-
https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/files/original/e450cf9c68836a0dfa5780114cb3ddad.pdf
3f77aaaed572f35a821a56c407765f3e
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:
14538
OA/ID Number:
FolderlD:
Folder Title:
CFR [Campaign Finance Reform] - White House [4]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
s
92
4
8
1
�Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
Divider Title:
�White House Press Release
Remarks By The President At Supporters Reception
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
November 6,
1996
Remarks By The P r e s i d e n t
At Supporters Reception
N a t i o n a l Press B u i l d i n g
Washington, D.C.
9:15
P.M. Est
The P r e s i d e n t : Thank you. Thank you.
Let me j o i n
T i p p e r and H i l l a r y and A l i n t e l l i n g you how g l a d I am t o see a l l o f
you.
I'm s o r r y we c o u l d n ' t get everybody i n t o the l i m i t e d h o t e l
space i n L i t t l e Rock. A l t h o u g h , somehow o r another, we had about
50,000 people i n t h e s t r e e t .
I t ' s been a w o n d e r f u l day.
And I am f u l l o f g r a t i t u d e
to a l l o f you and t o a l l those whom you r e p r e s e n t . I thank my
Cabinet. I know t h a t a t l e a s t S e c r e t a r i e s R i l e y , O'Leary and Brown
are here. But a l l o f them worked very, very hard.
I thank Don Fowler.
And along w i t h H i l l a r y and T i p p e r
and A l and a l l o f you, I send our p r a y e r s and best wishes t o Don and
h i s w i f e tomorrow.
And I thank C h r i s Dodd f o r speaking out i n h i s brave and
a g g r e s s i v e and i n c r e d i b l y a r t i c u l a t e way. And we d i d p r e t t y w e l l i n
Connecticut l a s t n i g h t .
I t h i n k t h a t the people t h e r e agreed w i t h
him i n s t e a d o f a l l those t h a t were a t t a c k i n g us and r u n n i n g us down.
I thank Marvin Rosen f o r t a k i n g on t h i s hard j o b and
doing i t w e l l ; and Peter Knight and a l l o f our w o n d e r f u l campaign
s t a f f and R i c h a r d S u l l i v a n , a l l the people a t the Dnc. (Applause.)
I thank T e r r y M c A u l i f f e and Laura Hardigan.
They worked so hard w i t h
a l l o f t h e i r people t o make sure our campaign was f i n a n c e d e a r l y and
well.
(Applause . )
lof5
01/14/97 [2:51.2:
�I wane co thank those who entertained us tonight, and
thank a l l of you. There are a l o t of people in t h i s audience and
around t h i s country who played a major role i n t h i s campaign.
I f e e l I have t o say a s p e c i a l word o f thanks t o t h e
mayors t h a t a r e here.
I know t h a t Dennis Archer and a l s o Mayor Ed
R a n d a l l o f P h i l a d e l p h i a a r e here.
(Applause.) I don't know i f t h e r e
are any o t h e r mayors, b u t i f t h e r e are mayors o r governors here I
don't know about, I s t i l l -- I thank you very much f o r what you've
done.
Thank you, Reverend Jesse Jackson, f o r what you d i d i n
t h i s campaign and what you do i n every campaign -- a i l t h e m i l e s you
t r a v e l e d , a l l t h e speeches you gave.
(Applause.) Thank you, f o r
going t o C a l i f o r n i a and s t a n d i n g up, as I d i d , f o r what we b e l i e v e .
We don't always w i n when we stand up f o r what we b e l i e v e , b u t we
always come o u t ahead. And I thank you, s i r , f o r t h a t .
(Applause.)
Let me say t h a t a campaign i s a f a s c i n a t i n g t h i n g . The
people who g i v e and g i v e and g i v e o f t h e i r time, t h e i r money, t h e i r
h e a r t . T h i s was an unusual campaign f o r me i n terms o f t h e
d i f f e r e n c e from t h e one b e f o r e because t h i s time, everywhere I went I
c o u l d a c t u a l l y see t h e evidence o f our c o l l e c t i v e endeavors.
I was i n Denver t h e o t h e r n i g h t and we had a n i c e l i t t l e
crowd, and t h e n f o l k s were s t a n d i n g by t h e r o p e l i n e t h e way you a r e .
I j u s t was w a l k i n g down t h e r o p e l i n e and I s t a r t e d shaking hand w i t h
people. And w i t h i n f i v e minutes, I met a young women who had
o b v i o u s l y been a v i c t i m o f domestic v i o l e n c e who thanked me f o r t h e
V i o l e n c e A g a i n s t Women A c t , t h e h o t l i n e , t h e f a c t t h a t we were moving
to b r i n g down domestic v i o l e n c e .
Then t h e r e were t h r e e women s t a n d i n g t h e r e w i t h a l i t t l e
s i g n t h a t s a i d , thank you f o r p u t t i n g more money i n t o b r e a s t cancer
r e s e a r c h , who knew t h a t we had uncovered now two o f t h e genes which
cause b r e a s t cancer and may someday be able t o n o t o n l y a c t u a l l y cure
those cancers e a r l y , b u t even t o f i n d o u t enough t o p r e v e n t them i n
the f i r s t p l a c e .
And then I met a man -- a big, b i g man who reached
across f o u r o r f i v e f o l k s and shook hands w i t h me and s a i d , I wish my
w i f e were t o n i g h t , b u t we adopted a ^baby two months ago and because
of t h e Family Leave law, she's a b l e t o take a l i t t l e time o f f from
work t o i n t e g r a t e t h a t baby i n t o our home l i f e w i t h o u t l o s i n g her
] ob.
And then I met a young man who s a i d he had dropped o u t .
But when we passed t h i s new law t o r e f o r m t h e c o l l e g e loan process so
t h a t he c o u l d pay t h e l o a n back as a percentage o f h i s income and he
d i d n ' t have t o w o r r y about going broke anymore, he had gone from
being a c o l l e g e dropout t o a good student i n m i c r o b i o l o g y .
And t h e n I met a l o v e l y young women who happened t o be
the daughter o f one o f t h e f e d e r a l agents who was t h e r e , who was a
p o l i c e o f f i c e r i n a s m a l l e r community i n Colorado, who thanked me f o r
the law enforcement p a r t o f t h e crime b i l l because her community was
about t o g e t f i v e more p o l i c e and she thought t h e c h i l d r e n o f her
community would be s a f e r and she would be s a f e r doing her j o b because
she was going t o have h e l p . That was i n f i v e minutes.
I was i n Longview, Texas t h e o t h e r day. We had 13,000
people a t 8:00 a.m. i n t h e morning and t h a t ' s h a r d l y a hotbed o f
liberalism.
(Laughter.) I met a young, s i n g l e mother w i t h two
2 of 5
01/14/97 12:51:26
�c h i l d r e n who had gone back chrough che AmeriCorps program t o serve i n
her ccmmunity, g e t o f f p u b l i c a s s i s t a n c e and was now going t o t h e
K i l g o r e J u n i o r C o l l e g e t h e r e . And I met another women whose husband
had cancer, who g o t t o save her j o b w h i l e she took care o f her
husband because o f Family Leave.
And I met a man who was Vietnam v e t e r a n t h e r e w i t h h i s
w i f e . And he asked me -- he s a i d , what d i d you a l l ever do w i t h t h a t
b i l l t o h e l p t h e v e t e r a n s who were exposed t o Agent Orange whose
c h i l d r e n g o t s p i n a b i f i d a ? And I looked a t him and I s a i d , I s i g n e d
i t y e s t e r d a y and now those people w i l l get d i s a b i l i t y as w e l l as
m e d i c a l b e n e f i t s f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e . And he was r e a l t a l l , so I was
l o o k i n g up a t him -- he was a head t a l l e r than I was. And he s a i d ,
w e l l , thank you v e r y much f o r her. And I looked down a t h i s l i t t l e
g i r l who was 1 2 - y e a r s - o l d i n a w h e e l c h a i r who had 12 o p e r a t i o n s
because she c o n t r a c t e d a c o n d i t i o n t h a t almost c e r t a i n l y she g o t
because her husband served our c o u n t r y 20 years ago.
This i s what t h i s whole deal's about t o me. You know,
a l l t h i s p o l i t i c a l business t h a t you read i n t h e newspaper, who's
d o i n g what and a l l t h a t -- and l e t me say something e l s e , a l o t o f
you c o n t r i b u t e d t o our campaigns, a l o t o f you r e a l l y s t r e t c h e d t h e
l i m i t , a l o t o f you went o u t and r a i s e d money f o r our campaigns. And
you knew good and w e l l you c o u l d have g o t t e n a more d i r e c t b e n e f i t i f
you had p u t your money i n t o t h e o t h e r s i d e . I mean, t h e y t o l d you
you'd g e t a b i g t a x c u t and you maybe c o u l d have had o t h e r t h i n g s .
And you d i d i t because you wanted your c o u n t r y t o grow t o g e t h e r .
As you know, I have s a i d f o r f i v e years, I t h i n k we
ought t o f i n d a d i f f e r e n t system o f f i n a n c i n g our campaigns. But I
want you t o know t h a t I a p p r e c i a t e t h e f a c t t h a t you helped us s t a y
c o m p e t i t i v e , even though t h e Republicans s t i l l r a i s e d $150 m i l l i o n o r
more, more than we d i d . We were able t o s t a y c o m p e t i t i v e because
people l i k e you b e l i e v e d i n t h e common ground o f America. And I
thank you f o r t h a t .
(Applause.)
And I thank a l l o f you f o r t h a t . We had unprecedented
f i n a n c i a l s u p p o r t from t h e A f r i c a n American community, from t h e
Hispanic community.
(Applause.)
And I want t o say as an I r i s h
American, I a p p r e c i a t e t h e support we got from every e t h n i c group
--from t h e Jewish Americans, from t h e Greek Americans and, yes, from
the Asian Americans. I'm proud t o have your support and I thank you
very much f o r i t .
(Applause.)
And l e t me say a l s o , t h e r e are l o t s o f o t h e r people who
worked i n our campaign. I went back t o New Hampshire. I s t a r t e d my
l a s t day o f my l a s t campaign where we began our quest f o r t h e
p r e s i d e n c y . And e a r l y i n t h e morning i n New Hampshire on t h a t l a s t
day, t h e 60 people who s t a r t e d out w i t h me i n 1991 and stayed w i t h me
when my death w a r r a n t was pronounced by t h e e x p e r t s gathered i n a
l i t t l e restaurant.
And t h e y had a l l these p i c t u r e s up everywhere.
One o f
them was a young boy named Mike M o r r i s o n who was o n l y a h i g h school
j u n i o r when I ran the l a s t time and i s now i n c o l l e g e and was f i n a l l y
able t o v o t e f o r me. And he s a i d , Mr. P r e s i d e n t , he s a i d , I'm i n
c o l l e g e now and I'm a s t r a i g h t - A s t u d e n t . And I s a i d , w e l l , Mike,
what do you l i k e ? What's your f a v o r i t e courses?
And he s a i d , I l i k e
c r e a t i v e w r i t i n g and c r i t i c a l t h i n k i n g and I'm w r i t i n g essays.
And
he s a i d , you know, my teachers a t our s c h o o l , they t h i n k I should
submit my essays t o magazines -- Readers' Digest and some o t h e r s .
And we t a l k e d about i t a w h i l e and I thought about t h e f i r s t time I
saw t h a t boy j o i n i n g w i t h h i s h i g h school classmates c a r r y i n g my
banner down t h e middle o f t h e a i s l e a t New Hampshire Democratic
Convention.
3 f5
0
01/14/97 12:51:27
�-cr.venc i o n .
Mike M o r r i s o n gets up every day and gets i n t o a
w h e e l c h a i r . And he's a Dig, s t r o n g boy, and he was r a i s e d by h i s
mother on a v e r y modest income. He worked hard f o r me i n 1992. And
on e l e c t i o n day, he promised t o be a p o l l worker, b u t h i s mother's
car broke down. I t was a c o l d w i n t e r day i n New Hampshire. And Mike
M o r r i s o n took h i s w h e e l c h a i r two m i l e s along the s i d e o f a highway
from h i s home t o t h e p o l l i n g p l a c e t o be t h e r e , t o g i v e us a chance
to do what we have done these l a s t f o u r years.
(Applause.)
And the t h i n g I'm so proud o f about our campaign i s t h a t
we've g o t a l l kinds o f people w i t h a l l kinds o f a b i l i t i e s .
And a l l
of us have some d i s a b i l i t i e s .
And we have t o g e t h e r made a d i f f e r e n c e
p a r t l y because we decided we were going t o do what we were d o i n g
together.
J u s t i n Dart went t o every s t a t e i n America t o o r g a n i z e
.Americans w i t h d i s a b i l i t i e s f o r the C l i n t o n - G o r e campaign.
That's
one reason we won some o f those s t a t e s . God b l e s s you and thank you.
(Applause.)
There a r e people here who o r g a n i z e d Republicans f o r
C l i n t o n - G o r e and I thank you f o r t h a t . And I thank you f o r what you
did.
Your numbers were s i g n i f i c a n t .
(Applause.)
And l a s t n i g h t , when the vote came i n and a l l across t h e
c o u n t r y , I thought o f a l l t h e people I had met along t h i s j o u r n e y and
a l l the people's whose l i v e s have been touched and how much b e t t e r
o f f we a l l a r e when we work t o g i v e everybody not a guarantee but a t
l e a s t a chance -- a r e a l chance t o be what God meant them t o be.
I am very proud o f you. I want you t o be very proud o f
t h i s campaign. I want you t o be very proud o f what has happened.
There a r e m i l l i o n s and m i l l i o n s and m i l l i o n s o f people whose l i v e s
have been d i r e c t l y touched by the f a c t t h a t . e o f f e r e d them a chance
w
to have a second chance t o have t h e i r main chance t o be what they
ought t o be. And t h e r e ' s l o t s more t o do.
But we should be very g r a t e f u l we happen t o be here i n
America a t t h e time t h a t I'm convinced i t i s more p o s s i b l e f o r more
people t o l i v e o u t t h e i r dreams than ever b e f o r e i f we s i m p l y meet
our c h a l l e n g e s and move o u r s e l v e s c l o s e r t o our i d e a l s . And i t has
f a l l e n t o us now t o do t h a t .
The people decided t o leave the Congress i n the hands o f
the Republicans, b u t t h e y sent a v e r y s t r o n g message. A l o t o f t h e
o f f i c e s t h e y won, t h e y won by l e s s than 1,000 v o t e s . They don't want .
meanness. They don't want the p o l i t i c s o f p e r s o n a l d e s t r u c t i o n .
They want us t o p u t t h e people f i r s t , t h e f u t u r e f i r s t and work
together.
A l l o f t h a t t o o , you c o n t r i b u t e d t o making happen. The
whole f e e l i n g i n t h i s c o u n t r y i s so d i f f e r e n t from what i t was j u s t a
couple o f years ago and you helped t o make t h a t happen.
(Applause.)
So I ask you t o n i g h t -- I ask you t o n i g h t t o s o r t o f
h o l d back your shoulders and take a deep b r e a t h and be very proud
because you helped t o make our democracy work and, o f course, a l l o f
us b e l i e v e t o make t h e r i g h t d e c i s i o n . And I ask you t o wake up
tomorrow — I hope, l i k e me, y o u ' l l be a l i t t l e l e s s t i r e d than you
are t o n i g h t -- b u t I ask you t o wake up tomorrow w i t h a new sense o f
optimism about your c o u n t r y , a new sense o f b e l i e f i n the f u t u r e and
a new d e t e r m i n a t i o n t o c o n t i n u e the work o f c i t i z e n s h i p . We a r e
making a d i f f e r e n c e . We're going t o make a b i g d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e
next f o u r years. And everybody's got a r o l e t o p l a y . And everybody
has something t o do.
4 f5
0
01/14/97 12:51:28
�In c l o s i n g , l e t me say a s p e c i a l word o f thanks t o
T i p p e r and t o A l and t o H i l l a r y .
We four have had an unusual
partnership.
I doubt t h a t t h e r e ' s been a n y t h i n g q u i t e l i k e i t i n t h e
h i s t o r y o f t h e p r e s i d e n c y and t h e v i c e p r e s i d e n c y . But i t has served
America w e l l .
(Applause.)
And i f I had served o u t my term as governor and had been
e l e c t e d t o another term as governor i n s t e a d o f r u n n i n g f o r P r e s i d e n t ,
George C l i n t o n and B i l l C l i n t o n would have been t h e two l o n g e s t
s e r v i n g governors i n American h i s t o r y and we c o u l d have been on a
different l i s t .
So I t h i n k i t ' s a p r e t t y d i s t i n g u i s h e d l i s t , Mr.
Vice P r e s i d e n t , m y s e l f .
(Appl-ause.)
L e t ' s have a good time t o n i g h t .
Let's wake up tomorrow
proud t h a t we won. And l e t ' s t h i n k about what we can do t o b u i l d
t h a t b r i d g e t o t h e 2 1 s t c e n t u r y . Thank you and God b l e s s you.
(Applause.)
End
9:31 P.M. Est
^Hlim
1J
r
)
To comment on this service: feedbackfqlwww. whitehouse.gov
5 of 5
01/14/97 12:51:29
�Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
8
Divider Title:
�THE WHITE HOUSE
O f f i c e of the Press Secretary
(Santa Barbara, C a l i f o r n i a )
For Immediate Release
November 1, 1996
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
TO THE PEOPLE OF SANTA BARBARA
Santa Barbara C i t y College
Santa Barbara, C a l i f o r n i a
9:44 A.M. PST
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
Good morning.
Thank you very
much. Thank you. Can i t r e a l l y be November? (Laughter.) Thank
you so much. Mayor M i l l e r , County Superintendent Naomi Schwartz,
President MacDougal, Senator O'Connell. And alumna of t h i s school,
you're State Superintendent o f Schools, Delane Easton, thank you
for being here.
(Applause.)
I am d e l i g h t e d t o be back here. As a l l of you know, I t h i n k
our f a m i l y came here on a l i t t l e vacation a f t e r the '92 e l e c t i o n .
(Applause.) I hope t h i s w i l l b r i n g us good luck i n the next four
days. I'm glad t o be here.
(Applause.)
I want t o thank Walter Capps f o r running again f o r Congress
a f t e r 1994. (Applause.) As some of you may know, I have more than
a passing i n t e r e s t i n t h i s rate because h i s daughter, Laura, works
for us a t the White House. And i f there were a p o p u l a r i t y contest
among White House employees, she would probably win i t . The apple
doesn't f a l l f a r from the t r e e . I know from her t h a t he should be
elected, q u i t e apart from everything he has done.
(Applause.)
Let me t e l l you, Walter Capps l o s t a very close r a t e i n 1994,
about a thousand votes. I t would have been easy t o walk away from
a disappointment l i k e t h a t , but he came back. He had a serious
accident.
I t would have been easy t o walk away and say, w e l l ,
someone else should take up t h i s b a t t l e . But he came back. That's
the kind of commitment and courage and f o r t i t u d e t h i s country needs
i n the United States Congress.
(Applause.)
And l a s t year, when h i s opponent joined the Gingrich-Dole
revolution —
-more-
�AUDIENCE:
Booo!
THE PRESIDENT:
— and voted f o r an almost unbelievably
d e s t r u c t i v e budget
f o r America,
one t h a t would have cut
environmental enforcement d r a s t i c a l l y ; made i t more d i f f i c u l t f o r
us t o take f u r t h e r actions t o protect our environment; the f i r s t
cut i n education i n modern h i s t o r y , i n c l u d i n g student loans and
Head S t a r t -AUDIENCE:
Booo!
THE PRESIDENT: — repealed the guarantee of h e a l t h care we
had provided f o r 30 years t o poor c h i l d r e n , t o middle class
f a m i l i e s w i t h members w i t h d i s a b i l i t i e s t o allow them t o care f o r
t h e i r f a m i l y members, l e t them l i v e at home and maintain t h e i r
middle class l i f e s t y l e s ; t o our seniors i n nursing homes, even t o
repeal t h e very standards of care we impost t o p r o t e c t people i n
nursing homes.
When t h a t happened and I vetoed i t — (applause) — t h e y shut
the government down. And they said you have t o accept everything
i n our budget or we w i l l j u s t keep s h u t t i n g the government down.
And the people who l e d the way were those f i r s t - y e a r members of
Congress,
l i k e Mr. Capps's opponent.
They said, we want
everything. I said, w e l l , there's a p r o v i s i o n i n t h i s budget which
would allow corporation manager t o r a i d t h e i r worker's pension
funds. Don't we have any memory? Look what happened i n the '80s
to the pension funds. I n 1994, f i n a l l y I got through the l a s t
Congress a b i l l t o p r o t e c t the pensions o f 40 m i l l i o n working
Americans.
I said, are we going t o r i g h t back around and do t h i s
a l l over again? Yes, shut the government down.
I said, w e l l , there's a p r o v i s i o n i n t h i s b i l l , while i t gives
me a tax cut at my income l e v e l — which I don't need — u n t i l we
balance t h e budget, t h i s b i l l would a c t u a l l y r a i s e taxes on 8
m i l l i o n o f the hardest working Americans, people working f o r very
modest wages t r y i n g t o r a i s e t h e i r taxes. You're going t o take
away t h e i r present tax c r e d i t s and r a i s e t h e i r taxes? Can we take
that out? No, shut the government down.
AUDIENCE:
Booo!
THE PRESIDENT: Now there's an attempt t o develop a l i t t l e
short-term amnesia among the e l e c t o r a t e as we get closer t o the
e l e c t i o n s — please forget t h a t , f o r g e t t h a t . (Laughter.)
You have a b i g choice t o make i n t h i s race. Walter Capps i s
a good man, a brave man. He shares your values, he shares your
dreams. I hope y o u ' l l send him back t o Congress.
(Applause.)
-more-
�Ladies and gentlemen, i n j u s t f o u r days we w i l l e l e c t t h e l a s t
P r e s i d e n t o f t h e 20th c e n t u r y and we w i l l choose t h e f i r s t
President o f t h e 21st century.
(Applause.) As W a l t e r Capps s a i d ,
I do b e l i e v e we're a t one o f those magic moments between hope and
h i s t o r y , when we have t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o b o t h have unprecedented
p r o s p e r i t y and d i s c o v e r y and adventure, and move c l o s e r t o t h e
v a l u e s and i d e a l s which we a l l say we b e l i e v e i n .
But i t depends upon what v i s i o n we choose. And i t depends on
what s t r a t e g y we choose. There are so many young people here i n
t h e audience — and I thank you f o r being here, because t h i s i s
about you.
(Applause.)
And I want t o ask you t o do something
t o n i g h t . B e f o r e you t u r n i n when you go home, t a k e j u s t a couple
of minutes and see i f you can ask y o u r s e l f and answer t h i s
q u e s t i o n : What would I l i k e my c o u n t r y t o l o o k l i k e when we cross
t h a t g r e a t b r i d g e i n t o t h e 2 1 s t century?
What would I l i k e my
c o u n t r y t o be l i k e when my c h i l d r e n a r e my age?
