-
https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/files/original/91ef1b116ca89ca7b7d56399129e69c3.pdf
704856579059f5e66ca59cd5d664805b
PDF Text
Text
FOIA Number: 2006-0462-F
FOIA
MAR~~~R
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by _the William J. Clinton
Presidential Library Staff.
Collection/Record Group:
Clinton Presidential Records
Subgroup/Office of Origin:
Speechwriting
Series/Staff Member:
Terry Edmonds
Subseries:
OA/ID Number:
17509
FolderiD: ·
Folder Title:
CR [Continuing Resolution] -Income Pov. 9/30/99 [2]
Stack:
s
0
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
0
0
0
�.THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
September 24, 1998
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
ON INCOME AND POVERTY REPORT
The Rose Garden
. 12:20 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: She was terrific, wasn't she? Let's give heranother hand. I thought
she was great. Congressman Cardin, welcome. I know you're proud of yourconstituent here.
Jessica, welcome. We're glad to·see you. I think Congressman Blagojevich is here. We·
welcome him, along with SenatorEphraim Gonzalez, who is the President ofNational Hispanic
Caucus of State Legislators; and Councilman Robert Cantana ofBuffalo. Let me once again
thank Monique for her remarkable statement andher even more remarkable life. I'm delighted to
be joined here by oureconomic team "-by Erskine Bowles and Secretary Rubin, Secretary
Herman, Gene Sperling, Jack Lew, Janet Yellen, Larry Summers. Their tireless, often literally
sleepless work has been very instrumental in sparking and maintaining what soon will be the
longest peacetime boom inAmerican history.
Officials of the Census Bureau who are here today, I want to thank all of you. We're
going to be talking a little bit about some Census Bureau statistics. Sometimes we take your
hard work and statistics for granted. The fact is that you ensure that our democracy is
trulyrepresentative. And let me say in that connection once again, Congress must not hamstring
the Census Bureau's efforts to maintain the most up-to-date, accurate scientific methods to
produce the year 2000 census. They deserve the chance to succeed. Monique Miskimon has
shown us today once again that every American counts. That means that every American
deserves to be counted.
Now, before I get into the details of the very positive economicreport, which Monique
and her daughter so vividly represent, I think we all want to say just a few words and reflect on
the powerful impact of Hurricane Georges. In the Caribbean islands, businesses and homes
havebeen swept away; tragically, many lives have been lost. Meanwhile, the projected track of
the storm places the hurricane center over or near the Florida Keys late tonight or early tomorrow
morning. As we speak, we're helping the people of Florida prepare for the hurricane. We've
already sent assistance to Haiti and the Dominican Republic. Obviously, we're working with the
· officials in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.
James Lee Witt, the Director of the Federal Emergency ManagementAgency, has
informed me that FEMA's Region Six Emergency Response Team arrived in Tallahassee,
Florida, at 10:00 a.m. this morning. Here in Washington, the FEMA Emergency Support Team
is operating at Level One,its highest level, on a 24-hour basis.
�Our support teams and our prayers are with those in the Caribbeanas they begin to
rebuild, and those in the Florida Keys as they bracefor the impact of the storm. Now, as
President, from my first day here, I have done my best tofulfill a commitment I made to the
American people: first of all, to restore the reality of the American Dream -- of opportunity for
allresponsible citizens, of a community in which we all count and worktogether --and secondly,
to reclaim the future for our children, to strengthen our country for the century ahead.
To accomplish that mission, we began first with an economicstrategy to shrink the deficit
and balance the budget, to invest in theeducation and skills of our people, and to expand the
export of Americangoods. The census report released this morning represents one more year's
worth of compelling evidence that this economic strategy is working, and that there are lots more
people out there like Monique Miskimon.
The report shows that last year the income of the typical American household grew at
nearly twice the rate of inflation. Since we launched our economic plan in 1993, the typicalfamily's real income has risen bymore than $3,500. That's an extra $3,500 that hardworking
families can put toward their children's education or a down payment on a first home. Income
for typical African American and Hispanic families increased bymore than $1,000 last year
alone.
This report also shows that our growing economy is giving more and more families a
chance to work their way out of poverty. The poverty rate fell to 13.3 percent, and while we still
have plenty of room forimprovement, the African American poverty rate fell to another
recordlow. Hispanic poverty saw the largest one-year drop in two decades.Child poverty has
dropped in the past four years, more than in any four-year period in the last three decades. And
the Earned Income Tax Credit, which Monique spoke of a moment ago, has raised more than
4million people out of poverty in the last year alone.
The report this morning shows that economic growth continues toraise incomes, lift
millions out of poverty, and extend opportunity. It also shows that we have more to do. Since
1993, every income group hasbenefitted from our nation's economic growth and the lowest 20
percentof our people in terms of income have had the highest percentage increases. That's the
good news, after over 20 years of increasing inequality.
But that inequality is still too high, and it simply means thereare too many American
families out there working hard, doing everything we could possibly ask of them, and still having
a hard time getting ahead. We have to use our prosperity and the confidence that it inspires to
help our hardest pressed'families and our hardest pressed communities to ensure economic
growth for all Americans.
The most important thing we have to do, of course, is to maintain the economic strategy
that got us here in the first place -- above all,the strict fiscal discipline that has given us low
interest rates, low inflation, big investments and more jobs.
�Exactly a week from today, we will have the first balanced budgetand surplus since Neil
Armstrong walked on the moon in 1969.Unfortunately, this week in the House of
Representatives, theRepublicans are moving forward with a proposal that drains the new surplus
to pay for their tax plan. We can cut taxes. Indeed, my balanced budget includes targeted tax
cuts for child care, for education, for environmental clean-up. But tax cuts must be paid for in
full if we are to expand opportunity in the years to come.
I say again, we have been waiting for 29 years to see the red ink tum to black. We have a
huge baby boom challenge coming when all the baby boomers retire. Social Security, as
presently constituted, cannot sustain that retirement. We have to reform Social Security if we
want to have it for our parents -- that's me, when the baby boomers retire -- without undermining
the standard of living of our children and grandchildren.
So I say again, let us not get into this surplus we have worked for 29 years for-- or we've
waited for 29 years for and worked for 6-years for. Let's don't get into that and spend it in an
election year tax cut until we have saved Social Security for the 21st century, for the sake of our
children and our grandchildren. ·
Second, we have to continue to invest in our people and lift them all up. I was deeply
disappointed this week when 95 percent of the Republicans in the Senate voted not to raise the
minimum wage. To reject an increase in the minimum wage when there are still so many people
working full-time and raising children in poverty, when the unemployment rate and the inflation
rate is so low, I believe is a mistake and sends the wrong signal to the American people.
I thank the 95 percent of the Democratic Caucus in the Senate who voted for the increase
in the minimum wage. Working Americans deserve it. I'm disappointed, with only a week left
in the fiscal year we rejected this, and I haven't quit fighting for it. I think eventuallywe will get
it in the next several months; if we have to wait until next year, we will get it.
But I'm also disappointed -- as I said, a week from today we end the fiscal year and we
start a new one. And there's still been no action in the Congress on our vital education
investments. Indeed, what action there has been in the House of Representatives has been
negative, has been a setback for education.
Congress should work with us to enact my plan, paid for in thebalanced budget, to reduce
class size to an average of 18 in the early grades; to hire 100,000 teachers to teach those children
in smaller classes; to rebuild or to construct or repair 5,000 schools so our kids will have good,
adequate, safe schools to attend; to hook up all of our classrooms -- all of them, even in the
poorest neighborhoods -- to the Internet by the year 2000; to improve early literacy by funding
the program to send volunteers in to make sure that every eight-year old can read; to lift our
children's sights with voluntary national standardsand clear means of measuring them.
Now, if we hope to maintain our economic growth well into the next generation, we have
to give every American child a world-class elementary and secondary education.
�So I say again, we've been here formonths and months; there's just a week left in the budget year
-- let's finally have action to improve our public schools and give all of our kids a world-class
education.
The third thing I'd like to say is we have to continue to lead in the global economy if we
want the American economy to continue to grow. We're enjoying unsurpassed economic
prosperity, but all of you read the papers every day, you see the news at night, you know there
are troubles elsewhere in the world. You know our friends in Asia and Russia are facing great
turmoil. You know we're trying to keep our big trading partners and friends in Latin America
from having the negative effect ofthat turmoil reach them even though they are pursuing good
policies.
That's why it's important for Congress to fund our America's share of the International
Monetary Fund, because the International Monetary Fund helps the countries that are helping
themselves to return to growth, and serves as an insurance policy against having the financial
crisis spread to the countries that are doing the right thing and keeping Americans at work by
buying our products.
Again I say, there is no reason not to do this. We've only got a week left in the budget
year. We've been talking about it all year lorig. The problem has only gotten worse. It is time
now to say, we're doing this because it's what America owes as the world leader; and more
importantly, we're doing it because it is absolutely necessary to keep American economic growth
go mg.
Finally, let me say that with just a week left in this budget year, I'd still like to see the
Congress pass a decent patients' bill of rights, one that covers -- (applause). Our bill would
provide protections to all Americans, simple ones. If you get in an accident,you can go to the
nearest emergency room, not be hauled to one halfway across town. If your doctor tells you you
need to see a specialist, you can see one. If it comes down to a dispute about whether a medical
procedure should or should not be applied, the decision should be made by a doctor, not an
accountant. Your medical records ought to be protected in privacy. If your employer changes
health care providers, it shouldn't affect you if you happen to be in the middle or a pregnancy or a
chemotherapy treatment, or some other thing that would be entirely disruptive and dangerous and
damaging to your health care if you had tochange doctors in the middle of the procedure.
Now, we do that for everyone. The House passed a bill on a partisan vote, completely
party-line vote, that doesn't protect 100 million people and doesn't provide any of those
protections to the people that are covered. The Senate Majority Leader actually shut down
business in the Senate a few days ago to keep them from voting for it, so they wouldn't be
recorded -- they wouldn't be recorded as killing the patients' bill of rights -- but they could kill it
and still satisfy the insurance companies that are doing their best to do it.
There's still time. We haven't broken for the election yet. Wecan still do the right thing
by the American people. But we have 'tothink about it, we have to focus on it, and we have to put
our priorities where they ought to be.
�I think it's worth fighting for the patients' bill of rights in the closing days of this congressional
sessiOn.
Again, I want to thank the economic team here and our supporters in the Congress,
including those who are here today, for giving more Americans a chance to live the story that
Monique has told us about. I want to thank her for coming today and bringing her beautiful
daughter.! know we all wish them well.
Our prayers are with the people who are about to be affected and those who have been
affected by the hurricane. And I ask that all of us· focus on using these last days of this
congressional session to think about the American people, to think about our responsibilities, to
think about what got us here over the last six years, and instead of departing from it, to bear
down and build on it. That is my goal and that's what we ought to do.
·
Thank you very much.
Q Mr. President, do you see any way out of an impeachment inquiry?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, let me answer you this way: the right thing to do is for us all.
to focus on what's best for the American people. And the right thing for me to do is what I'm
doing. I'm working on leading our country, and I'm working on healing my family.
And if you look at what we announced today, what does it tell you? It proves, number
one, that the course we have followed has been the right course for America. That's what it
proves. After six years, it can't be an accident anymore.
But the second thing it proves is that it is utterly foolish for people to be diverted or
distracted from the urgent challenges still before us. I told you that we had a record -- a record
low in African-American unemployment and poverty; a record low in the poverty rate for
children, of African-American children. Do you know what that record low is? It's about 39
percent. In other words, it's breathtakingly high. That's just one statistic.
So what does that tell me? It tells me that the right thing to do is, if we all put progress
over partisanship, put people over politics, put the American people first-- what would we do?
Well, we would keep the budget balanced. We would save Social Security before we squandered
the surplus. We would improve our schools. We would clean up our environment. We would
pass the patients' bill of rights. And we would keep the economy going. That's what we would
be focused on. That's what I am focused on. That's the way out.
The way out here -- and the only way out is for people in Washington to do what the
folks in America want them to do, which is to take care of their concerns, their children, and their
future. That's what I mean to do, and I'm going to do my best.
END
12:38 P.M. EDT
�DRAFT
SEPTEMBER 29, 1999
5:30PM
Terry Edmonds
REMARKS BY PRESIDENT WILLIAM J. CLINTON
INCOME AND POVERTY PROGRESS AND THE
SIGNING OF THE CONTINUING RESOLUTION
WHITE HOUSE BRIEFING ROOM
SEPTEMBER 30, 1999
Good morning. Today, I want to talk about two developments affecting our economy and the
progress we have made in making it stronger and more robust than it has been in a generation.
First the good news. Today, we have further evidence that our economic strategy of
fiscal discipline, investment in our people, and expanded trade is working. In the 12 years before
I became President, irresponsible policies in Washington quadrupled the national debt. Interyst
rates and unemployment were too high. Wages were stagnant and growth was slow. Vice
President Gore and I came to office determined to change all that. And with the help of the
American people we have seen a remarkable tum-around. In the past six-and-a-half years we
have produced the longest peacetime expansion in history: 19.4 million jobs; the lowest
unemployment in a generation, record-breaking levels of homeownership and low interest rates.
Today, I am pleased to announce that our strategy has led us to another economic
milestone. In its annual report on income and poverty in America, the Census Bureau documents
that typical household income rose $xxxx in just one year - from $xxxx in 1997 to $xxxx in
1998, adjusted for inflation- resulting in the highest real median household income in history.
This is a xx percent increase over 1997, but more importantly, it means that American
families now have more money in their paychecks and pockets for the things that matter most:
sending their children to college, buying a home or purchasing a car.
The report also shows that since we launched our economic plan in 1993, median family
income is also the highest it has ever been: It increased from $xxxx in 1993 to $xxxx in 1998.
That's an extra $xxxx that hardworking families can put towards their children's education or a
downpayment on a new home.
There is also good news for those families working hard to lift themselves out of poverty.
The report shows that the poverty rate fell to xx percent- that's the lowest poverty rate in
America since 1979. While we still have room for improvement, the African American poverty
rate is now at its lowest level since these statistics were first collected in 1959. It declined from
xx percent in 1997 to xx percent last year.
Hispanic families are also faring better. The report shows the Hispanic poverty rate at its
lowest level since 1979- down from xx percent in 1997 to xx percent in 1998. In addition,
�thanks to our expanded Earned Income Tax Credit, which is now under attack by some in
Congress, more than xx million Americans have been lifted out of poverty.
It is clear, our economy is working for the American people and they want it to continue.
Which brings me to my second point.
. Today is the last day of the current fiscal year. But the Congress has not finished its
work and sent me spending bills that reflect the commitments we have made to the American
people- paying down the debt to keep interest rates low, protecting and strengthening Social
Security and Medicare, and making vital investments in education, the environment, national
security, biomedical research and other critical national priorities. Instead of sending me bills
that reflect those priorities, yesterday they sent me a temporary spending measure that would
keep the government running for three weeks.
A few minutes ago, before coming out here, I signed that bill. Not because I wanted to,
but because it was the only way to prevent another government shutdown. The problem is that
the Congressional majority simply cannot find a way to adequately fund America's real
priorities, without spending large amounts of the Social Security surplus- something we all
agreed we shouldn't and didn't have to do. A month ago, the Congressional Budget Office
estimated that the Republicans had used at least $16 billion of the surplus for Social Security and
steps they have taken since then have only made it go higher.
At the same time, they are still not providing nearly enough for education and other vital
priorities. Their budget would tum its back on our efforts to hire 100,000 quality teachers and
reduce class size. It would deny hundreds of thousands of young people access to after-school
programs. It would eliminate our mentoring program which is designed to get poor children into
college. It cuts the successful America Reads program, which now involves students from a
thousand colleges helping tens of thousands of our young people with reading. It cuts our efforts
to connect all our classrooms and schools to the Internet by the year 2000. And it fails to fund
our plan to fix up and modernize 6,000 schools.
Now, I want to say to the Congressional majority, you don't need to take three more
weeks to do this right. Let's not forget, we work for. the American people. They sent us here to
do a job. The average American worker gets paid every two weeks. I believe, if we put aside
partisanship and gamesmanship we can finish our work before their next pay day.
So, today, I am renewing my call for the Congressional majority to work with us to create
a budget that pays for itself with straightforward proposals like our tobacco policy. Abandon
budgetary gimmicks like designating the fully predictable census as "emergency spending." Or
delaying Earned Income Tax Credit payments to nearly 20 million families. This is tantamount
to a tax increase on working families.
There is a better way. We can build on our historic economic prosperity by eliminating
the public debt by the year 2015, while strengthening Social Security and Medicare and
maintaining key investments like education and providing targeted tax relief to help working
families save for retirement.
�As I have said before, we must do first things first. That means protecting the Social
Security surplus and shoring up its trust funds so that this vital program is there for generations
of older Americans to come. A week ago today, when I vetoed the Republicans' risky and
bloated tax bill, I called for the Congress to work with me to meet our nation's long-term
challenges, the first of which is saving Social Security. I noted then that the Congressional
majority's current plan and its so-called lock box would fail to protect the Social Security surplus
from being spent, and it would not add a day to the Social Security Trust Fund. I asked the
Congress to work with me to construct a reallockbox that not only devotes the entire surplus to
debt reduction, but that would also extend the life of Social Security until the middle of the next
century. Today, I am sending legislation to the Congress to accomplish that goal.
My plan calls for devoting all current-law Social Security surpluses- an estimated 3.1
trillion- to be devoted solely to debt reduction and national savings. As an added protection, the
receipts and outlays of the Social Security Trust Fund would be taken out of the budget. And
there would be tough protections to ensure that the Social Security surpluses can not be used for
any purpose other than Social Security. This is something the Republican lockbox plan fails to
do.
So, I say to the Congress, go back to work. Take the next to weeks to finish the job the
American people sent us to do. Then send me a budget that honors our priorities and protects
Social Security. If we can work together to meet these objectives, we can also work together to
pass affordable middle class tax relief that reflects the priorities of both parties and the values of
the American people.
Thank you.
�•,
REMARKS BY PRESIDENT WILLIAM J. CLINTON
INCOME AND POVERTY PROGRESS AND THE
SIGNING OF THE CONTINUING RESOLUTION
WHITE HOUSE BRIEFING ROOM
SEPTEMBER 30, 1999
Good morning. Today, I want to talk about two developments affecting our economy and the
progress we have made in making it stronger and more robust than it has been in a generation.
First the good news. Today, we have further evidence that our economic strategy of
fiscal discipline, investment in our people, and expanded trade is working. In the 12 years before
I became President, irresponsible policies in Washington quadrupled the national debt. Interest
rates and unemployment were too high. Wages were stagnant and growth was slow. Vice
President Gore and I came to office determined to change all that. And with the help of the
American people we have seen a remarkable tum-around. In the past six-and-a-half years we
have produced the longest peacetime expansion in history: 19.4 million jobs; the lowest
unemployment in a generation, record-breaking levels ofhomeownership and low interest rates.
Today, I am pleased to announce that our strategy has led us to another economic
milestone. In its annual report on income and poverty in America, the Census Bureau documents
that typical household income rose $xxxx in just one year- from $xxxx in 1997 to $xxxx in
1998, adjusted for inflation- resulting in the highest real median household income in history.
This is a xx percent increase over 1997, but more importantly, it means that American
families now have more money in their paychecks and pockets for the things that matter most:
sending their children to college, buying a home or purchasing a car.
The report also shows that since we launched our economic plan in 1993, median family
income is also the highest it has ever been: It increased from $xxxx in 1993 to $xxxx in 1998.
That's an extra $xxxx that hardworking families can put towards their children's education or a
downpayment on a new home.
There is also good news for those families working hard to lift themselves out of poverty.
The report shows that the poverty rate fell to xx percent- that's the lowest poverty rate in
America since 1979. While we still have room for improvement, the African American poverty
rate is now at its lowest level since these statistics were first collected in 1959. It declined from
xx percent in 1997 to xx percent last year.
Hispanic families are also faring better. The report shows the Hispanic poverty rate at its
lowest level since 1979 -down from xx percent in 1997 to xx percent in 1998. In addition,
thanks to our expanded Earned Income Tax Credit, which is now under attack by some in
Congress, more than xx million Americans have been lifted out of poverty.
It is clear, our economy is working for the American people and they want it to continue.
Which brings me to my second point.
�Today is the last day of the current fiscal year. But the Congress has not finished its
work and sent me spending bills that reflect the commitments we have made to the American
people- paying down tlie debt to keep interest rates low, protecting and strengthening Social
Security and Medicare, and making vital investments in education, the environment, national
security, biomedical research and other critical national priorities. Instead of sending me bills
that reflect those priorities, yesterday they sent me a temporary spending measure that would
keep the government running for three weeks.
A few minutes ago, before coming out here, I signed that bill. Not because I wanted to,
but because it was the only way to prevent another government shutdown. The problem is that
the Congressional majority simply cannot find a way to adequately fund America's real
priorities, without spending large amounts of the Social Security surplus- something we all
agreed we shouldn't and didn't have to do. A month ago, the Congressional Budget Office
estimated that the Republicans had used at least $16 billion of the surplus for Social Security and
steps they have taken since then have only made it go higher.
At the same time, they are still not providing nearly enough for education and other vital
priorities. Their budget would tum its back on our efforts to hire 100,000 quality teachers and
reduce class size. It would deny hundreds of thousands of young people access to after-school
programs. It would eliminate otir mentoring program which is designed to get poor children into
college. It cuts the successful America Reads program, which now involves students from a
thousand colleges helping tens of thousands of our young people with reading. It cuts our efforts
to connect all our classrooms and schools to the Internet by the year 2000. And it fails to fund
our plan to fix up and modernize 6,000 schools.
Now, I want to say to the Congressional majority, you don't need to take three more
weeks to do this right. Let's not forget, we work for the American people. They sent us here to
do a job. The average American worker gets paid every two weeks. I believe, if we put aside
partisanship and gamesmanship we can finish our work before their next pay day.
So, today, I am renewing my call for the Congressional majority to work with us to create
a budget that pays for itself with straightforward proposals like our tobacco policy. Abandon
budgetary gimmicks like designating the fully predictable census as "emergency spending." Or
delaying Earned Income Tax Credit payments to nearly 20 million families. This is tantamount
to a tax increase on working families.
There is a better way. We can build on our historic economic prosperity by eliminating
the public debt by the year 2015, while strengthening Social Security and Medicare and
maintaining key investments like education and providing targeted tax relief to help working
families save for retirement.
As I have said before, we must do first things first. That means protecting the Social
Security surplus and shoring up its trust funds so that this vital program is there for generations
of older Americans to come. A week ago today, when I vetoed the Republicans' risky and
bloated tax bill, I called for the Congress to work with me to meet our nation's long-term
challenges, the first of which is saving Social Security. I noted then that the Congressional
�majority's current plan and its so-called lock box would fail to protect the Social Security surplus
from being spent, and it would not add a day to the Social Security Trust Fund. I asked the
Congress to work with me to construct a reallockbox that not only devotes the entire surplus to
debt reduction, but that would also extend the life of Social Security until the middle of the next
century. Today, I am sending legislation to the Congress to accomplish that goal.
My plan calls for devoting all current-law Social Security surpluses- an estimated 3.1
trillion- to be devoted solely to debt reduction and national savings. As an added protection, the
receipts and outlays ofthe Social Security Trust Fund would be taken out of the budget. And
there would be tough protections to ensure that the Social Security surpluses can not be used for
any purpose other than Social Security. This is something the Republican lockbox plan fails to
do.
So, I say to the Congress, go back to work. Take the next to weeks to finish the job the
· American people sent us to do. Then send me a budget that honors our priorities and protects
Social Security. If we can work together to meet these objectives, we can also work together to
pass affordable middle class tax relief that reflects the priorities of both parties and the values of
the American people.
