-
https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/files/original/ed55f995ef828d3439ec5a792e7c9873.pdf
4c09f3c2d57342e3f9037faa8953c1d8
PDF Text
Text
FOIA Number:
2006-0466-F
FOIA
MARKER
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:
Speech writing
Series/Staff Member:
Jonathan Prince
Subseries:
10442
OA/ID Number:
FolderiD:
Folder Title:
June 1995- [Radio Address] [2]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
s
0
0
0
0
�~------------~------------~------------~------~--------------------------------------
i'
·1
NEA
4/6/95 4:00pm
·I am honored to join you this afternoon. There is.nqthing
more important to the future of our nation than the work-you have
dedicated your lives to. As Thomas Jeffersqn wrote: "No republic
can mainta{n.its~lf irt strength" without education.
In 1995,
that is more true than. it has' ever been. ·
I
-The most important thing ~e can do to ensure that·every
child in America: can get a good .education, is_ ensure that every·
.child iri.Ainerica canget a safe education. That's why I fought
hard to pass th~ Safe Schools ~ct last year. 'This effort ~elps ·
.schools with significant crime and violence to fight those
problems:_ with drug-education, garig-pre:vention, . metal detector·,
and increased security.
It is already making a difference around
the country and here in Cali,fdrnia. -- in San Diego and stockton,
·in Santa Ana, and Oroville, and· Chula. Vista.
· ·
Some.people in the House of Representatives wanted to
eliminate this program, which would 'stop drug and crime
-prevention .prog:r:ams in 94 percent of the school districts in
.America. That doesn't make any sense to me-- we have to cut
government, but we shouldn't do i~ at the expense of our kids'
· / · security. ·
·
,
I am very pleased that, at our insistence, Republicansagreed to restore this money. As we work together in the coming- months to craft a new budget, we must be vigilant about
protecting these efforts. We must .have safe schools if we want
our children to get a good education. And education is the key ·
to the fl!t~re,
Today's world is- far different from a·ny before us. _The
Industrial Age has given way to' the_Information Age.
Local,
state, ·and national economies are linked together in the glo~~l
economy. Trade barriers fall between actual neighbors, and
advanced technologies make virtual neighbors of us all. This.
gives us opportunities t6 live out unprecedented dreams -- but it
also poses profound problems~
I ran for President because I believed we weren't taking
advantage of those opportunities and we weren't meeting-those
challel)ges.
For'12 years before I took office,. Republica,ns and
Oemocrats used each other as excuses for inaction~ -The middieclass worked harder: for les~.
Families were breaking down. We
were coining apart when. we needed t6 pull together.
\
·_.
!
Our mission is to,make sure.the middle 'class is not
. forgotten,. to ensure; that poor people ,have a chance to work their
way into· the middle class, and that entrepren-eurs have every·
,
opportunity to be wildly succ~ssful. ·All Americans must-take the
responsibility to .build their own ~ives"., Our job- is to make sure
that a11· people who work hard and. play .by-- the rules can build a
successful future, and pass.· an even brighter. one on to thei:r
1
�children.
That is the.American Dream . .
·we are in a great debate about how to do that. We hear the·
old Democratic view defending goverriment.at every turn, and we·
hear the Republican·view attacking government at every turn.
Both views are wrong. .
.
. .
I believe we must go beyond the old way of big government
and the new rage of no ,government ~0 make governmen~ a partner in
-th~ ·fight for the future.
We must' cut government to meet new
challenges· --: and we must invest in our people to prepare· them
for those challenges . . But we must do both.
Everything I ,have
done as President has worked to build a limited but effective
government to strengthen an invest-and:-grow economy.
'
I
I
•
We have to create economic opportunity for people who take
responsibility.· We have to enhance our· security, on. our streets
'and around.the world~ We have, to refer~ our-government, to maRe
it smaller and less. bureaucratic. ··And we must. empower people·"
through-education-and training to make the most of their own
lives .. That is what the New Covenant m·~ans. It is a partnership
with our citizens -- we will work with you to create opportunity,
and you must take.the responsibility to make the most of it .
. In the last two years~ these ideas have changed the
direction of our economy:. We· cut th~ ·deficit by over $600
.
Bil~ion; my new budget cuts anqther. $81.Billion. We cut over 300
programs; my new budget cuts or consol-idates 400 more. We cut
taxes for 15 Million working families with children. We increased
trade opportunities more than any time in a generation. Today, we.
have over 6.1 Million new jobs and the lowest combined rateof
·unemployment and inf~ation in_25 years.·
·
··
But
we I. stili'
have m~ch• more
to. do. · Despite
the,. strong
·
•
•
,
•
•
.
•
.
• .
econom1c.recovery we're en]oy1ng, most Amer1cans rema1n gr1pped·
by insecurity. They feel vulnerable to the same forcesthat are
help1ng to dr1ve that recovery. Half of all Amerl.cans are work1ng
for less money than· th'ey did 15 years ago -- largely _because the
global economy punishes people who don't have' the skills ·to ride··
it to,higher incomes. ·The middle-class is literally splitting
apart -- and the fault line is education.
·
•
'
I
I
.
,j
.
I
I
" , ,The most~ importa11t thing we cart do t·o grow. the middle-class
and shrink the underclass is to equip people-with the skills they
need to face the new econopty with ··confidence,· to· compete; and ·
_win. The ·fight for education is the fight for the American Dream.
And empowering people;through education is the embodiment of what
I mean when I talk about promoting opportunity anddemanding·
responsibility.
.
I. am very proud that the experts call .last year the best
.year for education·in 30 years.' ·we _expanded-Head Start. We
passed School-to-Work so young people who choose not to go to
· college cari learn the skills they need to get and keep high-wage
. 2.
�--------~------------:---------------------------,---------.
I
.
.
j6bs~-
We passed Goals-2000, setting ~orld-class standards, but·
giving p~rents~ teachers, and educators more flexibility to use.·
_federal money.t6achiev:e excellence. We made college l,oans more
affordable for. the middle-class,· at lower costs .and better . '
·repayment terms·. We started' our national service~ program,
AmeriCorps, to provide a helping hand with ·college for people who
. are giving a helping hand to their country. .
·
'
l
- .This is tre~endous progress.· . Unfortunately, · none of this
will ever make a difference in the lives of our children and our
people if we·do not stem the tide of violence that is devastating
neighborhood after neighborhood and tearing apart school after
school.
If young people are r:tot free to learn in safety, they
are not free to learn at. all'.
·
.
'
It' is all too easy. for many parent;s .to cor:tvince themselve~
that school violence doesn't-happen at their childrens'. school.
The. Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta has just released a
report that should disabuse anyone of .that .notion. The CDC is .·
studying school-related violent deaths that occutr~d iri the las~
two school years. And. the. evidence $hows·· all_ too clearly tp.at·
·violence threatens every·type of school --urban and rural,, ·in
wealthy enclaves and poor. towns, in every state in the_ country .. ·
We know that '.there are common elements to violent deaths at
·school. The victim and the as·sailant usually know each other.
They are usually th~ sam~ .race, and usually male. The incident·
starts ·as an argument. And there ,is-usually a firearm present.
Every' year, the .CDC researches behavior that puts young
. people in danger.
They reported that, in. 199.b, one in 24
.
. students carried a gun in the 3 0 days.· before· their study. · In
·1991, onein 18 students had carried a gun.
Last week, the CDC
reported that one in 12 students_carried a gun in 1993 .. The
number of high-school students carrying a gun-has.doubled in only
three years.
'
Children are ~sing these guns to kili other children.; .·.Every
other day,.enough young people to fill a classroom are killed-·
with guns.
This is a-crisis. And we.must work together to end
it. we have to get guns out o,f the hands of young people where.
they don't belong. And we certainly have to get gun·s out 'of
school.
It is simply the most important thing we can do to make
schools safer.
·
_This has • always· :been a bipartisan issue . and must· remain one.
In 1990, Congress passed a l~w creating gun'-free zones around
3
�. /
schools~ and President Bushsigned it.· My Administration has
supported that law ·all the way. ,to the Supreme Court.
The Crime Bill we passed ·last year makes· it a federal crime
for a young person to carry a handgun except when supervised by
. an adult~ And last fall, Congress passed a bill requiring states
to adopt a simple
If somebody brings a gun to school,
they'll be expelled for one-year. No··excuses.
law:
This is co~~m sense. We must have zero tolerance for 'guns
in school. Children carrying guns when· they should be c'arrying
books do not belong in, school.
And zero tolerance_works. When schools adopt a· zero
tolerance policy, guns stop . showing up· for class.
San Diego put.
·a zero tolerance policy in. effect in 1993. The first year the
policy was·in effect, the numbe~ of guns in school was cut in
half. This.. y'ear, with only. a·· couple· of months left in the schoo1
~ear, authorities have found only fi~e guns ip the eritire school
system.
'
Zero tolerance helps. to make schools ·safer. That's why I
ordered the Secretary of Education to enforce zero tolerance
· across. the country, by withholding funds from states tha.t do not ,
comply with this law.
Unfortunately, some people' believe the federal government·
has no business requiring zero'tolerance.
I think they are
wrong.
There is a national agreement in America --. guns don't
belong in school: Every· parent in America believes every child
in America has. the right .to learn in a school free of violence.
It is our job to protect that'right. A good education is the
foundation for the American Dream.
If we allow anyone·to deprive·
any child of the·freedom to learn, we-have allowed them to attack
-the American Dre_am.
All of these efforts -~ safe s~hools, zero tolerance -~
help.
None of them will solve the problem alone.
The only way
to eradicate this plague is for parents to stamp it out at home.- by teaching children the clear difference between right and .
wrong.. 'Parents. must get involved' and stay involved in kids'
education. And parents must set a good example.
·• We can -- and must -...,. arm you with the laws and . tools. you
need to help make your.communities safe,-but laws and tools cari
only do so much. The responsibility to raise·children and·make
· 'them good citizens rests squarely on the· shoulders of their
parents.
·
·
·
I know .you understand that., I know that we can work.
together to make our schools the safe havens they were meant to
be, ·and to give all'our children the same shot our-parents gave
us ---to build'the·future 'of their dreams.
·
4
�Early in 1992·, I was. walking through the kitchen ot' :a hotel
in New York when a waiter came up to me, grabbed me, and said:
"My· lO~year-?ld boy is studying this election in· schoo_l, and he·
says· I should vote for you." And then he said·, "I came here· as
an immigrant, and theplace where I lived·was.very poor, and we
were very poor, but ~t. least we were·. free. ·.Now we live here, and'
we have more money,. but we are not free. We_are·not free becaus~
my.boy can't walk across the street and play in th~ park unless I
am with him. We are not'free because my boy cannot walk to
sch9ol unless I ain with him.. Make my boy free."
-.
/
. .
. ·.
.
:
.
.
My fello~ Amer1cans, th1s 1s about freedom. W1thout
responsibility, without order, without lawfulnes~, there is no·
freedom. In that spirit, let us rededicate ourselves to
restoring the sense of right and wrong that built our country, and
to make it safe, not in words· but in fact, in the ·lifebloo~ of
every child and every citizen of the -coun'try who believes in the
promise of America.
Thank you and God bless you all.
5
�.'
l
~~
/f4.
04/24/95
MON 15:00 FAX 202 514 5331
14]001
PUBLIC AFFAIRS .
---
OPTIONAl FORM 99 (7 ·00)
~of pogo;.,._
3
Y3.
DATE:
J.Fi·'b-·
PAGE :
__j/.)fi
Federal three-strikes law
getting its first test in Iowa
By Sam Vincent Meddis
USA TODAY
The federal tllree-strlkes law, defyIng predictions tl:lat it would throw a big
over small-time criminals. sets ll'i
IJ9. real U!S[ next week In the robbery
trial of a violence-prone ex<Onvkt
Since. the controversial measure
went into etlect lasT. September, only
seven people have been arrested and
aargeted to receive a mandatory life
sentence beCause of pr:evious c:onvic·
tions for violent crimes.
The charges against Ulem Include
robbery and kidnapping. a new Justice
Department survey shows.
The llrst of the seven, Thomas Lee
net
Fanner, goes on trtal Tuesday in Iowa.
The law also has been invokec3 in 1111·
DOis, Pennsylvarua, TeMessee and Arkansas.
President Clinton, who promoted the
threeostrikes taw in his State of the
Justice Depa.J"trnent ollicials say their
survey shows the new law ls working
the way supporters promised.
As an example, they point to Farmer,
43, the ~ defen~t to face pcmible
sentencing under the t:hree-str1kes law.
Prosecutors say he has a record datIng tol979 that includes convictions tor
murder, armed robbery and murder
conspiracy.
During a November grocery robbery
in Waterloo, he urged an accomplice to
''Shoot him, sboot him" when a clerk
1'81led to move fast enough. prosecutors
my. Before any sh01S were fired, the
.robben 11ed because they heard over
their police· scanner that patrol can;
were being called to the scene.
urhls Is the kind of case the law was
written tor," says Stephen Rapp, U.S. attorney in Cedar Rapids.
It Farmer ls convicted - and if a
Jud!e decides his record .Is Violent
enough to '118.l1'8nt !!entendng under the
Union addre;s last year, has Insisted
that it be limited to the mast violent
criminals, says Rahm Emmanuel,
White House adviSer on crime i.'&les.
But aities say the law ls an example
or overkill because federnl sentencing
guidelines aiready provide for tougher
punishments based on a defendant's
previous ofrenses.
.
,~
1bere was already an opportunity tn)
elrecr:t.vely sanction people in terms of
wbat they did before,'~ SI!-)'S Alan Cha·
set, dlalnnan of the sentencing com·
mlttee of tbe National AssoCiation of
Criminal Defense Lawyers.
three-strikes law - he faces Ufe In pJ'is.
on without parole.
If Farmer were tried and convicted
in state court for the same crime. he'd
likely be tree in about eight years., PrtlS-
ecutors say.
Tom Ferguson. Black Hawk County
prosecutor, says the Farmer case
"sc:reamed at you" to be turned over tor
federal pi"'O!!eCUiion.
Even before the threeQrtkes mea·
5W'e, sentenclng practices across the
nation grew subSiantially !!Elft'er over
the past decade. PriSOD populations
have Dearly triplec slnce 1980, trom
about 330,000 inmates to more tban
1 million last year.
·
· ·
. But the Idea of throwing thJ'ee.time
violent Oll'enc3m behind 1:111n for Ute
reslly caught on last year, aa:ordlng to
a report trom the National Conference
State LesiSJ.aturi!S.
Fir.ll to colD the term ViBll Washingtoo szate, wtrlch enaaed a thr'ee«rikes
law lD 1993. By last October, 13 states
bad passed similar measures, the re-
or
port says.