I know what I want. I want t h e American Dream a l i v e f o r every
person who's w i l l i n g t o work f o r i t . I want America t o keep b e i n g
t h e s t r o n g e s t f o r c e f o r peace and freedom and p r o s p e r i t y i n t h e
e n t i r e w o r l d , even i f we have t o make some c o n t r o v e r s i a l d e c i s i o n s
t o h e l p end wars l i k e Bosnia o r throw d i c t a t o r s o u t o f H a i t i o r
c o n t i n u e t o move f o r w a r d i n o t h e r areas.
(Applause.) I know I ' v e
been c r i t i c i z e d f o r some o f t h e t h i n g s I ' v e t r i e d t o do. But I
know t h a t t h e r e a r e no Russian m i s s i l e s p o i n t e d a t t h e c h i l d r e n o f
America f o r t h e f i r s t time s i n c e t h e dawn o f t h e Cold War.
(Applause.)
And I want an America t h a t i s coming t o g e t h e r i n s t e a d o f b e i n g
t o r n a p a r t . A l l around t h e w o r l d people are b e i n g d i v i d e d by r a c e ,
by r e l i g i o n , by e t h n i c i t y , by t r i b e , k i l l i n g each o t h e r and each
o t h e r ' s c h i l d r e n because t h e y cannot g e t along. Look i n t h i s crowd
today.
I n t h i s crowd we say, you can be an American, i t doesn't
m a t t e r who you a r e , where you're from, a n y t h i n g e l s e about you.
You've j u s t g o t t o b e l i e v e i n our v a l u e s , obey t h e law and do a
good j o b .
(Applause.)
Now, we have f o l l o w e d a simple s t r a t e g y : o p p o r t u n i t y f o r a l l ,
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y from a l l , an American community t h a t i n c l u d e s a l l .
Four years ago t h e people o f C a l i f o r n i a , i n v e r y
difficult
c o n d i t i o n s , t o o k t h a t s t r a t e g y on f a i t h . Today t h e r e i s a r e c o r d .
You don't have t o t a k e our word f o r i t .
When you see t h e
d i f f e r e n c e s i n our v i s i o n , t h a t we want t o b u i l d a b r i d g e t o t h e
21st c e n t u r y , t h e y want t o b u i l d a b r i d g e t o t h e p a s t . They want
t o say, you're on your own. We want t o say, t o use t h e words o f my
best f r i e n d and someone I'm reasonably c l o s e t o , i t does t a k e a
v i l l a g e t o r a i s e a c h i l d and t o b u i l d a f u t u r e .
(Applause.)
-more-
�Now we know which side i s r i g h t .
Over t h e l a s t four years
incomes have been r i s i n g , jobs have been coming i n , the average
f a m i l y income has gone up $1,600 a f t e r i n f l a t i o n i n t h e l a s t two
years alone. We've had the l a r g e s t drop i n c h i l d poverty i n 20
years; the largest drop i n i n e q u a l i t y among working people i n 27
years; t h e lowest rates of unemployment, i n f l a t i o n and home
mortgages i n 27 years; the highest rates of homeownership i n 15
years; record rates of new businesses formed every year, i n c l u d i n g
new businesses owned by women and m i n o r i t i e s . We are moving i n the
right direction.
(Applause.)
The crime r a t e has gone down f o r four years i n a row and the
nation as a whole i s at a 10-year low. The welfare r o l l s have been
reduced by 1.9 m i l l i o n .
Child support c o l l e c t i o n s are up 50
percent, $4 b i l l i o n a year f o r deserving c h i l d r e n a l l across
America. We are moving i n the r i g h t d i r e c t i o n .
(Applause.)
In the c l o s i n g days of the l a s t Congress we r a i s e d the minimum
wage f o r 10 m i l l i o n people.
(Applause.) We said t o 25 m i l l i o n
people — 25 m i l l i o n people — you can't have your h e a l t h insurance
taken away from you anymore j u s t because you changed jobs or
someone i n your f a m i l y has been sick.
(Applause.) We said t h a t
insurance companies can no longer force h o s p i t a l s t o k i c k mothers
and newborn babies out of the h o s p i t a l s i n 24 hours.
(Applause.)
We gave more help t o small businesses, every one i n the
country, making them e l i g i b l e f o r tax cuts i f they i n v e s t more i n
t h e i r businesses. We helped people get health insurance i f they
s e l f - i n s u r e by g i v i n g them greater tax b e n e f i t s f o r doing t h a t . We
helped people t o take out pensions and t o carry w i t h them from j o b
t o j o b i f they work f o r small businesses. We're moving i n the
right direction.
We gave f a m i l i e s who w i l l adopt a c h i l d — and there are so
many out there who need adoption -- a $5,000 t a x c r e d i t . We are
moving t h i s country i n the r i g h t d i r e c t i o n .
(Applause.) And we
had the biggest increase i n P e l l Grants i n 20 years and added
200,000 work-study p o s i t i o n s t o the f e d e r a l government's e f f o r t s t o
help people go t o college.
(Applause.)
Just a few days ago we learned t h a t our annual growth i s about
3 percent; that r e a l incomes are r i s i n g at about 5 percent, which
i s a very healthy r a t e a f t e r 20 years of v i r t u a l stagnation; t h a t
we have the highest rates of new investment i n our country, almost
19 percent, since President Kennedy was President.
We have protected the a i r , the water, the land. We set aside
i n the Mojave Desert the biggest n a t u r a l reserve south o f Alaska i n
the h i s t o r y of America w i t h three n a t i o n a l parks; converted the
Presidio t o a n a t i o n a l park — (applause) — set aside 1.7 m i l l i o n
-more-
�acres i n southern Utah i n the Grand Staircase-Escalante National
Monument —
(applause) — moved to save Yellowstone Park from a
gold mine; and helped t o p r o t e c t the environment.
And we stopped
our f r i e n d s on the other side when they t r i e d t o l i f t the ban on
off-shore d r i l l i n g .
(Applause.)
Now, during t h i s whole campaign, a l o t of i n t e r e s t i n g t h i n g s
have happened.
I t o l d someone yesterday and the day before my
opponent, Senator Dole, said that we had the worst economy i n
America i n 20 years, but j u s t two weeks before t h a t he said we had
the worst economy i n 100 years.
(Laughter.) So I t h i n k he made
the case f o r r e e l e c t i o n ; not everyone can make up 80 years i n two
weeks. (Applause.)
Now, the t r u t h i s , back i n February he admitted we had the
best economy i n America i n 30 years, and you know C a l i f o r n i a , while
we've s t i l l got a long way t o go, i s way b e t t e r o f f than i t was
four years ago. We are moving i n the r i g h t d i r e c t i o n . (Applause.)
And today we got some more good news.
Unemployment held
steady at 5.2 percent i n the country, 210,000 new jobs i n October.
That makes 10.7 m i l l i o n new jobs i n America since I took the oath
of o f f i c e . We are moving i n the r i g h t d i r e c t i o n .
(Applause.)
I t i s time f o r my opponent and those on the other side t o stop
a l l t h i s doom and gloom t a l k about America. (Applause.) I n s p i t e
of what he wants you t o t h i n k , when i t comes to the economy the sky
i s not f a l l i n g . The sky i s the l i m i t , and we're going a f t e r i t .
(Applause.)
But t h i s e l e c t i o n should be about what else we have t o do t o
b u i l d our common bridge t o 21st century. And I ' d l i k e t o ask you
a l l t o s o r t of r i d e along w i t h me f o r a moment and l e t me discuss
an issue t h a t hasn't been discussed enough i n t h i s campaign. And
t h a t i s whether we w i l l reform our system of p o l i t i c s by f i n a l l y
passing
meaningful
campaign
finance
reform
legislation.
(Applause.)
When I ran f o r President four years ago, I said I wanted t o
give our government back t o the people. I wanted the government t o
represent the n a t i o n a l i n t e r e s t s , not narrow i n t e r e s t s ; a
government t h a t would stand up f o r ordinary Americans. And I have
worked hard t o do t h a t .
When I became President, I barred top
o f f i c i a l s from ever representing f o r e i g n governments when they
leave our s e r v i c e . I barred top o f f i c i a l s from lobbying t h e i r own
agencies f o r f i v e years a f t e r leaving o f f i c e .
The days of the
r e v o l v i n g door when top trade negotiators l e f t t o work f o r the very
countries they were n e g o t i a t i n g against are over.
We
passed the most sweeping lobby reform l e g i s l a t i o n i n 50
-more-
�y e a r s . From now on, p r o f e s s i o n a l l o b b y i s t s must d i s c l o s e f o r whom
t h e y work, what t h e y are spending, and what b i l l s t h e y a r e t r y i n g
t o pass o r k i l l —
f o r t h e f i r s t time ever.
(Applause.) I
c h a l l e n g e d t h e Congress t o ban g i f t s from l o b b y i s t s , and t h e y d i d
that.
We passed a l i n e - i t e m
veto
so P r e s i d e n t s
can
strip
s p e c i a l - i n t e r e s t pork i n g e n e r a l l e g i s l a t i o n .
(Applause.)
We
passed t h e m o t o r - v o t e r law, which has enabled m i l l i o n s o f p e o p l e t o
r e g i s t e r more e a s i l y and w i l l add m i l l i o n s t o t h e v o t i n g r o l l s n e x t
Tuesday.
(Applause.) We passed t h e C o n g r e s s i o n a l A c c o u n t a b i l i t y
Act
and t h e n t h e White House A c c o u n t a b i l i t y A c t t o a p p l y t o
Congress and t h e White House t h e same laws t h a t we pass and impose
on everyone e l s e i n America. (Applause.)
A l l t h e s e a c t i o n s w i l l serve t o make Washington work b e t t e r
f o r you. But t h e r e i s s t i l l more t o do, and s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t s
s t i l l have t o o much say. We have c l e a r l y one more b i g j o b t o do:
c u r b i n g t h e power t h a t s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t s have i n our e l e c t i o n s .
Everybody knows t h e problems o f campaign money today. There i s t o o
much o f i t . I t takes t o o much t i m e t o r a i s e . And i t r a i s e s t o o
many q u e s t i o n s .
The p a r t i e s a r e engaged i n an e s c a l a t i n g arms race.
I n the
p a s t two years — l i s t e n t o t h i s — i n t h e p a s t two y e a r s t h e
Democrat P a r t y and i t s House and Senate campaign committees have
r a i s e d $241 m i l l i o n . The Republican P a r t y and i t s Senate and House
campaign committees have r a i s e d $399 m i l l i o n .
R a i s i n g t h a t much
money s t r a i n s t h e p o l i t i c a l system. We have p l a y e d by t h e r u l e s ,
but I know and you know we need t o change t h e r u l e s . (Applause.)
I proposed a tough campaign f i n a n c e b i l l when I came i n t o
o f f i c e , b u t t h e Congress would n o t pass i t . The R e p u b l i c a n s have
been r e l u c t a n t t o g i v e up t h e i r access t o b i g money. Led by my
opponent, t h e y f i l i b u s t e r e d t h e b i l l I proposed t o death. I n f a c t ,
campaign f i n a n c e r e f o r m has come b e f o r e t h e Congress s i x Congresses
i n a row. And my opponent f i l i b u s t e r e d i t f i v e t i m e s . He b l o c k e d
the l a s t one r i g h t b e f o r e he l e f t o f f i c e .
I n 1995, I met w i t h Speaker G i n g r i c h a t a town h a l l m e e t i n g i n
New Hampshire.
And when we were t h e r e a c i t i z e n asks us i f we
would c r e a t e a b i p a r t i s a n commission t o come up w i t h a campaign
f i n a n c e r e f o r m p r o p o s a l t h a t we would t h e n t r y t o pass. We b o t h
agreed. I t h o u g h t i t o f f e r e d a r e a l chance f o r b i p a r t i s a n s h i p and
a c t i o n . And, f r a n k l y , I was e x c i t e d about i t . I even a p p o i n t e d
two d i s t i n g u i s h e d c i t i z e n s , John Gardner and D o r i s Kearns Goodwin,
t o h e l p g e t i t s t a r t e d . But t h e Republicans walked away.
My opponent now says he would support such a commission. But
when we had a r e a l chance t o succeed, he wouldn't h e l p us s t a r t i t .
-more-
�Now we have a chance — we had a chance t o take b i p a r t i s a n p o l i t i c s
— or p a r t i s a n p o l i t i c s out of t h i s issue t h i s year, as w e l l .
I supported a strong b i p a r t i s a n b i l l introduced by one of my
opponent's strongest supporters. Senator John McCain and Senator
Fred Thompson and Democratic Senator Russ Feingold, from Wisconsin.
They've got a good approach. I t ' s based on p r i n c i p l e s I advocated
back i n 1992.
We should curb the power of special i n t e r e s t by
r e s t r i c t i n g p o l i t i c a l a c t i o n committees and d r a m a t i c a l l y reducing
the amount they can give t o candidates.
We
should
ban
c o n t r i b u t i o n s from l o b b y i s t s t o those who lobby. That's what I
believe. We should end the b i g money c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o p o l i t i c a l
p a r t i e s , known today as s o f t money. We ban should corporations and
unions from d i r e c t l y g i v i n g t o p a r t i e s t o help f e d e r a l candidates
they can no longer help d i r e c t l y .
And, f o r the f i r s t time ever, we should r e s t r i c t the v i r t u a l l y
u n l i m i t e d amount of money i n d i v i d u a l s can now give t o p a r t i e s . We
should set v o l u n t a r y spending l i m i t s f o r candidates. And we should
give f r e e TV time so t h a t a l l candidates who observe the v o l u n t a r y
l i m i t s , but only those who observe the voluntary l i m i t s , can t a l k
d i r e c t l y t o voters.
(Applause.)
And, p a r e n t h e t i c a l l y , I might say we made a beginning on t h a t
approach t h i s year and I would l i k e t o thank those networks which
o f f e r e d Senator Dole and me the o p p o r t u n i t y t o speak d i r e c t l y t o
the voters at various times i n 90-second or two minute messages.
I thought t h a t was a very good p u b l i c service. I t ' s the beginning
of seeing how we might do i t on a sustained, regular d i s c i p l i n e d
basis. Because we have t o have access t o the v o t e r s . And i f you
have t o purchase i t a l l , i t i s extremely expensive.
So the
voluntary spending l i m i t s and the f r e e time must work together.
This i s a good approach. I t was endorsed by Common Cause and
every other major reform group. I t was b i p a r t i s a n . I t was tough.
I t was r e a l reform. But my opponent opposed i t .
He refused t o
b r i n g i t t o the f l o o r f o r a vote. And a f t e r he l e f t Congress t o
run f o r President, the Republican leaders f i n a l l y allowed the
l e g i s l a t i o n t o come t o a vote and then they k i l l e d i t .
There i s one more issue t h a t reform must deal w i t h . Today i t
i s l e g a l f o r both p a r t i e s t o receive c o n t r i b u t i o n s
form
corporations t h a t are completely owned by f o r e i g n corporations or
i n t e r e s t s , and from i n d i v i d u a l s who l i v e i n the United States l e g a l
but are not c i t i z e n s . Many of them have l i v e d here many years and
have employees and i n t e r e s t i n t h i s country. The Democratic p a r t y
has r a i s e d money t h i s way and so has the Republican p a r t y . I n
f a c t , the Republican p a r t y has r a i s e d much more money i n t h i s way
than the Democrats.
-more-
�8
But t h a t ' s not t h e p o i n t . I t ' s time t o end t h i s p r a c t i c e , as
w e l l . Now, McCain-Feingold would end a l l c o r p o r a t e c o n t r i b u t i o n s ,
so i t would t a k e care o f t h a t p a r t o f t h e problem.
But we should
a l s o end c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o e i t h e r p a r t y from i n d i v i d u a l s who a r e not
c i t i z e n s . There are many immigrants who p l a y an i m p o r t a n t r o l e i n
our c o u n t r y , and a l l o f you i n C a l i f o r n i a know I have done my best
t o defend l e g a l i m m i g r a t i o n and the r i c h c o n t r i b u t i o n i t makes t o
the U n i t e d S t a t e s o f America.
(Applause.)
But i f t h e essence o f a democracy i s i t s c i t i z e n s d e c i d e , and
o n l y c i t i z e n s can v o t e , then I b e l i e v e o n l y c i t i z e n s s h o u l d be able
to c o n t r i b u t e .
That i s not a n t i - i m m i g r a n t , i t i s s i m p l y s t a t i n g
the f a c t .
Those who v o t e should f i n a n c e t h e e l e c t i o n s t h e t h e y
v o t e i n . There i s no more excuse f o r w a i t i n g .
I t r i e d t o form a
commission. But now i s not t h e time f o r a commission. T h i s i s a
time f o r a c t i o n .
Once a g a i n , I c a l l upon t h e Congress t o enact r e a l r e f o r m .
Delay w i l l o n l y h e l p those who don't want t o change a t a l l . When
McCain and F e i n g o l d i n t r o d u c e t h e i r b i l l next year, I w i l l
i n t r o d u c e i t w i t h them. Real r e f o r m w i l l mean a government t h a t i s
more r e p r e s e n t a t i v e , not l e s s . And I ask you, every one o f you, t o
h e l p us t o pass r e a l , m e a n i n g f u l campaign f i n a n c e r e f o r m i n
Washington. W i l l you do t h a t ?
(Applause.)
Now, l e t me say one o t h e r t h i n g .
We should a l s o understand
t h a t i n a r e c e n t case t h e Supreme Court has made i t i m p o s s i b l e t o
e n f o r c e some o f the s t r i c t e s t l i m i t s . And t h i s b i l l w i l l not s o l v e
a l l o f our problems. Even as i t e s t a b l i s h e s l i m i t s , i t w i l l s t i l l
a l l o w , because o f t h e Supreme Court's d e c i s i o n s , a m i l l i o n a i r e or
a b i l l i o n a i r e t o spend endless sums r u n n i n g f o r o f f i c e . I t may be
t h a t f u r t h e r measures are needed. But, i n t h e meantime, t h a t ' s not
an excuse t o do what we can. We must a c t and we must a c t now.
L e t me a l s o say t o you t h a t your v o t e w i l l decide a l o t o f
t h i n g s i n t h i s e l e c t i o n . I t ' s f a r b i g g e r t h a n P r e s i d e n t C l i n t o n or
Senator Dole, even b i g g e r than Congressman Capps or Congresswoman
Seastrand.
T h i s e l e c t i o n i s r e a l l y about how we are g o i n g t o
proceed i n t o t h e 21st c e n t u r y as a people. Your v o t e w i l l decide,
f o r example, whether we keep t h e economy growing by b a l a n c i n g t h e
budget w h i l e p r o t e c t i n g
our
investments
i n education,
the
environment and r e s e a r c h and t e c h n o l o g y and Medicare and Medicaid.
Or whether we adopt an even more r a d i c a l v e r s i o n o f t h e budget I
v e t o e d t h a t w i l l blow a h o l e i n t h e d e f i c i t , r a i s e t a x e s on 9
m i l l i o n people and r e q u i r e b i g g e r c u t s t h a n t h e ones t h a t I vetoed
last time.
Your v o t e w i l l decide what we do about h e l p i n g f a m i l i e s t o
balance t h e demands o f work and c h i l d r e a r i n g , t h e b i g g e s t
c h a l l e n g e many f a m i l i e s f a c e . I'm proud o f t h e f a c t we passed t h e
-more-
�Family and Medical Leave Act and l e t 12 m i l l i o n people take some
time o f f from work when a baby was born or someone i n t h e i r f a m i l y
was sick.
(Applause.)
Now, t h i s i s an honest d i f f e r e n c e between the two p a r t i e s . My
opponent l e d the opposition t o i t , said t h i s year i t was s t i l l a
mistake. Well, we have some evidence now. Twelve m i l l i o n times
i t ' s been used, and during t h a t time we've had record new business
formation and 10.7 m i l l i o n new jobs. The reason i s , America i s
stronger economically w i t h happy, productive people i n the
workplace who aren't worried sick about t h e i r c h i l d r e n at home.
That's why. (Applause.)
I'd l i k e t o see us expand Family Leave. I t h i n k people ought
t o be able t o take a l i t t l e time o f f from work t o go see t h e i r
children's teachers twice a year or take t h e i r kids t o regular
doctor's appointments.
(Applause.)
I b e l i e v e people who earn
overtime and have problems i n the family, a s i c k spouse, a s i c k
c h i l d , a sick parent — I t h i n k people who earn overtime ought t o
have the r i g h t t o decide whether t o take the overtime i n money or
time w i t h the f a m i l y . We'll be a stronger country w i t h a stronger
economy when people
feel
better
about
fulfilling
their
r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s t o t h e i r f a m i l y members.
And I want you t o help
me do t h a t . Walter Capps w i l l . W i l l you help us? (Applause.)
We passed the beginning of health care reform, but our
balanced budget would help people who are between jobs keep h e a l t h
insurance f o r t h e i r f a m i l i e s f o r s i x months. I t would add another
m i l l i o n people t o the ranks of insured — c h i l d r e n . I t would work
w i t h states t o add another 2 m i l l i o n working f a m i l i e s t o the ranks
of insured. There are s t i l l too many people without insurance. I t
would give free mammograms t o women on Medicare.
(Applause.) I t
would give help f o r r e s p i t e care f o r the over 1.5 m i l l i o n f a m i l i e s
t h a t are s t r u g g l i n g nobly and bravely and humanely t o care f o r a
f a m i l y member w i t h Alzheimer's. Our budget pays f o r i t , t h e i r s
doesn't. W i l l you help us do that?
(Applause.)
We passed the V-chip f o r new t e l e v i s i o n sets, got a TV r a t i n g
system v o l u n t a r i l y developed by the entertainment i n d u s t r y , secured
an agreement f o r three more hours of educational t e l e v i s i o n ,
doubled the amount of funds going i n t o the Safe and Drug-Free
Schools program, and f o r the f i r s t time ever took a c t i o n t o stop
the b i g tobacco companies from a d v e r t i s i n g and marketing tobacco t o
children.
(Applause.)
Now, on the V-chip, on the Safe and Drug-Free Schools program,
which has helped so many c h i l d r e n t o stay away from drugs and
t r o u b l e , and on the tobacco issue, my opponent disagrees. A l l
these things can s t i l l be reversed.
I t h i n k we need them as
b u i l d i n g blocks i n our bridge. W i l l you help me keep them and do
-more-
�10
them i n t o t h e 2 1 s t c e n t u r y ?
(Applause.)
We passed t h e Brady B i l l , t h e a s s a u l t weapons ban, a b i l l t o
put 100,000 p o l i c e on t h e s t r e e t s , t h r e e s t r i k e s and you're o u t .
Our opponents. Senator Dole and t h e Speaker, t h e y l e d t h e f i g h t
against t h a t crime b i l l .
And now t h e y don't u n d e r s t a n d why every
major law enforcement o r g a n i z a t i o n , f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e ever, has
endorsed t h e C l i n t o n - G o r e t i c k e t f o r r e e l e c t i o n .
(Applause.)
We know how t o lower t h e crime r a t e .