Thank you.
�REMARKS BY PRESIDENT WILLIAM J. CLINTON
INCOME AND POVERTY PROGRESS AND THE
SIGNING OF THE CONTINUING RESOLUTION
WHITE HOUSE BRIEFING ROOM
SEPTEMBER 30, 1999
Good morning. Today, I want to talk about two developments affecting our economy and the
progress we have made in making it stronger and more robust than it has been in a generation.
First the good news. Today, we have further evidence that our economic strategy of
fiscal discipline, investment in our people, and expanded trade is working. In the 12 years before
I became President, irresponsible policies in Washington quadrupled the national debt. Interest
rates and unemployment were too high. Wages were stagnant and growth was slow. Vice
President Gore and I came to office determined to change all that. And with the help of the
American people we have seen a remarkable turn-around. In the past six-and-a-half years we
have produced the longest peacetime expansion in history: 19.4 million jobs; the lowest
unemployment in a generation, record-breaking levels of homeownership and low interest rates.
Today, I am pleased to announce that our strategy has led us to another economic
milestone. In its annual report on income and poverty in America, the Census Bureau documents
that typical household income rose $xxxx in just one year- from $xxxx in 1997 to $xxxx in
1998, adjusted for inflation- resulting in the highest real median household income in history.
This is a xx percent increase over 1997, but more importantly, it means that American
families now have more money in their paychecks and pockets for the things that matter most:
sending their children to college, buying a home or purchasing a car.
The report also shows that since we launched our economic plan in 1993, median family
income is also the highest it has ever been: It increased from $xxxx in 1993 to $xxxx in 1998.
That's an extra $xxxx that hardworking families can put towards their children's education or a
downpayment on a new home.
There is also good news for those families working hard to lift themselves out of poverty.
The report shows that the poverty rate fell to xx percent- that's the lowest poverty rate in
America since 1979. While we still have room for improvement, the African American poverty
rate is now at its lowest level since these statistics were first collected in 1959. It declined from
xx percent in 1997 to xx percent last year.
Hispanic families are also faring better. The report shows the Hispanic poverty rate at its
lowest level since 1979- down from xx percent in 1997 to xx percent in 1998. In addition,
thanks to our expanded Earned Income Tax Credit, which is now under attack by some in
Congress, more than xx million Americans have been lifted out of poverty.
It is clear, our economy is working for the American people and they want it to continue.
Which brings me to my second point.
�Today is the last day of the current fiscal year. But the Congress has not finished its
work and sent me spending bills that reflectthe commitments we have made to the American
people- paying down the debt to keep interest rates low, protecting and strengthening Social
Security and Medicare, and making vital investments in education, the environment, national
security, biomedical research and other critical national priorities. Instead of sending me bills
that reflect those priorities, yesterday they sent me a temporary spending measure that would
keep the government running for three weeks.
A few minutes ago, before coming out here, I signed that bill. Not because I wanted to,
but because it was the only way to prevent another government shutdown. The problem is that
the Congressional majority simply cannot find a way to adequately fund America's real
priorities, without spending large amounts of the Social Security surplus- something we all
agreed we shouldn't and didn't have to do. A month ago, the Congressional Budget Office
estimated that the Republicans had used at least $16 billion of the surplus for Social Security and
steps they have taken since then have only made it go higher.
At the same time, they are still not providing nearly enough for education and other vital
priorities. Their budget would tum its back on our efforts to hire 100,000 quality teachers and
reduce class size. It would deny hundreds ofthousands of young people access to after-school
programs. It would eliminate our mentoring program which is designed to get poor children into
college. It cuts the successful America Reads program, which now involves students from a
thousand colleges helping tens of thousands of our young people with reading. It cuts our efforts
to connect all our classrooms and schools to the Internet by the year 2000. And it fails to fund
our plan to fix up and modernize 6,000 schools.
Now, I want to say to the Congressional majority, you don't need to take three more
weeks to do this right. Let's not forget, we work for the American people. They sent us here to
do a job. The average American worker gets paid every two weeks. I believe, if we put aside
partisanship and gamesmanship we can finish our work before their next pay day.
So, today, I am renewing my call for the Congressional majority to work with us to create
a budget that pays for itself with straightforward proposals like our tobacco policy. Abandon
budgetary gimmicks like designating the fully predictable census as "emergency spending." Or
delaying Earned Income Tax Credit payments to nearly 20 million families. This is tantamount
to a tax increase on working families.
There is a better way. We can build on our historic economic prosperity by eliminating
the public debt by the year 2015, while strengthening Social Security and Medicare and
maintaining key investments like education and providing targeted tax relief to help working
families save for retirement.
As I have said before, we must do first things first. That means protecting the Social
Security surplus and shoring up its trust funds so that this vital program is there for generations
of older Americans to come. A week ago today, when I vetoed the Republicans' risky and
bloated tax bill, I called for the Congress to work withme to meet our nation's long-term
challenges, the first of which is saving Social Security. I noted then that the Congressional
�majority's current plan and its so-called lock box would fail to protect the Social Security surplus
from being spent, and it would not add a day to the Social Security Trust Fund. I asked the
Congress to work with me to construct a reallockbox that not only devotes the entire surplus to
debt reduction, but that would also extend the life of Social Security until the middle of the next
century. Today, I am sending legislation to the Congress to accomplish that goal.
My plan calls for devoting all current-law Social Security surpluses- an estimated 3.1
trillion- to be devoted solely to debt reduction and national savings. As an added protection, the
receipts and outlays of the Social Security Trust Fund would be taken out ofthe budget. And
there would be tough protections to ensure that the Social Security surpluses can not be used for
any purpose other than Social Security. This is something the Republican lockbox plan fails to
do.
So, I say to the Congress, go back to work. Take the next to weeks to finish the job the
American people sent us to do. Then send me a budget that honors our priorities and protects
Social Security. If we can work together to meet these objectives, we can also work together to
pass affordable middle class tax relief that reflects the priorities of both parties and the values of
the American people.
Thank you.
�REMARKS BY PRESIDENT WILLIAM J. CLINTON
INCOME AND POVERTY PROGRESS AND THE
SIGNING OF THE CONTINUING RESOLUTION
WHITE HOUSE BRIEFING ROOM
SEPTEMBER 30, 1999
Good morning. Today, I want to talk about two developments affecting our economy and the
progress we have made in making it stronger and more robust than it has been in a generation.
First the good news. Today, we have further evidence that our economic strategy of
fiscal discipline, investment in our people, and expanded trade is working. In the 12 years before
I became President, irresponsible policies in Washington quadrupled the national debt. Interest
rates and unemployment were too high. Wages were stagnant and growth was slow. Vice
President Gore and I came to office determined to change all that. And with the help of the
American people we have seen a remarkable tum-around. In the past six-and-a-half years we
have produced the longest peacetime expansion in history: 19.4 million jobs; the lowest
unemployment in a generation, record-breaking levels of homeownership and low interest rates.
Today, I am pleased to aimounce that our strategy has led us to another economic
milestone. In its annual report on income and poverty in America, the Census Bureau documents
that typical household income rose $xxxx in just one year- from $xxxx in 1997 to $xxxx in
1998, adjusted for inflation- resulting in the highest real median household income in history.
This is a xx percent increase over 1997, but more importantly, it means that American
families now have more money in their paychecks and pockets for the things that matter most: ..
sending their children to college, buying a home or purchasing a car.
The report also shows that since we launched our economic plan in 1993, median family
income is also the highest it has ever been: It increased from $xxxx in 1993 to $xxxx in 1998.
That's an extra $xxxx that hardworking families can put towards their children's education or a
downpayment on a new home.
There is also good news for those families working hard to lift themselves out of poverty.
The report shows that the poverty rate fell to xx percent- that's the lowest poverty rate in
America since 1979. While we still have room for improvement, the African American poverty
rate is now at its lowest level since these statistics were first collected in 1959. It declined from
xx percent in 1997 to xx percent last year.
Hispanic families are also faring better. The report shows the Hispanic poverty rate at its
lowest level since 1979 -down from xx percent in 1997 to xx percent in 1998. In addition,
thanks to our expanded Earned Income Tax Credit, which is now under attack by some in
Congress, more than xx million Americans have been lifted out of poverty.
It is clear, our economy-is working for the American people and they want it to continue.
Which brings me to my second point.
�Today is the last day of the current fiscal year. But the Congress has not finished its
work and sent me spending bills that reflect the commitments we have made to the American
people -paying down the debt to keep interest rates low, protecting and strengthening Social
Security and Medicare, and making vital investments in education, the environment, national
security, biomedical research and other critical national priorities. Instead of sending me bills
that reflect those priorities, yesterday they sent me a temporary spending measure that would
keep the government running for three weeks.
A few_minutes ago, before coming out here, I signed that bill. Not because I wanted to,
but because it was the only way to prevent another government shutdown. The problem is that
the Congressional majority simply cannot find a way to adequately fund America's real
priorities, without spending large amounts of the Social Security surplus - something we all
agreed we shouldn't and didn't have to do. A month ago, the Congressional Budget Office
estimated that the Republicans had used at least $16 billion of the surplus for Social Security and
steps they have taken since then have only made it go higher.
At the same time, they are still not providing nearly enough for education and other vital
priorities. Their budget would tum its back on our efforts to hire 100,000 quality teachers and
reduce class size. It would deny hundreds of thousands of young people access to after-school
programs. It would eliminate our mentoring program which is designed to get poor children into
college. It cuts the successful America Reads program, which now involves students from a
thousand colleges helping tens of thousands of our young people with reading. It cuts our efforts
to connect all our classrooms and schools to the Internet by the year 2000. And it fails to fund
our plan to fix up and modernize 6,000 schools.
Now, I want to say to the Congressional majority, you don't need to take three more
weeks to do this right. Let's not forget, we work for the American people. They sent us here to
do a job. The average American worker gets paid every two weeks. I believe, if we put aside
partisanship and gamesmanship we can finish our work before their next pay day.
So, today, I am renewing my call for the Congressional majority to work with us to create
a budget that pays for itself with straightforward proposals like our tobacco policy. Abandon
budgetary gimmicks like designating the fully predictable census as "emergency spending." Or
delaying Earned Income Tax Credit payments to nearly 20 million families. This is tantamount
to a tax increase on working families.
There is a better way. We can build on our historic economic prosperity by eliminating
the public debt by the year 2015, while strengthening Social Security and Medicare and
maintaining key investments like education and providing targeted tax relief to help working
families save for retirement.
As I have said before, we must do first things first. That means protecting the Social
Security surplus and shoring up its trust funds so that this vital prC!gram is there for generations
of older Americans to come. A week ago today, when I vetoed the Republicans' risky and
bloated tax bill, I called for the Congress to work with me to meet our nation's long-term
challenges, the first of which is saving Social Security. I noted then that the Congressional
�majority's current plan and its so-called lock box would fail to protect the Social Security surplus
from being spent, and it would not add a day to the Social Security Trust Fund. I asked the
Congress to work with fne to construct a reallockbox that not only devotes the entire surplus to
debt reduction, but that would also extend the life of Social Security until the middle of the next
century. Today, I am sending legislation to the Congress to accomplish that goal.
My plan calls for devoting all current-law Social Security surpluses- an estimated 3.1
trillion- to be devoted solely to debt reduction and national savings. As an added protection, the
receipts and outlays of the Social Security Trust Fund would be taken out of the budget. And
there would be tough protections to ensure that the Social Security surpluses can not be used for
any purpose other than Social Security. This is something the Republican lockbox plan fails to
do.
So, I say to the Congress, go back to work. Take the next to weeks to finish the job the
American people sent us to do. Then send me a budget that honors our priorities and protects
Social Security. If we can work together to meet these objectives, we can also work together to
pass affordable middle class tax relief that reflects the priorities of both parties and the values of
the American people.
Thank you.
�REMARKS BY PRESIDENT WILLIAM J. CLINTON
INCOME AND POVERTY PROGRESS AND THE
SIGNING OF THE CONTINUING RESOLUTION
WHITE HOUSE BRIEFING ROOM
SEPTEMBER 30, 1999
Good morning. Today, I want to talk about two developments affecting our economy and the
progress we have made in making it stronger and more robust than it has been in a generation.
First the good news. Today, we have further evidence that our economic strategy of
fiscal discipline, investment in our people, and expanded trade is working. In the 12 years before
I became President, irresponsible policies in Washington quadrupled the national debt. Interest
rates and unemployment were too high. Wages were stagnant and growth was slow. Vice
President Gore and I came to office determined to change all that. And with the help of the
American people we have seen a remarkable tum-around. In the past six-and-a-half years we
have produced the longest peacetime expansion in history: 19.4 million jobs; the lowest
unemployment in a generation, record-breaking levels of homeownership and low interest rates.
Today, I am pleased to artnounce that our strategy has led us to another economic
milestone. In its annual report on income and poverty in America, the Census Bureau documents
that typical household income rose $xxxx in just one year- from $xxxx in 1997 to $xxxx in
1998, adjusted for inflation- resulting in the highest real median household income in history.
This is a xx percent increase over 1997, but more importantly, it means that American
families now have more money in their paychecks and pockets for the things that matter most:
sending their children to college, buying a home or purchasing a car.
The report also shows that since we launched our economic plan in 1993, median family
income is also the highest it has ever been: It increased from $xxxx in 1993 to $xxxx in 1998.
That's an extra $xxxx that hardworking families can put towards their children's education or a
downpayrnent on a new home.
There is also good news for those families working hard to lift themselves out of poverty.
The report shows that the poverty rate fell to xx percent- that's the lowest poverty rate in
America since 1979. While we still have room for improvement, the African American poverty
rate is now at its lowest level since these statistics were first collected in 1959. It declined from
xx percent in 1997 to xx percent last year.
Hispanic families are also faring better. The report shows the Hispanic poverty rate at its
lowest level since 1979- down from xx percent in 1997 to xx percent in 1998. In addition,
thanks to our expanded Earned Income Tax Credit, which is now under attack by some in
Congress, more than xx million Americans have been lifted out of poverty.
It is clear, our economy is working for the American people and they want it to continue.
Which brings me to my second point.
�Today is the last day of the current fiscal year. But the Congress has not finished its
work and sent me spending bills that reflect the commitments we have made to the American
people- paying down tlie debt to keep interest rates low, protecting and strengthening Social
Security and Medicare, and making vital investments in education, the environment, national
security, biomedical research and other critical national priorities. Instead of sending me bills
that reflect those priorities, yesterday they sent me a temporary spending measure that would
keep the government running for three weeks.
A few minutes ago, before coming out here, I signed that bill. Not because I wanted to,
but because it was the only way to prevent another government shutdown. The problem is that
the Congressional majority simply cannot find a way to adequately fund America's real
priorities, without spending large amounts of the Social Security surplus- something we all
agreed we shouldn't and didn't have to do. A month ago, the Congressional Budget Office
estimated that the Republicans had used at least $16 billion of the surplus for Social Security and
steps they have taken since then have only made it go higher.
At the same time, they are still not providing nearly enough for education and other vital
priorities. Their budget would tum its back on our efforts to hire 100,000 quality teachers and
reduce class size. It would deny hundreds of thousands of young people access to after-school
programs. It would eliminate our mentoring program which is designed to get poor children into
college. It cuts the successful America Reads program, which now involves students from a
thousand colleges helping tens of thousands of our young people with reading. It cuts our efforts
to connect all our classrooms and schools to the Internet by the year 2000. And it fails to fund
our plan to fix up and modernize 6,000 schools.
Now, I want to say to the Congressional majority, you don't need to take three more
weeks to do this right. Let's not forget, we work for the American people. They sent us here to
do a job. The average American worker gets paid every two weeks. I believe, if we put aside
partisanship and gamesmanship we can finish our work before their next pay day.
So, today, I am renewing my call for the Congressional majority to work with us to create
a budget that pays for itself with straightforward proposais like our tobacco policy. Abandon
budgetary gimmicks like designating the fully predictable census as "emergency spending." Or
delaying Earned Income Tax Credit payments to nearly 20 million families. This is tantamount
to a tax increase on working families.
There is a better way. We can build on our historic economic prosperity by eliminating
the public debt by the year 2015, while strengthening Social Security and Medicare and
maintaining key investments like education and providing targeted tax relief to help working
families save for retirement.
As I have said before, we must do first things first. That means protecting the Social
Security surplus and shoring up its trust funds so that this vital program is there for generations
of older Americans to come. A week ago today, when I vetoed the Republicans' risky and
bloated tax bill, I called for the Congress to work withme to meet our nation's long-term
challenges, the first of which is saving Social Security. I noted then that the Congressional
�majority's current plan and its so-called lock box would fail to protect the Social Security surplus
from being spent, and it would not add a day to the Social Security Trust Fund. I asked the
Congress to work with fne to construct a reallockbox that not only devotes the entire surplus to
debt reduction, but that would also extend the life of Social Security until the middle of the next
century. Today, I am sending legislation to the Congress to accomplish that goal.
My plan calls for devoting all current-law Social Security surpluses- an estimated 3.1
trillion- to be devoted solely to debt reduction and national savings. As an added protection, the
receipts and outlays of the Social Security Trust Fund would be taken out of the budget. And
there would be tough protections to ensure that the Social Security surpluses can not be used for
any purpose other than Social Security. This is something the Republican lockbox plan fails to
do.
So, I say to the Congress, go back to work. Take the next to weeks to finish the job the
American people sent us to do. Then send me a budget that honors our priorities and protects
Social Security. If we can work together to meet these objectives, we can also work together to
pass affordable middle class tax relief that reflects the priorities of both parties and the values of
the American people.
Thank you.
�REMARKS BY PRESIDENT WILLIAM J. CLINTON
INCOME AND POVERTY PROGRESS AND THE
SIGNING OF THE CONTINUING RESOLUTION
WHITE HOUSE BRIEFING ROOM
SEPTEMBER 30, 1999
Good morning. Today, I want to talk about two developments affecting our economy and the
progress we have made in making it stronger and more robust than it has been in a generation.
First the good news. Today, we have further evidence that our economic strategy of
fiscal discipline, investment in our people, and expanded trade is working. In the 12 years before
I became President, irresponsible policies in Washington quadrupled the national debt. Interest
rates and unemployment were too high. Wages were stagnant and growth was slow. Vice
President Gore and I came to office determined to change all that. And with the help of the
American people we have seen a remarkable tum-around. In the past six-and-a-half years we
have produced the longest peacetime expansion in history: 19.4 million jobs; the lowest
·unemployment in a generation, record-breaking levels of homeownership and low interest rates.
Today, I am pleased to announce that our strategy has led us to another economic
milestone. In its annual report on income and poverty in America, the Census Bureau documents
that typical household income rose $xxxx in just one year- from $xxxx in 1997 to $xxxx in
1998, adjusted for inflation- resulting in the highest real median household income in history.
This is a xx percent increase over 1997, but more importantly, it means that American
families now have more money in their paychecks and pockets for the things that matter most:
sending their children to college, buying a home or purchasing a car.
The report also shows that since we launched our economic plan in 1993, median family
income is also the highest it has ever been: It increased from $xxxx in 1993 to $xxxx in 1998.
That's an extra $xxxx that hardworking families can put towards their children's education or a
downpayment on a new home.
There is also good news for those families working hard to lift themselves out of poverty.
The report shows that the poverty rate fell to xx percent- that's the lowest poverty rate in
America since 1979. While we still have room for improvement, the African American poverty
rate is now at its lowest level since these statistics were first collected in 1959. It declined from
xx percent in 1997 to xx percent last year.
Hispanic families are also faring better. The report shows the Hispanic poverty rate at its
lowest level since 1979 -down from xx percent in 1997 to xx percent in 1998. In addition,
thanks to our expanded Earned Income Tax Credit, which is now under attack by some in
Congress, more than xx million Americans have been lifted out of poverty.
It is clear, our economy is working for the American people and they want it to continue.
Which brings ~e to my second point.
�Today is the last day of the current fiscal year. But the Congress has not finished its
work and sent me spending bills that reflect the commitments we have made to the American
people- paying down the debt to keep interest rates low, protecting and strengthening Social
Security and Medicare, and making vital investments in education, the environment, national
security, biomedical research and other critical national priorities. Instead of sending me bills
that reflect those priorities, yesterday they sent me a temporary spending measure that would
keep the government running for three weeks.
A few minutes ago, before coming out here, I signed that bill. Not because I wanted to,
but because it was the only way to prevent another government shutdown. The problem is that
the Congressional majority simply cannot find a way to adequately fund America's real
priorities, without spending large amounts of the Social Security surplus- something we all
agreed we shouldn't and didn't have to do. A month ago, the Congressional Budget Office
estimated that the Republicans had used at least $16 billion of the surplus for Social Security and
steps they have taken since then have only made it go higher.
At the same time, they are still not providing nearly enough for education and other vital
priorities. Their budget would tum its back on our efforts to hire 100,000 quality teachers and
reduce class size. It would deny hundreds of thousands of young people access to after-school
programs. It would eliminate our mentoring program which is designed to get poor children into
college. It cuts the successful America Reads program, which now involves students from a
thousand colleges helping tens of thousands of our young people with reading. It cuts our efforts
to connect all our classrooms and schools to the Internet by the year 2000. And it fails to fund
our plan to fix up and modernize 6,000 schools.
Now, I want to say to the Congressional majority, you don't need to take three more
weeks to do this right. Let's not forget, we work for the American people. They sent us here to
do a job. The average American worker gets paid every two weeks. I believe, if we put aside
partisanship and gamesmanship we can finish our work before their next pay day.
So, today, I am renewing my call for the Congressional majority to work with us to create
a budget that pays for itself with straightforward proposals like our tobacco policy. Abandon
budgetary gimmicks like designating the fully predictable census as "emergency spending." Or
delaying Earned Income Tax Credit payments to nearly 20 million families. This is tantamount
to a tax increase on working families.
There is a better way. We can build on our historic economic prosperity by eliminating
the public debt by the year 2015, while strengthening Social Security and Medicare and
maintaining key investments like education and providing targeted tax relief to help working
families save for retirement.
As I have said before, we must do first things first. That means protecting the Social
Security surplus and shoring up its trust funds so that this vital program is there for generations
of older Americans to come. A week ago today, when I vetoed the Republicans' risky and
bloated tax bill, I called for the Congress to work with me to meet our nation's long-term
challenges, the first of which is saving Social Security. I noted then that the Congressional
�majority's current plan and its so-called lock box would fail to protect the Social Security surplus
from being spent, and it would not add a day to the Social Security Trust Fund. I asked the
Congress to work with fne to construct a reallockbox that not only devotes the entire surplus to
debt reduction, but that would also extend the life of Social Security until the middle of the next
century. Today, I am sending legislation to the Congress to accomplish that goal.
. My plan calls for devoting all current-law Social Security surpluses- an estimated 3.1
trillion- to be devoted solely to debt reduction and national savings. As an added protection, the
receipts and outlays of the Social Security Trust Fund would be taken out of the budget. And
there would be tough protections to ensure that the Social Security surpluses can not be used for
any purpose other than Social Security. This is something the Republican lockbox plan fails to
do.
So, I say to the Congress, go back to work. Take the next to weeks to finish the job the
American people sent us to do. Then send me a budget that honors our priorities and protects
Social Security. If we can work together to meet these objectives, we can also work together to
pass affordable middle class tax relief that reflects the priorities of both parties and the values of
the American people.
Thank you.
�Draft 9/24/99 3:20pm
Terry Edmonds
~
t)~~
PRESIDENT WILLIAM J. CLINTON
RADIO ADDRESS ON SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS
WASHINGTON, DC
September 24, 1999
~tty
c '81> -"'
~
tf~ ~
fti: . . .A.
