Bill Clinton: “They're too big because some people think they're just that way. That's not true. I just don't believe that. So you've…”

“They're too big because some people think they're just that way. That's not true. I just don't believe that. So you've got to decide what you believe. I don't believe that. And I know what happened in Bosnia. The United States and our allies, along with courageous people in Bosnia and in Croatia who refused to be subdued and fought back, found the unity and the will to stand up against the aggression, and we helped to end the war. And later, to make sure the peace would last, we agreed to send troops in, with our allies--including the Russians, Ukrainians, others. We've got people from all over Europe and the United States and Canada in Bosnia. And everybody said, oh, it was going to be just like Vietnam. It was going to be a bloody quagmire, even though there was a peace agreement. And now we've withdrawn 70 percent of our troops. And there are still difficulties, but we've preserved the peace, and the slaughter hasn't come back. And I think it was a good investment. And I hope the American people are proud of what they did to end the war in Bosnia. They should be. So what do we learn from Bosnia? We learned that if you don't stand up to brutality and the killing of innocent people, you invite the people who do it to do more of it. We learned that firmness can save lives and stop armies. Now, we have a chance to take the lessons we learned in Bosnia and put them to work in Kosovo before it's too late. But make no mistake about it, this is a country that already has a quarter of a million refugees. This is a country that's had 30,000 refugees since they stopped the peace talks just a few weeks ago. One in eight of the people who lives in this little country have already been run out of their homes. Now, I think if the American people don't know anything else about me, they know that I don't like to use military force, and I do everything I can to avoid it. But if we have to do it, then that's part of the job, and I will do it. We have done everything we could do to solve this issue peacefully. Sunday, Secretary Albright dispatched Ambassador Dick Holbrooke to Belgrade to talk to President Milosevic one last time. I believe Mr. Holbrooke is on his way back, because I can tell you as of last night, as of this morning, as of an hour ago, we got nowhere. He is still denying his responsibility for the crisis, defying the international community, and destroying the lives of more people. Not just the United States but all our NATO Allies have warned him that he will have to honor the commitments he has made one more time. All this stuff he's doing is in violation of commitments he made to withdraw his forces. And we said if he didn't do it, we would have to take action. NATO is now united and prepared to carry out its warning. If President Milosevic is not willing to make peace, we are willing to limit his ability to make war on the Kosovars. What we are trying to do is to limit his ability to win a military victory and engage in ethnic cleansing and slaughter innocent people and to do everything we can to induce him to take this peace agreement, which is the only way in the wide world over the long run he's going to be able to keep Kosovo as an independent part of this country--or an autonomous part of this country. Now, I want to level with you. You've been very good. You've listened to me very closely. You've let me make my argument to you about why this is a humanitarian issue and why it is an issue that is in the personal interest of the United States. Now, let me tell you that this is like any other military action. There are risks in it, if we have to take this action. There are risks every time our young people get up and fly jet airplanes at very high speeds. Most of us could not begin to do that. Most of us don't even have the reflexes or the eyesight or the hearing, never mind the skills to do it. We lose a substantial number of our men and women in uniform every single year in training operations. It is inherently dangerous work. Plus, the Serbs have an air defense system, and it has a considerable capacity. There are risks to our pilots, and there are risks to people on the ground who themselves are innocent bystanders. But the dangers of acting must be weighed against the dangers of inaction. If we don't do anything after all the to-and-fro that's been said here, it will be interpreted by Mr. Milosevic as a license to continue to kill. There will be more massacres, more refugees, more victims, more people crying out for revenge. And they'll be spreading out to these nearby countries, where they have their own ethnic tensions. So instead of just this problem in Kosovo, you'll have the same sort of instability and tensions and the financial burden of refugees in the places around it. The firmness of our allies and ourselves now, I believe, is the only hope the people of Kosovo have to be able to live in their own country without having fear for their own lives. We asked them to accept peace on terms that were less than perfect, and they said yes. We said if they would do it, we would stick by them--not we the United States, we 19 countries in NATO. We cannot run away from that commitment now. And we ought to consider what would happen if we and our allies were to stand aside and let