We've f o u g h t f o r t h e
100,000 p o l i c e ; Senator Dole l e d t h e f i g h t a g a i n s t i t . When t h e y
won t h e Congress, t h e y v o t e d t o a b o l i s h t h e program, even though
the crime r a t e was g o i n g down. Then t h e y t r i e d t o c u t t h e program.
We've o n l y funded h a l f o f those p o l i c e o f f i c e r s , and I ' d l i k e t o
f i n i s h t h e j o b , b u t you have t o h e l p me.
W i l l you do i t ?
(Applause.)
They a c t u a l l y t r i e d t o r e p e a l t h e a s s a u l t weapons ban, and
W a l t e r Capps's opponent v o t e d t o do t h a t .
AUDIENCE:
Booo!
THE PRESIDENT: Now, you know, two years ago, f r a n k l y , t h e y
were j u s t p a y i n g a debt. That's why a l o t o f them won. They went
out i n a l o t o f t h e s e r u r a l d i s t r i c t s i n p l a c e s l i k e my home s t a t e ,
where h a l f t h e people have a h u n t i n g o r a f i s h i n g l i c e n s e o r b o t h ,
and t h e y s a i d , t h e r e t h e y go a g a i n . They're g o i n g t o t a k e your
guns away. That's what t h e Brady B i l l and t h e a s s a u l t weapons ban
mean.
W e l l , two years l a t e r , those same people who v o t e d t h a t way
know t h e t r u t h . Not a s i n g l e h u n t e r o r s p o r t s p e r s o n i n America has
l o s t a l e g i t i m a t e weapon, b u t over 60,000 f e l o n s , f u g i t i v e s , and
stalkers
can't g e t a handgun because o f t h e Brady
Bill.
(Applause.) And we j u s t extended t h e Brady B i l l so t h a t now people
who beat up t h e i r spouses and t h e i r c h i l d r e n can't g e t i t e i t h e r .
(Applause.)
And now t h a t we have f o u g h t o f f t h e a t t e m p t t o r e p e a l t h e
a s s a u l t weapons ban, we ought t o make sure t h e y don't come back
w i t h t h a t , and we ought t o ban b u l l e t s t h a t a r e designed f o r one
purpose o n l y : t o p i e r c e t h e b u l l e t p r o o f v e s t s o f p o l i c e o f f i c e r s .
They a r e wrong and we ought t o g e t r i d o f them. (Applause.) W i l l
you h e l p us f i n i s h t h i s job?
(Applause.)
We moved 1.9 m i l l i o n people from w e l f a r e t o work and passed
h i s t o r i c w e l f a r e r e f o r m l e g i s l a t i o n t h a t says we w i l l guarantee t o
poor people and t o t h e c h i l d r e n e s p e c i a l l y h e a l t h c a r e , n u t r i t i o n
and more c h i l d care t h a n ever when people move f r o m w e l f a r e t o
work.
But a b l e - b o d i e d people must move w i t h i n two years from
-more-
�11
welfare t o work.
But the law doesn't do anything.
You can't
require people to go to work unless there are jobs f o r them t o
take. I have a plan to create another m i l l i o n jobs t o help move
people from welfare to work. W i l l you help us implement t h a t plan?
(Applause.)
There i s much more to do on the environment.
A l o t of these
plans f o r these n a t i o n a l parks and other preserves are j u s t
beginning. We have to f i n i s h the job. We cleaned up more t o x i c
waste s i t e s i n three years than they d i d i n 12. But we s t i l l have
10 m i l l i o n kids l i v i n g w i t h i n four miles of t o x i c s i t e s .
We'll
clean up the 500 worst ones. We want to be able t o say i n the 21st
century a l l our c h i l d r e n can grow up next to parks not poison.
W i l l you help us do that? (Applause.)
And most important of a l l , your vote w i l l decide — as the
president said here when we s t a r t e d — whether we put ourselves
squarely on the l i n e f o r g i v i n g every s i n g l e American access t o
world class education. (Applause.) I am proud of the f a c t t h a t we
have increased Head S t a r t ; passed the n a t i o n a l service program;
given schools a l l over C a l i f o r n i a and the rest of the country
o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o t r y new and e x c i t i n g ways t o achieve excellence,
l i k e the charter school movement; t h a t we passed a new c o l l e g e loan
program which lowers the cost of college loans and gives young
people a chance t o repay them as a percentage of t h e i r income so
people can never be bankrupted by borrowing the money t o go t o
college. (Applause.) I'm proud of the increase i n the P e l l Grants
and 200, 000 more work study p o s i t i o n s . But i t i s j u s t a beginning.
There i s more we need to do. And I need your help.
Forty percent
of our
8-year-olds
still
cannot
read
independently by the 3rd grade. Part of i t i s we're having a new
wave of immigration. A l o t of those c h i l d r e n ' s f i r s t language i s
not English. But t h a t w i l l be cold comfort f o r them i f they move
through school unable to continue t o l e a r n . I have a proposal t o
mobilize AmeriCorps volunteers and 30,000 other reading s p e c i a l i s t s
to go around the country and get a m i l l i o n volunteers t o teach our
c h i l d r e n t o read. And I want 100, 000 of those 200,000 new work
study s l o t s t o go t o young college students who say, I ' l l go, I ' l l
teach young people to read. W i l l you help us do that? W i l l you
help us?
(Applause.)
Schools a l l over America are b u r s t i n g at the seams w i t h the
l a r g e s t number of c h i l d r e n i n h i s t o r y . We have the f i r s t plan ever
to help school d i s t r i c t s t o b u i l d new f a c i l i t i e s and r e p a i r o l d
ones so our kids have decent l e a r n i n g environments. We have a plan
to hook up every classroom and every l i b r a r y i n every school i n
America t o the Information Superhighway by the year 2000. W i l l you
help us do i t ? (Applause.)
-more-
�12
We do want t o say i n f o u r years we can make a t l e a s t two years
of higher education as u n i v e r s a l as a college diploma i s today
simply by saying, you can deduct from your taxes d o l l a r f o r d o l l a r
the cost of the t y p i c a l community college t u i t i o n i f you go and
make your grades and you're a good c i t i z e n . W i l l you help us do
that? (Applause.) I want t o l e t f a m i l i e s save i n an IRA f o r t h e i r
retirement but withdraw t a x - f r e e i f the money's being used f o r
education, health care or f i r s t - t i m e home buying. W i l l you help
us do that? (Applause.) And I believe we should give f a m i l i e s a
tax deduction of up t o $10,000 a year f o r the cost of any college
t u i t i o n a t any l e v e l f o r Americans of any age. W i l l you help us do
that?
(Applause.)
Now t h a t w i l l b u i l d a bridge t o the 21st
century.
And, f i n a l l y , l e t me say as you look around t h i s vast sea o f
people today, I ask you t o t h i n k again of how we are going t o do
t h i s and whether we are going t o p r a c t i c e the p o l i t i c s o f d i v i s i o n
— what some g l e e f u l l y c a l l wedge issues; or are we going t o say,
we want t o go forward together?
Think about how sad i t i s t h a t i n the Holy Land, the home o f
the world's three great monotheistic r e l i g i o n s , people s t i l l cannot
lay down t h e i r hatred of one another. Think how sad i t i s t h a t i n
the home o f my ancestors, I r e l a n d , f u l l of young, b r i l l i a n t people
b u r s t i n g a t the seams f o r new opportunity i n Northern I r e l a n d ,
people s t i l l cannot lay down t h e i r r e l i g i o u s d i f f e r e n c e s and t h e i r
arguments about i n c i d e n t s t h a t occurred centuries ago. Think about
how sad i t i s t h a t i n Bosnia, people who are b i o l o g i c a l l y
i n d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e k i l l e d one another's c h i l d r e n w i t h reckless
abandon. Or i n Rwanda, Burundi, the Hutus and the T u t s i s , both o f
them w i t h no money, r e a l l y , t o speak of t o f u r t h e r t h e i r dreams and
help t h e i r c h i l d r e n , instead of cooperating, slaughter each other
at record r a t e s .
In America we must f i g h t against t h a t . That's why we had t o
stand against what happened a t Oklahoma C i t y . That's why we had t o
stand against the church burnings and the defacement o f synagogues
and mosques and Islamic centers. And t h a t ' s why we have t o stand
together f o r a d i f f e r e n t f u t u r e .
(Applause.)
I f you want a l l these things I talked about, i n the end i t
w i l l t o some extent be an a f f a i r o f the American heart. We must be
w i l l i n g t o say, I t e l l you again, t h a t i n t h i s country a l l we need
to know about you i s whether you embrace our C o n s t i t u t i o n , our B i l l
of Rights, our Declaration o f Independence; whether you are w i l l i n g
to show up f o r work or school tomorrow; whether you are w i l l i n g t o
give your neighbors the elbow room t o pursue t h e i r personal l i v e s
and t h e i r freedom; whether you are w i l l i n g t o t r e a t people, even
those w i t h whom you d r a m a t i c a l l y disagree, w i t h genuine respect i f
they are law-abiding, hard-working c i t i z e n s . And we ought t o say,
-more-
�13
i f you're t h a t way, we don't need t o know anything else about you.
You're p a r t of our America, and we're going t o b u i l d a bridge
together t o the 21st century.
(Applause.)
Thank you and God bless you a l l .
END
(Applause.)
10:19 A.M.
PST
�Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
Divider Title:
�Remarks By Ihe President lo Ihe People Ui Ihe springtieid Area)np://library.whitehouse.gov/Ketr...ext&.ia=7476<&query=campaign+tinance
f
•tl';-. •
White House Press Release
Remarks By The President To The People Of The Springfield Area
The White House
O f f i c e o f t h e Press S e c r e t a r y
( S p r i n g f i e l d , Massachusetts)
For Immediate Release
November 3, 1996
Remarks By The P r e s i d e n t
To The People Of The S p r i n g f i e l d Area
Court Square
S p r i n g f i e l d , Massachusetts
10:17
P.M. Est
The P r e s i d e n t : Thank you!
(Applause.) Thank you.
Well, h e l l o , S p r i n g f i e l d .
(Applause.) Thank you, thank you f o r
t h i s w o n d e r f u l , w o n d e r f u l welcome. Thank you f o r b e i n g here i n
such l a r g e numbers — I can't even see t h e end o f t h e crowd back
there.
(Applause.) Thank you f o r b e i n g here i n such h i g h
spirits.
(Applause.) I thank e s p e c i a l l y a l l t h e young people
who a r e here t o n i g h t , because t h i s e l e c t i o n i s about you.
(Applause.)
My f e l l o w Americans, i t ' s a g r e a t honor f o r me t o be
here i n t h i s s t a t e which has been so good t o me and t o our
a d m i n i s t r a t i o n ; a s t a t e which has g i v e n so much t o our n a t i o n . I
have wanted t o come here t o t h i s spot f o r a l o n g t i m e , and now
t h a t I see you here I don't know why i t t o o k me so l o n g . I'm
g l a d t o be here.
(Applause.)
Thank you. Mayor Albano, f o r making me f e e l so
welcome. Thank you, Shannon O'Brian, f o r your remarks.
Thank
you. Congressman Kennedy, f o r warming up t h e crowd and f o r your
support and your l e a d e r s h i p . Thank you, Congressman O l v e r and
thank you, Congressman Neal. A l l t h r e e o f these members o f
Congress from Massachusetts s t o o d up f o r America when t h e
government was shut down and t h e f u t u r e o f America was on t h e
l i n e and we were b e i n g asked t o choose.
We s t o o d f o r your f u t u r e
and r e f u s e d , r e f u s e d t o g i v e i n t o t h e b l a c k m a i l o f t h i s Congress
and t h e y deserve your thanks f o r e v e r . Thank you.
(Applause.)
1 of?
01/14/97 12:57:21
�Remarks By The President To The People Ot The Springtield Aredittp://library.whitehouse.gov/Retr...ext&id=7476&query=campaign+tinance
and they deserve your thanks f o r e v e r .
t
Thank you.
(Applause.)
I want t o thank a l l those who have performed here
tonight.
The West S p r i n g f i e l d High School Band.
(Applause.)
The P o t t e n g e r School C h i l d r e n ' s C h o i r , t h e y ' r e here somewhere.
(Applause.) And t h e Minute Men Marching Band. Thank you.
(Applause.) I must say, t h i s i s t h e best sound e f f e c t s I've ever
seen.
I f I had a n o t h e r p l a n e I ' d j u s t t a k e them w i t h me f o r t h e
r e s t o f t h e day'.
(Applause.) I want t o thank Senator Ted
Kennedy f o r so many t h i n g s . But you w i l l never know what i t was
l i k e these l a s t two y e a r s , how c l o s e
we came over
and over a g a i n t o h a v i n g some people l o s e h a r d and g i v e i n ;
h a v i n g some people g i v e up on r a i s i n g up on t h e minimum wage;
h a v i n g some people g i v e up on f i n a l l y s a y i n g t h a t you can't l o s e
your h e a l t h i n s u r a n c e j u s t because you changed jobs o r somebody
i n your f a m i l y ' s been s i c k ; t h a t we would g i v e up on passing a
law t h a t says we're not g o i n g t o l e t i n s u r a n c e companies k i c k
women and newborn babies out o f h o s p i t a l s a f t e r 24 hours anymore.
But Ted Kennedy never gave up. He never gave up and he
prevailed.
(Applause.)
And thank you, John K e r r y , f o r waging t h i s long,
courageous campaign many times a g a i n s t the odds never g i v i n g up.
Thank you f o r b e i n g a v o i c e i n Washington, f o r p r e s e r v i n g our
environment when i t was out o f f a s h i o n . Thank you f o r h e l p i n g me
t o keep p u t t i n g 100,000 p o l i c e on the s t r e e t when the Congress
t r i e d t o s t o p us and we wanted a safe f u t u r e f o r our c h i l d r e n .
(Applause.) Thank you f o r f i g h t i n g a l o n g and l o n e l y b a t t l e f o r
campaign f i n a n c e r e f o r m . Long b e f o r e i t was p o p u l a r you were
t h e r e and you w i l l get e v e r l a s t i n g c r e d i t when i t becomes the law
of t h e l a n d next year. Thank you, John K e r r y . (Applause.) And
thank you f o r s p o n s o r i n g our l e g i s l a t i o n t o open the doors o f
c o l l e g e e d u c a t i o n t o every s i n g l e American.
Thank you.
(Applause.)
My f e l l o w Americans, f o u r years ago when
Massachusetts gave me an enormous s u p p o r t and sent A l Gore and me
t o Washington t o work f o r you. I had come t o you and s a i d we had
t o get our c o u n t r y moving, we had t o change the p o l i t i c s o f
Washington, we had t o s t o p the p o l i t i c s o f i n s u l t s and get t o t h e
p o l i t i c s o f i s s u e s . We had t o get away from the p o l i t i c s o f
d i v i s i o n and embrace t h e p o l i t i c s o f u n i t y . We had t o stop
p o i n t i n g our f i n g e r s a t each o t h e r ask what can we do t o g e t h e r t o
get t h i s c o u n t r y g o i n g i n t h e r i g h t d i r e c t i o n .
You gave me t h e
chance and I came here t o say thank you. Thank you f o r doing
that.
(Applause.)
Four years ago amid a t i m e o f h i g h unemployment,
r i s i n g crime, r i s i n g f r u s t r a t i o n and i n c r e a s i n g d i v i s i o n , you
t o o k a chance on me. You t o o k me on f a i t h and you d i d not know.
You've heard a l l these debates about where we stand and where
they stand t o n i g h t .
But t h e r e ' s one t h i n g t h a t hasn't been
emphasized. We now have some evidence about which s i d e i s r i g h t .
When I became P r e s i d e n t t h e unemployment r a t e i n Massachusetts
was 7.5 p e r c e n t . T o n i g h t i t i s 4.2 p e r c e n t . (Applause.)
Incomes a r e r i s i n g f o r t h e f i r s t time i n a decade.
I n e q u a l i t y — i n e q u a l i t y among people who are working has gone
down by t h e l a r g e s t amount i n 27 y e a r s .
We have
the l o w e s t r a t e s o f p o v e r t y among s e n i o r c i t i z e n s ever recorded.
We have 10.7 m i l l i o n new j o b s , r e c o r d hew businesses, r e c o r d new
e x p o r t s . The U n i t e d S t a t e s i s number one i n auto p r o d u c t i o n
a g a i n f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e s i n c e the 1970s. We are moving i n t h e
right direction.
(Applause.)
2f7
0
01/14/97 12:57:23
�Remarks By 1 he Fresiaent io ihe People ut Ine bprmgneia Areainp://library.whitehouse.gov/Retr...ext<fcid=7470<fcquery=campaign+tinaiice
t
The crime r a t e has come down f o r f o u r years i n a
row.
We have t h e l o w e s t crime r a t e i n 10 y e a r s . The w e l f a r e
r o l l s have dropped f o r f o u r years i n a row as n e a r l y 2 m i l l i o n
Americans have found t h e i r way t o work and g r e a t e r d i g n i t y .
C h i l d s u p p o r t c o l l e c t i o n s are up 50 p e r c e n t — $4 b i l l i o n a year
for the c h i l d r e n of t h i s country.
(Applause.)
We have worked hard t o change t h e course o f America
and b r i n g America t o g e t h e r . And we have been a f o r c e f o r peace
and freedom i n t h e w o r l d , from the Middle East t o Bosnia t o
N o r t h e r n I r e l a n d . And t h e r e a-re no Russian m i s s i l e s p o i n t e d a t
any American c h i l d r e n t o n i g h t f o r the f i r s t t i m e s i n c e the dawn
of t h e n u c l e a r age.
We are moving i n t h e r i g h t d i r e c t i o n .
(Applause. )
You know a l l t h e i s s u e s , but l e t me say t o you t h a t
we are moving, a t a t i m e o f g r e a t change, i n t o a new w o r l d t h a t
we can't f u l l y u n d e r s t a n d . We know t h a t t h e f r o n t i e r s of
knowledge are b e i n g pushed back at a r a p i d r a t e . We know we are
changing t h e way we work and l i v e and r e l a t e t o t h e r e s t o f the
world.
When I became P r e s i d e n t , t h e r e were 3 m i l l i o n
Americans w o r k i n g f u l l - t i m e and l i v i n g a t home and working a t
home. Today, f o u r years l a t e r , t h e r e are 12 m i l l i o n Americans
d o i n g i t . And f o u r years from now, t h e r e w i l l be 30 m i l l i o n
Americans d o i n g i t .
(Applause.)
When I became P r e s i d e n t , t h e r e was no known cure f o r
s t r o k e . Today, we have t r e a t m e n t f o r s t r o k e because o f medical
r e s e a r c h f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e ever. And two o f t h e genes t h a t
cause b r e a s t cancer have been uncovered.
We may be a b l e t o cure
it.
(Applause.)
We are d e v e l o p i n g a supercomputer t h a t w i l l do more
c a l c u l a t i o n s i n a second than you can go home t o n i g h t and do on
your hand-held c a l c u l a t o r i n 30,000 years. The w o r l d i s
changing, my f e l l o w Americans and we had b e t t e r make the r i g h t
d e c i s i o n s about how t o respond t o t h a t change.
There i s t o o much p e r s o n a l n e g a t i v e a t t a c k i n
p o l i t i c s and t o o l i t t l e a n a l y s i s of what the b a s i s o f our
d i f f e r e n c e s a r e . Every i s s u e t h a t Congressman O l v e r , Congressman
Neal, Senator Kennedy, Senator K e r r y and Congressman Kennedy
mentioned
e v e r y one can be d i s t i l l e d i n t o t h i s .
I believe
t h a t t h e r e are some t h i n g s t h a t we must do t o g e t h e r as a n a t i o n
to h e l p g i v e each o t h e r a chance t o make the most o f our own
l i v e s — not a guarantee, b u t a chance. They b e l i e v e you're
b e t t e r o f f on t h e i r own.
That's what t h e i r budget was a l l about.
And now you have t o d e c i d e .
I f t h e i r budget were the law o f t h e l a n d t o n i g h t , we
would have had r e d u c t i o n s i n Medicare, c u t s t h r e e t i m e s as g r e a t
as those t h a t were necessary t o preserve t h e Medicare t r u s t fund.
I t would have c o s t our s e n i o r s , no m a t t e r how poor, $268 more a
year, p l u s more i n out o f pocket c o s t s over and above t h a t .
We
would have had t h e f i r s t c u t s i n s t u d e n t loans and Head S t a r t i n
modern h i s t o r y . We would have had the f i r s t c u t s i n t h e Medicaid
guarantee o f h e a l t h care t o poor c h i l d r e n , t o m i d d l e c l a s s
f a m i l i e s who have f a m i l y members w i t h d i s a b i l i t i e s .
Even t h e y
would have r e p e a l e d t h e standards o f q u a l i t y care f o r s e n i o r s i n
n u r s i n g homes. We would have p a r a l y z e d t h e a b i l i t y o f our
government t o p r o t e c t t h e environment.
We would have, i n s h o r t ,
d i v i d e d our c o u n t r y .
3
o f
7
01/14/97 12:57:24
�Remarks By The President To The People Ot The Springfield Are*ittp://library.whitehouse.gov/Retr...ext&id=7476&query=campaign+tinance
t
But they b e l i e v e t h a t t h a t was r i g h t because t h e y
b e l i e v e we're b e t t e r o f f on o u r own. And you have t o decide.
They shut t h e government down not once, b u t twice,, t o f o r c e these
c u t s on t h e American people.
And because these members o f
Congress s t o o d w i t h me — t h e y s a i d , oh, you Democrats w i l l cave
i n , you're m i s e r a b l e when t h e government i s shut down. I s a i d
t h i s i s n o t about government, i t ' s about people.
I ' d r a t h e r see
the American people inconvenienced f o r 30 days than i r r e p a r a b l y
damaged f o r 30 years. We w i l l n o t g i v e i n t o your c u t s and your
approach.
(Applause.)
So now you have t o decide about tomorrow. For t h i s
e l e c t i o n i s about tomorrow. This i s an e l e c t i o n o f enormous
moment, w i t h g r e a t consequences and c l e a r c h o i c e s . You should
a l l be happy t h a t the choices a r e as c l e a r as t h e y a r e . I am
w e l l aware t h a t I am not s o l e l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e f a c t t h a t we
have 10.7 m i l l i o n more j o b s . But we d i d our p a r t . We cut t h e
d e f i c i t by 63 p e r c e n t . We i n v e s t e d i n e d u c a t i o n . We expanded
the a b i l i t y o f Americans t o s e l l t h e i r p r o d u c t s around the w o r l d .
And we d i d o t h e r t h i n g s t o grow t h e economy. That's why we have
those 10.7 m i l l i o n more j o b s . We d i d i t t o g e t h e r . I want us t o
do more t o g e t h e r . We're not b e t t e r o f f on our own. I t takes a
v i l l a g e t o r a i s e a c h i l d and b u i l d a c o u n t r y and b u i l d a f u t u r e .
(Applause.)