~~
{) U{) \ -
,_.~
Good morning. With only five days left in the current fiscal year, Congress has a lot :
work to do. They must fulfill their fundamental obligation to the American people by passing a
budget that adequately funds our national priorities without doing something we all agreed we
wouldn't and shouldn't do: spend the Social Security surplus instead of preserving it for debt
reduction. Try as they might, the Republican majority is finding it virtually impossible to
provide the needed funds for education, health care and other vital areas within the framework of
their tax and budget plan. It is becoming increasingly clear- they simply can't do that without
spending the Social Security surplus.
·~~
(!)M)4Ae /.;() ".Jtj
Their budget would take us in the wrong direction. Vice President Gore and I have
.~ ~~ed an economic strategy focused on fiscal discipline, expanded trade and investment in our
-jiu ~ people. And it is working. In the past six-and-a-half years, it has produced lower interest rates,
J4.p, ~ the longest peacetime expansion in history, more than 19 million new jobs, rising wages, the
~1-h
lowest unemployment in a generation and record-breaking levels of home ownership. That
-· ~ ~P..A means more money in your paycheck, lower interest rates to buy a home or a car, and more help
S~/ ~ through efforts like the Hope Scholarship to send your children to college. We are on a solid
~ ~ path of progress and prosperity and the American people want it to continue.
C t;D
,
/1
&;,(,
7
.' J
1.· ~
'M
(. Jr~
Two days ago, I vetoed the Republicans' risky $792 billion tax plan, because it was too
big, too bloated and would place too big a burden on our economy. It would have forced cuts of
nearly 50 percent in everything from air traffic safety to education to heatlhcare to veterans
programs. Without these untenable cuts, hundreds of billions of dollars would have to be
diverted from the Social Security lockbox and debt reduction. We said we shouldn't touch the
Social Security surplus, and today I say to the Congressional majority- we don't have to do it.
~.fM. 'If~
But so far, the Congressional majority has pursued a path that would force them to break
l~. . f/J.. that pledge. In fact, the same day I vetoed their budget-busting tax plan, they passed a bill out of
{).IJ!:,QJJI)
~
.i
committee that would not only seriously undermine our efforts to strengthen public education,
but would also result in the spending of the Social Security surplus. Their education budget
would eliminate our effort to hire quality teachers and reduce class size. It would deny hundreds
of thousands of young people access to after-school programs. It fails to improve and expand
Head Start, cuts the successful America Reads program and cuts educational technology -- all at a
time when we need to be doing more, not less to prepare our children and our nation for the
challenges of the new global economy.
�To find a way out the quandary they have created for themselves, the Congressional
majority has resorted to all kinds of gimmicks to claim they are not using the Social Security
surplus: declaring the annual census an emergency, declaring the program that provides heating
assistance for poor people an emergency, even though winter is an annual certainty, and
rescinding $3 billion in inoney promised to states to help them move more people from welfare
to w
with the Repu 1can tax plan vetoed, t ey are putting ort ot er proposa s at
ould be paid for in only one way, by raiding the Social Security surplus.]These gimmicks are
designed to mask one thing - that the Republican proposals would lead to backing away from
our commitment to Save Social Security First.
There is a way out of this quandary. I have proposed a fiscally responsible budget plan
that eliminates the debt, strengthens and modernizes Medicare, invests in education and saves
Social Security. My plan would create a reallockbox that, unlike the Republican plan would
devote the entire Social Security surplus to debt reduction and extend the life of Social Security
until the middle of the next century. My budget meets the needs of the American people, pays
for itself, and offers a far better alternative than the Republican path which leads straight to
spending the Social Security surplus.
·
Time is short. The fiscal year will end on Thursday. I urge Congress to stop the
gimmicks ... stop the smoke and mirrors. You can do the people's business, fund our national
priorities, without continuing down the path of draining the Social Security surplus.
Thanks for listening.
�this year, with growing surpluses projected for years to come.
The American people understand that these are not simply numbers on charts.
The progress we've made is something they see and feel every day-- in more jobs, higher
paychecks, HOPE scholarships that help send their children to college, lower interest rates for
owning a home and buying a car. This is the right course for our people, and our nation. It is
making a difference in the lives of Americans. And they want us to stay on it.
Our hard-won prosperity gives us, also, the chance to do something few people
ever have-- the chance to invest our surplus to meet the long-term challenges of America. We
can lift the burden of debt from the shoulders of the next generation. We can secure the future
of Social Security and Medicare. We can ensure a first-rate education and modern schools for
our children.
Unfortunately, the tax bill Congress has sent me would deny those opportunities
to the American people. The bill is too big, too bloated, places too great a burden on
America's economy. It would force drastic cuts in education, health care and other vital areas.
It would cripple our ability to pay down the debt. It would not add a day to the Social Security
trust fund. It would not add a day to the Medicare trust fund, or modernize Medicare with
prescription drug coverage. Nearly a trillion dollars in tax cuts, but not one dollar for
Medicare. I will veto this bill because it is wrong for Medicare, wrong for Social Security, wrong for
education, and wrong for the economy.
Now, in the face of my determination to do this, many in Congress seem ready to throw in the
towel. That would be a disservice to the American people. They sent us all here to get things done. And we have
proved in the past, with the Welfare Reform bill of 1996 and the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, that we can work
together to get things done and bring good results to our country. So, instead, I ask Congress not to go home until
we have worked together once again, in a good-faith effort to meet the long-term challenges our people face.
First, Jet's reach a bipartisan agreement to save Social Security. The congressional majority's
current plan and its so-called lockbox would fail to protect the Social Security surplus from being spent, and it
would not add a day to the Social Security trust fund. Instead of this weak lockbox and no additions to the trust
fund, I ask Congress to work with me to construct a reallockbox that would keep Social Security solvent until the
year 2050.
Second, let's work together to save Medicare. With Medicare facing insolvency in just 16 years
and with three out of four seniors lacking dependable, affordable prescription drug coverage, we know we must
not put off this challenge. Months ago, I put forth a detailed plan for Medicare that would reform and modernize
it with a voluntary prescription drug benefit. It would address the immediate, critical needs of teaching hospitals,
skilled nursing facilities and other priorities while extending Medicare's solvency to the year 2027.
Now, I don't expect the Republican majority to agree with me on every detail of my plan; I
never thought that would be the case. But I do expect, and the American people have a right to expect, that we
will work together in good faith to meet these long-term objectives.
Third, we should fulfill our obligations to the future by producing a real budget that pays down
the debt, brings down interest rates, and makes vital investments in education, the environment, national security,
biomedical research, health care, and other areas so vital to our future.
If we do this, within the framework I have outlined, we can not only invest in our future, we can
�pay down America's debt over the next 15 years and make our country debt-free for the first time since Andrew
Jackson was here and planted that big magnolia tree in 1835. (Applause.)
So I say again, let's do first things first: pay down the debt, save Social Security, save and
modernize Medicare, invest in education.
In the days ahead, I will ask the Republican majority to work with me to fulfill these fundamental
obligations we have to our children and to our future. If we can work together to meet these objectives, we can
also work together to pass tax relief we can afford -- affordable, middle-class tax relief that reflects the priorities
of both parties and the values of the American people. That would be a good bill I would happily sign.
Every generation of Americans is called upon to meet the challenges of its time. But few have
the unprecedented opportunity we have-- to meet the challenges not only of our time, but the great challenges of
our future. We must seize that opportunity.
Thank you very much. (Applause.)
(The veto is signed.)
Thank you. (Applause.)
END
Message Sent To:
11:23 A.M. EDT
�--------------------------------
ct:tJJ
>
,, ......
w.l~''".: .. /;;
~,J .. ; c.~"'"" Margaret M. Suntum
t....
09/23/99 11:47:08 AM
Record Type:
Record
To:
See the distribution list at the bottom of this message
cc:
Subject:
remarks of the President at signing of veto of tax bill
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
September 23, 1999
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
ON SIGNING VETO OF TAX BILL
The Rose Garden
11:10 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Thank you very much. Please be seated.
Thank you and good morning. As all of you know, Congress has sent me the tax bill I have
repeatedly pledged to veto. In a moment, I will do that because, at a time when America is
moving in the right direction, this bill would turn us back to the failed policies of the past.
In the 12 years before I became President, irresponsible policies in Washington
piled deficit upon deficit, quadrupling the national debt, leading to high interest rates,
eventually bringing us the worst recession since the Great Depression. Interest rates and
unemployment were too high, wages were stagnant, growth was slow.
Vice President Gore and I came into office determined to change all that with a
new economic strategy focused on fiscal discipline, expanded trade, investment in our people.
The strategy has worked. In the past six and a half years, it has produced lower interest rates
and ushered in the longest peacetime expansion in our history, with more than 19 million new
jobs, rising wages, the lowest unemployment in a generation, and record-breaking levels of
home ownership. And by balancing the budget for the first time in a generation, we have
changed red ink to black, turning a deficit of $290 billion into a budget surplus of $99 billion
- ...
......:~.-~
..
�Record Type:
Record
To:
Terry Edmonds/WHO/EOP@EOP
cc:
Subject:
Patrick M. Dorton/OPD/EOP@EOP
Draft Podesta letter on Lockbox
This was never sent. It did get lots of input from Gene, Joel, OMB, and many others. You can probably
~
steal stuff from it. podestaletter.9.16c.doc
Also OMB sent me the following sentences on EITC delay. They're not very poetic, but they explain the
main points:
EITC Refund Delay. There are reports that the House Appropriations Committee might
offset Labor/HHS spending by paying EITC refunds on a monthly basis rather than as a lump
sum. The Administration strongly opposes any proposal to delay EITC refunds. Delaying
these refunds amounts to a tax increase on those least able to afford it -- working families who
rely on EITC payments to meet basic expenses. EITC refunds belong to taxpayers, not the
government, and should be paid promptly to up to 20 million working families who are entitled
to them.
�September 17, 1999
The Honorable J. Dennis Hastert
Speaker of the House of Representatives
H-232 Capitol Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-6501
Dear Mr. Speaker:
Thank you for your letter on behalf of the Republican Leadership. I appreciate
this opportunity to respond to the matters you raised.
As you know, it was the President who initiated the national challenge to "Save
Social Security First" in his 1998 State of the Union Address. While the President agrees
that a "lockbox" is the most effective way to ensure that the Social Security surplus is not
spent, he prefers a proposal free of loopholes such as those contained in some
congressional proposals. The President's budget plan would extend the solvency of
Social Security by dedicating the interest savings from debt reduction to the Social
Security Trust Fund. The fact is that by itself your lockbox would fail to extend Medicare
or Social Security solvency by a single day.
Worse still, the very credibility of your lockbox is strained beyond repair by an
exploding tax cut that would cost $1 trillion over the next decade and, if continued,
would cost $4 trillion just when the first baby boomers retire, Medicare becomes
insolvent, and Social Security comes under strain. This exploding tax cut would
inevitably drain hundreds of billions of dollars from the Social Security surplus at just the
time when the Nation can least afford it.
Today we have a historic opportunity to eliminate the debt by 2015, while
strengthening Social Security and Medicare, investing in priorities like education, and
providing targeted tax relief to help working families save for retirement. We have this
opportunity because of the tough decisions made by President Clinton and Congress in
1993 and 1997. As a result, today the debt is $1.7 trillion less than it was projected to be
when President Clinton assumed office Continuing balanced and responsible policies, is
the only credible way to build on our progress and pay down the debt. Your exploding
�tax cut would reverse our course of fiscal discipline and risk leaving America
permanently in debt.
A central tenet of the President's approach is not only extending the life ofthe
Social Security Trust Fund in the future, but protecting the Trust Fund today. The
President's plan does both. By contrast, although professing a desire to protect the Social
Security Trust Fund, some Republicans have even confessed to a conscious strategy to
force the use of the Social Security surplus this year purely in order to gain partisan
political advantage.
We can and should meet our obligations without spending from the Social
Security Trust Fund. The President has proposed responsible offsets to prevent spending
the Social Security surplus. For example, by increasingthe price of tobacco, we can
maintain our fiscal discipline while preventing millions of children from becoming
smokers. Instead of adopting this proposal, you reportedly are considering a measure that
effectively raises taxes on millions of working families by delaying their Earned Income
Tax Credit. In addition, Congress is resorting to the use of budgetary gimmicks -including the designation of the fully predictable and constitutionally-mandated census as
"emergency" spending.
Your letter inquires specifically about funding for Kosovo. Just as we have
protected the Social Security surplus in the President's FY 2000 budget, we will not put
forth policies- on Kosovo, or any other additional needs for 2000 -which would result
in spending the Social Security surplus.
The President has proposed a budget plan that would strengthen Social Security
for the 2P1 century. We remain committed to reserving the entire Social Security surplus
for debt reduction and Social Security and to working with you on a budget that
accomplishes this goal while strengthening and modernizing Medicare.
Sincerely,
John Podesta
Chief of Staff to the President
�Building on a Commitment To Save Social Security First: In the State of the Union Address,
the President called for locking the entire amount of the Social Security surplus over the next 15
years for debt reduction and higher returns for Social Security. Stronger budgetary numbers now
allow us to lock in the entire amount of the Social Security surplus each and every year, while
still maintaining enough funding to strengthen and extend the solvency ofMedicare, make
needed discretionary investments, and provide targeted tax cuts.
A Basis To Build On: While the President's framework extends Social Security solvency to
2053, he remains committed to working together with Congress in a bi-partisan fashion to enact
reforms to make Social Security solvent' for 75 years.
·
The President therefore calls for a new Social Security lock box that:
•
ensures that each year all payroll taxes go to savings and debt reduction for Social Security;
•
after a decade of debt reduction from the Social Security lock box, dedicates the interest
savings resulting from that debt reduction to extend the solvency of Social Security; and
•
provides the basis for bipartisan agreement on debt reduction and Social Security.
'\·- ~
How the Social Security Lock Box Would Work:
(1) All current-law Social Security surpluses- an estimated $3.1 trillion-- would be devoted
solely to debt reduction and national savings.
(2) As an added protection, the receipts and outlays of the Social Security Trust Fund would be
taken out of the budget.
(3) There will be tough protections, including maintaining the pay/go rules to ensure that the
Social Security surpluses can not be used for any purpose other than Social Security.
(4) After a decade of fiscal responsibility, annual interest savings from that cumulative debt
reduction would be transferred to the Social Security Trust Fund, instead of being diverted to
other spending and tax priorities. For example, by 2011 we will have reduced the debt by a
projected $2.1 trillion, yielding projected interest savings in that year of $107 billion. This
amount will be transferred to Social Security.
.{·'
�EITC Guidance
September 29, 1999
What is your reaction to the RepuJJlican EITC proposal to delay EITC payments
•
The proposal to spread out payments of refunds of the EITC to working families over 12 months
is tantamount to a tax increase.
--Families that would have saved their refunds will lose the interest that they would
otherwise have earned.
--Families that would have used the money to pay off debt will be able to retire less debt
because they will incur more interest expense.
--Families that would have used the money to purchase a consumer durable such as a car
will have to take out larger loans to do it.
•
To get themselves out of the budget mess they created, Republicans are taxing nearly 20 million
working families across the country. This is a real statement of their priorities.
Background On Congressional Proposal to Delay EITC Refunds
•
News reports quote Armey as saying that reports that House Republicans plan to delay EITC
payments next year as part of the Labor-HHS appropriations bill.
Details of the proposal are sketchy, but apparently the IRS would be required to pay EITC
refunds in monthly installments over a twelve-month period. According to Congressional
aides, taxpayers would also not be allowed to claim advance payments of the EITC
through their employers for tax year 2000.
As a result, about a quarter of EITC refunds- roughly $7 billion- for tax year 1999 would be
pushed into FY 2001, according to Treasury. (Press reports cite an estimate of $8
billion.)
•
The proposal would impose a tax increase on up to 20 million working families who expect to
receive the full amount of the credit when they file their tax return next winter and spring.
No other group of taxpayers is being asked to delay receipt of their tax refund.
•
It would be very difficult, if not impossible, for the IRS to implement this proposal. At this
late date, the IRS may not be able to change its computer programs for the next filing season
in order to pay out EITC refunds separately or any tax refund in installments.
•
Nearly 20 million low and moderate-income taxpayers will claim the EITC on 1999 tax returns.
They will claim an average EITC of $1,610. Those with children will receive, on average, an
EITC of$1,890. Most EITC claimants have income below $30,000. Nearly all EITC
payments are made during the filing season.
�Most claimants chose to receive the EITC at the end of the year in a lump-sum payment,
rather than advance payments during the course of the year. They have made decisions
about personal saving and consumption on the expectation of a large refund this spring.
Some may have planned to purchase a car or move to a better apartment when they receive
their EITC refunds. Others have borrowed money in the expectation of receiving an
EITC refund at the end of the year. Receiving the EITC in monthly payments will disrupt
those plans, and in some cases, impose further costs on taxpayers who do not have other
resources to fall back upon.
•
By choosing to receive the EITC at the end of the year, low-income taxpayers have already made
a significant interest-free loan to the government. Delaying the refund further is, in effect,
demanding that low-income taxpayers extend the loan to the government.
Many low-income taxpayers, caught by surprise by the delay of their refund, may hav.e to
borrow money from private sources. There is already a sizable refund-anticipation loan
market, which often charges high interest rates to low-income taxpayers who seek to
receive their EITC refund in advance. Delaying refunds will push more low-income
taxpayers into the refund anticipation loan market.
•
The IRS may not be able to cut twelve separate refund checks for EITC claimants.
Right now, the IRS is completing its testing of computer programs for the next filing season.
These programs are not set up to pay out the portion of refunds attributable to the EITC
separately or to make installment payments of any refund amount. At this late date, there
is not sufficient time to develop and adequately test new programs.
These programming changes would come on top of IRS efforts to meet the Y2K challenge.
•
The IRS will have special problems tracking down EITC recipients who move during the course
of the year. Under the proposal, there will be 12 opportunities for a refund check to be
misdirected, causing further hardship for the EITC recipients and increasing the IRS's
processing costs.
Low-income working people are more apt to move during the course of the year than those
with higher incomes.
�A Tax Increase on Working Families
The proposal to spread out payments of refunds of the EITC to working families over 12 months
is tantamount to a tax increase.
•
•
•
Families that would have saved their refunds will lose the interest that they would otherwise have
earned.
Families that would have used the money to pay off debt will be able to retire less debt because
they will incur more interest expense.
Families that would have used the money to purchase a consumer durable such as a car will have
to take out larger loans to do it.
Examples:
1.
A couple with two children earning $10,000 is planning to use their $3,816 EITC to purchase a
used car to get to work: Because the payments will be delayed over 12 months, they will
have to get a loan at 10 percent interest. As a result, they will only be able to afford a car
costing $3,617. Spreading out the EITC is tantamount to a tax of almost $200 to this
family.
2.
A single parent with one child and income of $20,000 expects to use their $1,103 refund to pay
off her credit card debt. If she receives the EITC in installments, she will have to pay
interest at 18 percent. As a result of the interest costs, she will end the year with $208 of
unpaid debt. That $208 is effectively an additional tax.
3.
For the typical EITC household, which receives a credit of$1,890, the interest free loan to the
government costs them almost $100 assuming a ten percent interest rate. At higher
interest rates, it costs them even more.
�09/24/99 08:30:02 PM
Record
Record Type:
To:
Terry Edmonds/WHO/EOP@EOP, Joshua S. Gottheimer/WHO/EOP@EOP
cc:
Subject:
1999 09/25 Radio Address
Here it is. Not yet released.
---------------------- Forwarded by Linda Ricci/OMB/EOP on 09/24/99 08:29PM --------------~------------
Record
Record Type:
To:
Melissa G. Green/OPD/EOP@EOP, Linda Ricci/OMB/EOP@EOP
CC:
Subject:
1999 09/25 Radio Address
Not yet released
---------------------- Forwarded by Megan C. Moloney/WHO/EOP on 09/24/99 08:08 PM ---------------------------
·:-~£"'
Record Type:
Margaret M. Suntum
09/24/99 05:54:45 PM
· Record
To:
Megan C. Moloney/WHO/EOP@EOP
cc:
Subject:
Jason H. Schechter/WHO/EOP@EOP
1999 09/25 Radio Address
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
September 25, 1999
RADIO ADDRESS OF THE PRESIDENT
�Washingtonpost.com: Budget Special Report
~L~
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/pol. .. pecial/budget/stories/congress092999.htm
Mu.sic. Tlwater
and More
FALL ARTS 1li:
ENTI!:RAINMENT
•
Hill Passes Temporary Spending Bill
By Eric Pianin and Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, September 29, 1999; Page AI
The Republican-controlled Congress voted
yesterday for a temporary spending
measure that would keep the government
open for another three weeks as it tries to
resolve internal differences over defense
and education spending and other issues in
next year's budget.
Partner Sites:
• Ncwswcek.con1
• OritanlliCIIIIltemet Guide
But lawmakers remained locked on a
confrontational course with President
Clinton, who has indicated he would veto
five or more spending bills because of
concern over GOP spending and policy
priorities. Just yesterday, the president
vetoed the D.C. appropriations bill
because of restrictions on local officials
added by congressional Republicans.
As they struggle to put together a spending
plan for next year, the White House and
GOP lawmakers are far apart on numerous
issues. Perhaps the biggest differences
involve Republican efforts to attack the
president's signature education and social
policy initiatives, such as hiring 100,000
new teachers and the AmeriCorps public
service program.
Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Aiaska).
(The 1'1;st)
From The Post
Bargaining Minimum
Wage Hike for Tax Cuts
(Sept. 28)
House Panel Backs Popular
Tax Credits' Renewal (Sept.
25)
Clinton Vetoes GOP Tax
Cut Rill (Sept. 24)
Hill GOP Leaders Try to
Avoid Shutdown (Sept. 23)
As Surplus Grows,
Agencies Feel Pinch as
Never Before (Sept. 21)
On Our Site
Transcripts:
GOP Reps. Ehrlich, Watts,
Mcintosh, Portman and
Thune on the Republican
tax plan.
Numerous other presidential irritants litter
the spending bills under consideration in
Congress: The GOP has axed Clinton's
request for funding for the Wye River
Democratic Reps. Frost and
peace accords, cut funds for low-income
Cardin discussed the
housing, inserted numerous provisions that Democratic side.
______ :.J ___
_:.J __ ---· ______ l.J --·--'·-·~:-1
I of4
9/2911999 II: 18 AM
�http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/pol ... pecial/budget/stories/congress092999.htm
Washingtonpost.com: Budget Special Report
prt::SlUt;HLli:il i:11Ut;:S
:say
WUUlU Wt;i:1Kt;ll
environmental protections and revived a
plan to delay the benefits of an earned
income tax credit for the working poor.
White House spokesman
Barry Toiv discussed the
White House position.
Negotiating over such issues may prove
especially troublesome this year because of GOP determination to
avoid a massive year-end spending bill. Convinced that they gave
away.the store to Clinton during budget talks last year, congressional
leaders stressed yesterday they would take a piecemeal approach this
time, responding to specific concerns ofthe administration without
seeking any comprehensive budget deal.
"Last year was a horrendous mistake of sitting down the president in
a summit situation," House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) said
during an appearance at the conservative Heritage Foundation. "He's
trying to push us there right now. We're not going."
But House and Senate Democratic leaders said the Republicans are
making a serious mistake by trying to pass the spending bills on their
own, and urged them to meet with White House officials and the
Democrats to fashion a more bipartisan spending approach.
"We need to stop the music" and work out a new budget plan,
declared House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.).
Senate Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) said the
Republicans are "digging themselves a hole that gets deeper and
deeper."
Yesterday the House and Senate approved a "continuing resolution"
to keep the government afloat through Oct. 21. The House approved
the measure 421 to 2, and the Senate followed with a 98 to 1 vote -with Sen. John D. Ashcroft (R-Mo.) voting no and Republican John
McCain (R-Ariz.) absent. The White House said Clinton will sign the
resolution.
