-
https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/files/original/a720b492181dd925d90a8850aebf7f96.pdf
e2c239cd5ab4cdd543eec5bea597d722
PDF Text
Text
FOIA Number: 2006-0462-F
FOIA
This is not a .textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the William J. Clinton
Presidential Library Staff.
Collectiori/Record Group:
Clinton Presidential Records
Subgroup/Office of Origin:
Speechwriting
Series/Staff Member:
Terry Edmonds
Subseries:
'10987
OA/ID·Number:
FolderiD:
Folder Title:
Budget 1997
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
s
0
0
0
0
�Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
AND TYPE
0 I. schedule
SUBJECT/TITLE
DATE
02/06/96
Cover Sheet for Schedule (I page)
RESTRICTION
P6/b(6)
COLLECTION:
Clinton Presidential Records
Speechwriting
Terry Edmonds
OA/Box Number:
10987
FOLDER TITLE:
Budget 1997
2006-0462-F
r 668
RESTRICTION CODES
l'n·sidrnthtl Records Act- ]44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act -15 U.S.C. 552(b)]
PI
P2
1'3
1'4
b(l) National security classified information ((b)(l) of the FOIA]
b(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of
an agency ]{b)(2) of the FOIA]
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute ((b)(3) of the FOIA]
b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
information ](b)(4) of the FOIA]
b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy ((b)(6) of the FOIA]
b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes ((b)(7) of the FOIA]
b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
financial institutions ](b)(8) of the FOIA]
b(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
concerning wells ](b)(9)ofthe FOIA]
National Security Chtssified Information ](a)(l) of the PRA]
Relating to the appointment to Federal office ](a)(2) of the PRA]
Release would violate a Federal statute ]{a)(3) of the PRA] .
Release would disclose tr·ade secrets or confidential commercial or
financhtl information ](a)(4) of the I'RA]
1'5 Rdrasr would disclose conlidcntial advice between the President
and his ;rdvisors, or between such advisors (a)(S) of the I'RA]
1'6 Rele;rse would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy ](a)(6) of the I'RA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
of gift.
l'I{M. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
2201(3).
RR. Document will be reviewed upon request.
�THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
From:
Michael Waldman on 05/06/97 08:49:01 AM
Record Type:
To:
Record
See the distribution list at the bottom of this message
cc:
See the distribution list at the bottom of this message
Subject: New "mantra" on the economy
We have needed a new 'mantra' on the economy, a compelling, concise way of pointing out that
we have produced prosperity etc. Here is what we have used in the past few days (facts courtesy
of Jake Siewert). This is what should be included in the President's remarks when "we've done
well on the economy" is called for.
Thanks in large measure to diftlcult decisions we made in 1993, we have already cut the
budget deficit from $290 billion to $80 billion. Unemployment has dropped to 4.9% --the
lowest in 24 years. Economic growth is at its highest in a decade. Core inflation is at its
lowest in three decades. We have seen the largest decline in income inequality since the
1960s. And thanks to the hard work of the American people, our economy has created 12
million new jobs.
NOTE: The deficit figure is given as "$80 billion." I had written $107 billion, and it is
now expected to fall to $80 billion," but the President chose to just use the projection. So
that's'what we'll do.
Message Sent To:
Carolyn Curiei/WHO/EOP
James T. Edmonds/WHO/EOP
Jordan Tamagni/WHO/EOP
Laura K. Capps/WHO/EOP
Eli G. Attie/WHO/EOP
Message Copied To:
Gene B. Sperling/OPD/EOP
Jake Siewert/OPD/EOP
Jonathan A. Kaplan/OPD/EOP
Melissa Green/OPD/EOP
Michelle Crisci/WHO/EOP
Rahm I. Emanuei/WHO/EOP
�SUNTUM_M@ A 1
05/02/97 05:09:00 PM
Record
Record Type:
To:
See the distribution list at the bottom of this message
cc:
Subject: 1997-5-2 remarks of President on budget agreement
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
May 2, 1997
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
ON BUDGET AGREEMENT
Baltimore, Maryland
3:58 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: For more than four years now, I have
worked hard to pursue a strategy that would keep our economy growing
and creating opportunity for the American people, giving people a
chance to be rewarded for their labors, and also imposing upon
ourselves the discipline necessary to prepare for the future and to
relieve ourselves of a lot of the problems that had been accumulated
over the last several years, especially the deficit.
Now, we have reached agreement in broad but fairly
specific terms that I am satisfied will do that with the Republican
leaders today that would balance the budget by 2002, continue to
increase our investments in education, in science and technology and
medical research, require us to continue to show gr!=!at discipline in
other areas and to continue to downsize some government operations.
It would invest in doing what I think is important, to
be sure that we can move people from welfare to work who are going to
be required to go to work. It would expand coverage to millions of
children who presently do not have health insurance. It would
restore cuts to benefits for legal immigrants who are in this country
who have sustained injuries and other problems for which they would
otherwise be eligible for benefits. It will extend the life of
�Medicare and secure the integrity of the Medicaid program between now
and 2002.
It will be the first balanced budget in three decades.
It's a good thing that it's coming today, when we learn
that our employment rate had dropped to 4.9 percent for the first
time in 24 years. We know that we have the biggest decline in
inequality in our work force since the 1960s, and we've seen our
economy produce the largest number of new j_obs since 1 993 ever
produced in a four-year period. That happened because a lot of the
people standing up here with me right now had the courage to vote for
a plan to bring the deficit down in 1 993 and get interest rates down
and investments up.
This agreement will help us to finish the job. I have
spoken several times over the last several days with Senator Lott and
with Speaker Gingrich. I want to thank them personally for
negotiating with me openly, candidly, and, I'm convinced, in complete
good faith.
I have also had occasion to speak with the
representatives of the Democratic Caucus, obviously, who were in this
budget negotiation -- Senator Lautenberg for the Democrats and
Congressman John Spratt from South Carolina, and the Republicans who
were represented by their Chairs, Senator Domenici and Congressman
l<asich. I want to thank all. I want to thank Senator Domenici and
Congressman l<asich. They worked very hard and we know there are
significant differences between us in how we look at what is the best
wayto balance the budget and they tried to bridge these gaps.
Congressman Spratt and Senator Lautenberg did as well. And I'm very
proud of all four of them. They served America well. They put the
interests of the country first in trying to work through to get us as
close as we are today. And so I appreciate that very much.
Now, let me say again -- let me give you just some of
the details very quickly. The plan will protect Medicare, extending
the life of the trust fund for a decade; extending new benefits for
annual mammograms and diabetes screening. Home health will be
shifted from Part A to Part 8, and there will be a modest premium for
home health services being phases in at $1 per month, a year.
Second, and perhaps most important. this budget meets my
goal of making education America's number one priority on the edge of
the 21st century. It will have the largest increase in education
funding in 30 years. It will have the largest increase in Pell Grant
scholarships in 20 years. It will help us to make sure that every
8-year-old will be able to read, every 12-year-old can log on to the
Internet. every 18-year-old can go into college. I am very, very
pleased that it will also include in a tax cut per person aid to help
people go on to college and to finance college education.
�Third, as I said, it will extend health insurance to 5
million uninsured children. This is a major breakthrough in our
efforts to move toward coverage for all Americans.
Fourth, it will give businesses incentives and work with
mayors to hire people from welfare to work. It will also, as I said,
address the concerns I raised in last year's welfare law -- restoring
benefits to disabled legal immigrants and moderating excessive cuts
in food stamps, along with giving the states a reserve, so that if
people would be unjustly cut off food stamps because they simply
cannot go to work, the states will be able to avoid malnutrition and
real harm to those people in these cases.
Fifth, it will protect the environment. providing funds
to clean up 500 of our most dangerous toxic waste sites, cleaning up
toxic sites in urban areas and adding resources for environment
enforcement.
Six, it includes tax relief for the American people,
but, thanks to the rules of the Senate and the agreement of the
leaders, the tax relief will be limited and we'll know the dollar
amount not only for the first five years, but for the second five
years following, so that we will not run the risk of having an
explosion in the deficit as a result of unintended leaks in a tax
program -- so that when we tell the American people we're going to
balance the budget we know we can keep it balanced and we won't get
ourselves back into the difficulties we've seen over the last 15
years.
Like Americans of all political views, I have been
deeply committed to this, but I wanted a balanced budget with
balanced values. I believe we have got it today. There are things
in this budget that -- not everyone will find something that he or
she disagrees with; everyone could find something that he or she
wishes were in the budget. There is no perfect agreement, but as I
said, we know America is more prosperous when we have fiscal
discipline, when we invest in our future, and when we do it in the
right way. We have evidence of that.
It will never get any easier to do this job. Senator
Lott made that point to me on the phone the other night -- he said,
you know, when you're doing well, it's easier to balance the budget
than it is when you're not. This is not going to get any easier, we
have to do it now. And I said, I agree with you, and we are going to
do it.