I
II
the
Helping fUel
laws' popul.artty was
public outrage over crimes like the Call·
fomla kldnappi~ and murder of 12·
year-<lld Polly Klaas in 1993 by an ex·
convict with a history of violence.
Nationally, about 45% of all inmates
have had three or. more !ll!ntences to
prison or probation prior to their cur·
rent Incarceration.
But just as critics have lashed out at
the federal law, state three-strike laws
have corne under fire.
Complaints flared In california when
a 27-year-<lld repeat offender was sent
to prison for 25 yean to life earlier this
month for stealing a slice of pepperoni
pizza.
.
Elizabeth Semel, former president of
the california Attorneys for Criminal
Justice, calls her state's th~kes
measure "a broad, sweeping. hugesc:ope laW."
·
"It encompasses people whose sec·
ond and third convictions do not involve
violence, and that is th~ problem.''
Whatever the nationaf trend, and despite the cLaimS or critics. federal pras&
eutors Intend to employ the law sparingly, 58.)'5 U.S. Attorney Paula C8sey in .
Uale Rock.
"It's nor something we will use every
day."
.
�,)
·
r-;~/24/95
.
MON 15:00 FAX 202 514 5331
!41002
PUBLIC AFFAIRS
- -·........... _ -
6 other defendants
wait to hear fate
In addition to Thomas Lee
Fanner in Iowa. slx otller defendants face sentences of Ute in prtson if they are convicted and Bentenced under the federal threestrikes Jaw passed last year.
• R.obert Maxwell, 40, charged
with kidnapping and two counts of
carjacking in Robinson Township,
At., in October. Previous convictions include annecl robbery and
anon in 1973, and rape and other
sexual ollem;es ln 1981.
SNYDER: Charged
• Benny Wicks, 44, charged with 'Nith annect T'Obbefy
the October anned rpbbery of a
bank in Clay County, Ill Previous
convictions include robbery
charges in 1983 and 1992.
Ill' Levanlal Dwight Snyder, 47,
· charged in the December armed
robbery or a restaurant. armed
bank robbery, armed robbery of a
tobacco sr.ore and carjacking in ·
Memphis. Previous convldiorss include armed robbery in 1971 and
bank robbery in 1977.
. • Sammie Lee Pelllllman, 42,
char'Jedwlththearmedrobberyof PENNIMAN: Bank
a Memphis bank ln October. Previ· robbefy ctwge
ous convictions indude three ~
beries between 1973 and 1976, and assault With Intent 10 rob
In 1976.
• Terrell Dlckenon, 31, charged With a Janumy carjacking in Uale Rock. Prevl~ convletions Include two aw.ra·
( vated robberies ln 1988.
• Brent Mosley, 38, charged In the same January carjacking in Little Rock. Previous convidl.ons include armed
robbery ln 1974., mned bank robbery In 1977 and aggravat·
ed robbery in 1982.
DATE:
J·lt·C6
PAGE:
Jae
�'
·'
.
'·i'!'
I
I
\
11
f.l
/'
I
Statement of Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr.,
on ·the Republican 1995 Crime Proposals
February 9, 1995
LAST YEAR, THE CONGRESS. COMPLETED A SIX-YEAR EFFORT AND ENACTED
A MAJOR ANTI-CRIME LAW, IN WHICH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
·LAUNCHED A BOLD, MULTI-FACETED ATTACK ON VIOLENT CRIME AND ITS
ROOTS IN THE COMMUNITY. FOR THE FIRST TIME, THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT MADE A MAJOR COMMITMENT TO HELP STATES AND
LOCALITIES -- WHERE 95 PERCENT OF CRIME OCCURS AND IS PROSECUTED
'
.
-- REDRESS THE GREATEST SHORTCOMINGS OF OUR SYSTEM:
*
lHE SHORTAGE OF POLICE OUT ON THE STREETS OF OUR
COMMUNITIES;
*
THE SHORTAGE OF PRISON SPACES AND THE NEED FOR SENTENCING
REFORM;
*
*
THE SHORTAGE OF EFFECTIVE RESPONSES TO DRUG OFFENDERS;
THE LACK OF A SERIOUS RESPONSE TO RAPE AND FAMILY VIOLENCE;
AND
*
THE LACK OF SAFE PLACES AND POSITIVE ACTIVITIES FOR THOSE
CHILDREN GROWING UP SURROUNDED BY ILLEGAL DRUGS, CRIME,
AND VIOLENCE.
IN ITS BREADTH, THE LAW REFLECTS THE LESSONS LEARNED OVER THE
LAST DECADE AS WE STUDIED CRIME AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AND
WORKED ON PASSING THIS LAW-- NAMELY, THAT ALL OF THESE
SHORTCOMINGS MUST BE ADDRESSED TOGETHER, THAT CORRECTING ONE
WITHOUT THE OTHERS IS FUTILE -- BECAUSE CRIME KNOWS NO EASY,
SINGLE ANSWER. THE ANTI-CRIME LAW ADDRESSES EACH OF THESE
)
SHORTCOMINGS, AS I WILL DETAIL IN A MOMENT. AND IN ITS APPROACH,
�----
--~-----------------------
AS WELL AS IN MANY SPECIFICS, THE LAW WAS THE RESULT OF BIPARTISAN EFFORTS.
THE LAW IS ALREADY AT WORK. $1 BILLION HAS BEEN AWARDED TO
STATES AND LOCALITIES TO PUT OVER 14,000 NEW POLICE OFFICERS ON
THE STREETS IN COMMUNITY POLICING PROGRAMS.
DOLLARS UNDER THE
(
DRUG COURT PROGRAM AND THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT WILL BE
AWARDED IN THE NEXT FEW MONTHS.
I HAD HOPED THAT I COULD SPEND THE NEXT SEVERAL MONTHS WATCHING
OVER THE SMOOTH AND SPEEDY IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LAW, AS WELL
AS TURNING MY FOCUS TO THOSE SUBSTANTIAL ISSUES STILL BEFORE US:
JUST TO NAME TWO PRIORITIES --WE MUST TURN ALL THE TALK ABOUT
OUR WAR ON DRUGS INTO A REAL BATTLE; AND WE MUST REFORM OUR
JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM AS IT STRUGGLES TO DEAL WITH VIOLENT
YOUNG CRIMINALS UNLIKE ANY THE CURRENT SYSTEMS WERE DESIGNED
TO HANDLE.
BUT INSTEAD OF MOVING FORWARD TO TAKE ON NEW, PRESSING
CHALLENGES, THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES WILL BE IN FULL
RETREAT. VERY SOON, THE SENATE WILL EMBARK ON A DEBATE NOT OF
NEW CHALLENGES, BUT OF THE ANTI-CRIME LAW WE JUST ENACTED LAST
FALL. THE HOUSE IS ALREADY TAKING APART THE LAW PIECEMEAL.
WHAT IS MOTIVATING A RETREAT ON A BILL THAT CONTAINS SO MANY
PROVISIONS DRAFTED AND ONCE SUPPORTED BY REPUBLICANS AS WELL·
AS DEMOCRATS?
I WILL LETYOU DRAW YOUR OWN CONCLUSIONS, BUT I ASK THAT YOU
WALK WITH ME THROUGH THE CHANGES THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
SEEKS TO MAKE IN THE ANTI-CRIME LAW --AND I SUSPECT THE MERITS
2
�WILL SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES. AT THE SAME TIME, I WANT TO MAKE
CLEAR WHAT I WILL FIGHT FOR AND WHAT I WILL FIGHT AGAINST, AS WE
REVISIT THE ISSUES WE DEBATED SO THOROUGHLY LAST YEAR.
THE 100,000 POLICE PROGRAM
LET ME TURN FIRST TO A CENTRAL PROVISION OF THE NEW LAW, A
PROGRAM DESIGNED TO ADDRESS THE FIRST MAJOR LAW ENFORCEMENT
SHORTCOMING I MENTIONED --A PROGRAM THAT DESERVES TO BE
PRESERVED AND ONE _I WILL FIGHT TO SAVE FROM THE REPUBLICAN
CHOPPING BLOCK. I AM SPEAKING, OF COURSE, ABOUT THE 100,000 POLICE
PROGRAM.
I DON'T KNOW A RESPONSIBLE POLICE LEADER, ACADEMIC EXPERT, OR
PUBLIC OFFICIAL WHO DOES NOT AGREE THAT PUTTING MORE POLICE
OFFICERS ON OUR STREETS AND IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS IS A GOOD
IDEA-- A GOOD IDEA THAT GOES BY THE NAME OF ..COMMUNITY POLICING ...
THE TRUE INNOVATION OF COMMUNITY POLICING IS THAT IT ENABLES
POLICE TO PURSUE DUAL GOALS -- THEY ARE BETTER POSITIONED TO
RESPOND AND APPREHEND SUSPECTS WHEN CRIME OCCURS, BUT THEY
ARE ALSO BETTER POSITIONED TO KEEP CRIME FROM OCCURRING IN THE
FIRST PLACE. TODAY, TOO MANY POLICE OFFICERS ARE STRANGERS IN
THEIR OWN COMMUNITIES; FROM HEADQUARTERS OR CRUISERS THEY
RESPOND TO RADIO CALLS ONLY AFTER A CRIME HAS OCCURRED,
FOREVER BEHIND· THE CURVE. COMMUNITY POLICE ARE A PART OF THEIR
COMMUNITY, THEY KNOW THEIR COMMUNITY -- THE HOT SPOTS, THE
TROUBLE MAKERS, THE GANG MEMBERS -- AND THEY CAN WORK TO
PREVENT A CRIME FROM EVER GETTING STARTED.
3
�IN MY OWN HOME STATE, COMMUNITY POLICING TOOK THE FORM OF FOOT
PATROLS WITH A PARTICULAR FOCUS ON BREAKING-UP STREET LEVEL
DRUG DEALING THAT HAD TURNED ONE WILMINGTON NEIGHBORHOOD INTO
A CRIME ZONE. THESE EFFORTS SUCCESSFULLY SUPPRESSED DRUG
ACTIVITY, WITHOUT DISPLACING IT TO OTHER PARTS OF THE CITY.
THE WILMINGTON EXAMPLE FITS THE SHORTHAND DESCRIPTION OFTEN
USED FOR COMMUNITY POLICING -- PUTTING COPS ON THE STREETS TO .
"WALK THE BEAT."
BUT IN PRACTICE, COMMUNITY POLICING TAKES MANY FORMS, DEPENDING
ON THE NEEDS OF EACH PARTICULAR COMMUNITY. WHILE THE FORM
COMMUNITY POLICING TAKES MAY VARY DEPENDING ON THE NEED OF A ,
PARTICULAR COMMUNITY, THE RESULTS COMING IN FROM THE FIELD ARE
THE SAME -- COMMUNITY POLICING WORKS:
*
IN NEW YORK CITY -- A PLACE WHERE CRIME CAN SEEM
INSURMOUNTABLE --THE POLICE COMMISSIONER BEGAN AN
AGGRESSIVE COMMUNITY POLICING PROGRAM THAT CONTRIBUTED
TO SIGNIFICANT DECREASES IN SERIOUS OFFENSES LAST YEAR.
**
**
**
**
*
MURDERS DROPPED 19 PERCENT.
ROBBERIES FELL BY 16 PERCENT.
BURGLARIES WENT DOWN 11 PERCENT.
AND AUTO THEFTS WERE REDUCED BY 15 PERCENT.
IN TAMPA, FLORIDA, POLICE COMMITTED THEMSELVES TO MOVING
CRACK DEALERS OFF OF STREET CORNERS AND FORGED AN
UNPRECEDENTED ALLIANCE WITH CITIZENS IN THE COMMUNITY TO .
ACHIEVE IT. THROUGH A COMBINATION OF STANDARD "BUY-BUST"
OPERATIONS, NEW OUTREACH TO THE COMMUNITY, AND
INVOLVEMENT OF OTHER CITY AGENCIES AND THE LOCAL MEDIA, THE
4
�DEALERS HAD BEEN DRIVEN OFF WITHIN A YEAR AND THE STREETS IN
THE TARGETED AREA RETURNED TO NORMAL.
*
IN NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT, POLICE CHIEF NICK PASTORE'S
AGGRESSIVE COMMUNITY POLICING EFFORT LEAD TO A 10% DROP IN
SERIOUS CRIME IN 1992.
*
COMMUNITY POLICING TECHNIQUES WERE INTRODUCED IN THE NEW
YORK CITY SUBWAY SYSTEM FOUR YEARS AGO AND THE RESULTS
HAVE BEEN PHENOMENAL: ROBBERIES HAVE FALLEN BY 52%.
*
IN THE ENGLEWOOD SECTION OF CHICAGO, COMMUNITY POLICING
WAS CREDITED WITH A 6% DECREASE IN VIOLENT CRIME
LA~T
YEAR.
THE ANTI-CRIME LAW ENACTED LAST YEAR TARGETS $8.8 BILLION IN
FEDERAL FUNDS TO STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TO BE USED
SPECIFICALLY TO TRAIN AND HIRE 100,000 NEW COMMUNITY POLICE
OFFICERS ACROSS THE NATION. LIKE COMMUNITY POLICING ITSELF, THIS
PROGRAM WORKS. ALREADY, THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT HAS AWARDED
$680 MILLION TO STATES AND LOCALITIES FOR 9,500 NEW OFFICERS.
APPLICATIONS FOR ANOTHER ~450 MILLION IN FEDERAL FUNDS -- FOR
MORE THAN 6,000 ADDITIONAL NEW OFFICERS --ARE ALREADY PENDING AT
THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT; THESE FUNDS WILL BE AWARDED THIS MONTH.
IN SHORT, IN ONLY THE FIRST SIX MONTHS FOLLOWING PASSAGE OF THE
CRIME LAW, 15,000 NEW LOCAL POLICE OFFICERS WILL BE ON THE STREETS
OF AMERICA. SO MUCH FOR THE CRITICS WHO CLAIMED THE NEW CRIME
LAW WOULD FUND ONLY 22,000 POLICE OFFICERS IN SIX YEARS. IN FACT,
THE LAW WILL FUND 15,000 IN THE FIRST SIX MONTHS ALONE. THESE
5
�RESULTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES, AND THEY ARE THE BEST EVIDENCE
THAT THE PROMISE OF 100,000 COPS IS REAL.
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COPS PROGRAM ·DERIVES FROM ITS DESIGN -THE COPS PROGRAM IS THE RESULT OF SETTING A PRECISE GOAL AND
ENACTING A RESPONSIBLE PROGRAM TO ACHIEVE THAT PRECISE GOAL:
WHEN HE TOOK OFFICE, PRESIDENT CLINTON CALLED ON US TO PUT
100,000 MORE POLICE ON THE STREETS OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS; WE
THEN DESIGNED A PROGRAM THAT FUNDS THAT EFFORT AND THAT EFFORT
ALONE --THE FEDERAL DOLLARS WERE AWARDED FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE
OF HIRING NEW POLICE OFFICERS, SO THAT IN FIVE YEARS TIME, AMERICA
WILL HAVE 100,000 MORE POLICE ON THE STREET.
