-
https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/files/original/ab03d0f4ded50e9db05a11ffc1a693d5.pdf
9aa887ae96ade4525ae93b8fd54fabc5
PDF Text
Text
FOIA Number: 2006-0462-F
FOIA
MAR
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:
10981
FolderiD:
Folder Title:
Mayors [4]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
s
0
0
0
0
�The President's Directive to the Attorney General
to develop a
National Sexual Offender Registration System
June 19, 1996
•
The Clinton Administration has a longstanding commitment to ensuring the safety of
families and protecting them from child molesters and sexually violent offenders.
•
The 1994 Clinton Crime Bill included several provisions that strengthen law
enforcement efforts against sexual offenders and protect the rights of victims. One of
the most important provisions in the bill was the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against
Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act [Wetterling Act]. It
promotes the establishment by states of effective registration systems for child
molesters and other sexually violent offenders and permits community notification.
•
Recently, President Clinton signed "Megan's Law," which builds upon the 1994
Clinton Crime Bill by making the permissive community notification provision in
Wetterling mandatory. Megan's Law will require states to make public relevant
information about child molesters and sexually violent offenders that are released from
prison or placed on parole.
•
It is time to take the next step. That is why President Clinton today is directing the
Attorney General to develop a national sexual predator and child molester registration
system. This system will build upon the Wetterling Act -- which is already
establishing 50 separate sex offender registration and notification systems -- by
combining this information into a national system.
•
The Attorney General will work with all 50 states, the Judiciary and all approrpriate
Federal agencies on the plan and report back to the President in 60 days. This
national system will give law enforcement at every level information on all sexual
offenders in the United States and provide them the opportunity to share this
information with one another.
•
Crime knows no state boundary. And law enforcement data show that as a group, sex
offenders are significantly more likely than other repeat offenders to commit additional
sex crimes or other violent crimes, and that tendency persists over time. When sex
offenders move, the law should move with them. Under the President's Directive, law
enforcement throughout the country will now have a national system to track these
offenders.
�The President's Directive to the Attorney General
to develop a
National Sexual Offender Registration System
June 19, 1996
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Q:
What is the Jacob Wetterling Act?
The Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender
Registration Act -- which was a key element of the 1994 Crime Act -- provides financial
incentives for states to establish effective registration systems for convicted child molesters
and other sexually violent offenders. In addition, the Act also permits community notification
concerning the location of registered offenders where necessary for public safety. This will
enable communities to take common sense measures to protect themselves and their families.
Sex offenders as a class are highly likely to repeat their crime. Child molesters and
sexual predators must register with law enforcement wherever they go, and citizens have a
right to know when a sex offender is in their community.
Sex offender registration systems can greatly assist the investigation of sex crimes. In
· addition, creation of state-based registration systems is crucial for enabling state law
enforcement agencies to communicate with each other regarding sex offenders who cross state
lines. When sex offenders move, the law should move with them.
Q:
What is Megan's Law?
The Wetterling Act promotes the establishment by states of effective registration
systems for child molesters and other sexually violent offenders. It also permits, but does
not require, states to release relevant registration information that is necessary to protect the
public concerning sexual offenders who are registered.
Megan's Law builds on this commitment by making the permissive community
notification provision in Wetterling mandatory. It is named in honor of Megan Kanka, who
was raped and murdered nearly two years ago, allegedly by a man who lived across the street
from her in a New Jersey neighborhood.
Megan's Law will require states to make public relevant information about child
molesters and sexually violent offenders that are released from prison or placed on parole.
1
�Community notification enables communities to take common sense measures to
protect themselves and their families, such as ensuring that their children do not associate or
visit with known child molesters.
Q:
What does this Directive really do?
President Clinton is directing the Attorney General to develop a national sexual
predator and child molester registration system. This system will build upon the Wetterling
Act, which is already providing 50 separate sex offender registration and notification systems.
The Attorney General will work with all 50 states, the Judiciary and all appropriate
Federal agencies on the plan and report back to the President in 60 days. When completed,
this national system will give law enforcement at every level information on all sexual
offenders throughout the United States and provide them the opportunity to share this
information with one another.
Q:
What is the point of this? Why do you need a national system?
Crime knows no state boundary. Child molesters and other sex offenders in particular
commit serial offenses often repeating the pattern in town after town and state and after state.
By creating a national tracking system, we will be able the best understanding of the full
extent of the problem, know their whereabouts, and eventually prevent future sexual offenses.
This national system is no different than developing any other criminal national data
. base. Indeed, it is more important in that it is specifically tailored to deal with a criminal
group that has a disproportionally high recidivism rate.
The Wetterling Act requires these convicted sex offenders to register with their state
and to re-register when they move to another state. This system is the next logical step to
the Wetterling Act requirements. The vital information established by the Wetterling Act
should not be collected in 50 separate data bases with no national repository.
Q:
Why didn't we have a national system before?
The 1994 Clinton Crime Bill, which included the Wetterling Act laid the groundwork
to develop a national system. We recently released the guidelines for states to come into
compliance with Wetterling and the Justice Department is working with states to improve
their systems. The national system is the next logical step.
Q:
What kind of crimes will this solve?
Since sexual offenders have such a high rate of recidivism, it is important to track
. their whereabouts after they complete their sentence. This national system will greatly assist
2
�----------
law enforcement at all levels track sex offenders -- rapists, child molesters, and sexual
predators.
-
Q:
How many sex offenders are there in the country?
Sexual crimes are notoriously underreported. However, there is no dispute that even
considering only the fraction of these incidents known to law enforcement, the impact of
violent sex crimes -- on adults, children, and society -- is devastating and widespread.
Annual nationwide crime victimization surveys by the Justice Department indicate that
in 1993 there were 312,000 rapes and attempted rapes and 173,000 other sexual assaults; in
· 1992 there were 375,000 rapes and attempted rapes and 233,000 other sexual assaults.
Law enforcement data show that as a group, sex offenders are significantly more likely
than other repeat offenders to commit additional sex crimes or other violent crimes, and that
tendency persists over time.
A 15 year follow-up study by the California Department of Justice of 1,362 sex
offe_nders arrested in 1973 found that 19.7% were rearrested for a subsequent sexual offense.
Those first arrested for rape by force or threat had the highest reoffense rate, 63.8% for any
offense, and 25.2% for a subsequent sex offense. Sex offenders were five times as likely as
other violent offenders, and more than six times as likely as all types of offenders, to reoffend
with a sex offense.
3
�---
-----------
Cleveland's own Louis Stokes has been a leader m
I also want to thank
Senator Carol Moseley-Braun and Congressman Charlie Rangel who will be introducing this
community empowerment legislation next week. I call on every mayor in this room to rally
for its passage. _ IJ _-~
Jl ~
-LIJ
/1 I) . •
- --1,~
._. ._
/
.i,
I~ w-~ A,IJ ~~~P-eA. 1<---Lt.{~c.c_(rtt.~'r;;l.-~/~r>o_L/<f7f?
/1
;
~
But we must do more to connect disadvantaged communities and their residents to
econon~ic opportun~ty. A_s I said la~t July, the~e a:e places in out c~untry w~ere the free ~
enterpnse system simply 1sn't workmg to provide Jobs and opportuiuty. I said the
-""l ~
government must become3-9~HefJ?~J!ler fqr ElOP~-)~those areas. That is why I recently
~
signe ~~executive orde§,;c~ahe~'efu.po~fill€1\t contrapting~am,_ w.»~~
o r special incentives for government contracting awards for~es in~St1essed
communities in all parts of this country. This effort is a supplement, not a replacement for
affirmative action. It is an attempt to create opportunity in isolated pockets of economic
distress that the private sector has not been able to reach.
~~f.fte feaeral gOvernmenfnas a respensibility-to-lead-in-ou'r-effOrfSto'
~~~s~ I also just signed an executive order, directing federal
agencies that are building facilities or relocating, to give first priority to our central cities.
.
\
~
v·· '
..---The-private-sector-is-stepping..J!R to our_community._emp_o_w_eJ:illent challenge in_a,
~~~nber-of\vays:--·un.-e-wa:y-they-are-helping-is-through-investin~-in_affordabl e housing in our
\_, ~s. I am pleased to announce that last year, corporate Amenca, through the Local
Initiatives Support Corporation, invested a record $410 million for the development of
affordable housing throughout the country. This will create 12,000 construction jobs and
tJ4't~k .:__
_..., _
more than 8,000 units of low-income housing.
~
~~~
But, we all know that
only way businesses and people will thrive in our cities is if
w~ create s~fe and secure neighborhoods ..h~e I too~}),f_u_:V--X- hav_s~9tked t3Aornbat the
cnme and vwlence that has become too farnilta~ many Ame¥ftans. ~sseo a
sweeping Crime Bill in 1994 against steep opposition from partisan politicians and special
interest pressure groups. We're putting 100,000 new police officers on America's streets in
community pobcing; nearly half are already funded. We banned deadly assault weapons.
The Brady Bill has stopped over 60,000 felons, fugitives, and stalkers from buying a gun.
We're helping communities give children something to say yes to, so they stay away from
crime and trouble in the first place.
These laws are making a difference across our country. We have finally begun to
push crime back. In city after city and town after town, crime rates ar~ finally corning
down. But we have a long way to go. And as we move forward, we have to remember
that we're not just fighting against crime -- we're fighting for something. We're fighting for
peace of mind; for the freedom to walk around the block at night and feel safe; for the
security of neighborhoods that aren't plagued by drugs, where you can leave your doors
unlocked and not worry about your kids playing in the yard. We're fighting to restore the
sense of community people my age grew up with. But most of all, we're fighting for our
children; we're fighting for their future.
�' ~·-
. -.
'
------
LOCAL /NIT/A TIVES SUPPORT CORPORA T/ON
DATE:
June 5, 1996
TO:
Michael Barr
FROM:
Patty Foley
RE:
National Equity Fund Announcement
b~W':e-fl:tatrirnafin"yiipmr:eievious year-- is a
powerful demonstration of corporate America's commitment to low-income commltnities, and its
growing r~alization that community reinvestment is good business.
This milestone public/private partnership ulsu 1nakes a strong statement about the crucial
importance of the permanent Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LJHTC), which Secretary Rubin
has worked so hard to preserve. Through the permanent LTHTC, corporate investment in
anordable housing has almost doubled. Since 1993, when the Housing Credit was made
pennanent, NEF, the nation's largest L!HTC syndicator, has rais~d more corporate equity chan in
the six previous years combined, when the Housing Credit had to be periodically renewed. The
success of the Housing Credit is due, in large prut, to the committed leadership of the
Administration, led especially by Secretary Rubin. USC would welcome the opportunity to
·t:..
n:cogni:l.e the positive impact of the Secretary's dedication. on America's low-income
communities.
The announcement will be held in Cleveland's Mf. Pleasant neighborhood, at a singletamily home developed by the Mt. Pleasant Now Community Development Corporation, as part
of a scattered-site project. The~e homes overlook a market-r.:~.te, single family home development
and the l'uturc site of a commercitll/rc:tail development. Mt. Pleasant Homes, and the additional
development which they ha.ve attracted to the nei~hborhood, arc a striking example of the impact
of the Housing Credit on community renewal.
£0'd SOO'ON
.
.!.00~
~Q:~t
96.SO NnC
)3S )3X3
t~~R-~~A-7n7:nT
SV3~1
,
C.!.OOZZ9 ZOZ
""'ttT
6~
n: n
u.e-um
..., . . . .
96/0Z/90
T •
.....
�.
The NEF Announcement pr~esents 3 powerful opportunity to demonstrate the good news
about America's inner cities. The announeernent will:
•
Detnonstrate the broad impact of [he Housing Credit in rebuilding neighborhoods and
transforming lives-- reinforcing the ne~ssily ofprcs~rving the permanent LIIffC.
•
Rccogni;r,e America's corporate l~ader.; tor their commitmr:nt to the;r cnmmunities ••
demonstrated by their record investment in NF.F in 1995. The armounc:ement will also
give corporate leaders the opponunity to see how efficiently and effectively their
investments arc put to use by non-profit community ba.t::ed developers.
•
Highlight the achievements of community-based dcvclopc~s across the country ...
including the Mt. Pleasant Now Communily Development Corporation •• who creatively
'-•~e a combimt1on of private und public money to renew hope und opportunity. The
announcement will also highlight the crucial role of public/private partnerships in
stimulating this creativity.
The parlicipants in this announcement repr~.sont the strength of community based
development and the breadth of the dynamic: public/private prtrlnerships aligned behind
community base:d d~velopers, enabling CDCs to pursue innovative, comprehensive communiLy
revitalization strategies. Leading elected officials include: Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley,
Seattle Mayor Nom1 Rice and Clr:velund Mayer Michael White. An invitation has also been
exrended to Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan. USC Presidc:nt Paul Gmgan, N.tF Chairman
George Latimer and.the former and ~urn;nt executive directors of the Mt. Pleasant Now
Community Development Corporation will represent community based developers at the
a.nnouncl:!ment. Private :sector executives from a diverse group of large and sn'lall financial
institutions as well a~ consumer and industrial companies will represent NEF's partners in
rebuilding neighborhoods.
We believe that the strength of this publi~;/privo.Lte partnership and the message that
something is working in America's cities will peak the interest of the national press. as well as
local and trade coverage. The lJ .S. Conference of Mayors activities provide an important
background for the annottncement, especially as they strive to Hnd new ways to effectively
involve the private secr.or in revitali7.ing urban areas. Tu maximize the opportunities which thi.s
presents, USC is working with a number of national reporters who cover the Conference of
Mayors, and would welcome imput from you and David Dreyer.
~O"d
SOO"ON SO:ut
SOO~---···
96.SO Nnr
··--·.
L~hS-~£S-?.07.:nr
:>3S :>3X3 SV3Ml
i
C.LOOZZ9 ZOZ s.g,
'"ln
zt n
=
ucurn
..., ... .,.,
96/0Z/90
�MAY-24 96'. 12:01
FROr1': W H PRESS OFFICE
20~4556210
.