So I ask Americans of all political parties and all
philosophies to look at this plan, give it your support. Let's
balance the budget and get on about the new business of preparing
America for a new century.
And I thank you, and I'd like to ask Senator Daschle now
�and come up and say a word.
* * * * *
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. I just can't help saying
there for a moment I thought the Vice President was sad he's not
going to get to cast another tie-breaker in this vote. (Laughter.)
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Right.
Q
Mr. President, during the campaign, you repeatedly
expressed concern about cuts -- potential cuts in Medicaid and
Medicare. Are you satisfied that no one will be hurt -THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
Q
-- in the changes?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I am. This -- let me say, first of
all, I think we have improved the Medicaid program in this budget
agreement -- and I want to make full disclosure here -- with the full
support of the Republican negotiators, over and above what it was in
the budget I presented. Now, that's been made possible partly
because we know the economy is getting better-- but we have.
The Medicare program, I'm convinced, first of all, the
savings in Medicare which I proposed, meeting the Republicans halfway
between our differences last time, are, by and large, rooted in
policy, which I believe is good policy, designed not only to save
money for five years but to save money over the long run. We need to
change some of the policies to show appropriate discipline. They
don't hurt people, but they will impose more rigor in the system.
The modest one-dollar-a-month premium for home health
services I think is an appropriate contribution, given the fact that
people, I believe, at 1 20 percent of the poverty line and down are
exempted. I think it's an appropriate contribution for what is the
fastest growing element of the Medicare program and something that -1 50 percent, they just told me, are excluded, and below. The home
health part is the fastest growing part of Medicare, and has not been
subject to any premium, and I think should. There should be some
contribution, just as is associated with other elements of Part B.
But it will not be burdensome, and the aggregate premium will still
be much lower than would have been the case if we had -- if I hadn't
vetoed the budget in '95.
So I think we've reached out to the health care experts
in our caucus and in the Republican caucus. We've reached out to
interest groups throughout the country that would be affected by
this. I believe they will support this. I believe there will be
broad support for this, and I think it will be seen for just what it
is. It will preserve and strengthen the integrity of the Medicare
program for a decade. We can't responsibly let this trust fund get
down to a year or two and just kick it down the road for another year
�or two. We need to keep it a decade or more out all the time.
Q
Senator Daschle described this as an agreement that
was tentatively reached 24 hours ago. Can you give us an idea of
what transpired between that point and now? (Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: I don't think it would be --
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Sausage. (Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: Let me just say, I tt:Jink what Senator
Daschle said is accurate, but let me try to recast it a little bit.
We had some broad outlines 24 hours ago. We went back to our folks,
they went back to theirs to talk about some details. We came back
with some details, they came back with some details. We got some of
the details we wanted and some we just had to abandon -- and knowing
that there will still be disagreements within various categories as
this budget comes up.
Keep in mind, this is an agreement. Then it has to be
embodied in law. Then it has to be embodied in specific
appropriation bills and tax bills this year and in the years to come.
So there is still some room for some· debate between the two parties
and within the two parties over some issues. But the framework is
pretty specific -- guarantees the essential elements that were
necessary to get the Democrats and the Republicans to support it. and
to get the President to support it.
So we did get some more specifics in and had to leave
some more specifics out in the last 24 hours, but I think, in
fairness to the Republicans with -- as I said, I am convinced they
negotiated with me and with Senator Lauten berg and Mr. Spratt in
complete good faith. And in fairness to them, without talking to
them about it, I don't think I should characterize exactly what
happened in the last 24 hours.
Q
Mr. President, how big is the tax cut in the
package? Can you give us any indication? Who will get tax relief?
THE PRESIDENT: It is a tax cut of a net of $85 billion,
which is -- over five years -- which is considerably smaller than we
were, and they were, discussing. And then in the second five years,
it must not exceed about -- what is it? About $1 70 billion, $165
billion, something like that.
And you' II get briefings on that; back at the White
House they'll explain it. But also, we have gone as far as we could
-- keep in mind, the tax-writing committees were not part of this
negotiating process, the budget committees were. So let me finish.
We have gone as far as we could also in discussing what the
components are. You know the things the Republicans want in it. You
know we want an education tax cut as well as some environmental
�relief for brownfields and some other very specific things, and we
want to protect the tax cuts that are progressive in our tax code,
particularly the earned income tax credit for low income people, the
low income housing credit, and we want to try to protect the pension
programs from being raided. And we've gone about as far as we can in
doing that in an agreement that does not include the leaders of the
tax-writing committee.
And Secretary Rubin, who is our guardian on that,
finally signed off and said, well, this is the best we're going to be
able to do.
0
Mr. President, the Republicans are happy they got
their tax cut, you're happy you got your investments. It can't all
be win-win. What did you have to give up? Where will Americans feel
a pinch? Where's the sacrifice?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, they're taking a
smaller tax cut than they had originally sought. We're providing
larger savings in this budget than previously in Medicare and in
other areas. But the growth in the economy has made it easier than
.it otherwise would have been. And we've all acknowledged that. I
think we have to acknowledge that.
So, for example, the difficult questions that had been
raised around the CPI, the cost of living adjustment for benefits.
The sense of both sides is that that should continue to be handled in
the ordinary course of business, that there will be an adjustment of
some kind coming out of the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the
process, that we have a fairly good idea of what it is. But even if
it's not sufficient to cover everything -- and they acknowledge they
can't analyze all the relevant factors -- that is an issue which now
can be handled outside of this budget negotiations. And that is an
issue which would have been very difficult here.
Q.
Mr. President how big a selling job do you still
have?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I don't know. We're going to have .
to see how the Democrats and Republicans react to it. The Democrats
will think that the tax cuts are too big and too skewed to people
with high incomes. The Republicans will think that we're investing
too much in education and other things, I think -- many of them may
think that. And I'm sure that there will be some on both sides who
won't vote for it. And then some people will be disappointed that,
even though we did some good reform in the Medicare program, that
without a consumer price adjustment that's larger, some will say
we're not doing enough to save Social Security.
My argument is we can look at saving Social Security
�independent of this; let's balance the budget. We don't have to mix
the two and we can take that on its own merits.
But there will be a lot of things in here that -- as I
said, no one will look at this budget and say, this is perfect; it
has everything in it I want and there's nothing in it I don't like.
So everybody will say I wish something was in it -- were in it that
isn't; I wish that there were things that are in it that weren't.
But I think we've got a good shot at getting the majority of both
parties in both Houses, which has been my goal from the day one. And
if it happens, America will be much better off.
Keep in mind, the bottom line is, if we show discipline
here and keep interest rates down by balancing the budget, the
American people in the private sector will grow the economy for us.
That solves a lot of problems. If we show discipline in continuing
to invest in our future,
then we will grow the economy in a way
that will give us high-wage jobs, higher incomes and greater
equality, which will solve our problems for us.
And meanwhile, we'll have a little honest-- an
honorable compromise; that's part of the way the process works.
Thank you. There will be a briefing on more specifics
down at the White House shortly.
END
Message Sent To:
4:25 P.M. EDT
��llf.~-:;.~\:,+'.( ~ .:~,·
~
~
.
~~~~~1:.:::.:,.: ,.
.
.f.¥)¥.:;:~:,'· ·,-?
. ·-.PRESIDENT ·cLINTON ·
. Balances th~ Budget in 7 Years· ·Wtule. ·t'rou~cting
Me.dic~re,'4,·.~~~~i~~i
..
..\'\
..
:.;,, ..
.
~ And The E;nviroriment, And Maintaining Tax Fairness
·
~.w
.. . :
~·
,,.~
:.;;~{·:~~~~;~,·
February 5, 1996
~.
. ..
.
r:::~~:t}J:~.;<~·:,:;{:t~,
. : ; ' .. ri·.:
.'I., ...
',,.-~'~\h.:~ ..-~~~:~~~~v-···1 \~~,'~,>
President Clinton's
Budget Is The First Genu:::n ."~!~!lced .Budget
Submitted
By A ,·.:
·: .
.
··;if\;•
.
·.
.
'
... , ......
!'resident In 17 Years That Reaches Balance Based On Congressional. BucJget Office ·
Numbers. ·
.
- ·
·
· ··
. ...-·.?. (:·'-'·~··''';>-"''' . · · ·
*
'
.
*
I
'
'
'
President Clinton's Balanced Budget Is Historic. ,The Savings Are Real.· It
Reflects
America's Values. ·It Provides .Tax Rellief
For Workini Families.
.
. .
..
'
.
'
.
:·(··)~-' ...~r~~t~;1
.