With the new fiscal year scheduled to begin Friday, the move
essentially buys more time for all parties to come to a consensus on
next year's spending bills, without a politically embarrassing
government shutdown. Congress has finished work on only five of
the 13 annual spending bills, and only one of them, military
construction, has been signed into law.
Complicating the effort to reach agreement on such bills is the
looming 2000 election, in which control of Congress and the
presidency will be up for grabs, and both parties are maneuvering for
maximum political advantage.
House Republicans, for instance, are considering a
multimillion-dollar ad campaign attacking Clinton and the
Democrats for raiding the Social Security program to finance their
2 of4
9/29/1999 II :18 AM
�Washingtonpost.com: Budget Special Report
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/pol ... pecial!budgetlstories/congress092999.htm
spending initiatives. To try to buttress that point, the House voted
417 to 2 for a nonbinding, Republican measure urging lawmakers not
to spend surplus Social Security funds on the other operations of
government.
But Democrats belittled the GOP efforts, repeatedly touting a letter
from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office indicating that the
Republicans' spending policies already have eaten into next year's
Social Security surplus and that as much as $27 billion may be
consumed.
Rep. John M. Spratt Jr. (S.C.), the ranking Democrat on the House
Budget Committee, said the Republicans' claim to be safeguarding
the Social Security surplus was a "subterfuge" and a vain effort "to
shift blame for failure."
Congress did make some progress on spending measures yesterday,
reaching a compromise on the agricultural appropriations bill that
would include $8.7 billion in emergency aid and drought relief for
farmers. GOP leaders, however, did not go along with two provisions
sought by farmers in some parts of the country, one lifting sanctions
on food exports to Cuba and the other trying to help dairy farmers in
the South and Northeast. A federal judge in Vermont, however,
temporarily stopped new milk price rules that are opposed by the
southern and northeastern dairy producers from taking effect on
Friday. (Details, Page A16).
The decision on the dairy issue by House and Senate leaders, who
declined to even call negotiators back in session to approve the
agreement, left such northeastern lawmakers as Rep. James T. Walsh
(R-N.Y.) bitter.
"They just said, 'We're going forward, with or without you,'" Walsh
said. "It's insulting." While spending differences between the two
branches pose the greatest obstacle toward reaching a compromise,
other factors could complicate a final budget agreement.
Lawmakers have attached an array of provisions affecting the
environment to several bills, including measures preventing the
administration from collecting higher royalties from oil companies,
allow mining companies to dump more waste on federal lands,
defunding international efforts to fight ozone depletion, and giving
agencies the right to allow logging and road-building in national
forests without first conducting wildlife surveys.
The administration has indicated it will veto the Interior and
VA-HUD bills because of these provisions, known as "riders," and
Democrats predicted Clinton would follow through on these threats.
"The administration is determined this year to be very tough," Rep.
3 of4
9/29/1999 I 1: 18 AM
�http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/pol ... pecial/budget/stories/congress092999.htm
Washingtonpost.com: Budget Special Report
David R. Obey (D-Wis.) said of the environmental disputes. "They'll
give when they don't think it hurts, but they're not going to give when
they think they've got something important to defend."
House Majority Leader Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.), however,
questioned why Clinton would risk jeopardizing the otherwise
popular transportation spending bill by objecting to a provision
blocking stricter emissions standards for light trucks and sports utility
vehicles.
"We've already denied every soccer mom in the world her station
wagon. Now we're going to deny her an SUV?" Armey asked.
Staff writers Helen Dewar and Charles Babington contributed to this
report.
© 1999 The Washington Post Company
Back to the top
PRHH EDITIOU
4 of4
TOP NEWS
WORLD
HEAlTH
9/29/1999 II :18 AM
�http://www.pub.whitehouse.gov/uri-.. ./oma.eop.gov.us/199711 O/l/1.text.1
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
September 29, 1997
~s
o~~~E
BY THE PRESIDENT
AND POVERTY REPORT
The Briefing Room
11:03 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT:
I don't know if I can go on.
(Laughter.)
Good morn_ing.
This Friday will mark the sixth anniver_sary of the
day I announced my intention to run for President of the United States.
On that day, I challenged America to embrace an urgent mission for the
21st century, to preserve the American Dream, restore the hopes of the
forgotten middle class, and reclaim the future for our children.
As President, I have worked hard to set America on that track, to
fulfill that mission, putting in place a bold strategy to shrink the
deficit, invest in our people, and expand the sales of America's
products and services abroad.
I am pleased to announce today that we
have more evidence that our economic strategy is succeeding.
This morning, the Census Bureau released its annu~l Survey of
Income and Poverty in America.
It shows that last year the typical
family benefitted from a significant increase in income for the third
year in a row.
Since we launched our economic plan in 1993, the typical
family's annual income has risen by nearly $2,200 a year.
That's an
extra $2,200 that hard-working families can put toward their children's
education, a down payment on a home, or even a much needed vacation.
After years and years of stagnant family incomes, today's report proves
that America's middle class, no longer forgotten, is rising fast.
It should be noted that these figures do not reflect several other
dividends of prosperity we have delivered for the American people.
They
don't reflect the $500 per child tax credit, the $1,500 HOPE
Scholarship, the education IRAs, the real benefits of lower interest
rates and mortgage costs worth $1,000 a year or more to millions of
homeowners.
And rising incomes are also lifting families out of poverty.
The
report shows that while there is clearly much more to be done, the
African American poverty rate has fallen to its lowest level ever; the
income of the typical Hispanic household grew more last year than in any
single year on record; the child poverty rate has dropped in the past
three years, more than in any three-year period since the 1960s. A~d
the earned income tax credit, which we have dramatically expanded and
then fought hard to preserve, has raised more than 4 million people out
of poverty last year.
The report also shows we have more to do to extend opportunity to
all Americans.
Starting in the 1970s income inequality rose sharply.
Now, it has stabilized.
Since 1993, every income group has seen its
income rise, with those in the lowest 20 percent showing the fastest
gains -- thanks, in part, to the minimum wage, to more jobs, and to the
1 of3
9/29/1999 10:01 AM
�---------
- - - - - - - - -
http://www.pub.whitehouse.gov/uri-.. ./oma.eop.gov.us/1997/10/1/l.text.1
earned income tax credit, which is not measured in the statistics.
we still have to do more to grow together in the 21st century.
But
Let me say that this report also underscores another important
challenge, one that I have been concerned about for a long time.
Last
year, there were 800,000 more children without health insurance than the
year before.
However, thank goodness, many of these children will now
be eligible for coverage under the balanced budget's historic $24
billion child health initiative, which takes effect this week.
Two years ago we were fighting hard to save Medicaid's guarantee
to 4 million children.
Now we're looking forward to extending child
health insurance to another 5 million children. We have to work ·
together to encourage the states to take full advantage of this
opportunity and to make sure that the funds are spent actually insuring
children who do not have health insurance today.
To ensure that all our people benefit from the growing economy we
also have to make sure that our people have access to the world's best
education, with high standards in the basics. And we have to address
the pressing issue of child care.
That is another thing that would help
to alleviate press_ures on middle and lower income working farnil_ies'
households.
The first ever White House Conference on Child Care will be held
later this fall.
It will focus on how we can help parents to succeed at
horne and work through quality, affordable child care.
In all these ways
we can continue to fulfill what I started out to do six years ago -preserving the American Dream, restoring the middle class, reclaiming
the future for our children.
But this is good news. And now, Janet
Yellen and Gene Sperling will be able to answer questions about the
details of the proposals. Thank you.
Q What do you think is the chance of getting campaign finance
reform through this session this year?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I hope it's good.
It's certainly better
than it was a month ago.
Obviously, there is still strong opposition to
it in the leadership of the Republican Party and they're in the majority
in Congress.
But I've seen some encouraging signs in the Senate and,
frankly, I've seen some encouraging signs in the House with some
Republican members willing to speak up and say that we ought to do
something.
So I'm quite hopeful that we will get something.
I know this -- if we just -- the way these things work, if we can
succeed in keeping the public spotlight on the debate, then the pressure
will build to,corne out with something positive. And I have done what I
could and I'm very proud of our caucus in the Senate for doing what it
has done.
The Democrats have clearly come out unanimously for some
for campaign finance reform. And we've just go to keep the public
spotlight on this and keep going until we get legislation.
Q Mr. President, many states -- California, Texas, Florida
acknowledge that they're going to fail the first real test of the new
welfare law, the requirement that they have 75 percent of two-parent
welfare families in jobs and job training by this week. Will HHS impose
fines that -- on the states? And what does it shake your confidence,
this failure -- shake your confidence in the new welfare law?
THE PRESIDENT:
No, because, first of all -- let me answer the
second question first.
It doesn't shake my confidence in the law,
because we have succeeded, I think, beyond anybody's expectations,
partly from the growing economy and partly from welfare reform efforts,
in reducing the welfare rolls more than they have ever been reduced in a
comparable time period, ever.
2 of3
9/2911999 10:01 AM
�http://www.pub.whitehouse.gov/uri-.. ./oma.eop.gov.us/1997 /1 O/l/1.text.1
We've had 20 years of immigration in our country at high
Many of the immigrants coming here come without many resources
want to work their way into the American Dream, so we've had a
people coming in here, and yet we've been successful in having
smallest percentage of our people on welfare since 1970.
levels.
and they
lot of
the
So my answer to you is, I want to keep high standards and I want
them enforced, because we've block-granted the money to the states they
asked for.
After all, they supported the law.
They said we could keep
the federal guarantee for health care and food stamps, nutrition, which
I insisted on, but they pointed out they already had the freedom to set
different welfare reimbursement levels every month, so they wanted
control of that pot of money so they would have more flexibility to move
people from welfare to work.
And in return, they agreed to these
targets.
So I think we just need to keep pushing ahead.
In terms of what
should be done, obviously I want to consult with our people at HHS and
others to do what is best.
But I think most states really are working
hard and in good faith to try to do this.
I think that they know that's
what the voters want 9nd most importantly, that's what the people ~n
welfare want.
So we don't want to just forget about our high standards,
especially when we've proven we can hire a lot more people than we ever
thought we could.
Q You mentioned Republicans in the House.
This weekend, Speaker
Gingrich was unusually caustic, accusing your staff and your lawyers of
blocking pursuit of the truth in law.
Have you looked back at your
records and the phone calls that you have made and come to any new
conclusion about your own involvement?
THE PRESIDENT:
First of all, I think -- no, I have not come to
any new conclusion.
But I think the remarks this weekend were an
attempt to divert the public attention from the fact that the leadership
of the Republican Party in the House opposes campaign finance reform,
and has consistently, and continues to do so.
But I am encouraged that along with our Democrats who are
supporting it, there are an increasingly vocal band of brave Republicans
willing to stick up and be for it. And again, this is our chance to
pass this bill and I think we'd all be making a mistake to be diverted.
I don't intend to be.
Thank you.
Q Mr. President, any reason to believe Arafat is moving against
Hamas?
THE PRESS:
END
3 of3
Thank you.
11:13 A.M. EDT
9/29/1999 10:01 AM
�PAGE
20
6TH STORY of Focus printed in FULL format.
Copyright 1998 Federal Document Clearing House, Inc.
FDCH Political Transcripts
October 11, 1998,.Sunday
TYPE: STAKEOUT
LENGTH: 1672 words
HEADLINE:
MAKES REMARKS ON BUDGET NEGOTIATIONS; WASHINGTON, D.C.
SPEAKER:
WILLIAM J. CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
BODY:
PRESIDENT CLINTON MAKES REMARKS ON THE ONGOING BUDGET
NEGOTIATIONS
OCTOBER 11, 1998
SPEAKER: WILLIAM J. CLINTON, PRESI.DENT OF THE UNITED STATES
*
CLINTON: In only 447 days when the 21st century begins, a century in which
our nation's children will matter more than ever before. Yet far too many of our
schools are not ready for that new century. We've all seen the news story about
teachers teaching classes in subjects they didn't major in in college; about
schools so over crowded they have trailers out back to handle .their over flow;
about class rooms with 35 or more students, all dying for a minute of attention
from the teachers; about schools so old they can't be connected to the Internet.
This can be changed, but we can not afford to wait and we all wait for the
Republican majority in Congress to bring the issue of education investment bill
to the floor.
The delay must end on education and Congress must choose progress
over partisanship. We need a strong bipartisan bill.
Just a few days ago, I had the honor of signing into law such a bill to open
the doors wider to higher education and in just the last two days, Republicans
and Democrats have worked together to pass strong charter schools and vocational
education measures and I'd like to thank Senator Jeffords, Senator Kennedy,
Senator Coats, Congressman Goodling and Clay and Roemer for that.
Now it's time once again for Congress to cross party lines and send me an
education budget that I can sign that is worthy of our children and their
future.
This bill must make the right investments in our children's future.
must include a strong down payment on my request for 100,000 teachers for
smaller classes in the early grades. It must invest in academically enriched
after school and summer school programs to keep kids in school and out of
trouble.
It
�PAGE
21
FDCH Political Transcripts, October 11, 1998
FOCUS
•" We must invest in modernized schools for our children. We can not raise
students up in buildings that are falling down. Any budget that does not do
anything to help modernize our schools, to give our children safe and clean
places to learn, does not fully prepare them for the 21st century.
Tomorrow
night, defending to keep the government open expires again.
Senator Daschle, Congressman Gephardt, the Democratic colleagues and I will
work with the Republican majority to do the right thing for our country. We
must pass the budget to explicitly responsible, that honors our values that
invest in the education of our children.
That is the most important thing we
can do in this long running Congress.
QUESTION: Mr. President, the Republican leaders are saying this morning that
if you were serious about reaching this budget deal, that you were stay in
Washington instead of going on to fundraisers tomorrow and the following day?
CLINTON: Well let me first of all say that in the State of the Union in
January, I sent a program to Congress to save the surplus until Social Security
is fixed, to invest in education as I just described, to pass the patient's bill
of rights, to keep our economy going amidst all this economic turmoil in the
world.
In February I sent them a balanced budget with the same education program in
it.
This is the first time in 24 years they did pass a budget in 24 years. Now
they have turned their attention to this and we're making progress in that.
I
worked .on it yesterday, I am prepared to do whatever it takes to work with them
now that they have turned their attention to this to get the job done, but in
the end it is their votes -- we are progressively working with them to resolve
this -- but they have to decide that they will agree with us after this whole
year, that it is a priority, that we are going to do it and that we're goi
do it now.
QUESTION: Mr. President, will you sign another continuing resolution if
Congress passes one? Dick Armey said today that he felt one was needed.
CLINTON: You mean for a couple of days?
QUESTION: That's right.
CLINTON: Well, sure. We're not going to shut the government down if we're
working on this, of course. No one's interested in doing that and I just want
to get this job done.
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD GEPHARDT (D-MO), HOUSE MINORITY LEADER: Mr.
President, can I add an answer, this Congress has been here probably less than
most Congress' but what I'm worried about is not when they're not here -- what
I'm worried about is when they are here. They've killed campaign reform,
they've killed the tobacco bill, they've killed all the education legislation
the president has sent, they've killed patients' bill of rights, they tried to
spend the surplus on a tax cut rather than saving it for Social Security.
�PAGE
22
FDCH Political Transcripts, October 11, 1998
FOCUS
• They shouldn't be worried about whether the president is here or not.
The
president's here, the president sent the bills.
I'm worried about what they do
when they are here.
They kill everything that the American people want and
that's what they've got to work on to do the things people want done.
QUESTION: Mr. President you characterize this as a do nothing Congress, do
you think, with the results of the upcoming election, will it be a referendum on
your presidency? You're going to run against this Congress, do you think the
election results will be a referendum on your presidency?
CLINTON: Well first of all, I intend to -- I'm not running, but what I do
intend to do is to bring the issues to the American people. The American people
will have to decide if they believe that Social Security should be saved before
this surplus is spent for other things.
The American people will have to decide whether they really want a patients'
bill rights that guarantees people in HMOs the right to see a specialist or go
to the nearest emergency room or have their medical records private or finish a
treatment for chemotherapy or pregnancy before they can forced to change
doctors.
These are the kinds of decisions the American will have to make about what
they want for their future.
What I'd like to see is this election to be about
the American people in the near future -- not about Washington, D.C. because I
think this last year could have been and should have been about the people in
America and not about Washington, D.C.
That is the decision for them and I
trust them, I think they'll make the right decision.
END
NOTES:
???? - Indicates Speaker Unkown
- Could not make out what was being said.
off mike - Indicates Could not make out what was being said.
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PERSON: WILLIAM JEFFERSON 'BILL' CLINTON (94%); DANIEL R COATS (50%); EDWARD M
KENNEDY (50%); JAMES M JEFFORDS (50%);
LOAD-DATE: October 11, 1998
�Page 1 of3
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
September 27, 1999
For Immediate Release
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
UPON DEPARTURE
The Rose Garden
8:11A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning.
In a few moments I will be leaving
for Louisiana.
But before I depart, I want to say a few words about the
course we're charting for America's future.
Seven years ago when I ran for president, it was a time of low
growth, high interest rates and high unemployment, a vicious cycle,
driven by deepening deficits.
Irresponsible policies had quadrupled our
national debt and risked our future.
Vice President Gore and I took office determined to change all
that. We put in place a new strategy for the new economy -- one founded
on fiscal discipline, expanded trade and investment in our people and
modern technology.
The success of that strategy now is clearer than
ever.
By balancing the budget, we put in motion a virtuous cycle of
budget surpluses, low interest rates and low unemployment.
For business, this makes it easier to invest, to create jobs,
wealth and opportunity. And for working people, lower interest rates
makes it easier to own a home, afford a car, send a child to college.
Today, we received more good news that our strategy is working.
According to the Office of Management and Budget, this year's budget
surplus will be at least -- I'm going to write this in, enjoy it -- at
least $115 billion.
This triple-digit surplus is larger than projected,
larger than last year's, and larger, in fact, than any dollar surplus in
the history of the United States.
It is a landmark achievement for our
economy. And when you consider where we were just seven years ago, it's
as great an American comeback as the Ryder Cup was yesterday.
It is
further proof that we're on the right road to prosperity.
Our nation has come a long way in a short time.
In 1992, the
budget deficit was $290 billion, projected to rise above $400 billion
this year.
Instead, as you can see, we have posted back-to-back
surpluses for two years in a row and, believe it or not, that's the
first time this has happened since 1957. Now, in 1957, well, that was
the year John Lennon first met Paul McCartney, and the Braves won the
World Series -- not the Atlanta Braves, the Milwaukee Braves.
Our prosperity now gives us an unprecedented opportunity and an
unprecedented responsibility to shape America's future by putting first
things first, by moving forward with an economic strategy that is
successful and sound, and by meeting America's long-term challenges.
In that spirit, I have asked the Republicans in Congress not to
throw in the towel, but to work with me and congressional Democrats to
do the work the people elected us to do -- to save Social Security with·
a lockbox that extends in solvency until 2050, to strengthen and
modernize Medicare with a long-overdue prescription drug benefit, to
http://www.pub.whitehouse.gov/uri-res/12R?um:pdi://oma.eop.gov.us/1999/9/27/11.text.1
9/29/1999
�Page 2 of3
invest in world-class education for our children, and to protect
important priorities, from national security to the environment and
agriculture, to medical research and modern technology, to investment
incentives for rural and urban areas that have not yet been touched by
our prosperity.
We can do all that and still have an affordable tax cut for the
middle class, and pay down our debt so that by 2015, we are debt-free
for the first time since 1835 when Andrew Jackson was President.
I will
work with members of both parties to fulfill these fundamental
obligations to our people and to our future.
I hope they will work with
me.
Thank you very much.
Q
Mr. President
Q
Will you veto Republican spending bills if they exceed the caps?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I gave them a budget, of course, that did not
break the caps, but it would require them to raise some revenues from
tobacco.
But the main thing that I wQuld say is, I want them to work
with me to meet our fundamental priorities. We can give the American
people an honest, credible budget that extends the life of Social
Security and Medicare, meets our responsibilities in education and other
important areas, and leaves us free to pay down that debt and to put
America on a target to be debt-free in the next 15 years.
I hope they
will work with me in that spirit.
We have to come together and work together to get anything done,
and we can do that.
I cite these examples over and over again, but the
Welfare Reform Act in 1996, coming on top of the initiatives we had
taken in the previous three years has now given us the lowest welfare
rolls in 32 years. And the Balanced Budget Act completed the work of
the economic package of 1993, and we now have this $115-billion surplus.
So the American people know we can do things together, and that's how
we're going to have to do this.
Q Do you still plan to offer a plan to reform Social Security? The
White House had promised more than a year ago that there would be one
after the last election.
THE PRESIDENT: We have met several times, as you probably know, at
various levels with members in the House, and we have tried to get close
to an agreement on that.
The reason I said what I said today is that if
they would just agree to my plan on paying down the debt and then
dedicating a few years of the interest savings by locking up the Social
Security taxes, which would happen a few years in the future, but if
they would agree to do that, then that, alone, would extend the life of
Social Security to 2050, which would take us out beyond the life
expectancy of all but the most fortunate baby boomers.
So I would hope
that at least we could do that.
that.
Obviously, I would like to do more, and we're still working on
But at the minimum, we could do this.
Q Sir, there's every indication Republicans will not work with you.
But in the meantime, where does the American taxpayer stand in this
battle between your rock and their hard place?
THE PRESIDENT: Oh,
the other, the taxpayers
pretty well by conflict,
where we've at least got
I think if the past is any measure, one way or
are going to be all right, because we can do
I suppose, and eventually drag this out to
a decent education budget and we're still
http://www.pub.whitehouse.gov/uri-res/12R?um:pdi://oma.eop.gov. us/1999/9/27/11. text.1
9/29/1999
�Page 3 of3
paying down the debt.
But they have to work with me if we're going to
extend the life of Medicare and Social Security and do some of these
other very important things.
I'm not pessimistic; we've still got plenty of time.
I know it's )
almost the end of the fiscal year, but they know how to extend that;
they've done that several times by passing a continuing resolution, and
there's still plenty of time to do this and I hope they'll do it with
me. •
Q Mr. President, will our relations with Indonesia remain the same '
while they're torturing the villages?
THE PRESIDENT:
Will their what?
Q Will relations with Indonesia remain the same as the villages are
being torched -- torched, sorry.
THE PRESIDENT:
They've already been somewhat altered, as you know,
by the cessation of military cooperation, and obviously, our
relationships with them will have to be dictated by the course of their
conduct. As you know, they have a somewh?t unusual system where they
have elections.
They had elections several weeks ago, but they still
haven't settled on who the new leader of the country will be.
This is a time of great instability and uncertainty for them. We
should stand against those actions which violate human rights and which
are wrong, but we should also hope that both stability and humane
policies will be returned to Indonesia as soon as possible.
It is a
very large country with 200 million people, the largest Muslim country
in the world and capable, as we have seen periodically over the last few
years, of enormous progress and capable of playing an important,
positive role in the future of Asia, and that's what I hope and pray
will happen.
But it will require responsible leadership from Indonesia,
as well as appropriate responses from the United States and others.
Thank you very much.
END
8:22 A.M. EDT
http://www.pub.whitehouse.gov/uri-res/I2R?um:pdi://oma.eop.gov.us/1999/9/27/ll.text.l
9/29/1999
�ADDRESSING OUR REMAINING CHALLENGES
September 24, 1998
TODAY'S CENSUS REPORT ON INCOME AND POVERTY IS GOOD NEWS FOR
AMERICA. WHILE WE HAVE MADE MUCH PROGRESS IN THE LAST SYz YEARS,
TODAY'S REPORT HIGHLIGHTS SOME OF THE CHALLENGES THAT REMAIN.