So you have t o decide whether we w i l l c o n t i n u e our
work t o balance the budget and p r o t e c t the medical programs t h a t
our s e n i o r s , our people w i t h d i s a b i l i t i e s , our p o o r e s t c h i l d r e n
depend upon; c o n t i n u e t o i n v e s t i n e d u c a t i o n , t h e environment and
t e c h n o l o g y ; and t a r g e t our t a x c u t s t o people who need them f o r
purposes t h a t are needed -- e d u c a t i o n and c h i l d r e a r i n g and
b u y i n g a f i r s t home and d e a l i n g w i t h a medical c o s t . Or whether
we w i l l adopt t h e i r scheme, which w i l l blow a h o l e i n t h e
d e f i c i t , r e q u i r e b i g g e r c u t s than t h e ones I vetoed and send t h e
economy o f t h i s s t a t e i n t o a t a i l s p i n . W i l l you s t a n d w i t h us t o
b u i l d America's f u t u r e and b u i l d t h a t b r i d g e t o t h e 21st century?
You have t o decide whether we were r i g h t t o say
people s h o u l d n ' t l o s e t h e i r j o b s i f they have t o t a k e a l i t t l e
t i m e o f f when a baby i s born o r a f a m i l y member i s s i c k ; and
whether we s h o u l d n ' t expand t h e f a m i l y leave law t o say people
s h o u l d be a b l e t o get a l i t t l e t i m e o f f t o go v i s i t t h e i r
c h i l d r e n ' s t e a c h e r s and t a k e t h e i r f a m i l y members t o t h e d o c t o r .
W i l l you h e l p us do t h a t ?
(Applause.)
You have t o decide whether we're going t o c l e a n up
500 more t o x i c waste s i t e s .
You have t o decide whether we're
going t o r e a l l y implement w e l f a r e r e f o r m i n t h e r i g h t way. I t ' s
a l l v e r y w e l l t o say people have t o t u r n a w e l f a r e check i n t o a
paycheck. I'm f o r t h a t but I want the jobs t o be t h e r e . You
can't make people go t o work unless t h e r e ' s a j o b . We have a
p l a n t o move a m i l l i o n people from w e l f a r e t o work. W i l l you
h e l p us implement i t and b u i l d t h a t b r i d g e ?
(Applause.)
You have t o decide whether we were r i g h t o r they
were when we passed t h e Brady B i l l and kept 60,000 f e l o n s ,
f u g i t i v e s and s t a l k e r s from g e t t i n g handguns. And now people who
beat up t h e i r spouses and t h e i r k i d s won't be a b l e t o get them
either.
You have t o decide i f we were r i g h t .
(Applause.)
You have t o decide whether you want us t o f i n i s h t h e
job o f p u t t i n g 100,000 p o l i c e on t h e s t r e e t , o r l e t them take
away t h e p o l i c e t h a t a r e s t i l l t o be p l a c e d . Why i n t h e w o r l d
t h e y want t o do t h a t I don't know, b u t they do.
You have t o
4 f7
0
01/14/97 12:57:25
�Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
10
Divider Title:
�THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(Hartford, Connecticut)
For Immediate Release
October 6, 1996
HARTFORD DEBATE '96:
THE FIRST PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE
BETWEEN
PRESIDENT CLINTON AND SENATOR DOLE
The Bushnell Auditorium
Hartford, Connecticut
9:00 P.M. EDT
MR. LEHRER: Good eveningfromthe Bushnell Theater in Hartford, Connecticut. I'm
Jim Lehrer, of the NewsHour on PBS. Welcome to the first of the 1996 presidential debates
between President Bill Clinton, the Democratic nominee; and Senator Bob Dole, the Republican
nominee.
This event is sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates. It will last 90
minutes, following a format and rules worked out by the two campaigns. There will be
two-minute opening and closing statements; in between, a series of questions, each having three
parts - a 90-second answer, a 60-second rebuttal, and a 30-second response. I will assist the
candidates in adhering to those time limits, with the help of a series of lights visible to both.
Under their rules, the candidates are not allowed to question each other directly. I will
ask the questions. There are no limitations on the subjects. The order for everything tonight was
determined a coin toss.
Now, to the opening statements and to President Clinton.
Mr. President.
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Thank you, Jim, and thank you to the people of Hartford, our
host. I want to begin by saying again how much I respect Senator Dole and his record of public
service, and how hard I will try to make this campaign and this debate one of ideas, not insults.
�Four years ago I ran for President at a time of high unemployment and rising frustration.
I wanted to turn this country around with a program of opportunity for all, responsibilityfromall,
and an American community where everybody has a role to play. I wanted a government that was
smaller and less bureaucratic to help people have the tools to make the most of their own lives.
Four years ago, you took me on faith. Now, there's a record: 10.5 million more jobs,
rising incomes, falling crime rates and welfare rolls, a strong America at peace. We are better
off than we were four years ago. Let's keep it going.
We cut the deficit by 60 percent. Now let's balance the budget and protect Medicare,
Medicaid, education and the environment. We cut taxes for 15 million working Americans.
Now, let's pass the tax cuts for education and child-rearing, help with medical emergencies and
buying a home. We passed family and medical leave. Now let's expand it so more people can
succeed as parents and in the work force. We passed the 100,000 police, the assault weapons ban,
the Brady Bill. Now let's keep going by finishing the work of putting the police on the street and
tackling juvenile gangs.
We passed welfare reform. Now, let's move a million people from welfare to work. And,
most important, let's make education our highest priority so that every 8-year-old will be able to
read, every 12-year-old can log onto the Internet, every 18-year-old can go to college.
We can build that bridge to the 21st century, and I look forward to discussing exactly how
we're going to do it.
MR. LEHRER: Senator Dole, two minutes.
SENIOR DOLE: Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. President, for those kind words. Thank the people of Hartford, the
Commission, and all those out who may be listening or watching. It's a great honor for me to be
here, standing here as the Republican nominee. I'm very proud to be the Republican nominee,
reaching out to Democrats and independents.
I have three very special people with me - my wife, Elizabeth; my daughter, Robin, who
has never let me down; and a fellow named Frank Garappa (phonetic) from New York, along with
Ollie Mananin (phonetic) helped me out in the mountains of Italy a few years back. I've learned
from them that people do have tough times and sometimes, you can't go it alone. And that's what
America's all about.
I remember getting my future back from doctors and nurses and a doctor in Chicago,
named Dr. Kelikian, and ever since that time I've tried to give something back to my country, to
the people who are watching us tonight.
America is the greatest place on the face of the Earth. But I know millions of you still
2
�have anxieties. You work harder and harder to make ends meet and put food on the table. You
worry about the quality and the safety of your children and the quality of education. But, even
more importantly, you worry about the future, and will they have the same opportunities that you
and I have had.
And Jack Kemp and I want to share with you some ideas tonight. Jack Kemp is my
running mate, doing an outstanding job. Now, I'm a plain-speaking man and I learned long ago
that your word was your bond. And I promise you tonight that I'll try to address your concerns
and not try to exploit them. It's a tall order, but I've been running against the odds for a long
time. And, again, I'm honored to be here this evening.
MR. LEHRER: Mr. President, first question: There's a major difference in your view
of the role of the federal government and that of Senator Dole. How would you define the
difference?
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, Jim, I believe that the federal government should give
people the tools and try to establish the conditions in which they can make the most of their own
lives. That, to me, is the key. And that leads me to some different conclusions from Senator
Dole.
For example, we have reduced the size of the federal government to its smallest size in 30
years. We've reduced more regulations, eliminated more programs than my two Republican
predecessors. But I have worked hard for things like the Family
and Medical Leave law, the Brady Bill, the assault weapons ban, the program to put 100,000
police on the street.
All of these are programs that Senator Dole opposed, that I supported because I felt they
were a legitimate effort to help people make the most of their own lives. I've worked hard to help
families impart values to their own children. I supported the V-chip so that parents would be able
to control what their kids watched on television when they're young, along with the ratings system
for television and educational television. I supported strong action against the tobacco companies
to stop the marketing, advertising, and sale of tobacco to young people. I supported a big increase
in the Safe and Drug-Free Schools program.
These were areas on which Senator Dole and I differed, but I believed that they were the
right areas for America to be acting together as one country to help individuals and families make
the most of their own lives and raise their kids with good values and a good future.
MR. LEHRER: Senator Dole, one minute.
SENATOR DOLE: I think the basic difference is ~ and I've had some experience in this
- I think the basic difference - I trust the people; the President trusts the government.
�If you go back and look at the health care plan that he wanted to impose on the American
people - one-seventh the total economy, 17 new taxes, price controls, 35 to 50 new
bureaucracies, a cost of $1.5 trillion. Don't forget that. That happened in 1993. A tax increase,
tax everybody in America - not just the rich. If you made $25,000 - that's the original proposal
- you got your Social Security taxes increased. We had a BTU tax - $35 billion gas tax, a $265
billion tax increase.
I guess I rely more on the individual. I carry a little card around in my pocket called the
"10th Amendment": Where possible, I want to give power back to the states and back to the
people. That's my difference with the President and we'll have specific differences later. He
noted a few, but there are others.
MR. LEHRER: Mr. President, 30 seconds.
PRESIDENT CLINTON: I trust the people. We've done a lot to give the people more
powers to make their own decisions over their own lives. But I do think we are right when we
try to, for example, give mothers and newborns 48 hours before they can be kicked out of the
hospital, ending these drive-by deliveries. I think we were right to pass the Kassebaum-Kennedy
bill, which states you can't lose your health insurance just because you change jobs or because
someone in your family has been sick.
Our government is smaller and less bureaucratic, and has given more authority to the states
than its two predecessors under Republican presidents. But I do believe we have to help our
people get ready to succeed in the 21st century.
MR. LEHRER: Senator Dole, the President said in his opening statement, we are better
off today than we were four years ago. Do you agree?
SENATOR DOLE: Well, he's better off than he was four years ago. (Laughter.)
PRESIDENT CLINTON: I agree with that. That's right.
SENATOR DOLE: And I may be better off four years from now. But - (laughter) ~ I
don't know, I looked at the slowest growth in a century. He inherited a growth of 4.7, 4.8
percent; now, it's down to about 2.4 percent. We're going to pass a million bankruptcies this
year for the first time in history. We've got stagnant wages; in fact, women's wages have
dropped 2.2 percent. Men's wages haven't gone up, gone down. So we have stagnation.
We have the highest foreign debt in history. And it seems to me that if you take a look
- are you better off? Well, I guess some may be better off. Saddam Hussein is probably better
off than he was four years ago. Rene Preval is probably better off than he was four years ago.
But are the American people?
�They're working harder and harder and paying more taxes. For the first time in history,
you pay about 40 percent of what you earn, more than you spend for food, clothing and shelter
combined for taxes under this administration.
So some may be better off. They talk about family income being up. That's not true in
Connecticut - family income is down. And it's up in some cases because both parents are
working ~ one works for the family and one works to pay taxes for the government. We're going
to give them a tax cut so they can spend more time with their children, maybe even take a
vacation. That's what America is all about.
MR. LEHRER. Mr. President, one minute.
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, let me say, first of all, in February, Senator Dole
acknowledged that the American economy was in the best shape it's been in in 30 years. We have
10.5 million more jobs, a faster job growth rate than under any Republican administration since
the 1920s. Wages are going up for the first time in a decade. We have record number of new
small businesses. We had the biggest drop in the number of people in poverty in 27 years. All
groups of people are growing ~ we had the biggest drop in income inequality in 27 years in 1995.
The average families' income has gone up over $1,600 just since our economic plan passed.
So I think it's clear that we're better off than we were four years ago. Now we need to
focus on, what do we need to do to be better off still. How can we help people, as we are, to get
their retirements when they work for small businesses, to be able to afford health insurance, to
be able to educate their children. That's what I want to focus on. But we're clearly better off
than we were four years ago, as Senator Dole acknowledged this year.
MR. LEHRER: Senator Dole?
SENATOR DOLE: I doubt that I acknowledged that this year, but in any event, I think
we just look at the facts. We ask the people that are viewing tonight, are you better off than you
were four years ago? It's not whether we're better off, it's whether they're better off. Are you
working harder to put food on the table, feed your children? Are your children getting a better
education? Drug use has doubled the past 44 months all across America. Crime has gone down,
but it's because the mayors like Rudy Giuliani who have one-third of the drop, happened in one
city ~ New York City.
So, yes, some may be better off. But of the people listening tonight, the working families
who will benefit from economic package, they'll be better off when Bob Dole is President and
Jack Kemp is Vice President.
MR. LEHRER: Mr. President, Senator Dole has come pretty close in the last few days
of accusing you of lying about his position on Medicare reform. Have you done so?
�PRESIDENT CLINTON: Absolutely not. Let's look at the position. First of all,
remember that in this campaign season, since Senator Dole has been a candidate, he has bragged
about the fact that he voted against Medicare in the beginning, in 1965 - one of only 12 members.
He said he did the right thing then. He knew it wouldn't work at the time. That's what he said.
Then his budget that he passed, along with Speaker Gingrich, cut Medicare $270 billion,
more than was necessary to repair .the Medicare trust fund. It would have charged seniors more
for out-of-pocket costs, as well as more in premiums, because doctors could have charged them
more. The American Hospital Association, the Nurses Association, the Catholic Hospital
Association all said hundreds of hospitals could close and people would be hurt badly under the
Dole-Gingrich Medicare plan that I vetoed.
And now, with this risky $550-billion tax scheme of Senator Dole's, even his own friends,
his campaign co-chair, Senator D'Amato, says that they can't possibly pay for it without cutting
Medicare more and cutting Social Security as well, according to him.
Now, my balanced budget plan adds 10 years to the life of the Medicare trust fund - 10
years. And we'll have time to deal with the long-term problems of the baby boomers. But it was
simply wrong to finance their last scheme to cut Medicare $270 billion to run the risk of it
withering on the vine. We always have to reform it over the years, but we need someone who
believes in it to reform it.
MR. LEHRER: Senator Dole.
SENATOR DOLE: Well, I must say I looked back at the vote on Medicare in 1965 - we
had a program called Eldercare that also provided drugs and was means-tested so people who
needed medical attention received it. I thought it was a good program.
But I have supported Medicare ever since. In fact, I used to go home and my mother
would tell me - said, Bob, all I've got is my Social Security and my Medicare, don't cut it. I
wouldn't violate anything my mother said. In fact, we had a conversation about our mothers one
day, a very poignant conversation in the White House.
I'm concerned about health care. I've had the best health care in government hospitals.
Army hospitals, and I know its importance. But we've got to fix it. It's his trustees, the
President's trustees, not mine, who say it's going to go broke. He doesn't fix it for 10 years.
We ought to appoint a commission, just as we did in Social Security in 1983 when we
rescued Social Security, and I was proud to be on that commission, along with Claude Pepper,
the champion of senior citizens from Florida. And we can do it again if we take politics out of
it.
Stop scaring the seniors, Mr. President. You've already spent $45 million scaring seniors
and tearing me apart. I think it's time to have a truce.
�MR. LEHRER: Mr. President.
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, let me say first of all, I'd be happy to have a commission
deal with this, and I appreciate what Senator Dole did on the '83 Social Security Commission.
But it won't be possible to do if his tax scheme passes, because even his own campaign cochair,
Senator D'Amato, says he'll have to cut Medicare even more than was cut in the bill that I vetoed.
I vetoed that bill because it cut more Medicare and basically ran the risk of breaking up the
system.
My balanced budget plan puts 10 years onto Medicare. We ought to do that; then we can
have a commission. But Senator Dole's plans are not good for the country.
MR. LEHRER: Senator Dole, speaking of your tax plan, do you still think that's a good
idea, the 15 percent, across-the-board tax cut?
SENATOR DOLE: Oh, yes, and you'll be eligible. (Laughter.)
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Me, too?
SENATOR DOLE: And so will the former President, yes. (Laughter.)
PRESIDENT CLINTON: I need it.
SENATOR DOLE: Well, the people need it; that's the point. This is not a Wall Street
tax cut, this is a family tax cut. This is a Main Street tax cut. Fifteen percent across - let's take
a family making $30,000 a year. That's $1,261. Now, maybe to some in this Bushnell Memorial
that's not a lot of money, but people watching tonight with a couple of kids, a working family,
that's four or five months of day care, maybe a personal computer, it may be three or four months
of mortgage payments.
This economic package is about families, but it's a six-point package. First of all, it's a
balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, which President Clinton defeated. He twisted
arms and got six Democrats to vote the other way. We lost by one vote.
It's balancing the budget by the year 2002. It's a tax cut, cutting capital gains 50 percent,
so you can go out and create more jobs and more opportunities. It's a state tax relief. It's a
$500-per-child tax credit. It's about litigation reform ~ now that the President gets millions of
dollars from the trial lawyers, he probably doesn't like this provision. In fact, when I fell off that
podium in Chico, before I hit the ground I had a call on my cell phone from a trial lawyer saying
I think we've got a case here. (Laughter.)
And it's also regulatory reform. It's a good package, Mr. President, and we'd like to have
7
�your support.
MR. LEHRER: Mr. President.
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, here's the problem with it. It sounds very good, but
there's a reason that 500 economists, including seven Nobel Prize winners and business
periodicals like Business Week - and even Senator Dole's friend, Senator Warren Rudman,
former Republican Senator from New Hampshire, says it is not a practical program. It's a
$550-billion tax scheme that will cause a big hole in the deficit, which will raise interest rates and
slow down the economy and cause people to pay more for home mortgages, car payments, credit
card payments, college loans and small business loans.
It's not good to raise the deficit. We've worked too hard to lower it. It will actually raise
taxes on 9 million people. And, in addition to that, it will force bigger cuts in Medicare,
Medicaid, education and the environment than the ones that he and Mr. Gingrich passed that I
vetoed last year.
So it sounds great. But our targeted tax cut for education, child rearing, health care and
home buying, which is paid for in my balanced budget plan - something that he has not done certified by the Congressional Budget Office, that's the right way to go.
MR. LEHRER: Senator Dole.
SENATOR DOLE: The President wants to increase spending 20 percent over the next six
years. I want to increase spending 14 percent. That's how simple it is.
I want the government to pinch pennies for a change, instead of the American families.
We're talking about six percentage points over six years. And with that money you give it back
to the working people. You also provide opportunity scholarships so low-income parents will
have the same choice that others have in sending their children to better schools. And it will
work. And when it does work, Mr. President, I know you will congratulate me.
MR. LEHRER: Mr. President, the Senator mentioned trial lawyers and that means
campaign financing. How do you personally avoid being unduly influenced by people who give
you money or give you services in your campaigns?
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, I try to articulate my positions as clearly as possible, tell
people what I stand for and let them decide whether they're going to support me or not. The
Senator mentioned the trial lawyers. In the case of the product liability bill, which they passed
and I vetoed ~ I think that's what he's talking about ~ I actually wanted to sign that bill and I told
the people exactly what - the Congress - exactly what kind of bill I would sign. Now, a lot of
the trial lawyers didn't want me to sign any bill at all, but I thought we ought to do what we could
to cut frivolous lawsuits.
8
�They wouldn't make some of the changes that I thought should be made. And let me just
give you an example. I had a person in the Oval Office who lost a child in a school bus accident
where a drunk driver caused the accident directly, but there were problems with the school bus.
The drunk driver had no money.
Under the new bill, if I had signed it, a person like that could never have had any
recovery. I thought that was wrong. So I gave four or five specific examples to the Congress and
I said, prove to me that these people could recover, but we're going to eliminate frivolous
lawsuits, I'll sign the bill.
But, generally, I believe that a President has to be willing to do what he thinks is right.
I've done a lot of things that were controversial - my economic plan, my trade position, Bosnia,
Haiti, taking on the NRA for the first time, taking on the tobacco companies for the first time.
Sometimes you just have to do that because you know it's right for the country over the long run.
That's what I've tried to do, and that's what I will continue to do as President.
MR. LEHRER: Senator Dole?
SENATOR DOLE: How does he avoid conflict? Well, I don't know in the case of the
trial lawyers. When I look at the trial lawyers and you're a few million short, you run out to
Hollywood and pick up $2 million to $4 million, and organized labor comes to Washington, D.C,
and puts $35 million into the pot. Now, if these aren't special interests, then I've got a lot to
leam. I was there for a while before I left on June the 11th.
The trial lawyers -- I don't - my wife is a lawyer. We're the only two lawyers in
Washington that trust each other, but we're lawyers. I like lawyers. I don't dislike trial lawyers.
But it seems to me there has got to be some end to the frivolous law suits, and there's got to be
some cap on punitive damage.
You're putting a lot of business people out of business, small business men and small
business women who paid 70 percent of your $265-billion increase, the largest tax increase in
the history of America. I said that one day and Pat Moynihan, a Democrat, said, no, in the
history of the world. So I modified it - the largest tax increase in the history of the world. And
it seems to me that there is a problem there, Mr. President.
And I will address you as Mr. President. You didn't do that with President Bush in 1992.
MR. LEHRER: Mr. President.
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Let me say, first of all, I signed a tort reform bill that dealt
with civilian aviation a couple of years ago. I proved that I will sign reasonable tort reform.
Secondly, Senator Dole has had some pretty harsh comments about special interest money,
�but it wasn't me who opposed what we tried to do to save the lives of children who are subject
to tobacco and then went to the tobacco growers and bragged about standing up to the federal
government when we tried to stop the advertising, marketing, and sales of tobacco to children.
And it wasn't me that let the polluters actually come into the halls of Congress, into the rooms,
and rewrite the environmental laws. That's what Speaker Gingrich and Senator Dole did, not me.
SENATOR DOLE: That's not true.
PRESIDENT CLINTON: So I believe that we should take a different approach to this and
talk about how we stand on the issues instead of trying to characterize each other's motivations.
I think Senator Dole and I just honestly disagree.
MR. LEHRER: Senator Dole, let me ask you the same question I asked the President:
How do you avoid being influenced by people who contribute money and services to your
campaign?
SENATOR DOLE: I think it's very difficult. Let's be honest about it. That's why we
need campaign finance reform. That's why I reach out to the Perot voters, and we've done about
all that - we are the reform party, the Republican Party. And the Perot voters who are looking
for a home ought to take a look at the Republican record. Whatever it is, whatever the checklist
was in 1992, it's all done but campaign finance reform.
I worked with Senator Mitchell, who played me, I guess, in the debate warmup. We tried
six or eight years ago -he appointed three people, I appointed three people to get campaign
finance reform. We couldn't get it done because it wasn't enforceable. You suggested a
commission, Newt Gingrich did. I've suggested that at least four or five years ago we have a
commission on campaign finance reform; they sent it to Congress and you have to vote it up or
down. That's how it works.
We're never going to fix it by the parties, because Democrats want a better advantage
themselves. We want a better advantage as Republicans and that's not how it's going to work.
But I want to touch on this tobacco thing. I know the President's been puffing a lot on
that. But I want to go back to 1965. That was my first vote against tobacco companies when I
said we ought to label cigarettes, and I've had a consistent record ever since 1965. We passed
a bill in 1992 to encourage the states to adopt programs to stop kids from smoking. All 50 states
did it. It took three and a half years. It wasn't until election year, Mr. President, that you ever
thought about stopping smoking.