. TO: 202 456 9054
PAGE:02
.'·
. , T_HE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the ·Press Secretary·
For Immediate Release
, May 21, 1996
STATEMENT BY .TIIE PRESS SECRETI\RY
~
, . I
.
In a continuing .effort to strengthen the economy and. create greater.'opporturuty,
Clinton today signed two exeCl}.tive· orders that will make t);le federal . ·
government a more effective partner in promoting jobs and private~sector investment in.
ou:r central cities and distressed rural heartlands.
·
·
·
·
Pit~sident
,·
'
~
ord~r
. ..
.
Pr~sidenes Empowerme~t
' An exeeutive ·
on .federal contracting. launches the
Contnicting program, providing a supplement, not a·replacement, to existing federal ,
.procurement programs.' Th~ program
offer special incentives for government
contracting awards to businesses'in distressed conununities. Under· the empowerment .
contracting order, large businesse~ that hire a significant number of residents and that
.will generate significant economic activity in 'Iow~~ricome areas will be· eligible to
participate in the program. Small business~~ may participate if they meet either test.
will
•
I
,
,
A second executive order encourages federal agencies to locate offices in the
histQric distficts of our central cities. The order also attempts to ease the regulatory
bur dens. that impede·_ the governme~ abitkptb i!l!blish. or cmaintain a presence' in
these districts.
·
·
·
.
'
.
\
.
.
..
The President said, "Together, these orders will help breath life into our central
citks, providing yet another exampl~ of the new partnership my Administration. has
forged 'between Washington, the private sectOr, and local commuriities .. Through these
orders -- and other community empowerment initiatiyes .like our Empowerment Zones
and Enterprise Communities program and our Community Development Financial .
Insti'tutions Fund -- we are stressing the need for private-sector investment and broad
.partnerships to revitalize communities that have been left behind despite our econoin.ic.
recovery."
Vice President Gar~ initiated the orders in his role as Chair of .the Community
,
.
,
·I
,,
Empowerment Board, the Cabinet-level group whi~,h coordinates the Administration's
11
community empowerment initiatives. Wf? recognize that the private sector must be the
driv~~r of economic opportunity. However, as these orders make clear, ,the government'
.
can be an effective partner by helping distressed communities attract. private-sector
,
, ~ invesunem and providing these communities with the tools to solve their own prob~ems, .. ·
said Gore.
-30-
�'}
-.President Cli~ton.'s Empowerment Contra~thig Executive ·
Order··
Questions and Answers
free
"Theriare places in our country where the
enterprise system.:. simply isn't wo~king to
provide jobs aiui opportunity. ... I belieye the government must become a better partner for
people [in these areas.) And I believe we have to find ~ays to get the private sector to asSllme
.
· [its] rightful role as' a driver ofeconomic growth."
-- PresidentCiinton, July 19, 1995
'
';
''
Th~ President's Empowerment Contracting Executive-Order offers a supplement, not a
•. replacement, to existing federal procurement contracting programs. It builds on.the
Administration's Community Empowerment Agenda and is designed to strengthen the nation's. economy by: promoting econ9mic Opportunity and busil)eSS growth in distressed urban and rural
communities. In his July 19, 1995 address to the nation on Affirmative Action, the President
_directed Vice President Gore "to develop a proposal to use our contracting [system] to support
business.es that locate themselves in.:. distressed areas or hire, a.large percentage of their workers
from these areas~-not to substitute for affirmative ·action, but to go beyond it, to do something
·. .that will help deal with the economic crisis of America."
The new Executive Order launches the President's Empowerment Contracting program. Under
the Order, large businesses coininitted to hiring a significant number of r.esidents from areas of
general economic distress and that will have a significant economic impact in these areas will be
·eligible to participate in the program. Small businesses may participate if they meet either tpe
hiring or the economic impact requirement. Busines_ses selected for participation i~ the
Empowerment Contracting program will be given evaluation c~edits for Government contract
awards. · .
·
The following are answers to -some ofthe most frequently asked questions about t~e program:
1. ·_
How. will the program help_ distress~d communities? -
By offering e~aluation credits to businesses located in distressed c9mmunities or· hiring residents
from such.areas, th~ program will help create or retain jobs for,the residents ofthese communities.
The Executive Order· is one of many tools the Administration is providing to help 'businesses
overcome the disinc.en#ves --such as increased cost_for capital, insuranceand security-- to
investment in. distressed communities. · Other Community E·mpowerment initiatives that are
•:helping .to foster private-sector investment in these communities include the Emppwerment Zones
· and Enterprise Communities· (EZ/EC) program, the Community Development Financial
·
. Institutions (CDFI) Fund, reformed enforcement of the Community Reinvestment Act, and the
Administration's B,rownfields initiative.
•,
\
�2. . How will areas of distress be defined, for purposes of the Empowerment,
Contracting prog~am? · · ' . . .. ·, .
· · ·
_
· ·
'
. In order to avoid fragmentation, simplify administration, and improve tpe overall effectiveness of
_federal initiatives targeted to distressed communities,· the Empowerment Contracting program will ·
employ the same targeting criteria used in the Administration's other Community Empowerment
· programs. The pr:ogram will therefore encpmpass those areas of the country that are currently
eligible for the EZ/EC program, t_he CDFI Fund, and the Administration's proposed Brownfields
tax incentive. Specifically, the Order defines an "area:of general economic distress" as any census
. tract that has apoverty rate of at least 20% or any community designated under the EZ/EC
program. The Secretary of Commerce also may designate aqditional rural and Indian reservation
areas for participation in the progra~ after taking into acco.unt several factors. regarding the area,
including the unemployment rate, degree of poverty, eXtent' of outmigration, and rate of business
1
formation and rate of ecopomic-groWt:h of the area.
'
·
According to'the 1990 census, almost one in four census tracts have a poverty rate of at least 20
percent. Every state and most cities throughout the country have such census tracts. At the same
time, almost one in four Americans live in census tracts that have a poverty rate of at least 20
percent and unempl~~ent in these census tra~ts is more than twice as hig~ as in other areas.
3.
'How -will interested businesses qualify to participate }n the Empowerment ·
Contracting program?
·
.
.
I
-
.
.
- Both large and small busin~sses will be eligible to Participate in the program, provided -they meet·
cert~n criteria. To ql,lalify for the Empowerment Contracting evaluation credit~ ·a large business
- must employ a significant number of residents from the area of general economic· distress and it
must either have a significant physical presence in the area or clearly show a significant impact on
generating economic activitY in the affected community.. --Proposed measures for objectively
. quantifying meaningful economic effects include:
-- percentage of production or econoffiic activity performed in the distressed area
.,. development ofsupplier networks in the distressed area .
- provision of credit and financing to local businesses and suppliers
~job training for residents ofthe. distressed area
.
.
- a.Jt:lOl:Jnt anci/or per~entage of the procurement subcontracted with businesses in· distressed areas
A small businesses may participate in the program if it employs a significant number of residents
from the area of general economic distress, has a significant physical presence in such area, .w:
clearly, shows a significant impact on ge~erating
economic actiVity .in the affected
community.
.
.
.
.
'
.
'
2
�I
What types of businesses are likely to benefit from the program?.
4.
Our survey of the types of businesses that exist in high poverty areas suggests that.theOrder ·
could contribute significantly to the development and stabilization ~f economic activity in those .
. -communities and the expansion of the federal contracting base. Currently, the numbers of
- potential contractors in-high poverty areas is relatively small: The following are examples of
.contracting sectors where there is some presence of companies in high poverty areas, where the
federal government in spending, in excess of $3 billion per sector, and where the federal
. government currently is directing a·very small percentage of its contractiqg purchases to such
areas: non-residentiai construction, heaVy construction, eoriimercial physical research and
· facilities support s~rvices~ There is 'much less potential for the Order to have an impact in high
technology"contracting sectors--such as electronics, computer equipment, sbftware and computerrelated services--because there is a very limited presence of such companies in high poverty areas.
I
)
.5.
Why should the Department of Commerce have responsibility for
administering the program?
-
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
\
.
.
The Empowerment Cqntracting program is designed to help foster economic growth, job creation
and expansion of the tax base in 'distressed urban and rural communities. The Department of
Commerce's programs regularly operate in public/pnvat,e partnerships with businesses of all sizes,
in both urban an4 rural area~, with the intended purpose of expanding ~co nomic growth for all
Americans.
'
'
··
•
•
F
/
•
/
•
'
6.
Hpw will the Administration insure that individuals are prevented from
obtaining the benefits of this program by fraud? - .
.
.
.
.
. The Admini~tration will make maximum use ofthe mechanism~ that are currently jn place to
discover and prosecute any instances of fraud related to the empowerment contracting program. .
· Agency Inspectors General will be alerted to the sensitivity of the program and agency. contracting
officials will b~ provided with recognizable indicators of fraud by prospective contractors. We
·believe that there are adeq4ate statutory tools .;_ including statutes that provide for criminal and
civil penalties for false clai~s --that give us the ne~ded authority to prosecute-cases offrauq and
that provide a chilling effect on the potential for abuse. Finally, we expect that. the availability of .
the protest authority under which industry competitors will object when they know that a firm has
. niisrepresented its status will al_~o serve· 'as a safeguard against fraudulent misrepresentations. ·
7.
Will the program create, an additio~al.administrative burden on affected
agencies and on the procurementprocess?
.No. -Every effort will be made in the jmplementation oftheprogramto minimize the'
administrative burden on all affected parties, while ~xpanding the uniy_erse of potential Federal
contractors.
3
�~·
\
·I
I
8.
Has the Federal Government administered a place-based procur~ment
preference program before? . ·
Since 1952, the Federal.Government has conducted the Labor. Surpl~s Ar~a (LSA) procurement
program that targets certain Federal contracts to businesses thadocate· in areas of high
unemployment. Currently, tire LSA progr~ awards a preference to blisinesses located in LSA's
only to break a tie· among two equally competitive contract bids.
',-'
'
With this Executive Order, the Federal Government strengthens its efforts to use the Federal
contracting system to encourage private-sector growth and economic oppolj:unity for distressed
communities and their residents. The Order will provide a riew sy~tem of incentives focussed on
businesses in ~eas of general economic distress.
9.
Will the E,mpowerment Contracting program replace or compete with the 8(a)
·
program and other procuremen~ pro'grams?
The Empowerment. Contracting program will supplement, not replace 8(a), small disadvantaged,
or other small or women owned business preference programs. The Empowerment Contractihg
program focuses on providing additional busi~ess access to Federal contracting opportunities.
.I
In particular, the Empowerment Contracting program will not interfere· with the 8(a) contracting
pt:ogram for the following reasons. First, under the order of precedence established in the Federal
Acquisitiori.Regulation, consideration as to how contracts will be performed is given first to the
8(a) program, then to small business set-asides, :and then to open bidding competitions. Second,·
_the empowerment ·program applies ollly to open competitions. Procurell1ent contracts that are
reserved for' performance by 8(a) firms·are reviewed and selected by the procuring agency and SBA representatives prior to any consideration of open competition. Finally, because the
empowerment credit is available only in the- context of an open bidding process,. in most cases a .
contracting officer will not know if a contractor is entitled to the empowerment credit until the
_. bids are received. ·Therefore, it is unlikely. that contracting officers would steer any contract from
. 8(a) to "empowerment-credit" companies.
.'
.
.
'-
4
�JUN-20 96 10:22
FROM:COMMUNICRTIONS
2024561213
T0:65709
PRGE:01
THE PRESIDENT HAS Sf.EN
Attachment #3
I"' ·-1 'f, •Cjl-:-
*
*
*
*
THE
VICE PRESIDENT
WASHINGTON
June 13,
MEMORANDUM FOR
TH~ENT
FROM:
THE VICE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
EXECUtiVE ORDER ON
As we have discussed, we should work to highlight the
Executive Q~der on Empowe~t Contracting, which you signed on
May 21, 1996. Outlined below are several options to promote the
Order and my recommendation that you discuss the Executive Order
during your speech to the u 5 Confe*'el:lce of Mayors on June 4_2,
1996, and highlight the program at an open press meeting of the
Community Empowerment·Board "CEB"l.
I.·
Backg-round
You first raised the idea of place-based procurement
contracting incentives during your speech last summer on
affirmative action. At that time, you underscored the continued
need for race-based affirmative action programs, but made clear.
that such programs would need to be reformed and narrowlytailored in light of Adarand.
in this speech, you also emphasized the need to connect
disadvantaged communities and their residents (regardless of
their race) to economic opportunity. In this regard, you asked
me "to develop a proposal to use our contracting [system] to
support businesses that locate . . . in distressed areas or hire·
a large percentage of their workers from these areas -- not as a
substitute for affirmative action, but to go beyond it, to do
something that will help to deal with the economic crisis of
America."
In developing the empowerment contracting proposal, my staff
met with numerous Congressional offices and constituent groups,
including representatives of the civil rights community, small
and minority business organizations, and women-owned businesses.
�~~----------
JUN-20 96 10:22
FROM:COMMUNICATIONS
2024561213
T0:65709
PAGE:02
Initially, most of these groups were suspicious of the
motivations behind the empowerment contracting proposal: They
feared that this approach was intended to eventually replace
race-based affirmative action programs.
(These fears were
exacerbated by the unfinished work of the Department of Justice~)
It was only after numerous consultations and assurances that the
empowerment contracting proposal was (as you said in your speech)
a "supplement, not a replacement," for race-based affirmative
action programs that these groups became comfortable with the
proposal.
In order to avoid the implication that it might be a
replacement, civil rights groups requested that we delay issuing
the empowerment contracting proposal until the Department of
Justice completed its Adarand review. All of your advisors
agreed, and on May 21, 1996 -- a day before the Justice proposal
was made public -- you signed the Executive Order on Empowerment
Contracting.
We have received favorable responses about the empowerment
contracting proposal from advocates of urban economic
development, including mayors' representatives. Civil rights and
minority business groups are also supportive of the proposal
especially when it is cast as one of the Administration's
community empowerment (urban development) initiatives.
II.
Options for Highlighting the Order
Various options exist for highlighting the Executive Order
on Empowerment Contracting.