· ~ -~ ~· ·
President Clinton's Balanced Budget Is Goo~;For.Ameiica. Whil~. protecting
Medicare, Medica1J, Education, and the Enviroiiment, and 'providfui(tilX. relief
.
for working families, it would help lower intereSt rates;. c.r;e,ate jobs,' and. invest in
oUr future,·. while continuing the· strong economic growth oirr: col:mtcy' has ·enjoyed
under President Clinton.
·
·
'
· "!~~·;r:'f;·:::od;:i::. ·: · :. ,...
•:Ji}.::: ··~>:._:; ::':.;~~:·::·;\~:.
.~ .,.
.·
.:.: :·:~~ . ~ ·.~·;.
. :J~:··· .
President Clinton's Balanced Budget .Includes New Iiiitiativ-~s To'B~Ip·.·Meet ·
. America's ,Challenges
As We .Move Towards. The New .Ce~fury.
;"'. · ~":·'",''.-'··
.
.
*
.\;·~ l~~rt~~t::;:; ;~~ ~:~:: "··;:· : ..{ .: ~: ··.. ·:·· ·
Health Insurance Reforms. Require instirers. to coyer people \vho ~ve lost
insurance because they change or lose their jobs. Help: 3.8 t!rillion unemployed
workers each year purchase health· insurance: .. Limit the· abilitY. of fus.~ance
· compariies to deny coverage based on pre~~~Sting conditi~~: . Heft)
·small
businesses buy instrrance at
*
che~~er:_;m~e-~:·~~··':.::~:,,:·,·;.·.: ·\i~:.tt:~i~J~~fJ~~ii~~',:::~;~;F.·
Education Technology Initiative.·· Help ·local efforts to· increase Educational
Technology --: putting more .computers in classr~oms, connecting~ c.l~srooms. to
the internet, creating better educational software. t" help children leam~-and ·
providing training to help teachers teach new:.technologies... ' ....,.,.... ·. ,.
',;·
*
',';'
$10,000 College Tuition Tax Deduction. Allow families· to· dedu:~t'·~~ to
$10,000 a year for the .cost of tuition and trainmg. ....•
More
·tlUm 165 million
•JI:.:.r;.,'.<!h'••
students could benefit. · ·
. ··
-:·. ;._ J(lc'.' .. ·
... :t:., -~ .. · . .
i
. ··. ~
*
1
·..
·~
/.-·... :(:·
•
':·•·
•
...... ·
$1,000 Merit Scholarships For Top. 5% Students At Every High School.
Scholarships rewarding excellence and achievement to help more ·students afford
a college .education.
. · . '··· :
* ·Brownfields
Common Sense Environmental Cleanups. Tax incentives to
businesses that redevelop brownfields in distressed communities over a shorter
period of time. This will spur the private. sector to create jobs, return land to
productive use, and clean up the enviroliment.
·
··;.
··
\
President Clinton Urges :~.:publicans ·To Keep Wotklng With Him So WecCan Pass
.. -:-:t-:t~:~~~~~i.\_>~:Y\~·:_;;;:-.t.
�- - - - - - - - - - ----
A Balanced Budget. No More Blackmail. We Have The Savings In Common. Let's
Get,. It Done.
*
Pass Common Savings'Now. Both sides have now 'agreed on more tha:n· enough
cuts in common to balance the budget in 7 years and still provide a modest
middle-class tax- cut, to maintain our obligations to our parents and our childreri
and to the future through Medicare and Medicaid and through our investments m
· · education, and to protect the environment. · ·
.
*
Congress Must Pass A Longterm Straightforward Debt' Extension Now.
Congress must take. action to secure a long-term, straightforward debt extension
so that we can get on with balancing the budget without the threat of default
hanging over our head.
'
'
.
1,
r.""'
�. I
Talking Points on
Republican Tax and spending Policies:
"CUts .. in Education to Pay· for Tax CUts for the Rich"
April 3, 19,95
.
Mes~age: The House tax and, spending policies center around
sharp cuts in programs that' serve average Americans --'notably,
education -- to _pay for huge tax cuts for. the wealthi.est
Americans.
·
These proposals highlight L sharp-distinction between the·
President's priorities and those of Republicans. The President
wants to target tax. cuts to middle-income Americans and.help
.
those Americans get the. education and ·skills .they need to.compete
in-today's economy.· Republicans, by contrast, advocate a kind of
"reverse Robin ·Hood" approach, giving :inore to the most well--off
and taking,froni the most vulnerable whiie doing little for those
in. the middle.
· ·
Republican tax cuts and welfare reform-proposals would
provide $31.3 billion more in tax benefits for those making at·
least $20o,ooo·a year,·and $11.5 b,illion less in benefits fpr
those making less than $5o,ooo.
Republican priorities show up· in the major: tax and, spending
prop6sals before Congress.
1. Tax cuts.
'
overa.ll: The President wants to target tax relief to middleincome Americans who'have riot yet sha:r;ed in the economic
recovery and.pay for it by cutting waste .and pork from .the
buQget. Republicans want to provide tax breaks'that would
go disproportionately to the wealthiest Americans and pay
for it by cutting education, school lunches, and other
·programs that· he·lp middle-income Americans and those most
vulnerab!'e.
The House RepUblican tax bill.would:
.
.
.
.
/
'
• give 20 percent of its benefits to the top 1 percent·
of Am~rican families _....; those earning nearly $J5o;ooo a
year or more;
• give more than half of its b~nefits to fhe top 12 .
percent of American families -~those making· at least
$100,000 a year;
.
J
�-- This will still be true even ·if House
Republicans cap their' family tax credit at those
makinq up to $95,000 a·year.
• explode the deficit by costing a whopping $.630
b.illion over 10 years.
.
Republic.ans also want to· protect a loophole that allows
about 24 multi-millionaires· to avoid payinq taxes by ·
renouncinq their citizenship:
,,
•-The provision was part of a separate measure to
.extend, and then increase, _the 25 percent deduction· of
health insurance costs incurred· by self-employed
individuals;
·
• The President has proposed to close this loophole ..
• The provision would have raised $1.4 billion over'
five years -- just by collectinq taxes from these 24 '
indi vidu.als.
· ·
• At the urging of House .conferees, a House-Senate
conference committee droppe'd this provision from the
tax measure.
· 2 • Budqets ·
overall: House Budget Chairman John Kasich has proposed a
five-year budget-of $190 billion in spending cuts-- all to
pay for the. Republican tax.cuts
but no specified savings
to reduce the deficit.
• Kasich's
~uts in~lude:
Discretionary savings ($100 billion),
• ·.Examples include:
-- Reduce Funding for Training and ·
Employment,
Reduce Violent Crime Trust Funding,
.
'
Redu.ce Funding for Goals
-to-Work,
and
·
.
'
2000
and. School-
-- Reduce 'corporation for National and
Community Service.
I
'
reform (food stamps, child nutrition, etc.)
($64.6 billion),
- Welfa~e
�cuts in civil service programs (11-billion),
Medicare extenders ($10.5 billion),:
Spectrum auction extension (2.5 billion), and
Uraniuin· enrichment privatization ($1.6 billion).
• Kasich's deficit reduction comes from:
_ _: $~1 bil;lion in unspecified discretionary-savings
that he would apply to def~cit reduction.
--Thus, despite Republican criticism-that our budqet
was weak on_deficit reduction, Kasich's plan provides
·-tmly marginally more deficit reduction than ours --$91
billion, compared to our $,81 billion ..
3. Rescissions:
The House bill would make deep cuts in the f_ollo,rinq areas:
E-ducation
·· • Cut the Goals 2000 program,' depriving 4, 000
schools in 46 states of seed money to train
teachers and upgrade their academic standards.
• Deprive 100,000 educationally disadvantaged
children of special services under the,Title I
program.
• Eliminate the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and
Communities program, -which supports drug· prevention programs in _94 percent of all school·
distri'cts as well as anti-violence efforts.
· ·
Children and Youth
• Shut down the national service program, sending
home 20,,000 Americorps members and cutting funding
for school-based programs serving over 300', 000
·children.
~- Among other things, Americorps members
are:
• providing thousands of low-income and
. -.migrant children with immunizations;
• working with children in environmental
clean-up aqtivities; and
�/
·.
' • working in inner-city recreation areas
to combat drug traffic and violence.
· • Eliminate funding for the Summer· .Youth
·Employm~nt p:fogram in 1995 _and 1996, wiping out·
job opportunities for 1.2·million disadvantaged
youth over those two summers.
.
• Deny the WIC-nutrition program~s serv~ces and
food packages to about loo,ooo women, infants, and
children for six _months.
· ·
Housinq and the Homeless
• Eliminate subsidized housing assistance to
63,000 needy low-income households.
·• Prevent 24,ooo'homeless. families _from moving to
transitional or permanent housing this year.
• Eliminate the up-front. funds needeq·· to tear down
the nation's worst public housing projects.
