-
https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/files/original/49fcb85cf601981195a66bb9896ce658.pdf
207ab07c1c9c93ffd332db936686f50e
PDF Text
Text
FOIA Number:
2006-0469-F (2)
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:
Speechwriting
Series/Staff Member:
Michael Waldman
Subseries:
OA/ID Number:
14450
FolderlD:
Folder Title:
[League of Cities Research]: POTUS League of Cities Speeches
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
S
92
4
2
2
�Administrnfion
vilify of credit for
nsinesses seeking
abiding connnitty of our financial
ailable to the priits costs, business
', ;uid create jobs
•. the new policies,
belief, and I think
sn t good enough
lowing a slight iniobless rate. We're
ricans are out of
eclare victory now.
ing up, uneiiiploywas at the depths
of the new jobs
wages and rarely
alth care coverage
ic recovery is the
•r proof that reid
nee a better econpeople.
illy lack the vision
• because they say
new money trying
lot that they have
ly grow, but they
'ortion o f our proemment spending,
ifference between
the difference bemnge. And clearly,
(o have the courage
•dont to invest our
n't do nothing, but
ut the other. The
ngress is the only
anced approach to
md we have to do
this call for a new
t your Representacritical cause of
way, taking charge
and investing today
~r tomorrow.
at 10:06 a.m. from
louse.
of William J Clinton,
1993 I Mar. 8
Letter to Representative Robert H. Michel on Justice Department Action
on the Trial of Representative Harold Ford
March 6, 1993
Dear Mr. Leader:
This is in response to the March 2 letter
from you and four of your colleagues. In that
letter you express concern about the process
which led the Departnient of Justice to object
to the impaneling of a virtually all-white jury
brought in from Jackson, Tennessee to try Congressman Harold Ford in Memphis, Tennessee.
Please be informed that when the White
House received inquiries concerning this jury
issue, they were referred, at the direction of
my Counsel, to (he Department of Justice for
whatever action the Department deemed proper. I have been informed by Counsel that the
White House made no recommendation to anyone at the Department of Justice as to how
this issue should be resolved.
The Acting Attorney General, Stuart Gerson
(who, as you know, was a senior member of
the prior Administration and will be leaving office when a new Attorney General is confirmed),
has informed us that he personally made the
decision to object to the impaneling of the jury
and that he did so strictly on the merits. When
he made his decision, Mr. Gerson wrote that
he was motivated by "a desire to achieve a principle of fairness and uniformity that reflects on
far more than this case" and his decision was
based on an "[iin]williiig[ness] to say on behalf
of the United States, that justice cannot be obtained from a Memphis jury or, indeed, from
the jury in any city." 1 am attaching a copy
of his written statement.
I have no reason to question this statement
by Mr. Gerson or his explicit assurance that
political considerations played no role in his decision.
Sincerely,
BILL CLINTON
NOTE- This letter was made available by the Office of the Press Secretary but was not issued as
a White House press release.
Remarks to the Legislative Conference of the National League of Cities
March 8, 1993
The President. Thank you very much, Mayor
Fraser, ladies and gentlemen. It's a great honor
for me to be here. This is a pretty rowdy bunch.
[Laughter] A vital group, a group more interested in change than in more of the status quo,
1 think. I look around this audience today, and
already, just walking in and looking in the crowd
and saying hello to people here at the head
table, i see people without whom I would not
be standing here today. I thank those of both
parties and those who run as independents for
your support of this plan. And I say again what
1 always feel when I'm with a group of people
from America's cities and small communities or
from the States, and that is 1 feel very much
at home.
A lot of times my friends ask me what's the
difference from being President and having any
other kind of job or the life you used to have.
The following thing occurred to me the other
day in the White House. I was down on the
ground floor; I had been out running or something, and I was going back up to get ready
to start the day's work. And a group of people
were coming out who had been at a meeting
there, at another meeting with other
people.
And I ran into them and stopped and shook
hands with them. It was totally an impromptu
thing. And this man who worked at the White
House said, "Mr. President, I'm really sorry that
you had to confront those people." And I said,
"That's all right. I used to be one once."
[Laughter] 1 look forward to being one again
someday. [iMtighter]
The work of this White House has been very
much influenced by many of you in this group.
And I assure you that you will be represented
in the future We have a strong intergovem-
249
�Mar. H I Administration
of William J. Clinton,
]993
mental affairs group that works every (lay with
leaders at the city and county and State level,
including Regina Montoya and l,oretta A vent,
who used to work for you. [Applause] Now,
we had a bet coming over here. 1 said, "Ijoretta,
if 1 mention your name, will they boo or clap?"
She won. [Laughter]
I came here today to ask you to translate
the support yon have given to the program 1
have preseiited to the Congress and to the
American people from support to a commitment
to secure its approval in the Congress and to
make the change that we. seek inevitable and
return to the status quo impossible.
All of you are on the frontlines of change.
Every day in every way you have to struggle
with the things which now confront me as your
President. For a long time you've been making
tough choices, struggling to balance your books,
trying to spend less on yesterday's mistakes and
more on tomorrow's needs. You try to pvit common sense into practice. And now I would like
you to ask to help make common sense more
common here in your Nation's Capital.
I think everyone now recognizes that we cannot continue on the past course. I f we keep
on doing just what we've been doing with no
fundamental changes, then by the end of the
decade the Government's annual deficit will be
$650 billion a year. We will be spending 20
percent of our Nation's income every year on
lealth care, and our nearest competitor will be
spending about 10 percent, and we'll be insuring
fewer people than any country with which we
compete. And over 20 cents of every dollar the
American people pay in taxes to the United
States Government will be expended just paying
interest on the vastly accumulated debt.
We've been spending too much and investing
too little for quite a long while now. And the
result has been slow growth and weak job creation. We've had our private sector handcuffed
by high interest rates and inadequate investment, a work force inadequate to the needs
of the 21st century and an economic program
equally inadequate. I f we keep on doing business as usual, we'll just stumble into the next
century burdened by the baggage of the past.
But i f we have the courage to change, the next
20 years could be the best in our Nation's history.
in it for us. And people have responded in astonishing ways but 1 suppose predictable
ways
if you look at the history of the American people. All across this country people have been
taking off their special interest hats and putting
on their thinking caps. Business and labor, Republicans and Democrats, people from every
walk of life and all points on the political spectrum have rallied behind this plan as a vehicle
to move this country forward. I think
everybody
who seriously thinks about it understands
that
the great issue now is no longer
Republican
versus Democrat, urban versus rural, liberal versus conservative. It is whether we will stay in
this gridlock that you have buttons
campaigning
against, or have the courage to change in ways
that allow all our people to live up to the fullest
of their potential. Even if I start preaching, I
promise not to pass the plate. [Laughter]
When I introduced my plan to the Congress
just 19 days ago, 1 asked all of us to ask of
this plan not what's in it for me but what's
And then there are those—and I want to talk
to you about them today because you are not
among them, but I need your help to deal with
250
You would be aimized how many times in
the last year I would be in a little town or
along some country crossroads and people would
say to me they were worried about what hap>ened in Los Angeles. You would be amazed
low many times I was in a community that
was 99 percent one ethnic group and somebody
would say they wished that we could work out
a way for the ethnic diversity of America to
be a source of our strength. You would be
amazed how many times I was in groups of
people, all of whom had incomes above
$150,000 a year, when they said to me, isn't
there something we can do about homelessness
in America. I think the people of this country
are dying to come together again and make this
country work again.
Nonetheless, let us be clear on this: There
are people who are honestly debating whether
this three-pronged plan is the right thing to
do for the country. There are some who say,
"Well, of course, I want you to cut spending.
And as a matter of fact, if you'll cut her spending more, you could cut mine a little less."
[Laughter] And there are others who say, "Well,
I know you have to raise taxes, but I wish you
wouldn't raise this one or that one so much.
Raise the upper income taxes less," or "Do away
with the energy tax," or "Put it all on gasoline,"
which is harder on the rural States and the
western States, "but let natural gas and oil o f f
the hook."
�Admiimtration
•'<: n'spoiulec) in as> • predictable ways
<
the Anierican peopeople have b(;en
st liats and putting
icss ami labor. Hepeople from ever)'
i the politieal specs plan as a vehicle
I think everybody
t understands that
longer Republican
is rural, liberal ver•er we will stay in
ittons campaigning
10 change in ways
^e up to the fullest
•itfrt preaehing, I
[Laughter]
w many times in
i a little town or
and people would
I about what hapwould be amazed
i comnnmity that
•up and somebody
e could work out
ly of America to
'• You would be
"as in groups of
incomes above
said to me, isn't
>out homelessness
ie of this country
tin and make this
•r on this: There
debating whether
e right thing to
' some who say,
to cut spending.
1 cut her spend1
'e a little less."
s who say, "Well,
, but I wish you
it one so much,
ss," or "Do away
idl on gasoline,"
States and the
I gas and oil o f f
id 1 want to talk
use you are not
•elp to deal with
it—who say, "Well, if you cut the spending and
raise the taxes and didn't invest any new money
in anything, you'd have more deficit reduction,"
or "If you cut the spending and didn't invest
any new money in anything, you wouldn't have
to raise quite so many taxes," ami "After all,
if the Government spends a dollar, it's Government spending."
One of the central debates now raging in this
Capital is whether there is any difference in
the kinds of Government spending. Is there a
distinction to be made between, for example,
spending more for the same health care every
year and accelerating the funding of the Surface
Transportation Act? Is there a distinction to be
made between a subsidy that was justified 50
years ago because we needed more wool in our
uniforms and a subsidy that might be justified
tomorrow to give to people who start new businesses and new high-tech enteqirises to grow
jobs for the future?
The people who say we do not need this
economic stimulus plan and we do not need
so much investment
either argue one of two
points. They either say, "All Government
spending is had, and there is no distinction to be
made," something until recent times every Republican and Democratic officeholder in America, from the top to the bottom, would have
disagreed with. Dwight Eisenhower knew there
was a difference between the interstate
highway
system and paying to maintain the status quo
of Government programs that didn't work. Everybody always recognized that distinction before, but there are a lot of people who have
had a lot of sway in this town for years now
who really argued that there are no distinctions
to be made. There are others who say, "Well,
the economy is recovering anyway and everything is going to be hunky-dory. So all you have
to do is worry about reducing the deficit." Now,
their view of what we ought to do might be
characterized
as "status quo lite."
[Laughter]
That is, "Yeah, I know you've got to change
on the cutting side, and maybe we have to have
a little tax increase, but there is no distinction
between kinds of Government
spending. And
besides, the economy is in great shape. We just
don't know it yet." [Laughter]
Now, let's be candid. We do have some good
economic news in the aggregate. And last
month, for the first time really in a very, very
long time, we had a significant number of new
jobs. But if you look behind those numbers,
of William J Clinton, 1993 I Mar 8
you see that while employment is edging up,
im awful lot of those jobs were part-time jobs
with part-time wages which rarely provide the
health care benefits that families so desperately
need today.
To build a stronger recovery with real'jobs
and rising incomes, we'll have to break the
gridlock that has paralyzed public action, cut
the deficit, and invest more in the future. I f
you look at our economic performance over the
last dozen years and you say, describe the ways
in which America has not been competitive with
other nations that are growing faster, and you
had to list them, you just think of what you
would list. You would say, well, the deficit grew
more rapidly than it did in Japan, for example.
And America spent a higher percentage of its
income on health care than any other country
in the world by far, even though we did less
with it in terms of covering people.
You'd also have to say, however, our investment in the things that make a country rich
and strong actually went down in several areas,
in our infrastructure, in K-tlirougli-12 education.
Nine nations in the world invest a higher percentage of their income in K-through-12 education than we do, even though we have more
diversity by race and income, which would argue
for greater efforts in our Nation.
I f you look at the United States budget just
over the last 4 years, you will see we spent
more on Medicaid and Medicare and food
stamps, with over 1 in 10 Americans on food
stamps, and more on interest in the debt, and
relatively less on everything else, the investments which would make us richer as a country,
which will grow the economy, which will put
people back to work, which will reduce our reliance on public assistance and increase our ability to support each other.
So I would argue to you, my fellow Americans, that we have to argue in this community
where the ultimate decision will be made: number one, that we need to pass the whole program; number two, there are jobs still begging
to be created out there; number three, there
are differences in the quality and character of
government spending, whether it is in the smallest community of this country or the United
States budget. There are differences.
The stimulus plan I have asked the Congress
to adopt, along with the spending cuts, the investment increase, and the tax increase itself,
will create a half a million new jobs in the
251
�Mar. 8 I Ar/mitmf ration o/ Wti/idm ]. ClinUm, 1993
sliort nm. Tlie economic program, i f it is fully
enacted, will create 8 million jobs over the long
run—that is, in this 4 year period—the vast majority of them in the private sector.
This plan is based on values that are central
to what makes America work and what has always made America work: work and family and
faith, responsibility and community and opportunity. I think the change obviously has to start
at the top. 1 have presented a budget which
in the next fiscal year will cut the White House
staff by 25 percent and save $10 million in privileges and perks and payroll. I have reduced
the administrative costs of the. executive branch
by 14 percent over 4 years and, by attrition,
payroll. 100,000 over 4 years, saving $9 billion.
I have asked the Congress to freeze the pay
of Federal employees next year and then to
lower it by one percent less than would otherwise be the cost of living for the succeeding
3 years, saving billions more dollars and asking
a substantial, a very substantial sacrifice from
the Federal work force because I thought that
was important before I could ask the taxpayers
to contribute more.
And last Wednesday, I asked the Vice President to head a national performance review of
every Government agency and every Govemment program, not simply to identify more specific spending cuts but also to identify services
that don't work and things that can be done
better, to do what the smartest private companies and the best local governments are already
doing: streamlining operations, eliminating unnecessary layers of management, empowering
frontline workers in holding our investments up
to the clear light of day to see whether they
make sense.
I have proposed already 150 specific spending
cuts, saving $247 billion. And that's much more
than the cost of the net new investments I have
proposed. I ask you to join me now in fighting
for these investments and in cutting back the
spending, hut not in doing one without the
other.
For example, our plan calls for ending the
designated project program at the Department
of Housing iuid Urban Development. It s lends
over $100 million a year without any pub ished
selection criteria or competitive procedures or
basic accountability. But i f you join me in cutting that program, I also ask that you support
what 1 know you believe in and what we have
to say to the Congress is worth doing: doubling
252
the number of housing vouchers for working
people on moderate incomes, creating a network
of community development banks, bringing new
opportunities to our communities through enterprise zones, and doing something to reinvigorate
the housing programs of this country. These
things can be done together.
I ask you to help me reduce low-priority highway demonstration projects by $1 billion; but
also for calling in the new investments we need,
we ought to fully fund the Surface Transportation Act, and do it quickly. And we should
recognize that transportation offers enormous
economic opportunities to increased productivity
and jobs. So we have to look at mass transit,
high-speed rails, smart cars, smart highways, and
commercial aviation as we move toward the 21st
century. I f we want this economy to grow, we
have to do those things.
This plan calls for cutting $300 million in
earmarked small business loans but also calls
for the most dramatic effort in the history of
America that I can determine, at least, from
our research, to help small business create jobs:
a permanent investment tax credit for small
businesses, 90 percent of the employers in this
country with 40 percent of the employees creating the vast majority of the new jobs; a new
venture cajital gains tax for people who will
start new businesses and have the courage to
begin being on the cutting edge of change; and
real steps which we will announce in a couple
of days to try to end the credit crunch and
the lack of availability of credit to small businesses who have to provide the jobs of today
and tomorrow.
In short, we have to cut, and we have to
invest. We have to reject trickle-down economics, and we have to reject tax-and-spend economics. We have to stop spending money on
things that don't work, but we have to continue
to invest in things that do.
A lot of the things that we propose to do
are literally direct investment incentives to the
private sector. 1 mentioned a couple already:
the $3 billion permanent small business investment tax credit; some significant changes in the
way taxes are computed for our larger businesses
so that when they do invest in new plant and
new equipment and new jobs for our people,
they will be rewarded, not punished, by the
tax system. I f people do what's right, they
should be supported. We should make a distinction between how private companies spend their
�Af/mi)iw(ratton
ucliers lor working
•. creating a network
banks, bringing new
"ties through enter(liing to reinvigorate
'lis country. These
ce low-priority liighI'y $1 billion; but
'vestments we need,
Surface Transporly. And we should
n offers enonnous
creased protluctMty
•ok at mass transit,
-inart highways, and
ove toward the 21.st
momy to grow, we
'g $300 million in
oans hut also calls
'
the history o f
ine, at least, from
msiness create jobs;
x credit for small
e employers in this
ie employees ereat' new jobs; a new
•r people who will
ive the courage to
dge of change; and
•ounce in a couple
credit crunch and
edit to small busi'be jobs of today
• and we have to
kle-down eeonomtax-and-spend eco'ending money on
e have to continue
we propose to do
t incentives to the
a couple already:
J l business investant changes in the
ir larger businesses
in new plant and
> for our people,
s
punished, by the
•vhat's right, they
ild make a distinc'I'anies spend their
money. And when they invest to grow and to
create jobs, they should be rewarded for that.