THE PRECISION OF THIS PROGRAM STANDS IN STARK CONTRAST TO THE
REPUBLICANS' NEW "LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANT' --WHICH WOULD
SPEND ROUGHLY THE SAME AMOUNT OF FEDERAL FUNDS -- TO BE
SPECIFIC, $8.5 BILLION -- WITHOUT GUARANTEEING A SINGLE NEW POLICE
OFFICER ON ANY STREET IN AMERICA. READ THEIR PROPOSAL -- MONEY IS
SENT NOT TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, BUT TO GOVERNORS, AND THE
MONEY MAY BE USED TO HIRE OR PAY OVERTIME TO UNDEFINED "LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS," OR TO "PROCURE EQUIPMENT, TECHNOLOGY
AND OTHER MATERIAL" THAT IS "DIRECTLY RELATED TO BASIC LAW
ENFORCEMENT FUNCTIONS, SUCH AS THE DETECTION OR INVESTIGATION
OF CRIME, OR THE PROSECUTION OF CRIMINALS."
NOW, THAT MAY SOUND FINE ON THE SURFACE, BUT A CLOSER LOOK
REVEALS CRITICAL WEAKNESSES. LET'S CALL THE FIRST WEAKNESS THE
"OFFICER LOOPHOLE" -- BECAUSE THE REPUBLICANS DO NOT DEFINE "LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS" AS CAREER OFFICERS DEDICATED TO
ENFORCING THE CRIMINAL LAWS --AS THEY ARE DEFINED IN THE NEW
6
�. CRIME LAW; INDEED, THE REPUBLICANS DO NOT DEFINE LAW
l
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AT ALL LET'S CALL THE SECOND WEAKNESS .
THE "EQUIPMENT LOOPHOLE." THE REPUBLICAN PROPOSAL WOULD FUND
ANY EQUIPMENT OR TECHNOLOGY RELATED TO "LAW ENFORCEMENT
FUNCTIONS," AND THOSE FUNCTIONS ARE SPECIFICALLY DEFINED TO
INCLUDE PROSECUTION.
THESE TWO LOOPHOLES MEAN STATES COULD SPEND ALL THE MONEY TO
HIRE PROSECUTORS, TO·IMPROVE COURT SYSTEMS, OR ANYTHING ELSE
RELATED TO "LAW ENFORCEMENT." ARGUABLY, THE MONEY COULD EVEN
BE USED TO HIRE ANY OFFICERS WHO ENFORCE THE LAWS, CIVIL AS WELL
AS CRIMINAL -- FOR EXAMPLE, PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICERS WHO INSPECT
RESTAURANTS. EQUIPMENT, AS DEFINED BY THE REPUBLICANS, COULD
INCLUDE NOT MERELY POLICE EQUIPMENT -- WHICH THE NEW ANTI-CRIME
LAW PERMITS A PORTION OF THE GRANT FUNDS TO PURCHASE -- BUT
COMPUTERS FOR PROSECUTORS OR COURTS, OR TELEPHONE BOOTHS OR
LIGHTING OR WHATEVER A GOVERNOR DECIDED WOULD "RELATE TO LAW
ENFORCEMENT FUNCTIONS." AND ONE HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE
FEDERAL FUNDS COULD BE USED FOR THIS EQUIPMENT, OR TO FUND
PROSECUTORS. NOT ONE DOLLAR NEED BE USED TO HIRE A SINGLE NEW
POLICE OFFICER.
NOW, I SUPPORT MANY OF THESE OTHER FUNCTIONS. IMPROVED PUBLIC
LIGHTING AND EMERGENCY TELEPHONES ARE USEFUL. PROSECUTION OF
CRIMINALS IS A CRITICAL FUNCTION -- IN FACT, THE ANTI-CRIME LAW
. PROVIDES $150 MILLION FOR STATE AND LOCAL COURTS, PROSECUTORS,
AND OTHER CRIMINAL JUSTICE PARTICIPANTS. BUT I CONTINUE TO
BELIEVE THAT THE SINGLE MOST CRITICAL NEED OUR COMMUNITIES FACE
WHEN IT COMES TO FIGHTING CRIME IS THE -LACK OF POLICE. I REMAIN
COMMITTED TO USING THE SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF FEDERAL FUNDING WE
7
�HAVE SET ASIDE _;, OVER $8 BILLION --TO SERVE OUR HIGHEST PRIORITY-GETTING MORE COPS OUT ON THE STREETS. I AM OPPOSED TO REPLACING
A PROGRAM THAT GUARANTEES 100,000 NEW COPS ON OUR STREETS WITH
A PROPOSAL THAT COULD SPEND OVER $8 BILLION IN FEDERAL FUNDS
WITHOUT PUTTING ANY COPS ANYWHERE.
THE REPUBLICAN PROPOSAL SUFFERS FROM AN ADDITIONAL FATAL FLAW-IT REQUIRES NO FISCAL ACCOUNTABILITY OR RESPONSIBILITY; IT IS SIMPLY
A FEDERAL GIVE-AWAY. THE BILL USES A FORMULA TO SIMPLY HAND OUT
FEDERAL FUNDS TO MAYORS AND STATE OFFICIALS WITH NO STRINGS
ATTACHED-- NO STRINGS AND NO ACCOUNTABILITY.
THE ANTI-CRIME LAW
REQUIRES THAT STATES AND LOCALITIES "MATCH" THE FEDERAL GRANTS
WITH FUNDS OF THEIR OWN. THE MATCH REQUIREMENT IS NOT BORNE OF
A LACK OF GENEROSITY -- THE OFFER OF $8.8 BILLION IN FEDERAL FUNDS
TO ASSIST WITH A PURELY STATE AND LOCAL FUNCTION CAN HARDLY BE
CHARACTERIZED AS STRINGY.
NO, THE MATCH REQUIREMENT IS BORNE OF EXPERIENCE -- EXPERIENCE I
GAINED FIRST IN MY OWN DAYS AS A CITY COUNCILMAN-- THAT LOCAL
OFFICIALS CARE A WHOLE LOT MORE ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT FEDERAL
TAX DOLLARS ARE USED WISELY WHEN SOME LOCAL TAX DOLLARS ARE
ALSO ON THE LINE. I LEARNED MORE ABOUT THIS PHENOMENON WHEN
THIS CONGRESS TRIED-- AND THEN ABANDONED-- LEAA (LAW
ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION), OVER A DECADE AGO.-
REMEMBER THE ALLEGATIONS OF LAVISH AND WASTEFUL SPENDING THAT
OCCURRED UNDER THE PROGRAM? -- EVERYTHING FROM "DICK TRACY''
WRIST RADIOS TO PURCHASING RIOT CONTROL GEAR FOR SMALL TOWNS
THAT HAD NEVER HAD (AND PROBABLY NEVER HAVE SINCE) A MAJOR RI<?T?
8
�IN DISBANDING LEAA, WE CONCLUDED THAT THE PROGRAM'S DESIGN
ACTUALLY ENCOURAGED THESE ABUSES. JUST LIKE THE REPUBLICAN BILL,
THE LEAA PROGRAM PERMITTED SPENDING FEDERAL DOLLARS ON A ILL- ·
FOCUSED RANGE OF GOODIES, INCLUDING·EQUIPMENT, WITH NO MATCHING
REQUIREMENT. THE RESULT WAS TESTAMENT TO THE LAW OF
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES -- LEAA ENDED UP FUNDING TOO MUCH
EXTRANEOUS EQUIPMENT BY ENCOURAGING UNDISCIPLINED SPENDING.
I WAS ONE OF THE LEADING CRITICS OF THE LEAA PROGRAM IN THE LATE
1970'S, WHEN THE PROGRAM WAS RUN BY A DEMOCRATIC
ADMINISTRATION. IN PARTICULAR, I CRITICIZED THE INABILITY OF THE
PROGRAM TO IDENTIFY GOALS AND PRIORITIES AND TO ENCOURAGE
CAREFUL PLANNING, AS LEADING TO A SCATTERSHOT APPROACH TO FREE
SPENDING. IN 1980, 1984 AND AGAIN IN 1988, WITH THE SUPPORT OF LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS AND BI-PARTISAN COOPERATION (SENATOR
SPECTER AND I INTRODUCED ONE KEY BILL IN 1982, FOR EXAMPLE), THE
CONGRESS EVENTUALLY STRENGTHENED THE STATE AND LOCAL CRIMEFIGHTING EFFORTS.
WE BUILT IN THREE KEY CONCEPTS --WE TARGETED LAW ENFORCEMENT
. AID TO SPECIFIC PROGRAMS, WE REQUIRED A MATCH OF ONE STATE OR
LOCAL DOLLAR FOR EVERY THREE FEDERAL DOLLARS, AND WE REQUIRED
EXTENSIVE STATE PLANS TO EXPLAIN WHAT THE DOLLARS WOULD FUND.
THE RESULTING LAW WAS WHAT WE CALL THE BYRNE GRANT PROGRAM --A
FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE, WELL RUN PROGRAM THAT CONTINUES TODAY.
THESE SAME CONCEPTS MARK THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF THE ANTICRIME LAW'S 100,000 POLICE PROGRAM. IN FACT, WE EVEN IMPROVED ON
BYRNE IN ONE RESPECT -- WE PERMIT LOCALITIES -- NOT JUST GOVERNORS
--TO APPLY DIRECTLY FOR FUNDS, TO ENSURE THAT MONEY GETS TO
WHERE IT IS MOST NEEDED.
9
�THE REPUBLICANS IGNORE THE LESSONS OF THE LEAA -- THEIR PROPOSAL
IS AN $8.5 BILLION GIVE-AWAY OF FEDERAL DOLLARS WITH NO SPECIFIC
GQALS, NO SET LIMITS, AND NO EVALUATION OR MATCHING
REQUIREMENTS; THE LOOPHOLES AND LOOSE LANGUAGE WOULD··-PERMIT ·
EVERY CENT TO BE SPENT WITHOUT ANY INCREASE OF POLICE ON THE
STREETS TO SHOW FOR OUR iNVESTMENT AT THE END OF FIVE YEARS.
IN CONTRAST, THE CRIME LAW BUILDS ON THE LEAA LESSONS. IT SETS
SPECIFIC GOALS, PROVIDES A SIMPLIFIED APPLICATION PROCESS, AND
REQUIRES ACCOUNTABILITY THROUGH EVALUATIONS AND MATCHING
REQUIREMENTS. IN ADDITION, THE MATCHING REQUIREMENT IS SET UP SO
'
THAT THE LOCAL SHARE INCREASES FROM YEAR TO YEAR. THIS IS THE
WAY TO ENSURE THAT LOCAL DOLLARS WILL BE USED RESPONSIBLY. IT IS
ALSO THE KEY TO ENSURING A LASTING COMMITMENT ON THE PART OF
LOCAL OFFICIALS.
POLICING IS A STATE AND LOCAL:-- NOT A FEDERAL-- RESPONSIBILITY. THE
ANTI-CRIME LAW OFFERS HELP TO THOSE WHO WANT TO STRENGTHEN
THEIR POLICING EFFORTS AND WHO ARE WILLING TO STEP UP AND
ACKNOWLEDGE THEIR OWN RESPONSIBILITY. THE ANTI-CRIME LAW
ENCOURAGES STATES AND LOCALITIES TO INVEST IN THEIR OWN FUTURE.
THE REPUBLICANS BLOCK GRANT DOES NOT. MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE
ANTI-CRIME LAW TARGETS FUNDS TO HELP STATES AND LOCALITIES MAKE
THE SHIFT TO COMMUNITY POLICING.
THE CHOICE WILL SOON BE BEFORE THIS BODY: WILL WE MAINTAIN THE
ANTI.,;CRIME LAW'S GUARANTEE OF 100,000 COPS WORKING IN EFFECTIVE
AND RESPONSIBLE COMMUNITY POLICING EFFORTS SUCH AS THOSE
DESCRIBED ABOVE? OR WILL WE REPLACE A WORKING PROGRAM WITH AN
IRRESPONSIBLE FEDERAL GIVE-AWAY?
10
�,I WILL SAY IT AGAIN BECAUSE IT IS WORTH REPEATING,THE REPUBLICAN
BILL DOES NOT GUARANTEE A SINGLE NEW POLICE OFFICER ON ANY
STREET IN AMERICA. IT DOES NOT EVEN GUARANTEE THAT A SINGLE
DOLLAR WILL REACH ANY POLICE DEPARTMENT. LET US NOT WASTE
ANOTHER $8.5 BILLION TO LEARN THE SAME LESSONS WE LEARNED UNDER
LEAA. LET US CHOOSE. TO KEEP THE 100,000 COPS PROGRAM IS PLACE.
PRISON GRANTS
LET ME TURN NEXT TO THE SECOND MAJOR SHORTCOMING I MENTIONED.
THE SECOND PRIMARY
FOCUS OF THE ANTI-CRIME LAW WAS TO. HELP
'
STATES MEET THE SERIOUS PRISON CRISIS CONFRONTING MANY STATE
PRISON SYSTEMS. AND AGAIN, THE PROGRAM WAS DESIGNED TO MEET
TWO GOALS: FIRST, TO HELP STATES INCREASE --AND THEN USE TO
MAXIMUM ADVANTAGE-- THEIR SUPPLY OF PRISON SPACE, SECOND, TO
ENCOURAGE STATES TO ADOPT THE KIND OF "TRUTH-IN-SENTENCING"
SYSTEM THAT HAS WORKED SO WELL AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL.
TODAY, PRISON SYSTEMS IN 34 STATES ARE UNDER COURT ORDERDUE TO
OVERCROWDING. BECAUSE THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH PRISON CELLS,
STATES CAN KEEP THOSE VIOLENT CRIMINALS WHO ARE BEHIND BARS FOR
I
ONLY ABOUT HALF THEIR SENTENCE; WORSE YET, 30,000 OFFENDERS EACH
YEAR ARE CONVICTED OF A VIOLENT CRIME ARE NOT EVEN SENTENCED TO
PRISON. THE BOTTOM. LINE -- CONVICTED VIOLENT CRIMINALS WHO
SHOULD BE BEHIND SARS ARE NOT, BECAUSE THERE ARE TOO FEW PRISON
CELLS.