The ·senate bill is-an ilnprovement over the House version,. but the Administration remains opposed b~cause of its deep.
cu~s in valuable proqrams:
Education
• Cut $l00 milliori from the Safe and Drug-Free
Schools and Communities program, which supports
drug-prevention programs in 94 percent-of all
school districts as well as anti-violen6e effort~.
• Cut the Goals 2000 program by., $68 million, .
reducing support through-which States and
communities train teachers and upgrad~ their
academic standards.
gr~atly
• cut the Title ). program for the educationally
'disadvantaged· by $80 million.
Children-and Youth
• Cut $210 million from the President's. national
service program, depriving 15,000 young aduits of·
the chance to serve their communities and earn
education benefits.
'• Cut $.35 million from the WIC program, resulting
in _840,000 fewer food packages for·women, infants,
and children.
·
.....~-·------~... - ............ ~--
-•---~~~--------------------------__;_
_____________
__..
�• Eliminate funding for the Summer Youth .
Employment program in 1996,·wipinq out job
·opportunities for 615,000 disadvantaged youth that
·summer •.
''
J
/
••··•·-•··-,----·e••••--~•·•••=··-=-=·~=··=•·=···=·-·=-------------=--------~___:__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _____;____;_ _ _____J
�Talkinq Points on
Republican Tax and,Spendinq Policies:
"CUts in Bducation·to Pay for Tax.cuts·for the Rich"
April 3, 1995
I.
.
Messaqe: The House tax and spending policies·center around
sharp cuts in programs that ser¥e aver~ge Americans -- notably,
education -·- to pay for huge_ tax cuts for the wealthiest
· ~er icans.
·
I
These proposals highlight a sharp .distinction between the
.President's priorities and those of-Republicans. The President
wants to target_ tax cuts'to middle~income Americans and. help·
those Americans get the education and-skills they need-to compete
in today's economy. Republicans, by contrast, advoca~e a kind of
"rev~rse Robin Hood" approach, giving more to the mo_st weil-off
and taking from the most vulnerable while doing little for those_
in the middle.
'
.
Republican tax cuts and_ welf~re reform proposals would
provide $31._3 bi~lion more in tax benefits for those making at
least $200,000 a year, and $11.5 billion less in_ benefits for·
those making less than $50, ooo •. Republican priorities show up in the major tax and spending
proposals before Congress.
1. TaX cutsoverall: The President wants to target tax relief to,'middle- ·income Americans who have not yet shared in the economic .
. recovery and pay for it by· cutting waste and pork from the
budget. Republicans want to provide tax breaks ·that would
go disproportionately to the wealthiest Americans and pay
for it by cutting education, school lUnches, and other
programs that help middle-income Americ_ans and·. those most
.vulnerable~
·The Bouse Rfitpublican tax __ bill would:~- give·2o percent of its benefits to the top 1 percent·
of American families--:those e_arningnearly $350,000 a
· year or _more;
• give more t,han ha-lf of its benefits to the top 12
percent of Alnerican families·~- those making at leas.t
$100, oo·o a year;
�....
'
"
'._ ....
-.
'•
Talkinq. Points: on .
. Republ.ica:n Tax and spandinq Policies: ·
"Cuts in Education to Pay ~or Tax· Cuts for the Rich"
April 3, 1995 ·
:
.
.
Message:-' The House tax an.d spending policies center aroUnd
sharp cuts in programs that serve average Americans -- notably,·
education -- to pay for huge tax'cuts for the wealthiest .
·
Americans •.
Th,z:;.;e proposals highlight' a sharp d:~~-cinction between the,·
President's priorit'ies and those o·f Republicans.. The President
:wants to ta,rget tax cuts to. middle-income Americans and help
.
. those Americans get the education and skills.1they need to,compete
in today' s economy. Republicans·, by contrast, 'advocate a kind of
, -"reverse Robin Hood". approach, giving·'more to the· ~o,st well..;.off ·
and taking from ·the most vulnerable while doing_ little for those
.in the middle.
Republican tax.cuts and welfare reform proposals'would..
provide $31.3 billion more in tax_hanafits f()r those·~kinq at
least $200,000 a year, and $11.5 hill.ion less iD heliefits for .
those making. le.ss· than· $50, ooo.
·Republican pri:orities show up in the ·major tax and sp·ending
proposals befor~ Congress~
·1. Tax cut,s
.OVerall: The ~resident.wants to.target tax relief to middle.:..
income'Americans who have not yet shared in the economic
· recovery and pay for it by cutting waste and pork fro~ the
budget. 1 Repqblicans want. to provide taX breaks that·would
go disproportionately to the·wealthiest·Americans.and pay
for it by 'cutting education, school·lunches, and'other
programs that help middle-income Americans and those most
vulnerable.
·
The House Republ.ican· tax bill would:
• gfve· 20 percent of its·benefits ·to the top·1 percent
of Amerl.can families -- those earning nearly $350,000 a
year or more;
'
.
• give more than half of its benefits to the top 12
percent of American families--· those making at least.
$100, ooo a. year;
\ .
�)•:
,•
... '
,,
.. '
This will .still- be true even it: Bouse
Republicans cap their ~amiiy tax.· credit .at those
llllkinq up to $95,-ooo a year.
·
··
• explode the deficit by costing a whopping $630
billion ave~ 10 years.
··
·
Republicans also. want to protect. a· loophc::»le ·that allo~s
about 24-multi-millionaires t()'avoid paying taxes by
renouncing their.citizenship:
• The provision was part of a separate. measure to
extend, and then increas,e, the 25 percent deduction of . ·
health insurance costs incurred· by self-employed
individua],s; ·
\
·• The President has proposed to close this loophole.
• The provision would. have raised $1.4 billion over
five years.-- just by collecting taxes_from these 2.4
individuals.
• At the urging of House conferees, a House-Senate
conference commi'ttee dropped. this provision from the
tax measure ..
-2. Budgets
overall: House Budget Chairman John Kasich has proposed·a
five-year budget of $190 billion in spending cuts -• .all to
. pay for the Republican tax cuts -~ but. no specified savings
to .reduce the deficit.
• Xasich's cuts include:
--Discretionary savirigs ($100
billion)~
/
..
• Examples include:
-- Reduce Funding for Training and
_Employment,
Reduce Violent Crime Trust Funding, ·
Reduce Funding for Goals '2000 and Schoolto""':Work, and_
.
.
-- Reduce Corporation for National and
Community Service.
'
1',
-- Welfare reform (food stamps, ch1ld nutrition, etc·.)
($64.6 billion)·,
�;''
.
'.
' ·...
•'
•.
'
~.
i
CUts in civil service programs (1I·billion),
Medicare extenders ( $10. 5, billion) ,.
.
.
'
spectrum auction extension (2.5 blllion),.and
..
.
. ·.
Uranii.un enrichment privatization ($1 .• ~ billion) •
•
Kasich~s
\
deficit reduction coaes from:
..
.
'
-- $91 pillion in unspecified discretionary savings
that he would apply to deficit:· reduction~
'
'
'
-- Thus, despite RepUblican criticism that our budget ,
was weak on deficit reduction,.· Kasich's· plan provides
only margi~Ially more deficit reduction than ours -·-$91 .
billion, compared to our $81 billion.
3. Rescissions:·
. The House bill would make ·deep· cuts' ·in the tollowing areas: ·
Education
• Cut the Goals 2000 program, depriving 4 1 000
schools in 46 states of seed money to.train
_teachers and upgrade their academic· standards.
·• Deprive 100 1 ooo educa~iorially dlsadvantaged·
·children of special services under th~ 1 Title I
program.
• Eliminate the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and
Communi ties program, which . supports drugprevention programs in. 94 percent.· of all school
districts as well as anti-violence efforts.
I
Ch~ldren
.
and Youth
• Shut down the national service program, sending·
·home 20,000 Aniericorps members· and cutting funding
for school-: based programs serving· over 300 1 ooo. ·
·children.
·
'
' ·
--: Among ·other things 1 Americorps members
are:
• providing thousands· of low-income and
migrant. children with immunizations;
• working withchildren in environmental
activities; and
clean~~p
�.
. ..
·~
.. •.
. _:....
'.
·...
~;
:,
. .
•
•
...
•
• 1.
• working lri· inner-:citY .recreation· areas
to .combat drug traffic: and violence •..
• Elimi~ate funding for the summer Youth
·Employinent proqram.in 1995 and 1996, wiping out
job .opportunities for.·l.2 million. disadvantaged
youth over those .two summers.
·
·
/
•.Deny the WIC nutrition program's service~ and
food packages to about 100·, ooo· women, .. infants, ·and
children .for six months •.· .
Housing and the Homeless
• Eliminate subsidized housing assistance to.
63, ooo needy lo-w~· income households~··
• Prevent 24,000 homeless families· from moving to.
transitional o~ permanent housinq this year.
.
.
.
• Eliminate the up-front funds needed to. tear down
the nation's worst public housing projects •
. .