And that's what we're trying to do in the tax
system.
In addition to those things 1 have already
mentioned, 1 recommended a significant increase, about $2.5 billion—the first one in a
very long time, as all of you know—in the commimity development block grant program. 1 can
say with confidence as a Governor that that program was absolutely critical to helping many of
the smaller and moderate-sized communities in
my State attract new jobs in the tough decade
ol the 19.S()'s and that without it 1 do not know
if we would have been able to do so. There
are people in this audience from my State who
know that is true because they have personally
experienced it. And 1 think that is tme all across
the country.
We simply cannot afford not to invest what
it takes to make our communities attractive to
new businesses and new jobs. And i f anyone
here in this community tel s you that the economy i.s fine in America, tell them where you
live there's still a little work to be done.
I want to hammer this home as hard as 1
can. This is the first recovery, economic recover)', in my lifetime where i f you look at the
overall numbers, it really does look like a recovery is underway. Productivity is increasing.
American businesses are doing a better job. A
lot of things are going on, but the jobs themselves are not yet being created. And we are
facing other problems which may further put
pressure on some communities, including the
imperative of continuing to reduce the defense
budget. We have got to follow a jobs strategy.
We have got to do that.
Now, one of the things that I've tried to do,
as all of you know, is to reduce the deficit,
because if we do we'll reduce interest rates.
And if you keep interest rates down and people
go out and refinance their businesses, their
homes, their cars, their credit cards, they'll have
more cash. They can invest it and make this
economy grow. That is also hap jening.
Interest rates just since the e ection have gone
dossil, long term, almost one full point. I f we
can keep them down and everybody, all of you
and all of the people you represent, will go
out and refinance all the debt they've piled up
in the 1980's, that will free up another $80
billion to $90 billion to $100 billion this next
year to grow this economy. That's important.
of William ]. Clinion.
1993 I Mar. 8
but we also have to get some real investment
incentives, public and private. Unless we create
jobs, we cannot claim to have done anything
to promote an economic recovery that afffcts
the lives of the people that you see on the
street every day.
Let me also say, in addition to creating an
economic environment in which there is investment, we also have to do what we can in common to prepare our people for those challenges.
And we have to recognize the fact that, in many
ways, America has not done a good job of prelaring its peo lie. Example number one, to
jegin with chili ren, all the nations in this hemisphere, only two, only two, Haiti and Bolivia,
have lower immunization rates against preventable childhood diseases than the United States
of America, where all of the vaccine is made.
Only two. We have proposed in this program,
starting with the stimulus package, an effort that
will permit us over the next few years to immunize all the kids in this country against preventable childhood diseases.
The estimates are that for every $1 we spend
immunizing children against those diseases, we'll
save $10 down the road in the care that will
otherwise be spent on them. But in order to
make those estimates right, you have to have
a critical core threshold of young children who
are immunized. And we are running the risk
of falling dangerously below that threshold in
many areas and having new epidemics of disease
break out among our children simply because
we do not provide either the infrastructure in
order to do that or the affordability and availability of the vaccines. We must do that.
Let me give you one other example. The
Head Start program, where it is fully and firmly
implemented along with other support services,
plainly saves more money than it costs in the
terms of keeping kids in school and making
them successful, in helping them to graduate
and do well. And yet for years we've all talked
about fully funding the Head Start program and
supporting other efforts like in-school preschool
programs or parent-based preschool programs,
yet we've never really done it. Congress and
the previous administration did expand the Head
Start program some, but there are still enormous
numbers of children who are not able to access
those services. This budget starting this summer
fully funds the Head Start program. And we
ought to pass that.
I f we begin this summer and we work for
253
�Mar
8 I Aihnmistralion
of William ] Clinton. 1993
tlie next 3 years, just think what it will he like.
Wouldn't it be nice to be able to say we've
actually done something so we can go and work
on a new problem? Wouldn't it be nice if in
the next election cycle in 199fi. no one could
argue about Head Start or immunization; they
had to argue about something else? ll^anghtcr]
1 mean, somebody asked me one time what
my goal as President was, and I said that I'd
like to lea\'e my successor a new set of problems. [Uiuglitcr] You think about it.
This plan will create about 70(),()(K) summer
jobs for people in this country. And we are
attempting to mobilize private sector employers
to match what we're doing with the goal of
creating over a million jobs. Think about it.
Think about how many young people in this
country have been surrounded by devastating
economic conditions year in and year out for
the last several years. They flip on the television,
and they see another ad telling them what they
ought to say no to. Well, I'm all for telling
them what they ought to say no to. But I think
we should set an example and give them something to say yes to as well.
This plan will give our country the most ambitious system of lifelong learning we have ever
had: programs for high school dropouts and others to leam to read adequately and get their
high school equivalency; programs for young
people to be able to borrow the money they
need to go to college and pay it back on far
more favorable terms or with service to our
country here at home as police officers or teachers or in other forms of community service; programs for adults who lose their jobs because
of defense cutbacks or because of sweeping
changes in the global economy to get serious,
serious opportunities to retrain in areas where
there are jobs available, tied to incentives to
getting investments for those new jobs in their
communities. Not just talking about it; this plan
gets serious about it. We have almost $5 billion
for the retraining of adults in the work force
alone in the next 4 years in this program, and
it needs to pass.
And anybody who says that this recovery will
just do fine without a serious attempt to retrain
the work force has not been to California lately
to see what's happened in the industries where
the defense cuts occurred; have not been in
the rural parts of America to see what has happened when a lot of those low-wage, low-skilled,
ligh labor-intensive manufacturing plants closed
254
down and moved overseas with no plans to retrain or reinvest in those communities; or all
the places in-between.
*
T lere is too much work to be done. We need
a partnership, and it has to begin with making
sure the peo lie of this country can compete
and win in the global economy. And that requires some investment. And there is a difference between whether you spend money
making people stronger and smarter and safer
and more secure and more able to compete,
.md whether you just keep spending more
money on the same thing There is a difference.
And this prograin is different.
This plan will enable us over the next couple
of years to work with you to put 100,000 more
police officers on the streets of the cities of
this country. There are cities which have actually
seen a reduction in the crime rate, either in
specific neighborhoods or in the cities as a
whole, in the last few years, cities here represented in this room, when they've gone to
community policing strategies. You know it
works. I know it works. And we know most
cities don't have enough money to do it right.
We're going to help you through giving people
incentives who are coming out of the service
to be police officers, through giving people incentives to be police officers as a way of paying
for their college education, and through, I hope
and pray, passing the crime bill, which didn't
quite make it through last year, to put these
police officers on the street.
One of the most remarkable aspects of this
program is one that hasn't received a great deal
of attention and doesn't involve you directly,
but it will shape the communities you lead and
govern indirectly. And that is the astonishing
increase in this program in the refundable
earned income tax credit for working people,
not only to offset the impacts of the energy
tax on families with incomes under $30,000 but
also so that we can finally say in this country,
if this eamed-income tax credit passes as it will
be presented, that if you work 40 hours a week
and you have children in the home, you should
not be in poverty. And the tax system will lift
you out and reward work. It will reward work.
Imagine it! Just imagine, politicians for years
have been saying they wanted to reward work,
not welfare. Now, by adopting a simple bill that
says the tax system will reward work, not welfare, we can give people something new to argue
about. It would be a great thing to do.
s
�Administration
ill) no plans to reonmnniities; or all
IH- done. We need
begin with making
mtry can compete
omy. And that reid there is a difv'ou spend money
smarter imd safer
able to compete,
p spending more
:ere is a difference.
er the next couple
put 100,000 more
s of the cities of
•vhich have actually
me rate, either in
n the cities as a
cities here repu they've gone to
es. You know it
id we know most
ney to do it right
>ugh giving people
mt of the service
' giving people in;LS a way of paying
id through, 1 hope
bill, which didn't
•'ear, to put these
)le aspects of this
.eived a great deal
olve you directly,
lilies you lead and
is the astonishing
n the refundable
r working people,
cts of the energy
under $30,000 hut
iy in this country,
lit passes as it will
< 40 hours a week
home, yon should
ax system will lift
will reward work,
•liticians for years
1 to reward work,
; a simple bill that
rd work, not welhing new to argue
1 ask for your help again. The big issue is,
should we do all these things: Should we cut
spending; should we raise revenues; should we
increase investment so that the deficit goes
down while investment goes up. This country
has never tried to do this before. You've got
to be fair to the Members of the United States
Congress. We are asking them to do something
our country has never tried to do before, which
is to hammer the deficit down and increase investment significantly at the same time. But you
know where you live, you can see it every day
that we have to do both. We have to do both.
And so I say again in closing, 1 thank you
for your endorsement of this program. It made
me feel great. I want every Member of the
United States House and Senate to know that
you not only endorsed it but that you believe
in it, not just because of what you get out of
it but
Audience member. What about drugs?
The President. You want to talk? I'll be glad—
this program has a lot in it, actually, about
dnigs. It has a significant increase in funds for
drug treatments and gives you, through providing 100,000 more police officers, the power to
combat drugs on the street. It does both things.
It increases enforcement and treatment, which
I would think you would want.
But that makes a good point: Is that spending,
or is that an investment? You have to decide.
But you have got to give the Congress courage
to do this. Anc you have to help people understand that in this group there were Republicans
and Democrats and city people and country people, people from the frost belt and the sun
belt and the mst belt and the Bible belt, people
of William j. Clinton, 1993 I Mar. 8
like me that have to get bigger belts every year.
[I^aughter] You c;m do that. And i f we can do
that, we've got a real shot to sit here in honest
discussion year in and year out and face these
problems.
,
You know, how many years have you been
coming up here and listening to this debate,
iuid it doesn't bear any relationship to the life
you live when you go back home? How many,
really? I mean, whether it's a discussion about
drugs where somebody just talks about getting
tough on crime and nobody ever gets down to
what they're going to do to help you deal with
the problem where you live; or jobs, and somebody rails against taxes and the deficit, and then
every year the deficit goes up and so do taxes.
Or just how many years have you been coming
here listening to these debates when nothing
ever changed?
And I just want to tell you, as I said to the
Congress, there is plenty of blame to go around;
this is not about party. And I don't care who
is to blame. I'm prepared to take responsibility.
I'm more than willing to face the heat, and
if something goes wrong, I ' l l take responsibility
for that and change it. But let's do something,
and let's do it now.
Thank you.
NOTE: The President spoke at 1:15 p.m. at the
Washington Hilton. In his remarks, he referred
to Donald M . Fraser, Mayor of Minneapolis, M N ,
and president of the National League of Cities;
Regina Montoya, Assistant to the President for
Intergovernmental Affairs; and Loretta Avent,
Special Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs.
Exchange With Reporters Prior to a Meeting With the Congressional Black
Caucus
March 8, 1993
Spending
Cuts
Q. Mr. President, do you agree to the extra
$50 billion in cuts that the House and Senate
leaders want?
Tlie President. 1 agree that we will have a
budget resolution which will be roughly con-
forming to the reestimates of the CBO in general terms and that will still contain the investment strategy that I want to pursue.
NOTE: The exchange began at 5:11 p.m. in the
Roosevelt Room at the White House.
g to do.
255
�Dec. 2 I Administration of William J. Clinton, 1994
Teleconference Remarks With the National League of Cities
December 2, 1994
The President. Thank you very much, Carolyn
In recent days, we've had a string of indicaLong Banks, and thank you all for that veiy tors that show just how strong this recovery has
warm welcome. I wish you the best in your been. This moming we have the latest job fignew job, Carolyn, as league president. I want ures that show strong success in building good
to say to all of you, I wish I could be there jobs for Americans. Unemployment is down to
in Minneapolis with my many friends in the 5.6 percent, the lowest it's been in iVz years.
National League of Cities.
Since I became President, our economy has proI'd like to say a special word of hello to two duced 5.2 million new jobs. So far this year,
of your members of die board of directors there have been more new jobs created in highwhom I have known for a very long time, from wage industries than in the previous 5 years
my home State, Sharon Priest, the city director combined. Manufacturing jobs are up for 11
of Litde Rock, and Martin Gipson, alderman consecutive months for the first time in more
in North Little Rock. I'd also like to say a spe- than a decade. And more construction jobs have
cial word of thanks to your outgoing president, been created this year alone than in the previous
Sharpe James, who's been a good friend of 9 years combined.
mine. And because of his leadership and the
Our strategy of opening up foreign markets
leadership of other league members, we now to our goods and services has certainly contribhave the toughest and smartest crime bill in uted to this success. In just a year, NAFTA
our history. I thank you for that, Sharpe, and has created an estimated 100,000 new jobs. And
I thank all of you.
yesterday, with strong bipartisan support, we
I have long admired the work of the National took an historic step and passed the GATT
League of Cities. As a Governor, I worked with world trade agreement, which will create hunmany of you on many tough issues. And as dreds of thousands of good jobs here in AmerPresident, I'm committed to doing all I can to ica.
Despite these successes, you and I both know
face those issues with you in a genuine spirit
of partnership. To do that, I believe, as many there are too many hard-working Americans who
of you do, uiat while Government cannot be are still deeply anxious about their economic
society's savior, neither can it sit on the side- futures and their families. I understand that.
For 20 years, stagnant wages and a declining
lines.
Our job, yours and mine, is to create oppor- rate of job security have taken a terrible toll.
tunity, to remove barriers to that opportunity, As our workers face these terrible changes and
to give our people the tools they need to make these exciting challenges of the global economy,
the most of their lives. When it comes to our they are righdy worried about how they and
cities, we've developed a public-private partner- their children will adjust. We know that male
ship designed to provide opportunity where it's workers without a college education have actumost needed. We've encouraged businesses to ally seen a decline in their earnings over the
take root and grow in neglected communities. last 10 years. And we know that most working
With the Community Development and Regu- families are actually working more; they have
latory Improvement Act, we're steering billions less leisure time. We also know that this is the
of dollars in private investment to the places only advanced country in the world where workpeople need it the most. And very soon, we'll ing people are actually losing ground in terms
announce the winners of our empowennent of their health coverage. A million Americans
zones and enterprise communities. We're help- in working families lost health insurance last
ing Americans to rebuild the American dream year alone. That's why, even as we open up
for themselves. The most important thing we trade and create jobs, we've got to work hard
can do, what we've been working to do since to help Americans adjust to these changes so
the beginning of our administration, is to create that they can win in the global economy.
high-quality, high-wage jobs, jobs that enable
The most important thing we can do is to
our people to build good lives for themselves. help our people to leam the skills they need
2138
�Administmtion of Wiliiam J Clinton, 1994 I Dec 2
^ of indicaccovery lias
est job figilding good
is down to
4 /2 years,
my has pror this year,
led in high> s 5 years
u
up for 11
ie in more
n jobs have
he previous
l
gn markets
nly contribir, NAFTA
.v jobs. And
tipport, we
the GATT
create hune in Amerboth know
ericans who
r economic
-stand that,
a declining
errible toll,
hanges and
J economy,
v they and
• that male
have actu;s over the
ost working
they have
this is the
/here workid in terms
Americans
urance last
e open up
work hard
changes so
ny.
n do is to
they need
to compete and win in the years to come. That's
the idea behind the education and training programs we've worked so hard for in the 103d
Congress: a big expansion of Head Start; the
Goals 2000 program with its high national standards; the elementary and secondary education
reform act, with its grassroots refonns; more
computers for our schools; things like charter
schools, more public school choice, better education for poor children; character education in
our schools. That's what's behind our determination to give more affordable loans for millions
and millions of middle class students to go to
college. It's behind the national service act,
AmeriCoqis, which allows tens of thousands of
our young people to earn money for their college education by serving their communities at
the grassroots level. And it's what's behind our
apprenticeship programs for people who don't
go to college but do want to have good jobs
and good skills.
a priority early, early in the next session of Congress.
We should also continue to cooperate on
health care reform. The American people still
want it, and they still need it. We have to fin<J
a way to provide working families with that help.
We can't continue to be the only advanced
country in the world where more and more
working people are losing their health insurance
every year and where the cost of health care
is going up at 3 times the rate of inflation.