THE ANTI-CRIME LAW HELPS STATES RESPOND TO THIS PROBLEM WITH $7.9
BILLic;>N GRANT PROGRAM, UNDER WHICH STATES CAN BUILD AND
OPERATE EITHER ADDITIONAL SECURE PRISON CELLS FOR VIOLENT
11
�CRIMINALS OR BOOT CAMP PRISONS FOR NONVIOLENT OFFENDERS,
THEREBY FREEING UP SECURE PRISON SPACES FOR VIOLENT CRIMINALS .
. IN THIS WAY, THE LAW ENCOURAGES STATES TO MAKE THE MOST
EFFICIENT USE OF EXISTING PRISON CELLS BY PUTTING VIOLENT
OFFENDERS IN THE MOST EXPENSIVE SPACE AND HOUSING NON-VIOLENT,
MINOR OFFENDERS AT ONE-THIRD THE COST OF TRADITIONAL PRISON
SPACE.
BOOT CAMP PRISONS WERE INCLUDED AMONG THE OPTIONS A STATE
COULD CHOOSE UNDER THE PROGRAM FOR ONE REASON AND ONE
REASON ONLY-- THEY ARE A CHEAPER MEANS OF INCARCERATING
NONVIOLENT OFFENDERS. A BOOT CAMP SPACE COSTS ABOUT ONE-THIRD
WHAT A PRISON SPACE COSTS PER INMATE. TODAY 160,000 YOUNG, NONVIOLENT, MINOR OFFENDERS ARE BEHIND BARS IN COSTLY PRISON CELLS
THAT WOULD BE BETTER USED TO HOUSE TRULY VIOLENT, DANGEROUS
CRIMINALS. SO MOVING NONVIOLENT OFFENDERS INTO BOOT CAMPS,
THEREBY FREEING UP SPACE IN TRADITIONAL PRISONS FOR VIOLENT
Ot:=FENDERS, IS A COST-EFFECTIVE RESPONSE TO THE PRISON SPACE
SHORTAGE.
IN A PROVISION OF THE PROGRAM THAT REFLECTS A COMPROMISE I
STRUCK WITH CONGRESSMAN MCCULLOM, THE LAW RESERVES HALF THE
$7.9 BILLION IN PRISON GRANT MONEY FOR STATES THAT MOVE TOWARDS
·-
A "TRUTH IN SENTENCING" MODEL FOR SENTENCING CONVICTED. FELONS.
NATIONWIDE TODAY, PRISONERS SERVE ON AVERAGE ONLY 40 PERCENT OF
THEIR SENTENCES. ENCOURAGING STATES TO REFORM THEIR SYSTEMS IS
A WORTHY GOAL. BUT IN ISSUING A CHALLENGE TO THE STATES, IT IS
IMPORTANT THAT THE STANDARD SET BE ONE STATES CAN REALISTICALLY
WORK TO MEET.
12
�THE CRIME LAW'S PRISON PROGRAM DOES THAT: THE GRANTS ARE
CONDITIONED ON A STATE KEEPING REPEAT VIOLENT OFFENDERS BEHIND
BARS FOR AT LEAST 85 PERCENT OF THEIR SENTENCE. SO, LIKE THE
100,000 COPS PROGRAM, THE PRISON PROVISION WAS CAREFULLY
DRAFTED TO INCLUDE REASONABLE, BUT SPECIFIC, REQUIREMENTS THAT
SERVED SPECIFIC GOALS.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE REPUBLICAN'S NEW PRISON PROPOSAL, YOU SEE
<
A MUCH DIFFERENT PICTURE. THIS TIME, THEY HAVE IDENTIFIED A
SPECIFIC GOAL; THE PROBLEM IS THEIR PROGRAM ISN'T DESIGNED TO
ATTAIN THAT GOAL THE REPUBLICAN PROPOSAL GIVES STATES MONEY
FOR ONE PURPOSE AND ONE PURPOSE ONLY-- TO BUILD AND OPERATE
TRADITIONAL PRISONS.
BUT INSTEAD OF ENCOURAGING SlATES TO MAXIMIZE THE EFFECTIVENESS
OF THE FUNDS, THEY HAVE SEVERELY LIMITED THE WAYS IN WHICH STATES
CAN USE THE MONEY. FOR EXAMPLE, CONSIDER A STATE THAT HAS A
LARGE STORE OF TRADITIONAL PRISON SPACE, BUT IS CURRENTLY USING
30 PERCENT OF THAT SPACE TO HOUSE NONVIOLENT OFFENDERS. THE
MOST EFFECTIVE STRATEGY FOR THAT STATE WOULD BE TOO BUILD A
BOOT CAMP PRISON TO HOUSE THE NONVIOLENT OFFENDERS NOW IN
CONVENTIONAL PRISONS, BECAUSE BOOT CAMP. BEDS COST ABOUT ONEFIFTH THE PRICE TO BUILD, AND ONLY ONE-THIRD THE PRICE TO OPERATE
AS CONVENTIONAL PRISON BEDS. THE END RESULT WOULD BE THAT THE
STATE COULD KEEP VIOLENT OFFENDERS BEHIND BARS 30 PERCENT . _
LONGER, OR PUT 30 PERCENT MORE VIOLENT OFFENDERS BEHIND BARS,
AND COULD DO SO AT ONE-THIRD THE COST OF BUILDING MORE
CONVENTIONAL PRISON SPACE.
13
�BUT UNDER THE REPUBLICAN PROPOSAL, THE STATE WOULD BE FORCED
TO BUILD MORE EXPENSIVE, CONVENTIONAL PRISON CELLS IF IT WANTED
TO RECEIVE THE FEDERAL FUNDS -- EVEN THOUGH IT COULD GET THE
SAME RESULTS FOR ONE-THIRD THE PRICE IF IT COULD BUILD A BOOT
CAMP PRISON. GOVERNOR ENGLER OF MICHIGAN, GOVERNOR THOMPSON
OF WISCONSIN, GOVERNOR WILSON OF CALIFORNIA, GOVERNOR WELD OF
MASSACHUSETTS, GOVERNOR EDGAR OF ILLINOIS -- ALL REPUBLICANS -HAVE JOINED A NUMBER OF DEMOCRATIC GOVERNORS WHO ARE
OPERATING BOOT CAMPS FOR NONVIOLENT OFFENDERS, SO THAT
EXPENSIVE, TRADITIONAL PRISONS CAN BE RESERVED FOR VIOLENT
OFFENDERS.
RIGHT NOW, THERE ARE APPROXIMATELY 160,000 FIRST-TIME, NON-VIOLENT
PRISONERS ACROSS THE COUNTRY WHO ARE ELIGIBLE FOR BOOT CAMP
PRISONS, BUT ONLY ABOUT 10,000 ARE ENROLLED. -MOVING MORE OF
THESE INMATES INTO BOOT CAMPS WOULD FREE UP TRADITIONAL PRISON
CELLS FOR VIOLENT INMATES AND WOULD MAKE THE MOST OF BOTH THE
STATE AND THE FEDERAL RESOURCES AVAILABLE FOR PRISONS. AND THAT
IS WHAT GOVERNORS FROM BOTH PARTIES ARE TRYING TO DO IN MANY
STATES.
I OUTLINED BEFORE THE MISTAKE MADE WITH THE LAW ENFORCEMENT
BLOCK GRANTS -- WHERE THE REPUBLICANS FAILED TO DEFINE GOALS AND
THEN DEVISED AN AMORPHOUS PROGRAM WITH NO REQUIREMENTS AND
NO GUIDELINES. WITH ·PRISONS, THE REPUBLICANS HAVE MADE THE
OPPOSITE MISTAKE --THEY FAIL TO GIVE THE STATES THE NECESSARY
FLEXIBILITY TO MEET THE GOAL THEY IDENTIFY AND INSTEAD HAVE PUT
THE STATES IN A STRAIGHTJACKET. THIS MISTAKE IS PARTICULARLY
IRONIC GIVEN THAT FLEXIBILITY AND "DEVOLUTION TO THE STATES" IS THE
REPUBLICAN WATCHVJORD OF THE MONTH.
14
�IN THE HOUSE, THE REPUBLICANS HAVE GONE EVEN FURTHER. TO GET ANY
OF THE PRISON MONEY UNDER THE HOUSE REPUBLICAN'S PROVISION,
EVEN FIRST-TIME VIOLENT OFFENDER MUST SERVE 85 PERCENT OF HIS
'
/
SENTENCE. NOW, THIS IS THE ULTIMATE GOAL MANY OF US HAVE IN SIGHT.
I WANT TO SEE ALL VIOLENT CRIMINALS SERVING AT LEAST 85 PERCENT OF
THEIR SENTENCES. IF YOU DO THE CRIME, YOU SHOULD DO THE TIME.
BUT IF WE WANT TO HELP STATES MEET THAT GOAL, WE HAVE TO BE
REALISTIC. TO MEET THE HOUSE REPUBLICAN'S STANDARD, MOST STATES
WOULD HAVE TO DOUBLE THE TIME THEY KEEP VIOLENT OFFENDERS
)
BEHIND BARS FROM APPROXIMATELY 42 PERCENT TO THE REQUIRED 85
PERCENT.
IT WOULD COST THE STATES AT LEAST $60 BILLION TO DO THIS -- $60
BILLION DOLLARS, WHEN THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF FEDERAL FUNDS
AVAILABLE IS$? BILLION. NOW, I COME FROM A STATE THAT ACTUALLY
MEETS THIS REQUIREMENT-- DELAWARE HAS TRUTH-IN-SENTENCING
LAWS-- BUT IT IS ONE OF ONLY THREE OR FOUR STATES THAT DOES.
I RESPECTFULLY SUGGEST THAT NONE OF THE REMAINING 47 STATES
WOULD BE WILLING TO SPEND TRIPLE THE AMOUNT OF ANY FEDERAL
FUNDING THEY COULD RECEIVE, EVEN IF THEY DESPERATELY NEEDED
MORE PRISON SPACE.
SO, AS INCREDIBLE AS IT SEEMS, THE HOUSE REPUBLICANS HAVE
SUCCEEDED IN WRITING A PROGRAM THAT WILL ACTUALLY PRODUCE
FEWER PRISON CELLS-- FEWER PRISONS-- THAN·WHAT IS IN CURRENT.
LAW. RECOGNITION OF THIS PROBLEM WAS THE POINT, AS I UNDERSTOOD
IT, OF WHAT THE NATIONAL GOVERNORS' ASSOCIATION WROTE TO ME JUST
A FEW MONTHS AGO -- A LETTER, SIGNED BY GOVERNOR WILSON, AMONG
OTHERS. IT SAID: "WE URGE YOU TO RESIST ANY EFFORT TO IMPOSE A
STRINGENT SET OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURES AND SENTENCING
15
�I
•
REQUIREMENTS ON THE STATES AS A CONDITION OF FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
TO INCARCERATE VIOLENT CRIMINALS ... I ALSO TRUST THAT THIS PROBLEM
IS THE REASON THE SENATE REPUBLICANS HAVE STAYED WITH THE
REPEAT VIOLENT OFFENDER STANDARD IN THEIR VERSION OF THE PRISON
GRANT PROGRAM.
NOW IT IS NICE TO SEE THAT, DESPITE WHAT MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES
IN THE SENATE SAID DURING THE DEBATE LAST SUMMER, ABOUT HOW THE
85 PERCENT STANDARD MUST HOLD FOR FIRST-TIME OFFENDERS, THEY
HAVE CHANGED THEIR VIEW. IN THEIR NEW BILL, THE SENATE
REPUBLICANS APPLY THE 85 PERCENT STANDARD TO REPEAT VIOLENT
OFFENDERS, WHICH IS WHAT IS IN THE CURRENT LAW. WHAT'S
INTERESTING IS THAT THE CURRENT LAW WAS THE RESULT OF A
COMPROMISE THAT I WORKED OUT WITH CONGRESSMAN MCCOLLUM OVER
IN THE HOUSE. BUT NOW CONGRESSMAN MCCOLLUM IS BACK OVER
THERE REWRITING THE VERY COMPROMISE WE AGREED ON, MAKING THE
85 PERCENT STANDARD APPLY TO EVERYBODY.
SO WE HAVE THE SENATE REPUBLICANS SWITCHING FROM FIRST-TIME TO
REPEAT OFFENDERS, AND THE HOUSE REPUBLICANS FLIP-FLOPPING IN THE
OPPOSITE DIRECTION, FROM REPEAT OFFENDERS TO FIRST-TIMERS.
THESE POLITICAL GAMES MAY.BE FASCINATING TO A LOT OF PEOPLE IN
WASHINGTON. BUT WHILE WE'RE UP HERE PLOWING BACK OVER OLD
GROUND, SWAPPING POSITIONS, CLAIMING WE'RE TOUGHER THAN THE
NEXT GUY AND HAVING A GRAND OLD TIME, WE AREN'T HELPING ANYBODY
BUILD ANY MORE PRISONS.
UNDER THE NEW REPUBLICAN PLAN, IT IS LIKELY THAT FEWER THAN 10,000
PRISON CELLS WILL BE BUlLT. THE MONEY WILL BE SITTING HERE IN
WASHINGTON, IN THE TRUST FUND, WAITING TO BE SENT OUT TO THE
16
�STATES, BUT NO ONE WILL BE ABLE TO QUALIFY FOR IT. THE END RESULT
WILL BE NO JAILS, NO PRISONS, NO MORE VIOLENT OFFENDERS BEHIND
BARS.
FINALLY, THE REPUBLICAN PROPOSAL ACTUALLY WEAKENS THE RIGHTS OF
CRIME VICTIMS. UNDER THE PROGRAM WE HAVE NOW, THE JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT IS IMPLEMENTING GUIDELINES THAT ENSURE VICTIMS'
INTERESTS ARE CONSIDERED AT EVERY STEP OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE
PROCESS: THAT VICTIMS ARE NOTIFIED OF THE STATUS OF THEIR CASES
AND THE OFFENDERS; THAT THEY ARE PROVIDED THE CHANCE TO GO TO
ALL PUBLIC HEARINGS AND PROCEEDINGS; THAT THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO
TESTIFY AT SENTENCING AND PAROLE HEARINGS; AND THAT THEY GET
RESTITUTION FROM THEIR ASSAILANTS. THE REPUBLICAN PROPOSAL
REFERS ONLY TO VICTIMS' RIGHT TO BE HEARD AT SENTENCING AND
RELEASE HEARINGS, AND IT LIMITS THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT'S ABILITY TO
ENCOURAGE THE BROADEST POSSIBLE RANGE OF VICTIM INPUT INTO THE
SYSTEM.
THE REPUBLICAN PRISON PROPOSAL WILL BUILD FEWER PRISONS, IT WILL
KEEP FEWER VIOLENT FELONS BEHIND BARS, AND IT WILL SHORTCHANGE·
THE RIGHTS OF CRIME VICTIMS. IT SHOULD BE REJECTED.