The Senate bill is animprovement over the House version,
but the Administration r~ins· opposed because of .it's deep·
cuts in.valuable programs:
Education
... Cut· $100, milliori from the Safe and·. Drug-Free
Schools and Communities.proqram, which. supports
drug-prevention programs J.n 94. percent of all ..
school districts
as well as anti~violence efforts.·
.
',·..
'
.
• Cut the-Goals 2000 program by $68 million,
great:J_y reducing support·through ~hich States and
communities train teachers and upgrade their
academic· standards.·
r.
• cut the Title 1 program for the
disadva11tagedby $80 million.
I
I
.
,·
educat.~onally
.
Children and Youth
.• cut $210 million from the P~esident's national
service program,·deprivirig 15,000 yo\).Ilg adults of
the· chance to serve· their communities and earn
education benefits.
• cut $35 million. from the WIC program, resulting.
in 840,000 fewer food packages for·women, in~ants,
and children.
.
--
�I
~
·- •.••• 1·
. ··.·.~. •':'
.
~
'
.
.· • Eliminate . funding for the. Summer· Youth
Employment proqram in 1996~ wipiitq out job
,opportunities ·for-615,000 disadvantaged youth that
summer.
-'
'.
'
'i
.
'''
---~--.-··- ..... ··-··-··· ... ··- --·--·--· --·
. -.
..
, .-:;-;--:~~r--r:""'""·•;:!":~"~'--:,...,.....•~·-·-·~----· .. -.---
,. :
�UNFUNDED MANDATES
March 22, 1995
Today, President Clinton will sign a bill restricting
Congress from passing on new mandates to state and
local governments without paying for them. This law
honors the President's commitment to reinvent
government, to create a government that works better
and costs less.
President Clinton Has Been a Leader in Fight Against
Unfunded Mandates
Since his days as Governor of Arkansas, President
Clinton has spoken out on the need to address the
growth of federal unfunded mandates. Too often in the
past, the Federal Government placed unfunded
requirements on state, local, and tribal government~,
taking decision-making responsibilities out of the
hands of local elected officials and their communities
and giving it to bureaucrats in Washington. Since the
beginning of his Administration, the President has
worked hard to:
o
Restore balance to the intergovernmental
partnership between the Federal government
and State, local and tribal governments;
o
Move decisions out of Washington and empower
communities to develop bottom-up solutions to
·our nation's ~roblems; and
o
Curtail the imposition of unfunded mandates.
We Have Already Taken Action to Reduce the Mandate
Burden
The President has already taken action to control the
growth of unfunded mandates within the Executive Branch
by issuing Executive Order 1287 5, :'Enhancing the
Intergovernmental Partnership." On October 26, 1993.
This Executive Order is designed to prevent the issuing
of any new, non-statutory unfurided regulations except
in cases where the agency submits to OMB, prior to
promulgation, a justification supporting the need for
the regulation and includes a description of the extent
of the agency's prior consultation with state, local,
and tribal governments. The Executive Order also sets
a deadline of 120 days for the approval or notification
of waiver requests.
State and local governments
praised the signing of this Executive Order.
�This Law Is a Model of Bipartisan Reform.
This new law shows that the President and Congress can
work together to develop bipartisan solutions to our
nation's problems. The President worked closely with
Senators Kempthorne and Glenn to create this bipartisan
legislation restricting Congress from imposing new
mandates without paying· for them.
Both Democrats and
Republicans have worked together to move this
legislation forward, and the final bill is one to be
proud of.
The President is willing to work with
Congress this year to find bipartisan solutions to
other legislation as well: the line-item veto, welfare
reform, and a middle-class. tax cut.
�'I
THE
104TH·CONGRESS:
TliE
'
.
'
FIRST 100 DAYS
After its first 100 days, the Repub(ican j 04th Congress has made. its intentions very
· · clear. The' GOP has targeted programs for children· and education that benefit
·working families. Worse, these extreme cuts are being .made to pay for·tax benefits
that go to the wealthiest Americans. And they have given special access to special
. interests by turning over the ·legislative- process to the lobbyists. ·They are cutting
. school lunches to pav for a free lunch for wealthy special interests:
.
WHO LOST: CHILDREN AND WORKING. FAMILIES
New meaning to "women andchildr(m first."·
The Republicans began· by targeting school lunches. The Ho.use Republicans voted to
actually eliminate ~he federal school Ilinch program, which serves 25 million children .
. They propose to cuts its funds, eliminate nutritiqnal standards and, shift resources away
from needy children. If this cut had be~n put into effect in 1989, it would have
deprived over I million children of federal funding for school lwu~hes in 1994.
WIC: If it ain't broke, break it. They voted to cut off the widely-praised Women,
Infants. and .Children nutrition program's se.Vices and food p~ckages to about I 00,900
women·, infants and children for six months. .According to .GA,O:, \VIC lowers infant .
mortality and saves,'$3.50 for every $1 spent. .
. Now. the Republicans are turning on middle-class families with drastic cuts in educ·ation. At
. a time when, more .than ever, opportunity in-the global economy depends on skills and
education, the GOP is significantly cutting educational programs that benefit working families.
Slashing s'tudent loans. The Republicans have proposed cuts in student loans that
would affect 4.5 million students -- raising their costs as -much as $J,l50. And at the
behest of ·the banks, the GOP is seeking jo freeze the direct lending program, which is.
saving taxpayers over $6 billion 'and makirtg it easier for stUdents to repay their loans.
Cutting lifacher training and educa,iional standards.. The House rescission bill cuts the
Goals 2000 .program,· depriving 4000 schQols in 46 states of seed money to train
teachers and upgrade their academic standards. And House leaders have proposed
even deeper cut.s in Goals 2000 explicitly' to pay for their tax cuts:
Killing the national service program. The Republican House voted in effect to 'shut·.
do~ AineriCo,rps. Soine 30,000 ..young p'eople would be sent home or prevented from·
providing service to their com~unities:
..
Safe and Drug Free Schools. They actually eliminate the Safe and Drug Free Schools
. and Communities· program, which supports·drug prevention and anti-violence programs
in 94 percent
of the nation's school districts.
.
'
.
�''
WHO WON: WEALTHY SPECIAL
INTERESTS
,,
The GOP tax cuts are going to pay for benefits for the wealthy. The. OOP's tax cuts -- the
"crown jewel" of th~ Contract, according' to Speaker Gingrich --are tilted tow~d the
wealthiest Americans. The cuts in programs for education and children are going to pay for
these needlessly unfair tax cuts.
More than half the GOP's tax cuts benefit the wealthiest 1_2% of Americans.
According to Treasury Department estimates, the wealthiesr 12% -- families earning
$100,000 or more a year-- would get 51.5% of the benefits from the House Ways 'and
Means Committee's tax bill. The wealthiest 1% of families would get more bertefits
than the 65 .million families in the bottom 60%.
Return of the -corporate loopholes. The GOP bill would repeal the law that requires
all corporations, to pay some federal income tax, and would scale. back the· requirement . ·
that wealthy individuals pay some. tax. This reopens the loophole that-allowed some of
the nation's wealthiest corporations to pay. no taxes all, even when they ·were ·
. profitable, until it was' eliminated in the 1986 tax reform bill. In the early 1980s, more
than half of the nation's biggest corporations paid no feder~ income taxes at all in at
.
.
least one' year in which they wer~ profitable.
Special favors for wealthy expairiates. House Republicans insisted on continuing to
·
allow wealthy Americans to avoid taxes by renoimcing their citizenship .. This
loophole benefits 'some two dozen expatriates per year, and will cost t~payers $3:6
billion over 5 years~ (The Administration had proposed that ·these expatriates be
forced to pay taxes.} The expatriates' 'tax loophole was pushed by lobbyists including
former GOP Rep. Guy Vander Jagt, who represents an anonymous American now ·
living in England;- :
.
. '
I
.
.The GOP has turned Congress over to the' special interests. The tax· code is' not the ·only
place that the GOP Congress has given special access to wealthy special interests.
Regulatory moratorium 'pill drafted by 'lobbyists. The House-passed bill to freeze
federal regulatiop was actually drafted by a coalition of special· interest lobbyists
Project Relief). The ,lobbyists were given a 'room off the House floor to.
(known
write amendm,ents and staff the GOP lawmakers.
as
Sen. Dole's regulatory "staff'-- more lobbyists. Sen. Robert Dole lias introduced
legislation that would overturn 25 years of health and safety and environmental ·
protections. 'The briefing on the legislation for congressional committee staff, arranged
by the Republicans, was actually conducted' by lobbyists for the 'tobacco and energy '
industries.
The GOP. Congress. has rejected proposals to bar free meals arid gifts from registered·
lobbyists. . Both chambers rejected Democratic proposals to b~ lo~byists .from giving
.. '
.
Members of Congress gifts, meals, t~a'vel and entertaimnent. '
....