And for small businesses, health insurance premiums this year went up at almost 5 times the
rate of inflation. When the health of the American people and working families suffer, the
health of our economy suffers. All of you know
that more and more of our Federal budget is
going to health care. Medicare, Medicaid,
they're die fastest increasing areas of die Federal budget. We've held everything else constant
or reduced it. So we need to find ways that,
The strength of all diese programs is that step by step, we can in a bipartisan spirit make
they're rooted in the idea that individual citizens progress on this.
and communities can decide how best to build
We also have to find ways to cooperate on
their own futures. Now for you, nothing in our
agenda may be more important than our efforts welfare reform. We have to build a strong
to fight crime. The crime bill we passed is the bridge from dependency to work for millions
crime bill many of you helped to write. It's of Americans. We have to attack problems that
a model for how we must continue to reinvent feed dependency, including the runaway probour Government to meet the needs of our peo- lem of teen pregnancies. I've been working on
ple and to move power out of Washington back this welfare reform issue for more than a decade
to the grassroots. We're moving quickly to put now. I know that the people on welfare over100,000 more police on the street and to insti- whelmingly want to get off. We have got a systute our prevention and our punishment pro- tem that was designed for another age, as so
grams. And we're paying for it by reducing the many governmental systems are, and we need
Federal work force by 272,000 positions to its to change it dramatically to make it rooted in
smallest level since President Kennedy. Already, independence and responsibility, not to subthere are more than 70,000 fewer people work- sidize dependence. Every American wants this,
ing for the Federal Government than there were and we're going to do it and do it together.
on the day I was inaugurated President. And
On these and many, many other issues, I hope
every dollar we save is going back to you, going and believe we can cooperate with the new Conback to grassroots communities who know best gress. But cooperation for me cannot mean
how to fight crime in the streets. That's a good abandoning principle, abandoning the hard work
deal. It will work for America.
we have already accomplished together in our
We've made a good beginning on crime, a fight to restore our economy, our fight against
good beginning on the economy. But to do crime, our fight to give this country back to
more, I hope we can continue the spirit of co- hard-working people who play by the rules. I
operation with die new Congress that we've will oppose any efforts to take us back on those
seen on GATT this week. I hope we can find issues. We've worked too hard to build an ecocommon ground on your concerns about un- nomic recovery and a job strategy and to reduce
funded Federal mandates which I have long op- this deficit that 12 years of irresponsible exploposed, the Glenn-Kempthome legislation would sive spending left us. And I will fight efforts
restrict these mandates. And we're working
that jeopardize the strategy to create jobs, fight
closely with the lawmakers to make this bil
efforts that will explode the deficit, fight efforts
2139
�Dec. 2 I Adtrdnl'Hraiion of William ). Clinton, 1994
that will put new burdens on the backs of our
children.
The assault weapons ban that you helped to
win stands between the citizens you and I must
protect and the gangs and thugs that would terrorize them. 1 will do all in my power to keep
the next Congress from doing anything that wi 1
jeopardize the safety of our people.
And I truly hope the new Congress understands how important these things are to the
American people and to their elected representatives at the grassroots level. We've made a good
beginning to build together, and we have to
get on with the job. It's no secret that the landscape in Washington shifted dramatically last
month. But what must not shift is my commitment and your commitment to continue to work
for what will actually help hard-working, middle
class Americans restore the hope that they can
keep the American dream alive and that will
provide opportunities and insist on responsibilities for others to move into that great middle
class.
What must not change is our conviction that
we work best when we work together as partners and when we all share responsibility. Diversity of government is the great genius of the
American system. From the smallest of our communities to the biggest of our cities to the statehouses and to the Halls of Congress and the
White House, no part of our effort can be isolated. That's why we must keep talking with
one another and listening to one another and
working together.
If we work at all our levels, we can help
take America in the direction it must move.
We can help our people find the best path on
to the bright new century that awaits us. We
can give the American people a smaller Government, a more entrepreneurial Government, a
more flexible Government that reflects their values and promotes their interests, if we do it
together.
Thank you very much. Thank you.
[Mayor Allen asked about changing the Federal
Government's pattern of preempting local autltorily. ]
Tlie President. I'd like to suggest three things.
First of all, we need to pass a sensible unfunded
mandate bill. We need to get on with that area.
Secondly, we need to continue the work we
are doing here in Washington to tty to increase
our capacity to give more flexibility to State
and local governments to take their own initiatives in areas of national interest where the circumstances are different from locality to locality.
Let me just give you an example. Our administration has given 20 States the waiver authority
to create dieir own welfare reform programs,
in 9 States the authority to create their own
health care reform programs. We're examining
things that we can do to accelerate that process
and to help local governments, cities as well
as States, in that process. I think that the American people know there are great national purposes we must pursue but that they differ in
their facts from place to place.
And the third thing I think we have to do
is to set up a much better system of consultation
with local government before Congress enacts
laws or the Federal executive branch enacts regulations that can affect you. And let me just
give you one example. You mentioned one, so
I'll use the one and tty to show the example
that I mean. In the telecommunications legislation that was proposed last year but not quite
passed, there would have been some restriction
on the ability of local government to confine
access to local cable channels. It was not an
intended intrusion on the right of local government but rather the desire to build a true information superhighway with very few barriers to
access all across America. There may be an argument for not doing that. And one of the
diings I hope we can do is to get together
with administration officials and interested people in Congress and representatives of local government early, early next year so that we can
[At this point, the moderator introduced the parhear your concern about that. And I feel the
ticipants. ]
same way about land use, zoning issues, and
Q. Mr. President, I'm Lucy Allen, mayor of other things.
Lewisburg, North Carolina, where the red carI don't believe we ought to be out here passpet will always be out should you choose to ing laws or adopting regulations until there has
visit.
been a real effort to resolve differences at the
The President. Thank you. You know, I've al- local level. Because if there is one thing that's
ways felt especially safe in North Carolina. clear from this election and from the mounting
[Laughter]
frustrations of mayors and Governors and county
2140
�Administration of William J. Clinton, 0)94 I Dec. 2
ig ttie Federal
'ing Ux:al otiI tliree tilings,
ible unfunded
vith that area.
the work we
ry to increase
•ility to State
:ir own initiavhere the cirlity to locality.
Our adinin.iiver authority
rm programs,
ile their own
re examining
c that process
cities as well
hat the Amernational purthey differ in
e have to do
)f consultation
ngress enacts
ch enacts regI let me just
ioned one, so
the example
ations legislabut not quite
me restriction
ut to confine
: was not an
local govem1 a true inforw barriers to
lay be an arone of the
get together
iterested peo; of local govthat we can
id I feel the
» issues, and
•ut here passitil there has
rences at the
: thing that's
he mounting
rs and county
oflicials iill across America over the last 10 to
15 yours, it is that people want most decisions
that affect their lives made by that level of government as close to them as possible. If it can
be done by something outside the government,
that's what they want. But if it's a governmental
decision, they'd like it made as close to them
as possible. So our job is to help see that that
is accomplished.
On the other hand, diis telecommunications
issue is a great national enterprise. Creating the
information superhighway wiU create jobs and
opportunity for Americans; it will allow poor
children in little isolated rural places access to
information that was formerly the province of
the wealthiest people in the most well-funded
school districts in America. This can do a great
thing for our country, but we have to do it,
as I said, in partnership. And I'll do my best
to do that with you.
Thank you very much.
Q. Thank you, Mr. President.
that track. I'm trying to turn it around in the
other way. I don't think people ought to be
spending over 20 percent of their income tax
payments every year just paying interest on ^he
debt that was piled up in that period.
So while I favor a middle class tax cut and
I don't rule out woridng with the Republican
Congress on some of their ideas, my standard
will be; Will it help increase incomes for the
middle class, will it promote jobs and growth,
and can we pay for it? That will be my standard.
If we do it in that way, I think that the municipalities will be all right, except that we're going
to have to cut a lot of spending up here. And
especially, I would urge our friends in the National League of Cities who are in the Republican Party, to make sure that the Congress understands what the consequences are of all diese
budgetary decisions.
I can't predict what will happen. All I can
tell you is, I want better tax fairness, I want
to do something that increases middle class incomes, I want a dividend from the end of the
[A porticipanl asked about proposed middle class
cold war and the downsizing of the Federal
tax cuts and their impact on local economies.]
Government.
The President. Well, there are a lot of tax
We made a beginning last year, by the way,
cut proposals around, as you know, in the Con- when we cut taxes on 15 million working famigress. And the Republican contract calls for sev- lies, with 50 million people in them, with ineral hundred billion in tax cuts. I can't remem- comes of up to $27,000. But we have to do
ber the exact figure. There's already been a bill more. I think there's a way to do it in ways
introduced to cut income taxes 20 percent across that will actually help the economic climate of
the board.
our cities, by putting more money into the pockThe first thing I want to say is that I think ets of your citizens, if we do it with real diswe need more tax fairness in the Federal Tax cipline and care. But again, as you implied in
Code, we need to give hard-working middle your question, there are consequences to all
class people a dividend from the end of the these decisions, especially if we're going to be
cold war and the dramatic downsizing of the disciplined and pay for them. So I would say
Federal Government that is going on. They that the National League of Cities ought to ask
haven't really received it yet. And I think that's to be a partner with Congress in the decisions
very, very important.
about how the taxes are going to be cut and
I also think, however, that most hard-working what the implications for the cities are. I hope
Americans have a vested interest in seeing us you will ask for that partnership, and our door
keep this deficit under control. In a couple of will always be open to you.
years, interest payments on the debt will be
Thank you.
greater than the defense budget because of the
explosion of debt that grew up between 1981 NOTE: Tlie President spoke at 10:36 a.m. by satand 1993, when the Federal deficit, national ellite from Room 459 of the Old Executive Office
debt, was quadrupled. We cannot continue on Building to the meeting in Minneapolis, MN.
2141
�THE WHITE HOUSE
O f f i c e o f t h e Press S e c r e t a r y
For Immediate Release
December 2, 1994
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
TO THE NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES
VIA SATELLITE FROM WHITE HOUSE TO MINNEAPOLIS
Room 459, Old E x e c u t i v e O f f i c e B u i l d i n g
10:36 A.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you v e r y much, C a r o l y n Long Banks, and
thank you a l l f o r t h a t v e r y warm welcome.
I w i s h you t h e b e s t i n y o u r
new j o b , C a r o l y n , as League P r e s i d e n t . I want t o say t o a l l o f you, I
w i s h I c o u l d be t h e r e i n M i n n e a p o l i s w i t h my many f r i e n d s i n t h e
N a t i o n a l League o f C i t i e s .
I ' d l i k e t o say a s p e c i a l word o f h e l l o t o two o f y o u r members
of t h e Board o f t h e D i r e c t o r s whom I have known f o r a v e r y l o n g t i m e
from my home s t a t e -- Sharon P r i e s t , t h e C i t y D i r e c t o r o f L i t t l e Rock;
and M a r t i n Gipson, Alderman i n N o r t h L i t t l e Rock.
I ' d a l s o l i k e t o say a s p e c i a l word o f thanks t o y o u r o u t g o i n g
p r e s i d e n t , Sharpe James. He's been a good f r i e n d o f mine. And because
o f h i s l e a d e r s h i p o f o t h e r League members, we now have t h e t o u g h e s t and
s m a r t e s t Crime B i l l i n our h i s t o r y .
I thank you f o r t h a t , Sharpe, and I
thank a l l o f you. (Applause.)
I have l o n g admired t h e work o f t h e N a t i o n a l League o f C i t i e s .
As a governor, I worked w i t h many o f you on many tough i s s u e s . And as
P r e s i d e n t , I'm committed t o d o i n g a l l I can t o face those i s s u e s w i t h
you i n a genuine s p i r i t o f p a r t n e r s h i p . To do t h a t , I b e l i e v e , as many
of you do, t h a t w h i l e government cannot be s o c i e t y ' s s a v i o r , n e i t h e r can
i t s i t on t h e s i d e l i n e s .
Our j o b -- yours and mine -- i s t o c r e a t e o p p o r t u n i t y , t o remove
b a r r i e r s t o t h a t o p p o r t u n i t y , t o g i v e our people t h e t o o l s t h e y need t o
make t h e most o f t h e i r l i v e s . When i t comes t o our c i t i e s , we've
developed a p u b l i c - p r i v a t e p a r t n e r s h i p designed t o p r o v i d e o p p o r t u n i t y
where i t ' s most needed. We've encouraged businesses t o t a k e r o o t and
grow i n n e g l e c t e d communities. W i t h t h e Community Development and
R e g u l a t o r y Improvement A c t , we're s t e e r i n g b i l l i o n s o f d o l l a r s i n
�p r i v a t e investment t o the p l a c e s people need i t t h e most. And v e r y
soon, w e ' l l announce t h e winners of our empowerment zones and e n t e r p r i s e
communities.
We're h e l p i n g Americans t o r e b u i l d the American Dream f o r
themselves.
The most i m p o r t a n t t h i n g we can do, what we've been w o r k i n g
t o do s i n c e t h e b e g i n n i n g o f our a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , i s t o c r e a t e h i g h q u a l i t y , high-wage j o b s -- j o b s t h a t enable our people t o b u i l d good
l i v e s f o r themselves.
I n r e c e n t days, we've had a s t r i n g o f i n d i c a t o r s t h a t show j u s t
how s t r o n g t h i s r e c o v e r y has been. T h i s morning we have t h e l a t e s t j o b
f i g u r e s t h a t show s t r o n g success i n b u i l d i n g good j o b s f o r Americans.
Unemployment i s down t o 5.6 p e r c e n t , the lowest i t ' s been i n f o u r and a
h a l f years.
Since I became P r e s i d e n t , our economy has produced 5.2 m i l l i o n
new j o b s . So f a r t h i s year, t h e r e have been more new j o b s c r e a t e d i n
high-wage i n d u s t r i e s than i n the p r e v i o u s f i v e years combined.
M a n u f a c t u r i n g j o b s are up f o r 11 c o n s e c u t i v e months f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e
i n more t h a n a decade. And more c o n s t r u c t i o n j o b s have been c r e a t e d
t h i s year alone t h a n i n the p r e v i o u s n i n e years combined.
Our s t r a t e g y o f opening up f o r e i g n markets t o our goods and
s e r v i c e s has c e r t a i n l y c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h i s success. I n j u s t a year,
NAFTA has c r e a t e d an e s t i m a t e d 100,000 new j o b s . And y e s t e r d a y , w i t h
s t r o n g b i p a r t i s a n s u p p o r t , we took an h i s t o r i c s t e p and passed t h e GATT
World Trade Agreement, which w i l l c r e a t e hundreds o f thousands o f good
j o b s here i n America.
D e s p i t e these successes, you and I b o t h know t h e r e are t o o many
h a r d - w o r k i n g Americans who are s t i l l deeply anxious about t h e i r economic
f u t u r e s and t h e i r f a m i l i e s .
I understand t h a t .
For 20 y e a r s , stagnant
wages and a d e c l i n i n g r a t e o f j o b s e c u r i t y have t a k e n a t e r r i b l e t o l l .
As our workers face these t e r r i b l e changes and these e x c i t i n g c h a l l e n g e s
of t h e g l o b a l economy, t h e y are r i g h t l y w o r r i e d about how t h e y and t h e i r
children w i l l adjust.
We know t h a t male workers w i t h o u t a c o l l e g e e d u c a t i o n have
a c t u a l l y seen a d e c l i n e i n t h e i r e a r n i n g s over t h e l a s t 10 y e a r s , and we
know t h a t most w o r k i n g f a m i l i e s are a c t u a l l y w o r k i n g more, t h e y have
l e s s l e i s u r e t i m e . We a l s o know t h a t t h i s i s the o n l y advanced c o u n t r y
i n t h e w o r l d where w o r k i n g people are a c t u a l l y l o s i n g ground i n terms o f
t h e i r h e a l t h coverage. A m i l l i o n Americans i n w o r k i n g f a m i l i e s l o s t
h e a l t h i n s u r a n c e l a s t year alone. That's why, even as we open up t r a d e
and c r e a t e j o b s , we've got t o work hard t o h e l p Americans a d j u s t t o
these changes so t h a t t h e y can win i n the g l o b a l economy.
The most i m p o r t a n t t h i n g we can do i s t o h e l p our people
to
�l e a r n t h e s k i l l s t h e y need t o compete and win i n t h e years t o come.
That's t h e idea behind t h e e d u c a t i o n and t r a i n i n g programs we've worked
so h a r d f o r i n t h e 103rd Congress - - a b i g expansion o f Head S t a r t , the
Goals 2000 program w i t h i t s h i g h n a t i o n a l s t a n d a r d s .
