back
on track?
Mr. Mccurry: What formally happens next, as the
governors indicated, is they need to spell out exactly what they mean
by some of the language in the resolution they've adopted. There is
a subcommittee of six governors that will work towards that end.
We'll be very anxious to see how they address the specific areas that
I just outlined for you earlier, but that could then become -- look,
let me step back a second.
In the Oval Office discussions -- we've told you
frequently that what they have on the table are a menu of things
available that are drawn from different sources. They have the
President's balanced budget proposal. They have the Republican
majority's balanced budget proposal. There have been ideas from time
to time from Senator Breaux and Chafee, the so-called Breaux-Chafee
Proposal. Senator Daschle had his proposal, which was very useful at
one point in moving the discussion forward. You had the coalition
budget proposal.
Now you've got, on the subject of Medicaid and welfare
reform, ideas that are from the governors, that admittedly need some
work, but at least they are ideas that represent a bipartisan
consensus among the Democratic and Republican governors. If we're
going to get this job done, we're going to have to have ideas like
that that are available to those who would pass the necessary
agreements so that it could be signed by the President.
And that's the work that happened today. It's
encouraging. Both Senator Dole and President Clinton labelled it
such, and hopefully that will make all sides understand the
importance of achieving a balanced budget agreement. But let's
remember: the President's been saying this every single day. Let's
get the job done. Let's at least take what we have in common and
pass it so we can balance the budget.
Q Is there any venue for talks between Panetta and
Kasich and Domenici, or Clinton and Dole --
Mr. Mccurry: The venue is the one that the President
declared in January when these talks broke down. His door is open.
We're ready to go. Just do it.
Q Is he going to make a call to invite them back?
Mr. Mccurry: We've done that repeatedly. I mean, the
door is open.
Q Do you find it significant that Speaker Gingrich is
not here to participate in this, that he's in California?
Mr. Mccurry: No, I gather, from what I heard Senator
Dole say, that he may have participated in some type of conference
call earlier today. I am sure he appreciates the important role the
governors can play in these deliberations.
Q What's the impact that the President's subpoena and
the Whitewater investigations had on his campaign?
Mr. Mccurry: None.
Okay. Thank you.
The Press: Thank you.
End 1:44 P.M.