•
•
Typical Family Income Stagnated For 20 Years. During the 20 years before President
Clinton took office, median family income stagnated. Since 1993, the typical family's
income has increased $3,517, adjusted for inflation. But this is not enough. That is why
President Clinton fought-- and will continue to fight --for policies that help raise incomes
and families' take-home pay.
*
$500 Child Tax Credit For 26 Million Families with Over 40 Million Children
Under Age 17. The balanced budget legislation that the President negotiated with the
Congress includes a $500 per-child tax credit for children under age 17, which will
benefit 26 million families with over 40 million children. For the typical American
family with two kids, this child tax credit will mean $1,000 more per year in
take-home pay.
*
Education Tax Breaks. The balanced budget deal also includes a $1,500 Hope
Scholarship to make the first two years of college universally available, and a
20-percent tuition tax credit for college juniors, seniors, graduate students, and
working Americans pursuing lifelong learning. For a student attending the average
four-year college, these education tax incentives will provide tax savings of up to
$5,000. [Source: Department of the Treasury]
*
Lower Mortgage Rates Saved Families Thousands. President Clinton's 1993
Economic Plan cut the deficit more than 92 percent before the Balanced Budget Act
even took effect. Experts -- including Alan Greenspan -- agree that this deficit
reduction led to a drop in interest rates. And according to the New York Times and
Money, these lower interest rates saved the 10 million families who refinanced their
home mortgages $1,000 to $2,000 per year, On average. [Source: New York Times, 8/3/96; Money,
8/96]
While Every Income Group Has Experienced A Real Income Increase Under President
Clinton, Income Inequality Remains a Problem. After 20 years of rising, income
inequality has stabilized under President Clinton. Since 1993, every income group
--from the 1110st well-off to the poorest-- experienced a real increase in their
income. But, in 1997, the Gini coefficient-- a measure of inequality-- has increased
slightly, even though the change was not statistically significant. That is why President
Clinton fought-- and will continue to fight --for policies that help low-income families
make ends meet, while they rise up the economic ladder.
*
Expanded EITC Puts Money Back in Working Families' Pockets. The President
fought for a substantial expansion in the Earned Income Tax Credit in 1993 -- the
average family with two kids that received the EITC got a tax cut of $1,026. In 1997,
the EITC lifted 4.3 million out of poverty-- that's 2.2 million more people than
were lifted out of poverty by the EITC in 1993.
�*
Minimum Wage Hike Increases Pay By $1,800 for Full-Time Worker. The
President fought for and won a minimum wage increase to $5.15 per hour for nearly 10
million workers. For someone working at $4.25 per hour, that was a raise of 90-cents
per hour-- or $1,800 per year for a full-time worker. Now, the President is fighting for
another minimum wage increase -- $1 over two years -- to raise the wages of 12 million
workers and help ensure that parents who work hard and play by the rules can raise their
children out of poverty.
*
Fought To Ensure Low-Income Families Benefitted from Child Tax Credit.
Because of the President's efforts, 12 million children from families with incomes
below $30,000 will receive the tax credit-- up to 7.5 million more than under the
House plans. Families making under $30,000 -- such as young teachers, police
officers, farmers, nurses and others who work hard and play by the rules -- will now
receive the child credit. [Source: Department of the Treasury]
*
AmeriCorps College Support. AmeriCorps has given nearly 100,000 people the
opportunity to receive college support by serving their communities and their country.
*
Expanded Head Start By Nearly 60 Percent-- Over $1.5 Billion Higher Per Year.
Since 1993, President Clinton and Congressional Democrats have expanded Head
Start by 57 percent, from $2.8 billion in FY93 to $4.4 billion in FY98. The program
now serves an estimated 830,000 children and the President's budget goes further on
the way to his target of one million children in Head Start. The budget increases Head
Start funding by $313 million for FY99, which would mean Head Start funding would
be 68-percent higher in 1999 than in 1993. The evidence shows that Head Start
increases test scores and improves performance for white and Hispanic children.
*
Increased WIC -- $1 Billion Higher. Under President Clinton, participation in WIC
has expanded by 1. 7 million -- from 5. 7 million in 1993 to 7.4 million women, infants,
and children in 1998, with funding rising from $2.9 billion to $3.9 billion. The
President's budget proposes $4.1 billion in WIC funding to serve 7.5 million women,
infants, and children in 1999, fulfilling his goal of full participation in WIC. Research
shows that every $1 increase in the prenatal care portion of the WIC program cuts
between $1.77 and $3.90 in medical expenses in the first 60 days following childbirth.
*
More than Doubled Dislocated Worker Funding. President Clinton have more than
doubled funding for dislocated workers, from $517 million in FY93 to $1 ,3 51 million in
FY98. The program will assist over 600,000 workers, up almost 100 percent since FY93.
The FY99 budget increases dislocated worker funding by $100 million, so that we
would provide nearly triple the amount of dollars as in 1993.
*
Expanded Pell Grants. President Clinton and Congressional Democrats have
increased the Pell Grant maximum grant amount from $2,470 in FY96 to $3,000 in
1998. The FY99 budget proposes $249 million more for Pell Grants, which would
help increase the maximum by another $100 to $3,100-- the highest ever. This would
reach 3.9 million low- and middle-income undergraduates. If the President's budget
were enacted, the maximum grant would be 25-percent higher than in 1996.
�KEY FACTS on CENSUS INCOME AND POVERTY REPORT
September 24, 1998
TODAY, THE CENSUS BUREAU RELEASED THEIR ANNUAL REPORT ON INCOME
AND POVERTY IN AMERICA FOR 1997. HERE ARE SOME OF THE RESULTS:
Broad-Based Income Gains:
•
Typical Household Income Up 1.9 Percent in 1997. Income for the median
household rose $699, from $36,306 in 1996 to $37,005 in 1997, adjusted for
inflation.
•
Typical Family Income Up $3,517 Since 1993. Another measure of income-family income, which excludes single individuals and counts only related
members in any household-- shows a similar trend. Last year, the median
family's income, adjusted for inflation, increased 3.0 percent (or $1 ,297) --the
fourth consecutive annual rise. Since President Clinton's Economic Plan passed
in 1993, median family income has increased from $41,051 in 1993 to $44,568
in 1997 --that's a $3,517 increase in income, adjusted for inflation. From 1988
to 1992, median family income fell $1,835, adjusted for inflation.
•
Under President Clinton, The Typical African-American Household's Income Is
Up $3,354. The median income of African-American households rose 4.3 percent
(or $1 ,029) last year. And since 1993, the median income of African-American
households has increased from $21,696 to $25,050 --that's $3,354 or a 15-percent
increase, adjusted for inflation, between 1993 and 1997.
•
Income of Typical Hispanic Household Up $2,553 in Past Two Years. In
1997, the income of the median Hispanic household, adjusted for inflation,
increased from $25,477 in 1996 to $26,628 in 1997 --that's an increase of
$1,151 or 4.5 percent. Over the past two years, the income of the typical
Hispanic household has risen $2,553 -- or nearly 11 percent-- the largest
two-y~ar increase in Hispanic income on record.
•
After Rising Sharply for 20 Years, Inequality Has Stabilized. After rising for
nearly 20 years, income inequality has not changed significantly over the past
four years. Since 1993, every income group --from the most well-off to the
poorest -- experienced a real increase in their income.
•
Earnings for Typical Workers Up. Last year, the earnings of the median
full-time, year-round male rose 2.4 percent, from $32,882 in 1996 to $33,674 in
1997 and the earnings of the median full-time, year-round female rose 3.0
percent, from $24,254 in 1996 to $24,973 in 1997. This means that the
female-to-male ratio remained at 74 percent-- its all-time high.
Reductions in Poverty:
�•
Poverty Rate Fell To 13.3 Percent in 1997 --Down from 15.1 Percent in 1993. In
1997, the poverty rate dropped to 13.3 percent from 13.7 percent the year before.
Since President Clinton signed his Economic Plan into law, the poverty rate has
declined from 15.1 percent in 1993 to 13.3 percent last year. That means that there
are 3.7 million fewer people in poverty today than in 1993. (In 1997, the poverty
threshold was $16,400 for a family of four.)
•
The African-American Poverty· Rate Down To Its Lowest Level on Record.
While the African-American poverty rate is still far above the poverty rate for
whites, it declined from 28.4 percent in 1996 to 26.5 percent in 1997 --that's its
lowest level recorded since data were first collected in.1959. Since 1993, the
African-American poverty rate has dropped from 33.1 percent to 26.5 percent -that's the largest four-year drop in African-American poverty in more than a
quarter century (1967 -1971 ).
•
Last Year, Largest Hispanic Poverty Drop In Two Decades. Last year, the
Hispanic poverty rate dropped from 29.4 percent to 27.1 percent-- that's the
largest one-year drop in Hispanic poverty since 1978. While there is still more
work to do, since President Clinton took office, Hispanic poverty has dropped
from 30.6 percent to 27.1 percent.
•
Under President Clinton, Largest Four-Year Drop in Child Poverty Since
1960s. While the child poverty rate remains high, in 1997, it declined from 20.5
percent to 19.9 percent. Under President Clinton, the child poverty rate has
declined from 22.7 percent to 19.9 percent --that's the biggest four-year drop in
nearly 30 years (1965-1969).
•
Elderly Poverty Rate As Low As It's Ever Been. In 1997, the elderly poverty
rate dropped to 10.5 percent, from 10.8 percent in 1996. The elderly poverty
rate is now as low as it's ever been-- it was also 10.5 percent in 1995.
•
Child Poverty Among African-Americans Down To Lowest Level on Record. In
1997, the African-American child poverty rate fell from 39.9 percent to 37.2 percent
--its lowest level on record (data collected since 1959). Since 1993, the child
poverty rate among African-Americans has dropped from 46.1 percent to 37.2
percent-- that's the biggest four-year drop on record.
•
Hispanic Child Poverty Dropped More Last Year Than Any Year on Record.
In 1997, the Hispanic child poverty rate dropped from.40.3 perc~nt to 36.8
percent-- that's the largest one-year drop on record (data collected since 1976).
Since 1993, the child poverty rate among Hispanics has declined from 40.9
percent to 36.8 percent.
•
4.3 Million People Lifted Out of Poverty By EITC -- Double The Number in 1993.
In 1993, President Clinton expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit, providing a tax
cut for low-income working families. In 1997, the EITC lifted 4.3 million people out of
�poverty -- that's double the number of people lifted out of poverty by the EITC in
1993. In 1997, the EITC lifted 2.2 million children, 1.1 million African-Americans,
and nearly 1.2 million Hispanics out of poverty.
�Page 1 of 1
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the
For Immediate Release
P~ess
Secretary
October 23,
1997
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
I am pleased to have signed into law today House Joint Resolution
97, the second short-term continuing resolution for fiscal year 1998.
The resolution provides 1998 appropriations for continuing projects
and activities of the Federal Government through November 7, 1997,
except those funded by the five bills that I have already signed into
law.
I urge the Congress to approve the remaining 1998- spending bills
that include the items contained in the Bipartisan Budget Agreement and
to provide funding for other priority programs.
To give the Congress
time to adopt such bills, I have approved this second continuing
resolution.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
THE WHITE HOUSE,
October 23, 1997.
# # #
http://www.pub.whitehouse.gov/uri-res/I2R?um:pdi://oma.eop.gov.us/1997/10/27/8.text.1
9/29/1999
�Page 1 of 1
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
e Release
September 30, 1997
THE PRESIDENT
I am pleased to have signed into law today House Joint Resolution 94,
a short-term continuing resolution for fiscal 1998.
The Act provides 1998 appropriations for continuing projects and
activities of the Federal Government through October 23, 1997, except
those funded by the Military Construction Appropriations Act, 1998,
which I signed into law earlier today~
On May 2, 1997, I reached agreement with the congressional leadership
on an historic Bipartisan Budget Agreement that balances the budget
while honoring our values.
Over the next few months, my Administration
worked closely with the leadership to translate the agreement into law.
On August 5, I was proud to sign two key elements of the agreement -the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and the Taxpayers Relief Act of 1997.
As the current fiscal year comes to a close, we must work together to
enact the third element of the agreement, the appropriations bills for
fiscal 1998.
But to date, in a number of important instances, the Congress has
failed to address matters specifically called for under the agreement.
In certain other instances, the Congress has addressed policy issues
in ways that make the pending appropriations bills unacceptable.
I
urge the Congress to approve 1998 spending bills that include the
items contained in the agreement and to provide funding for other
priority programs.
To give the Congress time to adopt such bills,
continuing resolution.
I have approved this
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
THE WHITE HOUSE,
September 30, 1997.
# # #
http://www.pub.whitehouse.gov/uri-res/12R?um:pdi://oma.eop.gov.us/1997/10/1/13.text.1
9/29/1999
�Page 1 of8
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
January 25, 1996
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
AT THE RECEPTION FOR THE
U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS
The East Room
3:02 P.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: Mayor Rice; Mayor Daley; Mayor Helmke, my
old classmate, it's good to see you here.
Mr. Vice President, you are
the only person in the country that could have transformed a straight
man routine into the best comedy act in America.
(Laughter.)
I used to be able to be on a platform with someone I liked,
and when they cracked a joke I'd just write it down. And when no one
else was looking I would use it.
(Laughter.)
All of his jokes are now
so carefully bound to the persona he has created -- (laughter) -- they
aren't stealable.
They don't even need to be patented anymore.
(Laughter.)
We are, all of us, very glad to have you here.
I speak for
Secretary Cisneros, Secretary Pena, for Carol Browner. We're glad to
have you here in your house.
I want to say a word of thanks to Tom Cochran for being a
good representative of your interests and your concerns and of working
so closely with Marcia Hale and others here in the White House.
I want
to thank you for the work you do every day and for, so many of you, who
have made me feel welcome over the last three years as I've come to your
cities.
As I said in the State of the Union a couple of days ago,
the state of the Union is strong. We have the lowest combined rates of
unemployment and inflation we've had in 27 years. We've had 7.8 million
new jobs.
Those big numbers don't mean much to people; they really want
to know how they are doing in their communities, how is it on my block.
But I think we can take some encouragement from knowing that the
unemployment rate has dropped 3.5 percent in Detroit; it's about 4.5
percent total in Chicago; it's dropped to under 5 percent in
Philadelphia; 2 percent decline in Los Angeles; 2.5 percent decline in
New York. We could go through city and city and community after
community to say that.
That is good news.
It is good news that our country is helping peace to take
root around the world, from the Middle East to Bosnia.
It is good news
that all over our country we see a lot of the social indicators that
have troubled so many of us for so long turning around -- the crime
rate, the welfare rolls, the food stamp rolls, the poverty rate, the
teen pregnancy rate -- all down over the last two to three years.
That
is very, very good news.
http://www.pub.whitehouse.gov/uri-res/I2R?um:pdi://oma.eop.gov.us/1996/1/25/5.text.1
9/29/1999
�---------------------·-
Page 2 of8
But we also know that we've got a lot of work to do. And
we know the world is changing very quickly. And we know that there are
an awful lot of Americans that have not been privileged to participate
in this recovering economy. And we know that saying that all these
things are going down masks the fact that the crime rate, the welfare
rolls, the food stamp rates, the poverty rolls, the teen pregnancy
rates, they're all still far too high, unacceptably high.
In the State of the Union address, as I was preparing for
it, I really tried to say to myself, if I were in anybody's living room,
what would I say to them.
If I were just talking to one family about
what the future of our country would be like five years from now, 10
years from now, 20 years from now, what is it I would say that we have
to do to keep the American Dream alive for all of our people; to keep
this country coming together and moving together around its basic
values, and to maintain the leadership of the United States in the
world?
That is what I tried to talk about on Tuesday night.
I
think we should start with our families because we know now that
families that work together and stay together are almost never in
poverty. We_ know that their children are far less likely_ to have the
problems which have consumed so much of our time and our emotions and so
much of the public treasure.
An important part of helping our families is passing the
right kind of welfare reform, not the wrong kind of welfare reform.
I
believe, since almost every parent in America has to work to make ends
meet, whether in a one- or a two-parent household, it is perfectly
acceptable to require people on welfare who can work to work.
I think
we ought to do that. We ought to be moving people from dependence to
independence.
But it's also important to remember that we want people
to succeeds as parents and as workers, and that all of us have -- our
first job is to our children.
That's why I say that I hope we can reach a bipartisan
agreement on a welfare reform bill that will be very tough when it comes
to work requirements and time limits and child support enforcement, but
will understand we need adequate child care, and we need adequate
support for those children because, what we really want in America is
for every single parent to be able,to succeed at home and at work.
The second great challenge we have is to provide our people
with the educational opportunities they need for the 21st century.
The
1990 Census had, if you went through all of the data, it had one
stunning piece of information that I personally felt was the most
important information I got out of the '90 Census.
It was the first
time we could see from 1990 to 1980, looking backward, one clear reason
for the growing inequality in America.
Why were so many middle class
people working harder and harder and not getting ahead? Why was the
rising tide not lifting all boats? If you look at the '90 Census, you
will see Americans who had at least two years of education after high
school tended to get jobs that they were able to keep, where the incomes
tended to grow; those who didn't were in the other boat.
We have got to create a whole set of opportunities in
education that will sustain the American Dream for everyone. We've got
to get more parents and teachers able to run their own schools and able
to have flexibility from red tape, but they ought to have national
standards of excellence and a recognized way of measuring it. And
people should be held accountable for results -- more flexibility to
meet higher standards. And one of the things that we can do together,
one of the things the national government can do is to implement this
initiative that the Vice President has worked with the
http://Www.pub.whitehouse.gov/uri-res/I2R?urn:pdi://oma.eop.gov.us/1996/1/25/5.text.l
9/29/1999
�Page 3 of8
telecommunications industry to develop to hook up every school in every
library in America to the Internet by the year 2000 -- every single
classroom -- and make sure that we not only have a hook-up, but that we
have good software and skilled teachers, so that every single one of our
children will be part of the information age. We're committed to that.
The third thing I think we have to recognize is that in
this increasingly mobile economy we have to redefine what security means
to a working family.
It's amazing, the Fortune 500 companies keep
laying off people, but there have been more people hired by just -- only
by businesses owned by women in the last three years than have been laid
off by the Fortune 500.
Interesting statistic. There is that much
dynamism in this economy. And all this change is real exciting, unless
-- except in the times when you come out on the short end.
Golly,
elections are exciting, unless you don't win them.
(Laughter.)
Then
they're less interesting.
So the big picture is very exciting.
But we have always
recognized that the American people who are working hard and playing by
the rules, obeying the law and doing the very best they could were
entitled to some level of security.
Let me just give you one example about how the old security
systems don't work. And a lot of you, particularly before you became
public officials, I'm sure were involved in unemployment system as
employers or employees, where you paid -- if you were an employer you
paid tax to the unemployment system.
The unemployment system was a
great idea the way it worked for decades.
You paid the money in, and
then when times were tough and you had to lay your workers off they
could at least draw a living wage, a little less than they were making,
but a living wage until you called them back.
For decades, 85 percent of the people who were laid off
from work were called back to the job from which they were laid off.
Today, over 80 percent of the people who are laid off are not called
back to the job from which they were laid off because of the changes in
the economy.
So how do we deal with that?
For decades people had a pension they could rely on in
addition to Social Security if they worked for a big company because
they knew they'd go to work for one company and they'd stay there until
their work career was over. And the same thing with health insurance.
But a million people in America lost their health insurance in the last
two years, and we've had real trouble trying to maintain the integrity
of pension systems.
In December of 1994, and almost unanimous vote of
the Congress in both parties basically stabilized the pensions of 8
million Americans that were in real trouble and 32 million more that
could have gotten in trouble.
So how are we going to define this kind of security for the
working families that you represent? I think, at a minimum, we have to
do the following things: We have to give people access to affordable
health insurance that they don't lose when they change jobs or when
somebody in their family gets sick. And there's a bipartisan bill
before the Congress today which they could adopt which would do that.
Secondly, we ought to recognize that people know their own
best interests when they're laid off and we ought to do what we can to
move help to them as quickly as people. And what I favor doing is
collapsing is 70 of the government's training programs, which were each
developed for little problems -- collapse them, put the big pot of money
there, and when somebody in your community is laid off or is grossly
underemployed and they would qualify for these training programs,
instead of having to figure out what training program for which they
http://www.pub.whitehouse.gov/uri-res/12R?um:pdi://oma.eop.gov.us/1996/1/25/5.text.l
9/29/1999
�Page 4 of8
should sign up, just send them a voucher and let them go to the local
community college or whatever training institute is there.
Then the third thing I think we have to do is to figure out
a way to make it easier for small businesses, and farmers particularly,
to take out their own pension plans for themselves and their employees.
There's a bill in the Congress today -- it hardly costs any money, but
it would make some changes.
I think it was on of the top of the three
or four priorities of the White House Conference on Small Business.
It
would make some changes which would make it possible for almost every
business that could possibly afford to do it, including a lot of them
that cannot even afford the legal costs today, to begin a pension
program.
So these are good beginnings. And they would strengthen
your communities by enabling your families that are working out there in
this more dynamic economy to succeed.
The fourth thing we have to do is do a better job of
helping you to bring the crime rate down.
But you -- this is a great
success story in America.
The crime rate is going down in most
communities in thi~ country, thanks to the efforts that you, anq your
police chiefs, your police officers, and your community leaders are
making.
Finally, a couple of weeks ago there was a big cover story in
one of our major magazines acknowledging that, saying, we can have some
hope that we can drive crime down.
Yesterday I was with Mayor Abramson in Louisville, and we
sat and talked to the citizens and the community police officers that
were working together in Louisville.
Just a few days ago I was with
Mayor Lanier in Houston. We were conducting a funeral service for our
friend Barbara Jordan. And he was telling me about the work that they
have done there to drive down juvenile crime. They have 3,000 young
people in a soccer program. And 2,500 of them get their uniforms and
shoes from the city.
They are kids that would never otherwise be able
to afford to participate in that sort of activity.
These things are going on all over our country, and we .are
taking our streets back. And I want to say a little bit about this -because this is -- the model we've had together in fighting crime is the
model that I believe we should try to replicate in other places. We've
worked together. We passed the Crime Bill of 1994. We passed the Brady
Bill.
That needed to be a national law-- uniform standards; 44,000
people with criminal records have not gotten handguns as a result of it.
We passed the assault weapons ban.
That needed to be a national law.
It wouldn't be worth -- you know, a city ordinance on assault weapons?
A state law on assault weapons? It wouldn't have worked.
We passed the Crime Bill and we said, okay, this money can
only be used for police, but that needed to be a national standard.
Why? Because for 30 years we saw the violent crime rate triple and the
aggregate size of America's police force only went up 10 percent.
But
the Attorney General worked very hard to clean away all the sort of
bureaucratic hassles to getting the money.
No one said -- the cities
decided whom to hire, how to train them, where they'll be deployed, how
they'll work.
The cities decide what the relationship with the
communities are.
You make all the decisions of any significance within
the framework of saying, we've got to go to community policing, we've
got to drive this crime rate down.
That is the kind of community-based partnership that I
think ought to be the model. And the results are pretty hard to quarrel
with, as all of you know.
Now, the only thing I want to say about that
is we have made progress bringing the crime rate down, but everybody
http://www.pub.whitehouse.gov/uri-res/12R?urn:pdi://oma.eop.gov.us/1996/1/25/5.text.l
9/2911999
�Page 5 of8
knows it's still too high.
You go out and interview any 20 citizens in
America, and they'll tell you it's still one of their deepest concerns.
We have to keep working on this. What should our goal be?
Our goal should be to make the crime the exception rather than the rule.
It's a simple goal.