.o:-"':":,~~!""".~.'-
. . ..,_ ..........
~9·-
.....-.~·:•.-:----·--··-.··-
. . . .... ____ .,. . ,.,._____ ·-·-·-·-··--- --- -·~-·
~
�'·f" ••
"
I
I
I
,
·
·
Withdrawal/Redaction Marl(er
Clinton Library
IJOCIJMENT NO.
AND TYPE
0 I. schedule
SUBJECT/TITLE
DATE
Cover Sheet for Schedule (I page)
RESTRICTION
02/06/96
P6/b(6)
COLLECTION:
Clinton Presidential Records
Speech writing
Terry Edmonds
OA/Box Number:
I 0987
FOLDER TITLE:
Budget 1997
2006-0462-F
r 668
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act- 144 IJ.S.C. 2204(a)l
Freedom of Information Act- IS U.S.C. 552(b)l
PI
1'2
PJ
1'4
b(l) National security classilied information l(b)(l) of the FOIAI
b(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of
an agency l(b)(2) of the FOIAI
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute l(b)(3) of the FOIAI
b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
information l(b)(4) of the FOIAI
b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy J(b)(6) of the FOIA)
b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes J(b)(7) of the FOIA)
b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
financial institutions J(b)(8) of the FOIAI
b(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
conceming wells l(b)(9) of the FOIA)
National Security Classified Information l(a)(l) of the I'RAI
Relating to the ap1wintment to Federal office J(a)(2) of the PRAI
Release would violate a Federal statute l(a)(3) of the I'RAI
Release would disclose t•·ade secrets or conlidential commercial o1·
lin:lllci:ll information j(a)(4) of the PRAI
1'5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
and his advisors, or between such advisors ja)(S) of the PRAI
1'6 Release would constitute a clearly unwananted invasion of
personal privacy !(:1)(6) of the PRA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
of gift.
I'RM. Personal record misfile deli ned in acco1·dancc with 44 IJ.S.C.
2201(3).
RR. Document will be reviewed upon request .
.::. . .
I
I
I
I
I
�02/05~96
MON 21:4~ FAX
-+~-+
D BAER
·I
)
· . SCHEDULE OF THE PRESIDENT
FOR
TUE..~ ~ Y, FEBRUARY 6, 1996
FINAL
. tb.a
9:00.am9: 15 am
MORNL •~ R.UN
MEEI'ING
OVAL OFFICE
Staff Contact: Leon Panetta
. I
BIUEFL::
9:30am
OVAL OFFICE
Staff Contact: Tony Lake
9:30am9:45am
MEETING
OVAL OFFICE
Staff Contact: Sandy Berger
9:45am10:45 ..:.m
BIUEFING/SPEECH PREP
OVAL OFFICE
Staff Contact.: Marcia Hale, Don Baer
10:50 am
TilE PRESIDENT departs the White House via motorcade en route
the J. W. Mairiot Hotel
[drive time: S minu~]
10:55 am ..
THE PRESIDENT arrives the J. W. Marriot Hotel
Greeters:
Governor Tommy Thompson, Chairman, National,
· Governors' Association
.
Bob Miller, Vice Chairinan, National·
Governors' Association
Govem~r
141002'
�02/05/96
MON 21:45 FAX
-+-+-+
D. BAER
JlEMARKS TO THE PLENARY SESSION OF THE NATIONAL
GOVERNORS' ASSOCIATION
11:00 am11:45 am.
GRAND BALLROOM
The 1.w. Mmiot Hotel
Remarks: Terry Edmonds
Stan· Contact: Marcia Hale
Event Coordinator: PatriCk Steel
C'?EN PREss
i.
Off-s~e announcement of the President. accOmpanied by ·
Governor Tommy Thompson (R-WI) and Governor Bob
Miller (D-NV).
Governor Tommy Thompson makes welcoming remarks and
introduces the President. ·
·
'
The freiident makes remarks.
Upon con.clusion of remar~, the President departs.
'
11:50 am
TilE PRESIDENT departs the J.W. Marriot Hotel·via motorcade en
route the White House ,..
[drive tim~: 5 minutes]
11:55 am
THE
the White House
. PRESIDENT arrives
'
12:00 pm12: 10 pm
MEETING
OVAL OFFICE
Staff C~ntact: Harold Ickes, Jack Quinn
'
~
12:10 pm12:15 pm ·
MEETING
OVAL OFFICE
\
Staff Contact: Stephanie Streett, Alme Walley
12:15 pm4:00 pm
PHONE/OFFICE TIME·
OVAL OFFICE
111 flf Fol!ru11y 5, JWII7:01pm
I
·I
141003
�02/05/96
-·I
~ION
21: 45 FAX
+·H
D BAER
141004
.
4:00pm-
AMBASSADOR CREDENTIALS CEREMONY
. 5:00pm
OVAL OFFICE
• Staff Contact: Tony Lake
WHITE HOUSE PHOTO ONLY
The same sceaario applies to each of the eleven
Amb81111adon with four minute intervals.
Note:
Molly Raiser, Chief of Protocol, individually escorts each
Ambassador and their families iuto the Oval Offiee and
intrOduces them to Ute President.
The President poses for photographs with the Ambassador
aDd family.
the
Upon conclusion of
photographs, the Presid~t and the
Ambassador are joined by Samuel Berger, N~ional Security
Council, and RepresentativeS from the United St4tes
·
Department of Swe.
Documents are exchanged.
The President· has ·a brief conversation with the Ambassador
and family,
Upon conclusion of the COnVersation, tbe Ambassador and
family are escorted from the Oval Office.
5:00pm5:15 pm
·
MEETING
OVAL OFFICE.
Staff Contact: Tony Lake
5:15pm6:15 pm
COFFEE
MAP ROOM·
Staff Contact: Doug Sosnik
EVENING OFF
NOTE:
, The Univer5ity of Arkans~ Razorbacks YS. Mississippi State
Univer'!'iity basketball gam~ ain on ESPN at 9:30pm EST.
BC AND, HRC RON
.. <I{
p....,. .S, I~ 7:0ipm
'
�02/05/96
141001
13:58
The White House
DOMESTIC · POLICY
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET
TO:
.
rdvt1z1l
FAX NUMaER: (
f:dowtd}
&--57tJ 'J
~~~~~--~----~~----~-~~
TELEPHONE NUMBER:
FROM:'
%'fhi;Jw o~ CDW~r
TELEPHONE NUMBER:
PAGES (INCLUDING COVER):
COMMENTS:
.~---~.oo::d:.=M~,=r.!.wJ4f.~_,_...~"--~----'-------'--~
_
.
�02/05/96
. 13:59
'5'
141 00 2
MEDICAID INSERT
There is virtually unanimous consensus that the status quo is unacceptable for welfare.
But let's be clear: the status quo is also unaCCeptable for the Medicaid program. I
know no people agree with that more than your representatives on this issue:
Govenors• Miller, Romer, Chiles, Thompson, Leavitt, and Engler. I appredate all their
bard work and I know you do too.
We can and we should reduce the growth in what we spend on the Medie2dd program.
We can and we should provide for long overdue and added flexibility to administer
the program.
If we don't, we won't be serving our taxpayers or our Medicaid recipients. And if we
don't, we certainly won't be able to do what you all do every year --balance the
budget.
No one has been more crimmitted than I to breaking through the Federal !egulatory
niicroinanagement of Medicaid. And I can guarantee you this, no one will work
harder with you to break through the unnecessary statutory micromanagement of the
program as well. I am confident that our mutually beneficial partnership will yield
very positive dividends in the upcoming weeks and months.
But as we work together on a reformed Medicaid program, we must presc~rve what is
good about the program. As we provide for the type of flexibility you need to
administer your programs in a more cost-effective and individualized ma:nner, we
must also uphold what is fundamentally right about the. program.
To achieve this goal, there are three basic principles that must be met by any
Medicaid reform proposal.
First, there must be a Federal guarantee to a set of meaningful benefits to qualifying
Americans.
Second, we must uphold the shared FederaVState responsibility for financing this
program. Just as we count on you to effectively and fairly administer the Medieaid
program, you need to be able to count on us when economic downtUrns increase your
enrollment.
And third, we must reduce and, where possible, elimmate the unnecesSaJry regulatory
and statutory strings that make it impossible for you to design and administer the best
Medicaid program for your citizens.
�02/05/96
13:59
Now, what do I inean by a Federal guarantee? It is this simple: Whoever you are,
wherever you live, as long as you meet nationally-defined eligibility requirements,
you are eligible for services. And if a program says you don't qualify and you think
you do, you can appeal through the Federal court system.
This Federal guarantee not only answers the question 'who qualifies,' but it also sets a
floor for the services recipients are qualified to receive -- regardless of where they
live. This part of the Federal guarantee is also critical.