What about drugs that have increased - doubled in the last 44 months? Cocaine is up 141
percent - or marijuana - cocaine up 166 percent. And it seems to me that you have a selective
memory. Mine doesn't work that way, so I just want to try to correct it as we go along.
10
�SENATOR DOLE: Mr. President.
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Mr. Lehrer, I hope we'll have a chance to discuss drugs later
in the program, but let me respond to what you said. I agree that too many incumbent politicians
in Washington in both parties have consistently opposed campaignfinancereform. That was
certainly the case from the minute I got there.
So after Speaker Gingrich and Senator Dole took over the Congress I went to New
Hampshire and a man suggested - a gentleman that, unfortunately, just passed away a couple of
days ago, suggested that we appoint a commission. And I shook hands with him on it and I
appointed my members, and the commission never met.
And then Senator Dole's ardent supporter. Senator McCain, who is out there today, along
with Senator Feingold, supported ~ sponsored a campaignfinancereform proposal. I strongly
supported it, and members of Senator Dole's own party in the Senate killed it. And he was not
out there, urging them to vote for the McCain-Feingold bill.
So I think the American people, including the Perot supporters, know that I've had a
consistent record in favor of campaignfinancereform and I will continue to have. And I hope
we can finally get it in the next session of Congress, because we need it badly.
MR. LEHRER: Senator Dole, 30 seconds.
SENATOR DOLE: Well, on campaign reform itself we're going to get it when we have
a bipartisan commission, take it out of politics, get people who don't have any interest in politics,
but understand the issue, and let them make a recommendation to Congress.
Now, we're not kidding anybody, Mr. President. These are sophisticated people watching
tonight - millions and millions of Americans. They know the Republican Party hasn't done it,
they know the Democratic Party won't do it. We ought to agree that somebody else should do
it and we have to vote it up or down.
PRESIDENT CLINTON: I agree.
MR. LEHRER: Mr. President, the Senator mentioned drugs. He's suggested in the past
that you bear some responsibility for the rise in drug use of teenagers in the United States. Is he
right?
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, Jim, I think every American in any position of
responsibility should be concerned about what's happened. I am.
But let's look at the overall record. Overall in America, cocaine use has dropped 30
percent in the last four years; casual drug use down 13 percent. The tragedy is that our young
11
�people are still increasing their use of drugs, up to about 11 percent total with marijuana. And
I regret it. Let me tell you what I've tried to do about it.
I appointed a four-star General who led our efforts south of the border to keep drugs from
coming into the country as our nation's Drug Czar - the most heavily decorated solder in uniform
when he retired. We submitted the biggest drug budget ever. We have dramatically increased
control and enforcement at the border. We supported a crime bill that had 60 death penalties,
including the death penalty for drug kingpins. And I supported a big expansion in the Safe And
Drug Free Schools program to support things like the DARE program, because I thought all those
things were very important.
Do I think that I bear some responsibility for the fact that too many of our children still
don't understand drugs are wrong, drugs can kill you, even though I have consistently opposed
the legalization of drugs all my public life and worked hard against them? I think we all do. And
I hope we can do better.
I don't think this issue should be politicized because my record is clear, and I don't think
Senator Dole supports using drugs. I think we just have to continue to work on this until those
who think it isn't dangerous and won't kill them and won't destroy their lives get the message and
change.
MR. LEHRER: Senator.
SENATOR DOLE: Again, you're very selective, Mr. President. You don't want to
politicize drugs, but it's all right to politicize Medicare and go out and scare senior citizens and
other vulnerable groups, veterans and people who get Pell Grants and things like this. I mean,
you say we have done all these bad things, which isn't the case.
But it seems to me the record is clear. The record is pretty clear in Arkansas when you
were Governor - drug use doubled. You resisted the appointment of a drug czar there because
you thought it might interfere with treatment. But here you cut the Drug Czar's Office 83
percent. You have cut interdiction substantially. That's what - I want to stop it from coming
across the border. And in my administration we're going to train the National Guard to stop it
from coming across the border.
This is an invasion of drugs from all over the world. And we have a responsibility. You
had a Surgeon - or before General McCaffrey, you had a lady who said we ought to consider
legalizing drugs. Is that the kind of leadership we need? And I won't comment on other things
that have happened in your administration or your past about drugs. But it seems to me the kids
ought to - if they started they ought to stop, and just don't do it.
MR. LEHRER: Mr. President.
12
�PRESIDENT CLINTON: Let me say again, we did have a drug czar in Arkansas, but he
answered to the Governor, just like this one answers to the President. That's what I thought we
ought to do.
Secondly, Senator Dole, you voted against the crime bill that had the death penalty for
drug kingpins in it, and you voted to cut services to 23 million school children under the Safe and
Drug-Free Schools Act. I don't think that means you're soft on drugs. We just have a different
approach. But let me remind you that my family has suffered from drug abuse. I know what it's
like to see somebody you love nearly lose their lives, and I hate drugs, Senator. We need to do
this together, and we can.
MR. LEHRER: Senator Dole, on the government - continuing to talk about the
government's role - if elected President, would you seek to repeal the Brady Bill and the ban on
assault weapons?
SENATOR DOLE: Not if I didn't have a better idea, but I've got a better idea. It's
something I've worked on for 15 years. It's called the automated check, or the instant check. It's
being used in 17 states right now - states like Florida, Colorado, Virginia and other states. You
don't buy any gun - you don't get any gun. We've got 20 million names on a computer in
Washington, D.C. of people who should not have guns. We ought to keep guns out of the hands
of criminals, and there are eight other categories that should not have guns. I've been working
on this for a long, long time.
You walk in, you put your little card in there. If it says "tilt," you don't get any gun.
You don't get a handgun, you don't get a rifle, you don't get a shotgun. You get zippo. If we're
going to protect American children and American families and people who live as prisoners in
their own home, we've got to stop guns from being dumped on the street.
The administration says they support the instant check; they've appropriated about $200
million, but only spent about $3 million to get it underway.
In our administration, in my administration, we will expedite this. It keeps up the
technology, it keeps guns out of the hands of people who should not have guns. That is the
bottom line. And I believe it's a good idea. It has strong bipartisan support, and perhaps that's
another thing we can depoliticize. You talk about the Brady Bill. There's only been one
prosecution under the Brady Bill - only one under the assault weapon ban, and only seven under
the Brady Bill that you talk about all the time.
And on the assault weapons ban, out of 17 weapons that were banned, only six banned
now because 11 of them have been modified and they're back on the street. Let's get together on
this instant check, because that will really make a difference.
MR. LEHRER: Mr. President.
13
�PRESIDENT CLINTON: Let me say, first of all. Senator Dole has gone back and forth
about whether he'd be for repealing the Brady Bill or repealing the assault weapons ban, and I
think his present position is that he would not do so. And if that's true I'm grateful for it. But
let's look at the facts here.
The Brady Bill has kept at least 60,000 felons, fugitives and stalkers from getting
handguns. Senator Dole led the fight against the Brady Bill, he tried to keep it from coming to
my desk, he didn't succeed, and I signed it, and I'm glad I did.
Then when we had the assault weapons ban in the Senate, Senator Dole fought it bitterly
and opposed the entire crime bill and almost brought the entire crime bill down because the
National Rifle Association didn't want the assault weapons ban - just like they didn't want the
Brady Bill. But, two years later, nobody has lost their handgun --1 mean, their rifles. We've
expanded the Brady Bill to cover people who beat up their spouses and their kids. And this is a
safer country.
So I'm glad I took on that fight and I believe, with all respect, I was right and he was
wrong.
SENATOR DOLE: Well, the President doesn't have it quite right. I mean, it seemed to
me at the time that the assault weapon ban was not effective. But that's history. As I told the
NRA, that's history - you're not going to worry about it anymore, I'm not going to worry about
it anymore. Let's do something better.
Let's stop playing the political game, Mr. President, talking about this and this. You add
up all the states who have used the instant check and how many weapons they've kept out of the
hands of criminals, it would far surpass the number you mentioned. So in my view if you want
to be protected, you ought to vote for Bob Dole and we'll get the instant check passed and we'll
keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
MR. LEHRER: Mr. President, Senator Dole said the other day that you practiced a photo
op foreign policy that has lessened the credibility of the United States throughout the world. Is
he wrong about that?
PRESIDENT CLINTON: If that's what he said, he's not right about that. Look at where
we are today. The United States is still the indispensable nation in the aftermath of the Cold War
and on the brink of the 21st century. I have worked to support our country as the world's
strongest force for peace and freedom, prosperity and security.
We have done the following things: Number one, we've managed the aftermath of the
Cold War, supporting a big drop in nuclear weapons in Russia, the removal of Russian troops
from the Baltics, the integration of Central and Eastern European democracies into a new
14
�partnership with Nato and, I might add, with a democratic Russia.
There are no nuclear missiles pointed at the children of the United States tonight, and have
not been in our administration for the first time since the dawn of the Nuclear Age.
We have worked hard for peace and freedom. When I took office, Haiti was governed by
a dictator that had defied the United States. When I took office, the worst war in Europe was
waging in Bosnia. Now there is a democratically-elected president in Haiti, peace in Bosnia. We
have just had elections there. We have made progress in Northern Ireland and the Middle East.
We've also stood up to the new threats of terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction, organized crime. And we have worked hard to expand America's economic presence
around the world with the biggest increase in trade, with the largest number of new trade
agreements in history. That's one of the reasons America is number one in auto production again.
MR. LEHRER: Senator.
SENATOR DOLE: Well, I have a different view again. I supported the President on
Bosnia. And I think we were told the troops would be out in a year. Now I understand it's been
extended till sometime next year.
But let's start with Somalia where they dragged Americans through the streets and where
18 Americans were killed one day because they didn't have - they were pinned down for eight
hours, the rangers, they didn't have the weapons, they didn't have the tanks. They had asked for
the tanks. They didn't get the tanks from this administration. Because we were nation building.
It's called mission creep. We turn it over to the United Nations. The President didn't have much
to do about it.
Look at Haiti where we spent about $3 billion and we got an alarm call there about two
weeks ago — you got to send down some more people because the President has found there are
death squads on his own property. So we need more protection from America.
Bosnia, Northern Ireland, there is no cease-fire in Bosnia. I think there are still lots of
problems in Bosnia. We agreed to train and arm the Muslims so they could defend themselves
- the policy you had when you ran in 1992 - we haven't done that. We're way behind, which
means Americans can't come home. Americans shouldn't have gone there in the first place, had
we let them defend themselves, as they have a right to do under Article 57 of the United Nations
Charter.
MR. LEHRER: Mr. President.
PRESIDENT CLINTON: First of all, I take full responsibility for what happened in
Somalia, but the American people must remember that those soldiers were under an American
15
�commander when that happened. I believe they did the best they could under the circumstances.
And let's not forget that hundreds of thousands of lives were saved there.
Secondly, in Haiti, political violence is much, much smaller than it was. Thirdly, in
Bosnia it's a virtual miracle that there has been no return to war, and at least there has now been
an election and the institution are beginning to function.
In Northern Ireland and the Middle East we are better off than we were four years ago.
There will always be problems in this old world, but if we're moving in the right direction and
America is leading, we're better off.
MR. LEHRER: Senator Dole, if elected president, what criteria would you use to decide
when to send U.S. troops into harm's way?
SENATOR DOLE: Well, after World War I we had a policy of disengagement. Then
from World War I to World War II we had sort of a compulsory engagement policy. Now, I
think we have to have a selective engagement policy. We have to determine when our interests
are involved, not the United Nations' interests. And many of the things the President talked about
he turned over to the United Nations; they decided. He's deployed more troops than any
President in history around the world. It's cost us billions and billions of dollars for peacekeeping
operations.
But these are facts. And it seems to me that when you make a decision, the decision is
made by the President of the United States, by the Commander-in-Chief. He makes that decision
when he commits young men or young women who are going to go around and defend our liberty
and our freedom. That would be my position.
Then I'm going to have a top-down review at the Pentagon; not a bottom-up review where
you all fight over how much money is there. I want a top-down review to determine what our
priorities are and what we should do in defense and then follow that policy, instead of this
bottom-up review with all of the services fighting for the money.
The President said he was going to cut defense $60 billion; he cut defense $112 billion,
devastated states like California and others. And I think now we've got a problem. We've got to
go back and look. Just like you said in Texas one day ~ you know, you raise taxes too much and you did - and you cut defense too much, Mr. President - and you did, and you may have
said that, too.
But the bottom line is, we are the strongest nation in the world, we provide the leadership,
and we're going to have to continue to provide the leadership. But let's do it on our terms when
our interests are involved, and not when somebody blows a whistle at the United Nations.
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Our military is the strongest military in the world. It is the
16
�strongest, best-prepared, best-equipped it has ever been. There is very little difference in the
budget that I have proposed than the Republican budget over the next six-year period.
We are spending a lot of money to modernize our weapons system. I have proposed a lot
of new investments to improve the quality of life for our soldiers, for our men and women in
uniform, for the families, for their training. That is my solemn obligation.
You ask, when do you decide to deploy them. The interests of the American people must
be at stake, our values must be at stake, we have to be able to make a difference. And, frankly,
we have to consider what the risks are to our young men and women in uniform.
But I believe the evidence is that our deployments have been successful - in Haiti, in
Bosnia, when we moved to Kuwait to repel Saddam Hussein's threatened invasion of Kuwait,
when I had sent the fleet into the Taiwan Straits, when we worked hard to end the North Korean
nuclear threat. I believe the United States is at peace tonight in part because of the disciplined,
careful, effective deployment of our military resources.
MR. LEHRER: Senator Dole.
SENATOR DOLE: Well, I failed to mention North Korea and Cuba a while ago. You
look at North Korea, where they have enough plutonium to build six nuclear bombs, where we've
sort of distanced ourselves from our allies, South Korea. They lost about a million people in the
war, the Korean War, the forgotten war. We lost 53,000 Americans. We shouldn't be doing any
favors for North Korea. It's a closed society; we don't have any inspection, we don't know
whether it's going to work or not. But we keep giving them these incentives. Some have called
them something else - incentives. We don't know what's going to happen.
Here we have Cuba, 90 miles from our shores. And what have we done? We've passed
a law that gave people the right to sue, and the President postponed it for six months. And it
seems to me if you want to send a signal you've got to send a signal, Mr. President. The sooner,
the better off we'll be if we put tougher sanctions on Castro, not try to make it easier for him.
MR. LEHRER: Well, Mr. President, what is your attitude toward Cuba and how Cuba
should be treated?
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, first of all, for the last four years we have worked hard
to put more and more pressure on the Castro government to bring about more openness and a
move toward democracy. In 1992, before I became President, Congress passed the Cuba
Democracy Act, and I enforced it vigorously. We made the embargo tougher, but we increased
contacts, people to people, with the Cubans, including direct telephone service, which was largely
supported by the Cuban American community.
Then Cuba shot down two of our planes and murdered four people in international
airspace. They were completely beyond the pale of the law, and I signed the Helms-Burton
17
�legislation.
Senator Dole is correct. I did give about six months before the effective date of the act
before lawsuits can actually be filed, even though they're effective now and can be legally
binding, because I want to change Cuba. And the United States needs help from other countries.
Nobody in the world agrees with our policy on Cuba now. But this law can be used as leverage
to get other countries to help us to move Cuba to democracy.
Every single country in Latin America, Central America, and the Caribbean is a
democracy tonight but Cuba. And if we stay firm and strong, we will be able to bring Cuba
around as well.
SENATOR DOLE: Well, that's the point I made - we have to be firm and strong. And
I hope that will happen. It will happen starting next January and maybe can happen the balance
of this year. We have not been firm and strong. If you look at the poor people who still live in
Cuba, it's a haven for drug smugglers, and we don't have a firm policy when it comes to Fidel
Castro. In my view the policy has failed. So Congress passes a law, the President signs it like
he does a lot of things, but he - like welfare reform, well, I'm going to sign it, but I'm going to
try to change it next year.
In a lot of these election-year conversions - the President is talking about all the drug
money and all the other things, all this anti-smoking campaign ~ all happened in 1996. And I
think the people viewing out there ought to go back and take a look at the record. When he
fought a balanced budget amendment, when he gave you that biggest tax increase in history, when
he tried to take over your health care system, when he fought regulatory reform that costs the
average family $6,000 to $7,000 a year.
This is serious business, about your family. It's about your business. And in this case,
it's about afirmerpolicy with Cuba.
PRESIDENT CLINTON: There were several off-the- subject whoppers in that litany.
Let me just mention, Senator Dole voted for $900 billion in tax increases. His running mate, Jack
Kemp, once said that Bob Dole never met a tax he didn't hike. (Laughter.) And everybody
knows - including the Wall Street Journal, hardly a friend of the Democratic Party or this
administration - that the '82 tax increase he sponsored, in inflation-adjusted dollars was the
biggest tax increase in American history. So we ought to at least get the facts out here on the
table so we can know where to go from here.
MR. LEHRER: Senator Dole, you mentioned health reform several times. What do you
think should be done about the health care system?
SENATOR DOLE: Let me first answer that question about the 1982 tax cut. You know,
we were closing loopholes, we were going after big corporations. I know you probably would
oppose it, Mr. President, but I think we should have a fair system and a flatter system, and we
18
�will have a fairer, flatter system and we're going to make the economic package work.
Health care - well, we finally passed the Kassebaum bill. The President was opposed to
it in 1993. He wanted to give us this big system that took over about one-seventh the economy,
that put on price controls, created all these state alliances, and would cost $1.5 trillion and force
people into managed care whether they wanted it or not. Most people want to see their own
doctor. They're going to see their.own doctor when Bob Dole is President. We won't threaten
anybody.
So we passed the Kassebaum-Kennedy bill, that will cover about 20 to 25 million people.
We've been for that for four, five or six years. The President held it up. And even when it
finally got near passage, Senator Kennedy held it up for 100 days because he wasn't satisfied with
one of the provisions. But it will cover preexisting condition. If you change your job you're
going to be covered. So, a lot of good things in this bill that we should have done, instead of
trying this massive, massive takeover by the federal government.
But then, of course, you had a Democratic Congress and they didn't want to do that. Until
we got a Republican Congress we finally got action, and I'm very proud of my colleagues in the
Republican Party for getting that done. It means a lot to a lot of people watching us tonight.
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, that sounds very good, but it's very wrong. Senator Dole
remembers well that we actually offered not to even put in a health care bill in 1994 - '93 -but
instead to work with the Senate Republicans and write a joint bill.
And they said no, because they got a memo from one of their political advisors saying that
instead they should characterize whatever we did as big government and make sure nothing was
done to aid health care before the '94 elections so they could make that claim.
Well, maybe we bit off more than we could chew. But we're pursuing a step-by-step
reform now. The Kennedy-Kassebaum bill that I signed will make it possible for 25 million
people to keep their health insurance when they change jobs or when somebody in their family
has been sick. I signed a bill to stop these drive-by deliveries where insurance companies can
force people out of the hospital after 24 hours. And I vetoed Senator Dole's Medicare plan that
would have forced a lot of seniors into managed care and taken a lot more money out of their
pockets and left the Medicare withering on the vine.
MR. LEHRER: Senator.
SENATOR DOLE: Well, many of the provisions in the Kassebaum bill were provisions,
my provisions, like deductions for long-term care, making certain that self-employed people
watching tonight can deduct not 30 percent, but 80 percent you pay for premiums, you can also
deduct long-term care now. So it's a good start.
19
�I think - we're even looking at our tax cut proposal, our economic package. There may
be a way there to reach out to the uninsured, because there are a lot of uninsured people in this
country, particularly children, that should be covered. Another way you can do it is to expand
Medicaid. In America, no one will go without health care, no one will go without food MR. LEHRER: Senator ~ go ahead, finish your sentence.
SENATOR DOLE: Food. (Laughter.)
MR. LEHRER: Back to foreign affairs for a moment. Mr. President, are you satisfied
with the way you handled this last Iraq crisis and the end result?
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, I believe that we did the appropriate thing under the
circumstances.
Saddam Hussein is under a U.N. resolution not to threaten his neighbors or repress his
own citizens. Unfortunately, a lot of people have never been as concerned about the Kurds as the
United States has tried to be, and we've been flying an operation to protect them out of Turkey
for many years now.
What happened was, one of the Kurdish leaders invited him to go up north. But we felt,
since the whole world community had told him not to do it, that once he did it we had to do
something. We did not feel that I could commit -- I certainly didn't feel I should commit
American troops to throw him out of where he had gone, and that was the only way to do that.
So the appropriate thing strategically to do was to reduce his ability to threaten his neighbors. We
did that by expanding what's called the no-fly zone, by increasing our allies' control of the
airspace, now from the Kuwait border to the suburbs of Baghdad.
Was it the right thing to do? I believe it was. Is it fully effective? Did it make him
withdraw from the north? Well, he has a little bit, and I hope he will continue. We have learned
that if you give him an inch he'll take a mile. We had to something. And even though not all of
our allies supported it at first, I think most of them now believe that what we did was an
appropriate thing to do.
MR. LEHRER: Senator Dole.
SENATOR DOLE: Well, the President's own CIA Director says that Saddam is stronger
now than he was. And I don't understand extending the no-fly zone in the south when the trouble
was in the north. And what we've done ~ during the Bush administration the Kurds were at the
State Department negotiating, trying to work their differences out. Now we've got all thousands and thousands of refugees. We're even shipping, I guess, 3,000 Kurds to Guam. It
involves Turkey. It's a real problem and Saddam is probably stronger than he ever was.
20
�We shot, what, 44 cruise missiles. They're worth about $1.2 million apiece. And hit
some radar that repaired in a couple, three days. Did we inflict any damage? No. Did we have
any of our allies helping? Well, we have Great Britain. They're always very loyal to us and I
appreciate that. And, of course Kuwait, even though they had to find out they had 5,000 troops
coming. They didn't even understand that. We had to get their permission.
The bottom line is, we went in there alone. We're supposed to be operating under a U.N.
resolution, we did it without any of our allies that helped us in the Gulf.
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Senator Dole has, two or three times before tonight, criticized
me for working with the U.N.; now I'm being criticized for not working with the U.N.
SENATOR DOLE: That's not the U.N.
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Sometimes the United States has to act alone, or at least has to
act first. Sometimes we cannot let other countries have a veto on our foreign policy. I could not
send soldiers into the north of Iraq; that would have been wrong. I could reduce Saddam
Hussein's ability to threaten Kuwait and his other neighbors again. That's what I did; I still
believe it was the right thing to do.
MR. LEHRER: Senator Dole, on your photo op foreign policy charge against SENATOR DOLE: Not mine.
MR. LEHRER: No, no, I mean your charge against the President that he has a photo op
foreign policy - does the Middle East summit last week fall into that category?
SENATOR DOLE: Well, there were some good pictures, but does it fall into that
category? I don't know. I want to be very serious. I have supported the President when I
thought he was right on Bosnia. I supported him on NAFTA and GATT. So it's not that we
always disagree; others disagreed with us. The Mideast is very difficult. But it seemed to me just
as an observer that before you would call somebody to America, you would have some notion
what the end result might be. Now, maybe it's better just to get together and sit down and talk;
maybe that was the purpose. And I know talks have - started again today.