Our goal should be to make crime the exception
rather than the rule so that people feel comfortable when their kids are
on the street playing, people aren't afraid to walk down the street to
the movie. We know that we will never abolish crime in America.
You
will never take -- we can't transform what is inside every human being,
but we could go back to a time when it's the exception rather than the
rule. And we have to keep working until we achieve that goai.
The other challenges that I put before the country were,
obviously, the important ones that you've worked on -- to make sure that
we continue to protect the environment and that we find even more ways
to grow the economy while we're cleaning up the environment instead of
the reverse; to maintain our country's leadership in the world and to
give our government greater and greater and greater capacity to do more
while it costs less and serve the people better.
And we dop' t have -- the era of big government is over_, but
the era of strong, effective government in partnership with people is
not over. We're not going back to a time when people can fend for
themselves. Why do people come to cities in the first place? What do
cities give people? The ability to make more of their lives together
than they could if they were apart.
I mean, the whole concept of cities
is the symbol of what it is we all be trying to do in America.
People
live together because they think they'll all be better off than if they
were all out somewhere else by themselves.
That is the idea. And that is, to me, the model that we
ought to all have in our minds of what the role of government ought to
be as we move into the 21st century, to make people to make more of
their own lives.
Not to do anything for anybody that they ought to do
for themselves, but to help people make more of their own lives.
And that is the kind of partnership we have tried to have
with you.
It is very difficult to do that and to say you're doing it in
Washington because everything here compulsively is filtered out to you
through party politics, no matter how hard we try to avoid it.
You
don't have to worry about that quite as much as we do.
I think it was
Mayor LaGuardia who once said, there is no Republican or Democratic way
to clean the streets.
(Laughter.)
And I believe we need to take some
of that wisdom and bring it back here.
There is, yes, a Democratic and
a Republican way to balance the budget.
I understand that.
But there
is also a. whole lot of overlap, and that's what we ought to be focused
on.
So let me just mention four things very quickly that I know
you'll be discussing here that I think ought to be the basis of our
partnership within this framework that I outlined in the State of the
Union.
First of all, I want to thank again the Vice President and
Secretary Cisneros for the work they've done on empowerment zones and
the enterprise communities.
We are trying to find ways to take the
lessons we learned there and apply them to other communities. And as we
work through this budget and next year's budget, I believe that there
should be a bipartisan consensus to find ways to use the power of the
federal government in ways that essentially help build public-private
partnerships to redevelop our cities. And I would urge you to support
that and to give us any other ideas you have for that.
http://www.pub.whitehouse.gov/uri-res/12R?um:pdi://oma.eop.gov.us/1996/1/25/5.texfl
9/29/1999
�Page 6 of8
We have the HOME initiative, which all of you are familiar
with, which provides funds for you to build and rehabilitate houses for
your citizens. We continue to strongly support the community
development block grants.
They've been around a long time, but they
really are the symbol of what it is we're trying to do.
Here are the
subjects; you do it, be accountable at the end.
If you mess up, we'll
tell you, but otherwise why should we be telling you how to do all this.
Those community development block grants have worked well
for America.
This is a stronger c_ountry because of the way that program
worked. We have, secondly-- let me just make one other comment.
I
believe that the way the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development has
worked with you on the problem of homelessness has worked well, too.
You know how to move the homeless people off your streets.
Every
community has a slightly different homeless problem. And one of the
things I would like to say is, when we do this budget, I know we're
going to have to cut a lot of things, but I think we've made some real
progress in dealing with homelessness in the last few years, and I think
it would be a great mistake if we reverse that progress.
I think it
would be a great mistake if we reverse that progress. We need to
continue to reduce the number of homeless people on our street.
This,
again, should not be a pa~tisan issue.
I don't believe there is a
single person in America that really believes that we should weaken our
effort to do that.
The second thing we've done is to work on these community
development banks.
They're quite controversial now in the Congress
because they seem like an easy thing to cut because they haven't been
fully implemented.
But if you look at the experience of the South Shore
Development Bank in Chicago, or if you look at the experience of any of
the other microenterprise loan programs that have been done in the
United States, or if you look at how much our aid program has done in
other countries, setting up development banks in places where they would
be a lot harder to start than it would in most of your cities, it is
obvious that if we had a source of capital to start more new businesses
and small businesses, no matter if they're just one-person businesses,
in a lot of our poorest areas, we could grow the economy more quickly
there than anyplace else.
What's the greatest opportunity for American business
today? The distressed neighborhoods in our urban and rural areas.
Where do the largest number of people live in America that we could use
to expand the work force in a hurry, or to expand the number of our
consumers in a hurry? In the distressed neighborhoods of our urban and
isolated rural areas.
AID gave a $1-million grant several years ago to a Central
American country to set up a loan program. An average loan was $300
apiece.
That loan program now accounts for one percent of all of the
jobs in that country, and the $1-million fund that AID put down there
now has -- there's $4 million in that bank account now.
Those loans
have been paid back several times with interest over and over again.
If we really believe that free enterprise and not
government spending is the answer to the problems of the inner city,
we're going to have to give them some free enterprise. And free
enterprise begins with capital. And there is lots and lots and lots of
evidence that this can be successful.
So I urge you to support that.
The third thing that I know is very important -- I think
more mayors have mentioned this to me than any other single issue is our
Brownfields initiative, and I want to thank Carol Browner for the work
she has done on it. We were getting ready to come over here, and I was
preparing it and I said we ought to call this Browner's brownfields.
http://www. pub. whitehouse.gov/uri-res/12R?urn:pdi://oma.eop.gov. us/1996/1/25/5. text.1
9/29/1999
�-----------
----------
Page 7'of8
(Laughter.)
great.
It sounds like a kids softball team, you know?
It was
This is a very important thing.
If we can get these vacant
spaces that you have to put fences around, that basically divide
neighborhoods and are inviting targets for all kinds of destructive
things, to turn back into safe, sustainable economic endeavors we could
do more in less time, with less money to move our cities forward than
nearly anything else we can do.
So we want to help communities clean up
old waste sites by giving tax incentiv~s to those who will buy an clean
them up. We want to clear away regulatory burdens. We want to do
whatever we can to support you.
But I know that the mayors have been on this issue, and I
just want to assure you that we want to be there with you. And I
believe, again, we can go broad bipartisan support for the brownfields
initiative.
The fourth thing that I want to comment on is the
reinvention of HUD that Mayor Cisneros is overseeing.
I call him
"Mayor" when he starts talking to me about this.
HUD has now got 81
field offices.
They've move9 huge numbers of people out of Washington.
They're collapsing their divisions down to four basic programs.
For
communities of over 150,000 there will be a single point of contact in
the community so you can do all your business in one place. Grants that
once required 12 separate applications will now require only one.
So that's the kind of flexibility that I think we ought to
have.
Our goal is to reach, by the year 2000, 67.5 percent
homeownership in America. We're already at a 15-year high right now.
We're moving. And if we can keep going in this direction and you'll
help us and we work together we can get up to the point where
67-and-a-half percent of the people are in their own homes.
That has
never happened in the United States before. And that, again, will carry
with it a certain amount of economic growth and development in all your
communities.
And let me just say one other word since Secretary Pena is
here. We have been quite successful and, again, have had a good support
from the Congress in our efforts to maximize the amount of money we're
putting out through the Department of Transportation in communities for
infrastructure development.
That's one place where we have worked
together with hardly a hitch. And because we have it's attracted hardly
any notice.
(Laughter).
But we're moving in the right direction and I
want to thank you for doing that.
So these are the things that we believe we can do with you.
And I hope that they will be symbolic, and will exemplify the kind of
partnership that will take this country along way down the road.
Let me just s~y one other thing about the budget.
Since I
gave the State of the Union address, there have been some encouraging
things said by the congressional leaders about the prospects of our
getting a budget agreement and continuing to work to bring the deficit
down.
But I would remind you that we still have some roadblocks i~e
way that I think need to be cleared away.
I urge Congress to keep the government open and to pass the
straightforward continuing resolution until we pass the rest of the
appropriations bills for this year.
(Applause.)
We've also seen news that just today of the serious
consequences that could result if the Congress was to default on the
debt limit.
No mayor would ever consider doing such a thing.
The
http://www.pub.whitehouse.gov/uri-res/12R?um:pdi://oma.eop.gov.us/1996/1/25/5.text.l
9/29/1999
�Page 8 of8
repercussions would be far too harmful. And the Congress should not,
either.
Congress must choose not to shut the government down again, and
must choose to honor the full faith and credit of the United States.
We are a very great nation, and we are a very great nation
not just because we're big, not just because we're wealthy, and not just
because we've got a powerful military.
It's because people know that we
stand for certain things.
They know we can be trusted.
They know we
keep our word.
When the United States of America borrowed that money, the
United States gave its word it would honor its obligations. And we
should not, under any circumstances, for any reason, ever, ever, not a
single one of us, break the word of the United States of America.
(Applause. )
Let me say, too, to all of you, I have been very honored to
fight the battles that we have fought together, across party lines, for
the Crime Bill, to end unfunded mandates.
You have been a source of
great inspiration to me.
But this organization has been a source of
inspiration for progressive, positive change ever since you convinced a
reluctant President Hoover to stgn a municipal assistance bill in the
Depression.
So I ask you to keep working with us.
Help us to pass the
Community Flexibility Act.
Help us to protect the community development
banks.
Help us to support the reform of HUD.
Help us to get real
welfare reform.
Help us to keep the crime rate coming down.
Help us to
do these things. We can do these things if we do them together.
The cities are the model. Why did people begin to live in
cities? Because they knew instinctively they could do things together
that they could never do on their own. America can do what we have to
do if we do it together. And the mayors, the cities, the community
leaders can ~ead the way.
Thank you, and God bless you all.
END
(Applause. )
3:31 P.M. EST
http://www.pub.whitehouse.gov/uri-res/12R?um:pdi://oma.eop.gov.us/1996/1/25/5.text.l
9/29/1999
�PAGE
2
2ND STORY of Focus printed in FULL format.
Copyright 1999 Federal Document Clearing House, Inc.
FDCH Political Transcripts
September 27, 1999, Monday
TYPE: NEWS BRIEFING
LENGTH: 8431 words
HEADLINE:
JACK LEW DELIVERS REMARKS ON THE BUDGET; WASHINGTON, D.C.
SPEAKER:
JACK LEW, OMB DIRECTOR
BODY:
OMB DIRECTOR HOLDS NEWS BRIEFING ON THE BUDGET
SEPTEMBER 27, 1999
SPEAKER: JACK LEW, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
*
MODERATOR: Our guest today is Jack Lew, director of the Office of Management
and Budget. He's here today to discuss the budget situation with four days left
in the fiscal year and to take your questions.
As always, during the question portion of the program, we ask that you
provide your name and affiliation as a courtesy to our guest.
We're glad that we can have Mr. Lew with us again and at a time that's so
appropriate. And please join me now in welcoming Jack Lew to the National Press
Club.
LEW: Thank you, Bill.
I thought I would just talk for a few minutes at the
beginning, before we get to questions and answers, about the surplus
announcement we made today and a little bit about the overall budget situation.
We had the pleasure this morning of announcing that the fiscal year 1999
surplus estimate is now -- that it will be at least $115 billion.
I think that in order to understand the significance of today's announcement,
we really have to go back a few years and remember where the situation was when
we took office -- when President Clinton took office in 1993. The deficit that
year was $290 billion.
The projection for fiscal year 1999 was that it would be
over $400 billion, depending on whose numbers you looked at.
It was for 24/30
(ph).
The notion that we've gone from a situation of deficits of that magnitude to
a surplus of at least $115 billion is really an enormous accomplishment and from
the perspective of fiscal policy what it means is that we made some tough
decisions in 1993 and we stuck to them.
�PAGE
3
FDCH Political Transcripts, September 27, 1999
FOCUS
In 1993, it was, unfortunately, not a bipartisan effort; it was something
that, you know, we drove out of the White House and that was passed through
Congress on a partisan basis. But in 1997, the job was very much a bipartisan
one, finished working with the Congress on the balanced budget agreement of
1997.
I think if you look at the work that was done over this period of time to
take the tough steps necessary to reduce the deficit, it is very much the reason
that we're able today to announce a $115 billion surplus.
The contributing factors that explain the change, I think, are actually quite
interesting and worth dwelling on for a moment.
In the past, we've often looked
to the revenue numbers to see where the differences are.
In this case, it's
actually in the outlay side that the improvements have come.
And if I can just point to a couple of factors, and we won't have the
conclusive analysis for some weeks, but the initial indications are interesting.
The savings in two areas, I think, are really quite worthy of note.
One is in the area of interest.
If you compare the estimate of interest in
1998 to 1999, it's down $15 billion, $15 billion lower interest payments, and
that's because we've reduced the debt.
It's not just an abstract projection
that by reducing debt we'll also reduce the expenses of the_federal government
to pay interest.
It's an actual accomplishment.
Another area is in Medicare where we've had substantial savings in the area
of reducing fraud and abuse; where, by running a program better, we're actually
seeing a reduction in outlays.
Now, there are a number of other areas, and as we go through the final
year-end numbers in a few weeks, I'm sure we'll have many other examples.
But I
think it is quite notable that a lot of the progress that we're able to look at,
contributing to today's announcement, is because of the fiscal policy that we've
had and because we're doing a better job in terms of the way we run federal
programs.
Now, in terms of the importance of debt reduction, it is, I think, important
on a day like today to underscore that the debt reduction that's implied by $115
billion surplus is very much a factor in the economy.
It's a factor in terms of
the interest rates that people are going to pay on mortgages, it's a factor in
terms of economic growth because of the competitiveness for capital in the
economy. And I think it underscores that this is no time to turn back on a
fiscal policy that is working.
And if you look at the budget situation that we face today, I'd like to echo
what the president said on Thursday when he vetoed the tax bill and the comments
that he made again over the weekend that this is really the occasion for us to
work together to get a bigger job done.
We have the opportunity with a surplus and a growing surplus to address the
long-term deficit as well as the short-term deficit.
We have the ability to look ahead and deal with Social Security solvency so
that we can have a lock box that actually sets aside the funds and transfers
�PAGE
4
FDCH Political Transcripts, September 27, 1999
FOCUS
into Social Security the resources to extend solvency till 2050.
We have the ability to deal with Medicare so that we extend solvency, as the
president has proposed, to at least 2027, and also it provides a prescription
drug benefit and important reforms in the program.
And we have the ability to have as part of this balanced priorities that will
permit the resources that are needed for education, national security, and the
environment to be available.
If I can shift the focus back to the issues that appear more immediate, but I
would argue, are really no more immediate but should be sitting aside these
larger questions, we're looking towards, you know, the end of this week, the end
of one fiscal year, the beginning of the next.
I think it's safe to say that
there's no probability that all 13 appropriation bills will be signed into law
on time and it's unfortunate. You know, it was one of the objectives of this
Congress to finish its work on time and that's an objective that will not be
met.
As Congress proceeds through the next, you know, several days and the period
that follows, it is important to get the work done.
It's important to finish
the bills, it's important to come back and work on some of these larger
questions.
I think that it's unfortunate that the question of time available and the
will to do the job have been somewhat confused.
The problem that we face in the
next few days or the next several weeks is not whether there's time to deal with
the broader issues of Social Security, Medicare and, as the president said, you
know, as recently as this morning, a tax cut that fits and it's part of that
plan.
It's a question of whether there's the will.
Now, the president has indicated that he has the desire for there to be such
a comprehensive discussion and we have expressed a willingness to work on a
bipartisan basis towards such an end.
If we look at the appropriations process on its own, it is unfortunate that
the issue is being framed by the Congress limiting the choices to what we think
are not good choices.
On the one hand, there's a set of actions -- a series of
actions that's being taken in the appropriations process which their own
Congressional Budget Office has shown have the effect of spending the Social
Security surplus.
On the other hand, there are spending policies that we think
miss some of the very important priorities by underfunding education and many
other areas.
The president's budget proposed another alternative and it's an alternative
that I know many have said perhaps is too ambitious but it's to pay for what we
need. And it's to pay for with policies that we think are good policies.
The issue that has attracted the most attention, our tobacco policy, I think
it's very much worth underscoring, and I'm very must hopeful that as we approach
the moment of decision that it will look like the preferable alternative in a
world where the alternatives we think have been limited prematurely to two not
very attractive choices.
�PAGE
5
FDCH Political Transcripts, September 27, 1999
FOCUS
If you put side-by-side the choice of spending the Social Security surplus or
underfunding priorities, and, on the other hand, look at a policy that will stop
youth smoking or at least reduce youth smoking so that 3,000 kids a day won't
start smoking, we think that the tobacco policy, on its own as policy, is
meritorious and, as an alternative, is far superior to the choices that Congress
has put in front of itself.
Now, that does not mean that it's easy.
It is very tough to make decisions
that require decisive action against strong pressure to the contrary.
But
that's what leadership is about and that's what needs to happen as we approach
the end of the session when the choices, as they've been laid out, we think are
just not the right choices. They're untenable choices and we think those choices
should be expanded.
You know, as we approach the end of the fiscal year, we're hopeful that we'll
reach the moment very soon when it is possible to have the kind of conversation
that is necessary to resolve these issues. And I just want to underscore, we
are hopeful that it will not just be on the question of the minimal action to
fund the government, but on the broader question of addressing the generational
challenge of how to use the unprecedented opportunity of the surplus we face to
deal with the generational deficit that we continue to be very, very much
focused on.
With that I'll stop and take your questions.
QUESTION: Are you saying that if the Congress chooses to either spend the
Social Security surplus or to cut education programs that the president will
veto any appropriation bills that come down?
LEW: Well, I'm saying that there is a better choice and that before Congress
presents one of those two choices we're hopeful that they will look at what we
think is the right way to do the year's work.
I know that there are a number of bills that we're likely to face which, if
they continue on the course they're on, we've made very clear that we would
veto.
Until they finish their work, until there's actually a conference report,
it's very difficult to answer the question on what comes out of conference.
But
certainly they're headed down a path where a number of the bills have very, very
significant problems.
QUESTION: Doing the back-of-the-envelope calculation here, you said about $15
billion less in interest payments and some additional savings through Medicaid,
running that program better.
Do you have numbers on that? And since this is
about $16 billion better than what you projected at mid-session, have there been
spending increases too that would offset some of those gains?
LEW: Well, just to be clear, what I was describing was the total change from
'98 to '99, not just the change from our last estimate, and it was Medicare not
Medicaid I was referring to.
I don't have very detailed breakouts of the change of -- from the mid-session
numbers. We are -- we still have a few days left in the fiscal year and then it
takes us a while after that to get the information in a form where we can break
it down and analyze it.
I was trying to illustrate some trends that we've
�PAGE
6
FDCH Political Transcripts, September 27, 1999
FOCUS
been seeing.
What I do know is that, while there was an increase in revenue from the
budget in February through the mid-session, we're holding level at that
mid-session projection on revenue.
It's fairly close and its outlays have been
declining.
So we'll be looking to explain it in detail as we get all of the
information.
QUESTION: Do you have a breakdown on this $115 as to what is on- budget
verses Social Security and how would it affect the budget fight coming up?
LEW: Well, I don't believe it will affect it very directly. We don't have a
breakout of the $115.
You know, when we put the mid- session review out several
weeks ago, we did do a breakout of the on and off budget numbers and at that
time, you know, we were projecting an on-budget that is a non-Social Security
deficit of $24 billion and a Social Security surplus of $123/$124.
With the change, I would say it's very unlikely that we will see a non-Social
Security surplus in '99, but I won't be able to answer decisively until we have
the numbers broken out.
I don't think the number is large enough to have moved
directionally.
Yes?
QUESTION: Can we go back to the Medicare savings?
LEW: Yes.
QUESTION: This is a problem that has been identified by a number of people,
not just on the Hill, but in the administration, in terms of the amount that has
come from the changes in the balanced budget agreement. In other words, too much
savings for Medicare to the point of hardship and Secretary Summers has said
that there is a good chance that some of that wiil be given back. Would you
agree with that?
LEW: Well, when the president put forward his Medicare proposals, one of the
items that he included in the package was seven and a half billion dollars to be
applied towards addressing some of those concerns. And we've been very careful
to say that each of the concerns ought to be evaluated on its merits and it
ought not to be that we just go back in an across-the-board fashion and reverse
the balanced budget agreement. But on the other hand, to the extent there are
problems, we ought to be able to address them.
I want to underscore though that it was part of our overall Medicare policy.
It wasn't a free-standing proposal.
I think that one of the things that is
developing in Congress is a movement towards doing tax extenders on their own,
towards doing, perhaps, Balanced Budget Act amendments regarding Medicare on
their own.
We would very much -- very strongly urge the Congress to try and keep these
as part of a more comprehensive approach and that's what we've said directly in
our conversations with members and we hope that they can be combined.
�PAGE
7
FDCH Political Transcripts, September 27, 1999
FOCUS
For example, if we're going to take action to address concerns with the
Balanced Budget Act implementation, that it be part of a longer-term Medicare
reform.
And we've had some conversations as recently as last week where senior
people from the administration met with·Senator Roth and had that conversation.
We're hopeful that that is going to emerge as an opportunity to work together,
but as I say, on the broader area as well.
QUESTION: What about tobacco? Has he got further -- we're down to the wire
here -- any substantive conversations with Republican leaders about the
likelihood of that Congress passing a tobacco tax increase?
LEW: Well, I think it's fair to say there have been a lot of words exchanged;
whether you'd call it a conversation or not is something that is perhaps a
matter of interpretation.
The -- I've been interested in the last several
weeks, there has been a new look taken at our proposals and a lot of questions
being asked that suggest a seriousness of the need to find alternatives.
QUESTION: How would you characterize where those inquiries are coming from?
LEW: Well, they're coming from a variety of places.
I don't'want to
exaggerate and say that I think that we've sort of turned the corner and seen
that adopted as one of the solutions to the problem from a congressional
perspective, but I think there is a serious problem.
I think one has to take a
hard look at the choices that Congress is facing and look at the tobacco policy
and the proposals that we've made in the context of those choices.
I think there was a political judgment made to limit the choices to a policy
of just spending -- whether it's the Social Security surplus or not depends
perhaps on interpretation, but I think it's pretty clear that that's where these
bills are headed -- or making unacceptable cuts. And we think that against
those choices, the tobacco policy is getting another look and will get a more
serious look as we approach the real moment of decision.
I think until the business at hand is actually finishing the bills as opposed
to just sort of marking them down as having been written in one house or
another, it's going to be difficult to answei the question.
I mean, yesterday it was interesting to hear the speaker describe meeting the
test of passing 13 appropriation bills as getting them out of the House. Well,
it doesn't work that way. We have to have them signed into law.
They have to
pass the House and the Senate, go through conference and become law. And we're
heading into the beginning of a fiscal year with very, very few of the bills
enacted as law.
QUESTION: When I talk to people outside of Washington, there's a great
indifference to the fact that we're about to cross into the new fiscal year and
everyone assumes that you guys will all get together and settle your question of
funding and taking from Social Security eventually and it means nothing to them,
in the long run it won't harm them at all.
Is there any harm to the public good
in any way in your view by crossing into the new fiscal year without a budget?
LEW: Well, I think it's always unfortunate when we get to the end of a fiscal
year and the work hasn't been finished.
Most Americans are expected to finish
their work on time and we should be held to the same standard and Congress
�PAGE
8
FDCH Political Transcripts, September 27, 1999
FOCUS
should be held to the same standard.
On the other hand, the question of the consequences is, I think, very much
dependent on where things end up.
I'm pleased that there doesn't appear to be a
desire for a government shutdown; that is not the. way it's always been. We have
faced previous end of years when it was an act of, you know, strategy for the
Republican Congress to force a shut down.
That doesn't appear to be the goal.
I take them at their word when they say that they don't want a shutdown.