A.
U.S. Conference of Mayors
Without question, you should discuss the Executive Order
during your June 22, 1996, address the annual meeting of the
U.S. Conference of Mayors in Cleveland. This event presents you
with an opportunity to highlight new and existing initiatives the
Administration is promoting that will benefit cities, including
~he proposed second round of EZs and ECs, the proposed
Brownfields tax incentive, the recentl - ·
tive Order on
ac~ 1 1es ln historic districts in central
hnsLn.ess
.
a:nti!§, and the Executive Order on Empowerment
Contracting. Moreover, this Executive Order has received support
from .urban advocates, including the representatives of several·
mayors and cities.
- 2-
�JUN-20 96 10:22
FROM:COMMUNICRTIONS
B.
2024561213
T0:65709
PRGE:03
Meeting of the Community Empowerment Board
In addition, I recommend that you highlight the Empowerment
Contracting Order (and the launch of the program) by convening a
meeting of the Community Empowerment Board, which would be open
to the press.
This forum is suitable because the CEB is coordinating a
number of initiatives designed to help cities, including the
proposed second round of EZs and ECs and the proposed Brownfields
tax incentive. In addition, a CEB meeting will allow you to
involve members of the Cabinet in promoting this initiative, some
of whom (including HUD, Labor, and SBA) will help Commerce design
the program. Finally, with a focused meeting, we will provide
our supporters with an opportunity to applaud the Order.
C.
Homeownership Event
You could highlight the Empowerment Contracting Executive
Order at a homeownership event, underscoring your differences
with Republicans in your respective approaches on both capital
gains tax relief and affirmative action. Our empowerment
contracting message, however, may get .lost in this forum. In
addition, as noted above, any suggestion on your part that a
place-based procurement strategy is an appropriate alternative or
replacement for traditional (race-based) affirmative action
programs is likely to engender serious concerns by civil rights
and minority business groups.
III. Recommendation
For the reasons outlined above, I recommend that you use
your speech to the U.S. Conference of Mayors to raise awareness
about the Empowerment Order and that you convene an open press
meeting of the CEB to highlight the Order and its program.
Please indicate how you would like us to proceed:
AGREE: INCLUDE IN SPEECH AND CONVENE OPEN PRESS
MEETING OF THE CEB
LET'~ DISCUS~®
~
�Women's Legal Defense Fund is all about. The opportunity for people to live out their own
personal dreams and to build strong families and forge strong communities-- that's really what
the Women's Legal Defense Fund is all about.
We are still working on those things, and we are still bedeviled by some old problems.
Yesterday, you many have seen in the press reports, I spend a lot of time working with
governors and other officials to try to come up with even more effective strategies to not only
find the people who are burning these religious institutions -- most of them African American
churches, at least one of them a mosque and, I might add, some white churches that have burned ·
in our country in the last 18 months -- there has been a big upsurge in overall burnings of
religious institutions in the last 18 months. But we were also searching for ways to reach the
heart of America to prevent these things from occurring. because they are a stark reminder that
while we value religious liberty more deeply than any other nation in human history, the demons
that haunt the human spirit in every land are not absent from America. And you have to stamp
them out whenever they rear their ugly head. (Applause.)
I will always be very grateful, as Judy said, that the first law I signed was the Family
and Medical Leave Law. (Applause.) And I wanted it so badly -- and some of you may
remember, it was a hotly debated issue in the 1992 campaign because Congress had already
passed it and it had been vetoed once, maybe even twice. I can't remember. But the thing that
struck me about it is that it was the symbol of the kind of country we should be trying to build.
I am the son and the grandson of working women. I never thought there was anything abnormal
about it. But I also know that the most important job any man or woman has is doing a good
job of raising the children that they're fortunate enough to bring into this world.
And it seems to me that if you look at the pattern of work and child rearing and the
tensions between them, and the troubles so many people still have finding adequate child care,
and the difficulties so many people still have earning a decent living, an adequate living to raise
their children, and still have time left over to spend time with their children.
One of the central goals of America in the 21st century should be to enable people to
succeed at work and at home. If we have to choose one or the other, we're going to be in
trouble. We know now that our economy needs all these people in the work force. We know
that most families, even two-parent families, need both incomes to have a good stable life. How
can we even imagine a world with even more rapid changes and more unforeseen challenges that
doesn't have systems in America for people succeeding at home and at work? If we have to give
up succeeding at work to raise our children, our economy will surely suffer. If we have to give
up successful raising our children just to make a living, well, the money won't be worth it.
The Family and Medical Leave Law puts this country on record as saying our national
goal is to enable people to be good parents and successful at work. And I'm proud to say that
a recent bipartisan panel concluded that just since the law has been in effect, 12 million
American workers have been able to take time off when they had a birth in the family or a sick
child or a sick parent without losing their jobs. Almost 90 percent of the businesses that were
3
�surveyed said that complying with the law costs them little or nothing. This has been good for
families and good for America.
The other day we had a very impressive group of people in the White House, the children
who were the designated representatives of the Children's Miracle Telethon in each of the states,
children who had been desperately ill in children's hospitals, and they and their parents came
to the White House. And I went downstairs to shake hands with all of them. And before I got
out of the room, two of the parents spontaneously had come up to me and said, we would never
have made it if it hadn't been for the Family Leave Law. I got to keep my job and try to help
take care of my child. I don't know what this country was like before it.
And I can say to you it's amazing to me there are still people who say that we shouldn't
have passed it. There are still people stubbornly saying, oh, there must be some way around
this. There is no way around it. Our goal should be success at home; success at work. And
that's what it's all about. And if it hadn't been for the Women's Legal Defense Fund, it might
not be the law of the land. You were there a long before I had a chance to sign it and I thank
you for that. (Applause.)
I've sought for other ways to give women and particularly families more power, more
control. It is true that I have sought to protect the right to choose and reproductive rights. We
also have dramatically expanded what I call the family tax credit, the earned income tax credit,
so that as we go forward today it's worth about $1,000 to every family in the country with an
income of $28,000 or less with children in the home. Our goal is to say if we're going to
preach at people to work, the tax system should not put them in poverty if they have children
at home. If you. work full time and you have children at home, the tax system should lift you
out of poverty, not push you down into it. That's what the earned income tax credit's all about,
and I'm very proud of it. And I have opposed vociferously the attempts in the last year and a
half to cut back on it in ways that would, in effect, raise taxes on the hardest pressed working
families in this country. That is wrong. Success at home, success at work. Don't let the
government get in the way of that. The government should be helping that.
We also have tried to give parents more control in helping to raise their children. That's
really what the crusade we've been on trying to restrict advertising of tobacco products to
children is about. (Applause.) And it's what the V chip was all about. And I applaud the
entertainment industry for their willingness to develop these rating systems on television. I don't
believe in censorship, I just believe parents ought to have some ability to raise their kids and to
try to expose them to things in the appropriate way at the appropriate time. And this is the thing
that I think all of you -- I think it would be helpful to all of us if we began to think in these
terms.
We don't have a person to waste. We need everybody's ability. We need people to have
a chance to grow up and have good schools and a clean environment and safe streets and also
strong families. And when I think, when I imagine what the world is going to be like 10 or 15
years from now, I know that there will be millions of people working 10 years from now in jobs
4
�that have not even been created yet. Some of them we can't even imagine. And it will be a
very exciting time if we have a system by which we can work with other freedom loving people
to fight back the security threats we face from terrorism and biological and chemical weapons
and things like that; and if we have a structure of community and family here at home that
enables us to give people the chance to b.e successful at home and successful at work, and
children the chance to have safe streets and good schools and a clean environment. If we can
do that, if we can set up that framework, there are no guarantees in life, but at least people will
have the opportunities they need.
One other thing I want to say about that is that that means that this country must say that
the level of crime and violence we have is simply unacceptable and it is not unavoidable. We
can do something about it. (Applause.)
You know, when we passed the Crime Bill in 1994, it embodied the central commitments
I made to the American people when I ran for President. We also passed the Brady Bill then.
I said I want the Brady Bill, I want the assault weapons banned, I want 100,000 police on the
street, I want three strikes and you're out for serious offenders, but I want funds going to
communities to give young people the chance to say yes to something, to stay out of trouble
before they get into trouble. That's what I think we ought to do. (Applause.)
And I have spent years and years and years going around visiting people in law
enforcement and looking at these programs and trying to learn what works -- first, of course,
in my own state and then, when I began to travel some, around the country. And I was
convinced that we can bring the crime rate down. I'd seen it happen in various communities
simply by implementing these strategies. And there were those who said that the Crime Bill was
a fraud and a fake and wouldn't have any impact. Well, I can tell you that it's 1996 now, and
we're almost half-way home on putting those 100,000 police on the street. We're ahead of
schedule. We are under budget.
We have passed the assault weapons ban. And there haven't been any hunters and
sportsmen or women lose their weapons and their bullets and all that. It was all a big smoke
screen. Everybody who wants to go deer hunting is still doing it. (Laughter.) But I'll tell you
something, there are 60,000 -- let me say it again, 60,000 -- felons, fugitives and stalkers who
have not been able to buy handguns because of the Brady Bill. Check into it. (Applause.)
Now the Supreme Court has agreed to review a case over the constitutionality of
requiring local law enforcement officials to help make sure that a person buying a handgun is
legally entitled to do so. Well I just want to make clear, I am going to do everything in my
power to keep the Brady Bill the law of the land. It's keeping people alive. It's a good thing.
(Applause.) Convicted felons and fugitives and people who are a threat to the community or to
their own spouses and children should not be out there, if we can keep them legally from having
the handguns by a simple waiting period so that we can check whether they should have it or
not. Every law enforcement organization in this country has endorsed the Brady Bill. And we
dare not walk away from it. It is keeping people alive.
5
�And let me point out now, the prime rate in this country is going down this year. It is
going to be the fourth year in a row that it's gone down. It's because people all over this
country now have figured out community policing works, because prevention strategies work;
because this whole approach works. There's more to do. We need to ban these cop-killer
bullets so our police are not at risk when they're out there. (Applause.) But this is working.
(Applause.) And the point I want to make to you is that we can make a difference here. We
can make a difference here. Don't let anybody tell you that America is just an inherently violent
country and we have to tolerate this level of violence. It is simply not true. We can do better.
There's more to do in a lot of other ways. I thank you for support of the minimum
wage. Ten million people depend on it and we need to raise it. (Applause.) I'm rather tired
of being told that the only people that get the minimum wage are middle and upper-middle class
teenagers who are living at home with their parents who don't need it. Sixty percent of the
people on the minimum wage ·are women workers, many of them have children they're trying
to support on the minimum wage. (Applause.)
We have to help people adjust to the changes in the new economy. That's why I, even
though -- and I appreciate what Judy said about health care, and I thank -- so many of you
helped Hillary when we committed the unpardonable sin of trying to give every American health
care that they could afford. (Laughter.) And somehow I don't think God's going to hold it
against us when our final accounting comes. (Applause.)
But we ought to pass the Kennedy-Kassebaum bill, and we ought to do it now. We ought
to do it in a uncluttered fashion. And we ought to quit fooling around with it. (Applause.) It's
time to stop holding these good legislative measures. That bill passed 100 to zero in the Senate.
And it is now being held hostage to controversial measures inessential to the fundamental
purpose of the Kennedy-Kassebaum bill. We should pass it now. People should not lose their
health care because somebody in their family has been sick or because they have to change jobs.
That is wrong, and we can change it and we should do it. (Applause.)
We ought to· guarantee that whenever someone loses a job or they're grossly
underemployed and they need more training, they qualify for federal help. I believe they should
get a voucher they can take to their local community college. That's the G.I. Bill for American
men and women workers. That has been tied up in the Congress over an ideological argument,
extraneous to the merits, for a year. It is time to pass that. (Applause.)
The Congress has a package of pension reform legislation which would make it much
easier for small businesses and self-employed people to take out pensions and then to carry it
with them from job to job without ever losing their coverage. That sounds like a simple thing
if you happen to work for the government and you've got a good retirement program, or you're
fortunate enough to be in a big company with a good retirement program. But it is a huge deal
to American men and women who do not have access to this. And as far as I know, there is
no opposition in the Congress to this package of pension reform legislation. We ought to pass
6
�it, get it out there, tell people you can at least save for your retirement and you won't lose it if
you lose your job for a while or you have to change jobs. These are important measures that
need to pass. (Applause.)
And I believe that while we dare not get into some flagrant tax-cutting war until we finish
the work of balancing the budget, we should give families a deduction for the cost of college
tuition and a tax credit so that everybody who wants to can go to at least two years of education
after high school; to make community college 14 years of education, not 12 the rule in America.
We need it. It would help the American economy. It would lift the incomes of millions of
working women. (Applause.)
I also want to say that we have more to do in the area of public safety, especially on the
issue of domestic violence. A lot of you were particularly active when we working for the
Crime Bill in passing the Violence Against Women provisions and setting up the domestic
violence operation in the Justice Department, which Bonnie Campbell is doing such a good job
of heading. And I thank you for that. But there is more to be done there. Violence against
women is certainly no stranger in this country. It is an unwelcome intruder. And it is not a
family problem, and it is not a woman problem, and let me say it is most assuredly not just a
poor person's problem. This is an American problem that we have to face. (Applause.)
In September federal prosecutors used that law to ensure that a man convicted of severe
violence against his wife was sentenced to life in prison. The Violence Against Women Act says
that victims of domestic violence should be able to seek relief in federal court for a violation of
their civil rights, and yesterday a federal judge upheld that provision of the law as well.
(Applause.)
Last February, we launched a 24 hour, seven day, toll-free hotline so that women in
trouble can find out how to get emergency help, find shelter, or report abuse to the authority.
Today, the hotline has responded to over 20,000 calls from women all across this country,. .
Again, that's just the first three months. We don't have the latest up-to-date. But, think of that
--a lot of those people never would have even called for help before. And I'll get in my plug,
the number is 1-800-799-SAFE. And I want people to keep using that number. We are working
those cases and helping people.