PREVENTION PROGRAMS
I TURN NOW TO AN ISSUE THAT HAS BEEN THE SUBJECT OF MORE
MISINFORMATION AND OUTRIGHT MISCHARACTERIZATION THAN PERHAPS
ANY OTHER IN THE CRIME DEBATE --AND THAT'S SAYING QUITE A LOT!
I REFER, OF COURSE TO THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE NATION OUGHT
TO PREVENT CRIME BEFORE IT HAPPENS, INSTEAD OF CONTINUING TO DO
NOTHING UNTIL AFTER THE. SHOTS ARE FIRED, UNTIL AFTER OUR CHILDREN
17
�BECOME ADDICTED TO DRUGS, UNTIL AFTER MORE AMERICANS' LIVES ARE
RUINED, BEFORE WE TAKE ACTION.
THE ANTI-CRIME LAW ENACTED LAST YEAR ANSWERED THAT QUESTION BY
JOINING THE COMMITMENT MADE TO LAW ENFORCEMENT-- TO 100,000
MORE POLICE OFFICERS, TO 100,000 TO 125,000 MORE PRISON CELLS-WITH A COMMITMENT TO CRIME PREVENTION. IT SAID LOUD AND CLEAR
THAT WE CANNOT KEEP EXPANDING THE SINK WITHOUT ALSO TRYING TO
SHUT OFF THE FAUCET.
THE STRAIGHTFORWARD LOGIC OF THIS PROPOSITION IS SUPPORTED BY
THE CONCLUSION OF VIRTUALLY EVERY
CRIMINO~OGIST,
EVERY LEGAL
SCHOLAR, EVERY SOCIOLOGIST, EVERY PSYCHOLOGIST, EVERY MEDICAL
AUTHORITY. THOSE WHO STUDY THIS ISSUE AGREE THAT BREAKING THE
CYCLE OF VIOLENCE AND CRIME REQUIRES AN INVESTMENT IN THE LIVES
OF OUR CHILDREN, IN THE FORM OF SUPPORT AND GUIDANCE THAT HELPS
THEM REJECT THE VIOLENCE AND ANARCHY OF THE STREETS IN FAVOR OF
TAKING POSITIVE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR OWN LIVES.
MOST IMPORTANTLY, PREVENTION IS WHAT COPS WANT-- WHAT VIRTUALLY
EVERYONE IN LAW ENFORCEMENT WANTS. EVERY COP I HAVE TALKED TO,
EVERY PROSECUTOR, EVERY PRISON WARDEN, EVERY PROBATION OFFICER
LITERALLY SAYS THE SAME THING-- WE CAN'T DO IT ALONE.
LISTEN TO THE COPS:
"LAW ENFORCEMENT IS MORE THAN JUST ARRESTING PEOPLE AND
PUTTING PEOPLE IN PRISON," SAID BUD MEEKS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
OF THE NATIONAL SHERIFFS' ASSOCIATION. "IT'S ALSO TRYING TO
KEEP PEOPLE FROM GOING TO PRISON}' [WASHINGTON TIMES, AUG. 2,
1994]
18
�BOB SCULLY OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF POLICE
ORGANIZATIONS SAYS: "IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE PREVENTION
PORTION, YOU BETTER GO OUT AND MORTGAGE THIS COUNTRY TO
BUILD PRISONS ... " [LAW ENFORCEMENT NEWS, DEC. 31, 1994]
THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE SAID THE 1994 CRIME ACT "HAS A
BALANCE OF ENFORCEMENT, PROSECUTION/COURTS, PRISONS,
PREVENTION, WHICH WILL MAKE A REAL DIFFERENCE IN THE
INCIDENCE OF CRIME OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS."
AND THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF POLICE OFFICERS SAYS
"THE CRIME BILL IS AN APPROPRIATE BALANCE OF POLICE,
PUNISHMENT AND PREVENTION, A HOLISTIC APPROACH CRITICAL TO
A LONG TERM CURE."
LISTEN TO PROSECUTORS AS WELL:
THE NATIONAL DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION SAID, •wHILE
MANY MAY CRITICIZE SPECIFIC COMPONENTS ...
WE BELIEVE THAT THE FINAL EFFORT PROVIDES A BALANCE OF
PROGRAMS THAT HOLD THE POTENTIAL FOR MAKING A VAST
/
DIFFERENCE FOR OUR NATION IN REDUCING THE CRIME RATE."
LISTEN TO PRISON WARDENS:
IN A RECENTLY RELEASED SURVEY OF WARDENS ACROSS THE
COUNTRY, PRISON OFFICIALS SAID IF THEY HAD AN EXTRA $10
MILLION TO SPEND FIGHTING CRIME, THEY WOULD SPEND MORE
THAN HALF -- 57 PERCENT OF IT -- ON PREVENTION PROGRAMS.
AND LISTEN TO LOCAL OFFICIALS, THOSE IN GOVERNMENT WHO ARE
CLOSEST, FACE-TO-FACE WITH THE SCOURGE OF DRUGS AND VIOLENCE
19
�EVERY DAY, THE VERY PEOPLE WHOM THE REPUBLICANS -- AND I BELIEVE
RIGHTLY SO-- WANT TO GIVE GREATER VOICE:
LISTEN TO REPUBLICAN MAYORS GIULIANI OF NEW YORK AND
RIORDAN OF LOS ANGELES-- QUOTE: "BY FUNDING PROVEN
PREVENTION PROGRAMS FOR YOUNG PEOPLE, THE CRIME BILL
OFFERS HOPE-- HOPE THAT IN THE FUTURE WE CAN REDUCE THE
NEED FOR SO MANY POLICE OFFICERS AND JAILS." (USA TODAY, AUG.
17, 1994, OP-ED]
LISTEN TO PAUL HELMKE, THE REPUBLICAN MAYOR OF FORT WAYNE,
INDIANA: "IT'S A LOT LESS EXPENSIVE TO DO THINGS ON THE
PREVENTION SIDE THAN ON THE POLICE SIDE."
AND MAYOR HELMKE GETS ANOTHER CRUCIAL POINT AS WELL:
"THERE HASN'T BEEN A CHANCE FOR THE CRIME BILL TO HAVE AN
EFFECT. IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO CHANGE THE RULES BEFORE WE
CAN SEE IF THIS BILL REALLY WORKS." [USA TODAY, JAN. 19, 1995]
.
THIS UNITY AMONG LAW ENFORCEMENT WAS THE FORCE THAT DROVE THE
PREVENTION PROGRAMS INTO THE CRIME LAW. WE NEED TO GIVE THESE
PROGRAMS A CHANCE. IF AFTER A FEW YEARS THE PREVENTION
PROGRAMS IN THE ANTI-CRIME LAW DO NOT WORK, I WILL BE FIRST IN LINE
TO CHANGE IT.
NOW MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES ARE CLEVER, AND THEY KNOW THAT
EXPERT, POLICE, AND THE AMERICAN PUBLIC STRONGLY SUPPORT
UNDERTAKING PREVENTION EFFORTS HAND IN HAND WITH INCREASING
ENFORCEMENT-- JUST AS THE CRIME LAW PROVIDES. SO LAST YEAR, MY
REPUBLICAN- COLLEAGUES EMBARKED ON A CAMPAIGN OF CHARACTER
20
!
�ASSASSINATION, IF YOU WILL -- THEY SET OUT TO DESTROY THE
REPUTATION OF THE PREVENTION PROGRAMS IN THE CRIME LAW. AND
THEY DID IT WITH ONE WORD -- THE DREAD LABEL OF "PORK." FOR
MONTHS, THEY INDISCRIMINATELY AND CONSISTENTLY APPLIED THE LABEL
"PORK" TO ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING CALLED PREVENTION. I GUESS
·THEY WERE PURSUING THE APPROACH THAT IF YOU SAY SOMETHING
OFTEN ENOUGH, PEOPLE WILL START TO BELIEVE IT, WHETHER IT IS TRUE
OR NOT.
THE TRUTH OF COURSE IS THAT THERE IS NO PORK IN THIS BILL; THERE IS
NO MONEY SPECIFICALLY MARKED FOR A SINGLE DISTRICT OR STATE; NO
MONEY TO FUND A PET PROJECT BACK HOME FOR ANY MEMBER OF
CONGRESS. THERE IS NOT ONE SINGLE POUND, THERE IS NOT EVEN AN
OUNCE OF PORK IN THIS BILL-- THERE IS NO PORK IN HERE WHATSOEVER.
NONE.
LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT THE BILL DOES FUND. THE BILL CONTAINS A
$30.2 BILLION TRUST FUND, FILLED WITH THE SAVINGS FROM REDUCING
THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE. MORE THAN 80 PERCENT OF THE MONEY -ABOUT $25 BILLION-- PAYS FOR 100,000 MORE STATE AND LOCAL POLICE
OFFICERS AND 100,000 MORE STATE PRISON CELLS. ANOTHER $1.6 BILLION
PAYS FOR MORE AGGRESSIVE PROSECUTION OF VIOLENT CRIMES AGAINST
WOMEN. $2.6 BILLION PAYS FOR MORE FBI AGENTS, MORE DEA AGENTS,
MORE BORDER PATROL AGENTS, MORE TREASURY AGENTS, MORE
PROSECUTORS, MORE U.S. ATTORNEYS, AND MORE AGGRESSIVE
PROSECUTION OF VIOLENT CRIMES AGAINST WOMEN.
SO, OUT OF THE ENTIRE $30.2 BILLION, $5.4 BILLION -- JUST UNDER 18
PERCENT -- IS FOR PROGRAMS TO PREVENT CRIME BEFORE IT HAPPENS.
THE REPUBLICANS HAVE TARGETED EVERY SINGLE PREVENTION GRANT TO
21
�STATES OR LOCALITIES-- FOR COMPLETE ELIMINATION. LET'S GET PAST
THE LABELS AND SEE WHAT THIS MONEY PAYS FOR. THE FIRST MYSTERY
WE MUST UNRAVEL IS WHY THE REPUBLICANS OPPOSE THE DRUG COURT.
PROGRAM, A $1 BILLION GRANT PROGRAM TO ENABLE STATES TO
TOUGHEN ENFORCEMENT AGAINST FIRST-TIME AND MINOR NONVIOLENT
DRUG OFFENDERS.
DRUG COURT PROGRAMS TARGET LOW-LEVEL DRUG OFFENDERS, WHO ARE
OUT ON THE STREETS BREAKING INTO CARS AND STEALING TO SUPPORT
THEIR HABITS. IN MOST COMMUNITIES, THESE OFFENDERS ARE NOW
LARGELY IGNORED BY OUR SYSTEM. THEY DO NOT GO TO PRISON AND
THEY ARE NOT REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH DRUG TESTING OR TO GET
TREATMENT. MOST ARE SIMPLY SENT RIGHT BACK OUT ON THE STREETS
/
ON LARGELY UNSUPERVISED PROBATION. BACK OUT ON THE STREET,
THESE OFFENDERS GO RIGHT BACK TO THE CYClE OF DRUG USE -- AND
THEN TO CRIME IN SUPPORT OF THEIR HABITS. ALL TOO OFTEN, THEIR
CRIMINAL ACTIVITY SPIRALS UP TO MORE SERIOUS, VIOLENT OFFENDERS
AS THEIR ADDICTIONS GET DEEPER.
THE HEART OF THE PROBLEM, HERE, IS THAT THE PROBATION AND PAROLE
POPULATIONS HAVE BOOMED, JUST LIKE THE PRISON POPULATIONS. MORE
THAN 3.5 MILLION OFFENDERS -- HALF OF THEM DRUG ADDICTS -- ARE NOW
LIVING IN THEIR COMMUNITIES UNDER THE NOMINAL SUPERVISION OF
COURT OR CORRECTIONS OFFICERS. ACCORDING TO THE JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT, SOME 135,000 DRUG-ADDICTED THIEVES AND OTHER
OFFENDERS ARE RELEASED ON PROBATION EVERY YEAR. WITH AN
AVERAGE PROBATION
SENT~NCE
OF FOUR YEARS, THIS MEANS THAT
ABOUT 600,000 DRUG-ADDICTED OFFENDERS ARE ON OUR NATION'S
STREETS EACH DAY.
22
�MANY OF THESE PROBATIONERS ARE HIGH-RATE OFFENDERS; HARD-CORE
-ADDICTS ARE ESTIMATED TO COMMIT UP TO 200 CRIMES A YEAR TO
SUPPORT THEIR HABITS. AND WE KNOW WHO THESE PEOPLE ARE. JUDGES
AND PROBATION OFFICERS HAVE THEIR NAMES. SO WHY DO WE IGNORE
THEM? BECAUSE THE NUMBER OF PROBATION OFFICERS HAS NOT KEPT
PACE WITH THE GROWTH IN THE PROBATION POPULATION, PROBATION
CASELOADS NOW AVERAGE 118 OFFENDERS. IN SOME AREAS, CASELOADS
· CAN EXCEED 200! WITH SO MANY OFFENDERS, OFFICERS ARE ABLE TO
CONDUCT ONLY MINIMAL SUPERVISION AT BEST-- PERHAPS 15 MINUTES A
WEEK.
DRUG COURTS ARE DESIGNED TO TAKE THESE OFFENDERS AND THEIR
CRIMES SERIOUSLY. DRUG GOURTS GIVE THESE OFFENDERS A CHANCE TO
STAY OUT OF JAIL-- BUT IT IS A CHANCE NOT A FREE PASS.
DRUG COURTS REQUIRE OFFENDERS TO SUBMIT TO MANDATORY DRUG
TESTING AND TREATMENT, STRICT SUPERVISION BY A COURT OFFICER,
BACKED UP BY SANCtiONS IF THEY FAIL. HOW CAN ANYONE CALL THIS
"PORK" OR EVEN A "SOCIAL PROGRAM?" WHAT CONCEIVABLE DEFINITION
OF PORK WOULD INCLUDE AN ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM THAT SUBJECTS
DRUG OFFENDER-S TO A TOUGHER RESPONSE FROM OUR COURT AND
CORRECTIONS SYSTEM?
PROSECUTORS, JUDGES AND CORRECTIONS OFFICIALS ACROSS THE
COUNTRY WANT TO ADOPT DRUG COURT PROGRAMS. FRANKLY, THE
MONEY IN THE CRIME LAW IS MODEST IN FACE OF THE NEED AND THE
DESIRE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT FOR THIS TOOL. SO $1 BILLION OF THE $5.4
BILLION THE REPUBLICANS HAVE TARGETED AS 'WASTEFUL PREVENTION
(
11
SPENDING IS ACTUALLY FOR DRUG COURTS. WHAT DOES THE REMAINING
$4.4 BILLION DO?.