They don't have a solution yet to avoiding conflict and, you know, we can
extend for a couple of weeks the period of time, but extensions don't get the
job done unless the deadline is real and there's a renewed commitment to the
need to finish the work.
We're putting the call out that there is a need to
finish the work and I think that there is a consequence if it goes on for too
long.
QUESTION: Do you have any fiscal 2000 budget figures yet or (OFF-MIKE)?
LEW: I'm sorry.
QUESTION: Fiscal 2000 projections yet, about what the surplus would be, are
you going to alter that?
LEW: Well, we need to finish the process of making the policy in order to
have the projections.
QUESTION: All right.
Also, there's been some talk on the Hill (OFF-MIKE)
about these either forward and back funding using basically, you know,
accounting for -- you know, appropriating the money now but not accounting for
it until a year or two down the road. Would you -- would the administration
still view that as dipping into the Social Security trust fund to finance
current spending or not?
LEW: Let me answer the question in several parts because I don't think there
is a simple yes or no answer. There are cases where one can do advanced funding
where it doesn't have any real programmatic consequence.
In fact, in our budget
we have made several proposals like that.
You can cross the line and you can have so much advance funding that you've
created a policy problem because the funds aren't available when they need to be
in each of the years when they need to be available. We're going to need to
look at what they do carefully and make determinations on those questions based
on the substance of each proposal.
But I think if you look overall at what has been loosely described as the
gimmicks in the appropriations process, many of those gimmicks are really
nothing more than sort of a thin veneer to spending money this year. You can
call it an emergency and that may solve the problem of getting around statutory
spending limits, but it doesn't change whether or not there are outlays in a
given year.
I mean if it's an emergency in the year that you're trying to limit
your spending in, then it's still money that is spent and it counts.
Some of the directed scoring where the appropriators have instructed the
scoring of provisions are constructed in such a way that when the
�PAGE
9
FDCH Political Transcripts, September 27, 1999
FOCUS
Congressional Budget Office takes a look at it next year, they will reach the
conclusion, as they've said they would, that the money actually was spent in
excess of the directed scoring.
So you can call it what you want to call it, but if it actually spends money
in 2000, if you don't count it, but it spends money, it's going to end up
leading you to a higher total. And I think that total is, at the moment,
forcing the spending of the Social Security surplus.
You know, in the end of the day, I'm sure that there will be many more
proposals than the ones we've seen and each of' them, I think, has to be looked
at individually in order to understand what the consequences are. But I think
it's doing a disservice to the American people to pretend that none of them have
any consequences.
QUESTION: They made -- DeLay made pretty clear in his interview that it was
their strategy to try to get you to spend the Social Security surplus and attack
you if you do so.
There was an article over the weekend in the New York Times
saying that they may be the ones who end up having to dip into the Social
Security surplus. What's your attitude towards that? Will you attack them if
they do that?
LEW: Well, we have called upon them to take a look at the proposals that
we've put forward which do not spend the Social Security surplus. We have a
coherent set of proposals that hold together.
I can't disagree with you now since I read in the New York Times that suggest
that they are spending the Social Security surplus given the policies that they
have to date.
We hope that we can work together and agree on the kinds of
policies that are more consistent with our proposals.
QUESTION: Right.
But they just sent you an $800 billion tax cut.
I mean it
looks unlikely, at best, that they're going to go for a major tobacco tax.
Is
it conceivable to you that you might allow some dipping into the Social Security
surplus if you get, you know, some of the programs that you want and get a
reasonable' budget?
LEW: I think the question of whether one needs to or not is what I'm trying
to focus on and we hope that there is a process that makes it possible to avoid
that.
It doesn't have to happen. We have put proposals forward that would not
have that effect.
I think that the comments you're referring to were very troubling in the
sense that it suggested a kind of conscious strategy to spend the Social
Security surplus which, we think, is very cynical.
And, you know, when I say that the proposals that we've made are not just
worthy of a second consideration, but will fare very well on a second
consideration, it's because we do not have a cynical set of proposals. We have
a set of solid proposals that add up, that do not require taking the actions
that members on both sides have said they don't want to take.
I can't tell you exactly where the end of the process is. We need to first
expand the options.
I don't think that it's right to limit the options to
�PAGE
10
FDCH Political Transcripts, September 27, 1999
FOCUS
what's in front of Congress right now because that inevitably takes you down a
path much as the one yo'u're describing.
QUESTION: Can you set a deadline on how long you're willing to tolerate these
continuing resolutions? You said it can go for a couple of weeks.
If they want
to kick it forward after that into the next year, would you accept that or not?
LEW: Well, we've made it very clear in the last several days that we don't
think that a continuing resolution should be longer than two weeks. And to the
extent that there is a several week continuing resolution to extend the funding
to permit the completion of the work, we expect Congress to complete the work in
that period of time.
We're not looking at lots of rolling extensions that go on
and on and on. We need to finish the work of the year.
Well, we've made it very clear that they should operate under no illusions
that we are looking at a series of extensions that go on and on and on.
QUESTION: So he would veto a series of extensions (OFF-MIKE)?
LEW: We're hoping Congress finishes its work so that we don't reach that
point.
QUESTION: But to bring up another point, you mentioned this earlier, you said
that there's been -- on another subject, another -- a lot of exchange of words
and not a conversation and that also kind of describes what's going on in the
budget overall at this point.
I mean, President Clinton comes out this morning
and says, in essence, looking for compromise, and it is you accept my proposal
on any number of issues. When are you guys going to get serious and start the
horse trading that really makes a budget?
LEW: In fairness, that's not what the president said. What the president
said is I don't expect them to sign on to my plans precisely. What he did was
he invited a discussion where we can work together to work through our
differences.
I think that if you look at where we are in the process right now, Congress
needs to make some more progress.
It needs to get to the point where there's a
moment of engagement.
In the appropriations process, I don't know that there's
a precedent for an administration stepping in with so much work unfinished, to
start -- nor would there be a very welcome environment should an administration
step in.
There needs to be a certain amount of work done on the part of
Congress.
In terms of the other issues, we've had ongoing conversations where we've
remained opened and actively been pursuing discussions, like the conversation
that took place with Senator Roth last week.
I think it's not necessarily a
grand dramatic moment that starts a process and, you know, the president has
made clear that he is open to discussions and anxious for there to be
discussions to deal with Social Security, Medicare and the range of priorities.
And I think that the mistake that we make often is to say: Oh, there's only a
few days left in the fiscal year, therefore there's no time. Well, if there's
You
an extension for two weeks, that's two weeks you can get your work done.
shouldn't wait till the end.
�--------------------------------
PAGE
11
FDCH Political Transcripts, September 27, 1999
FOCUS
One of the things that we worry about, frankly, in longer extensions, is that
there's a tendency not to get to work till the end of these periods. We need to
use the time, starting today, to get the people's work done.
QUESTION: If the president thinks that Social Security is one of the keys to
getting the budget process going, I mean, you guys are not going to write a
Social Security -- a new Social Security program in two weeks.
I mean it's not
is that -- I mean, am I missing something here?
LEW: I think that what we can do in two weeks or during the time that remains
is limited only by the willingness of the parties to get it done.
QUESTION: On the extenders package, the administration made clear last week
that it pretty much finds it unacceptable in its current form, primarily the way
it's funded, and now you seem to be indicating you want it linked to progress on
Medicare reform.
So are you saying that unless you address -- unless Congress
addresses Medicare reform first or somehow links it with an overall Medicare
reform package, the president will not accept an extenders package?
LEW: What I said, to be clear, was that we hope to make progress on a broad
range of issues in the remainder of this year. And then in the context of
working on Medicare reform and Social Security and the other issues that face
us, the issues of the extenders and the Balanced Budget Act issue -- changes
ought to be part of the discussion.
The comments that Secretary Summers made last week had to do with the
free-standing bill, a bill the financing of which was unclear, and, you know, I
think it sort of gets back to something that we were talking about a few minutes
ago.
If a tax extenders bill has outlays in 2000, then you have to add that
together with the spending in the appropriations process in order to understand
how much resources are available within the non-Social Security surplus and how
much it would force you into the Social Security surplus.
I think there's been a kind of -- funny kind of bookkeeping where all of the
available resources have been allocated to the Appropriations Committee in terms
of how Congress is working and there's continued discussion of action in these
other areas as if somehow the spending doesn't count.
Now,
work on
issues,
through
perhaps they're talking -- they'll, in the end, come up with offsets and
doing it in ways that don't spend money.
But these are important
they're questions that we have to work through and hopefully work
together.
Our budget contained, you know, extenders, our Medicare proposal contained a
proposal to deal with some of the issues in the Balanced Budget Act. And I
think that one has to distinguish dealing with the ~ssues·in a context where the
overall fiscal policy is clear from the alternative of dealing with them in
isolation. And that's really all I was trying to say.
QUESTION: Will the administration be sending to the Hill a further request
for emergency funding for certain things like hurricane aid and so on.
If so,
when and for how much?
�PAGE
12
FDCH Political Transcripts, September 27, 1999
FOCUS
LEW: Well, the truth of the matter is that until the waters fully recede and
the estimates are clear, we're not -- we don't have a firm grasp on what the
scope of assistance needed is.
In some cases, the availability of resources
under some of our prior requests is unclear given the state of the
appropriations process.
For example, for FEMA, we're not sure where the final
congressional appropriation figure will be.
And these questions relate, so to
the extent that there's adequate funding provided, we would need less perhaps as
an emergency.
We're very much at work on trying to respond with available resources
immediately and to figure out, as quickly as we can, how much additional
resources would be needed over the next few months. Some of the resources might
not be needed over the next few months and until we have a full estimate, it's
difficult to say when we would send a proposal forward.
QUESTION: Are other things going forward, though; Turkey earthquake? There
was -- at some point, it was thought that you were going to be making a request
for more emergency money.
QUESTION: In Kosovo as well.
QUESTION: In Kosovo.
LEW: Well, there have been many discussions but no final decisions about what
to send forward.
QUESTION: While you've been inviting Congress into a broader discussion, they
seem on a track to send you individual appropriations bills so the
administration will have to confront the budget situation piece by piece.
LEW: Yes.
QUESTION: In those bills, could you single out the areas that you see as the
most problematic, the ones that would be most difficult to resolve? And just as
a second question, on the CR, would the president veto a two- week -- veto a
three-week CR?
LEW: Let me start on the question of the continuing resolution. We've made
very clear that we think that a two-week CR is the appropriate length.
If, in
the end, Congress insists on a three-week CR, I just want to underscore that we
have the expectation that Congress will complete its work by the end of the
continuing resolution and there should be no expectations of a willingness to go
on with extensions beyond that to just have it extended, you know, by weeks and
weeks and weeks.
You know, two weeks is enough time, it's the right period of
time, and that's what we've told Congress we think would be the right thing to
do.
·As far as the bills go, short of walking through each of the bills, which I
have the pleasure of doing in many places, but I don't think it's probably the
right place to do it, it's hard to answer in a comprehensive way.
But, you know, you look at a bill like the Commerce-Justice-State bill, it's
underfunded in so many areas in the House and the Senate in terms of law
enforcement, in terms of the operations that provide security for our
�PAGE
13
FDCH Political Transcripts, September 27, 1999
FOCUS
diplomats abroad, you know, in just a dozen different areas, that it's difficult
to say what is the big issue.
I mean, it's a very significant problem, not the
least of which is that the census is not fully funded as it stands right now.
The, you know, and the other bills, the Labor-HHS bill, we don't know where
the Senate is.
Hopefully, later today, we'll have a better idea.
But in the
bill that we saw working its way through the House last week, we see very
serious funding problems in education, in the labor programs, you know, and to
the extent that funding is provided, it's provided but with a series of gimmicks
that are really thinly disguised spending of the Social Security surplus.
So,
it's a bill that we have to see where it goes.
I can't tell you what the Senate
is doing because I haven't seen it yet.
I could go through a half a dozen of the bills and give you specific examples
that demonstrate, I think, substantial hurtles that have to be gotten over.
There also are on many bills riders that are objectionable in terms of
limitations, whether they're in the environmental area or in terms of foreign
policy, which we'll have to work our way through.
QUESTION: A broader question on that point. As you noted, the Congress is
having a very, very difficult time living under the caps and some of the
projections for future surpluses are, of course, predicated on the assumption
that they will.
Even though a lot of the estimates have come in -- on surplus
have come in better than expected, is it really realistic to be looking down the
road and thinking we're going to see surpluses in the $3 trillion range?
LEW: I think that goes back to, you know, the debate we've had over the tax
bill and the choices in terms of priorities. And in the president's budget and
in the budget put forward by Democrats, in the Congress, there was a very clear
statement that one of the things that needs to happen is that proper funding has
to be provided for discretionary programs, that we can't pretend that, at a time
of surplus, the kinds of cuts that are implied by the levels that would be left
for discretionary spending, were there to be a trillion-dollar tax cut, are
acceptable.
And we took that debate very seriously.
It was not a question of stretching
to reach the conclusion that a 50-percent reduction in all discretionary
spending in 10 years was totally implausible.
It does -- I mean if we can't
live with the current limits, we cannot live with 50- percent reductions. And
the president's budget put forward increases in the out years as part of a
balanced plan.
Now, as part of a balanced plan, you can address Social Security and
Medicare, you can address the priorities on the discretionary side of the budget
and you can have room for a modest size tax cut. But that's the difference
between a $250 billion tax cut and a trillion- dollar tax cut; one gives you the
room, the other doesn't.
And the debate over the tax cut was, in a way, a debate about being open
about the numbers and facing the reality, and the contradiction between not
being able to live with the current spending caps but projecting deep cuts in
the out years in order to finance a tax cut was something that we felt very
strongly about.
�PAGE
14
FDCH Political Transcripts, September 27, 1999
FOCUS
I don't think we're beyond that in the sense that the debate over fiscal
policy will continue to be around what can we afford in terms of these big
trade-offs. And we think that the right thing to do is to make those decisions
now while we're looking at -- yes, I think the surpluses are real, but I think
the surpluses won't be real if we pretend that a tax cut of a trillion dollars,
either this year or next year or the year after, fits with the priorities that
we have and I would argue many in Congress on both sides of the aisle have.
The difficulty that they're having suggests that there's not as enormous a
partisan rift in terms of what many of the proper funding levels are,. as there
is a difference in a willingness to admit it on a multi-year basis when
allocating resources.
And to pretend that we don't need the money and to put it
into a tax cut is, we think, a certain way of running back into more borrowing
and deficits, because when the decision moments come, there won't be any
tolerance for 50 percent cuts.
And so, if I can bring it back to the fiscal policy, what we've accomplished
over the last number of years, with a serious and sustained effort at taking
fiscal discipline seriously, is an enormous accomplishment in terms of the
strength of the American economy. And this debate about how we end this year
and whether or not we undertake a balanced approach to using the surplus, I
think would be a very strong way of showing continuity, that we still care about
keeping to a po~icy of fiscal discipline, which I think would mean a strong
economy for years to come.
QUESTION: Jack, even though you have hopes of making substantial progress on
Medicare, Social Security and some modest tax cuts, realistically, it's not very
likely that's going to happen before the elections, is it?
LEW: I don't what's realistic and what's not realistic.
I mean, I think that
it's unrealistic if people like myself say we can't do it. And it's realistic
if people like myself say we can do it. And the president said we can do it.
And I'm saying we can do it.
!.heard, you know, the Democratic leader in the
House yesterday say, you know, we can do it. And to the extent that there's a
willingness to work on these big issues, it's not impossible.
QUESTION: But the key thing is to make sure that nobody appears to be
unwilling to work on these issues, though, right?
LEW: No, I think the key thing is to get the job done that we were all sent
here to do.
QUESTION: Jack, could you comment on the emergency bills that are out there?
The Ag bill seems to be getting bid up.
Is there a limit to how high you would
go on that? Also, they're going to classify Lie-Heap (ph) as emergency spending
and the census.
Could you comment on each of those (OFF-MIKE)?
LEW: Well let me preface it by saying that I am one of the people who over
the years has been one of the strongest advocates of the emergency authority,
because I think in order to do our jobs well we have to be able to respond to
things that aren't necessarily foreseeable and predictable on a multi-year
basis.
�PAGE
15
FDCH Political Transcripts, September 27, 1999
FOCUS
And if we set ourselves limits, where the only way to deal with true
emergencies is to make the kinds of cuts that would cause trade- offs to be made
that just are not the right trade-offs, then we're shortchanging ourselves and
we're shortchanging the American people.
Unfortunately, the term "emergency" has become a kind of license to do almost
anything. And, you know, there have been a lot of jokes in the last few weeks.
But some of the jokes have a fairly serious side to them.
I mean; the notion
that the census -- after how many hundreds of years, 200- plus years -- is an
unexpected occurrence, and is somehow an emergency stretches the imagination.
Lie-Heap (ph), as an example, is a program which-- it's not that long ago
that the same people who are declaring it an emergency, were trying to eliminate
it. But in order to try and get around the spending limits, they're calling it
an emergency.
I think that, you know, the sort of underlying truth is that if the money is
going to be spent, it's going to be spent. An emergency designation is a
perfectly appropriate way to get around limits that were imposed when the
emergency couldn't be foreseen.
But it doesn't change the fact that the money
is spent. And it's now-- the label is being used to suggest that somehow the
money vanishes into the ether and isn't really spent. And that's just not the
case.
Emergency money is spent. And if the goal is keeping spending -- in actual
terms -- from dipping into the Social Security surplus, then one can't ignore
emergencies when they're doing their tally.
QUESTION: Well, that's an interesting philosophical discourse. But I'm
wondering if, specifically, on each of these bills, would the president accept
-- if the Ag bill -- is there a limit to how high he would go? Would he, under
certain circumstances, potentially accept Lie-Heap (ph) as emergency spending?
And would he agree to allow at least a portion of the census -- because they're
saying they didn't understand how the sampling was going to go -- to be an
emergency spending bill?
LEW: Yes.
In each of those cases, you know, in Agriculture there is a
legitimate case to be made for doing the Agriculture, you know, as an emergency
under certain circumstances and in certain amounts. We've done it before.
It's
actually going back to, I believe, the first use of the emergency designation
after it was enacted in 1990. Agriculture was one of the items that met the
definition.
The question is, in each case, how you do it, how much, and, to be honest,
about taking account of it. There's a difference between saying it's an
emergency and pretending that there's not spending. And that difference makes a
difference.
·
To the extent that in some of these areas there are policies that could be
developed, I'm not going to address hypotheticals.
I think we've been pretty
clear in expressing skepticism that the entirety of the census should be called
an emergency will pass the laugh test. You know, in the case of Lie-Heap (ph),
there's a portion of it that traditionally has been an emergency to deal with
unforeseeable circumstances like the extreme heat and cold that we face.
�PAGE
16
FDCH Political Transcripts, September 27, 1999
FOCUS
So a lot of these things are questions of degree. And how seriously one can
take the proposals depends upon whether it's done in a measured way. And
unfortunately what we've seen in a lot of the proposals to date is that they've
been done in a kind of -- without any attempt to adhere to the traditional
definitions, or -- I mean, you can call it a philosophical discourse.
But it
matters if they conform to the principles that define emergencies. And if you
ignore all the principles, you end up with things that don't make any sense.
QUESTION: I like philosophical discourses, but my editors don't, so ...
QUESTION: Can I bring you back, Jack, to the question of whether there's any
damage to the nation, or damage to the public good, if budgetese (ph) goes on
into the next year.
You went as far as to say that if this goes on too long,
there would be consequences to the public good.
Could you elaborate on what
those consequences might be?
LEW: Well, you have -- continuing resolutions don't typically take account of
changing policy.
You reach the point where last year's priorities may or may
not be this year's priorities. And to just continue last year's _funding levels
is essentially to hold up your hands and say we're going to go on auto pilot.
And, you know, it's one thing for a week or two.
It's another thing when you go
on for a long period of time.
One would have to go into a level of detail, you know, to really see the
consequences, but, you know, if you take something like a start-up program,
where in the first year it got a substantially larger amount of funding than it
would have needed in the next year, and you just continue that funding level,
that's not where you would have meant to be.
On the other hand, you take up a startup program in the year that you're in
the continuing resolution and you don't get started on October 1. So, you're
losing time.
You can't start the new initiative until you get new funding
proposals.
I don't think that either we or the Congress ought to stand for the
principle that things could just go on on automatic pilot.
We need to make decisions and to set priorities and to make choices. And
that's what budgets are about, that's what appropriations bills are about.
That's why it's important to finish the work and not just sort of throw up our
hands and say we'll just let last year's work stand.
QUESTION: So, are you saying then, if the president is faced with the
long-term, clean CR, come October 22, that you -- and that there be government
shut down ...
LEW: Yes.
I'm saying the Congress shouldn't send the president a long-term
CR, in October.
There will be a continuing resolution. There will be more than
enough time to finish the year's work, and the Congress should finish the year's
work.
QUESTION: But sometimes, Congress does things that the president doesn't want
them to do. And if they were to do that, would he veto it?
LEW: You know, it's very difficult to stand here today and answer
hypothetical questions.
I think I've made very clear what we -- it's very
�PAGE
17
FDCH Political Transcripts, September 27, 1999
FOCUS
clear what we think Congress should do. And we, there should be no illusions on
the part of Congress about the president's willingness to go along with
long-term extensions.
QUESTION: What would you -- I'm just curious wnat you are expecting for the
first half of October? Listening to you here this afternoon, maybe you're just
naturally a low key kind of a guy, but you don't seem to be real concerned about
the possibility of two weeks worth of stern (ph) withdrawal (ph), with
presidential vetoes and broadsides back and forth to the Hill and down to here.
Compared to times past and looking at what you're getting from the Hill now,
does this look like this is going to be a fairly calm row ...
LEW: I try to stay calm even when the circumstances aren't. So ...
QUESTION: Well, how contentious do you expect this to be?
LEW: I think it's pretty contentious.
I think that, you know, that what
we've seen over the course of the past few months is a quite important debate
over priorities, that the president, by vetoing the tax bill last Thursday, did
something very important. He made sure that we were not going to squander the
opportunity of an enormous surplus on a risky and irresponsible tax cut. That's
only a few days ago.
There's still a lot of work to do to finish this year's
work.
We may be facing vetoes.
I can't tell you that we're not going to be facing
brinkmanship when we get to these deadlines. What I'm telling you is, it's not
necessary.
I'm telling you that there is a way that we could work together and
should be able to work together to resolve these issues.
I'm not a screamer by
nature, so I'm not going to stand here and call the other side names, but I do
think that it is not doing the American people well to let weeks and weeks and
weeks go by and not address some of these matters.
And we're ready to work. We've been ready to work. We have a plan on the
table. We are, you know, we are anxious to get the year's work done and to be
more expansive rather than less expansive in terms of defining what the options
are and how much we can get done.
QUESTION: Do you think the end of the CR -- call it what you want, train
wreck, gridlock, whatever it is, is more or less likely?
LEW: Well, we haven't -- this afternoon, we will probably see the first
iteration of a continuing resolution.
I think that, you know, whether or not we
are able to get through this week without there being the kind of 11th hour
drama will depend a lot on what's in it. And you know, and after that, will
depend on whether or not Congress is able to get it's work done. And we intend
to continue as I am today in insisting that is what the right thing to do is.
QUESTION: The president must have used the words, the phrase "work together"
five or six times this morning. Why hasn't he invited Hastert and Lott down to
the Oval Office to start doing it and then finish it?
LEW: I think that the content of the president's remarks on Thursday, on
Saturday, and today, were very clear in terms of trying to reach out on a broad
range of issues and express a willingness to work together.
I think the
�PAGE
18
FDCH Political Transcripts, September 27, 1999
FOCUS
message couldn't have been more clear and I guess I don't need to elaborate on
it.