Today, we are taking the next step. I am proud to announce that our Justice Department
is awarding over $46 million to help 336 different communities in America to fight domestic
violence through the community policing program. The police departments who will be
receiving these grants have well-established community policing programs, strong relationships
with local providers of services to victims. We're coupling the power of the police forces routed
in the community with the experience of people who have been fighting domestic violence for
a long time.
And again, I say, this will work. I was in San Diego recently, and let me just give you
one example. Their police department has one of the largest domestic. violence networks in
7
�America. They formed it in 1992 and since then, domestic violence homicides have been cut
by 50 percent. You must believe we can do something about these problems, otherwise all these
things just become words. I'm telling you, you can make a difference if we do the right things
and we do them together.
The San Diego Police Department is getting a grant today that they will use to help start
an information network with the local YWCA to give victims and service providers and police
officers one-stop access to all the available help in the area, to bring the domestic violence rate
in San Diego down even more and to help victims as they work to take control of their lives
back.
As I said when I announced the hotline, you know, if it just saves one life it's worth it.
But it's not enough. We have to keep doing this until this is the exception, not the rule. We
have to keep working on all these problems until crime is the exception, not the rule. We will
never rid the country of crime. We will never have no domestic violence. But you know what
the test is? The test will be when you can go home at night, turn on the evening news and if
the lead story is a crime story, it the lead story is a domestic violence story, you are surprised
instead of numb to it. That is the test. And we have to keep going until you are .surprised
agam. (Applause.)
So I will close by echoing Judy's wonderful remarks. As you celebrate 25 years of
progress in the lives of women and strength for the women and families of this country, I ask
you to rededicate yourselves to the work yet to be done. I ask you to see this as an unfinished
journey. I ask you to celebrate your achievements as evidence that you can make a difference.
Sometimes I think that when we think about our thorniest problems, our biggest difficulty is that
we tend to get so weighed down by them we think that we can't change the fundamental fabric
of this society. Two hundred twenty years-plus of American experience gives the lie to that
cynicism. You can make things better, you can make progress, we can make a difference. You
have a great 25 years, and you have got an agenda that will fill up the next few years. I ask you
to embrace it with vigor and good humor and determination and courage, and we will prevail.
Thank you and God bless you all. (Applause.)
1:25 P.M. EDT
END
8
�137
P.09
Cleveland: The New American City
A Few Quick Facts
"Leader in urban renaissance." A Harvard Business School case study, .. Leadership in Action:
The Cleveland Turnaround," documented the citYs comeback and observed, " ... Cleveland is
h·eralded by many as the best practice leader in urban renaissance.u
Billions In development. More than $9.2 blllion in development projects have been completed,
under way, or announced in Greater Cleveland since 1990, with $3. S billion in public-private
investment downtown·· including the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum at the heart
of the new Cleveland Waterfront.
Neighbo·rh~tod
building "boom." More than 2,000 single-family homes were built in Cleveland
neighborhoods from 1990 through 1995 -- nearly six times the number built during the 1980s.
Commercial development in city neighborhoods has included eight new shopping centers and
ft:>ur strip centers over the past 15 years.
'Tops,' !:ays Site Selection. For the third time in a row, Site Selection magazine has named ,
Cleveland-Lorain one of the country's top five metropolitan areas for new business
investment and expansion.
Businesses expanding. More than 200 business expansion projects were undertaken in 1995,
c:reating 6,520 jobs and adding more than $974 million in new investment to the economy.
New jobs double. From 1990 to 1995, the rate of new job creation in the City of Cleveland doubled
when compared to a similar period in the 1980s --from 5,350 to 10,333 new jobs.
A majo1r headquarten city. Greater Cleveland is headquarters to 96 corporations with revenues of
SlOO million or more. Fourteen are Fortune 500 companies.
A new uhot spot•• for visitors. The annual AAA Summer Vacation Forecast for 1996 ranks
Cleveland as the second most~popular new "hot spot" for vacations in the United
behind only Atlanta, host city of the summer Olympic Games.
States~
Tourism continues to grow. Nearly 7 million visitors came to Cleveland in 1995, and the
Convention & Visitors Bureau of Greater Cleveland received more than l 52,000 visitor
i.nquiries --·a 126 percent increase over 1994. And with so many new visitor attractions
:lvallable, interest continues to grow -· in the first quaner of 1996 alone, the Bureau received
171,000 visitor inquiries ..
"All-America" five times over. Cleveland has won an unmatched five 1'All-America City'' awards
for its ability to address problems through collaborative, citizen-based initiatives.
For ma·re information call Chas Withers or Kevin Donahue of Dix & Eaton at (216) 24 I -0405.
�-,,
MAY 30 '96
12:22PM WASTE
P.l/2
MANAGEMENT~
WMX TECHNOLOGIES, INC. ·
601 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. ,
North Bldg. - Suite 300
Washington, D.C. ~0004
Phone: (202) 628-3500
. Fax; (202) 628-0400
I
_A·· ... ···· . ·.;·:
~Lt&
TO:
.&? )4 5 (o - d885
I
'
t
~
FROM:
•.
!:
i
DATE:
PAGES:
.
IfytJu hsv• •ny pi'Oblems with this tnnsmitf.JJI,
~~~~~
J,HHC./1
~
(202)
PLEASE DELIVER AS SOON AS POSSIBLE!
'8-35()()
�"I unlkr~~:tand thaL you arc all an,dou&ly awaiting ( Lik!i11ll of you, lnm luoking rorv,·uru Lo )lhc
;mnouncement, at your Monc:Wy lun,hcon, of thi~ yeo~r'11 winners or the Conference's City Livnbiliry
Award.c.;. This Awards Program is a wonderfld way of reco~l.in& outst•u1Jins ruuyL'Jrall~dcr~hip in the
development of inno\'ali\'e urban progr.uns Lh:u ~.ohance the livnbtlity of our nul.ion 's citicl'l. I wunllL)
congratulate the Conference of Mayor~> •m'-' 1n_v friend PWI .Roouey of Waste Manugunlr.:nt for spun,.uriug
Lhc Cit)· Livability Awards Proj;rllnl... .and Tcongr.l&ula14; th~: winncn; M lhis year's awards. I know they
~rc w~:ll ~ .... ~ ana I look rorward. 1('1 lcarniug about the UW'Jrd winning progr.lntli.
1lu,; FirsL Place winner of lhC Large City Award, two years ago. is a ~ood rricnu uf mlnc, Rich
D41C)'. 11\ a few days; he wiU become your new prrsideur (the m::~~l rN~idcnL of The tJnllcd ~UitCS
Conference of Mayors) and I wan I to cx"=nd my congratwatlonR to him a.rui my best w:ishes for a V~l)'
Ruo:xl~~rul term of office. We look forvr·arci to work in!£ with him Ull your lc:ukr."
.r
I
I.
-1N3W3~~N~W 31S~M
Wd22:21
96, 0E
A~W
".
�PRESIDENT WILLIAM J. CLINTON
REMARKS TO THE PEOPLE OF LAS VEGAS
MCCARRAN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
JUNE 9, 1996
Acknowledgments: Gov. Bob Miller; Sens. Richard Bryan and Harry Reid; Las Vegas Mayor Jan
Laverty Jones
My vision: In 1992, my vision for America: nation would offer opportunity, America would take
responsibility; a world where America remained the strongest force for peace, freedom; and a
renewed American community where all Americans come together around our basic values again.
Critical election: In 1992, the question was whether we would continue to drift along aimlessly
or whether we would change the course of America. In this year's election, as everyone has seen
over the last year, the choice is between two very different paths of change. And the choice is
very clear.
Our approach: We cut the deficit to less than half of what it was when I took office. Produced
9. 7 million new jobs -- Signed a real crime bill w/ 100,000 community police and assault
weapons ban, and Brady bill, and crime is coming down across the country. Renewed our
commitment to education of all our children, from Head Start to affordable college loans. Came
up with new ways to protect our environment and grow the economy: expanded Right to Know,
cutting toxic air pollution by 90%, working in partnership w/ business and communities to see
that our children breathe clean air, drink safe water, eat good food. Promoting values and
rewarding work, V-Chip, tobacco, EITC, Family Leave. REGO: govt. smallest it's been since
1965, got rid of16,000 pages ofregulations. Stood by affirmative action. Turned toward, n~t
away from, the world: Haiti, Bosnia, Middle East, Northern Ireland, NAFTA, GATT.
The Republican Way: Over the last year, GOP made clear its priorities. They would: Cut funds
for 100,000 police; slash education; eliminate national service; roll back 25 years ofbipartisan
commitment to protecting environment; place children and elderly in jeopardy. Time and again,
we stopped the Republicans from having their way. Our work is paying off: The 1996 budget
agreement I signed gives our country its fourth straight year of deficit reduction while protecting
education, the environment, Medicare and Medicaid.
More to do: This is a record to build on, not to sit on. We face stiff challenges. Only way we can
meet them is by working together.
1
�Working together: This is a campaign year. But that's no excuse for not coming together to do
the nation's business. When we have worked in bipartisan fashion, we have done great things: a
bold telecommunications bill, strong anti-terrorism legislation, honest lobbying reform. I want
Congress to work together and pass Kassebaum-Kennedy bill. .. an increase in the minimum
wage ... and real welfare reform.
Goals for the future. And we have real challenges to bring our country into the 21st Century.
We should make the 13th and 14th year of education as standard as the first 12 are now -- so
$1500 tax credit to make typical community college free. Computers in schools -- 1 Million new
citizens patrols. Ifwe give opportunity and demand responsibility, then the 21st Century can be
our greatest century for all our people.
It's going to be a tough fight: We have much to celebrate tonight. But let's remember that
we've got some long days and hard nights ahead. I am counting on you to stand with me -- for the
Democratic party and for our beloved country. If we work hard and keep our minds on what's
best for America, if we continue to stand for what Americans believe in, I'm confident that both
the Democratic Party and our country will see its best days yet.
2
�THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
June 20, 1995
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
BY SATELLITE TO U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS
11:15 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, Mayor Rice. And I want
to begin by congratulating Mayor Ashe on a great year as
president.
I have enjoyed working with you very much. And I
look forward working with you, Norm, in the year ahead.
I also want to say hello to some of my old friends in Miami.
I see Mayor Daley and Mayor Clark are there.
I understand that
Secretary Brown and Secretary Cisneros are also both with you
today.
Let me say before I,go forward that I noticed in one of the
previous sessions you had that it was suggested that we don't
need the Department of Housing and Urban Development anymore.
Let me say that I think Henry Cisneros and his whole team have
done a magnificent job, and I don't think we want to send Andrew
Cuomo to the beach just yet.
I hope you agree.
I also want to thank all of you for giving me this chance to
speak with you today.
I'm very proud that our administration has
worked in an unprecedented partnership with our cities, our
communities, and especially our mayors. You make real budgets.
You deal with real problems. You know the real concerns of our
people as we try to restore the American Dream.
I'm looking
forward to our continued cooperation. And I want to keep focused
on the real problems our country faces.
You have heard in the previous speakers who have appeared
before you strands of the great debates now going on in
_Washington and throughout our country. There are those who say
that our primary problems are personal and cultural, not economic
and political. There are those who say that the biggest problems
we face are due to the fact that the federal government has too
much authority, and more ought to be given to the state and local
level.
Well, I have to say to you that I'm glad to have these
debates. I was making these arguments long before this
�presidential election season; indeed, long before I became a
candidate for president in 1992, when I was a governor, working
on the values problems we face, like teen pregnancy and youth
violence and all kinds of personal irresponsibility in our
society. You and I know that unless people do the right things
themselves that we can't solve the problems of our society.
And I was calling for a devolution of responsibility back to
local and state governments long before I ever ran for President.
So these are not just issues of a political season for me.
But
let's keep our eyes on what we have to do in terms of the real
problems that you deal with every day. We do have a values
crisis in this country. We need to exalt responsibility and work
and family and community. We need to be less violent, less
irresponsible and less divisive.
We do have an economic problem in this country. We've got
years of stagnant wages and people who are working hard and being
punished for it. We need to grow the middle class and shrink the
under class and empower people to make the most of their own
lives.
We've got a governmental problem in this country. We need a
government for the 21st century that is less bureaucratic and
more entrepreneurial and more oriented toward partnerships where
more is done at the grass-roots level.
Now, I believe all that. But the question is, what are we
going to do about it? And if we use a lot of rhetoric to divide
the American people again and to divide the problems we face in
terms of values as against economics, and national against local,
instead of recognizing that what we need is to face these issues
and all their aspects and we need a real hard-nosed partnership,
then we'll be in trouble. After all, the problems you face every
day are the very reasons I ran for President . . I believe we had
to empower our people and our communities to meet the demands of
change at the grass-roots level where people live.
Now, there are· some in Washington who believe we can make
government work just by juggling programs from the federal
bureaucracies to the state bureaucracies. You and I know that
the right way is to give local governments, community
organizations and individual citizens and their neighborhoods the
tools they need, the resources they need to improve their own
lives.
In 1992 I laid out an agenda to send power, capital and,
most important of all, hope to the people who are working hard to
make the most of their communities and their own lives. We still
have a good ways to go, but I am proud that we have kept that
commitment.
Look at what we have already achieved together: We created
the empowerment zones and the enterprise communities, awarding
�tax incentives and grants to spur economic growth in 105
communities that also supports good values. We're creating a
network of community development banks and financial institutions
to lend, invest, provide basic banking services in places that
need the most to the people who can do the most to change the
social conditions we all want to change.
We passed final regulations for the Community Reinvestment
Act to help our banks and thrifts make good loans and
investments, to help people rebuild our troubled communities.
The SBA established one-shop -- one-stop capital shops to
distribute $3 billion in loans and investments for small and
minority businesses over the next five years. We fought to save
the community development block grants and our economic plan in
the face of huge opposition.
Now, those are the things that we have done together -- just
some of the things we've done together. Now it's up to us to
continue a partnership to create jobs, raise incomes, lift living
standards and improve the values and the strength of our
communities. We can do that, and we have done that, working with
the new Congress.
I have supported and signed into law, for example, the bill
to minimize the unfunded mandates that tell you what to do
without giving you the resources to do it.