23
�THE NEXT $2 BILLION IS ALREADY IN THE FORM OF BLOCK GRANTS -THE PRECISE, FLEXIBLE FUNDING MECHANISM THE REPUBLICANS FAVOR.
UNDER CURRENT LAW, CITIES, TOWNS AND COUNTIES GET $2 BILLION TO
SPEND ON PROGRAMS THEY DEVELOP TO PREVENT CRIME. IN FACT,
'
NEARLY $400 MILLION OF THE MONEY IS IN A BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
AUTHORED BY HOUSE REPUBLICANS, THAT LETS A COMMUNITY CHOOSE
WHETHER IT WANTS A BOYS OR GIRLS CLUB, AN ATHLETIC LEAGUE, AMONG
OTHER PROGRAMS.
WITH $2 BILLION ALREADY IN BLOCK GRANTS, THAT LEAVES $2.4 BILLION IN
PREVENTION FUNDING. OF THAT $2.4 BILLION, MORE THAN $800 MILLION IS
IN THE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS PROG~AM, WHICH KEEPS SCHOOLS OPEN IN
THE AFTERNOONS AND EVENINGS AND ON WEEKENDS, SO KIDS LIVING IN
DRUG AND CRIME-INFESTED NEIGHBORHOODS CAN HAVE A SAFE PLACE TO
GO, AND WORK OR PLAY SPORTS WITH POSITIVE MENTORS INSTEAD OF
GANG MEMBERS. EIGHTEEN MONTHS AGO, THIS PROGRAM HAD STRONG
BIPARTISAN SUPPORT --IT WAS ORIGINALLY SPONSORED BY SENATORS
DOMENICI AND DANFORTH AS WELL AS SENATORS DODD AND BRADLEY-AND WAS ENDORSED BY MAYORS OF ALL POLITICAL STRIPES -- INCLUDING
MAYORS GIULIANI AND RIORDAN.
ANOTHER $625 MILLION IS IN THE MODEL INTENSIVE GRANTS PROGRAM ~
WHICH TARGETS THE CITIES AND TOWNS HARDEST HIT BY VIOLENCE FOR
COORDINATED PREVENTION AND LAW ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS .. THIS
PROGRAM IS SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO THE WEED AND SEED PROGRAM
CHAMPIONED BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION ANID TO THE DRUG
EMERGENCY AREAS PROGRAM, WHICH RECEIVED BI-PARTISAN
SPONSORSHIP FROM SENATORS GORTON AND D'AMATO WHEN IT PASSED
THE SENATE IN 1990.
24
�NOW WE'RE DOWN TO AN EVEN $1 BILLION. OF THAT BILLION, $200 MILLION
IS FOR MORE EFFECTIVE PROSECUTION AND PUNISHMENT OF YOUNG
OFFENDERS. WITH THE RISE IN SERIOUS JUVENILE VIOLENCE THAT·WE'VE
SEEN OVER THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS, $200 MILLION COMMITMENT IN A
$30 BILLION BILL SEEMS TO BE TO BE A MODEST AMOUNT TO FOCUS ON
HELPING STATES REFORM THEIR JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM TO DEAL WITH
THESE DELINQUENTS.
THAT LEAVES $800 MILLION. $400 MILLION OF THAT IS TARGETED AT DRUG
TREATMENT IN PRISONS. NOW, LOGIC TELLS US THAT IF ALOT OF CRIME IS
COMMITTED BY PEOPLE WHO ARE ADDICTED TO DRUGS, HELPING A
CRIMINAL ADDICT KICK HIS HABIT BEFORE RELEASING HIM FROM PRISON
MAKES SENSE. PRESIDENT BUSH'S DRUG CZAR, WILLIAM BENNETT, ISSUED
A REPORT BACK IN 1990 THAT FOUND TREATMENT CUTS OFFENDERS'
CRIME RATES IN HALF. AND SENATOR GRAMM OF TEXAS ENDORSED
PRISON DRUG TREATMENT ON THE SENATE FLOOR DURING THE CRIME BILL
DEBATE LAST NOVEMBER. YET TODAY, THE REPUBLICAN PROPOSAL WIPES
OUT FUNDING FOR TREATING DRUG-ADDICTED STATE PRISONERS.
INEXPLICABLY, THEY KEEP THE $100 MILLION FOR TREATING FEDERAL
PRISONERS, BUT GONE IS THE EFFORT TO HELP STATES-- WHERE THE
VAST MAJORITY OF THESE OFFENDERS ARE.
NOW, WE'RE DOWN NOW TO $500 MILLION. NEARLY $100 MILLION OF THAT
IS FOR COORDINATION OF PREVENTION. EFFORTS AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL-TO REDUCE ANY DUPLICATION, TO TARGETAPPROPRIATE AREAS AND
POPULATIONS WITH THE MOST EFFECTIVE PROGRAMS. $270 MILLION IS
FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS TO CREATE JOBS THAT
PROVIDE OPPORTUNITIES FOR INNER-CITY YOUTHS IN THE LEGITIMATE
ECONOMY.
25
�ALMOST $40 MILLION IN THE LAW IS FOR, DARE I SAY IT, ORPHANAGE-LIKE,
RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES FOR TROUBLED YOUTHS. $45 MILLION IS FOR THE
"G.R.E.A.T." PROGRAM, WHICH SEEKS TO KEEPS KIDS OUT OF GANGS THE
WAY THE "DARE" PROGRAM SEEKS TO KEEP KIDS OFF OF DRUGS. AND
FINALLY, THERE IS $1 MILLION DEVOTED TO A NATIONAL COMMISSION TO
STUDY THE CAUSES OF VIOLENCE AND COME UP WITH EVER MORE
EFFECTIVE SOLUTIONS DOWN THE ROAD.
SO I THINK IT IS CLEAR, MR. PRESIDENT, THAT ONCE YOU GET PAST ALL OF
THE POLITICAL POSTURING AND GAMESMANSHIP, THE 1994 ANTI-CRIME
LAW IS A SOUND AND MEASURED CRIME-FIGHTING STRATEGY. IT DOESN'T
WASTE TAXPAYERS' DOLLARS. ON THE CONTRARY, IT WILL SAVE
TAXPAYERS' LIVES. UNFORTUNATELY, FOR THE MILLIONS OF VIOLENCEWEARY AMERICANS, INSTEAD OF MOVING FORWARD, WE ARE SCHEDULED
TO RETURN TO YESTERDAY'S DEBATE. ALL I CAN SAY IS THAT
REPUBLICANS SEEM MORE INTERESTED IN FIGHTING DEMOCRATS, THAN IN
FIGHTING. CRIME.
CONCLUSION
I HAVE TRIED TODAY TO OUTLINE MY OBJECTIONS TO THE REPUBLICA.NS
RETREAT ON THE KEY PROVISIONS OF THE ANTI-CRIME LAW ENACTED LAST
YEAR. I WILL RETURN TO ADDRESS OTHER PROVISIONS OF EQUAL
SI~NIFICANCE
THAT THE REPUBLICANS WILL RAISE, BUT THAT WERE NOT A
PART OF LAST YEAR'S ANTI-CRIME LAW. MOST SIGNIFICANT AMONG THESE,
PERHAPS, IS REFORM OF HABEAS CORPUS -- AN AREA WHERE REFORM IS
LONG OVERDUE, BUT WHERE THE REPUBLICAN PROPOSAL, WHILE LABELED
REFORM, ACTUALLY AMOUNTS TO ELIMINATION OF THE HISTORIC WRIT. I
WILL ALSO ADDRESS THE SO-CALLED REFORM OF THE EXCLUSIONARY
RULE, WHICH AGAIN THE REPUBLICANS EFFECTIVELY SEEK TO ELIMINATE.
26
�WH ::>to:l-erv~Y\1 ~' ·zJ Vlj R.aporl- frcrvc l}...e
Pre-s! clent 's (flrtr on_ [w::rt Xa->rr
L1/19/ss)
t:J
Report on Economtc Secunty
·
payable to any individual should be limited to the actuarial
l through a
·een the emis to be coldeduct the
~them . . . .
,10 contributhe years in
that it guarnent exceeds
to maintain
.me· exceeded
J
1s been in opmade at least
· has reached
:st as a supplethat the Gov' deferred life
1surance com~d at specified
tsers a definite .
1d continuing
tmary purpose
he compulsory
~ for their old .
means o(suphe compulsory
e same income
c. Hence, provi-
:1 y·small· premiximmil annuity
equivalent of fifty dollars per month.
There should be a study of the feasibility of Government contributions toward the annuities of people, now middle aged or
older, with income of $2,500 per year or less, who come under
this voluntary plan- contributions comparable to the unearned
part of the annuities which will be paid by the Government to
people of middle age or older who are brought under the compulsory system.
·
SECURITY FOR CHILDREN
A large group of the children at present maintained by relief
will not be aided by employment or unemployment compensation. There are the fatherless and other "young" families without a breadwinner. To meet the problems of the children in these
families, no less than forty-five States have enacted children's aid
laws, generally called Mothers' Pension Laws. However, due to
the present financial difficulty in which many States find themselves, far more of such children are on the relief lists than are in
receipt of children's aid benefits. We are strongly of the opinion
that these families should be differentiated from the permanent
dependents and unemployables, and we believe that the children's aid plan is the method which will best care for their needs.
.We recommend Federal grants-in-aid on the basis of one-half the
State and local expenditures for this purpose (one-third the entireSuch
cost).Federal grants-in-aid are a new departure, but it is imperative to give them if the mothers' care method of rearing
fatherless families is to become nationally operative. The amount
of money required is less than the amount now given to families
of this character by the Federal Government by the less desirable
route of emergency relief. An initial appropriation of approximately $25,ooo,ooo per year .is believed to be sufficient. . . .
Federal grants should be made conditional on passage and enforcement of mandatory State laws and on the submission of
55
�Report on Economic Security
approved plans assuring minimum standards m
amounts of grants and administration. . . .
inve~tigation,
ment dealing
ommendatio;
We recommend also that the Federal Government give assistance to States in providing local services for the protection and
care of homeless, neglected and delinquent children and for child
and maternal health services, especially in rural areas.
7 {[ Suggc
Board Re
Labor Pn
RISKS ARISING OUT OF ILL HEALTH
As a first measure for meeting the very serious problem of sick~
ness in families with low income we recommend a nationwide
preventive public health pro~am. It should be largely financed
by State and local governments and administered by State and
local health departments, the Federal Government to contribut,e
financial and technical aid. The program contemplates ( 1) grantsin-aid to be allocated through State departments of health to local
areas unable to finance public health programs from State and
local resources, (2) direct aid to States in the development of
State health services and the training of personnel for State and
local health work, and (3) additional personnel in the United
States Public Health Service to investigate health problems of interstate or national concern . . . .
ADMINISTRATION
The creation of a Social Insurance Board within the Department
of Labor, to be appointed by the President and with terms to in~ure continuity of administration, is recommended to administer
the Federal Unemployment Compensation Act, and the system of
Federal contributory old-age annuities.
The Secretary of the Treasury is recommended to have full responsibility for the safeguarding and investment of all social insurance funds. The Federal Emergency Relief Administration is
recommended as the most appropriate existing agency for the administration of non-contributing old-age pensions and grants-inaid for dependent children. If this agency should be abolished,
the President should designate the distribut~on of its work.
It is recommended that all activities of the Federal Govern-
56
My dear Mr.
come
proximately
been approvt
ably fewer tl·
and final ad j;
sions. The ex
due to thee'
year of N .R.J
final ad judie
It is, of co1
vision for apj
theless, the f<
these very fe,,
live up to th.
main in effec
I, therefor·
~onform tb t'
few codes un·
either by Ex<:
IT HAS
:~ -
.
. '
1•
Whene·
sion is 1.
plaints •
whenev·
establisl
and whi
�-··
20127
'8'202 690 5673
.
-···--·-····--······-~-----
-
______
,
______ _
·- --··· ··- ------·
·····--·-·
····---------- . ·-------
····-·--·
HHS-PUBLIC AFF.U
.
'·
·----
Ia! 00 2
I
I
i
I
I
I
II
Background
CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT:
THE CLINTON RECORD
I .
.·
The goal of ie Child Support Enforcement (CSE) program, establishe-d in 1975 under Title IV-D
of the Social ecurity Act, is to ensure that children are supported financially by both of their
parents.
.
J
joint federal, state, and local partnership, the multi-layered program involves 50.
separate state1systems, each with its own unique laws and procedures. Some local child support
offices are rup by courts, others by counties, and others by state agencies. At the federal level,
the De.partm~t of Health and Human Services provides technica1 assistance and funding tO states
through the ffice of Child Suppon Enforcement and also operates the Federal Parent Locator
System, a co puter matching system that uses federal information to locate non-custodial parents
who owe chil support.
. '-
Designed as
Today, despi recent improvements in paternity establishment and collections, this child support
system fails any families. Paternity is not established for most children born out of wedlock,
child support iawards are usually low and rarely modified, and ineffective collection enforcement
allows many bon-custodial parents--especially in interstate cases--to avoid payment without penalty.
support orde reflecting current ability to pay were established and enforced in all cases, single
. mothers wo have received $48 billion: money for clothing, food, utilities, and child care. ·
Closing that 34 billion gap is a top priority for this Administration.
·
0
Feder I employees. Because of a complicated maze· of overlapping federal laws and court
decisi ns, it is sometimes difficult fur the partners of federal employees to serve legal
paper attempting to establish paternity and to collect child support payments. These
problt1ms are especially acute as they relate to the Armed Forces.
·
To~ay, the President signed an executive order to make the federal government a model
empl~er in the area of child support enforcement. It requires all federal agencies.
includ~ng the Armed Forces, to cooperate fully in efforts to establish paternity, and to
ensur~ that children of federal employees are provided the support to which they are legally
. entitleFt.
,
The order would take a number of important steps, including: reducing by half the time
agen~es take to garnish federal paychecks and provide the support to the employee5'
childr~n; requiring the Office of PersoMel Managemenr to publish a current listing of
oftici~s designated to handle child support cases so that parents can seek help; researching
ways to improve the computer matching system that helps states find federal employees
who qwe. child su~rt payments; and cros.s;.matching all cases referred by states to the IRS
(for gFshment of mcome tax refunds) w1th federal personnel files.
·
I
I
I
''
.I.
6
�i
20:~8
'lt202 690 5673
Ia! 003
HHS-PUBLIC ·AFFAI
I
.0
mueaL fundiDs.
Pnosident Clinton has proposed yearly expaDsions in federal spending
on c · support, increasing federal spending by more than 25 percent since taking office.
In 199 , the federai-state child support enforcement system collected a record $9 billion
from n-custodial parents.
.
0
.