innocent people be massacred at NATO's doorstep. That would discredit NATO because we didn't keep our word. But that's not important, except insofar as what it means to you. You've got to decide, my fellow Americans, if you agree with me that in the 21st century, that America, as the world's superpower, ought to be standing up against ethnic cleansing if we have the means to do it and we have allies who will help us do it in their neighborhood. And you have to decide whether you agree with me that we have a clear interest, after what we saw in World War I, World War II, in the cold war and all the people who died, in a Europe that is united, not divided; democratic, not dictatorial; and secure and at peace, not racked by ethnic cleansing--and if you believe that's good for us economically and politically, over and above the humanitarian issue. I do. I believe the case is clear. Especially when you remember--let me say one more time--if you go home and look at a map tonight, you ought to get down and look at it. This is a conflict with no natural boundaries. If it continues, it could spread to neighboring Albania, just to the south. Most of the Kosovars are Albanians. What if they flood Albania with refugees? Albania has a Greek minority. What are they going to do? Are we going to recreate this all over again? Then it could put massive numbers of refugees in Macedonia, where you have both a Slavic majority and a Muslim minority; a country now with a President and a Prime Minister that have worked with us and taken our NATO troops in and worked with us, putting enormous pressure on them. Believe me, it could draw in even Greece and Turkey. So, apart from the humanitarian issue and apart from our interest in Kosovo, this thing has no natural boundaries. The whole Balkans area have all these people of different ethnic and religious groups, and if we just say, ``Well, that's just the way they are,'' then that's they way they'll be. And there's a good chance when this young woman is an adult, voting citizen of this country, that she will have to be worried still about whether the politicians are going to deal with innocent people getting killed in that part of the world. I would like to lift that burden from their generation because I think it is morally right and in the vital interest of the United States. And I hope you will support me. Now, I will say again, this is not a slam dunk. This is a difficult issue. This is a difficult decision. I believe that the position I have taken is the best of a lot of bad alternatives. But you didn't just hire me to make the easy decisions. And so I just would say to you--I ask you to talk to your friends and neighbors about this. I ask you literally to go get down an atlas and look at the map, pay a little closer attention to the news reports, think about the arguments that I've made. Think about whether you really agree with me. And say a prayer for the young men and women in uniform who are going to be there to do what I, as their Commander in Chief, order them to do. Now, let me go back to the point I started with, and I'll get to the domestic issues. We're living in a global society where there is no easy dividing line between what is foreign and what is domestic. I'll give you another issue, Social Security. You think, what in the world could be more of a domestic issue than Social Security? But the truth is, every wealthy country in the world is suffering the challenge of an aging crisis. Japan is facing it even more than we are, because their life expectancy is higher and their birthrate is lower and their immigration rate is much lower. A lot of the European countries are facing it, because their life expectancy is more or less the same and their birthrate is lower. So we're not the only country in the world facing this Social Security issue. And I would argue to you, my fellow Americans, that this is a high-class problem. I hear people wringing their hands about Social Security; I say, hallelujah, give me more of those problems! Why do we have this problem? Because we're living longer. The older I get, the better that looks. [Laughter] This is a high-class problem. But by 2030, we'll only have two people working for every one person drawing Social Security. And so, we've either got to put more money in the system, cut benefits, increase the rate of return on the investment we're making in Social Security, or do a combination of all three if we want to maintain a system that, today, keeps one-half of the people in this country over 65 out of poverty. And I would argue that we ought to start, since we have reduced the deficit, and we now have a surplus, and we are projected to have surpluses for the indefinite future--of course, it will go up or down with the condition of the economy, but the structural deficit has been eliminated. What I have said to the American people is that we ought to set aside the majority of this surplus, 62 percent of it, for the next 15 years to stabilize Social Security. We can extend the life of the Trust Fund to about 2050 if you do that. If we invested just a small percentage of it in the stock market or other private sector options--just a small percent--through a completely independent body, insulated from politics, you could put another 5 years on it. And I'll guarantee you, every State, county, and local worker represented by AFSCME that has a retirement