But again, it's almost like an ad hoc foreign policy. It's ad hoc. It's sort of, oh, we get
up in the morning and read the papers and what country's in trouble, we'll have a meeting. To
me, that's not the strategy that I think that people expect from us. I think we have lost credibility.
And I say this very honestly without any partisanship - we've lost credibility around the world.
Our allies don't -- they're not certain what we're going to do, what our reaction, what our
response is going to be.
Nobody suggested sending troops to Iraq, if that was the hint there from the President.
21
�But I do think that Saddam Hussein is stronger than he was, and I do believe that we didn't gain
a great deal in the Mideast by bringing three of the four leaders - one refused to come - to
Washington, D.C.
PRESIDENT CLINTON: We have a very consistent policy in the Middle East: it is to
support the peace process, to support the security of Israel and to support those who are prepared
to take risks for peace. It is a very difficult environment. The feelings are very strong.
There are extremists in all parts of the Middle East who want to kill that peace process.
Prime Minister Rabin gave his life because someone in his own country literally hated him for
trying to bring peace. I would liked to have had a big, organized summit, but those people were
killing each other - rapidly. Innocent Arab children, innocent Israeli people - they were dying.
So much trust is broken down in the aftermath of the change of government. I felt that if
I could just get the parties together to say, let's stop the violence, start talking, commit to the
negotiations, that would be a plus.
Now, today, the Secretary of State is in the Middle East and they've started negotiations,
and all of those leaders promised me they would not quit until they resolved the issues between
them and got the peace process going forward again.
MR. LEHRER: Senator Dole.
SENATOR DOLE: Well, I was disappointed the President did not call for an
unconditional end to the violence. I mean, it seemed to me the violence would stop when these
leaders came to America. The killing and the tragedies had taken place and it's unfortunate. And
it is a difficult area. No doubt about it. It shouldn't be politicized in any way - by the President
or by his opponent, and I don't intend to politicize it. I hope that they have talked and I hope
they've reached some result, and that the killing will end.
MR. LEHRER: Mr. President, in your acceptance speech in Chicago, you said the real
choice in this race is "whether we build a bridge to the future or a bridge to the past, about
whether we believe our best days are still out there or our best days are behind us, about whether
we want a country of people all working together, or one where you're on your own." Are you
saying that you believe Senator Dole is a man of the past and if elected President he would lead
the country backward?
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, I'm saying that Senator Dole said in his fine speech in
San Diego that he wanted to build a bridge to the past. And I think I know what he meant by that.
He is troubled, as I am, by some of the things that go on today. But I believe America is the
greatest country in human history because we have maintained freedom and increasing prosperity
by relentlessly pushing the barriers of knowledge, the barriers of the present, always moving into
22
�the future.
That's why when I became President I was determined to kind of move beyond this old,
stale debate that had gone in Washington for too long, to get this country moving again. And
that's why we've got a country with 10.5 million more jobs and record numbers of new businesses
and rising incomes and falling crime rates and welfare roll rates; why we're moving in the right
direction.
And I'm trying to emphasize that what I want to do is to continue to do that. That's why
my balanced budget plan will still invest and grow this economy. That's why I want a tax cut for
education and child rearing, but it's got to be paid for. That's why I want to continue the work
we have done, over partisan opposition, to work with communities to bring that crime rate down
until our streets are all safe again.
These are my commitments. I am very oriented toward the future. I think this election
has to be geared toward the future. I think America's best days are still ahead. But we've got
to build the right bridge.
MR. LEHRER: Senator Dole.
SENATOR DOLE: You know, the President reminds me sometimes of my brother,
Kenny, who is no longer alive, but Kenny was a great talker. And he used to tell me things that
I knew were not quite accurate, so we always had a rule, we divided by six. Now, maybe in your
case, maybe just two.
But 11 million new jobs and everything - I mean, the President can't take credit for
everything that governors are doing or that's happening in New York City when it comes to the
murder rate, and then not be responsible for the bad things that happen, whether it's drug use or
something else in America. And so it seems to me that we can talk about - well, we called Kenny
the Great Exaggerator, because he just liked to make it sound a little better, it made him feel
better.
When it comes to bridges, I want a bridge to the future. I also want a bridge to the truth.
We have to tell the truth. We've got people watching tonight and listening tonight trying to find
the truth.
And the truth is, there's a lot wrong with America. We need a strong economic package.
We need a tax cut. We need a $500 child credit. And we'll have that soon.
MR. LEHRER: Mr. President.
PRESIDENT CLINTON: I do not for a moment think I'm entitled to all the credit for the
good things that have happened in America. But where I have moved to work with the American
23
�people to help them have the tools to make the most of their own lives, I think I should get some
credit for that. I also personally took responsibility tonight when Senator Dole asked me about
the drug problem.
But, you know, I think my ideas are better for the future. Senator Dole voted against
student loans, against Head Start, against creating the Department of Education. If he gets elected
President we'll start the new century without anyone in the Cabinet of the President representing
education in our children. I, personally, don't think that's the right kind of future for America.
And I think we ought to take a different tack.
MR. LEHRER: Senator Dole, do you still favor eliminating the Department of Education?
SENATOR DOLE: Yes. I didn't favor it when it was started - I voted against it. It was
a tribute after President Carter's election to the National Education Association, who sent a lot
of delegates to the Democratic Convention, who give 99.5 percent of their money to Democrats
and the President. And a lot of the teachers send their kids to private schools or better public
schools.
So what we want to do is call opportunity scholarships. Now, some say, oh, you're
Republican and you can't be reaching out to these people. I've reached out to people all my life.
I've worked on the food stamp program proudly and the WIC program and the school lunch
program with senators like George McGovern and Hubert Humphrey and others, to name a few
of my Democratic friends. I'm not some extremist out here. I care about people. I have my own
little foundation that's raised about $10 million for the disabled. I don't advertise it - just did,
haven't before.
I try to do a lot of things that I think might be helpful to people. Well, it seems to me that
we ought to take that money we can save from the Department of Education, put it in opportunity
scholarships and tell little Ann Dale Shakespeare, out in Cleveland, Ohio, and tell your mother
and father you're going to get to go to school because we're going to match what the state puts
up, and you're going to get to go to the school of your choice.
I don't fault the President or the Vice President for sending their children to private
schools or better schools; I applaud them for it. I don't criticize them. But why shouldn't
everybody have that choice? Why shouldn't low-income Americans, and low-middle income
Americans? I'm excited about it. It's going to be a big, big opportunity for a lot of people.
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Let me say, first of all, I'm all for students having more
choices. We've worked hard to expand public school choice. In my balanced budget bill there
are funds for 3,000 new schools, created by teachers and parents, sometimes by business people
called charter schools that have no rules. They're free of bureaucracy and can only stay in
existence if they perform and teach children. The ones that are out there are doing well.
24
�What I'm against is Senator Dole's plan to take money away from all of the children we
now help with limited federal funds and help far fewer. If we're going to have a private voucher
plan, that ought to be done at the local level or the state level. But Senator Dole has consistently
opposed federal help for education. He voted against student loans, he voted against my improved
student loan plan, he voted against the national service bill, against the Head Start bill. He voted
against our efforts in safe and drug-free schools. He has voted against these programs. He does
not believe it. That's the issue.
Ninety percent of our kids are out there in those public schools, and we need to lift their
standards and move them forward with the programs like those I've outlined in this campaign.
SENATOR DOLE: I had better correct the President. I don't know what time it is, but
it's probably getting late. But I want to correct - all of these things I voted against, they were
probably part of some big package that had a lot of pork in it, or a lot of things that we shouldn't
have had and we probably voted no. I've supported all of the education - I've supported Head
Start. I think we ought to look at it.
So I don't want anybody out there to think that we've just been voting no, no, no. Let's
give low-income parents the same right that people of power and prestige have in America and
let them go to better schools. Let's turn the schools back to the teachers and back to the parents
and take it away from the National Education Association.
MR. LEHRER: Mr. President, what's wrong with the school choice proposal?
PRESIDENT CLINTON: I support school choice. I support school choice. I have
advocated expansions of public choice alternatives, and the creation of 3,000 new schools that we
are going to help the states to finance.
But if you're going to have a private voucher plan, that ought to be determined by states
and localities where they're raising and spending most of the money. I simply think it's wrong
to take money away from programs that are helping build basic skills for kids - 90 percent of
them are in the public schools - to take money away from programs that are helping fund the
school lunch program, that are helping to fund the other programs, that are helping our schools
to improve their standards.
Our schools are getting better. And our schools can be made to be even better still with
the right kind of community leadership and partnership at the school level. I have been a strong
force for reform. And, Senator, I remind you that a few years ago, when I supported a teacher
testing law in my home state, I was pretty well lambasted by the Teachers Association. I just
don't believe we ought to be out there running down teachers and attacking them the way you did
at the Republican convention. I think we ought to be lifting them up and moving our children
forward.
25
�And let me just say, that budget you passed that I vetoed would have cut 50,000 kids out
of Head Start. It would have eliminated the AmeriCorps plan. And it would have cut back on
student loans and scholarships. Now, it would have; that's a fact. That's one of the big reasons
I vetoed it. We need to be doing more in education, not less.
SENATOR DOLE: Well, the AmeriCorps program, I must say if that's one of your
successes I wouldn't speak about ittoo loudly. It's cost about $27,000 to pay people to volunteer.
We've got 4 million young people volunteering every year. The number hasn't gone down. And
you pick out 20,000, whether they need the money or not, and they get paid for volunteering.
I like young people. I like teachers. I'm a product of public schools. You attended a
private school for some time in your life. I like teachers. You're not for school choice. You
can't be for school choice, because it's that special interest money again. When you're getting
99.5 percent of the money -- we don't know what happened to the other .5 percent; we're looking
for it. Somebody got it. But it all went to Democrats, and this is part of that liberal
establishment, one of those liberal things that you just can't do. You're for school uniforms and
curfews, and you're opposed to truancy. Now, that's not reform, Mr. President.
Why can't Landel Shakespeare (phonetic) in Cleveland, or Pilar Gonzalez (phonetic) give
their children an option to go to a better school? Some schools aren't safe. Some schools aren't
even safe. Your choice is nothing. Let's give them a real choice, the kind of choice you have
and the kind of choice a lot of people have in America. If we want to stop crime and teenage
pregnancy, let's start with education.
PRESIDENT CLINTON: First of all. Senator Dole, let's set the record straight. I was
able, for two years when I was a very young boy, to go to a Catholic school, but I basically went
to public schools all my life, and I've worked hard for a long time to make them better. Ninety
percent of our kids are there.
It's amazing to me - you are all for having more responsibility at the local level for
everything except schools, where we don't have very much money at the federal level to spend
on education. We ought to spend it helping the 90 percent of the kids that we can help. If a local
school district in Cleveland or anyplace else wants to have a private school choice plan like
Milwaukee did, let them have at it. I might say the results are highly ambiguous, but I want to
get out there and give a better education opportunity to all of our children. And that's why I
vetoed the budget that you passed with $30 billion in education cuts. It was wrong, and my plan
for the future is better.
MR. LEHRER: Senator Dole, at the Republican Convention you said the following, and
I quote: "It is demeaning to the nation that within the Clinton administration, the core of the elite
never grew up, never did anything real, never sacrificed, never suffered and never learned, should
have the power to fund with your earnings their dubious and self-serving schemes." Who,
precisely, and what, precisely, did you have in mind?
26
�SENATOR DOLE: I had precisely in mind a lot of the people over there in the White
House and other agencies who have never been - had any experience, who came to Washington
without any experience. They're all very liberal, of course, or they wouldn't be in the
administration. And their idea was that they knew what was best for the American people.
Now, I feel very strongly about a lot of things. I feel strongly about education. I want to
help young people have an education, just as I had an education after World War II with the G.I.
Bill of Rights, and we've had millions of young men and women in subsequent wars change the
face of the nation because the government helped with their education.
Now, the reason they don't want to have -you know, the reason the President can't
support this is pretty obvious. It's not taking anything away from schools. It's new money. It's
not going to be taken away from anybody else except it will downsize the Department of
Education.
But this is a very liberal administration. This is the administration that gave you the big
tax cut. This administration tried to take over health care and impose a governmental system.
This is the administration that fought regulatory reform that's putting a lot of small businessmen
and small businesswomen out of business. This is the administration that fought the balanced
budget amendment and vetoed a balanced budget and vetoed welfare reform twice. And the list
goes on and on and on.
That's what I had in mind. I want people in my administration, and will have people in
my administration who understand America. There won't be 10 millionaires and 14 lawyers in
the Cabinet. They'll be people with experience and people who understand America and people
who know the hard knocks in life.
PRESIDENT CLINTON: When Senator Dole made that remark about all the elitists,
young elitists in the administration, one of the young men who works for me who grew up in a
house trailer looked at me and said, Mr. President, I know how you grew up, who is he talking
about? And you know, this liberal charge, that's what their party always drags out when they get
in a tight race. It's sort of their golden oldie, you know, it's a record they think they can play that
everybody loves to hear. (Laughter.) And I just don't think that dog will hunt this time.
The American people should make up their own mind. Here's the record: We cut the
deficit four years in a row for the first time since before the Civil War - I mean, before World
War II -- and maybe before the Civil War, too. (Laughter.) We've got 10.5 million new jobs.
We've got record numbers of new small businesses. We made every one of them eligible for a
tax cut. We've got declining crime rates, 2 million fewer people on welfare rolls before the
welfare reform passed, and a 50-percent increase in child support, and a crime bill with 60 death
penalties, 100,000 police and the assault weapons ban.
27
�The American people can make up their mind about whether that's a liberal record or a
record that's good for America - liberal, conservative, you put whatever label you want on it.
SENATOR DOLE: Well, I think it's pretty liberal. I'll put that label on it. When you
take a look at all the programs you've advocated, Mr. President, thank goodness we had a
Republican Congress there. The first thing you did when you came into office was send up the
stimulus package - said, we've get a little pork we want to scatter around America, $16 billion.
And even some in your own party couldn't buy that.
I remember talking by the telephone ~ I'm not even certain you were too excited about it
- I ' l l never repeat what I talk with the President about, but, in any event, we saved the taxpayers
$16 billion. And then came some other programs and then came health care and then came the
tax increase. And a lot of these things just stopped in 1994 because then the Congress changed
and I think we've done a good job.
MR. LEHRER: Mr. President, if you're not a liberal, describe your political philosophy.
PRESIDENT CLINTON: I believe that the purpose of politics is to give people the tools
to make the most of their own lives, to reinforce the values of opportunity and responsibility, and
to build a sense of community so we're all working together.
I don't believe in discrimination. I believe you can protect the environment and grow the
economy. I believe that we have to do these things with a government that's smaller and less
bureaucratic, but that we have to do them nonetheless.
It's inconvenient for Senator Dole, but the truth is I've reduced the size of government
more than my Republican predecessors. And I did stop them ~ I admit that, I sure stopped their
budget. Their budget cut enforcement for the Environmental Protection Agency by a third. It cut
funds to clean up toxic waste dumps with 10 million of our kids still living within four miles of
a toxic waste dump by a third. It ended the principle of the polluters should pay for those toxic
waste dumps unless it was very recent. Their budget weakened our support for education, $30
billion, even cut funds for scholarships and college loans. Their budget cut $270 billion in
Medicare.
And, finally, their budget withdrew the national guarantee of health care to poor children,
families with children with handicaps, the elderly in nursing homes, poor pregnant women. It was
wrong for the country. And calling it conservative won't make it right. It was a bad decision for
America and would have been bad for our future if I hadn't stopped it.
SENATOR DOLE: Well, the President can define himself in any way he wants, but I
think we have to look at the record. Go back to the time he was Texas director for George
McGovern. George McGovern is a friend of mine, so I don't mean - but he was a liberal, proud
liberal.
28
�I've just finished reading a book. I think it's called, what is it - "The Demise of the
Democratic Party," by Ronald Kardosh (phonetic) or something, talking about all the liberal
influences in the administration, whether it's organized labor or whether it's the Hollywood elite,
or some of the media elite, or whether it's the labor unions or whatever. So I think you take a
look at it.
But the bottom line is this: I think the American people probably lose sight of all of these
bills and all these things. They want to know what's going to happen to them. They've all got
a lot of anxieties out there.
Did anybody complain when you raised taxes? Did anybody go out and ask the people,
how are you going to pay the extra money? That's why we want an economic package. We want
the government to pinch their pennies for a change instead of the people pinching their pennies.
That's what our message is to people watching, not all this back and forth - you voted this way,
you voted that way. We want a better America as we go into the next century.
PRESIDENT CLINTON: The way you get a better America is to balance the budget and
protect Medicare, Medicaid, education and the environment; to give a targeted tax cut — and let
me talk about the education tax cut - to let people have a $10,000 deduction for the cost of
college tuition in any year, any kind of college tuition; to give families a tax credit, a
dollar-for-dollar reduction in their taxes for the cost of a typical community college so we can
open that to everybody, and then to let people save in an IRA and withdraw from it without a tax
penalty for education, home-buying, or medical expenses. That's the right way to go into the 21st
century - balance the budget and cut taxes, not balloon with this $550-billion tax scheme.
MR. LEHRER: Senator Dole, we've talked mostly now about differences between the two
of you that relate to policy issues and that sort of thing. Are there also significant differences in
the more personal area that are relevant to this election?
SENATOR DOLE: Let me say first on the President's promise for another tax cut - and
I've told people as I travel around, all you who got the tax cut he promised last time, vote for him
in '96, and not many hands go up. The question - would you buy a used election promise from
my opponent.
The people want economic reform. They're having a hard time making ends meet. You
got one parent working for the government, the other parent working for the family. And this is
important business. This is about getting the economy moving again. This is about American
jobs and opportunities. It's about the government, as I said before, pinching its pennies for a
change instead of the poor taxpayer.
When they raise your taxes, nobody runs around asking people, where you going to get
the extra money. I think the government can do better.
29
�Are there personal differences?
MR. LEHRER: That are relevant.
SENATOR DOLE: Well, my blood pressure is lower and my weight ~ my cholesterol.
But I will not make health an issue in this campaign. (Laughter.) I think he's a bit taller than I
am. But I think there are personal differences. I mean, I don't like to get into personal matters.
As far as I'm concerned, this is a campaign about issues. It's about my vision for America
and about his liberal vision for America, and not about personal things. And I think his liberal
vision is a thing of the past. I know he wants to disown it. I wouldn't want to be a liberal either,
Mr. President, but you're stuck with it because that's your record. It's your record in Arkansas,
the biggest tax increase in history, the biggest crime increase in history, biggest drug increase in
history in Arkansas.
MR. LEHRER: Mr. President.
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, just for the record, when I was a governor, we had the
lowest - second lowest tax burden of any state in the country, the highest job growth rate of any
state when I ran for President, and were widely recognized for a lot of other advances.
But the important thing is, what are we going to do now? I think a targeted tax cut is
better for our future, targeted to education and child rearing, with the rest of the education plan:
hooking up all of our classrooms to the Internet by the year 2000; making sure we've got an army
of reading volunteers, trained people to teach with parents and teachers so that our 8-year-olds
can learn to read; investing in our environment, cleaning up two-thirds of the worst toxic waste
dumps. Those plans are better than this $550 tax scheme.
Now, remember, folks, even Senator Dole's co-chair, Senator D'Amato, says, he's got
to cut Medicare to pay for this. Everybody who has looked at it, 500 economists, seven Nobel
Prize winners, say it's bad for the economy. It's going to blow a hole in the deficit, raise taxes
on 9 million people, and require bigger cuts than the one I vetoed.
Our plan is better. It will take us into the future with a growing economy and healthier
families.
SENATOR DOLE: Well, I'm really encouraged to know of your renewed friendship with
Al D'Amato, and I know he appreciates it. (Laughter.) You didn't even have tax cuts in your
budget, Mr. President, the first two years you were President. It wasn't until we had a
Republican Congress you even thought about - you talked about tax cuts.
And getting back to personal differences, I think, Jim, if you're a little more specific, but
30
�I think the President could clarify one thing tonight, and that's the question of pardons. I know
you talked about it on the Jim Lehrer - on the PBS show -- and I've never discussed Whitewater
as I've told you personally, I'm not discussing Whitewater now. But I am discussing a power the
President has to grant pardons, and hopefully in the next segment you can lay that to rest.
MR. LEHRER: Mr. President.
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, first of all, he made that remark about Senator D'Amato.
He's arranged for me to spend a lot more time with Senator D'Amato in the last couple of years
and so I'm more familiar with his comments than I used to be. (Laughter.)
Let me say what I've said already about this pardon issue. This is an issue they brought
up. There has been no consideration of it, no discussion of it. I'll tell you this: I will not give
anyone special treatment and I will strictly adhere to the law. And that is what every President
has done, as far as I know in the past. But whatever other Presidents have done, this is something
I take seriously and that's my position.
SENATOR DOLE: But it seems to me the President shouldn't have any comment at all,
particularly where it's someone you've had business dealings. I mean, you may be sending a
signal; I don't know, I'm not questioning anybody. But as the President of the United States,
when somebody asks you about pardons, you say no comment, period. And I think he made a
mistake, and I think when you make a mistake, you say I made a mistake.
But apparently his position hasn't changed. If there are other specific areas -- but beyond
that, I haven't gotten into any of these things, as the President knows. We've had that discussion.
And again, I know Senator D'Amato I think may have had a hearing or two on Whitewater, I
can't remember. (Laughter.) But he's not my general chairman, he's a friend of mine. And so
is Senator Kennedy a friend of yours PRESIDENT CLINTON: You bet.
SENATOR DOLE: I remember one day on the floor, I said, now, gentlemen, let me tax
your memories, and Kennedy jumped up and said, why haven't we thought of that before.
(Laughter.) One of your liberal friends.
PRESIDENT CLINTON: That's right. Thank you.
MR. LEHRER: Mr. President, 30 seconds.
PRESIDENT CLINTON: No comment. (Laughter and applause.)
SENATOR DOLE: What's the subject matter? (Laughter.)
31
�MR. LEHRER: Senator Dole, if you could single out one thing that you would like for
the voters to have in their mind about President Clinton on a policy matter or a personal matter,
what would it be? Something to know about him, understand it, and appreciate it.
SENATOR DOLE: See, if I say anything, it's going to be misconstrued. I don't think
this is even a race between the two - it's about our vision for America. I happen to like
President Clinton personally. I'm addressing him all evening as Mr. President. I said in 1992
he didn't extend that courtesy to President Bush. But I respect the presidency.
I've served under a number of presidents; they all have their strengths and they all have
their weaknesses. So I'd rather talk about my strengths. I think I have my strengths. I think the
best thing going for Bob Dole is that Bob Dole keeps his word. It's a question between trust and
fear, and I would say I think, Mr. President, about all you've got going in this campaign is fear.
You're spending millions and millions of dollars in negative ads, frightening senior citizens. I
know this to be a fact, because I had one tell me last week -- Senator, don't cut my Medicare.