As I understand it, some of you have had a number of discussions about bow to beSt
define the minimum benefit package. Most of us know that the current nilandatory
benefit only accounts for about 50 percent of the cost of the program. The rest is
optional. It is my belief that we probably should not significantly re~opc;:n this
mandatory benefit package debate at this time. Based on what I have learned abOut
your discussions so far, you seem to be following this course.
One issue that I want you to consider going slow oil is EPSDT. I uridemtand there are
problems on .the treatment side of this largely preventive benefit, but let's not "throw
out baby out with the bath water." If we need to reform it, let's reform it. But let's
think of constructive solutions that fall far short of totally eliminating the treatment
portion of these important services.
But, just as the Federal Government relies on you to provide for the nati,onal.
guarantee, yQu have to be able to rely on us as a reliable and certain fmancihg
partner. When a recession hits home-- as it did for me in Arkansas in the early
1980's -- you should be able to count on us to come up with the additio'nal financial
support to help you pay for all the costs of the inevitable enrollment increases. The
per person payment in my bill does just that and I cannot sign any legislation that
does not continue this financial partnership.
·I am, therefore, quite pleased that the 6 Governors working on Medicaid are working
on a new formula that attempts to ensure that the dollars follow people when there are
unexpected enrollment increases. As I understand the provision, the .proposal would
provide fmancial assistance (for both the mandatory and optional benefits) for states
facing unexpected eiirollment increases.
It goes to show, once again, that Governors can and will work together 1to prOduce
bipartisan and constructive options. It sounds like you are moving clos€: together on
the commitment to guarai:lteed funding for states facing economic downl.ums.
I view this as constructive and I look forward to having time to review the details.
And lastly, no Medicaid reform package will be acceptable to me if it does not
provide for the type of flexibility you need -- the type of flexibility that I
desperately wanted when I was Governor-- to administer this program.
And when I say flexibility, I mean unprecedented flexibility. I sat around here year
!41003
�02/05/96
14:00
after year passing resolutions calling on the Congress to free us of the burdens they
were placing on us in administering our Medicaid programs.
·
Each year, little or nothing happened. This year can and should be differe:nt. My
balanced budget -- and in the budget I am releasing today -- includes wiith it at least
12 NGA-sponsored Medicaid flexibility recoiilmendations. They include:
a long-overdue repeal of the Boren amendment that has tied your l~ands (and
tied my hand) for years;
the repeal of the cost-based reimbuisement requirement for health clinics and a
number of other burdensome reimbursement restrictions;
the elimination of the burdensome waiver process for managed care and its
accompanying 75/25 emollment rule; and
the elimination of the waiver pr<x:ess for home and community-based waivers;
the elimination of the requirement that states who choose to expand coverage
of pregnant women and children over the mandatory levels cannot return to the
m..inimwn level if financial or policy situations necessitate this change; and
the ability to expand covered populations up to 150 percent of povertY without
a waiver.
These are real and meaningful changes, and I want to show you. why I think so.
I hold in my ha:nd a list of 173 Boren cases filed over the last several y<~ars. Guest
what, no more cases will ever be filed under Boren if we can work together in passing
Medicaid reform.
Here are copies of the 1915 {b) and (c) managed care and horne and co~p.rnunity
based waiver forms that you collectively filled out 679 times over the years. Well,
under my plan, you will not have to do this one more time.
And here is a copy of a submission my old Medicaid Director had to fill out just to
report that he was changing payment rates for obstetric and pediatric cart::. Never
again.
These are important reforms and I am certain we can do more. But let's not waste an
opportunity of a lifetime to reform Medicaid the right way. With you aB an active and
supportive partner, I am confident we can get the job done.the right way for you, the
Medicaid program and the people it serves.
141004
-;
�------------------------
----
DICK
America was built on challenges, not on promises. And when
Americans pull together to meet these challenges, we never, never
fail.
In the last three months, behind all the speeches and all
the finger pointing and all the bickering, Speaker Gingrich, Maj.
1
DOle, the dem ocng leaders and I have achieved solid, quiet
progress at the negotiating table.
Togetehr, we have found over
$700 billion in specific, itemized spending cuts -- all certified
by the CBO to be real, attainable, and accurate.
We both agree
on steps to slow the inflation of health care costs under
Medicare. We both agree on how to provide Medicaid services more
efficiently.
We both agree on savings in welfare spending by
requiring recipients to work, and by setting time limits for
their stay on welfare.
we both agree to hundreds of billions of
cuts in government spending to create a leaner, and more
efficient, federal government.
So I say to SPeaker Gingrich and
to Majority LEader Dole: just pass it.
These cuts we have
already identified are enough to b the b in seven years-- just
_pass it. These cuts are enough to afford a modest tax cut for
working Americans -- just pass it.
These cuts are enough to end
a legacy of deficits, and to protect Medi, Medi, ed & env
pass it.
We can continue to negotiate; we can continue to talk;
but take these cuts, balance the budget, and just pass it.
o
pass it.
just
Just
�~. --~}:i.} '.'·:'f:il'/1;',<'."\''"•"'"'':'1
.. ,
::;2,i~11" :
._.
..
,• • 1~. • •
."··:.
.1
... :
�+•i
.
... ,·,,
11'.
:\
....
,· ·
~·· ·~
.. .'
'?
,.
'·
·,·.·
.
~.
. •'.
.
~--·
' " ····:
•j-·
'.1' •
......
.I
�F.Y.I.
To:
All Speechwriters
From:
Michael Waldman
Date:
February 27, 1997
Comments:
From today's Budget Working Group
�..
A Balanced Budget Plan that's Tough but Fair
Key Points to Make About tlte President's Budget
•
Tough Choices are Made Now. The President's budget makes the hard choices today to
balance the budget by 2002. It locks in savings of $350 billion over five years -including $137 billion in discretionary spending, $100 billion in Medicare, and $34
billion in corporate tax subsidies. The credibility of the budget is underscored by the first
Presidential budget that has been declared "aiive on arrival" since .1981.
•
Cuts are Sustainable and Workable. The President's budget cuts non-defense
discretionary spending by 9 percent in real terms over five years, while protecting
investments in the President's priorities. The spending path is reduced slowly and
steadily.
•
Built on Solid, Conservative Economic Forecasts. The President's budget is based on
prudent and conservative assumptions about future econorrtic performance. For four
years in a row, growth has been higher and the deficit has been lower than the
Administration had predicted. The actual deficit has been $50 billion lower we had
forecast a year earlier -- a healthy break from the rosy scenarios of the previous two
Administrations, in which the deficit was larger than forecast in 10 out of 12 years. In
1996, the President's budget office's estimate of growth and the deficit were too cautious
--and more accurate than the Congressional Budget Office's forecasts.
•
Major Investment in Education. The President's plan makes a dramatic investment to
open the doors of college to more Americans. It includes the largest increase in the
maximum Pell Grant in two decades, provides a yearly $1,500 HOPE scholarship tax
credit, and creates a $1 0,000-a-year tuition tax deduction for college costs to make
education more affordable. It also expands IRAs, which in conjunction with the tuition
tax deduction, allows families to save and pay for college tax-free.
•
Expanding Health Care and Investments in Children. The President's plan makes
critical savings in health care, while expanding coverage for as many as 5 million
children. It also expands Head Start to meet our target of 1 million children by 2002; and
increases funding in children's nutrition and prenatal programs (WIC) to $4.1 billion.
•
Hard-Nosed Mea~ures to Trim Corporate Subsidies. The President's plan achieves
more than $34 billion dollars by cutting corporate subsidies. Those savings -- achieved
by closing unwarranted and unnecessary tax loopholes, and by stiffening compliance
measures-- are three times as much as the proposed savings in GOP BudgetChairman
John Kasich's plan.
�QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
Q:
DOESN'T YOUR BUDGET AVOID ALL THE PAINFUL DECISIONS NEEDED TO
ELIMINATE THE DEFICIT?
A:
•
•
•
Not at all. We are locking in savings of$350 billion over the next 5 years-- including
$137 billion in discretionary spending, $100 billion in Medicare savings ($138 billion over
6 years), and $34 billion in reducing unneeded corporate tax subsidies-- and cutting the
deficit by $252 billion. Our budget will eliminate the deficit by the year 2002, the first
time we will have balanced the budget since 1969.
We have carefully examined the budget for areas in which we can achieve savings. Our
• Medicare and Medicaid proposals achieve $110 billion in savings over the next five years,
and extend the life of the Medicare Trust Fund to 2007, while maintaining the integrity of
both programs. Our non-defense discretionary outlays follow a smooth, steady decline -falling by 9 percent in real terms between FY 1997 and 2002.