, :refunds. On February 21, 1995, HHS announced the co11ection of a record
$703
on in delinquent child support for 1993 by garnishing income tax refunds of non~
payin!l.'parents. Benefiting nearly one million families, the amount was 13 percent more
than •.. tections for 1992,
0
Improfing paternity estabUsbment. Already, the Clinton Administration has proposed,
and Cqngress has adopted, a requirement for states to establish hospital-based paternity
programs, as a proactive way to establish paternities early in a child•s life.
I
0
Prosecrttna non-payers.
.
Billions of dollars more in support is owed to nine million
childrep whose parents have crossed state.lines and failed to pay. The Justice Department
is agg sively investigating and prosecuting these cases under the Child Suppor:t Recovery
Act.
Building on the best state and federal initiatives, President Clinton's child suppon plan, introduced
as part of last !year's welfare reform legislation, would create an aggressive, coordinated system
with automa
collection and tougher enforcement. While the federal-state child support
enforcements stem collected $9 billion from non--custodial parents in 1993, the reformed system.
under our pl would collect $20 billion in the year 2000. The plan focuses on:
Universal pat mity establishment. Perfoimance incentives will encourage states to establish
paternity for 1 births, and hospitals will expand efforts to get parents to voluntarily acknowledge
paternity. S:Elined legal procedures and greater use of scientific testing will facilitate
.
identification r those who do not voluntarily acknowledge their responsibilities. And we also
will require
h welfare applicant to supply the name and location of the· child's father. in order to
receive benefi~.
.
·
Falr award
~idelines and perlodk: updatlna. A commission will study whether national awards
guidelines shor·ld be adopted. States will automatically update awards for families as non-custodial
parents' incom s change.
Automated m nitorlng and tracking. States will centralize and modernize their child support
structures thro~gh the use of central registries that monitor payments automatically. A new
national child ~upport clearinghouse will catch parents who try to evade their responsibilities even
if they flee acti>ss state. lines.
New penaltiesltor those who refuse to pay. Expanded wage-withholding and data-base matching
will be used enforce compliance. As a last resort, states will withhold the drivers' and·
professiona11enses of parents who refuse to pay SUpjX)rt. Even the threat of license suspension is
a proven enfo ment tool, and suspension also reaches self-employed people unaffected by wage-
tol
withholding.
I
I
r··;
i
�..,
.
02/24/95
16:02'
'5'202 690 5673
~002
HHS-PUBLIC AFFAI
Q
What will the executive order do?
A
The executive order is designed to simplify and streamline
the service of ~apers to federal employees .in
paternity establishme~nd enforcement orders. While each
agency already has a designated official to receive child
support orders, there have been delays in some cases -- for
instance, when federal personnel changes are not promptly
reported to the relevant state, or when federal employees
are stationed overseas. The executive order requires the
Office of Personnel Management to publish on a regular basis
a current list_ing _Qf. officials. designated to handle child
support---ca·s-es·, -and makes child support enforcement a
priority for all federal agencies.
o
The federal government will also review ways to· enhance
the s~~yices provided by the Federal Parent Locator
Service, includ'ing improving_t_heaccessibility and
timeli·ness of· information given to the states. This
computer matching system helps states find federal
employees who owe child support payments.
o
The executive order also requires the Department of
Defense to report back within 180 days on further
actions that can be taken that may require legislative
action.
o
All cases referred by states to the IRS for garnishment ·
of income tax refunds will also be cross-matched with
federal personnel files.
~---··- --~
�_ _ _ _ _ __:~003
~202 690 5673
16:03
HHS-PUBLIC AFFAI
\
\..
Q
WhY is the Clinton Administration issuing an executive
order?
'·
\
.
President c1inton has made chi1d support enforcement one of
A
his top priorities, and the executive order is one more step
in our efforts to send a strong message of parental
responsibility.
o
Because of a complicated maze of overlapping federal
laws and court decisions, it is sometimes difficult for
the·partners of federal employees to serve legal papers
attempting to establish paternity and/Or collect child
support orders. These problems are especiallY acute as
they relate to the Armed Forces.
o
· While the number of federal employees who owe child
support is relatively small, we want to take every step
necessary to collect support for every American child.
In 1994, a computer match.of federal employee records
with state requests for information found 74,880
positive matches for the military and 30,831 for other
federal employees. These numbers represent 3% of the
military and 1.3% of non-military civilian employees.
These employees were wanted either for paternity
establishment proceedings, or for enforcement of child
support orders.
�II
02/24/95
16:03
"8'202 690 5673
HHS- PCBLI C AFFA I -------------=[4J=-0_0_4_ _
Q
Why has the Clinton Administration not taken any action
sooner against these delinquent federal employees?
A
The Clinton Administration has taken action against these
employees. Since 1975, the federal government has had the
authority to garnish the wages of employees. Garnishment is
a one-time withholding of pay for an o~tstanding debt of
child support. Since 1984, the federal government has been
withholding the wages of ·employees for current child support
payments. The military has similar provisions for both
civili~n and active duty personnel.
However, we can do more -- which is why we're issuing the
executive order.
�02/24/95
16:04
"5'202 690 5673
HHS-PUBLIC AFFAI
'
-~
Q
How do we get the names of non-paying parents?
A
The Federal Parent Locator Service (FPLS) is a unit of the
Office of Child Support Enforcement. The FPLS matches names
provided by the states to locate non-custodial parents in
active child support cases. The purposes of locating the
parent could be for collection, paternity estab1ishment or
other factors relating to the case. States frequently use
the FPLS to verify social security numbers.
In fiscal y~ar 19~4, the FPLS received over 4 million
inquiries from the states. In 1994, 74,aao positive matches
were made for the military and 30,831 for other federal
employees. These numbers represent 3% of the military and
1.3% of non-military civilian employees.
It is the responsibility of the states to take any action
regarding these employees, whether legal or aclministrative.
Note: The FPLS matches state inquiries against several
federal data bases including the Social Security
Administration, th~ Internal Revenue Service, the Veterans
Administration, the Selective Service and the State
Employment Security Agency. The two federal employee
databases are the National Personnel Records Center forcivilian employees including the Postal Service, the
judiciary system and other non-executive agencies and the
Department of Defense for both military and civilian
employees of the military.
·
~005
�0212 4/95
I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~006
16: 04 __. __ .ID.Q_~_6;_9_0_56_7_3_ _ _ _ _H_H_S_-_Pl_:B_L_I_c_._~F__F_A_
_ _ __
Q
What has the Clinton Administration done to improve the
child support system?
A
Since taking office the Clinton Administration has made
major steps to improve the child support enforcement system:
o
Increaainq fundinq. President Clinton has proposed
yearly expansions in federal spending on child support,
increasing federal spending by more than 25 percent
since taking office. The support to states that
operate the enforcement program has increased 30
percent from $1.3 to $1.7 billion. In 1993, the
federal-state child support enforcement system
collected a record $9 billion from non-custodial
parents.
'
o
seizing tax refunds. on February 21, 1995, HHS
announced the collection of a record $703 million in
delinquent child support for 1993 by garnishing income
tax refunds· of non-paying parent's. Benefiting nearly
one million families, the amount was 13 percent more
than collections for 1992.
o
Improvinq paternity establishment. Already, the
Clinton Administration has proposed, and Congress has
adopted, a requirement for states to establish
hospital-based paternity programs, as a proactive way
to establish paternities early in a child's life. From
1992 to 1994, paternity establishment has increased
16.5 percent to 600,000 per year.
o
Prosecuting non-payers. Billions of dollars more in
support is owed to nine million children whose parents
have crossed state lines and failed to pay. The
Justice Department is aggressively investigating and
prosecuting these cases under the Child Support
Recovery Act.
o
c~anqea under welfare Reform.
President Clinton's
child support plan, included in his welfare reform
legislation, proposes strong changes to further
increase collections: States would have the authority
to revoke drivers and professional licenses. A
national·clearinghouse would be established to aid
states in locating and collecting from non-custodial
parents across state lines. Prospective welfare
applicants would be required to cooperate in both
identifying the father and establishing child support
orders. Child support orders would be updated more
regularly to be current with the needs of the children.
�02/24/95
16:05
'6'202 690 5673
. HHS-PUBLIC AFFAI
Q
Why is the Executive Order necessary?
A
The FPLS matches names provided by the.states to locate noncustodial parents in active child support cases. The
purposes of locating the parent could be for collection,.
paternity establishment or other factors relating to the
case. states frequently 1~se the FPLS to verify social
security numbers.
·
o
In fiscal year 1994, the FPLS received ~ver 4 million
inquiries from the states. In 1994, 74,880 positive
matches were made for the military and 30,831 for other
federal employees. These numbers represent 3% of the
military and 1.3% of non-military civilian employees.
o
In 1989, HHS determined that 64,310 federal employees
owed as much as $284 million in child support. In twothirds of the cases, the children were on welfare.
According to current HHS estimates, over 100,000
federal employees now owe child support. Nonpaying
parents represent 3.2 percent of the Defense
Department's work force and 1.3 percent of the federal
work force.
o
Addressing this problem is a priority for the Clinton
Administration, and we intend to send a strong message
though this order that all parents, whether they work
for the federal government or the private sector, must
fulfill their financial obligations to the children
they bring into this world.
14]007
�PRESIDENT WILLIAM J. CLINTON
RADIO ADDRESS TO T~E NATION
DELIVERED IN HALIFAX, CAN~DA
JUNE 17,·1995
(TAPED JUNE 16,. 1995)
Good morning. Earlier this week, I outlined for the American
people a specific plan tb balance the budget in ten years~
rim
taking ten years to do it so we can avoid harsh cuts that would
unnecessarily hurt people we'have an obligation to look out for.
We have to balance the budget. Our responsibility to pass .the
American Dream on to our chiLdren demands nothing less.· If we
saddle our children with an enormous debt, it will eat away at
~their future.
We need to act now to fix thisi so w~:can continue
. to invest in the things that have made America strong and will
· keep us· strong -- like education,. health care, and technology.
/
My ten-year plan to balance the budget avoids a numb~r of cuts
proposed by Congress which could seriously hurt America's
veterans.
I was deeply disturbed when.the House proposed
quadrupling the amount veterans pay for prescription drugs, from
$24 a year to $96 a year for a monthly prescription. In a tenyear balanced budget, we wouldn't have to do that. But if you try
and balance the budget in seven years -- and cut taxes for the
wealthy-~ you·have to cut things like medicine for over 2
Millipn veterans. Her~'s the worst part about balancing the
budget by. raising-the amount veterans pay for prescription drugs:
We can balance the budget without it.
·
The Senate propo~es to deny yeterans'' benefits~to anyone in the
military who is injured, unless that injury is directly connected
to the performance·of his or her duties. Think about what that
means. A young Army sergeant stationed in Italy is on his way
home from the movie theater one night when he's off-duty. He gets
hit by a drunk driver and is paralyzed. The Senate budget says,
no veterans' benefits to help him with his injury~
.
Th~ Senata proposal will hurt 130,000 veterans i~ the next seven
years. . We have a duty to help our yeterans when they_ get
injured. We have a duty to balance'the budget. Let's do both.
We can -- m~ balanced budget proposal proves it.
.
'
.
.
It is inexcusable to raise ~edicine prices for vet~r~ns, and deny'
benefits to injured veterans, when I have shown there's a\.·way to
. . . , balance the budget without causing this kind of suffering and
. pain~
-(~\' u.k
~ Jt-(, (
~w rfi,tt.. {/--.
.
. . '
fl_
My plan cuts federal spending by $1.1 trillion. It does not raise
taxes.· It's disciplined, it's comprehensive, and it's serious. It
won't be easy, but ~e need to do it.
·
My budget has five basic priorities. First of all,_ our most
important mission is to help people make the most of their own
lives. So at the same time we cut the deficit, we don't cut.
1
'(
'·
�/~
;.
.
\.
investment in education, we increase it. _
· Second,,· we· control h~al th care costs, strengthening -Medicare and
saving Medicaid. W~ don't slash services for the elderly, we
mai11tain :t>,enefits by cutting costs.
Third, my plan cuts .taxes for the middle class -- not the
wealthy. We shouldn't cut educatio'n· or Medicare just· to give
.money to people'who.don't really need it. We should help middleclass Americans pay· for college '7- like the G. I ... Bill did for·
veterans after. World War II. ·
Fourth, we save money by cutting welfare, but we do.it by moving
people ·to'work --not just simply cutting people off or hurting
children. That will cost far.more money dOwn the road then it
will ever save.
-
Finally, as I said before, my plari will balance the budget in ten
years.· We could do it in seven years, as some people in Congres9
want, but there's no reason to inflict the pain that would
_require when we can balance the budget:. in ten years .
.Think about· it like this: If you had_ a steep credit card bill, .
you'd probably want to pay .i,t,off as fast as you cou~d --·without
.hurting your family~ .If the choice was: Pay it off in ten years
and send your daughter .to college, or pay it off in seven and
tell·your daughter to fend for herself, I don't think you'd have
a hard time choosing.
·
·
Now, don't let anybody fool you: Balancing the budget isn't going
to be a walk in the.park.
It requires real cuts, and it ~ill
certainly''cause real pain. The'difference between my plan and
Congressional plans is the difference between,necessary cutbacks
arid unacceptable pain.
If.we don't·waste.mon:ey on an excessive tax cut,·and if we cut
the deficit steadily for ten years, we can balance the budget
-without walking away from our veterans, our children, and our
elderly. That's what I think we s.hould do, /'and I believe that's
what 1 the American people wan~ us to .do.
·
Thanks for listening:
\
2
�THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 7, 1995
MEMORANDUM TO LEON PANETTA
_ffi
Ben-AJDi~
From:
Jeremy
Subject:
Radio Address on Zero Tolerance
We are ready to announce the President's support for "Zero
Tolerance" laws in Saturday's radio address. We have worked with
DOT on a draft of Presidential remarks that has been shared with
Speechwriting. We are inviting 10 representatives of groups that
will issue statements on Saturday supporting the President's
position. We are not planning any additional media work on
Friday around the taping of the address.
There are several points to.be noted in making this announcement
which have all been considered in deciding to move forward:
o Opposition to this will be swift from the states because of
the mandate issue.
o The President is asking Congress to pass this legislation,
but has not proposed it himself.
o The President will be committing himself to a goal and to
national action, but will not be addressing specifics, such
as whether to use sanctions or incenti v'es.
\.
'
o A Presidential statement on this may generate questions
about our position on efforts to repeal the speed limit and
the 21 drinking age.
The President has not previously taken
a position, but the natural outgrowth of this radio address
would be that he supports both despite the states'
objections to the federal requirements.
cc: Erskine Bowles
Harold Ickes
Carol Rasco
Mike McCurry
Mark Gearan
Marcia Hale
Don Baer
Rahm Emanuel
Bill Curry
Steve Silverman
�PRESIDENT WILLIAM J. CLINTON
1995 CONGRESSIONAL PICNIC
THE SOUTH LAWN
JUNE 20, 1995
Welcome. Good evening. Hillary and I are very glad.to have you
with·us tonight for our third.Congressional Picnic.