I'm trying to save your Medicare, just as I rescued Social Security with a bipartisan
commission. I have relatives on Medicare. I used to sign welfare checks for my grandparents.
I know all about poverty and all about need and all about taking care of people, and that's been
my career in the United States Senate.
And I'll keep my word on the economic package. If I couldn't cut taxes and balance the
budget at the same time, I wouldn't look you in the eye tonight in your living room, or wherever
you may be, and say that this is good for America. People will tell you who have served with
Bob Dole, agree or disagree, he kept his word. That's what this race is all about.
PRESIDENT CLINTON: I'd like the American people to know that I have worked very
hard to be on their side and to move this country forward and we're better off than we were four
years ago.
But the most important thing is my plan for the 21st century is a better plan -- a targeted
tax cut, a real commitment to educational reform, a deep commitment to making welfare reform
work with incentives to the private sector to move people from welfare to work. Now we have
to create those jobs now that we're requiring people to go to work. A commitment to step-by-step
health care reform with the next step helping people who are between jobs to access health care
and not lose it just because they're out of work for a while. A commitment to grow the economy
while protecting the environment.
That's what I'd like them to know about me, that I've gotten up every day and worked for
the American people, and worked so that their children could have their dreams come true. And
I believe we've got the results to show we're on the right track. The most important thing is I
believe we've got the right ideas for the future. And I like Senator Dole - you can probably tell
we like each other, we just see the world in different ways and you folks out there are going to
32
�have to choose who you think is right.
SENATOR DOLE: I'd say, you know, the first homeless bill in the Senate was the
Dole-Byrd bill, part of the Dole-Byrd bill -- I can't remember who was in control then. I
remember working with Senator Rubikoff from Connecticut on the hospice program. We now
have 2,500 hospices.
As I said, I worked all my life while I was in the Congress - I left on June 11th because
I wanted the American people to know I was willing to give up something. President Clinton ran
for governor in 1990 and said he's going to fill out his term. But he didn't. He's President, so
I guess it's a little better deal.
But I wanted the American people to know I was willing to give up something. It wasn't
just getting more power and more power. So I rolled the dice. I put my career on the line
because I really believed the future of America is on the line. We can give you all these numbers.
They don't mean a thing if you're out of work, you have nothing to work, you can't have medical
care, or you're holding a crack baby in your arms right now, and what do you do next?
You know, America's best days are ahead of us. I've seen the tough times. I know they
can be better. And I'll lead America to a brighter future.
MR. LEHRER: Mr. President, what do you say to Senator Dole's point that this election
is about keeping one's word?
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Let's look at that. When I ran for President, I said we'd cut
the deficit in half in four years; we've cut it by 60 percent. I said that our economic plan would
produce 8 million jobs; we have 10.5 million new jobs. We're number one in autos again, record
numbers of new small businesses. I said we'd pass a crime bill that would put 100,000 police on
the streets, ban assault weapons, and deal with the problems that ought to be dealt with with
capital punishment, including capital punishment for drug kingpins. And we did that.
I said we would change the way welfare works. And even before the bill passed, we had
moved nearly 2 million peoplefromwelfare to work, working with states and communities. I said
we'd get tougher on child support, and child support enforcement is up 50 percent. I said that I
would work for tax relief for middle-class Americans. The deficit was bigger than I thought it
was going to be, and I think they're better off, all of us are, that we got those interest rates down
and the deficit down.
The Republicans talk about it, but we're the first administration in anybody's lifetime
looking at this program to bring that deficit down four years in a row.
We still gave tax cuts to 15 million working Americans. And now I've got a plan that has
been out there for two years - it could have been passed already, but instead the Republicans shut
33
�the government down to try to force their budget and their plan on me, and I couldn't take that.
But we'll get the rest of that tax relief.
And so I think when you can look at those results, you know that the plan I have laid out
for the future has a very good chance of being enacted if you'll give me a chance to build that
bridge to the 21st century.
MR. LEHRER: Senator.
SENATOR DOLE: Well, there he goes again. I mean, it's a line has been used before,
but exaggerating all of the things he did. He didn't do all of these things. Let's take all of these
- you know, years in a row. He came in with a high growth rate. The 1990 budget agreement,
which some didn't like, had some very tough cost controls. It put a lot of pressure on Congress.
The S&L crisis is over. They're starting to sell assets. All of that money was coming in. And
he cut defense an extra $60 billion, threw a lot of people out of work.
He talks about a smaller government. There are actually more people in government,
except for people in defense-related jobs. They're gone. The government is bigger than it was
when President Kennedy was around, even though he says it's not. In addition, the Republican
Congress cut $53 billion. So let's give credit where credit is due.
Governor Engler of Michigan cut taxes 21 times, created a lot of new jobs. So did
Governor Thompson. So did Governor Rowland. And a lot of people out there deserve credit,
Mr. President. When I'm President of the United States, we're going to have a governors
council, and we're going to work directly with the governors, Republicans and Democrats, to get
power back to the people and back to the states.
PRESIDENT CLINTON: I think a lot of people deserve credit and I've tried to give it
to them. But I believe that my plan is better than Senator Dole's ill-advised, $550-billion scheme,
which I will say again will blow a hole in the deficit.
Our plan will balance the budget and grow the economy, preserve the environment and
invest in education. We have the right approach for the future and look at the results. It is not
midnight in America, Senator. We are better off than we were four years ago.
MR. LEHRER: All right, that's the last question, the last answer. Let's go now to the
closing statements.
SENATOR DOLE: Are we done?
MR. LEHRER: Mr. President, you're first. Two minutes.
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, first, Jim, let me thank you, and thank you, Senator
34
�Dole, and thank you, ladies and gentlemen, all of you listening tonight for the chance you've
given us to appear. I want to say in the beginning that I am profoundly grateful for the chance
that you have given me to serve as President for the last four years. I never could have dreamed
anything like this would come my way in life and I've done my best to be faithful to the charge
you've given me.
I'm proud of the fact that America is stronger and more prosperous and more secure than
we were four years ago. I'm glad we're going in the right direction. And I've done my best
tonight to lay out my plans for going forward to an even better future in the next century.
I'd like to leave you with the thought that the things I do as President are basically driven
by the people whose lives I have seen affected by what does or doesn't happen in this country.
The auto worker in Toledo who was unemployed when I was elected and now has a great job,
because we're number one in auto production again. AH the people I've met who used to be on
welfare who are now working and raising their children. And I think what others could do for
our country and for themselves if we did the welfare reform thing in the proper way.
I think of the man who grabbed me by the shoulder once with tears in his eyes and said
his daughter was dying of cancer, and he thanked more for giving him a chance to spend some
time with her without losing his job, because of the Family and Medical Leave Act.
I think of all the people that I grew up with and went to school with whom I stay in touch
with and who never let me forget how what we do in Washington affects all of you out there in
America.
Folks, we can build that bridge to the 21st century, big enough and strong enough for all
of us to walk across. And I hope that you will help me build it.
MR. LEHRER: Senator Dole, your closing statement, sir.
SENATOR DOLE: Thank you, Jim. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank everyone for
watching and listening.
I want to address my remarks to the young people of America, because they're the ones
that are going to spend most of their life in the 21st century. They're the ones who have the
challenges. And there are people out there making predictions that it's not going to be the same;
you're not going to have the opportunity; there is going to be more deficits, more drugs, more
crime, and less confidence in the American people. And that's what you're faced with, the
parents are faced with, and the grandparents are faced with. It's important. It's their future.
And I would say to those --1 know there are more young people experimenting with drugs
today than ever before. Drug use has gone up. And if you care about the future of America, if
you care about your future, just don't do it.
35
�And I know that I am someone older than you, that I've had my anxious moments in my
life. I've learned to feed myself and to walk and to dress. I'm standing here as proof that in
America, the possibilities are unlimited. I know who I am, and I know where I'm from, and I
know where I want to take America. We are the greatest country on the face of the earth. We
do more good things for more people in our communities, our neighborhoods than anywhere that
I know of.
This is important business - this election is important. I ask for your support. I ask for
your help. If you really want to get involved, just tap into my home page www.dolecamp96org.
Thank you. God bless America. (Applause.)
END
10:30 P.M. EDT
36
�POTJTir.Af, REFORM
Opening line: When I entered office, I promised to end business as usual in Washington ~ to
take power from the special interests and give it back to the American people. We've made
great strides: lobbyists must now disclose who they represent; Congress must live by the laws
of the land; and Presidents soon will have the line-item veto to eliminate wasteful spending.
We've also enabled millions of people to participate in our democracy by making it easier to
register. But we still have work to do; most important, we must pass real bipartisan campaign
reform. I support the bipartisan bill; so does Ross Perot; so does Common Cause and the
League of Women Voters. Senator Dole is opposed.
Key Answer Point
•
I've worked hard to make democracy work better for America, by limiting the
influence of moneyed interests and expanding the influence of the American people.
•
I fought for and signed into law the Lobbying Disclosure Act, the first major reform of
lobbying rules in 50 years, which requires lobbyists to disclose who they work for.
The public has a right to know when special interests are trying to influence elected
officials; this law protects that right.
•
I've also limited lobbying in other ways. I led thefightto repeal the tax loophole that
let lobbyists deduct the cost of their activities. And I imposed the toughest
Admimstration ethics code in history, which prevents senior officialsfromlobbying
their former agencies for five years and prohibits themfromever lobbying for foreign
governments.
•
At the same time, I've helped make sure that Congress is more responsive to the people
and less to the special interests. In 1995, after a Republicanfilibuster.Congress finally
answered my call to stop taking gifts, meals, and tripsfromlobbyists. And I signed the
law that forces Congress to apply to itself the laws it applies to the rest of the country.
•
Perhaps most important, I fought for the line-item veto legislation that will allow future
Presidents to cancel wasteful spending and tax breaks that benefit special interests.
This tool will help ensure that public resources are put to the best possible use.
•
And through the Motor-Voter Act, we've put more than 11 million new Americans on
the voting rolls - the greatest expansion in voter registration since the 19th century.
�But we have more to do. We must pass the bipartisan campaign finance reform
legislation that will give free broadcast time, limit campaign spending, curb
contributions from political action committees, and end the "soft money" system that
now allows candidates, parties, and big-money contributors to evade the rules. Only
this kind of reform will take the reins of democracy away from big money and put them
back in the hands of the American people.
Pole Contrast
•
Just this year. Senator Dole stalled the bipartisan campaign reform bill. But that was
nothing new. Senator Dole has opposed real campaignfinancereform in each of the last
five Congresses. And he called the Motor-Voter law, which has so expanded the ability
of ordinary Americans to participate in the political system, "stupid" and a "legislative
lemon."
•
I support the bipartisan campaign finance bill, as does Ross Perot, Common Cause, and
the League of Women Voters. I agree with Senator McCain one of the principal
sponsors of the bill, and one of Senator Dole's campaign co-chairs «that the political
system today is broken and that we must make a bipartisan efforts to fix it. Had Senator
Dole aided in that effort when he was majority leader of the Senate, I could have signed
a bill before this election.
T,ikelv Attacks and Responses
Attack 1: You and Speaker Gingrich agreed, with a much publicized handshake, to create a
bipartisan commission oh campaignfinance.But nothing ever happened. Given this record of
inaction, why should anyone believe your promises to reform campaign finance?
Response: I wrote to the'Speaker just after that handshake with a specific proposal to create a
commission. He ignored that proposal. In addition, I asked two outstanding Americans, Doris
Kearns Goodwin and John Gardner, to help get the Commission started. Still the Speaker was
silent. I've been readyfromthe date of that handshake to create a commission. But in the
absence of any action from the Speaker, I tried to find another solution, and I endorsed the first
bipartisan campaign refonn bill in a generation. It's a good bill, and I'll fight for its passage.
Attack 2: The Republican Congress is responsible for the Line-Item Veto, the Congressional
Accountability Act, and the Lobbying Disclosure Act. You and a Democratic Congress had
two years to pass those bills and did nothing.
Response: I fought for passage of those measures throughout my Presidency, and they
wouldn't be the law if I hadn't done so and if I hadn't signed them. And let me say that we
would have passed some of those bills during my first two years in office except for the
delaying tactics of members of Senator Dole's party. I give the Republican Congress credit for
�sending these important bills to me, but all of these measures were done on a bipartisan basis
and all had Democratic sponsors.
Attack 3: You've accepted PAC money for your campaign and your legal defense fund and
you've raised a large war chest of soft money for the Democratic National Committee. Isn't it
the sheerest hypocrisy when you say you'll change business as usual in Washington?
Response: The record shows that we've changed business as usual: I've signed into law lobby
reform, the line-item veto, and motor-voter registration; we've made Congress live by the laws
and imposed the strictest ethics requirements ever on Administration officials. Of course we
need to do more: we must pass campaignfinancereform that will put limits on campaign
spending and the soft-money system. But I'm not going to apologize for playing by the
existing rules in the meantime - when everyone else, including my opponent, is taking
advantage of them. What I've promised to do is try to change those rules, so no race in the
future is governed by them. The Senator, unfortunately, hasn't made that promise.
Attack 4: The President doen't support real political reform because he doesn't support the
most important reform of all: terra limits.
Response: The supporters of term limits have the right goals, but term limits won't solve the
problems of our political system. All term limits do is deprive citizens of their ability to choose
the representatives they want. What we need to do is to get the special interests out of politics
and give the American people more choices and more influence over their government. The
right way to do that is to pass bipartisan campaignfinancereform.
�Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
11
Divider Title:
�THE WHITE HOUSE
O f f i c e of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
J u l y 22, 1995
RADIO ADDRESS BY THE PRESIDENT
TO THE NATION
The Oval O f f i c e
10:06 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Over a month ago, Speaker Newt
G i n g r i c h and I met w i t h a group of senior c i t i z e n s i n Claremont,
New Hampshire. That s u n l i t event had a s p e c i a l s p i r i t . We showed
t h a t the great debate now o c c u r r i n g i n our country can and should
be conducted w i t h c i v i l i t y and a sense o f common ground. Many
Americans o f both p a r t i e s have t o l d me since then t h a t t h i s i s
e x a c t l y the way they want t h e i r leaders t o work t o g e t h e r , and
t h a t ' s what I'm committed t o doing.
Perhaps t h e most v i s i b l e example o f t h a t s p i r i t o f New
Hampshire came when the Speaker and I shook hands on the q u e s t i o n
of p o l i t i c a l reform
something t h a t has d i v i d e d the two p a r t i e s
and the Congress and the country f o r too long.
The f i r s t question we answered was from a r e t i r e d steelworker
named Frank McConnell. He s a i d t h a t p o l i t i c s had become p o l l u t e d
by s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t s and t h a t too o f t e n the voice o f the people was
shut o u t . He s a i d t h a t b i c k e r i n g between the p a r t i e s had blocked
reform f o r too long. And he proposed t h a t we create a b l u e - r i b b o n ,
b i p a r t i s a n commission t o w r i t e reforms t o curb the power o f s p e c i a l
i n t e r e s t s . There, i n f r o n t o f the e n t i r e country, the Speaker and
I agreed t o create t h i s commission.
A b i p a r t i s a n commission could cut the knot t h a t i s s t r a n g l i n g
change.
This panel would f o l l o w the approach t h a t has worked on
o t h e r c r i t i c a l issues.
I t would be comprised o f d i s t i n g u i s h e d
c i t i z e n s and would recommend broad changes i n the r u l e s which cover
l o b b y i s t s and i n how we finance p o l i t i c a l campaigns.
Most
important o f a l l , the Congress would have t o vote w i t h i n a s t r i c t
deadline, up or down, on the package as a whole --no loopholes, no
amendments.
I'm happy t o r e p o r t t h a t i n a d d i t i o n t o myself and Speaker
G i n g r i c h , t h i s very idea has been s t r o n g l y endorsed f o r some time
by Senate M a j o r i t y Leader Bob Dole, who j u s t l a s t February, s a i d
again t h a t t h i s was t h e way we ought t o approach t h i s q u e s t i o n .
�I t ' s c l e a r e r than ever that we need p o l i t i c a l reform.
The
American people believe their p o l i t i c a l system i s too influenced by
narrow i n t e r e s t s , that our government serves the powerful, but not
hardworking families. Even before the '94 elections, the s p e c i a l
i n t e r e s t s prevented passage of both campaign finance reform and
lobby reform l e g i s l a t i o n that I had strongly asked the Congress to
pass. When a minority i n the Senate k i l l e d lobbying reform i n
1994, lobbyists were standing right outside the Senate chamber
cheering.
Since the new Congress came i n , I'm sad to say, i t ' s gotten
worse, for even more power has been given to the lobbyists.
Now
t h i s new majority l e t s lobbyists for polluters write l e g i s l a t i o n
r o l l i n g back environmental and public health protections. They've
brought them i n to explain the l e g i s l a t i o n . They even gave them a
room off the House floor to write the amendments and the statements
the members would have to give explaining the b i l l s that the
lobbyists had written for them.
Since things have gotten i n t h i s state, i t was a r e a l moment
of hope when the Speaker and I shook hands on reform i n New
Hampshire. Just five days l a t e r , I sent Speaker Gingrich a l e t t e r
laying out i n d e t a i l my ideas for how to move forward. Now, f i v e
weeks l a t e r , I must say, I'm very disappointed by what has happened
since, or, more accurately, what hasn't happened. The Speaker
announced that he would send me h i s proposal, but he never has.
I think the people of t h i s country want us to move forward
with p o l i t i c a l reform. Speaker Gingrich and I shook hands on i t .
We have an obligation to get t h i s done and not walk away. I f we're
going to restore a s p i r i t of c i v i l i t y to American p o l i t i c s , a
handshake has to mean i n 1995 what i t meant when I was growing up
--we have to be as good as our word.
Today, to move t h i s process forward, I'm announcing that two
distinguished Americans have agreed to work with me to get the
commission idea underway.
They're the kind of people I w i l l
appoint as i t s members. John Gardner's name i s synonymous with
integrity.
He's a Republican Cabinet Secretary to a Democratic
President; the founder of the c i t i z e n s ' lobby. Common Cause; a wise
and e f f e c t i v e man. Doris Kearns Goodwin i s a p o l i t i c a l s c i e n t i s t
and a P u l i t z e r Prize winning author. She understands through her
knowledge of history and today's p o l i t i c a l situation how p o l i t i c s
a f f e c t s the l i v e s of ordinary people.
I have asked John Gardner and Doris Kearns Goodwin to meet
with Speaker Gingrich as soon as possible, and the other
congressional leaders, to get them going on t h i s idea so that we
can make t h i s commission a r e a l i t y , and keep our commitment to the
Frank McConnells and a l l the other Americans who want us to improve
the way our p o l i t i c a l system works.
John Gardner and Doris Kearns Goodwin w i l l help us to get t h i s
movement going. And now I c a l l on Speaker Gingrich and the other
�congressional leaders to come forward and do t h e i r part.
The
Speaker and I made a deal, and i t ' s time to keep i t . There's no
excuse for further delay.
We already have signs of bipartisan agreement. On Monday, the
Senate begins to debate on l e g i s l a t i o n to require lobbyists to
d i s c l o s e who they are, what they're paid, and what b i l l s they're
trying to influence. And the Senate w i l l vote on l e g i s l a t i o n to
ban lobbyists from providing lawmakers meals or g i f t s or t r a v e l .
I f a judge took a paid vacation from a lawyer i n h i s courtroom,
he'd be disbarred. But i f a lobbyist pays for a t r i p to a sunny
climate, right now i t ' s perfectly legal, and i t happens a l l the
time.
Congress should send me the strongest possible ban on lobbyist
g i f t s , such as the b i l l introduced by Democratic Senators, C a r l
Levin and Paul Wellstone, and Republican Senator B i l l Cohen.
Congress should not send me a b i l l that's more loophole than law.
I hope the action I'm taking today w i l l help lead to r e a l p o l i t i c a l
reform.
We have to do everything we can to show the American
people that their government works for them and not the s p e c i a l
interest.
Thanks for l i s t e n i n g .
END
10:12 A.M.
EDT
�Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
12
Divider Title:
�THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
Saturday, February 17, 1996
RADIO ADDRESS BY THE PRESIDENT TO THE NATION
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Today I want to talk about what we need to do in
Washington to make our democracy work better for all Americans so that we can meet our
challenges together and take advantage of the enormous possibilities of our future.
In my State of the Union Address, I outlined seven challenges we face as we move into
the future - challenges we must meet if we are to keep the American Dream alive for all our
people and unite our country around our shared values.
The first six challenges are challenges we all face together - strengthening our families
and giving all children a good childhood; providing better educational opportunities for all
Americans; enhancing the economic security of all our working families through great access
to health care, secure pensions, lifetime education and more good jobs; fighting crime and
gangs and drugs so that all Americans can feel safe again, so that crime is the exception, not
the rule; protecting our environment; maintaining our world leadership for peace and freedom.
These challenges we must meet together as partners.
The seventh challenge is really America's challenge to all of us in public service. It is
a challenge to continue to reinvent our government so that it works better and costs less, and
to make our democracy work better for the American people
by limiting the influence of
special interests and expanding the influence of our people.
Today I'm in New Hampshire, where citizens will exercise their responsibility as
voters in the first primary of the year on Tuesday. It's no secret that even here in New
Hampshire, with its proud tradition of town meetings and studied debate over the issues,
people want all of us in politics to clean up our act. The fact is, organized interests have too
much power in the halls of government. These influence groups too often promote their own
interest at the expense of the public interest. Too often they operate in secret. Too often they
have special privileges ordinary Americans don't even know exist. And elections, where
ordinary voters should have the loudest voice, have become so expensive that big money can
sometimes drown those voices out.
Yet we have made progress in the last three years. Shortly after I took office, I
implemented the toughest ethics code on executive officials in our history. Senior appointees
are barred from lobbying their own agencies forfiveyears after they leave, and they can never
�lobby for foreign governments.
In 1993 we repealed the tax loophole that lets lobbyists deduct the cost of their
activities. And early last year, Congress finally passed a law that applies to Congress the laws
they impose on the private sector.
Last June I met with Speaker Gingrich in Claremont, New Hampshire, for a town
meeting. The very first question we took was from Frank McConnell, a retired steel worker,
who wanted us to launch a bipartisan effort to clean up politics and curb the power of special
interests through passing campaign finance reform. I'm meeting Mr. McConnell later today to
thank him and to bring him up to date.
Last year Congress answered my call to stop taking gifts, meals and trips from lobbyists. In
December I signed a bipartisan bill to bring lobbyists out from the darkrooms and into the
bright light of public scrutiny. That's half of what Mr. McConnell asked us to do.
When this law's first deadline approached earlier this week, lobbyists were pouring
into registration offices for the very first time to let the public know who they are, what they
do, who pays them, and how much. This is a tough law. It's good for the American people.
I'm proud to have signed it. And I congratulate the members of Congress, Republicans and
Democrats alike, who voted for it. Now we have a chance to finish the job, to make the way
we finance campaigns work better, too.