The Elementary and
Secondary E d u c a t i o n Reform A c t , w i t h i t s grass r o o t s r e f o r m s . More
computers f o r our s c h o o l s . Things l i k e c h a r t e r s c h o o l s , more p u b l i c
s c h o o l c h o i c e , b e t t e r e d u c a t i o n f o r poor c h i l d r e n . Character e d u c a t i o n
i n our s c h o o l s . That's what's behind our d e t e r m i n a t i o n t o g i v e more
a f f o r d a b l e loans f o r m i l l i o n s and m i l l i o n s o f m i d d l e - c l a s s s t u d e n t s t o
go t o c o l l e g e .
I t ' s behind t h e N a t i o n a l S e r v i c e A c t , AmeriCorps, which a l l o w s
t e n s o f thousands o f our young people t o earn money f o r t h e i r c o l l e g e
e d u c a t i o n by s e r v i n g t h e i r communities a t the grass r o o t s l e v e l .
And
i t ' s what's b e h i n d our a p p r e n t i c e s h i p programs f o r people who don't go
to c o l l e g e , b u t do want t o have good j o b s w i t h good s k i l l s .
The s t r e n g t h o f a l l these programs i s t h a t t h e y ' r e r o o t e d i n the
i d e a t h a t i n d i v i d u a l c i t i z e n s and communities can decide how best t o
b u i l d t h e i r own f u t u r e s . Now, f o r you, n o t h i n g i n our agenda may be
more i m p o r t a n t than our e f f o r t s t o f i g h t crime. The Crime B i l l we
passed i s t h e crime b i l l many o f you helped t o w r i t e .
I t ' s a model f o r how we must c o n t i n u e t o r e i n v e n t our government
to meet t h e needs o f our people and t o move power out o f Washington back
to t h e grass r o o t s . We're moving q u i c k l y t o put 100,000 more p o l i c e on
the s t r e e t and t o i n s t i t u t e our p r e v e n t i o n and our punishment programs.
And we're p a y i n g f o r i t by r e d u c i n g the f e d e r a l work f o r c e by 272,000
p o s i t i o n s t o t h e s m a l l e s t l e v e l s i n c e P r e s i d e n t Kennedy.
A l r e a d y , t h e r e are more than 70,000 fewer people w o r k i n g f o r the
f e d e r a l government than t h e r e were on the day I was i n a u g u r a t e d
P r e s i d e n t . And every d o l l a r we save i s g o i n g back t o you, g o i n g back t o
grass r o o t s communities who know best how t o f i g h t crime i n t h e s t r e e t s .
That's a good d e a l . I t w i l l work f o r America.
We've made a good b e g i n n i n g on crime, a good b e g i n n i n g on the
economy. But t o do more, I hope we can c o n t i n u e t h e s p i r i t o f
c o o p e r a t i o n w i t h the new Congress t h a t we've seen on GATT t h i s week. I
hope we can f i n d common ground on your concerns about unfunded f e d e r a l
mandates, which I have l o n g opposed; t h e Glenn-Kempthorne l e g i s l a t i o n
would r e s t r i c t these mandates. And we're w o r k i n g c l o s e l y w i t h t h e
lawmakers t o make t h i s b i l l a p r i o r i t y e a r l y , e a r l y i n t h e next s e s s i o n
of Congress.
(Applause.)
We s h o u l d a l s o c o n t i n u e t o cooperate on h e a l t h care r e f o r m .
The
American people s t i l l want i t , and t h e y s t i l l need i t . We have t o f i n d
a way t o p r o v i d e w o r k i n g f a m i l i e s w i t h t h a t h e l p . We can't c o n t i n u e t o
be t h e o n l y advanced c o u n t r y i n the w o r l d where more and more w o r k i n g
�people are l o s i n g t h e i r h e a l t h insurance e v e r y year, and where t h e c o s t
of h e a l t h care i s g o i n g up a t t h r e e times t h e r a t e o f i n f l a t i o n .
And
f o r s m a l l businesses, h e a l t h i n s u r a n c e premiums t h i s year went up a t
almost f i v e t i m e s t h e r a t e o f i n f l a t i o n . When t h e h e a l t h o f t h e
American people and w o r k i n g f a m i l i e s s u f f e r , t h e h e a l t h o f our economy
suffers.
A l l o f you know t h a t more and more of our f e d e r a l budget i s
g o i n g t o h e a l t h c a r e . Medicare, M e d i c a i d -- t h e y ' r e t h e f a s t e s t
i n c r e a s i n g areas o f t h e f e d e r a l budget. We've h e l d e v e r y t h i n g e l s e
c o n s t a n t o r reduced i t . So we need t o f i n d ways t h a t , s t e p by s t e p , we
can, i n a b i p a r t i s a n s p i r i t , make p r o g r e s s on t h i s .
We a l s o have t o f i n d ways t o cooperate on w e l f a r e r e f o r m . We
have t o b u i l d a s t r o n g b r i d g e from dependency t o work f o r m i l l i o n s o f
Americans.
We have t o a t t a c k problems t h a t f e e d dependency, i n c l u d i n g
the runaway problem o f t e e n pregnancies. I've been w o r k i n g on t h i s
w e l f a r e r e f o r m i s s u e f o r more t h a n a decade now.
I know t h a t t h e people
on w e l f a r e o v e r w h e l m i n g l y want t o get o f f . We have g o t a system t h a t
was designed f o r another age, as so many governmental systems a r e , and
we need t o change i t d r a m a t i c a l l y t o make i t r o o t e d i n independence and
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , not t o s u b s i d i z e dependence. Every American wants t h i s ,
and we're g o i n g t o do i t
-- and do i t t o g e t h e r . (Applause.)
On these and many, many o t h e r i s s u e s , I hope and b e l i e v e we can
cooperate w i t h t h e new Congress. But c o o p e r a t i o n f o r me cannot mean
abandoning p r i n c i p l e , abandoning t h e hard work we have a l r e a d y
accomplished t o g e t h e r i n our f i g h t t o r e s t o r e our economy, our f i g h t
a g a i n s t c r i m e , our f i g h t t o g i v e t h i s c o u n t r y back t o h a r d - w o r k i n g
people who p l a y by t h e r u l e s .
I w i l l oppose any e f f o r t s t o t a k e us back on those i s s u e s .
We've worked t o o hard t o b u i l d an economic r e c o v e r y and a j o b s t r a t e g y
and t o reduce t h i s d e f i c i t t h a t 12 years o f i r r e s p o n s i b l e e x p l o s i v e
spending l e f t us. And I w i l l f i g h t e f f o r t s t h a t j e o p a r d i z e t h e s t r a t e g y
t o c r e a t e j o b s , f i g h t e f f o r t s t h a t w i l l explode t h e d e f i c i t , f i g h t
e f f o r t s t h a t w i l l p u t new burdens on t h e backs o f our c h i l d r e n .
The a s s a u l t weapons ban t h a t you helped t o w i n stands between
the c i t i z e n s you and I must p r o t e c t and t h e gangs and thugs t h a t would
t e r r o r i z e them. I w i l l do a l l i n my power t o keep t h e n e x t Congress
from d o i n g a n y t h i n g t h a t w i l l j e o p a r d i z e t h e s a f e t y o f our people.
(Applause.)
And I t r u l y hope t h e new Congress understands how i m p o r t a n t
these t h i n g s are t o t h e American people and t o t h e i r e l e c t e d
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s a t t h e grass r o o t s l e v e l . We've made a good b e g i n n i n g
t o b u i l d t o g e t h e r , and we have t o get on w i t h t h e j o b . I t ' s no s e c r e t
�t h a t t h e landscape i n Washington s h i f t e d d r a m a t i c a l l y l a s t month.
But what must not s h i f t i s my commitment and your commitment t o
c o n t i n u e t o work f o r what w i l l a c t u a l l y h e l p hard w o r k i n g , m i d d l e - c l a s s
Americans r e s t o r e the hope t h a t t h e y can keep t h e American dream a l i v e
and t h a t w i l l p r o v i d e o p p o r t u n i t i e s and i n s i s t on r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s f o r
o t h e r s t o move i n t o t h a t g r e a t middle c l a s s .
What must not change i s our c o n v i c t i o n t h a t we work b e s t when we
work t o g e t h e r as p a r t n e r s , and when we a l l share r e s p o n s i b i l i t y .
D i v e r s i t y o f government i s the g r e a t genius o f the American system -from t h e s m a l l e s t o f our communities t o t h e b i g g e s t o f our c i t i e s , t o
the s t a t e houses and t o the h a l l s o f Congress and t h e White House, no
p a r t o f our e f f o r t can be i s o l a t e d . That's why we must keep t a l k i n g
w i t h one another and l i s t e n i n g t o one another and w o r k i n g t o g e t h e r .
I f we work a t a l l our l e v e l s , we can h e l p t a k e America i n t h e
d i r e c t i o n i t must move. We can h e l p our people f i n d t h e b e s t p a t h on t o
the b r i g h t new c e n t u r y t h a t a w a i t s us. We can g i v e t h e American people
a s m a l l e r government, a more e n t r e p r e n e u r i a l government, a more f l e x i b l e
government, t h a t r e f l e c t s t h e i r v a l u e s and promotes t h e i r i n t e r e s t s -i f we do i t t o g e t h e r .
Thank you v e r y much.
(Applause.)
Thank you.
Q
Mr. P r e s i d e n t , I'm Lucy A l l e n , Mayor o f Lewisburg, N o r t h
C a r o l i n a , where t h e r e d c a r p e t w i l l always be out s h o u l d you choose t o
visit.
(Laughter and applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
e s p e c i a l l y safe i n N o r t h C a r o l i n a .
You know, I've always f e l t
(Laughter and applause.)
Q
Thank you.
You have j u s t expressed a commitment t o
p a r t n e r s h i p which i s g r a t i f y i n g f o r us t o hear.
However, over t h e past
decade, we have experienced a g r e a t e r f e d e r a l i n t r u s i o n i n t o home r u l e
t h a n ever b e f o r e . The f e d e r a l unfunded mandates, which you've
mentioned, and a growing f e d e r a l preemption o f our r o l e and our
t r a d i t i o n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s have caused us g r e a t concern.
We would l i k e t o
need t h e t o o l s . We need
zoning a u t h o r i t y w i t h o u t
emerging i s s u e s such as
be p a r t n e r s i n g o v e r n i n g e f f e c t i v e l y , b u t
t o be able t o use our most b a s i c l a n d use
i n t e r f e r e n c e . We need t o be p a r t n e r s i n
telecommunications.
we
and
What can we expect from you and your a d m i n i s t r a t i o n t o change
�t h e d i s t u r b i n g p a t t e r n t h a t we have seen i n f e d e r a l government,
preempting l o c a l a u t h o r i t y ?
THE PRESIDENT: I ' d l i k e t o suggest t h r e e t h i n g s . F i r s t of a l l ,
we need t o pass a s e n s i b l e unfunded mandate b i l l .
We need t o get onto
t h a t -- (applause.)
Secondly, we need t o c o n t i n u e t h e work we are doing
here i n Washington t o t r y t o i n c r e a s e our c a p a c i t y t o g i v e more
f l e x i b i l i t y t o s t a t e and l o c a l governments t o t a k e t h e i r own i n i t i a t i v e s
i n areas o f n a t i o n a l i n t e r e s t where the circumstances are d i f f e r e n t from
l o c a l i t y to locality.
Let me j u s t g i v e you an example. Our a d m i n i s t r a t i o n has g i v e n
20 s t a t e s t h e waiver a u t h o r i t y t o c r e a t e t h e i r own w e l f a r e r e f o r m
programs; i n n i n e s t a t e s the a u t h o r i t y t o c r e a t e t h e i r own h e a l t h care
r e f o r m programs. We're examining t h i n g s t h a t we can do t o a c c e l e r a t e
t h a t process and t o h e l p l o c a l governments -- c i t i e s as w e l l as s t a t e s - i n t h a t process.
I t h i n k t h a t t h e American people know t h e r e are g r e a t n a t i o n a l
purposes we must pursue, but t h a t t h e y d i f f e r i n t h e i r f a c t s from p l a c e
to place.
And t h e t h i r d t h i n g I t h i n k we have t o do i s t o s e t up a much
b e t t e r system of c o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h l o c a l government b e f o r e Congress
enacts laws o r t h e Federal E x e c u t i v e Branch enacts r e g u l a t i o n s t h a t can
a f f e c t you.
(Applause.)
And l e t me j u s t g i v e you one example. You mentioned one, so
I ' l l use t h e one and t r y t o show the example t h a t I mean. I n t h e
t e l e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s l e g i s l a t i o n t h a t was proposed l a s t y e a r b u t n o t q u i t e
passed, t h e r e would have been some r e s t r i c t i o n on t h e a b i l i t y of l o c a l
government t o c o n f i n e access t o l o c a l cable channels.
I t was not an
i n t e n d e d i n t r u s i o n on t h e r i g h t of l o c a l government, but r a t h e r , the
d e s i r e t o b u i l d a t r u e i n f o r m a t i o n superhighway w i t h v e r y few b a r r i e r s
t o access a l l across America. There may be an argument f o r not d o i n g
t h a t . And one of t h e t h i n g s I hope we can do i s t o get t o g e t h e r w i t h
a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f f i c i a l s and i n t e r e s t e d people i n Congress and
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of l o c a l government e a r l y , e a r l y next year so t h a t we
can hear y o u r concern about t h a t . And I f e e l the same way about l a n d
use, zoning i s s u e s and o t h e r t h i n g s .
I don't b e l i e v e we ought t o be out here p a s s i n g laws o r a d o p t i n g
r e g u l a t i o n s u n t i l t h e r e has been a r e a l e f f o r t t o r e s o l v e d i f f e r e n c e s a t
t h e l o c a l l e v e l . Because i f t h e r e i s one t h i n g t h a t ' s c l e a r from t h i s
e l e c t i o n and from the mounting f r u s t r a t i o n s of mayors and governors and
county o f f i c i a l s a l l across America over the l a s t 10 t o 15 y e a r s , i s
t h a t people want most d e c i s i o n s t h a t a f f e c t t h e i r l i v e s made by t h a t
l e v e l o f government as c l o s e t o them as p o s s i b l e . I f i t can be done by
something o u t s i d e the government, t h a t ' s what t h e y want. But i f i t ' s a
�governmental d e c i s i o n , they'd l i k e i t made as c l o s e t o them as p o s s i b l e .
So o u r j o b i s t o h e l p see t h a t i s accomplished.
On t h e o t h e r hand, t h i s telecommunications i s s u e i s a g r e a t
n a t i o n a l e n t e r p r i s e . C r e a t i n g t h e i n f o r m a t i o n superhighway w i l l c r e a t e
j o b s and o p p o r t u n i t y f o r Americans, i t w i l l a l l o w poor c h i l d r e n i n
l i t t l e i s o l a t e d r u r a l p l a c e s access t o i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t was f o r m e r l y t h e
p r o v i n c e o f t h e w e a l t h i e s t people i n t h e most
w e l l - f u n d e d school d i s t r i c t s i n America. T h i s can do a g r e a t t h i n g f o r
our c o u n t r y , b u t we have t o do i t , as I s a i d , i n p a r t n e r s h i p , and I ' l l
do my b e s t t o do t h a t w i t h you.
Thank you v e r y much.
Q
(Applause.)
Thank you, Mr. P r e s i d e n t .
Q
Mr. P r e s i d e n t , I'm Max W e l l s , a Councilman from D a l l a s ,
Texas. Your S e c r e t a r y o f t h e Treasury has i n d i c a t e d t h a t you w i l l be
p r o p o s i n g a m i d d l e - c l a s s t a x c u t . C l e a r l y , these t a x c u t s w i l l have b i g
i m p l i c a t i o n s t o l o c a l and s t a t e governments. Could you t e l l us your
p o s i t i o n w i t h r e g a r d t o these v a r i o u s proposed c u t s , and what p o s i t i o n
you w i l l t a k e w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e p o t e n t i a l impact i t w i l l have on l o c a l
economies?
THE PRESIDENT: W e l l , t h e r e a r e a l o t o f t a x c u t p r o p o s a l s
around, as you know, i n t h e Congress. And t h e Republican c o n t r a c t c a l l s
f o r s e v e r a l hundred b i l l i o n i n t a x c u t s -- I can't remember t h e exact
f i g u r e . There's a l r e a d y been i n t r o d u c e d t o c u t income t a x e s 20 p e r c e n t
across t h e board.