I was proud to do
that.
But I also want you to know that I vetoed the rescission
bill in part because of the cuts that affect you directly.
For
example, the Congress in this rescission bill would cut grants to
cities that have already been obligated to make our water safer.
These grants were already committed, the letters had gone out.
To cut them now would be worse than an unfunded mandate, it would
be a defunded mandate. And I don't intend to let that happen.
Another reason I vetoed the rescission bill is because the
Congress had cut the community development financial institutions
and added language which made it almost impossible for them to
operate.
I am proud that we've already awarded one large bank in
Los Angeles and we've got more work to do on that front.
We
shouldn't turn back now from a proven commitment that will bring
free enterprise to the most distressed areas of our country.
Now, we have to approach a new budget. And as we do it, I
want to continue to work together with you to seize this
opportunity to build a stronger future for all of our people, to
do it in a way that supports our economic interest and our
values, and works to reform the government and give you more
responsibility.
For the first time in a long, long time the leaders of both
political parties now share the will to balance the federal
3
�budget.
That's an important issue, and I want to talk about it
just a moment.
We know that that requires some tough calls. But if we can
balance the budget, it will mean in the years ahead there will be
more money to invest in our people, in our cities, and in our
future, arid less money that has to be spent just paying interest
on yesterday's debt. The difficult task ahead is for us to have
the will necessary to do it and to cast partisanship aside so
that we can get the job done in a way that helps instead of hurts
the long-term prospects of our people. We need a budget that
balances debts and credits, but also keeps our values in balance.
That's what our responsibility as leaders demand.
We faced that challenge together in the first two years of
our administration, when we cut the deficit by a trillion dollars
in seven years and still were able to invest in the tools that
our communities and our people have to have to compete and win in
the global economy. The work now has to go on.
Now, with that in mind, last week I outlined my plan to
eliminate the deficit in 10 years. My plan cuts federal spending
by $1.1 trillion, on top of the $1 trillion.in deficit reduction
enacted in our '93 budget plan. This
new budget does not
raise taxes.
It is disciplined, it is comprehensive, and it is
serious.
It won't be easy, but we need to do it -- and we can.
Our plan proves that you can balance the budget and still
invest in things that will keep America strong and growing, like
education, health care, research and technology.
To accomplish these goals we have to focus on five basic
priorities.
First, we've got to help people make the most of
their own lives. That means, while we cut the deficit we should
increase investment in education, not cut it. Second, we have to
control health care costs, but we should do it by strengthening
Medicare, saving Medicaid -- reforming them -- not by slashing
services for the elderly. We can maintain benefits by cutting
costs through genuine reform, including cracking down on the
substantial amount of Medicaid fraud and abuse and giving more
incentives for more efficient and cost-effective ways of
delivering care.
Third, we need to cut taxes, but for the middle class, not
for the wealthiest Americans who don't really need it.
Fourth,
we can save money by cutting welfare, but we have to do it in a
way that saves enough for investment to move people to work.
The
congressional proposals are too tough on children and too weak on
work. We need to be tough on work and supportive of children.
And in that regard, I want to thank all of you there who, in
the spirit of bipartisanship, have come out in support of our
4
�efforts to achieve real welfare reform that moves people from
welfare to work. The bill that was recently introduced in the
Senate by Senators Daschle and others achieves that objective,
and those of you who are supporting it, I am very grateful for
that. We can save funds, but we have to save enough to invest in
people, to empower them to end welfare as we know it; not just to
cut people off and not worry about the consequence to the
children.
·
The fifth principle is to balance the budget in 10 years,
not seven. Now, we could do it in seven as some in Congress
want, but there's no reason to inflict the amount of pain that
would cause or to run the risk of recession. A highly respected
economic group out of the Wharton Business School recently
estimated that one of the Republican budgets would actually cause
a recession, driving unemployment to 8.6 percent and delaying
balancing the budget by two years anyway.
Now, in spite of all this, don't let anybody fool you.
the budget in 10 years will require real cuts; it will
cause real pain. We can and we should discuss where those
savings should be found.
We have to decide about whether the
savings should come out of programs like the community
development block grants, which I know are very important to you
and which I have strongly supported.
I still believe in them
very strongly. But let me be straight with you.
If we don't cut·
the community development block grant, then there will have to be
some cuts in some other programs that you and I care about.
Ba~ancing
We have to do that if we're going to bring the budget into
balance.
But let me say again, we should do this -- we should do
this. We never had a huge structural deficit before the 12 years
before I became President, before the years between 1981 and
1993. And I'll tell you how big the problem is. Right now,
today, our budget would be.in balance today if it were not for
the interest we have to pay on the deficit run up between 1981
and 1993 in January.
So we have got to turn this around. We
cannot continue something that we only started 12 years ago.
But I want to remind you there is a big difference between
my plan and the congressional plans.
It's the difference between
necessary cuts and unacceptable pain.
It's the difference
between a deficit reduction plan that goes to balance budgets and
still invest in our future and one that cuts off our future.
It's the difference between one that will reduce the deficit in
ways that will promote long-term growth and one that will reduce
the deficit in ways that risk a severe, near-term recession.
I am going to fight to avoid cutting education, hurting
people on Medicare, undermining critical investments in our
communities.
It would be wrong to sacrifice those investments
just to meet a seven-year deadline when we can get the job in 10
5
�years.
It would be wrong to cut in those areas that will help
our people restore the American Dream, raise our incomes so that
we can give a tax cut to people who don't really need it.
One of our most important challenges is to make sure that
the American people feel more secure in their homes and
neighborhoods as well. And therefore, I thank you again for
joining me in the fight against crime and the fight for the crime
bill last year. Without your support we could not have possibly
passed it, especially given the bitter opposition of some members
of Congress to the assault weapons ban and to giving cities the
flexibility that you need in the prevention funds.
I know some of you had conflicting opinions and different
needs when it came to our plan to provide 100,000 new police
officers.
But I believe we have a national crisis on crime
because we don't have enough police officers on the street. Over
30 years we've watched as the violent crime rate tripled and our
police departments only increased by 10 percent. Now we've found
the funds to pay for police in the right way. We cut unnecessary
government at the national level and sent the savings to our
communities for more police officers.
That is•the kind of
bargain the American people deserve. The philosophy behind that
was to do what could be done to reduce crime.
But I would also remind you, under our plan, we gave
localities enormous flexibility in spending the prevention funds
because you know what works at the local level.
It is ironic
today that there are those who are trying to dismantle our
national commitment to put 100,000 police on the street in the
name of giving you more flexibility when less than a year ago
they were saying that giving you more flexibility would lead to
widespread abuse in the spending of federal money.
The truth is that a lot of these programs to give you more
flexibility, from welfare to crime, are really just ways to cut
spending that invests in our future and our economy and our
security.
If we'll adopt my budget plan, we can give you more
flexibility and still do those things and balance the budget.
Behind all of these initiatives -- or not just shuffling from
federal to state bureaucracy, but trying to empower our people
directly -- is the philosophy we are using to help our people
meet the demands of the global economy in their own lives.
Some still say, as I said -- let me just give you one
example, finally -- that we ought to trust the federal government
to train our workers. We've got about 70 or 80 different
training programs. Then there are some that say, no, let's give
all these programs to state government. But I say, we shouldn't
empower one bureaucracy over another.
In the future,
in every one of your cities, the ability of
6
�the American people who live there to do well in the global
economy will depend upon our ability to directly empower
individual Americans, to directly empower them to make the most
of their own lives, including having a lifetime right to constant
re-education and training.
So let me talk with you, finally, today about an effort that
we're making now that would give people those most important
tools they need to build better lives.
It is central to the
rebirth of your cities.
If you have more people who can get good
jobs and who can earn higher incomes, then so many of the
problems that you face, so many of the problems you face will be
lessened.
So here's how I want our people to get those jobs and to
keep them in this global economy that is always demanding more
and more of them.
I want to do something that's modeled on the
G.I. Bill.
Fifty years ago, as World War II was coming to an
end, our country created the G.I. Bill that gave a whole
generation of Americans the education to create
an
unprecedented prosperity. What I have proposed today is a G.I.
Bill for America's workers -- to help a whole new generation of
Americans secure decent lives and decent incomes for themselves
and their families.
The principle is simple: Education and training can no
longer stop at high school We've all got to keep on learning to
keep pace with the dynamic global economy. And the best way to
make it happen is to put the power directly in the hands of
individual Americans who have to do the learning. Today there is
a confusing maze of 70 -- at least 70 -- job-training programs
sponsored by the federal government. What we want to do is to
consolidate them into a single grant and that grant will have but
one purpose -- to put money directly into the hands of people who
need it.
Through our School-To-Work initiative, we'll continue to
help high school students or graduates who want further training
get that in order to compete. Through our skilled grants we'll
help the worker who has lost a job who is grossly under-paid and
under-employed to take the responsibility to get a new leg up in
the global economy. We also want to make it easier and cheaper
for workers to get loans to build on their education. That means
expanding, not cutting, Pell Grants and direct student loans.
And it means the right kind of tax cuts -- not tax cuts for
people who don't need them, but tax cuts for middle-income
Americans who can use the money to invest in their training and
their children's education. We propose a tax cut for the cost. of
all post-high-school education.
Now, these things will make opportunity real for more
Americans, and make opportunity real for more of your cities.
7
�The G.I. Bill for 'America's workers will make it possible for
more and better jobs for people who live in your communities, and
will help attract jobs and expand your economic base.
You think about it.
If everyone considering investing in
your communities knew that every person who wanted a job could
get the job training in a direct voucher from the federal
government which could go to your community colleges to get the
kind of training they need, that would help us to do what you
need to do. We want to make you a full partner in designing a
system of adult education and job placement. That will mean that
community colleges, which are the new life-blood for so many of
your citizens, will be even stronger and, more importantly, will
mean that you will be able to use this as a tool to develop your
own economies.
I believe this approach will play a major role in our goal,
our common goal to restore the American Dream.
I'm pleased that
this morning in The Los Angeles Times there was an article that I
hope you've all had a chance to read, written by Al From, the
president of the Democratic Leadership Council, a Democrat; and
by Jack Kemp, the former Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development, a Republican. Here's what they say about our G.I.
Bill.
They say -- quote -- "It offers an all-too-rare opportunity
for members of Congress of both parties to discard partisan
squabbling and cooperate on a measure that can help hard-working
Americans.acquire the skills they need to lift their incomes.
The needs of this great ·country of ours demand that all of us,
Democrats and Republicans alike, ask ourselves the question:
Can
we make it work? The correct answer is: We must."
I could not have said it better. Al From and Jack Kemp, the
'Republicans and the Democratic mayors out there who are listening
to me today, just remember, as we balance the federal budget, as
we help all Americans prepare for a bright future, we have got to
seize this moment of great opportunity. We've got to put our
national priorities above party politics ·and put the American
people first.
That's what I was trying to do when I had that conversation
in New Hampshire with the Speaker of the House the other day.
This is a moment of immense promise. We can renew the
American Dream. But we have to work together, and we have to
avoid trying to divide our people by false choices. Good
economics, sound values, strong communities, a government that
works -- that's what we really need, and I will work with you to
achieve it.
Thank you very much.
(Applause. )
8
�MAYOR ASHE: Mr. President, we are genuinely pleased and
warmed by your remarks. And we have three questions that we
would like to pose to you.
First, I will ask a question as
President, and then Mayor Daley, the Vice President of the U.S.
Conference of Mayors; and then Paul Helmke, the Chairman of the
Advisory Committee for the U.S. Conference of Mayors.
Our bipartisan Conference of Mayors has endorsed Senator
Daschle's bill that gets at the real issues of welfare reform.
We support the greater accountability, but we also need training,
child care, and job creation. Can you tell us what the prospects
are for the real welfare reform this year? And how can we as
mayors make a difference since we may feel the effects of some of
the draconian measures that are going on?
THE PRESIDENT:
I think the prospects for real welfare
reform really depend upon whether the Senate Republicans, or at
least the block of moderate Republicans who understand these
issues, will work with the Democrats on something like the
Daschle bill.
You know, there is a hard core in the Senate who are
demanding that there be no welfare reform bill unless all aid is
cut off to unmarried mothers and their children born out of
wedlock, even though the Catholic Church, the National Governqrs
Association, your group, everybody I know says that that would be
unfair to children.
If the rest of the Republicans will leave that block and
join with Senators Daschle and Breaux and Mikulski and the others
who are on this bill, we could work out a bill that would make a
real difference.
And let me say, one of the important things, I think, about
the Daschle bill is that it really heavily emphasizes the
importance of child care. As I look back over the time that has
elapsed since, as a governor, I worked on the welfare reform bill
of 1988, if you ask me what its single biggest shortcoming was, I
would say that we should have done more in child care.
And if we do what I have suggested here -- and I think a lot
of the Republicans want to do this -- and we take all these
various training programs and put them into a big block and let
unemployed workers access them, then that could help to provide
the training money for an awful lot of people on welfare who want
to move to work; so that if the Daschle bill itself or any future
amplification of it that could have bipartisan support in the
Senate, could really focus on child care, I think we could get a
welfare reform bill that is tough on work and good for children,
instead of the other way around.
9
�-----------------------------------~
So I would urge all of you -- especially the Republican
mayors -- you have a lot of allies in the Republican Party in the
Senate; welfare reform ought to be a bipartisan issue.
If we
could get a good bill out of the Senate, I feel confident that we
could have a bipartisan majority in the House that would vote for
it as well if we could get it out of the conference committee.
So that is what I would implore you all to do. This is a
huge deal for the United States. And the Daschle bill is an
opening, an outreach for a genuine bipartisan compromise that
doesn't just dump a lot of money back on the states and
localities -- excuse me, a lot less than you used to have in a
way that would lead to people being cut off with nothing good
happening.
MAYOR DALEY:
Mr. President, we all.as mayors want to
thank you for standing with us on the issues of crime and
violence. You have heard not only from mayors, but the police
chiefs and citizens of what we in the cities have been trying to
do to fight crime.