plan, that that pension fund is doing some investing in the private sector. They don't have it all in Government securities, and they've probably invested a whole lot more than I suggest in the private sector. And that's probably why your retirement funds are all in good shape, because the stock market has been doing well. Now, the stock market doesn't always do well historically throughout the country, but over any 30-year period, it always outperforms just 100 percent guaranteed Government investments. So what I've tried to do is get a little bit of the best of both worlds. Now, what we've tried to do with Social Security, historically, is to have 75 years of life on the Trust Fund, which is what I would like to do. I would also like to lift the earnings limitation because as people live longer, more and more people will want to work. If they pay in, they ought to be able to draw out, I think. And eventually that will bring money into Social Security. And I think we have got to provide greater benefits to elderly single women, who still have a poverty rate of over 18 percent, almost twice the overall poverty rate of the senior population. That's very, very important. So we need to get together in a decent, open, honest bipartisan fashion and figure out what other steps we need to take to close that gap. But believe me, you can't get there unless you first set aside 62 percent of the surplus to save Social Security. The second thing I want to do is set aside 15 percent of the surplus for the next 15 years for Medicare. And again, there are a lot of those who don't want to do that. But keep in mind, you may not agree with everything I do, but at least I ought to have some credibility on this. We did have a $290 billion deficit when I took office, and we do have a $70 billion surplus now. You've got a big stake in this. A lot of the people that are members of your union deal with people who depend upon Medicare to survive. A lot of you have parents who depend upon Medicare to survive. Now, again, Medicare is falling victim to the aging of America, because the older you get the more you need some kind of health care, right? I mean, I have to stretch for 20 minutes or more just to get up and get around anymore. [Laughter] I mean, it's a big deal. The older you get--you do. We know that. And also modern medicine and technology-- we're living longer. And if we really do finish this genome project by 2000, 2001, unlock all the secrets of the human gene, you're going to see life expectancy go up exponentially. But anybody in this room today that's over 60 years old, is still in good health, and if you know that--if you don't know of any health problem you have, you have a life expectancy right now of over 80 years. The life expectancy in America today is over 76 years, and that includes everybody that gets killed by accidents, violence, early childhood disease, everything else. So again, this is a high-class problem, folks. This is not the end of the world. It's good news. We're living longer, and there are medical advances. But we cannot sustain Medicare; it's going to run out of money in 2010 or a couple years after that, 2 or 3 years after that. We've done our best to manage it. We've added years to it. But we need to take it out for another decade or so. And we need also to make some provision for seniors on Medicare to get some help to buy prescription drugs. Now, again, that will be a costly program, although, you know, we have to ask people who can afford to pay to pay what they can afford to pay. But think about it over the long run. Over the long run, you can buy a lot of drugs in a year for what a week in a hospital costs you. So if we get the right kind of system in place and we don't encourage over-utilization, and we ask people to pay what they can afford to pay, but we help them, you'll get out of these horror stories where you've got seniors in America still making a choice between the food they eat and the drugs they need, without bankrupting the system. Now, there have been a lot of proposed reforms to Medicare. There was that Commission, you know, and they had different approaches and they didn't--issued a report--Senator Breaux's Commission. They had some pretty good ideas about making the system more competitive and all that. But my issue there is, I want a defined set of benefits, first of all. I want to make as much provision as we can for prescription drugs. And secondly, I don't want to do something that will, in effect, break down the system, because there is no set of reforms that will meet the financial needs of Medicare without putting some more money in it. I've not seen any; I have not seen any independent expert who says that. And since I don't think we should raise taxes when we have a surplus, we ought to dedicate 15 percent of the surplus to Medicare and make some reforms which would enable us to lengthen the life of Medicare and begin to deal with this prescription drug issue. And so I ask you to work with me on that. Now, there are some people who believe that these programs ought to be more privatized, who won't support the money for that reason. But there are some people--most of them in our party--who believe that since we've got this money, we don't have to make any changes in the program. Both sides are wrong. So we're going to have to work together--and you all need to listen to me--we're going