The f i r s t t h i n g I want t o say i s t h a t I t h i n k we need more t a x
f a i r n e s s i n t h e f e d e r a l t a x code, we need t o g i v e h a r d - w o r k i n g middlec l a s s people a d i v i d e n d from t h e end o f t h e Cold War and t h e d r a m a t i c
d o w n s i z i n g o f t h e f e d e r a l government t h a t i s g o i n g on -- t h e y haven't
r e a l l y received i t yet.
(Applause.) And I t h i n k t h a t ' s v e r y , v e r y
important.
I a l s o t h i n k , however, t h a t most hard-working Americans have a
v e s t e d i n t e r e s t i n seeing t h i s d e f i c i t under c o n t r o l .
I n a couple o f
y e a r s , i n t e r e s t payments on t h e debt w i l l be g r e a t e r t h a n t h e defense
budget, because o f t h e e x p l o s i o n o f debt t h a t grew up between 1981 and
1993, when t h e f e d e r a l debt, n a t i o n a l debt, was quadrupled.
We cannot
c o n t i n u e on t h a t t r a c k .
I'm t r y i n g t o t u r n i t around i n t h e o t h e r way.
I don't t h i n k people ought t o be spending over 20 p e r c e n t o f t h e i r
income t a x payments every year j u s t p a y i n g i n t e r e s t on t h e debt t h a t was
p i l e d up i n t h a t p e r i o d .
So w h i l e I f a v o r a m i d d l e - c l a s s t a x c u t , and I don't r u l e o u t
w o r k i n g w i t h t h e Republican Congress on some o f t h e i r i d e a s , my s t a n d a r d
�w i l l be: w i l l i t h e l p i n c r e a s e incomes f o r t h e m i d d l e c l a s s , w i l l i t
promote j o b s and growth, and can we pay f o r i t ? That w i l l be my
s t a n d a r d . I f we do i t i n t h a t way, I t h i n k t h a t t h e m u n i c i p a l i t i e s w i l l
be a l l r i g h t , except t h a t we're g o i n g t o have t o c u t a l o t o f spending
up here. And, e s p e c i a l l y , I would urge our f r i e n d s i n t h e N a t i o n a l
League o f C i t i e s who are i n t h e Republican P a r t y , t o make sure t h a t t h e
Congress understands what t h e consequences are o f a l l these b u d g e t a r y
decisions.
I can't p r e d i c t what w i l l happen. A l l I can t e l l you i s , I want
b e t t e r t a x f a i r n e s s , I want t o do something t h a t i n c r e a s e s m i d d l e - c l a s s
incomes, I want a d i v i d e n d from t h e end o f t h e Cold War and t h e
d o w n s i z i n g o f t h e f e d e r a l government.
We made a b e g i n n i n g l a s t year, by t h e way, when we c u t taxes on
15 m i l l i o n w o r k i n g f a m i l i e s , w i t h 50 m i l l i o n people i n them, w i t h
incomes o f up t o $27,000. But we have t o do more.
I do n o t - - I t h i n k
t h e r e ' s a way t o do i t i n ways t h a t w i l l a c t u a l l y h e l p t h e economic
c l i m a t e o f o u r c i t i e s , by p u t t i n g more money i n t o t h e pockets o f your
c i t i z e n s , i f we do i t w i t h r e a l d i s c i p l i n e and c a r e . But a g a i n , as you
i m p l i e d i n your q u e s t i o n , t h e r e are consequences t o a l l these d e c i s i o n s ,
e s p e c i a l l y i f we're g o i n g t o be d i s c i p l i n e d and pay f o r them. So I
would say t h a t t h e N a t i o n a l League o f C i t i e s ought t o ask t o be a
p a r t n e r w i t h Congress i n t h e d e c i s i o n s about how t h e t a x e s are g o i n g t o
be c u t and what t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r t h e c i t i e s a r e . I hope you w i l l
ask f o r t h a t p a r t n e r s h i p , and our door w i l l always be open t o you.
Thank you.
(Applause.)
END10:53 A.M.
EST
�THE
WHITE HOUSE
O f f i c e o f the Press S e c r e t a r y
For Immediate Release
March 13, 1995
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
TO THE NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES
The Washington H i l t o n
1:02
P.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you v e r y much, Carolyn, f o r t h a t warm
i n t r o d u c t i o n . And thank you, l a d i e s and gentlemen, f o r t h e
w o n d e r f u l welcome you have g i v e n me. I'm g l a d t o be here on t h i s
podium w i t h a l l your o f f i c e r s , i n c l u d i n g Mayor Lashutka o f
Columbus. D i d I pronounce t h a t r i g h t ? Close?
Lashutka.
I j u s t had t h e Nebraska f o o t b a l l team -- (applause) --over
a t t h e White House -- l o t o f p r a c t i c e pronouncing names t h i s
morning.
(Laughter.) The Nebraska f o o t b a l l team are so b i g ,
t h a t ' s t h e o n l y group o f people i n American I c o u l d s t a n d w i t h
and l o o k l i k e t h e r e s i d e n t b a l l e t dancer.
(Laughter.)
Mayor James, i t ' s good t o see you here, and a l l t h e o t h e r
mayors who are here, and a l l o f the o t h e r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f t h e
c i t i e s and towns o f our c o u n t r y .
I l i k e t o come here and meet w i t h you because you d e a l w i t h
people a t t h e l e v e l where you can have the g r e a t e s t c o n t a c t w i t h
them. When I was governor, n o t h i n g was more i m p o r t a n t t o me t h a n
a c t u a l l y b e i n g a b l e t o spend a l o t o f t i m e w i t h t h e c i t i z e n s a t
t h e grass r o o t s community l e v e l who were i n t e r e s t e d i n s o l v i n g
the problems o f people. And I've always s a i d t h a t one o f t h e
t h i n g s I l i k e most about the j o b I used t o have and one o f t h e
t h i n g s I l i k e l e a s t about the j o b I have now i s t h a t t h e c l o s e r
you get t o t h e people, the l e s s p o l i t i c a l the work i s . And t h e
c l o s e r you get t o Washington, the more p o l i t i c a l i t becomes.
The most f r u s t r a t i n g t h i n g about b e i n g P r e s i d e n t i s t h a t I
don't get enough time t o speak w i t h o r d i n a r y Americans i n terms
t h a t t h e y can understand about what we're t r y i n g t o do up here.
A l t h o u g h I must say, when I was d r i v i n g up here today, I t h o u g h t ,
these l o c a l o f f i c i a l s may be out o f touch, t o o -- t h i s i s t h e
most b e a u t i f u l we've had i n Washington i n s i x months.
(Laughter.) And here you are l i s t e n i n g t o a p o l i t i c i a n i n s i d e -( l a u g h t e r ) -- I don't know.
You have t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o see people s t r u g g l i n g t o keep
t h e American Dream a l i v e everyday.
And when you t h i n k o f these
�i s s u e s , i t must s t u n you a t times what you hear i n t h e news about
what's g o i n g on up here, when i t seems t o r h e t o r i c a l .
Because I
know when you t h i n k o f these i s s u e s you know a name, you see a
f a c e , you know a l i f e s t o r y . That g i v e s meanings t o t h e problems
t h a t we are d e a l i n g w i t h . And I t h i n k Washington has s u f f e r e d
g r i e v o u s l y from l o s i n g t h a t c o n n e c t i o n , l o s i n g t h a t t o u c h w i t h
the people who sent us here, and t r y i n g t o communicate w i t h
people from such a l o n g way away over the mass media t h r o u g h so
many m i l l i o n s o f c o n f l i c t i n g messages w i t h h i g h l e v e l s o f
rhetoric.
I want t o t r y t o move back from t h a t today and j u s t t o speak
f r a n k l y about t h e choices t h a t we face here and t h e choices t h a t
you face i n d o i n g your j o b and how we b o t h can make t h e r i g h t
d e c i s i o n s . As we s t a n d on the edge o f a new c e n t u r y and a new
m i l l e n n i u m , I t h i n k t h e r e are two g r e a t t a s k s f a c i n g America and
our g e n e r a t i o n . The f i r s t i s t o make sure t h a t we e n t e r t h e next
c e n t u r y w i t h t h e American Dream a l i v e and w e l l f o r a l l o f our
people -- f o r t h e middle c l a s s whose i n t e r e s t s are so o f t e n
f o r g o t t e n , f o r those who are s t r u g g l i n g t o make i t i n t h e g l o b a l
economy, f o r a l l t h e poor people i n t h i s c o u n t r y who are w o r k i n g
hard t o p l a y by the r u l e s and t o l i v e up t o t h e i r God-given
capacity.
The second t h i n g we have t o do i s t o make sure we e n t e r t h e
next c e n t u r y making sure t h a t America i s s t i l l t h e s t r o n g e s t
c o u n t r y on E a r t h , s t i l l the g r e a t e s t f o r c e i n the w o r l d f o r
freedom and democracy and o p p o r t u n i t y . There are two g r e a t
t h r e a t s t o t h i s endeavor. One i s the s t a g n a t i o n o f middle c l a s s
economics. The o t h e r i s t h e e r o s i o n o f mainstream v a l u e s .
And t h e t h i r d t h i n g t h a t I want t o t a l k t o you about i s t h e
f a c t t h a t t h e government has o f t e n made these problems worse, not
b e t t e r , i n t h e l a s t s e v e r a l y e a r s . So we have t o ask o u r s e l v e s ,
what can we do t o r e s t o r e middle c l a s s economics, t h e o p p o r t u n i t y
p a r t o f t h e American Dream? And what can we do t o r e s t o r e
mainstream v a l u e s , t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y p a r t o f t h e American Dream?
And what k i n d o f government changes do we need here t o make sure
we're good p a r t n e r s w i t h the American people, where you l i v e and
work.
For t h e l a s t 2 0 y e a r s , most people have worked t h e same
hours, o r even l o n g e r hours, f o r t h e same o r even lower, wages.
There i s a new c l a s s o f permanently poor people, m o s t l y young
women and t h e i r s m a l l c h i l d r e n . And t h e y ' r e growing. And t h e
a n x i e t i e s o f people are pronounced, e c o n o m i c a l l y . Even i n t h i s
t i m e o f economic r e c o v e r y , people w o r r y about d o w n s i z i n g
everywhere and whether t h e y r e a l l y count i n the workplace
anymore. And t h e r e i s a huge i n e q u a l i t y growing among our
workers, where those w i t h good e d u c a t i o n and those capable o f
l e a r n i n g new s k i l l s t e n d t o get good j o b s w i t h growing incomes
and those w i t h o u t t e n d t o be s t u c k i n a r u t f o r e v e r .
�We have a l l t h i s good news. We had -- i n 1993, we haven't
g o t t e n t h e '94 f i g u r e s y e t -- i n '93 we had t h e l a r g e s t number o f
new businesses s t a r t e d i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s o f America i n any
y e a r i n our h i s t o r y .
(Applause.) And t h a t ' s something t o be
proud o f . (Applause.)
But we a l s o see people s t r u g g l i n g j u s t t o h o l d on and t o
m a i n t a i n t h e i r l i f e s t y l e , even though i n many f a m i l i e s b o t h t h e
husband and t h e w i f e are w o r k i n g and h a v i n g l e s s and l e s s t i m e t o
spend w i t h t h e i r c h i l d r e n .
On t h e s o c i a l f r o n t , t h e v a l u e s we a l l c h e r i s h -- work and
f a m i l y and community -- are t h r e a t e n e d as crime and v i o l e n c e and
drug use r i s e s a l l across America. And even when i t f a l l s , i t ' s
s t i l l t o h i g h . The r a t e o f c h i l d r e n t h a t are b o r n o u t o f wedlock
c o n t i n u e s t o go up. Our s o c i a l problems, i n many ways, seem more
p r o f o u n d today t h a n t h e y have i n a l o n g t i m e .
And you see t h e
community, r o o t e d i n
v a l u e s and a l a c k o f
t h e t h i n g s t h a t made
200 y e a r s .
t r a d i t i o n s of breakdown i n f a m i l y ,
a l o s s o f a l l e g i a n c e t o these mainstream
o p p o r t u n i t y . T h i s i s a dangerous e r o s i o n o f
America g r e a t and kept us s t r o n g f o r over
We are now i n t h e midst o f a g r e a t debate here i n Washington
about what we ought t o do about t h i s .
How can we make t h e good
t h i n g s more p r e s e n t and how can we reduce t h e bad t h i n g s i n
America?
How can we do t h e t h i n g s we need t o do t o keep t h e
American Dream a l i v e and keep our c o u n t r y s t r o n g ? How we answer
these q u e s t i o n s w i l l say an a w f u l l o t about what k i n d o f people
we're g o i n g t o be and what k i n d o f c o u n t r y we're g o i n g t o pass on
t o our c h i l d r e n i n t h e 21st c e n t u r y .
There i s on one s i d e o f t h e debate, on t h e extreme, t h e o l d ,
and now d i s c r e d i t e d , Washington view, t h a t a b i g , b u r e a u c r a t i c ,
o n e - s i z e - f i t s - a l l government can p r o v i d e b i g s o l u t i o n s t o a l l
America's b i g problems, and maybe t o some o f America's n o t so b i g
problems.
The o t h e r extreme i s t h e view of t h e Republican C o n t r a c t ,
t h a t government i s t h e source o f a l l t h e problems; and i f we
c o u l d j u s t g e t r i d o f i t c o m p l e t e l y , o r a t l e a s t reduce t h e
f e d e r a l government's spending r o l e , every problem i n American
would m i r a c u l o u s l y s o l v e i t s e l f .
I have a d i f f e r e n t view, and i t ' s p r o b a b l y r o o t e d i n t h e
f a c t t h a t I d i d n ' t l i v e and work here u n t i l two y e a r s ago.
My
view i s r o o t e d i n t h e f a c t t h a t my e x p e r i e n c e s as a Governor o f a
s m a l l s t a t e are much more l i k e yours t h a n t h e y are l i k e most o f
the people who make most o f t h e d e c i s i o n s i n t h i s community.
I
t h i n k we have t o c h a r t a course between and beyond t h e o l d way o f
�big
government and t h e new rage o f no government.
No g r e a t c o u n t r y can s u r v i v e w i t h o u t a n a t i o n a l government
t h a t i n t h e i n f o r m a t i o n age i s more l i m i t e d b u t i s s t i l l s t r o n g
and e f f e c t i v e . We do have, a f t e r a l l , common problems as a
people. We have common o p p o r t u n i t i e s . And these r e q u i r e a
common response. We need t h e government, i n s h o r t , t o be a
p a r t n e r w i t h people i n t h e i r p r i v a t e l i v e s as c i t i z e n s , a p a r t n e r
w i t h s t a t e and l o c a l government, a p a r t n e r w i t h a l l o f us.
I b e l i e v e i n a government t h a t promotes o p p o r t u n i t y and
demands r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , t h a t d e a l s w i t h middle c l a s s economics
and mainstream v a l u e s ; a government t h a t i s d i f f e r e n t r a d i c a l l y
from t h e one we have known here over t h e l a s t 3 0 t o 4 0 y e a r s , b u t
t h a t s t i l l understands i t has a r o l e t o p l a y i n o r d e r f o r us t o
b u i l d s t r o n g communities t h a t a r e t h e bedrock o f t h i s n a t i o n .
1
T h a t s what t h e New Covenant I t a l k about a l l t h e t i m e i s
r e a l l y a l l about -- more o p p o r t u n i t y and more r e s p o n s i b i l i t y .
Our j o b i s t o work t o g e t h e r t o grow t h e middle c l a s s , t o
s h r i n k t h e under c l a s s , t o expand o p p o r t u n i t y and t o s h r i n k
bureaucracy, t o empower people t o make t h e most o f t h e i r own
l i v e s . We can't g i v e any guarantees i n t h i s r a p i d l y changing
w o r l d , b u t we can g i v e people t h e c a p a c i t y t o do f o r themselves.
And we must do t h a t -- a l l o f us must do i t .
And f i n a l l y we have t o work t o enhance o u r s e c u r i t y on o u r
own s t r e e t s and around t h e w o r l d . I b e l i e v e , i n s h o r t , t h a t t h e
r o l e o f t h i s government i s t o be a p a r t n e r i n t h e f i g h t f o r t h e
f u t u r e , n o t a s a v i o u r -- i t can't be t h a t -- b u t n o t a s p e c t a t o r
on t h e s i d e l i n e s e i t h e r . We've t r i e d t h a t and i t d i d n ' t work o u t
very w e l l .