The notion of what the next step is, what the form is, is always what
people like to hang on.
But I think one has to look at the message and take it
at face value. And I think that until there is a little bit more work done on
the part of the Congress, it's difficult to see what the next step is.
What's unfortunate is that there is a desire to declare it as too late.
Whether it's us saying that they shouldn't throw in the towel, or just listening
to the questions here today, to. having everyone who is observing the process
say, oh, it's too late, it's impossible. It's a kind of a self-fulfilling
prophecy.
If everyone who is involved in the process decides its too late, then
you don't even try.
Now, if you try and you make a little progress, then there is a whole
different dynamic.
I think conversations on Medicare are very important.
I
think if something gets started, it can lead to something much bigger than most
people think is possible. On the other hand, I'm not sitting here, standing
here today predicting 100 percent likelihood of success.
I think that there's
far too much handicapping of how little will done and far too much demanding
that the bar be raised a little higher.
MODERATOR: Time for one or two more.
QUESTION: Is it possible to do Social Security or Medicare early next year
even though it's a political year, if some of the handicapping is correct?
LEW: I think we have to focus on finishing this year's work before we
speculating on next year's agenda.
st~rt
MODERATOR: Further questions for Mr. Lew?
QUESTION: I'd
just be a little
or pay-fors, for
larger package.
on its own?
like to ask one more question.
On the extenders, if you would
bit more clearer. As I understood it, Archer did have offsets
the extenders. You're suggesting that should be part of a
But if it comes to you next week, are you going to reject that
LEW: To be clear, the offsets were partial and short lasting. My
understanding is that over the period of years that the bill would be in effect,
there was really no net offset. And I think that's a problem.
QUESTION: Were you on the Hill, White House and OMB, each of the U.S. and
(OFF-MIKE)
MODERATOR: That's the last question.
LEW: Well, now you're going into an area where I'm truly not expert to offer
an opinion.
END
NOTES:
Unknown - Indicates speaker unknown.
Inaudible - Could not make out what was being said.
�PAGE
19
FDCH Political Transcripts, September 27, 1999
FOCUS
off mike - Indicates could not make out what was being said.
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
LOAD-DATE: September 29, 1999
�Draft 9/24/99 3:20pm
Terry Edmonds
PRESIDENT WILLIAM J. CLINTON
RADIO ADDRESS ON SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS
WASHINGTON, DC
September 24, 1999
Good morning. With only five days left in the current fiscal year, Congress has a lot of
work to do. They must fulfill their fundamental obligation to the American people by passing a
budget that adequately funds our national priorities without doing something we all agreed we
wouldn't and shouldn't do: spend the Social Security surplus instead of preserving it for debt
reduction. Try as they might, the Republican majority is finding it virtually impossible to
provide the needed funds for education, health care and other vital areas within the framework of
their tax and budget plan. It is becoming increasingly clear- they simply can't do that without
spending the Social Security surplus.
Their budget would take us in the wrong direction. Vice President Gore and I have
pursued an economic strategy focused on fiscal discipline, expanded trade and investment in our
people. And it is working. In the past six-and-a-half years, it has produced lower interest rates,
the longest peacetime expansion in history, more than 19 million new jobs, rising wages, the
lowest unemployment in a generation and record-breaking levels of home ownership. That
means more money in your paycheck, lower interest rates to buy a home or a car, and more help
through efforts like the Hope Scholarship to send your children to college. We are on a solid
path of progress and prosperity and the American people want it to continue.
Two days ago, I vetoed the Republicans' risky $792 billion tax plan, because it was too
big, too bloated and would place too big a burden on our economy. It would have forced cuts. of
nearly 50 percent in everything from air traffic safety to education to heatlhcare to veterans
programs. Without these untenable cuts, hundreds of billions of dollars would have to be
diverted from the Social Security lockbox and debt reduction. We said we shouldn't touch the
Social Security surplus, and today I say to the Congressional majority- we don't have to do it.
But so far, the Congressional majority has pursued a path that would force them to break
that pledge. In fact, the same day I vetoed their budget-busting tax plan, they passed a bill out of
committee that would not only seriously undermine our efforts to strengthen public education,
_ but would also result in the spending of the Social Security surplus. Their education budget
would eliminate our effort to hire quality teachers and reduce class size. It would deny hundreds
of thousands of young people access to after-school programs. It fails to improve and expand
Head Start, cuts the successful America Reads program and cuts educational technology - all at a
tirrie when we need to be doing more, not less to prepare our children and our nation for the
challenges ofthe new global economy.
�To find a way out the quandary they have created for themselves, the Congressional
majority has resorted to all kinds of gimmicks to claim they are not using the Social Security
surplus: declaring the annual census an emergency, declaring the program that provides heating
assistance for poor people an emergency, even though winter is an annual certainty, and
rescinding $3 billion in money promised to states to help them move more people from welfare
to work. [And with the Republican tax plan vetoed, they are putting forth other proposals that
would be paid for in only one way, by raiding the Social Security surplus.]These gimmicks are
designed to mask one thing - that the Republican proposals would lead to backing away from
our commitment to Save Social Security First.
There is a way out of this quandary. I have proposed a fiscally responsible budget plan
that eliminates the debt, strengthens and modernizes Medicare, invests in education and saves
Social Security. My plan would create a reallockbox that, unlike the Republican plan would
devote the entire Social Security surplus to debt reduction and extend the life of Social Security
until the middle of the next century. My budget meets the needs of the American people, pays
for itself, and offers a far better alternative than the Republican path which leads straight to
spending the Social Security surplus.
Time is short. The fiscal year will end on Thursday. I urge Congress to stop the
gimmicks ... stop the smoke and mirrors. You can do the people's business, fund our national
priorities, without continuing down the path of draining the Social Security surplus.
Thanks for listening.
�http://www.pub. whitehouse.gov/uri-... oma.eop.gov .us/ 1999/9/23110. text.!
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of_the Press Secretary
September 23, 1999
For Immediate Release
,REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
ON SIGNING VETO OF TAX BILL
The Rose Garden
11:10 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning.
Thank you very much.
Please be
seated.
Thank you and good morning. As all of you know, Congress has
sent me the tax bill I have repeatedly pledged to veto.
In a moment, I
will do that because, at a time when America is moving in the right
direction, this bill would turn us back to the failed policies of the
past.
In the 12 years before I became President, irresponsible
policies in Washington piled deficit upon deficit, quadrupling the
national debt, leading to high interest rates, eventually bringing us
the worst recession since the Great Depression.
Interest rates and
unemployment were too high, wages were stagnant, growth was slow.
Vice President Gore and I came into office determined to
change all that with a new economic strategy focused on fiscal
discipline, expanded trade, investmen·t in our people.
The strategy has
worked.
In the past six and a half years, it has produced lower
interest rates and ushered in the longest peacetime expansion in our
history, with more than 19 million new jobs, rising wages, the lowest
unemployment in a generation, and record-breaking levels of home
ownership. And by balancing the budget for the first time in a
generation, we have changed red ink to black, turning a deficit of $290
billion into a budget surplus of $99 billion this year, with growing
surpluses projected for years to come.
The American people understand that these are not simply
numbers on charts.
The progress we've made is something they see and
feel every day -- in more jobs, higher paychecks, HOPE scholarships that
help send their children to college, lower interest rates for owning a
home and buying a car. This is the right course for our people, and our
nation.
It is making a difference in the lives of Americans. And they
want us to stay on it.
Our hard-won prosperity gives us, also, the chance to do
something few people ever have -- the chance to invest our surplus to
meet the long-term challenges of America.
We can lift the burden of
debt from the shoulders of the next generation. We can secure the
future of Social Security and Medicare. We can ensure a first-rate
education and modern schools for our children.
Unfortunately, the tax bill Congress has sent me would deny
those opportunities to the American people.
The bill is too big, too
bloated, places too great a burden on America's economy.
It would force
drastic cuts in education, health care and other vital areas.
It would
cripple our ability to pay down the debt.
It would not add a day to the
Social Security trust fund.
It would not add a day to the Medicare
trust fund, or modernize Medicare with prescription drug coverage.
Nearly a trillion dollars in tax cuts, but not one dollar for Medicare.
I will veto this bill because it is wrong for Medicare, wrong for Social
1 of3
9/29/1999 10:33 AM
�.-------------------
--------------
http://www .pub. whitehouse.gov/uri- ... oma.eop.gov .us/ 1999/9/23/10. text.1
Security, wrong for education, and wrong for the economy.
Now, in the face of my determination to do this, many in
Congress seem ready to throw in the towel.
That would be a disservice
to the American people.
They sent us all here to get things done. And
we have proved in the past, with the Welfare Reform bill of 1996 and the
Balanced Budget Act of 1997, that we can work together to get things
done and bring good results to our country.
So, instead, I ask Congress
not to go home until we have worked together once again, in a good-fait~
effort to meet the long-term challenges our people face.
First, let's reach a bipartisan agreement to save Social
Security.
The congressional majority's current plan and its so-called
lockbox would fail to protect the Social Security surplus from being
spent, and it would not add a day to the Social Security trust fund.
Instead of this weak lockbox and no additions to the trust fund, I ask
Congress to work with me to construct a real lockbox that would keep
Social Security solvent until the year 2050.
Second, let's work together to save Medicare. With Medicare
facing insolvency in just 16 years and with three out of four seniors
lac~ing dependable, affordable prescription dru~ coverage, we know we
must not put off this challenge. Months ago, I put forth a detailed
plan for Medicare that would reform and modernize it with a voluntary
prescription drug benefit.
It would address the immediate, critical
needs of teaching hospitals, skilled nursing facilities and other
priorities while extending Medicare's solvency to the year 2027.
Now, I don't expect the Republican majority to agree with me
on every detail of my plan; I never thought that would be the case.
But
I do expect, and the American people have a right to expect, that we
will work together in good faith to meet these long-term objectives.
Third, we should fulfill our obligations to the future by
producing a real budget that pays down the debt, brings down interest
rates, and makes vital investments in education, the environment,
national security, biomedical research, health care, and other areas so
vital to our future.
If we do this, within the framework I have outlined, we can
not only invest in our future, we can pay down America's debt over the
next 15 years and make our country debt-free for the first time since
Andrew Jackson was here and planted that big magnolia tree in 1835.
(Applause.)
So I say again, let's do first things first:
pay down the
debt, save Social Security, save and modernize Medicare, invest in
education.
In the days ahead, I will ask the Republican majority to work
with me to fulfill these fundamental obligations we have to our children
and to our future.
If we can work together to meet these objectives, we
can also work together to pass tax relief we can afford -- affordable,
middle-class tax relief that reflects the priorities of both parties and
the values of the American people.
That would be a good bill I would
happily sign.
Every generation of Americans is called upon to meet the
challenges of its time.
But few have the unprecedented opportunity we
have -- to meet the challenges not only of our time, but the great
challenges of our future.
We must seize that opportunity.
Thank you very much.
(Applause. )
(The veto is signed.)
2 of3
9/29/1999 10:33 AM
�http://www.pub.whitehouse.gov/uri-... oma.eop.gov.us/1999/9/23/lO.text.l
Thank you.
ENQ
3 of3
(Applause.)
11:23 A.M.
EDT
9/29/1999 10:33 AM
�THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
September 24, 1998
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
ON INCOME AND POVERTY REPORT
The Rose Garden
12:20 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: She was terrific, wasn't she? Let's give heranother hand. I thought
she was great. Congressman Cardin, welcome. I know you're proud of yourconstituent here.
Jessica, welcome. We're glad to see you. I think Congressman Blagojevich is here. We
welcome him, along with SenatorEphraim Gonzalez, who is the President ofNational Hispanic
Caucus of State Legislators; and Councilman Robert Cantana of Buffalo. Let me once again
thank Monique for her remarkable statement andher even more remarkable life. I'm delighted to
be joined here by oureconomic team-- by Erskine Bowles and Secretary Rubin, Secretary
Herman, Gene Sperling, Jack Lew, Janet Yellen, Larry Summers. Their tireless, often literally
sleepless work has been very instrumental in sparking and maintaining what soon will be the
longest peacetime boom inAmerican history.
Officials of the Census Bureau who are here today, I want to thank all of you. We're
going to be talking a little bit about some Census Bureau statistics. Sometimes we take your
hard work and statistics for granted. The fact is that you ensure that our democracy is
trulyrepresentative. And let me say in that connection once again, Congress must not hamstring
the Census Bureau's efforts to maintain the most up-to-date, accurate scientific methods to
produce the year 2000 census. They deserve the chance to succeed. Monique Miskimon has
shown us today once again that every American counts. That means that every American
deserves to be counted.
Now, before I get into the details of the very positive economicreport, which Monique
and her daughter so vividly represent, I think we all want to say just a few words and reflect on
the powerful impact of Hurricane Georges. In the Caribbean islands, businesses and homes
havebeen swept away; tragically, many"lives have been lost. Meanwhile, the projected track of
the storm places the hurricane center over or near the Florida Keys late tonight or early tomorrow
morning. As we speak, we're helping the people of Florida prepare for the hurricane. We've
already sent assistance to Haiti and the Dominican Republic. Obviously,we're working with the
officials in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.
James Lee Witt, the Director of the Federal Emergency ManagementAgency, has
informed me that FEMA's Region Six Emergency Response Team arrived in Tallahassee,
Florida, at 10:00 a.m. this morning. Here in Washington, the FEMA Emergency Support Team
is operating at Level One,its highest level, on a 24-hour basis.
�Our support teams and our prayers are with those in the Caribbeanas they begin to
rebuild, and those in the Florida Keys as they bracefor the impact of the storm. Now, as
President, from my first day here, I have done my best tofulfill a commitment I made to the
American people: first of all, to restore the reality of the American Dream-- of opportunity for
allresponsible citizens, of a community in which we all count and worktogether -- and secondly,
to reclaim the future for our children, to strengthen our country for the century ahead.
To accomplish that mission, we began first with an economicstrategy to shrink the deficit
and balance the budget, to invest in theeducation and skills of our people, and to expand the
export of Americangoods. The census report released this morning represents one more year's
worth of compelling evidence that this economic strategy is working, and that there are lots more
people out there like Monique Miskimon.
The report shows that last year the income of the typical American household grew at
nearly twice the rate of _inflation. Since we launched our economic plan in 1993_, the typical
family's real income has risen bymore than $3,500. That's an extra $3,500 that hardworking
families can put toward their children's education or a down payment on a first home. Income
for typical African American and Hispanic families increased bymore than $1,000 last year
alone.
This report also shows that our growing economy is giving more and more families a
chance to work their way out of poverty. The poverty rate fell to 13.3 percent, and while we still
have plenty of room forimprovement, the African American poverty rate fell to another
recordlow. Hispanic poverty saw the largest one-year drop in two decades.Child poverty has
dropped in the past four years, more than in any four-year period in the last three decades. And
the Earned Income Tax Credit, which Monique spoke of a moment ago, has raised more than
4million people out of poverty in the last year alone.
The report this morning shows that economic growth continues toraise incomes, lift
millions out of poverty, and extend opportunity. It also shows that we have more to do. Since
1993, every income group hasbenefitted from our nation's economic growth and the lowest 20
percentof our people in terms of income have had the highest percentage increases. That's the
good news, after over 20 years of increasing inequality.
But that inequality is still too high, and it simply means thereare too many American
families out there working hard, doing everything we could possibly ask of them, and still having
a hard time getting ahead. We have to use our prosperity and the confidence that it inspires to
help our hardest pressed families and our hardest pressed communities to ensure economic
growth for all Americans.
The most important thing we have to do, of course, is to maintain the economic strategy
that got us here in the first place -- above all,the strict fiscal discipline that has given us low
interest rates, low inflation, big investments and more jobs.
�Exactly a week from today, we will have the first balanced budgetand surplus since Neil
Armstrong walked on the moon in 1969.Unfortunately, this week in the House of
Representatives, theRepublicans are moving forward with a proposal that drains the new surplus
to pay for their tax plan. We can cut taxes. Indeed, my balanced budget includes targeted tax
cuts for child care, for education, for environniental clean-up. But tax cuts must be paid for in
full if we are to expand opportunity in the years to come.
I say again, we have been waiting for 29 years to see the red ink tum to black. We have a
huge baby boom challenge coming when all the baby boomers retire. Social Security, as
presently constituted, cannot sustain that retirement. We have to reform Social Security if we
want to have it for our parents -- that's me, when the baby boomers retire -- without undermining
the standard of living of our children and grandchildren.
So I say again, let us not get into this surplus we have worked for 29 years for -- or we've
waited for 29 years for and _worked for 6 years for. Let's don't get into that and spend it in an
election year tax cut until we have saved Social Security for the 21st century, for the sake of our
children and our grandchildren.
Second, we have to continue to invest in our people and lift them all up. I was deeply
disappointed this week when 95 percent of the Republicans in the Senate voted not to raise the
minimum wage. To reject an increase in the minimum wage when there are still so many people
working full-time and raising children in poverty, when the unemployment rate and the inflation
rate is so low, I believe is a mistake and sends the wrong signal to the American people.
I thank the 95 percent of the Democratic Caucus in the Senate who voted for the increase
in the minimum wage. Working Americans deserve it. I'm disappointed, with only a week left
in the fiscal year we rejected this, and I haven't quit fighting for it. I think eventuallywe will get
it in the next several months; if we have to wait until next year, we will get it.
But I'm also disappointed -- as I said, a week from today we end the fiscal year and we
start a new one. And there's still been no action in the Congress on our vital education
investments. Indeed, what action there has been in the House of Representatives has been
negative, has been a setback for education.
Congress should work with us to enact my plan, paid for in thebalanced budget, to reduce
class size to an average of 18 in the early grades; to hire 100,000 teachers to teach those children
in smaller classes; to rebuild or to construct or repair 5,000 schools so our kids will have good,
adequate, safe schools to attend; to hook up all of our classrooms -- all of them, even in the
poorest neighborhoods -- to the Internet by the year 2000; to improve early literacy by funding
the program to send volunteers in to make sure that every eight-year old can read; to lift our
children's sights with voluntary national standardsand clear means of measuring them.
Now, if we hope to maintain our economic growth well into the next generation, we have
to give every American child a world-class elementary and secondary education.
�So I say again, we've been here formonths and months; there's just a week left in the budget year
-- let's finally have action to improve our public schools and give all of our kids a world-class
education.
The third thing I'd like to say is we have to continue to lead in the global economy if we
want the American economy to continue to grow. We're enjoying unsurpassed economic
prosperity, but all of you read the papers every day, you see the news at night, you know there
are troubles elsewhere in the world. You know our friends in Asia and Russia are facing great
turmoil. You know we're trying to keep our big trading partners and friends in Latin America
from having the negative effect ofthat turmoil reach them even though they are pursuing good
policies.
That's why it's important for Congress to fund our America's share of the International
Monetary Fund, because the International Monetary Fund helps the countries that are helping
themselves to return to growth,_and serves as an insurance policy against having the finc;tncial
crisis spread to the countries that are doing the right thing and keeping Americans at work by
buying our products.
Again I say, there is no reason not to do this. We've only got a week left in the budget
year. We've been talking about it all year long. The problem has only gotten worse. It is time
now to say, we're doing this because it's what America owes as the world leader; and more
importantly, we're doing it because it is absolutely necessary to keep American economic growth
go mg.
Finally, let me say that with just a week left in this budget year, I'd still like to see the
Congress pass a decent patients' bill of rights, one that covers -- (applause). Our bill would
provide protections to all Americans, simple ones. If you get in an accident,you can go to the
nearest emergency room, not be hauled to one halfway across town. If your doctor tells you you
need to see a specialist, you can see one. If it comes down to a dispute about whether a medical
procedure should or should not be applied, the decision should be made by a doctor, not an
accountant. Your medical records ought to be protected in privacy. If your employer changes
health care providers, it shouldn't affect you if you happen to be in the middle or a pregnancy or a
chemotherapy treatment, or some other thing that would be entirely disruptive and dangerous and
damaging to your health care if you had tochange doctors in the middle of the procedure.
Now, we do that for everyone. The House passed a bill on a partisan vote, completely
party-line vote, that doesn't protect 100 million people and doesn't provide any of those
protections to the people that are covered. The Senate Majority Leader actually shut down
business in the Senate a few days ago to keep them from voting for it, so they wouldn't be
recorded -- they wouldn't be recorded as killing the patients' bill of rights -- but they could kill it
and still satisfy the insurance companies that are doing their best to do it.
There's still time. We haven't broken for the election yet. Wecan still do the right thing
by the American people. But we have tothink about it, we have to focus on it, and we have to put
our priorities where they ought to be.
�I think it's worth fighting for the patients' bill of rights in the closing days of this congressional
sessiOn.
Again, I want to thank the economic team here and our supporters in the Congress,
including those who are here today, for giving more Americans a chance to live the story that
Monique has told us about. I want to thank her for coming today and bringing her beautiful
daughter.! know we all wish them well.
Our prayers are with the people who are about to be affected and those who have been
affected by the hurricane. And I ask that all of us focus on using these last days of this
congressional session to think about the American people, to think about our responsibilities, to
think about what got us here over the last six years,· and instead of departing from it, to bear
down and build on it. That is my goal and that's what we ought to do.
Thank you very much.
Q Mr. President, do you see any way out of an impeachment inquiry?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, let me answer you this way: the right thing to do is for us all
to focus on what's best for the American people. And the right thing for me to do is what I'm
doing. I'm working on leading our country, and I'm working on healing my family.
And if you look at what we announced today, what does it tell you? It proves, number
one, that the course we have followed has been the right course for America. That's what it
proves. After six years, it can't be an accident anymore.
But the second thing it proves is that it is utterly foolish for people to be diverted or
distracted from the urgent challenges still before us. I told you that we had a record -- a record
low in African-American unemployment and poverty; a record low in the poverty rate for
children, of African-American children. Do you know what that record low is? It's about 39
percent. In other words, it's breathtakingly high. That's just one statistic.
So what does that tell me? It tells me that the right thing to do is, if we all put progress
over partisanship, put people over politics, put the American people first -- what would we do?
Well, we would keep the budget balanced. We would save Social Security before we squandered
the surplus. We would improve our schools. We would clean up our environment. We would
pass the patients' bill of rights. And we would keep the economy going. That's what we would
be focused on. That's what I am focused on. That's the way out.
The way out here -- and the only way out is for people in Washington to do what the
folks in America want them to do, which is to take care of their concerns, their children, and their
future. That's what I mean to do, and I'm going to do my best.
END
12:38 P.M. EDT
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Terry Edmonds
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Office of Speechwriting
James (Terry) Edmonds
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1995-2001
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
<a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/36090" target="_blank">Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7763294" target="_blank">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2006-0462-F
Description
An account of the resource
Terry Edmonds worked as a speechwriter from 1995-2001. He became the Assistant to the President and Director of Speechwriting in 1999. His speechwriting focused on domestic topics such as race relations, veterans issues, education, paralympics, gun control, youth, and senior citizens. He also contributed to the President’s State of the Union speeches, radio addresses, commencement speeches, and special dinners and events. The records include speeches, letters, memorandum, schedules, reports, articles, and clippings.
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
William J. Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Extent
The size or duration of the resource.
635 folders in 52 boxes
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Paper
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
CR [Continuing Resolution] – Income Pov. 9/30/99 [2]
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Office of Speechwriting
James (Terry) Edmonds
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2006-0462-F
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Box 2
<a href="http://www.clintonlibrary.gov/assets/Documents/Finding-Aids/2006/2006-0462-F.pdf" target="_blank">Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7763294" target="_blank">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
William J. Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Adobe Acrobat Document
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Reproduction-Reference
Date Created
Date of creation of the resource.
12/9/2014
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
42-t-7763294-20060462F-002-002-2014
7763294