From your kept promise, and you've done this, providing over
100,000 new cops, signing the Brady Bill, signing the assault
weapons ban, you have been there to help us in our efforts to
both fight and prevent crime. And your Department of Justice has
done an excellent job in implementing the cops program in last
year's crime bill.
Given the uncertainty in Congress over the future of crime
legislation, how can we work together with you in your
administration to assure that the funding is there on as flexible
a basis as possible for our policing and our prevention efforts?
THE PRESIDENT:
I think, Mayor, what you have to do is to,
again, emphasize in the Senate where this is being debated and
ultimately in the conference committee that we need to have more
flexibility for the cities, but that it is unacceptable, at least
for me and I hope for many of you, to come off of our commitment
on 100,000 police.
I have watched many panels and I've seen a lot of your
,
mayors on C-Span. You know, I actually get to watch you as well
as you watching me, and I know that some of the mayors believe
that we've been too firm on the police requirements beca~se some
cities have already increased their police forces and can't take
maximum advantage of this.
But I have to tell you I think there
is a national interest in increasing the police forces of this
country by about 20 percent. And, after all, this crime bill was
funded by a reduction in the national employment -- people in the
federal government.
10
�On the other hand, I have been strongly in favor of
absolutely maximum flexibility for you in other aspects of the
crime bill and would be in favor of even more flexibility in
other aspects of the crime bill as long as we don't undermine our
commitment to 100,000 police.
If we can get more flexibility in
the other areas of prevention and imprisonment, I would be in
favor of it.
I will work with you to:do anything I can in that
regard.
MAYOR ASHE:
Thank you, Mr. President.
questioner is Paul Helmke, Mayor of Fort Wayne.
The next
MAYOR HELMKE:
It's good to have the opportunity to talk to
you again, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT:
Thank you.
MAYOR HELMKE: We all realize that regardless of whether the
budget's balanced in seven years or 10 years there's going to be
less money coming to cities from the federal government. We
believe strongly that the issue of flexibility beyond just the
crime bill is important to us in terms of helping us find
efficiencies at the local level.
.
In January, Speaker Gingrich spoke to us about a contract
with cities.
I know that the Vice President has talked to some
of our officers with some of his ideas on flexibility and
opportunities for efficiency at the local level.
I'm curious as
to your thoughts with regard as to how we can find more
efficiencies, more flexibility and wo~k together with both sides
of the aisle as well as officials at ~he federal level, the local
level to help cities as we go through this process so we can meet
the human needs that are very real iri all of our cities.
THE PRESIDENT:
First of all, Paul, let me say that I think
that we have to do this.
I didn't give you any specific numbers
in my remarks, but let me tell you that even with a 10 years
balanced budget plan, if you don't cut education and if you have
a tax cut much smaller than the ones .contemplated by either the
Senate or the House, it would still require about a 20-percent
overall cut in other discretionary spending because we're all at
about the same place on where we think defense ought to be.
Now, that's over a 10-year period -- for my budget at least.
What I think we need to do here is, before this budget is
actually passed in the fall, or in late summer, but probably be
in the fall, we need to know before the budget is passed what the
new arrangements with our cities will be.
Now, let me just give you one example.
I would like to
preserve the community development bl'ock grant program.
If we
can, I have proposed it to be continued at the present level of
11
�- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
.
.
funding in 1996.
in half.
The Senate budget resolution proposes to cut it
What I think we ought to do -- and I know -- by the way, I
wanted to compliment Secretary Cisneros. He has been waging a
very strong fight within our administration to try to make sure
that the cuts come in other areas and the community development
block grant program is preserved at its present level. We could
do that.
You might argue that we could even increase it if some of
the other categorical programs were folded into it so that if we
are going to go forward here, maybe some new purposes should be
added to it.
I am open to all that.
I want to reduce
regulation.
I want to increase your flexibility, not just for
the cities, but for all local units. We just announced a
40-percent cut in the regulations of the Department of Education,
for example. Most of you don't run your own school districts,
but some of you do, and that will be important to you.
We are moving in the right direction here. But I think we
have got to be willing, before this budget is passed, to sit down
with the cities and, in fairness, also with the states and the
counties, and try to design what the new agreement will be about
this money and how it's going to be funded.
And I think there
are great opportunities for you to get some more flexibility and
for you to determine how we ought to do it. And I am more than
willing to go forward with you on that basis.
MAYOR ASHE: Mr. President, we thank you very much for
giving us this opportunity, and we will take the challenge to
respond and open up a dialogue that really moves this country
forward in the interest of cities and the people that we
represent.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Mayor Rice, Mayor Daley, Mayor
Helmke, thank you all.
I appreciate your good work.
END
-11:45 A.M. EDT
12
�PRESIDENT WILLIAM J. CLINTON
MEETING WITH GOVERNORS TO DISCUSS CHURCH BURNINGS
THE WHITE HOU.SE
JUNE 19, 1996
I am pleased that this bipartisan group of governors, and other concerned leaders have
accepted my invitation to meet here at the White House' to discuss the recent rash of church
burnings in this country. We are going to talk about how to better coordinate all our efforts
to protect houses of worship, prosecute those who are committing these crimes, and rebuild
those churches that have been destroyed. We will give the governors an update of the efforts
of our federal task force and ask them for their ideas on what more we can do. In the wake
of these burnings, it is heartening to see so many people of all faiths and races coming
together to demand justice, reject violence and hatred, and help in the rebuilding. That is the
only way we are going to put a stop to these crimes. It is in that spirit that I called this
meeting today. Thank you.
~])
tv~~~
'-)JD~
·~
q~~~~--L;~- -~
~;t.~~~
d~-
4
�WMX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
601 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
North Bldg. - Suite 300
Washington,
20004
Phone: (202) 628-3500
o.c:
Fax: (202) 82~0400 ·
TO:
I
F:RO.M: . \
.::;Jtarr, ~
. /1,
.
,M.c.Ul..-fL
.
·~ '1cc.~ I,7
"---~~··_"~...;;'--.:::.;::;.;-U-~.~t-.----::.:~~'r'---:'_l.....·"f-- : - - - - - - - . : . . . ,-.- - - - - -
DATE:
PAGES:
-.. '") ·-·
(INCLUDING COVER PAGE)
Ifyou hllflfl tmy prtJblflmll wJth th/11 tnJMmitt.l, pi•••• osll (202) 121-3600
PLEASE DELIVER AS SOON AS POSSIBLE!
-1N3W3~~N~W 31S~M WdL~:20
96,
!~ A~W
�•'
...
5- 5-94 :12=32PM ;
SENT BY;
C.~·'
'·./) ·
U.S.CONF.MAYORS...
708 218 1554;# 8137
~-<,~ / f lj~4
.~ V.-z<r(! ~~&~
n · • ·-r-· •
~1tl..,~-#
.<1~ ·-
-~·
I
BZBCDTlVI IUMXABY& CBIClG0 1 8.GAL~B&Y 37
From ranownad. inotitutions like tbe Art In11tituta, the ·Lyzoic
Chi~a9o
opera and the
Symphony orchestra to dozens of ethnic
mU&eUJlBI COmJD\lnity theata:rs, and jazz and bl\l6B clu~s, Chicago .ia
& city
vh•r• the
a pasaion.
~rt$
are not just
sup~ortea,
but
calea~ated
with
central to that c:elacration is an appreciation of· the
divers• cultures that ccnttibut• to the city•a arhnic tapestry, a
i
'
I
work in progress that draw& color and texture from every corner of
the glebe.
Mayor Ric:hard M.
Daley bAlieves. that i.n a multi-cultural
aociety like oura, the. arts
have a signifi.cance well bayoncS their
.
:
'
aDility to mova and entsrtain1 they ~r~ a teacher and
univezowal lanquaCJ$ that crosses aconomio,
l::luria.rao
Per that reason,
.
·.
A
tool, a
social ·and cultural
it is his ccnvic:tion that the arts
~
shoulc! ba accasslbla to
th.·~ broad.est
qovernment hall a vaated
in,~erest
.!
~udience,
possible
in t:heir promotion
·Nowhe_re ie t.hat. phil~sophy more evident
than
and t'b.at
support.
ancl
in the inncvative
summer arts emplojmant program kncwn as Gallery 37 .
In Gallery 37, tbe City ot
Chicago has
create~
a public wcrka.
pr~9r1ull that provides a uniqu~ opportunity for local high
I
achool
atucienta:.the chance to earn money craa1:1ng art. for public places
.
.
l
an4. private commissions.
i
aite on state Street, dea+g'na.tecl by c:ity planners as "Slock 37, 11
I
Gallery 37 comes to life each summer as a· colorful outdoor studio
!
'
I
i
,Named for a vacant,
~~rae-acre
downtown
'
. where young artists work and train in a wide variety of disciplines .
-- and where the public is
walco~e to ~~ovsG
and linger.
I
-1N3W3~~N~W 31S~M
WdLE:20
95, lE
A~W
�.
U.S.CONF.MAYORS~
SENT BY:
In orcler to anhanca
.crose-cultu~al
708 218 1554:# S/37
uncterstand.inc;, Gallery l7 • s
stuclenta ara . encouraged to explore ~· art of 'ciivarse cul turea,
includin9 their ovn • . Traditional art forms such as African mua
l
.
painting• and Yood carvinqs, Maxican alebrijas ~and moaaic tiles,
.
'
d
and Asian . caramic:s abound~ beneath. the billowed tents
Str.eet.
Oft
State
Instructors arc provided by arts inl!ltitutions throuc;rhout
.J
Chicago;
I
.
tundinq thrcuiJ~ 'a coabination
ot tacleral, state and.
~nicipal sources arid contributions from private pmrtnera.
Since ·it1 inception in 1991, Gallery 37 and its neighborhood.
satellite• have offered maaninqful employment and traininc; to
nearly 2000 youth who miqhtlnot otherwise have t~und summer jocs or
expe.rienoa4a chanca to haye their artistic talant c!evelopac1.
By the end of the
s~er,
thesa youn9 artists have developed.
measurable vccational ski~ls and a stronger sense of their own.
talent an4
poten~ial.
pu.biic ·bUildings,
They have seen their artwork
such
as
fialdbouses and city airport
community
ter.mi~als,
health
ina~allad
centers,
in
par~
and sold to private buyers
at Gallery 37's gn-site retail store. · Anti they have m.ade la•tinq
trie:nd.ehips with peers
anci:~entora.
,.
.r
.i
Chicaqo's cultural leqacy is an endurin; point cf prida tor
the people Who live and wor~ here.
Gal.lery 37
Und~r Mayor Daley 1 a leadership,
is l:luildin; on that leCJacy by nurtuzoin9 the n•xt
qaneration'of artist&, increasinq the Appreciation of our diverse
herita;a, and expal'\ding the audiance for art in Chica;o.
,,
.'
)
-1N3W3~~N~W 31S~M
Wd8E:20
96, 1E
A~W
�THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
May 17, 1996
For Immediate Release
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
IN BILL SIGNING CEREMONY FOR MEGAN'S LAW
The Oval Office
10:50 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT:
Good morning. I want to welcome Senator Grams and
Congressman Zimmer, Congresswoman Lofgren, Bonnie Campbell from the Justice Department.
This has been a week in which our country is moving to combat crime and violence. A
couple of days ago we awarded over 9,000 new police officers to some 2,500 communities.
That brings us to 43,000 police officers in 20 months along the road to our goal of 100,000.
We're ahead of schedule and under budget.
But, today, the valiant presence of five American parents reminds us that this fight
against crime is so much more a fight for peace and for safety for our people, and especially for
our children. Richard and Maureen Kanka, Patty Wetterling, Marc Klaas and John Walsh have
suffered more than any parent should ever have to suffer. They have lived through the greatest
pain a parent can know --a child brutally ripped from a parent's love.
And somehow they found within themselves the strength to bear a further burden. They
took up the parents' concerns for all children's safety and dedicated themselves to answering that
concern.
Each of you deserves the fullest measure of your country's thanks. Because of you, steps
have already been taken to help families protect their children. Study after study has shown us
that sex offenders commit crime after crime. So two years ago, we gave every state the power
to notify communities about child sex offenders and violent sex offenders who move into their
neighborhoods. We're fighting now to uphold these laws in courts all across the country, and
we will fight to uphold them all the way to the Supreme Court.
Today we are taking the next step. From now on, every state in the country will be
required by law to tell a community when a dangerous sexual predator enters its midst. We
respect people's rights, but today America proclaims there is no greater right than a parent's
�right to raise a child in safety and love. Today, America warns: If you dare to prey on our
children, the law will follow you wherever you go, state to state, town to town.
Today, America circles the wagon around our children. Megan's Law will protect tens
of millions of families from the dread of what they do not know. It will give more peace of
mind to our parents.
To understand what this law really means, never forget its name -- the name of a
seven-year-old girl taken wrongly in the beginning of her life. The law that bears a name of one
child is now for every child, for every parent and every family. It is for Polly and Jacob and
Adam, and, above all, for Megan.
I thank the Congress for passing it. I thank those who led the fight. And I thank these
families more than anything else. God bless you all.
(The bill is signed.)
Q
Mr. President, you said here that studies have shown sex offenders commit crime
after crime. But, apparently, the courts, especially on the state level, don't seem to recognize
that fact. What makes you think that all the way up to the Supreme Court they are going to
change that opinion?
THE PRESIDENT: First of all, I hope that this law will be upheld if it is challenged.
I believe it will be. And before we went forward with this, in consultation with the Congress,
including the leaders of Congress who are here now, we did a great deal of legal research on
it. And we felt that we could defend it, and we felt that it was right.
And Congress has done its job. And now it is our job to get out there and defend this
law, and we intend to do it if it's challenged. And in the meanwhile, we intend to enforce it.
Q
Have you talked to Mrs. Boorda?
THE PRESIDENT: I have not because yesterday --I intend to call her as soon as this
is over. But yesterday I asked the Secretary of Defense to determine the family's wishes, and
they wanted a day alone, and I understood that. But I intend to speak with her this morning as
soon as this is over.