We must face t h e f a c t t h a t we l i v e i n a c e r t a i n h i s t o r i c a l
p e r i o d i n which t h e economy i s g l o b a l , t h e i n f o r m a t i o n age means
t h a t t h e b a s i s o f most w e a l t h i n t h e f u t u r e w i l l be knowledge,
and t h a t we can be f a r more d e c e n t r a l i z e d and f l e x i b l e t h a n we
ever have been b e f o r e . No one w i l l ever a g a i n have t o r e l y on a
d i s t a n t bureaucracy t o s o l v e every problem i n today's r a p i d l y
changing environment.
We have t o focus more on e q u i p p i n g people w i t h t h e r e s o u r c e s
t h e y need t o t a c k l e t h e i r own problems, and t o g i v e people t h e
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o determine how best t o do t h a t . We have t o send
more and more d e c i s i o n s back, n o t o n l y t o s t a t e and l o c a l
government, b u t t o c i t i z e n s themselves.
We must c u t spending. We must c u t government.
But I
b e l i e v e we must a l s o i n v e s t more i n j o b s , incomes, t e c h n o l o g y ,
e d u c a t i o n and t r a i n i n g . That's what w i l l make us w e a l t h y .
(Applause.)
�I r a n f o r P r e s i d e n t because I f e l t these c h a l l e n g e s were n o t
b e i n g met. Because I f e l t t h a t t h e r e was no economic s t r a t e g y
f o r p u t t i n g our people f i r s t .
We had 12 years o f t r i c k l e - d o w n
economics i n which t h e d e f i c i t quadrupled, and our f u t u r e was
mortgaged. But we d i d n ' t i n v e s t i n our people o r o u r economy.
We had b o t h l e s s o p p o r t u n i t y and l e s s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . I n
Washington a l l I ever heard was t h e blame game. And i t o f t e n
reminded me o f -- I f e l t o f t e n when I was o u t t h e r e i n t h e
c o u n t r y l i k e you, l i k e people must f e e l i n a j u r y box, you know
when two lawyers g e t i n an argument w i t h a judge over what t h e y
can say o r not? A l l t h e j u r y wants t o know i s who d i d i t .
(Laughter.)
And t h e American people, what t h e y want t o know i s , what a r e
we g o i n g t o do? And are we g o i n g t o do? And so I r a n f o r t h i s
job because I was t i r e d o f a system i n which b o t h middle c l a s s
economics and mainstream v a l u e s were s u f f e r i n g . And t h e
government was d o i n g w e l l by s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t , b u t n o t t h e p u b l i c
interest.
I f e l t v e r y s t r o n g l y t h a t we had t o do something t o
s t o p t h e c o n d i t i o n s i n which most Americans were l i v i n g -- where
people were w o r k i n g harder and harder and h a r d e r f o r l e s s and
l e s s and l e s s s e c u r i t y . And I s t i l l b e l i e v e t h a t ' s what we ought
t o be about.
Now, we have begun t o change a l l t h a t . We have begun t o
change a l l t h a t . And i t r e q u i r e d some p r e t t y tough d e c i s i o n s ,
some o f them were unpopular. Some o f t h e people who made those
unpopular d e c i s i o n s l o s t t h e i r seats i n Congress l a s t y e a r ,
because people were t o l d f o r years and years and years t h e y c o u l d
have a f r e e l u n c h -- t h a t t h e r e were no tough d e c i s i o n s t o be
made.
E v e r y t h i n g here o p e r a t e d a t t h e l e v e l o f r h e t o r i c . We g o t
down t o b u s i n e s s . They t a l k e d about c u t t i n g t h e d e f i c i t ; we d i d ,
by $600 b i l l i o n .
(Applause.) And we d i d i t w i t h over a q u a r t e r
of a t r i l l i o n d o l l a r s i n spending c u t s , w i t h income t a x i n c r e a s e s
on t h e w e a l t h i e s t 1.2 p e r c e n t o f our people, w i t h d i s c i p l i n e -(applause) -- n o t , by t h e way, because I t h i n k t h a t ' s a good
t h i n g t o do, b u t because t h e y were t h e ones b e s t a b l e t o pay.
And those were t h e people were b e n e f i t i n g most e c o n o m i c a l l y from
the economy.
(Applause.)
And a t t h e same t i m e , we were c u t t i n g 300 domestic programs.
We were a l s o p r o v i d i n g t a x r e l i e f f o r 15 m i l l i o n w o r k i n g f a m i l i e s
who were w o r k i n g a t o r near t h e p o v e r t y l i n e t o make sure t h a t
nobody who works 4 0 hours a week w i t h c h i l d r e n i n t h e i r home
s h o u l d ever l i v e i n p o v e r t y . I t ' s t h e b i g g e s t i n c e n t i v e t o s t a y
o f f w e l f a r e t o know t h a t i f you work hard and you r a i s e your
k i d s , you're g o i n g t o be a b l e t o make a l i v i n g wage. These a r e
the t h i n g s t h a t we worked on.
(Applause.)
�Now, we e l i m i n a t e d or c o n s o l i d a t e d o r cut about 300
programs. And i n t h i s new budget t h a t I've got -- w e ' l l t a l k
more about t h a t i n a minute --we propose t o e l i m i n a t e o r
c o n s o l i d a t e 400 more. We reduced the s i z e of the f e d e r a l work
f o r c e i n two years by over 100,000. And i f no new laws pass -(applause) -- thank you -- i f no new laws pass, t h e work f o r c e
w i l l be reduced over a s i x - y e a r p e r i o d t o i t s s m a l l e s t s i z e s i n c e
John Kennedy was P r e s i d e n t . I t w i l l be 272,000 fewer people
w o r k i n g here than on the day I was i n a u g u r a t e d P r e s i d e n t .
I'm
proud of t h a t .
(Applause.)
We have s h i f t e d power away from Washington t o more
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r s t a t e s and c o u n t i e s and c i t i e s and towns.
The
Vice P r e s i d e n t has l e a d our r e i n v e n t i n g government i n i t i a t i v e ,
which has a l r e a d y saved the taxpayers $63 b i l l i o n , and w i l l save
more. We've a l r e a d y c u t r e g u l a t i o n s i n banking and i n t r a s t a t e
t r u c k i n g and many o t h e r areas t h a t make i t now e a s i e r f o r
businesses t o c r e a t e j o b s and c r e a t e o p p o r t u n i t i e s . And we must
do more, and we w i l l . We've worked t o hard t o t r y t o make i t
e a s i e r f o r you t o do your j o b s and t o improve the l i v e s o f t h e
people t h a t we b o t h serve.
Now, we've done a l o t of o t h e r t h i n g s , as w e l l , t h a t o f t e n
get l o s t i n t h e smoke around here. We passed t h e f a m i l y leave
law a f t e r s i x years of a r g u i n g about i t . We passed t h e crime
b i l l a f t e r s i x years of a r g u i n g about i t . (Applause.)
We
expanded Head S t a r t and p r o v i d e d f o r the immunization o f a l l
c h i l d r e n under two by 1996.
(Applause.) And we made lower c o s t ,
b e t t e r repayment c o l l e g e loans a v a i l a b l e t o 20 m i l l i o n young
Americans so more people c o u l d go t o c o l l e g e . We were busy
around here i n t h e l a s t two years.
(Applause.)
And a l o n g t h e way we were a b l e t o pass two major t r a d e
agreements, r e s o l v e major t r a d e d i s p u t e s w i t h China and o t h e r
c o u n t r i e s , and expand t r a d e by more than a t any t i m e i n a
g e n e r a t i o n . Very i m p o r t a n t when you c o n s i d e r the f a c t t h a t lowc o s t goods from o t h e r c o u n t r i e s come i n t o our open markets i f we
have no t r a d e agreements, but the t r a d e agreements open markets
f o r h i g h value-added American goods and American s e r v i c e s and
American j o b s a l l around the w o r l d .
(Applause.)
I say t h i s t o p o i n t out how much d i f f e r e n t i t i s where you
l i v e t h a n where we l i v e .
I f you had done t h a t , y o u r v o t e r s would
know i t . (Laughter and applause.) Right?
(Applause.) And a l l
t h e naysayers s a i d , oh, i f t h e y put t h i s economic p l a n i n , i t ' l l
be t h e worst t h i n g t h a t ever happened t o the c o u n t r y ; t h e economy
w i l l c o l l a p s e immediately; e v e r y t h i n g w i l l be t e r r i b l e .
Now
t h e y ' r e a l l g o i n g t o New Hampshire and g i v i n g t h e same speech a l l
over a g a i n .
(Laughter.)
I heard i t f o r two y e a r s .
You know, s i n c e no c o u n t r y has permanent growth, i f t h e y
keep p r e d i c t i n g a r e c e s s i o n , e v e n t u a l l y w e ' l l get around t o i t .
�(Laughter.) They s a i d , oh, t h i s i s a t e r r i b l e t h i n g .
I f they
pass t h i s program, oh, i t ' s t e r r i b l e .
The economy w i l l j u s t -i t ' l l be t e r r i b l e .
W e l l , what's happened i n t h e l a s t two years? We've g o t t h e
lowest combined r a t e o f unemployment and i n f l a t i o n i n 25 y e a r s -(applause) -- because we t o o k i t on.
(Applause.) Over 6.1
m i l l i o n Americans have new j o b s i n t h e l a s t two y e a r s . That i s a
good b e g i n n i n g . (Applause.)
Now, h a v i n g s a i d a l l t h a t , l e t ' s face t h e f a c t s . You l i v e
w i t h these f o l k s , and you know as w e l l as I do, t h e r e are s t i l l
p r o f o u n d problems out t h e r e . Most people s t i l l have n o t g o t t e n a
r a i s e . Every year more and more people l o s e t h e i r h e a l t h
i n s u r a n c e even though t h e y ' r e i n t h e work f o r c e . T h i s i s t h e
o n l y advanced c o u n t r y i n t h e w o r l d t h a t has a s m a l l e r percentage
of people i n t h e work f o r c e covered by h e a l t h i n s u r a n c e i n 1995
t h a n had i t i n 1985.
No o t h e r c o u n t r y can say t h a t .
And we know these o t h e r problems are s t i l l w i t h us. H a l f o f
a l l Americans are l i v i n g on l e s s money t h a n t h e y had 15 y e a r s
ago.
So we now have t o focus not o n l y on c r e a t i n g j o b s , b u t
r a i s i n g incomes, and i m p r o v i n g the s e c u r i t y o f w o r k i n g l i f e and
f a m i l y l i f e when people do t h e r i g h t t h i n g .
I f we're g o i n g t o
s t r e n g t h e n t h e middle c l a s s and s h r i n k t h e under c l a s s , we have
got t o do those t h i n g s which w i l l enable people t o r e a l l y f e e l
the American Dream. We've got t o b e g i n by e q u i p p i n g people w i t h
the s k i l l s t h e y need t o compete i n today's economy.
Even as we c u t y e s t e r d a y ' s government, we must i n v e s t more
i n t h e e d u c a t i o n and t r a i n i n g o f our people.
(Applause.)
We
must.
(Applause.) We must.
(Applause.)
We have t r i e d t o approach t h a t work as t h e p a r t n e r o f people
at t h e l o c a l l e v e l . Most f o l k s around here t h i n k l a s t year was
the b e s t year f o r e d u c a t i o n l e g i s l a t i o n p a s s i n g t h r o u g h Congress
i n 3 0 y e a r s as we expanded Head S t a r t and p r o v i d e d more funds f o r
a p p r e n t i c e s h i p s f o r young people who don't go onto c o l l e g e , and
made those c o l l e g e loans more a f f o r d a b l e , and wrote i n t o f e d e r a l
law t h e Goals 2000, t h e w o r l d c l a s s standards f o r our s c h o o l s .
But we changed the way we were making e d u c a t i o n law i n
Washington p r e t t y d r a m a t i c a l l y . We d i d n ' t n e g l e c t our
r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s t o h e l p c r e a t e e d u c a t i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t y , b u t we
d i d n ' t presume t o t e l l t h e people a t t h e grass r o o t s l e v e l how t o
meet t h e s t a n d a r d s as t h e government had done so much i n t h e
past.
I n s t e a d , we gave t o l o c a l educators and t o p a r e n t s t h e
power t o decide how t o meet g l o b a l standards o f e x c e l l e n c e .
We s a i d , here are some t h i n g s t h a t have t o be done t o
improve our c h i l d r e n ' s e d u c a t i o n . Here are t h i n g s we'd l i k e t o
do t o h e l p you do i t . But you decide how t o do i t . I n many
�ways, i n d e a l i n g more d i r e c t l y w i t h c i t y government, our
empowerment zones and e n t e r p r i s e communities are t h e embodiment
of t h a t k i n d o f approach -- t o c r e a t e o p p o r t u n i t y , t o s h r i n k
bureaucracy, t o demand more r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , and t h e n l e t you
decide what you want t o do w i t h i t and how you can best c r e a t e
j o b s and o p p o r t u n i t i e s .
We s a i d t o d i s t r e s s e d communities, g i v e us a comprehensive
p l a n t o c r e a t e j o b s , t o r e v i t a l i z e neighborhoods, t o b r i n g t h e
community t o g e t h e r , t o i n v o l v e the p r i v a t e s e c t o r . F i n d t h e
s o l u t i o n s t o g e t h e r . The o p p o r t u n i t y you get w i l l be some cash
money and t a x i n c e n t i v e s t o encourage investment and resources t o
d e a l w i t h o t h e r problems, l i k e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n o r s a f e t y .
And
w e ' l l c u t t h e r e d tape so you can a p p l y those resources as you
see f i t . T h i s i s a p a r t n e r s h i p between government, t h e p r i v a t e
s e c t o r and communities t o encourage investment, t o c r e a t e j o b s i n
p l a c e s where t o o many people have been l e f t c o m p l e t e l y behind.
I f you t h i n k about i t , our c o u n t r y has had major i n i t i a t i v e s
i n t h e l a s t s e v e r a l years t o i n v e s t i n L a t i n America, t o i n v e s t
i n t h e Caribbean, t o i n v e s t i n a l l d i f f e r e n t k i n d s o f p l a c e s .
They're f i n e . But t h i s i s the f i r s t major i n i t i a t i v e we've had
t o get people t o i n v e s t i n America, t o c r e a t e j o b s and markets i n
our b e s t o p p o r t u n i t y . (Applause.)
And, by the way, I hope t h a t b e f o r e t h i s s e s s i o n i s over, we
w i l l see an expansion of t h a t program, not a c o n t r a c t i o n o f i t -one t h a t i s p a i d f o r ; one t h a t i s funded -- but we ought t o work
t o expand i t , t o i n v o l v e more communities. We had hundreds o f
communities w a n t i n g t o be i n v o l v e d i n i t who had good p r o p o s a l s
t h a t c o u l d not be funded.
We have t o r e c o g n i z e t h a t i f we want people t o l i v e by t h e
work e t h i c , t h e r e must be work f o r them t o do.
(Applause.) That
a l s o i s something we should remember as we d e a l w i t h t h e next
i s s u e t h a t i s coming i n t h i s s e s s i o n of Congress t h a t a f f e c t s
some of you more than o t h e r s , depending on how t h e system
o p e r a t e s i n your s t a t e , but a l l of you i n some ways -- and t h a t
i s , how are we g o i n g t o f i x the w e l f a r e system? I b e l i e v e we
s h o u l d o f f e r more o p p o r t u n i t y i n the form of e d u c a t i o n and work
t o people on w e l f a r e , and then i n s i s t on more r e s p o n s i b i l i t y -r e q u i r i n g work a f t e r two years, tougher c h i l d support
enforcement, r e s p o n s i b l e p a r e n t i n g . I've been w o r k i n g on t h i s
i s s u e -- (applause) -- I've been w o r k i n g on t h i s i s s u e f o r 15
years now, and I know t h a t Washington doesn't have a l l t h e
answers, and n e i t h e r does anybody e l s e or we'd have s o l v e d i t by
now.
But we have done our
more a u t h o r i t y t o conduct
s t a t e s . We have g i v e n 25
and r e g u l a t i o n s t o pursue
best here t o g i v e more and more
sweeping w e l f a r e r e f o r m e f f o r t s
s t a t e s waivers from the f e d e r a l
w e l f a r e r e f o r m . Today, we w i l l
8
and
t o the
rules
give a
�w a i v e r t o Oklahoma, t h e 26th s t a t e t o pursue a w e l f a r e r e f o r m
proposal.
(Applause.)
That i s more combined s h i f t o f power from
t h e f e d e r a l government t o t h e s t a t e s t h a n o c c u r r e d under my two
predecessors combined. I b e l i e v e i n t h i s .