to have to work closely together. For example, I'm against raising the retirement age for Medicare to 67 because--let me tell you why--because the fastest-growing group of people without health insurance are people between 55 and 65. And so I can't imagine why we would want to have more elderly people without health insurance. Now, I've offered Congress a proposal to help plug that gap a little bit, and I hope they'll take it this year. But that does not mean we can be against all reform. We have to be prepared to eat a few lemons, too. But we ought to do it with our goals in mind: preserving the integrity of Medicare, the guaranteed set of benefits; doing something on the prescription drugs that will really make a difference; and making sure that we have held together a program that has been a lifesaver for this country for 30 years. So that's what we've got to do. Now, let me just say one third thing about this. Again--and there's another--this is why I tell you all this foreign business and the domestic business are all related. If we put aside 62 percent for Social Security and 15 percent for Medicare, we can do it in a way that enables us to pay down the national debt for 15 years. If we pay down the national debt, here's what will happen: Interest rates will be lower; more investment will come; there will be more jobs created; incomes will stay up; it will protect us from bad things that happen overseas and it will make it more likely that good things will happen overseas--because if we don't have to borrow this money for our own debt, then other people around the world will be able to get money at lower rates. They will grow more; they'll buy more of our products. And you'll be better off because in all your States and cities, people will be earning more money, paying more taxes, more money for AFSCME employees who work for the public--all this stuff is connected. All this is connected. You have to see the connection between what we do and what it impacts on us and how it impacts around the world. So I ask you to support that. Finally, I believe we should have a tax cut, but I think it ought to be targeted to middle income families and lower income working families. In my balanced budget, we've got tax cuts for child care, very important, substantial; for long-term care, to help people pay for long- term care expenses for their families, very important; for training costs and any number of other things. And then, in this balanced budget, I propose to set aside about 11 percent of the surplus to help people set up their own savings accounts so they can save for their retirement, and have the Government take this money and give it back to people, so over and above their Social Security and their retirement plans and their pensions, they can save more money for their future. Now, I think this is a good idea. Now, let me say we have some agreement and a lot of disagreement with the Republican majority on this. They have agreed we should invest more money in education, which I think is good, but we differ about how to spend it. They have agreed that they should set aside some money for Social Security, but they haven't agreed to do it in a way that will pay down the debt yet. They have not agreed to devote any of this surplus to Medicare, which I think is a terrible mistake. Now, they say I'm going to use the surplus so we don't have to make any of the hard choices on Medicare. I will say again, that is not true. You heard me tell you, we're going to have to get together and make some changes in the Medicare program. But we could make every change they propose and the thing would still not last very long unless we put some more investment in it. And every expert knows that. So, the third thing I want to say is, as usual, for the last, now more than 16 years, the bulwark of their plan is a large tax plan that disproportionately benefits people like me who don't need it, and that will explode, in the out-years--the very years that I want us to be paying that debt down, keeping interest rates down. You talk to any person who's made a lot of money in America in the last 6 years, and they'll tell you that they'd a lot rather have a growing stock market and low interest rates than a tax cut, because we already--not because everybody wouldn't like to have a tax cut. The people we ought to be focusing on cutting taxes for are the people that cannot pay their kid's way to college and take care of their parents who are sick and make ends meet. That's what we ought to be doing. So I say again, I'm somewhat encouraged by where we are with the Congress now, because there is a general feeling we're going to do something about Social Security. But we ought to do it in a way that brings the debt down. We've got to do something about Medicare. We ought to have the right kind of tax cut, and it shouldn't be so big it keeps us from making the economy strong. I want to work with you on this. You've been good to me. You helped me get elected. We've done a lot of things together. And believe me, the 25 percent of our time we've got left together, if we save Social Security and Medicare for the 21st century, if we agree to pay down the national debt, if we make a historic commitment to the education of our children, if we do something about long-term care, if we do something about child care, the best is yet to come. Thank you, and God bless you.”