Q
Mr. President, Pennsylvania Avenue has been closed for a year now and it hasn't
exactly become the urban park-like setting that was planned when it was closed. And it is
frequently, in fact, cut off from tourist and pedestrian use. What would you like to see?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I would like-- if it is the judgment of the Secret Service and
the other security people that we should keep it closed, I would like to see it fixed as it was
intended in that plan that was developed about 30 years or so ago and turned into a genuine park
so it can be made available to all the many people who live in and around Washington and all
�those who come here to visit. It's quite a nice space, and with a little investment, it could be
made, I think, quite attractive. Right now the skateboarders and the rollerbladers seem to like
it, but I'd like to see it made more helpful to more people.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
END
11:00 A.M. EDT
�----·---·------------
--
~~---~---~-----
--
--·-·---
�PRESIDENT WILLIAM J. CLINTON
REMARKS TO THE PEOPLE OF LAS VEGAS
MCCARRAN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
JUNE 9, 1996
Acknowledgments: Gov. Bob Miller; Sens. Richard Bryan and Harry Reid; Las Vegas Mayor Jan
Laverty Jones
My vision: In 1992, my vision for America: nation would offer opportunity, America would take
responsibility; a world where America remained the strongest force for peace, freedom; and a
renewed American community where all Americans come together around our basic values again.
Critical election: In 1992, the question was whether we would continue to drift along aimlessly
or whether we would change the course of America. In this year's election, as everyone has seen
over the last year, the choice is between two very different paths of change. And the choice is
very clear.
Our approach: We cut the deficit to less than half of what it was when I took office. Produced
9.7 million new jobs-- Signed a real crime bill w/ 100,000 community police and assault
weapons ban, and Brady bill, and crime is coming down across the country. Renewed our
commitment to education of all our children, from Head Start to affordable college loans. Came
up with new ways to protect our environment and grow the economy: expanded Right to Know,
cutting toxic air pollution by 90%, working in partnership w/ business and communities to see
that our children breathe clean air, drink safe water, eat good food. Promoting values and
rewarding work, V-Chip, tobacco, EITC, Family Leave. REGO: govt. smallest it's been since
1965, got rid of 16,000 pages of regulations. Stood by affirmative action. Turned toward, n~t
away from, the world: Haiti, Bosnia, Middle East, Northern Ireland, NAFTA, GATT.
The Republican Way: Over the last year, GOP made clear its priorities. They would: Cut funds
for 100,000 police; slash education; eliminate national service; roll back 25 years ofbipartisan
commitment to protecting environment; place children and elderly in jeopardy. Time and again,
we stopped the Republicans from having their way. Our work is paying off: The 1996 budget
agreement I signed gives our country its fourth straight year of deficit reduction while protecting
education, the environment, Medicare and Medicaid.
More to do: This is a record to build on, not to sit on. We face stiff challenges. Only way we can
meet them is by working together.
1
�We have to make sure parents have the information they need to protect their children.
The Crime Bill requires every state to compile a registry of sexual offenders. Last
month, I signed Megan's Law, requiring states to tell a community when a sexual predator
enters its midst. Today, Lam directing the Attorney General to work with the states and report
back in 60 days with a plan to make a National Registry so we can track sexual offenders and
child molesters across the country. We must make sure police officers can get and share the
information they need to protect our children. If you dare to prey on America's children, the law
will follow you wherever you go, state to state and town to town.
�[Our economic plan was bitterly opposed by the
Republicans in Congress. Speaker Gingrich said,
quote, "I believe this will lead to a recession next
year." Dick Armey said, "Clearly this is a job killer."
And John Kasich said, and I quote, "This plan will not
work. If it was to work, then I'd have to become a
Democrat." Well, we have created nearly 10 million
jobs -- but that's not one of them!]
Well, we have created nearly 10 million jobs. We
have the lowest combined rate of inflation and
unemployment in nearly 3 decades. 3.7 million
Americans have become homeowners.
5
�THE
WHITE . HOU SE
Jack Quinn
r-u ·. L~ ()
N
J::>. cJ .
e.
~ .
�THE WHITE HOUSE
,;A!';~,~~TON ..
June 7, 1996
MEMORANDUM FOR THE
FROM:
SUBJECT:
~ENT
/r
96J.W 7 P6: 59
~~~Ct,
·~~~~
~~
""'( \
JACK QUINN, COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT ~ ~
~
DAVID B. FEIN, ASSOCIATE COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDEN'f\1J
PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT FOR CRIME
VICTIMS
Background
Last month, we sent to you a memorandum regarding the constitutional amendment
proposed by Senators Kyl and Feinstein to establish rights for crime victims. At that time,
we suggested asking the Justice Department to review the proposed amendment. You agreed
and noted your support for vi<;tims' rights in the pasL We have now received from the
Deparunent analyses of the Kyl-Feinstein proposal and other possible victims' rights
amendments and statutory and executive initiatives.
There is a diversity of views within the Department of Justice about the wisdom of
endorsing any constitutional amendment. Some offices, including the Assgciate AG's Office,
·the Office for Victims of Crime and the Violence Against Women Office, strongly support a
victims' rights amendment. Others, such as the Office of Legal Counsel, the Criminal
n an
e Office of the Solicitor General,_strongly oppose any constitutional
amendment. We understand that the Attorney Ge-neral would like to talk to you about her
experiences in Florida with that state's victims' rights amendment.
Options to Consider
We believe there are four real options at this time. We recommend that whichever
option you choose, you simultaneously announce your support for an aggressive agenda of
legislative and executive victims' rights initiatives to be acted on immediately.
Option #1
Do not support any constitutional amendment and, instead, propose
additional statutory and executive initiatives.
Option #2
Support the Kyl-Feinstein proposed amendment.
�Option #3
Support an Administration alternative amendment based on language
drafted by Walter Dellinger.
Option #4
Endorse amending the Constitution to protect victims' rights without
endorsing particular language; propose bipartisan process to arrive
promptly at appropriate language; and state your view of the essential
elements that should and should not be in the amendment.
a
Recommendation ·
Our recommendation, which is identified as Option #4 above, is that you endorse the ·
adoption of a victims' rights constitutional amendment, offering to work with the
Congressional leadership and others to arrive at appropriate language that you could support.
We recommend that you not endorse Kyl-Feinstein and that you not announce support for
alternative amendment language at this time. Rather, we recommend that you instruct
appropriate members of the Administration to meet w'ith the Congressional leadership on a
bipartisan basis to agree upon appropriate ·language that will provide victims with federal
constitutional protection. In doing so, we recommend that you state with specificitv those
elements that should be in the amendment and those that should not be in the amendment.
We also recommend that you announce your support for an aggressive agenda of
legislative and executive victims' rights initiatives to .be acted on immediately while we work
toward adoption of a constitutional amendment. The Justice Department has drafted a menu
of possible initiatives, and it is. attached to this memorandum at Tab I.
As you will see from the discussion that follows, there are compelling arguments both
for and against amending the Constitution to protect victims' rights. We do not believe that
the arguments for a constitutional amendment overwhelmingly outweigh those against an
amendment. Rather, we think that a decision to not endorse an amendment, but instead to
support an aggressive agenda of legislative and executive initiatives, is entirely defensible.
For these reasons, we believe Option #1 deserves serious consideration.
The Arguments for a Victims' Rights Amendment
Proponents of a victims' rights constitutional amendment argue that the criminal
justice system suffers from a great imbalance in that persons accused of crime have a wide
array of legal rights, many of which are constitutionally guaranteed, while persons who are
victims of crime have no constitutional protection and few rights at all in practice. Although
quite broad statutory rights for victims are present in the federal system and in almost all
states (jncludjng 20 states that provide state constitutional protectioU), victims' rights are not
generally appreciated or enforc{{9.
Embodying victims' rights in the Constitution would confer a participatory right in the
criminal justice system to the persons most affected by crime and most deserving of
2
�protection. In that way, a victims' rights amendment would resemble various constitutional
rights to participate in democratic processes, ~.g., ·the First Amendment's right to petition the
Government.
After some 20 years of work on state law reform, the victims' rights movement has
mobilized around the issue of a federal constitutional .amendment. The leaders of that
movement appear unlikely to support any initiative that does not include the endorsement of a
proposed amendment of some type. These groups are hostile to the idea of further study of
the problem, because they believe they have "been there" and "done that", without having
made real gains:: In fact, a Presidential Task Force on Victims of Crime was formed in
1982, and it recommended a victims' rights provision to be added to the Sixth Amendment of
·
the Federal Constitution.
By elevating victims' rights to constitutional status, proponents believe that victims
are more likely to be treated with fairness, dignity and respect and to gain enforcement of
their already existing statutory or state constitutional rights. Moreover, they believe that
conflicts between their rights and defendants' rights would then be fought on a level playing
field: courts would have to balance the two sets of rights, rather than simply side with the
defendants' rights because they, alone, are of constitutional standing.
While there is quite limited case law holding that a victim's statutory or state
constitutional rights were in conflict with, and there(ore must yield to, a defendant's federal
constitutional rights, victims' rights advocates report that courts may, in practice, be
rejecting victims' claims in light of defendants' constitutional rights. For example, a victim's
right to a speedy trial could be at odds with a defendant's rightto a fair trial or to effective
assistance of counsel if the defendant demonstrated his need for a delay. Of course, even if
victims' rights were constitutionally based, courts might still balance the rights to require a
victim's rights to yield to a defendant's rights. But the balancing would proceed from a level
playing field if both sets of rights were constitutionally based.
Victims' rights groups also hope that a federal constitutional amendment would create
a baseline of victims' rights nationwide. Curreu,tly, victims are protected to significantly
varying degrees, depending on whether their assailant is prosecuted in federal, military or
state court, as a juvenile or as an adult, and, if in state court, in which state. For this
reason, proponents seek a self-executing amendment .that actually creates a uniform set of
rights, rather than one that merely empowers Congress to enact legislation.
Your endorsement of any of the options supporting a constitutional amendment would
likely be received enthusiastically by the victims' rights groups, such as the National
Organization for Victim Assistance. John Schmidt emphasized in his comments to the
Attorney General that these groups and this issue cut across partisan and ideological lines and
that the issue is driven by diverse, grass roots constituencies, overwhelmingly family
members of victims of violent crime, who are attempting to correct the criminal justice
system's long-standing neglect of victims' rights.
3
�The Arguments Against a Victims' Rights Amendment
The most powerful argument against a victims' rights amendment is the negligible
substantive need for such an amendment, as opposed to legislative and executive action. In
his comments to the Attorney General, Walter Dellinger stated that virtually all the specific
rights in any amendment proposed so far either already exist in or could easily be achieved
through state and federal legislation. Walter identified, therefore, the tension between
supporting such an amendment and Administration statements on other proposed
constitutional amendments. For example, in January 1995, Walter testified before Congress
regarding a proposed Balanced Budged constitutional amendment: "Before taking the drastic
step of amending the Constitution, every other reasonable alternative should be explored."
Opponents of an amendment emphasize that federal legislation could achieve a
consistent baseline of victims' rights among all the states just as well as would a federal
constitutional amendment. As for doubts about Congress' authority under the Commerce
Clause to force the states to adhere to such federal legislation, it is widely agreed that
Congress could exercise its spending power to require states to adopt and implement a fully
effective victims' rights program as a condition for receiving federal criminal justice funds.
According to amendment opponents, the alleged disparity between a defendant's rights
being protected by the Constitution and a victim's rights left unprotected reflects a
misunderstanding of the purpose of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights, they point out,
exists to protect citizens from government action, which explains why it addresses the
interests of the accused and not of victims. Crime victims, the argument goes, do not need
to have their rights in the Constitution because the Government is not seeking to restrain
their liberty. Rather, the Government can act to protect them without any specific
constitutional provision, which would be the equivalent of an unfunded benefit program.
Walter Dellinger cautions that a victims' rights amendment risks damage to the
Constitution. If. in fact, the problems faced by victims can be solved by legislative and
executive action (as many believe they can), amending the Constitution for merely symbolic
purposes arguably conflicts with the Constitutiou.'s present status as real and binding positive
law. If. in contrast, a far-reaching amendment with potentially enormous resource costs and
unknown consequences for criminal justice is ratified. the Constitution could become a
hindrance, rather than a tool, in the fight against violent crime.
Similarly, opponents warn of unintended and unwanted consequences of amending the
Constitution to satisfy politically popular objectives. Would members of a violent gang, who
can be both offenders and victims of violent crime, be entitled to all the rights in the
amendment? Could victims seek to overturn convictions collaterally if they were not
provided notice of certain proceedings, by arguing, for example, that a plea bargain was too
lenient? Could victims obtain court orders requiring government protection for a potentially
unlimited duration? We cannot know how courts will interpret the broad language of some
4
�of the proposed amendments, and these uncertainties will become a permanent part of the
Constitution,· ·not susceptible to remedy· by a· quick statutory fix.·
Finally, a decision to endorse a constitutional amendment may diverge from the
Administration's previously consistent public positions against amending the Constitution for
measures that we otherwise support, such as balancing the budget, prohibiting flag-burning
and permitting prayer in school. In the case of school prayer, in particular, the
Administration developed a persuasive argument based on the rights available under existing
law (legislation and court decisions) and earned great praise for providing an alternative to
amending the Constitution that actually achieved as much, if not more, than the proposed
amendment. Walter Dellinger and others are concerned that we would leave ourselves
exposed on this point if we supported a victims' rights amendment.
Review of the Options
Option #1: No Constitutional Amendment
A compelling case has not been made that victims' rights cannot be thoroughly
protected without a federal constitutional amendment. At the federal level, it appears that
aggressive implementation of current federal victims' rights law through an agenda of
executive action and some gap-filling federal legislation, along with a significant allocation of
resources, could achieve most, if not all, of the amepdment objectives. With respect to the
states, priorities on block grant money and directed discretionary resources could build on
current state efforts to great effect. Moreover, amending the Constitution could create
unintended and unwanted consequences for the proper administration of criminal justice.