I believe i n t h i s .
(Applause.)
I know t h a t t h e government s h o u l d n ' t d i c t a t e a l l t h e r u l e s
from Washington. On t h e o t h e r hand, I don't t h i n k we s h o u l d g i v e
s t a t e s w e l f a r e money w i t h o u t any standards a t a l l .
We do have a
n a t i o n a l i n t e r e s t i n p r o m o t i n g work and r e s p o n s i b l e p a r e n t i n g ,
t h e r e d u c t i o n o f o u t o f wedlock b i r t h s . We have a n a t i o n a l
i n t e r e s t i n doing t h i s .
Last year, I sent t o Congress t h e most sweeping w e l f a r e
r e f o r m p l a n ever proposed by an a d m i n i s t r a t i o n .
I t included the
t o u g h e s t p o s s i b l e c h i l d support enforcement.
L e t me j u s t mention
c h i l d s u p p o r t f o r a minute.
Do you know i f we c o l l e c t e d a l l t h e
money owed i n t h i s c o u n t r y by deadbeat p a r e n t s , we c o u l d move
800,000 mothers and c h i l d r e n o f f t h e w e l f a r e r o l e s i m m e d i a t e l y -(applause) -- 800,000.
(Applause.)
Now, one o f t h e t h i n g s t h a t we have reached agreement w i t h
the Congress on i s t h a t i n t h i s area t h e r e has t o be some
n a t i o n a l s t a n d a r d s e t t i n g , because 30 p e r c e n t o f these cases
cross s t a t e s l i n e s .
So even though we want t o move d e c i s i o n s
back t o t h e s t a t e s , when t h e governors came t o town t h e y s a i d ,
l o o k , we know we've g o t t o have some n a t i o n a l a c t i o n on c h i l d
s u p p o r t enforcement, o t h e r w i s e we can't ever c o l l e c t on these
o r d e r s t h a t cross s t a t e l i n e s . J u s t i c e should n o t depend s o l e l y
on geography.
Reforming w e l f a r e i s now a t o p p r i o r i t y f o r b o t h p a r t i e s ,
and t h a t ' s good news. And we've worked t o g e t h e r t o f i n d common
s o l u t i o n s . And t h a t ' s good news. We s t i l l have o u r d i f f e r e n c e s .
My p l a n and t h e one our a d m i n i s t r a t i o n has been b e h i n d f o r over a
year now, sends a c l e a r message t o young people.
I t says, t a k e
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o t u r n your l i f e around. Teen f a t h e r s must pay
c h i l d s u p p o r t . Teen mothers should s t a y a t home o r i n o t h e r
a p p r o p r i a t e s e t t i n g s . And t h e y have t o s t a y i n school i f t h e y
want t o g e t a check.
But t h e Republican p l a n sends a d i f f e r e n t message a t some
points.
I t says, f o r example, i f you make a mistake b e f o r e
you're 18, and you have a baby, you're on your own. No b e n e f i t s
f o r teenagers and t h e i r c h i l d r e n who have babies b e f o r e t h e y ' r e
18 -- u n t i l t h e y t u r n 18, and then i f t h e s t a t e s want t o keep
them o u t o f b e n e f i t s f o r e v e r , t h a t ' s okay. I t h i n k t h a t ' s a
mistake.
I t h i n k what we ought t o be s a y i n g t o people i s , you
s h o u l d n o t have done t h a t ; you made a m i s t a k e ; we don't want
anybody e l s e t o do i t ; b u t we're g o i n g t o h e l p you succeed as a
s t u d e n t and a p a r e n t and a worker; and you have t o h e l p y o u r s e l f
by p l a y i n g by these r u l e s .
I t h i n k t h a t i s a b e t t e r approach.
�(Applause.)
And I t h i n k i t ' s i n your i n t e r e s t .
Look, when people get -- i f we j u s t c u t people o f f w i t h o u t
p u t t i n g them t o work o r keeping them i n s c h o o l , w i t h o u t making
sure t h e y have c h i l d care, i f we j u s t end a l l t h i s , w e l l , t h e
f e d e r a l government w i l l save a l i t t l e money. And you know what
w i l l happen, don't you? T h e y ' l l be on your d o o r s t e p . They won't
be p a r t o f some f e d e r a l s t a t i s t i c , and people say, oh, we're n o t
spending money on t h a t up here l i k e we used t o ; w e ' l l j u s t g i v e
you t h e problem, and you f i g u r e out what t o do w i t h i t .
W e l l , my own view i s t h a t j u s t s h i f t i n g t h e problem i s not
enough. L i k e many o f t h e c u t s c u r r e n t l y b e i n g debated, I t h i n k
i t w i l l u l t i m a t e l y be c o u n t e r p r o d u c t i v e . I t w i l l c o s t us more
t h a n we w i l l save. The f e d e r a l government, t h e c i t i e s , t h e
s t a t e s , t h e t a x p a y e r s a l l w i l l pay more down t h e road i f we do
something t h a t f u n d a m e n t a l l y undermines t h e h e a l t h o f our
c h i l d r e n , t h e f u t u r e o f our c h i l d r e n , and our commitment t o
g e t t i n g more Americans t o l i v e w i t h the o p p o r t u n i t i e s o f middle
c l a s s economics and t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f mainstream v a l u e s .
(Applause.) That's what I b e l i e v e .
(Applause.)
Now, yes, yes, we do have t o c o n t i n u e t o c u t t h e d e f i c i t .
We do have t o c o n t i n u e t o save money. My new budget c u t s t h e
d e f i c i t a n o t h e r $81 b i l l i o n and has over $140 b i l l i o n i n spending
c u t s . And I want t o work w i t h t h e Republicans t o do more.
We
have a l r e a d y reduced the r a t e o f h e a l t h care c o s t i n c r e a s e s i n
the f e d e r a l budget over t h e next f i v e years by $100 b i l l i o n .
We
have t o keep w o r k i n g on t h e d e f i c i t .
But we have t o do i t i n t h e r i g h t way.
One o f t h e t h i n g s
t h a t t h e R e p u b l i c a n l e a d e r s h i p and I agree on i s t h e l i n e - i t e m
v e t o . We're about t o t a k e up debate on t h e l i n e i t e m - v e t o i n t h e
Senate.
I hope i t w i l l pass q u i c k l y because i t w i l l g i v e t h e
P r e s i d e n t t h e o p p o r t u n i t y and t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o l o o k a t e v e r y
s i n g l e l i n e - i t e m i n t h e budget f o r waste.
I t w i l l g i v e us t h e
chance t o c u t p o r k w i t h o u t h u r t i n g people. And t h a t i s an
important d i s t i n c t i o n .
(Applause.)
Let me g i v e you an example o f what I mean. Everybody knows
we have t o s h r i n k t h e Department o f A g r i c u l t u r e . Ross Perot had
the b e s t l i n e o f any o f t h e c a n d i d a t e s i n t h e 1992 e l e c t i o n . I t
g r i e v e s me t o say t h a t , but he d i d . (Laughter.) Ross Perot had
t h i s g r e a t l i n e where he s a i d , d i d you hear about t h e employee a t
the Department o f A g r i c u l t u r e t h a t had t o go see a p s y c h i a t r i s t
because he l o s t h i s farmer?
(Laughter.) And what he meant by
t h a t was, o f course, t h a t t h e number o f farmers was s h r i n k i n g and
t h a t t e c h n o l o g y and t h e modern w o r l d had reduced t h e need f o r
some o f t h e s i z e and scope o f o r g a n i z a t i o n o f t h e A g r i c u l t u r e
Department.
So we a l l wanted t o do t h a t . Everybody knows we've
got t o save money.
10
�We can -- one o f t h e reasons I f o u g h t so h a r d f o r t h a t GATT
w o r l d t r a d e agreement i s so we c o u l d c u t a g r i c u l t u r a l s u b s i d i e s
here w i t h o u t h u r t i n g o u r farmers i n t h e g l o b a l market. So my
budget c u t s a g r i c u l t u r a l s u b s i d i e s , b u t now o u r c o m p e t i t o r s have
t o c u t t h e i r s more, t o g i v e o u r people a f a i r break.
I ' l l g i v e you another example. We wanted t o c u t t h e
A g r i c u l t u r e Department, so we j u s t c l o s e d 1,200 o f f i c e s -- 1,200.
That's a l o t o f money. I do not t h i n k t h e way t o c u t t h e
A g r i c u l t u r e Department i s t o f r e e z e t h e s c h o o l l u n c h program and
send i t t o you, which means we're g o i n g t o c u t s c h o o l lunches as
the p r i c e o f f o o d goes up, and t h e number o f k i d s goes up.
(Applause.) I don't agree w i t h t h a t .
(Applause.)
And you cannot make me b e l i e v e w i t h a l l t h e poor k i d s i n
t h i s w o r l d today and i n t h i s c o u n t r y who show up hungry t o s c h o o l
e v e r y day, whose o n l y decent meal occurs i n s c h o o l -- you cannot
make me b e l i e v e t h a t we cannot f i n d a way t o e l i m i n a t e
unnecessary spending from the government budget w i t h o u t c u t t i n g
the s c h o o l l u n c h program. We can, and we w i l l --we w i l l .
(Applause.)
I ' l l g i v e you a n o t h e r example t h a t a f f e c t s a l o t o f you
here. Some i n Congress want t o e l i m i n a t e o u r Community
Development Bank I n i t i a t i v e .
Most o f you p r o b a b l y have never
heard o f t h a t , b u t l e t me t e l l you what i t does.
I t ' s an
i n i t i a t i v e t h a t would spend $500 m i l l i o n t o e i t h e r e s t a b l i s h o r
s u p p o r t banks t h a t a r e s e t up i n e c o n o m i c a l l y d i s t r e s s e d areas,
whose p r i m a r y purpose i s t o get lower income people i n h i g h
unemployment areas i n t o t h e f r e e e n t e r p r i s e system.
(Applause.)
Now, I found out about t h i s a few y e a r s ago when I was i n
Chicago, when I had a f r i e n d w o r k i n g f o r t h e South Shore
Development C o r p o r a t i o n . And we s e t up a community development
bank i n Arkansas when I was governor t h a t o p e r a t e d i n a r u r a l
area, and i t d i d amazing t h i n g s . People got c r e d i t who c o u l d
never g e t c r e d i t from any bank b e f o r e , and t h e y s e t up
businesses, and t h e y s t a r t e d w o r k i n g , and t h e y s t a r t e d h i r i n g
people. And i t changed l i v e s f o r a l o t o f people i n these
communities.
So when I r a n f o r p r e s i d e n t , I s a i d here's a good i d e a t h a t
came o u t o f grass r o o t s America. We c o u l d p u t a l i t t l e money i n
i t and make a l o t o f d i f f e r e n c e .
I t i s e s t i m a t e d t h a t t h e $500
m i l l i o n t h a t we c o u l d spend on the Community Development Bank
I n i t i a t i v e i n your communities a l l over t h e c o u n t r y , w i l l
g e n e r a t e $22 b i l l i o n i n a c t i v i t y i n t h e f r e e e n t e r p r i s e system i n
p l a c e s t h a t have no e n t e r p r i s e today. So I t h i n k i t would be a
m i s t a k e t o e l i m i n a t e i t . That's what I b e l i e v e .
(Applause.)
B e l i e v e you me, t h e r e ' s a l o t o f government programs t h a t
don't have t h a t k i n d o f r e t u r n . And keep i n mind, what i s t h e
11
�purpose o f t h e government?
I t ' s t o empower people t o make t h e
most o f t h e i r own l i v e s , t o enhance t h e i r s e c u r i t y , and t o h e l p
c r e a t e o p p o r t u n i t y as a p a r t n e r . That's what t h i s does.
I ' l l g i v e you another example.
The t h i n g s t h a t I don't
t h i n k s h o u l d be c u t ; our n a t i o n a l s e r v i c e p r o j e c t , AmeriCorps, i s
a l l about o p p o r t u n i t y and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . A l o t o f you have
AmeriCorps p r o j e c t s i n your communities. Young people g e t a
h e l p i n g hand --(applause) -- w i t h t h e i r c o l l e g e i n exchange f o r
h e l p i n g people s o l v e t h e i r problems a t t h e l o c a l community.
Thousands o f young people now are p a r t i c i p a n t s , as p a r t n e r s ,
as nurses, as t e a c h e r s , w o r k i n g w i t h p a s t o r s , w o r k i n g w i t h p o l i c e
o f f i c e r s a t t h e grass r o o t s l e v e l . They walk p o l i c e beats i n
B r o o k l y n , t h e y b u i l d homes i n Georgia, t h e y f i g h t f i r e s i n Idaho.
But some people i n t h e House want t o c u t t h i s e f f o r t ; t o deny
15,000 young people t h e chance t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n i t .
Now I've
o f f e r e d spending c u t s , and I ' l l f i n d some more. But I t h i n k i t
i s a m i s t a k e t o c u t AmeriCorps because i t ' s a good d e a l . I t
g i v e s us b e t t e r c i t i z e n s , s t r o n g e r communities, more e d u c a t i o n
f o r l i m i t e d money. And i t enables a l o t o f people t o do t h i n g s
i n t h e i r communities t h a t s i m p l y would not g e t done any o t h e r
way.
I r o n i c a l l y , one o t h e r area where we're h a v i n g a b i g
d i f f e r e n c e o f o p i n i o n i s i n c o l l e g e l o a n s . There's some i n t h e
Congress who want t o s e v e r e l y l i m i t t h e reach o f t h e s o - c a l l e d
d i r e c t l o a n program t h a t we s t a r t e d , which b e l i e v e i t o r n o t ,
lowers t h e c o s t o f t h e loans t o t h e s t u d e n t s , c u t s t h e t i m e o f
paperwork and bureaucracy t o t h e c o l l e g e s and saves money f o r t h e
t a x p a y e r s because we get around t h e middle man.
So here's one
area where we can do more t o send people t o s c h o o l f o r lower c o s t
and a c t u a l l y save money. We've o f f e r e d m i l l i o n s and m i l l i o n s o f
young people t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o take these loans o u t and t h e n pay
them back as a percentage o f t h e i r income.
But I want t o emphasize t h a t we've a l s o been more
r e s p o n s i b l e t h a n government was b e f o r e . When I t o o k o f f i c e i t
was c o s t i n g you as t a x p a y e r s , $2.8 b i l l i o n a year t o pay t a x
money f o r d e f a u l t e d l o a n s . We have c u t t h a t $2.8 b i l l i o n down t o
$1 b i l l i o n ; we've c u t i t by n e a r l y t w o - t h i r d s , and made more
loans a v a i l a b l e so people can go t o c o l l e g e . That's t h e approach
- - ( a p p l a u s e ) - - we ought t o be t a k i n g . That i s t h e way t o save
money on t h e program.
(Applause.)
Now, one l a s t t h i n g i n t h i s area t h a t I'm v e r y concerned
about -- i n t h e e d u c a t i o n area. And t h a t i s , one o f t h e t h i n g s
i n t h e House l i s t o f r e s c i s s i o n s t o c u t i s a l l t h e money f o r s a f e
and d r u g - f r e e s c h o o l s t h a t would go t o 94 p e r c e n t o f t h e s c h o o l s
i n t h i s c o u n t r y . And t h a t ' s v e r y i m p o r t a n t t o me, p e r s o n a l l y . I
i n v e s t e d a l o t o f t i m e i n f i g h t i n g t h e problem o f drugs when I
was a Governor.
12
�We have worked hard t o g e t more investment t o f i g h t drugs i n
e v e r y area, and which we f i g h t i t here, s i n c e I ' v e been
P r e s i d e n t . And we see d i s t u r b i n g s i g n s t h a t i n p a r t s o f o u r
p o p u l a t i o n , among young people, drug use i s g o i n g up a g a i n ; more
c a s u a l drug use -- young people t h i n k i n g , a f t e r a decade o f i t
g o i n g down, t h a t somehow i t ' s maybe n o t dangerous anymore;
forgetting that i t ' s i l l e g a l .
And a l o t o f o u r schools a r e s t i l l
not s a f e because o f t h e r o o t problems o f drugs and v i o l e n c e .
Now
t h i s money g i v e s schools t h e a b i l i t y t o h i r e p o l i c e o f f i c e r s , t o
put up m e t a l d e t e c t o r s , b u t a l s o t o have drug e d u c a t i o n programs;
the programs l i k e t h e DARE program t h a t so many o f you have had
i n y o u r s c h o o l s , and o t h e r s t h a t t r y and h e l p these k i d s s t a y o f f
drugs. I t h i n k i t would be a mistake t o c u t t h i s money o u t .