Put. aside d-ifferences •. Moments like this are .ali too rare in
. Washington -- and all the more important as a result.
It is good
for us to get together for the sqke of getting together.
I hope
everyone finds it as refreshing as I do to lay aside serious
issues for an evening, and simply enjoy ourselves together.
'
'
'
More in common than apart. I .know that we will always have our
differences and disagreements. ~ut nights like tonight help to
remi~d us that
io~ all those differences
we h~ve far mori
in common than we have· that divides ·us.
Wor~
towa.rds common goals. We have a chance to brea~ bread and
build bridges tonight. Let us leave here rededicated to the
pursuit of our constant,· common goal: To keep the American Dream
alive, and America the strongest nation, and most powerful force
for freedom in the world.
Thank you, God bless you all, and enjoy yourselves.
I .
�06/13/95
~002
22:03
Remarks
Pool Spray
Welfare R.eform Meeting .
June 14, 1995
Last night, I addressoo the nation about my plan to balance the budget by cutting
wasteful spending and giving the American people a government that reflects their priorities
and values.
No part of government cries out more for the cut-invest-and-.save approach than our
broken failed welfare system. Over the last two years, we have worked hard to reform
welfare. Last· year, I introduced the most sweeping welfare reform plan ever put forward by
a President. I have given 29 states freedom from federal rules and roo tape so they can
reform their own welfare systems. And we have broken the record for child support
collections through tough enforcement.
Today, I am joining with Senate Democrats to support a bold welfare reform plan that
ends the current welfare system by demanding work. As I've said all along, welfare reform
should help people earn a paycheck, not get a welfare check. Senator Daschle and [Breaux:
see note] his colleagues have developed a plan that has tough work requirements and real
time limits, and gives states the tools and incentives they need to move people to work.
The current Senate;bill still falls far short on work: According to the Congressional
Budget Office, only six states out of 50 would succeed in moving people .fr:om welfare to
work under that bill. That is simply not acceptable. Welfare reform sh9u~d not be a race to
the bottom; it should be a,trace to independence. The Daschle plan saves money, protects
children, and is serious al?.out work. That's what welfare reform is all about.
··:·
This is not-- and~qmst not be-- a partisan issue. I want Republicans to work with us
to reach agreement on a real, bipartisan welfare reform bill, and' to send it to me by July 4th
Then we can celebrate Independence Day by helping people move from dependence to
·
independence.
***
Dick:
Please call as soon as you .can. 456-2777
You should also know that Daschle, Breaux, Mikulski~ and Moynihan will be in the. room.
Bruce tells me the problem is this: Daschle, Breaux, and Mikulski wrote the bill together.
Moynihan doesn't support it If we don't mention Mikulski, we slight her·: If we mention
.·
everyone but Moynihan, we slight him.
Let us know what you want to do.
�\
,,;-:1
.
-------
-------
DRAFT
PRESIDENT WILLIAM J. CLINTON
REMARKS AT FORD MOTOR PLANT
EDISON, NEW JERSEY
JUNE 22, 1995
DRAFT
1
�[Acknowledgments: Ford VP Peter Pestillo, UAW
Chairman EarL Nail, Plant Manager Denton Grenke for
the introduction] I'm very glad to be here. Some of
you may know that there's a Ford near and dear to my
heart. I own a 1967 Mustang -- just like the Mustangs
-
..
made herein Edison from 1965 .- 1970. [Note: It was
-----------made in San Jose.]
.
I keep it qown in Arkansas. I
suspect that if people in Washington knew how I drove,
they'd be happy I ·kept it in Arkansas.
It's great to be here with Hillary. · Later tonight we're
going to be joined by the Gores. The last time the four
of us were together in New Jersey was the Sunday
before the 1992 election, for a terrific rally at the
Meadowlands.
2
�The reason ;I was here then, the reason I ran for
· · President, is that I didn't want our .children to .be the
first generation of Americans to do worse than their
c_~\~"-~L~t~ L~u."~\i-o~u, (l ~tu..~~
parents.~ I wanted to restore the American Dream so
America works well for all people who work hard. I
believe our fundamental mission is to preserve our
freedom, maintain our democracy, and give all.
Americans the chance to make the most of their own
lives.
Back in Washington we're in the midst of a .great
debate about the best way to do that. Some people
argue that America's real problems are all social,
cultural problems.
3
�They don't
,~hink
government should
play any role in ·
.
'
'
solving them --they want to turn out government's
lights and shut it down for good. They believe that if
everybody would just get up, go to work, and obey the
law, all our problems would be solved.
On one level, they're obviously right. Np government
. program can get you out of bed and in to work. No·
government program_can make you good parents. Our
problems will never be solved through purely political
. means -- we must demand more responsibility in
America, from all Americans. The old way of looking
/
'.
for a government-sponsored solution to every problem
isn't good enough anymore -- and it shouldn't be.
4
�At the same., time, it is also true that no one in America
'
-- no one -- got where he or she is today alone. To
believe otherwise is foolishness. We must make
America stronger so we can make individuals stronger.
The only. options are· not to shut government down or to
spend away our future. That's the kind of false
Washington choice the American people are tired of.
We have to cut government and invest in our future .
. I
I believe we must look beyond this debate, to transform
government into a partner with the American people.
We must get government out of places where it doesn't
belong. But we must also continue to doggedly pursue
the things that make America stronger.
5
�The heart of my economic strategy is straightforward:
Cut spending and balance the budget so we don't
mortgage our future. Invest in education, training, and
<zs-u ~t ~ tt~lliA ~tr l"-'~--U--'\
.
technology te=cr-eare-jobs and help Americans qualify
. .
·
·~ ~ t-'IJulUS~
· fer thCJn. Open borders~_expand(\trade~around the
world to strengthen our economy at home. That's the -
------------
.
way to help people make the most of their own lives.
-
-
--
.
.
a ha~f years, I've worked: To get
8% t~~ MfivJ t~ ~ . .
For the past two and
.
.
this economy going,\ to deal with-thelems· of the
, moment,and-to__keep our eyes on the long run._ When I
_-took-office, the government \Vas running a huge deficit
---and-tlu;budget--was grossly out of whack. Members of
both political parties share the blame for that.
-
'
6
�We're cuttiqg the deficit by over $1 Trillion in seven
years. The budget would be in balance today if it
weren't for the interest we pay on the debt run up in
the 12 years before I took office. And we're cutting in
a way that allows us to increase our investment in the .
American people: Expanding education, creating
incentives for R&D, et:tcouraging medical research.
T~cu;b <~~,e&O ~\~-W\< qa-w
·
~ Lu :.':> \~ 1 Wv !vUM.J ~
1
But our work is not yet done. Remember the goal:
..
'0~~"\)~ ~1 ~
.
Restore the American Dream.~ Promote better jobs and
higher incomes. Reinforce families and demand
__...,-r
responsibility~To do that, we must balance the budget.
Now, for the first time in a very long time, the leaders
of both politicaf parties share the will to balance the
budget.
7
�~----------------------..,--------
- - - -
The task ahead
is for us to seize that will, cast
.,
partisanship aside, and get the job done. We do have
real differences. There is no question in my mind that
we must balance the budget -:-- but I don't agree with.·
those who believe we should do. it with no regard to the
. consequence}[)First of all, there is nothing we can do
to help people make the· most of their own lives· that is
I
-
more important than education. So even .while my plan
cuts spending, I increase education -- and I make no
~-~.
l-\-8 st· +o &t ~'-''
bones about it. @6.L~-\;n~ ~-,}.~ ·
I want to cut taxes for middle-class Americans to help
..
them pay for education and college -- but I don't want
to cut Head Start or college loans to pay for
for wealthy Americans who don't need it.
8
a tax cut
�I want to cqntrol health care costs and strengthen
Medicare, not gut it with no thought ·about how it hurts
the elderly. ~ want to ~ave money by ·cutting welfare .
and- moving people to work, but I don't want to just cut
people off or hurt
~oney
children~
That will cost far more .
down the road then it will ever save. -- .
.I want to strengthen our economy with the right kind of .
balanced budget, not risk a recession with the wrong
kind of balanced
bu~get.
So my plan balances the
budget by cutting the deficit every year for ten years.
We could do it in seven years, as some in Congress
want. But there's no reason to runthe -risk of a
'
recession or to sacrifice important investmep.ts when we
can avoid that by doing it in ten
\~<n'-A~
years.~ ~u_t-~.~~
.
-
9
~ ~1LV\-
~- ll..U.~LU-i~~ 1---_
-~
~
·-'\
-
�Now don't J.cid yourselves: balancing the budget won't ·
be a walk in the park. There will be real cuts, and they
will cause real pain for just about everybody. But the
-
difference between my plan and congressional plans is
the difference between necessary cutbacks and
unacceptable pain.
There's one other thing that's essential for our people
. ~u~~ fu~Q_
to make the most of their own lives, and that's trad~ I
-
believe the facts ·are clear: Expanding trade is good for
America. When we open new markets, millions of new
·consumers can buy American products. When we sell
mo~e
American products, we create more jobs. Every
$1.Billion in new exports creates 17,000 new American
jobs.
10
�You know tpat exports mean jobs: The Rangers you
make here are sold in Brazil, Chile, Ar~entina, and
'
Mexico. 2(~ ~~ ~(Q___Q_\~
And the reason we can sell exports is
sim;::~:~1an
~
products are the best products in the world.'\ T!.L-he--=-:;re=-=ason
Jar that is simple tog: People like you make them that
~+L~\~~
.
.
.
wayA This plant in particular has been a leader in .
setting the very highest standards. You were one of the
first plants in the country to implement a stop-button
program, so that any worker can stop the line when
there's a problem.
That's the-kind of quality that makes you the very best
in the world at what you do.
11
�(
Of course~ I don't have to tell you that. Ford Motor
Company· tol~ you that this. morning when you became
the· fourth plant since 1982 to win the FTPM award for
quality. [Note: Ford Total Productive Maintenance;
------·
~
~hey know the acronym.]
You
sh~uld be very proud of
yourselves. Thank you. You make America proud.
Give yourselves a hand. You deserve it.
Now, if it's your job to make the best cars and trucks,
it's my job to make sure that you can sell them·
.
anywhere. That's why I have worked so hard to open
markets. And _we've put in place more than 100 trade
agreements in just over two years -- meaningful,
concrete pacts that create growth and jobs. for
Americans.
12
�-------------------
Today, open trade is flourishing around the globe -with one glaring
exceptio~:
Japan. Japan imports fewer
manufactured goods for its size than any other
industrialized country. Sometimes people said this
imbalance was our fault. They pointed out our deficit
was too high. ·As I've said, we're cutting the deficit.
~-·
Other people said· our products weren't competitive...
Let me say it again: The
p~oducts
you make can
compete and win anywhere in the world -- as long as
they're allowed in the game. The simple fact of the·
matter is: Too many of Japan's markets are tightly,
stubbornly, closed by artificial barriers. If Japan took
these barriers down, we would sell more American
products in Japan.
13
�We have made progress with Japan over the last two
and a half years. We've concluded 15 results-oriented ·
agreements. Now they eat American rice in Tokyo.
Japanese·consumers buy everything from our apples to
our semiconductors. But there are &till some serious
~iOblems -- and it's time for the Japanese to play by the
same rules the rest of us play by.
Japan's trade
barri~rs
are most unfair when it comes to
.
-
cars and car parts. . In 1973, U.S. exports were less
than one percent of Japan's auto market. Every
President since has tried to fix this problem and open
the Japanese market to American cars. Guess what kind
of market share we have today? A whopping 1.5·
percent.
14
I
�And in the last 25 years, while we shipped onl>'
400,000 cars to Japan, they've been able to ship forty
million cars to us. That's a 100:1 ratio.
c-'Q
01
!)
\tJ ~R~
l2 \~
&\~·, -~
This is a simple question of fairness. The American
auto market is open to Japanese products. The Japanese
auto market is closed to American products. That's
unfair.
We have tried to remedy this for a long time; I
.
.
. .. ~ ·..
believe we have tried long enough. Now we must act
decisively to level the playing field and protect
·American jobs. I ordered the.U.S. Trade Representative
to impose 100 percent tariffs on 13 Japanese-made
luxury ca~s by June 28 unless Japan agrees to open its
\
markets to cars and car parts before then.
~'.:)
.
Lc,_ '( (__(\__\__.\
c~~~
15
t L9 D0
()
jt\IA
DLN-\-
�- - - - - - - - - - -
---
-
Negotiation.s began again today, and I truly hope we
can come to a serious agreement. It will be good for
America -- and it will be good for Japan as well. Real
competition means lower prices for Japanese
consumers.
I
n'- A- 8\J (~c;
2
---~
But if we don't have a meaningful agreement by June
28, the sanctions wiJl go into effect. -Japan- is a valued
friend; our relationship is strong. But trade is a twoway street -- we will not continue to give Japan the
green light if they continue to put up stop signs.
All of you, and millions of other American· workers,
produce some of the best products in the world.
16
�-
--------------------------------------.
.,
.
That's why
~'m
fighting so hard to open trade, not just
with Japan, but everywhere. It is good for America. It
·helps to create jobs and raise incomes. It is only going
to get more important as we move into the next
century.
The future of our nation depends upon rewarding the
work of people like you. you and your families are the
· heart and soul ,of-America. We must work together,
"
·_always, to create the opportunities that give life to the
American Dream of the future.
Thank you and God bless you all.
17
�
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
Jonathan Prince
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Office of Speechwriting
Jonathan Prince
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1993-1998
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
<a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/36296" target="_blank">Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7763293" target="_blank">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2006-0466-F
Description
An account of the resource
Jonathan Prince served in various capacities during the two terms of the Administration. He was one of President Clinton’s speechwriters, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, and directed the public relations effort related to the fallout from the bombing of refugees by NATO forces during the war in Kosovo. This collection consists his speechwriting files which contain speech drafts, handwritten notes, memoranda, correspondence, publications, and schedules. Prince wrote most of President Clinton’s radio addresses from 1993-1997. He also specialized in dealing with domestic issues such as crime, gun control, unemployment, urban development, and welfare.
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.
187 folders in 11 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
June 1995 – [Radio Address] [2]
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Office of Speechwriting
Jonathan Prince
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2006-0466-F
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Box 6
<a href="http://www.clintonlibrary.gov/assets/Documents/Finding-Aids/2006/2006-0466-F.pdf" target="_blank">Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7763293" 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.
12/15/2014
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
42-t-7763293-20060466F-006-004-2014
7763293