Yet there is no doubt that the goal behind a victims' rights constitutional amendment
is salutary. Many of the rights sought by victims groups cannot reasonably be disputed: the
right to have notice of, and to attend, public court proceedings; the right to be heard
concerning the release of the accused; the rights to notice and attendance and to be heard in
relation to parole hearings; the right to be given notice of any release or escape from custody
of the accused or convicted offender; and the right to restitution from the convicted offender.~
Victims claim that despite state and federal pronouncements of these rights, they are
not regularly recognized or enforced in practice because they do not have federal
constitutional status and parity with defendants' rights. Amending the Constitution to include
these rights would, it seems to us, greatly enhance the likelihood of a more .consistent
nationwide fulfillment of these rights. Federal and state legislation and even state
constitutional amendments have been tried and appear to have provided only limited positive
results in the treatment of victims in the criminal justice system. For these reasons, we
recommend that you support a victims' rights amendment.
That said, we recommend endorsing an amendment only if it is carefully crafted so
that it does not (1) jeopardize the ability of prosecutors to investigate, bring and resolve
5
�criminal cases successfully; (2) expose local, state and federal governments and law
-enforcement officials to civil damage suits brought by victims seeking to enforce rights; and
(3) allow criminals, illegal aliens, prisoners and others with "unclean hands" to take
advantage of protections intended for innocent victims of crime. An_amendment obviously
needs to be drafted with the utmost care to avoid unintended and unwanted results.
Option #2: Kyl-Feinstein
·The proposed Kyl-Feinstein constitutional amendment, which is attached as Tab II, is
self-executing, meaning it does not require implementing legislation, and it authorizes
Congress to further implement the amendment in federal cases and state legislatures to do so
in state cases, thus avoiding federalism objections.
Its language defining rights, however, is the most far-reaching of any proposals we
have seen, and it does not have limiting language. It could have adverse implications for (1)
prosecutors' ability to secure and uphold convictions in violent crime cases; (2) local, state
and federal governments and law enforcement officials' ability to fend off civil damage suits;
and (3) victims with unclean hands seeking to take advantage of protections intended for
innocent victims.
For example, Kyl-Feinstein provides -- as a matter of constitutional right with no
provision for exceptions -- that victims of violent crime shall be given the opportunity to be
present at every proceeding at which the accused is afforded such right. Would a court
interpret "opportunity to be present" to require that presentment following arrest be delayed
until a victim was able to attend? Would that apply to victims who were prisoners, or illegal
aliens, or foreigners? What about a case with multiple victims? Likewise, could KylFeinstein' s equally absolute right to a fmal conclusion free from unreasonable delay be used
by a court to decide whether the prosecutor's decision to take an appeal during a criminal
case is unreasonable? Although some of these interpretations are debatable, the amendment's
language does not clearly foreclose them.
Even proponents of a victims' rights am~.lldmt!nt have criticized Kyl-Feinstein for its
possible adverse impact on law enforcement, criminal prosecution and the courts. Rep.
Hyde, a House sponsor of Kyl-Feinstein, has introduced his own proposed amendment,
which attempts to fix some of the problems of Kyl-Feinstein and provides, accordingly, much
more limited rights. Senators Hatch and Brown expressed some concerns about the language
of Kyl-Feinstein at the recent Senate Judiciary hearing on this subject. Professor Tribe has
written to Senator Dodd, criticizing Kyl-Feinstein for, among other things, treating "a real
hornet's nest of problems for law enforcement at all levels." Professor Tribe may well
endorse a victims' rights amendment and is working on alternative constitutional language to
propose.
6
�-Option #3: Possible Administration Alternative
Walter Dellinger is working on alternative amendment language, the current draft of
which is attached as Tab III, which we strongly prefer to Kyl-Feinstein. It is similar in form
to Kyl-Feinstein in that it actually creates rights, rather than merely empowering Congress toenact legislation, and it, too, reserves for states the power to further legislate in this area for
state court proceedings. The alternative is superior to Kyl-Feinstein in that it is much more
finely tuned and would, in our view, have significantly less adverse consequences on
effective law enforcement and be less susceptible to the uncertainties of judicial
interpretation. On the other hand, it is subject to the· criticism that it limits. the broad rights
contained in Kyl-Feinstein.
Option #4: Recommended Approach
We recommend that you announce your support for amending the Constitution to
protect victims' rights without endorsing particular language, offering instead to work with
the Congressional leadership in a bipartisan fashion to arrive at appropriate language. In
particular, we recommend that you instruct your staff to gather a small group of
Administration representatives and Congressional members of jurisdiction (and possibly
outside experts) to be tasked to agree upon recommended amendment language and to move
it forward toward enactment.
Assuming that you do not support one of the ·existing Congressional proposals, an
Administration proposal would. likely be criticized jn the ensuing months by some as going
too far to protect victims' rights and by others as not going far enough. We do not,
however, recommend that you merely endorse the concept of an amendment generally.
Rather, we suggest that you describe with some specificity what you would support and what
you would not support in a vic.tims' rights amendment. Specifically, you could state your
support for an amendment that:
(1)
is self-executing;
(2)
contains the following rights: to have notice of, and not to be excluded from,
public court proceedings in the case; to be heard by the trial court concerning
the release of the accused, the sentence, and acceptance of any plea, if present
at the proceedings relating to those determinations; to be afforded like rights to
notice and attendance and to be heard in relation to parole hearings; to be
given notice of any release or escape from custody of the accused or convicted
offender; to restitution from the convicted offender; to reasonable measures to
protect the victim from violence or intimidation by the accused or convicted
offender; and to notice of these rights; and
(3)
preserves for the States the right to enforce the foregoing victims' rights in
state cases.
7
�Likewise, you could state your opposition to an amendment that would:
(1)
adversely affect prosecutors' ability to secure and uphold convictions in violent
crime cases;
(2)
expose local, state and federal governments and law enforcement officials .to
civil damage suits; and
(3)
permit victims with unclean hands (such as prisoners and co-conspirators) to
take advantage of protections intended for innocent victims.
We believe, by the way, that by endorsing the notion of amending the Constitution
and stating clearly what important elements should and should not be included, you will be in
the best position later to oppose an unacceptable version of the proposed amendment. If, for
example, a proposed victims' rights amendment with truly perilous consequences for the
criminal justice system or the Bill of Rights, for example, gained momentum in Congress,
you would be better able to oppose it if you made clear now that you support an amendment
that intelligently and appropriately addresses victims' problems.
Support for an Aggressive Legislative Agenda
As previously stated, we also recommend your endorsing at the same time an
aggressive agenda of legislative and executive victinis' rights initiatives to be pursued
immediately. (See Tab I). These initiatives can be enacted without any change to the
Constitution, and, accordingly, we should urge that there be no delay in affording these
rights to crime victims.
Acknowledgement of Resource Needs
Lastly, we believe that whatever approach is taken toward improving the protection of
victims' rights, we should acknowledge that protecting victims' rights costs money. The
objectives of a victims' rights constitutional am~dment and other initiatives cannot be
achieved without a significant allocation of resources. Indeed, most objectives require
money more than constitutional, statutory or executive authorization.
For example, at the federal level, Victim-Witness Coordinators are critical in ensuring
that victims are notified of, and are treated fairly at, court proceedings. Their numbers and
duties should be increased. At the state level, an automated victim information and
notification service has proven its worth. Regularly updated, current information about a
criminal case is available by telephone 24 hours a day, and victims are notified by a
recording informing them when an offender is being released. States should be required to
allocate some portion of federal criminal justice funds for such a program, and the federal
government should adopt it as well.
In short, we suggest that resource needs be a part of any announcement you make on
victims' rights, and that the Department of Justice be asked how to best address those needs.
8
�-----------------------------------------
POSSIBLE EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVES
FEDERAL SYSTEM
Establish a Presidential Task Force on Victims Rights including federal, state, and
local law enforcement representatives to comprehensively review victim issues, identify best
practices and model laws and procedures and develop reform recommendations. (Last such
task force was in 1982.)
Take immediate executive action directing all federal agencies (DOD, DOJ, Interior,
Treasury, HHS, etc.) that deal with victims' rights reinvigorate their commitment to assuring
the rights of, and serving the needs of, victims. Agencies would be directed to thoroughly
and promptly review current policies and practices, to implement certain specific
recommendations and to report within a short time frame to the President with an action plan
to improve the treatment of victims.
Seek increased resources as necessary to better implement existing law and to improve
procedures and training to ensure that federal victims are consistently notified and, consistent
with law enforcement needs, consulted regarding all case proceedings and other significant
occurrences (such as release of the offender), and that they consistently receive other
assistance and services.
Adopt consistent policy_ that victims should not be excluded from trials or other public
court proceedings in .their case except for the most compelling reasons. Subject to
reasonable court set conditions, give victims the right to address the court concerning such
matters as pretrial release of the defendant, and the sentence to be imposed on a convicted
offender.
Strengthen restitution for victims, including making the award of restitution
mandatory in all cases under federal criminal code, and enabling the government to seek
court orders to preserve the assets of a defendan!_,.that may be subject to restitution.
Give victims of acts of juvenile delinquency comparable rights to those that are
accorded to victims in adult criminal cases.
-
�NATIONWIDE. STATE. AND LOCAL
Establish a Presidential Task Force
Call on the governors to join the President in acknowledging the compelling
government interest in protecting victims rights. Urge state adoption of victim-oriented
reforms for state criminal cases comparable to those adopted or proposed for federal cases.
Call on state legislatures to adopt statutes and/or state constitutional provisions affording
victims the same rights and services as those provided for or proposed in federal cases and to
provide adequate funding to make these promises a reality.
Encourage and assist states in adopting victim-oriented reform through technical
assistance and incentive programs.
Establish a national crime victims information and referral hotline.
Support development and implementation of cost-effective means to enable states to
adopt victims' rights measures more broadly (e.g., automated systems for providing victims
with notice of proceedings).
2
�n.
l04;a
coNaru::ss
2D S.ESSIOS
SJ· RES 5
• •
.
•
2
~aicr &n amcndmeni t.o the ~tutjon of tha United S&&tea a.o p~
the rirhta cf ~otima ot erimt.
·IN THE SENATE ,OF THE
~"'TED STATES
»2uL 22, 1995
Mr. Kn. (for himself, Mrs. FEINS'niN, .Mr. 1-UTCH, and Mr. CR.\Jc) intra.
duced tht {o!Jowing joint I"HDlutlon; whiclJ wu I"Cad N;ce and Mel'ft!ri
w the Conurutw on tJae Juciiei&l')·
JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment. to the Constitution of the United
States to protect the rights of victims of -crime.
I
Rl!!oltJcd by the Senate and IlotUe of Rtp~entaiives
2
oftl~.e United Slate." ofAmerica in Congress assembled (lUJO·
3 third.t of t.ach House concurring therein), That the follow.
4 · ing article is proposed as an amendment to tlJe Constitu.
S tion of the United
Sta~s, v.•hich shall be valid to all intents
6 and purposes u part of the Conatitution ·when ratified by
7 · tlu~ legislatures of threc-fou.rth.£ of the several States with.
8 in .seven .yean after the date of its submission for ratifica.
9 tion:
�·.-
2
l
•'ARTICLE-
2
'•SECTION 1. To ensure that the \'ictim is treated with
-
3 fairness, dignity, and respect, from the
occurrence
of a
4 crime of violence and other crimea as may be defined by
5 law punmant to aect.ion 2 of thia article, and throughout
6 the criminal, military, and juvenile justice pro~aes, aa
7 a matter of fundamental rights to liberty, justice, and due
8 P.rocess, the viet.im shall have the following rights: to be
9 informed of and given the opportunity to be present at
10 every proceeding in which those rights are extended to the
ll accused or convicted offender; to be heard at any preceed12 ing involving sentencing, including the right to object to
13 ·a previously negotiated plea,· or a release from cll5tody;
14 to ·bt! informed of any release or escape; and to a speedy
15 trial, a final conclusion free from unreasonable delay, full
16 restitution from the convicted offender, reasonable meas-
17 ures to protect tl1e. victim from violence or intimidation
18 by the accused or-.,.convir.ted offender, and notice of tl1c
19 victim's rights.
20
"SECTION 2. The several States, with respect to a
21 proceeding in a State forum, and the Congress, with re.
22 spect to a proceeding in a United States forum, shall have
23 the pov.;er to implement further this article by appropriate
24 legislation.''.
0
li.J U IS
�.,~·'
.
,,
....
POSSIBLE ADMINISTRATION ALTERNATIVE
Section 1
In all cases that involve crimes of violence, or :other crimes as specified by law, the
victim shall have the following rights, which shall be accorded the same respect and dignity
as the rights of those accused or convicted of crimes: to have notice of, and not to be
excluded from, public court proceedings in the case; to be heard by the trial court concerning
the release of the accused, the sentence and acceptance of any plea, if present at the
proceedings relating to those determinations; to be afforded like rights to notice and
attendance and to be heard in relation to parole hearings; to be given notice of any release or
escape from custody of the accused or convicted offender; to a timely disposition of the case;
to restitution from the convicted offender; to reasonable measures to protect the victim from
violence or intimidation by the accused or convicted offender; and to notice of the rights
secured by this article.
Section 2
With respect to cases brought under the authority of the United States, Congress shall
have the power to enforce these rights and make appropriate exceptions and regulations.
With respect to cases brought under the authority of ~e states, the state legislature shall have
the power to enforce these rights and to make appropriate exceptions and regulations.
�E X E C U T I V E
0 F F I C E
0
F
T H E
P R E S I D E N T
19-Jun-1996 05:26pm
TO:
James T. Edmonds
FROM:
Keith E. Laughlin
Council on Environmental Quality
SUBJECT:
Cleveland Speech
Beth Viola of CEQ asked tne to send a quick note.
I haVe been
working with D~ve Gatton of the Conferende of Mayors on some
initiatives for the President's Council on Sustainable
Development.
In the President's speech in Cleveland Dave would
like the President to mention how we are working with Norm Rice to
create a Joint Center on Sustainable Communities.
If you need any
info on this, send me an email or call me at 66550.
1/q~J})
~~-·~-~~~
�
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
Mayors [4]
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 15
<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-015-002-2014
7763294