Let me remind you t h a t t h i s money g o t i n t o t h e Crime B i l l ,
which you worked so hard f o r , because I gave t h e Congress, f o r
the f i r s t t i m e , a p l a n t o c u t t h e s i z e o f t h e f e d e r a l government
by 270,000. So we d i d n ' t r a i s e any t a x e s , we d i d n ' t t a k e any
money away from anybody. We shrunk t h e government and gave t h e
money t o t h e communities o f t h i s c o u n t r y t o f i g h t crime,
i n c l u d i n g t h e safe and d r u g - f r e e schools money. We s h o u l d n o t
eliminate that.
(Applause.) We s h o u l d f i g h t f o r i t , n o t f i g h t
t o c u t i t o u t . (Applause.)
As we a r e t r y i n g , you and I , t o make r e s p o n s i b i l i t y a way o f
l i f e i n t h i s c o u n t r y a g a i n , t o t e a c h young people t h e v a l u e o f
work, I t h i n k t h a t a l l o f us a r e g o i n g t o have t o say, f i r s t o f
a l l , w i t h o u t r e g a r d t o our p a r t y , we agree w i t h t h a t .
Now t h a t b r i n g s me t o one o t h e r p o i n t I want t o make beyond
e d u c a t i o n . When I was a c h i l d , my mother used t o say, i d l e hands
are t h e d e v i l ' s workshop. You're g o i n g t o have a whole l o t more
i d l e hands t h i s summer i f we c u t o u t those 600,000 summer
j o b s -- (applause) -- f o r our young people.
(Applause.) And i s
i t w o r t h i t t o deny 1,000 young people i n L o u i s v i l l e o r 1,600
young p e o p l e i n Boston -- I met w i t h a young -- t h e Mayor's Youth
C o u n c i l up t h e r e n o t v e r y l o n g ago, 2,000 i n t h e San Jose area.
I s i t w o r t h i t t o deny them t h e chance t o work, t o be around
r e s p o n s i b l e a d u l t s , t o l e a r n what i t ' s l i k e t o s o r t o f show up on
t i m e , p u t a day's work i n , how you r e l a t e t o o t h e r p e o p l e a t
work? I mean, t h i s goes way beyond t h e l i t t l e amount o f money
you g e t o u t o f t h i s .
Now, I
60 programs
Housing and
proposed t o
have proposed -- I w i l l say a g a i n -- t o c o n s o l i d a t e
t h a t e l i m i n a t e 4,000 b u r e a u c r a t s t o save money i n t h e
Urban Development Department, f o r example. I have
do a l o t o f t h i n g s l i k e t h a t .
I t o l d you about t h e A g r i c u l t u r e Department. We're coming
w i t h more. Hold on - - every week, t h e r e w i l l be more.
I am n o t
here t o defend t h e way government has o p e r a t e d i n t h e p a s t i n
Washington. But we have t o make judgments here. We g e t h i r e d t o
13
�make judgments and t h e r i g h t d e c i s i o n s , and n o t t o throw o u t t h e
baby w i t h t h e b a t h water.
(Applause.)
Take t h e HUD Department, f o r example. I'm a l l f o r --I'm
c o n s o l i d a t i n g 60 programs. We're g e t t i n g r i d o f 4,000 people.
We're p h a s i n g t h e department down. But I don't b e l i e v e i n t h e
proposed c u t t o housing a s s i s t a n c e t h a t helps 63,000 f a m i l i e s -women w i t h s m a l l c h i l d r e n , low-income s e n i o r c i t i z e n s .
What we ought t o do i s t o look a t t h e r i g h t k i n d o f c u t s .
T h i s whole r e s c i s s i o n package does some i n t e r e s t i n g t h i n g s .
We're supposed t o be p a s s i n g r e s p o n s i b i l i t y back t o you, b u t n o t
undermining your a b i l i t y t o do your j o b .
I t h i n k i t ' s smarter t o s t r e a m l i n e programs and c u t
b u r e a u c r a t s t h a n t o p u t f a m i l i e s on t h e s t r e e t , o r t o leave you
to d e a l w i t h t h e problem.
Many o f t h e people w i l l i n g t o pass you
the buck a r e t a l k i n g about ending u n f a i r burdens on l o c a l
government. I do want t o say t h i s :
I t h i n k -- and t h e Speaker
p r o b a b l y s a i d t h i s e a r l i e r today -- i t l o o k s l i k e we may have an
agreement now among a l l o f t h e conferees and t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n
and everybody on t h i s unfunded mandate b i l l .
I am v e r y s t r o n g l y
in favor of that.
I t i s a good t h i n g t o do. I t ' s something we
s h o u l d do.
(Applause.)
I t i s l o n g s i n c e past time t o s t o p imposing those mandates
on you w i t h o u t p a y i n g f o r them. I spent a decade i n t h e
Governor's O f f i c e i n Arkansas, w r i t i n g checks f o r d e c i s i o n s o t h e r
people made. Now, I'm e x c i t e d about t h a t . That b i l l j u s t passed
the House a few weeks ago, i t passed t h e Senate; i t ' s a good,
good t h i n g .
But l o o k a t t h i s :
The r e s c i s s i o n package t h a t ' s moving
t h r o u g h t h e Congress a c t u a l l y c u t s o f f funds t o h e l p you comply
w i t h p r e s e n t f e d e r a l r e q u i r e m e n t s , i n c l u d i n g safe d r i n k i n g water,
l e a d p a i n t , and asbestos removal.
So t h a t makes them, I guess,
not unfunded, b u t de-funded mandates.
(Laughter and applause.)
Now, so we e l i m i n a t e burdens on t h e one hand and c r e a t e new
ones on t h e o t h e r . I t h i n k t h a t i s an e r r o r . L e t me mention
j u s t one f i n a l area where we worked c l o s e l y l a s t year. We passed
the Crime B i l l a f t e r t h e people who were here b e f o r e j u s t t a l k e d
about i t f o r s i x y e a r s , p l a y e d p o l i t i c s w i t h i t , and t h e r h e t o r i c
was so j u i c y on b o t h s i d e s they c o u l d never g e t around t o p a s s i n g
a bill.
That's what always happens, you know?
Every one o f these issues a r e tough.
I f t h e y were easy,
somebody would have done them. And you c o u l d p i c k e i t h e r s i d e
and say i t i n a way t h a t a m a j o r i t y i s f o r you. Right?
I mean,
you can. Are you f o r a balanced budget? Yes. Do you want t o
cut S o c i a l S e c u r i t y ? No.
(Laughter.) See what I mean? So -both sides win, r i g h t ?
(Applause.)
14
�Meanwhile, you're l i k e the j u r o r s l i s t e n i n g t o t h e l a w y e r s '
argument. W e l l , what's g o i n g t o happen? Who d i d i t ? So we've
got t o work on t h i s .
But I want t o say t h i s about t h e Crime
Bill.
We f i n a l l y d i d t h a t .
And what we d i d l a r g e l y was what was recommended by law
enforcement o f f i c i a l s and community l e a d e r s around t h e c o u n t r y .
Money f o r p r e v e n t i o n w i t h a l o t of f l e x i b i l i t y f o r people a t t h e
l o c a l l e v e l , tougher punishment, but h e l p f o r s t a t e s t h a t would
adopt tougher punishment, t o b u i l d more p r i s o n s , and, o f course,
more p o l i c e -- 100,000 more p o l i c e on the s t r e e t .
We d i d t h a t because of two t h i n g s . F i r s t of a l l , t h e law
enforcement people s a i d , we need more p o l i c e . They a l s o s a i d
t h e y wanted a p r e v e n t i o n fund. Secondly, we d i d i t because o f
t h e evidence of what happens when community p o l i c i n g i s p r o p e r l y
i n s t i t u t e d i n t h e c i t i e s of our c o u n t r y .
From over about the l a s t 3 0 years, the number o f p o l i c e i n
our c o u n t r y had grown by o n l y about 10 p e r c e n t , w h i l e t h e v i o l e n t
crime r a t e t r i p l e d .
C l e a r l y , t h e r e i s a c o n n e c t i o n between those
two s t a t i s t i c s . And y e t , s t i l l we've seen i n p l a c e a f t e r p l a c e ,
where more p o l i c e are put on t h e s t r e e t i n community p o l i c i n g
modes, t h e crime r a t e w i l l drop. That's why every major law
enforcement o r g a n i z a t i o n supported t h a t .
Now, the c o n g r e s s i o n a l b i l l s and the Crime b i l l are
d i f f e r e n t from t h e House and Senate, but I ask you t o l o o k a t t h e
system we have now and the work i t d i d not o n l y t o c a t c h
c r i m i n a l s , but t o p r e v e n t crime.
I n New York C i t y , t h e p o l i c e
commissioner implemented an aggressive community p o l i c i n g program
t h a t helped t o s i g n i f i c a n t l y reduce s e r i o u s crimes l a s t y e a r -auto t h e f t s down 15 p e r c e n t , r o b b e r i e s down 16 p e r c e n t , murder
down 19 p e r c e n t , not j u s t i n b i g c i t i e s .
The mayor of Odessa,
Texas, wrote t o t e l l me t h a t i n 1991 and '92, t h e y had a v e r y
h i g h crime r a t e . Then t h e y implemented community p o l i c i n g , and
t h r e e years l a t e r , s e r i o u s crimes have dropped a t o t a l o f 43
p e r c e n t . Union C i t y , Tennessee -- c a l l s f o r h e l p from t h e p o l i c e
went down by 3 0 p e r c e n t and a r r e s t s went up by 3 5 p e r c e n t w i t h
community p o l i c i n g .
That's why t h i s Crime B i l l was a p a r t n e r s h i p t o h e l p
communities w i l l i n g t o take the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o i n v e s t i n t h e i r
own s e c u r i t y be more secure.
An o p p o r t u n i t y t h a t i s b u r i e d i n
red tape can h u r t more than i t h e l p s . I don't know how many
times I've seen l i t t l e towns i n my s t a t e have t o h i r e c o n s u l t a n t s
t o f i g u r e out how t o get f e d e r a l money, and i t c u t t h e margin o f
benefit dramatically.
What we d i d was t o s e t t h i s p o l i c e program up so t h a t c i t i e s
and c o u n t i e s can a p p l y d i r e c t l y t o the f e d e r a l government, u s i n g
a one-page a p p l i c a t i o n w i t h e i g h t q u e s t i o n s , awarding p o l i c e
15
�r e s o u r c e s d i r e c t l y t o you.
deal.
(Applause.)
Now, I t h i n k t h a t ' s a p r e t t y good
I know one o f those b i l l s wants t o add a n o t h e r l a y e r t o
that.
I don't t h i n k t h a t ' s a v e r y good i d e a , e i t h e r .
I think
t h a t we ought t o have an o p p o r t u n i t y f o r communities t o a p p l y
d i r e c t l y and g e t t h e funds d i r e c t l y f o r law enforcement.
(Applause.) My f e l l o w governors may d i s a g r e e w i t h t h a t , b u t
t h a t ' s what I t h i n k .
Now, i n j u s t t h e l a s t few months s i n c e t h e Crime B i l l t o o k
e f f e c t l a s t f a l l , h a l f t h e p o l i c e departments i n America have
a l r e a d y r e c e i v e d a u t h o r i t y t o h i r e almost 17,000 new p o l i c e
officers.
We a r e ahead o f schedule, and we're under budget.
Some people who c r i t i c i z e o u r b i l l s a i d t h a t l o c a l governments
wouldn't r e a l l y want i t , i t was t o o much o f a burden, i t ' s an
i m p o s i t i o n , t h e y can't a f f o r d t o pay any match. A l l I know i s ,
we have a l r e a d y r e c e i v e d almost 11,000 a p p l i c a t i o n s r e p r e s e n t i n g
over 60 p e r c e n t o f t h e p o l i c e departments i n America.
Somebody
t h i n k s i t ' s a good i d e a , and I t h i n k we ought t o s t a y w i t h i t .
(Applause.)
Here's t h e bottom l i n e : The Crime B i l l now on t h e books
guarantees 100,000 new p o l i c e o f f i c e r s . The a l t e r n a t i v e
p r o p o s a l s doesn't guarantee a s i n g l e one. We do g i v e more
f l e x i b i l i t y and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o you. Some o f t h e i r p r o p o s a l s
add bureaucracy and c u t funds a t t h e same t i m e . So I say t o you,
i f i t a i n ' t broke, don't f i x i t . (Applause.)
We s h o u l d never, never c l o s e t h e door t o w r i t i n g new laws
t h a t w i l l make us more secure i n t h e f i g h t a g a i n s t c r i m e . And i t
s h o u l d never be a p a r t i s a n i s s u e a g a i n . I was s i c k when I g o t
here two years ago and I r e a l i z e d t h e y ' d been f o o l i n g around w i t h
t h a t crime b i l l f o r f o u r years because each s i d e c o u l d f i g u r e o u t
how t o g a i n r h e t o r i c a l advantage. And s m a l l d i f f e r e n c e s obscured
l a r g e agreements.
So I want t o c o n t i n u e t o work on t h i s problem.
But t h i s p o l i c e i n i t i a t i v e i s a b e t t e r d e a l f o r you and a
b e t t e r d e a l f o r t h e American people. And as I have s a i d
r e p e a t e d l y -- (applause) -- i f necessary, I w i l l v e t o any e f f o r t
t o r e p e a l o r undermine i t . (Applause.)
But l e t me say t h i s , what we need i s not more v e t o e s . What
we need i s more a c t i o n . What we need i s f o r people here t o
behave t h e way you have t o behave o r you c o u l d n ' t s u r v i v e .
Half
of you come from p l a c e s so s m a l l t h a t i f you made people d e c l a r e
t h e i r p a r t y every time t h e y walked t h r o u g h t h e door t o see i f
t h e y g o t a n y t h i n g done o r n o t , you'd be r u n out on a r a i l w i t h i n
a week. (Laughter.)
So, t h e v e t o i s a u s e f u l d e v i c e and an i m p o r t a n t t h i n g on
o c c a s i o n . But what t h e c o u n t r y r e a l l y needs i s a c t i o n . We need
16
�a c t i o n . We need t o remember these problems have f a c e s , names and
l i f e h i s t o r i e s . We need t o p u l l t o g e t h e r . We're d o i n g i t on t h e
unfunded mandates. We can do i t on t h e l i n e - i t e m v e t o . We can
do i t on a l l these o t h e r areas i f we w i l l e x e r c i s e s i m p l e common
sense and r e c o g n i z e what our m i s s i o n i s . We've g o t t o keep t h e
American Dream a l i v e -- m i d d l e - c l a s s economics, mainstream
v a l u e s , j o b s , incomes, work and f a m i l y . We've g o t t o make sure
t h i s country stays strong.
And I'm t e l l i n g you, i t takes a c t i o n , n o t j u s t words. You
l i v e where t h e a c t i o n i s . I f you don't do a n y t h i n g e l s e w h i l e
you're here, g i v e us your energy and t e l l us you want a c t i o n .
Thank you and God b l e s s you a l l .
17
(Applause.)
�
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
Michael Waldman
Description
An account of the resource
<p>Michael Waldman was Assistant to the President and Director of Speechwriting from 1995-1999. His responsibilities were writing and editing nearly 2,000 speeches, which included four State of the Union speeches and two Inaugural Addresses. From 1993 -1995 he served as Special Assistant to the President for Policy Coordination.</p>
<p>The collection generally consists of copies of speeches and speech drafts, talking points, memoranda, background material, correspondence, reports, handwritten notes, articles, clippings, and presidential schedules. A large volume of this collection was for the State of the Union speeches. Many of the speech drafts are heavily annotated with additions or deletions. There are a lot of articles and clippings in this collection.</p>
<p>Due to the size of this collection it has been divided into two segments. Use links below for access to the individual segments:<br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=43&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=2006-0469-F+Segment+1">Segment One</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=43&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=2006-0469-F+Segment+2">Segment Two</a></p>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Michael Waldman
Office of Speechwriting
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1993-1999
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2006-0469-F
Extent
The size or duration of the resource.
Segment One contains 1071 folders in 72 boxes.
Segment Two contains 868 folders in 66 boxes.
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
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
[League of Cities Research]: POTUS League of Cities Speeches
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Office of Speechwriting
Michael Waldman
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Box 21
<a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/36404"> Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7763296">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2006-0469-F Segment 2
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.
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.
Preservation-Reproduction-Reference
Date Created
Date of creation of the resource.
6/3/2015
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
7763296
42-t-7763296-20060469F-Seg2-021-033-2015