The Budget includes specific, credible cuts in many areas. In addition to the savings from
Medicare, Medicaid, and unwarranted corporate subsidies, the budget reduces non-defense
discretionary spending by 9 percent in real terms over 5 years. As just a few examples, we
are reducing funding for Federal building construction; for the Corps of Engineers (as part
of our effort to target new construction to projects that are national priorities); for P.L. 480
farm subsidies (farm incomes are at record levels); and for Clean Coal Technology projects
that are no longer economically viable. We're also cutting USDA buildings and facilities,
international conferences and c~mtingencies, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation,
and GSA Operations.
Q:
DOESN'T YOUR BUDGET ACIDEVE 75 PERCENT OF ITS SAVINGS IN THE FINAL
TWO YEARS?
A:
•
Our budget is not backloaded. Just take a look at our record. We've already cut the deficit
from $290 billion in 1992 to $107 billion last year. When the President took office, the
deficit had to be cut by a cumulative $2.7 5 trillion between 1993 and 2002 in order to
reach balance by 2002. We have already locked in $2.5 trillion of those savings, and this
budget would lock in the extra $250 billion needed. The fact is that we 've done most of the ·
work in our first 4 years.
•
We are making the hard decisions now. We are locking in savings of$350 billion over the
next 5 years -- including $13 7 billion in discretionary spending and $100 billion in
Medicare savings ($138 billion over 6 years)-- and cutting the deficit by $252 billion.
•
As with any credible budget plan, the savings from making those hard decisions now grow
over time. Our savings are not backloaded: 67 percent of the $350 billion in savings occur
in the last two years. That's within the range that Robert Reischauer, the former director of
the CBO, has proposed as showing that the budget cuts are smooth and not backloaded.
And over 6 years, only 61.7 percent of our savings occur in the final two years.
�Q:
DOESN'T YOUR BUDGET FAIL TO BALANCE UNDER CBO ASSUMPTIONS?
A:
•
We have submitted a plan that balances the budget in 2002 under our assumptions. Our
assumptions have proven to be conservative over the past four years: every year, the deficit
has been lower and growth has been higher than we had predicted Our current
assumptions are equally prudent and conservative.
•
Since we took office, the actual deficit has on average been about $50 billion lower than
we had projected the year before. CBO has been less accurate: they have overestimated the
deficit by $59 billion on average. ·
•
It is important that the numbers we use as part of a balanced budget agreement be credible
• and conservative -- and that they are supported by both the markets and the public. Our
projections for GDP growth and inflation over the next five years match those of the Blue
Chip private sector consensus.
•
If, despite our expectations, our assumptions do not prove correct, we will pursue an
expedited process with Congress to agree on how to close any budget gap. And in order to
ensure that we eliminate the deficit in 2002, we have identified precisely what steps would
be taken by statute if our assumptions prove inaccurate and the expedited process with
Congress doesn't work. Specifically, most of our tax cut proposals would sunset in 2001,
and a 2.25 percent across-the-board reduction in spending (except Social Security) would
be triggered. The discretionary spending reductions would start in 2001 and the reductions
in mandatory programs would begin in 2002.
Q:
YOU HAVE ][NCLUDED A HOME HEALTH CARE TRANSFER GIMMICK IN THE
BUDGET. HOW CAN YOU POSSffiLY DEFEND IT?
A:
•
Let's be clear: our savings of $13 8 billion in Medicare over 6 years ($1 00 billion over 5
years) does not in~lude the'home health care transfer from Part A to Part B of the program.
The $138 billion is the net reduction of Medicare spending relative to the budget baseline
-- and thus is the amount by which our Medicare changes contribute to deficit reduction.
The transfer does not contribute to the $252 net deficit reduction in our package.
•
The policy you mentioned was in our budget last year, and it was in the House Republican
budget in 1995 that every Republican in the House voted for.
•
Shifting long-term home health visits (other than the first 100 visits following a
hospitalization) away from Part A of the Medicare program makes sense because home
health care has increasingly become a chronic care benefit not linked to hospitalization. It
was also the established policy prior to the 1980s. And it protects the Medicare Trust Fund
until 2007, while not imposing harmful cuts on hospitals or other priorities, or excessive
burdens on beneficiaries.
[Background: Originally designed as a post-acute care benefit for beneficiarieswho had been
hospitalized, home health care has increasingly become a chronic care benefit, not linked to
hospitalization. Our proposal restores the originalsplit of home health care benefits so that the
first 100 home health visits following a 3-day hospitalization would be reimbursed by Part A and
all other visits -- including those not following hospitalization -- would be reimbursed by Part B.}
�Q:
FOLLOW: IF THE HOME HEALTH TRANSFER IS NOT A GIMMICK, THEN WHY
DON'T YOU INCLUDE IT AS PART OF THE PART B PREMIUM?
A:
..
Q.
DOESN'T YOUR BUDGET CREATE $60 BILLION IN NEW ENTITLEMENTS?
A.
•
•·
We have always been concerned about out-of-pocket costs for Medicare beneficiaries.Older Ainericans spend, on average, 20 percent of their income on health care and threefourths have incomes lower than $25,000. We have to be careful that as we reform the
Medicare progr~, we do not place undue burden on lower-income seniors.
No. My budget actually saves $121 billion in entitlement spending over the next 5 years.
.. We are proposing some new additions to our health care programs, but they are aimed at
reducing the number of uninsured Americans and are not open-ended entitlements. For
example:
-- Our program to provide health insurance for unemployed workers is capped. The
program is structured as a grants program to States. While there are provisions to help
States that have unanticipated increases in unemployment, there is an overall Federal cap
on spending that cannot be breached. Moreover, the program is sunset after 4 years.
--There are no new entitlements in children's health as well. The children's health
initiative also contains no new individual entitlement. It provides States with grants that,
by law, will not exceed $750 million in each year. Medicaid spending itself, under my
plan, will be capped for the first time in its history. The Federal funding limits are set
based on the number of people covered so that States- not the Federal governmentmake the decisions about coverage.
•
We are also proposing some changes to the welfare reform legislation that was enacted last
year, but our purpose is to fix unnecessary and damaging provisions in that legislation -involving legal immigrants and Food Stamp recipients. We do not view these changes as
new spending or new entitlements.
•
It is ironic that we are sometimes criticized for phasing out new proposals-- such as school
construction -- and simultaneously for creating permanent new mandatory spending'
programs. Our phase-outs are designed to allow an evaluation of how well the new
programs are working -- and we have been careful to avoid creating permanent new
entitlements without knowing the effects.
Q:
WHY DO YOU ELIMINATE MANY OF YOUR NEW PROGRAMS BEFORE 2002?
A.
•
Many of our proposals -- such as school construction, welfare to work, skill grants, and
health insurance for the unemployed-- are new programs. They are untried. We want to
see how they work before the government funds these initiatives permanently.
•
For example, our school construction initiative-- providing $5 billion over 4 years-- is
explicitly designed to jump-start $20 billion in local projects. The Federal government has
traditionally not been involved in school construction and renovation; ourproposal is
therefore not supposed to be a permanent Federal program.
�Draft 1/21 /97 12 :4 5pm
.,Comments to Waldman x62272 asap
or via pager
PRESIDENT WILLIAM J. CLINTON
TALKING POINTS ON THE BUDGET
CABINET ROOM
January 21, 1997
2-("7i ~ -
· Good afternoon. Y~y was a wonderful day of national celebration, but today it's
time to get back to work. ft~wanted to begin the work of my second term by meeting with our
economic team so we can finish the job of balancing the budget.
I said in the Inaugural Address yesterday that we need a new gove
century ahead, and that means a government that lives within its means Already, in my first
term we have made unprecedented progress in bringing down our defi i . This next four years
must be a time when we continue that progress and enact a balanced budget plan that spurs
economic growth and eliminates the deficit entirely.
?
e need ~w mechanis!!!Jo produce a balanced budget. I
disagree. I
e don't neea a timeconsuming and cumbersome constitutional-amendment; we need the will to act and the determination to work together.] To that end, next
month I will submit balanced budget plan to Congress. As I said yesterday, we need to balance
the budget and maintain the balance of our values. So my plan will expand education and
research,(preserve health care for our parents and childre~ and protect the environment, even as
/ .
'
--,-r, _; B
we elimiri'1tte the deficit.
~
a
.
.
'-'~~
LH-e{? C<.-·G--tc (._
..::.J:he only way our nation vfill b~la:nee its budget is if both parti€s S€ize this =toment and
.
\
So today I am announcing that my
balanced budget plan will include Medicare;>avings of$138 over 6 years. ~r goal
of securing the Medicare Trust Fund for 10 years; it uphol s our duty to our parent
enacting
reforms to strengthen Medicare. And it meets the Repu 1cans almost half-way, bringing us
closer to a bipartisan agreement to reform Medicare as e balance the budget.
I am determined that the Congress and I wil ork together, bridge our remaining
differences, and reach bipartisan agreement to bal ce the budget. I look forward to getting to
work.
~
-
�
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
Budget 1997
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 35
<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-035-002-2014
7763294