Two distinguished United States senators have sponsored a sensible campaign finance
reform bill that can serve as a foundation for real reform. John McCain is a Republican
Senator from Arizona. Russ Feingold is a Democratic Senator from Wisconsin. On many
issues it's fair to say that Senator McCain and Senator Feingold don't see eye to eye. But they
do know this: The health of our democracy goes way beyond partisan politics, and it's high
time to reduce the influence money has on elections.
The McCain-Feingold bill includes limits on spending, curbs on the influence of PACs
and lobbyists, and an end to the soft money system. The bill will discourage the attack ads
that have become all too common by requiring candidates to take responsibility for putting
them on the air. Perhaps most important of all, this bill provides free TV time for candidates
so that they can talk directly to citizens about real issues and real ideas.
All these campaignfinancereform ideas are ideas I embraced back in 1992 when I was
running in New Hampshire. Now, as we work to reform campaign finance, we must do
everything we can to ensure that we open, not limit, the political process. Our goal is to take
the reins of our democracy away from big special interests, from big money, and to put them
back into the hands of ordinary Americans, where they belong.
Our bottom-line test should be: Will our efforts make our government more
representative, not less representative? Will reform make our elected representatives more
likely to promote the public interest, even when it conflicts with powerful special interests?
�We have an historic opportunity to renew our democracy and strength our country. If
we truly believe in a government that puts ordinary Americans ahead of the powerful and
privileged, then we must act and act now. I call on members of Congress from both parties to
follow through on what Frank McConnell asked of the Speaker and me: Let's put politics
aside, work together, and get this done.
If you take pride in our democracy, as I know all of you do, then let's pass a bipartisan
campaign finance reform bill now and give the American people something all of us can be
proud of.
Thanks for listening.
END
�Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
13
Divider Title:
�22
Jan. 5 I Administration of William J. Clinton, 1995
These are not partisan concerns; they are
American concerns. I urge you, as you undertake the task of reforming Congress, to take
on these real political reform issues.
First, as you enact legislation to apply general laws to Congress, it is vital that professional lobbyists be barred from giving gifts,
meals and entertainment to members of
Congress—just as they are now barred from
giving these benefits to executive branch officials.
Second, Congress should also Quickly
NOTE: The President spoke at 1:46 p.m. in the enact legislation to bring professional lobbyBriefing Room at the White House.
ists into the sunlight of public scrutiny. The
current lobby disclosure statute is cumbersome and antiquated. Lobbyists should
Letter to Congressional Leaders on
disclose who their clients are, what bills they
the Agenda for the 104th Congress
seek to pass or block, and how much they
January 5,1995
are paid.
Dear Mr. Speaker:
Third, I am pleased that the Congress
We have an opportunity to make historic wants to pass a line item veto authority for
change in the way that Washington works the President, something that I have consistand the government does the people's busi- ently supported before and during the 1992
campaign and since. The line item veto auness.
This week, the Congress has begun to take thority will help us cut unnecessary spending
important and positive steps to change its op- and reduce the budget deficit. It is a powererations for the better. Shrinking the number ful tool for fighting special interests, who too
of committees, reducing stafi\ and other often are able to win approval of wasteful
measures are valuable, and long overdue. projects through manipulation of the conThe passage of legislation that would apply gressional process, and bury them in massive
to Congress the laws that apply to the public jills where they are protected from Presiis only fair, is simple common sense, and is dential vetoes. It will increase the accountalso long overdue. I hope that this time, un- ability of government. I want a strong version
like the last session of Congress, the Senate of the line item veto, one that enables the
follows the House's action. I congratulate you President to take direct steps to curb wasteful spending. This is clearly an area where
on these steps.
But true congressional reform must re- both parties can come together in the naduce the power of lobbyists and special inter- tional interest, and I look forward to working
ests. The power of organized money in Wash- with the Congress to quickly enact this measington hurts the middle class, bloats spending ure.
and the deficit, and blocks needed change.
Finally, we must clean up political camToday, some 90,000 people in Washington paigns, limit the cost of campaigning, reduce
are associated with lobbying Congress on be- the role of special interests, and increase the
half of specific interests, which too often are role of ordinary citizens. Real campaign fiable to manipulate the congressional process nance reform, too, should be -an area of bito insert spending projects or tax provisions partisan cooperation. Requiring broadcasters
in legislation that do not serve die larger to provide time to bona fide candidates
public's interest. Lobby power coupled with would cut the cost of campaigning and enthe ever-escalating cost of campaigns, which sure that voters hear all arguments, regardhas risen fourfold over the past two decades, less of candidate wealth. Strong proposals for
gives wealthy interests and wealthy can- free TV time have been introduced in predidates disproportionate influence in deci- vious years by Senator Dole and by the new
sionmaking.
chair of the House Commerce Committee/
We need first to identify what we can
agree on and move this country forward. And
we ought to start with lobby reform and these
other reforms. Then we ought to move on
to responsible tax reform that I hope will
focus on the middle class bill of rights and
giving people education deductions because
that will build the economy.
This is Mike McCurry's press conference,
and I've already said enough.
Thank you.
r
c
Th
Wea
I wa
mom
aheai
Tv
prosf
cratic
then
Mite
ties i
the
Was!
toct
nues
the
pore
to n
so t
won
sear
wor
V
tod
thin
por
thai
fort
a rt
me
pre
ica;
�Administration of William ]. Clinton, 1995 I Jan. 6
Rep. Thomas Bliley; these proposals should
be the basis of agreement on reform.
I look forward to working with the Congress to achieve results that are bipartisan,
sold, and give the government back to the
people.
Sincerely,
Bill Clinton
NOTE: Identical letters were sent to Newt Gingrich, Speaker of the House of Representatives;
Robert Dole, Senate majority leader; Thomas A.
Daschle, Senate minority leader; Richard K.
Armey, House majority leader; and Richard A.
Gephardt, House minority leader.
Remarks on the Economy Prior to a
Meeting With Congressional Leaders
January 6,1995
The President. Good moming, everyone.
We are here and anxious to get to work, but
I wanted to make an announcement this
moming and chart our course for the year
ahead.
Two years ago, I formed a partnership for
prosperity and opportunity with the Democratic leadership in Congress. Along with
then Speaker Foley and Majority Leader
Mitchell, the Democrats put together majorities that we needed in both the House and
the Senate to make the hardest choices
Washington has made in over a generation:
to cut Federal spending deeply; to raise revenues, largely from income tax increases on
the top IVz percent of our people and corporations with incomes of over $10 million;
to reinvent and restmcture the Government
so that it would be much smaller and still
work better; and to invest in education, research, and technology, and tax relief for
working families of modest incomes.
Most important of all, the Congress chose
to do the right thing, rather than the political
thing, because they believed it was more important to make real life easier for Americans
than it was to make political life more comfortable for people here in Washington. As
a result, there was a huge increase in investment and economic growth, building on the
productivity of American workers and American businesses.
23
This moming I am pleased to announce
that the recovery of which our economic plan
was such a large part has brought paychecks
to more than a quarter million more Americans in December alone. And compared with
an unemploymeAt rate of over 7 percent
when I took office, we now see an unemployment rate in December of 5.4 percent. We
have grown the private economy as we have
cut Government. That's a real recovery and
a real bargain for the American people.
A real recovery means that in 1994 alone
our economy created 3.5 million new jobs,
the most created in one year by the private
sector in a decade. In '93 and '94 combined,
our economy has produced 5.6 million new
jobs. A real recovery means that after losing
2 million manufacturing jobs in the previous
12 years, in 1994 alone 292,000 manufacturing jobs were added to the economy, and
manufacturing jobs grew in every month of
last year for the first time since the 1970's.
It means working people can look to the future with more hope and more optimism
now, especially if we move to protect the economic expansion and to get to work to match
the expansion with income growth increases
for ordinary American working people.
We're ready to build on the progress we've
made in cutting spending and the size of the
Federal work force. As I announced last year,
the reduction and reinvention of Government will continue with the budget I will
submit next month. But I will stand against
any effort to roll back or to rock the foundations of the recovery by proposals that explode the deficit or gimmicks that undermine
the integrity of the budget we have worked
so hard to put in place. And to ensure that
incomes grow, which is, after all, the most
important thing to ordinary American working families, we have to pair that with the
economic growth by arming America's families with the tools they need to increase their
own prosperity.
Our middle class bill ofrightswill do just
that by ensuring more investments in better
education and more disposable income for
hardworking families who deserve some benefits from this recovery. We will do it by rewarding investments in education; in the
rearing of children; in paying for education,
health care, retirement costs; paying for
�Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
14
Divider Title:
�THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
June 16, 1995
TEXT OF A LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT
TO THE SPEAKER OF THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
June 16, 1995
Dear Mr. Speaker:
I was delighted when you and I agreed to the suggestion of a citizen in New
Hampshire that we create a bipartisan commission to address the issues of political reform.
As you stated at the time, this proposal offers the best chance in a generation to break
through the stalemate between the parties that has blocked progress for reform. As you know,
the citizen stated that this commission should be modeled after the base closing commission; I
agree. This is an idea with wide appeal: in addition to our agreement, this proposal has
previously been endorsed by Senate Majority Leader Dole, and a similar proposal has been
introduced by Representatives Maloney, Meehan, Johnson, and others. I am writing to set
forth my views on the best way to write into legislation the agreement we reached in New
Hampshire.
As you know, to succeed, such a panel must be distinguished and truly bipartisan; it
must have afirmdeadline for action; and it must have a mechanism for presenting its
proposals to the President and the Congress in such a way that we will be forced to act on
them in a timely and comprehensive manner. Several times in recent years, particularly
thorny issues, including base closings and congressional and judicial pay, have been
addressed in this fashion.
First, the commission should be bipartisan in nature. Under this model, it would be
comprised of eight members, appointed by the President in consultation with the leaders of
the Congress. The President would make two appointments; two would be made in
consultation with the Speaker of the House; two would be made in consultation with the
Majority Leader of the Senate; one each would be made in consultation with the minority
�leaders of the House and Senate. No more than four commissioners could be members of any
one political party. To ensure that the commissioners are independent, receive the trust of the
people, and can take a Iresh look at these issues, they should not be current Federal officials
or Members of Congress, or officers of or counsel to the political parties. In this fashion, we
have an opportunity to achieve consensus and balance that will produce a national consensus
on refonn.
Second, the commission should be given afirmdeadline in which to act - by
February 1, 1996. These issues, while difficult, are not new, and can befruitfullyaddressed
in that time. The American people want to know that we will act during this Congress, and 1
believe the best chance of that is before the electoral season begins in the summer of 1996.
The commission would be charged with considering all the issues of political reform,
including campaignfinancereformand lobby refonn. Let me be clear: I do not believe that
this proposal for establishing a commission should deter or detract bom the previously
scheduled Senate action on political reform (S. 101), a measure 1 strongly support. That
would be contrary to the purpose of the entire enterprise -- making progress on reforms
that arc stalled, not to delay action on measures that are moving forward. If the Congress has
taken final action on any of these matters before the commission meets, the panel could
choose not to address them altogether.
Third, its recommendations must be dealt with in an expedited and comprehensive
manner, in the same fashion as the proposals of the base closing commission. They would be
sent to the President, who would reject them or send them on to the Congress in their
entirety. They should then be considered on the "fast track" - an up or down vote, with no
amendments, within 30 days of the submission by the President. Only in this way can the
American people be assured that narrow interests do not pick apart the coherent and
comprehensive recommendations of the bipartisan commission. (As you know, the
recommendations of the base closing commission take effect unless they are rejected by the
Congress, but in this instance I believe it is more appropriate to give the Congress the
opportunity to vote up or down.)
Working together to follow up on our New Hampshire agreement, we have a rare
opportunity for truly bipartisan cooperation on a matter of urgent concern to the American
people. We have a chance to put aside partisan interests to work toward the national interest.
I look forward to working with you toward this end, and to hearing your views on this
proposal or others you might have for moving ahead, and I have directed my staff to meet
with your staff on this matter. If we take these steps, we will set in motion a process that
could truly transform American politics for the better.
Sincerely,
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
�Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
15
Divider Title:
�May 6 I Administration of William J. Clinton, ]993
Nomination for Posts at the Department of State
May 6, 7993
Tlie President named two experienced environmental leaders to Senior Executive Service
positions at the State Department today. Rafe
Pomerance will serve as Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources, and Jessica Tuchman Mathews will
serve as Deputy Under Secretary for Global Affairs.
"The global environment is one of the most
serious issues facing, our Nation." said the President. "These two nominees have a lifetime of
experience ami knowledge in working on this
critical issue. I look forward to working with
them to attack the pressing problems of global
pollution."
NoTK: Biographies ol the nominees were made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.
Remarks on Campaign Finance Reform and a Question-and-Answer
Session
May 7, 1993
Tlie President. Thank you very much. Mr.
Vice President, distinguished leaders of the Congress, ladies and gentlemen from Close Up. I'm
delighted to have the Close Up students sitting
with us today at the White House. A little more
than 30 years ago, when I was about your age,
I came here, and the experience changed my
life forever in terms of my dedication to try
to do more to help our country work. Thirty
years from now I hope that all of you will look
back on this day and believe that you were
witness to an event that helped to change the
course of America, for on this day we seek to
reform our political process, to restore the faith
of the American people in our democracy, and
to ensure that once again the voice of the people as a whole is heard over the voice of special
interests in Washington.
Today we're announcing the most comprehensive reform of the political system in the history
of this country, a proposal that limits spending
by candidates for the House and the Senate;
a proposal which bans contributions to Members
by lobbyists who lobby them; a proposal which
curbs the power and influence of political action
committees; a proposal that levels the playing
field between challengers and incumbents and
pays for it by taxing lobbyists and not the American people; a proposal that plugs loopholes in
the financing of Presidential campaigns by eliminating so-called soft money contributions.
We take these extraordinary steps in the bill
584
proposed today and commit ourselves to adopting it into law for one fundamental reason.
Without fundamental change in the way we finance campaigns, everything else we seek to
improve in the lives of our people, from creating
jobs to providing a secure system of health care,
to educating our people better and enabling us
to compete in a global economy, everything will
be harder to achieve. Economic reform, health
care reform, and political reform must go handin-hand. The system has to work to produce
good results.
Today, by one estimate, Washington, DC, has
at least 80,000 people working directly or indirectly to lobby the Nationa] Government, a veritable influence industry. The more we seek to
change things, the more we draw lobbyists to
Washington to see if they can stop the change.
To be sure, these lobbyists often represent
x>ints of view that genuinely deserve to be
leard, and we in Government often benefit
from their views. But there are times when
these powerful interests turn debate into delay
and exert more influence over decisions in
Washington than the people we were elected
to serve do.
We're fighting hard to reform our health care
system. Soon we'll put forward a plan to ensure
health security for every American and to control the exploding costs of health care. Already,
some special interests have gone beyond consulting about what the best way to do this is, to
�Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 I May 7
preparing to carve tlie plans to bits to make
sure that the present system stays intact, which
is good for tlie people they represent but bad
for the public interest.
We're fighting to ensure that the tax burden
falls more fairly on those who can afford to
pay and less on the middle class, whose incomes
went down and tax burdens went up over the
last 12 years. And already, special interests are
clogging the halls of power, whispering that they
deserve to continue the advantages which have
pertained for too long.
We're fighting to make it possible for every
young person to go to college and to pay back
your loans as a percentage of your income after
you go to work so that you can never be bankrupted later by heavy student debts today. And
already, banks and their allies are out in force,
since they profit inordinately from the current
system, seeking to frustrate our plans.
It's quite clear, Government will work for the
middle class and for the average American only
if Washington is free to work for the national
interests and not narrow interests. And that
won't happen unless we change the way we finance campaigns in this country. It's time to
curb the role of special interests and to empower average citizens to have their voices heard
once again.
Campaign finance reform is a tough issue to
grapple with. It requires those of us who set
the rules to change the rules that got us all
here. That's not easy to do. Last year, Congress
passed a good campaign finance reform bill only
to see it vetoed in the past administration. As
I promised, we would support campaign reform
this year with a bill that is even tougher and
better than the bill which passed the Congress
and was vetoed last year. Particularly we have
taken aim at the lobbyists who symbolize the
reason that nothing ever seems to get done here
in this city.
And that's why I'm pleased to stand here with
these congressional leaders, some of whom have
worked for years and years and years on this
issue, and others, including the leadership of
the House and Senate, who have made it possible to us to bring this bill forward in a way
that has a real chance of passage. We're moving
forward with this. This bill is for real. Even
if special interests object, even if they try to
filibuster or delay, eventually I believe we will
pass campaign finance reform, and I will sign
it, because the people will support it and de-
mand it.
This plan will change the way Washington
works, the way campaigns are financed, the way
that politics is played. First, the plan will impose
strict but voluntary campaign limits on spending
in congressional campaigns as required by the
United States Supreme Court. Spending has
gone up too far and too fast. Last year alone
spending on congressional campaigns shot up
by 52 percent over the previous election. When
campaign spending is out of control, candidates
without access to big money simply cannot compete.
Second, this plan will rein in the special interests by restricting the role of lobbyists and
PAC's or political action committees. For the
very first time, our plan will ban contributions
from lobbyists to lawmakers they contact and
lobby. It will even bar them from raising money
for those officials they lobby. I f enacted, this
proposal will plainly change the culture in Washington in a very fundamental way. This proposal
curbs the role of political action committees.
It caps the amount of money any candidate can
receive from PAC's. It limits PAC contributions
to $1,000 to Presidential campaigns, to $2,500
for Senate candidates. And while it leaves the
present limit on the House candidates, it limits
the percentage of any candidate's budget which
can come from political action committees, a
dramatic change in the present system.
Third, our political reform plan will open the
airwaves and level the playing field between incumbents and challengers by providing communications vouchers to candidates who agree to
the spending limits. This was an important part
of my campaign last year. I think we have got
to open the airwaves so that there can be honest
debate and all the people who run, including
challengers, have access to them. These vouchers can only be used to communicate with the
voters through broadcast, print, or postage. Let
me make clear, these vouchers, no matter what
you will hear from the people who want to
protect the present special interest system, these
vouchers will not be paid for by middle class
taxpayers. They will be funded by closing a
major tax loophole that allows many businesses
to deduct the cost of lobbying and the costs
they pay for their lobbyists through repeal of
the deductibility of lobbying expenses. Corporate
lobbying, believe it or not, has only been deductible since 1962. It's time to close a 30year-old loophole and instead use the money
585
�May 7 I Administration
of William J. Clinton, 1993
to give tlie political process back to the American people. And there will be the voluntary
tax checkofT, which will let citizens choose to
luive $5 of their income tax go to make this
system work. It is entirely voluntary, but 1 think
a lot of Americans will like this system better
than the one we have.
Our refonn plan won't just affect congressional campaigns. During the Presidential campaign, I promised to propose legislation that
would shut down the system of soft money that
increases spending so dramatically in national
campaigns. Today this legislation does exactly
that. Make no mistake, this legislation will cost
me and the Democratic Party, like the Republican Party, significant sums of money. But it
is the right thing to do.
We envision a new Democratic Party and a
new party system built on the energy of millions
of average citizens who believe that politics is
once again a thrilling collective endeavor, who
want to give the small amounts of money they
can afford to give to the political process and
to the party of their choice because they will
know that that money will count and will not
be overwhelmed by special interests.
This proposal can change the status quo. And
the special interests surely will mobilize against
it. They don't want to see their ability to give
campaign contributions curbed. The status quo
suits many o f them fine. The problem is that
even when a lot of these people are making
their voices heard in legitimate ways, the totality
of their efforts has served to paralyze this process, to paralyze this city, and to keep meaningful
change from occurring long after everybody acknowledges that it has to occur in fundamental
areas of our national life, such as economic policy and health care.
I believe the winds of change are too strong.
At the beginning of my term, I imposed the
strictest ethics restriction ever on my top officials. They'll be prohibited from lobbying their
Agencies for 5 years after they leave, and they
can never lobby for a foreign government. We've
already seen progress in the United States Congress. Earlier this week, the United States Senate passed a historic lobby disclosure bill, a bill
which opens the activities of lobbyists to the
sunshine of public scrutiny. I f this bill passes
the entire Congress now, every time a lobbyist
spends more than a small amount of money
to lobby a bill on any Member, it will all have
to be reported. And this is the kind of thing
586
that we ought to be doing.
I worked for this sort of reform for a decade
in my own State. I know how hard it is. Finally
I had to take my proposals to a vote of the
people to pass them. In the Presidential campaign, from the snows of New Hampshire onward, I talked about these kinds of changes.
Now we see, from the vote in the Senate yesterday and from the strong support we're receiving
on the campaign finance reform bill today, the
prospect of real political reform in Washington.
I hope the House will act quickly on the measure that the Senate passed yesterday on lobby
registration and disclosure.
I believe the season of political reform has
finally arrived. Today we are here united in our
commitment to enact these kinds of reforms.
We need your help, your parents' help, the help
of the people that you go to school with, the
help of the people that you represent all across
this country to overcome the resistance that inevitably accompanies this kind of change. But
when we do overcome the forces of jnertia, we
can once again make our political system work—
work more quickly, work more efficiently, work
less expensively, and most importantly, work for
the people who work hard and play by the rules.
Thank you very much.
[At this point. Senator George ].
Mitchell,
Speaker of the House of Representatives
Thomas
S. Foley, Senator David L. Boren, and Representative Sam Gejdenson made statements in
support of campaign finance reform
legislation,
and the Vice President invited questions. ]
The President. We'll take some from the students. But I ' l l take a couple from the press
and a couple from the students.
Q. [Inaudible]
The President. As you know, I favor a smaller
PAC limit, and I wanted—in our legislation we
go to $1,000 in Presidential campaigns, which
is more broadly dispersed. I think there were
two reasons. One is the House Members believe
they have less access to raise funds on a Statewide basis, particularly those who come from
very poor congressional districts, and obviously
very limited ability to raise money beyond their
States. So they were insistent on keeping the
limit higher. But they did do something that
I never proposed when I ran for President that
I think provides an equally important limitation
on the influence of PAC's, and that is to set
a very strict limit on the percentage of total
�Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 I May 7
or a decade
it is. Finally
vote of the
lential camnpshire onof changes,
nate yesterre receiving
I today, the
Washington,
n the measiy on lobby
refonn has
nited in our
of reforms.
Ip, the help
) with, the
it all across
nee that inJiange. But
inertja, we
teu^ttk—
iei^Hrk
ly.^Wrfor
>y the rules.
/. Mitcfiell,
ues Tliomas
and RepitemetUs in
legislation,
ns.]
im the stui the press
)r a smaller
^islation we
igns, which
there were
oers believe
on a Statecome from
d obviously
eyond their
eeping the
ething that
:sident that
t limitation
it is to set
campaign contributions which could come from
PAC's, one which is, as Senator Boren has already noted, is lower than the average that
Members of Congress received last time in pinning for reelection. So they have agreed to dramatically reduce the impact of PAC money on
their campaign treasuries over and above what
they have been getting. And I thought that was
a reasonable agreement.
Tlie Vice President.
And the lobby
contribution
Tlie President. And of course, they also, the
leadership and the sponsors of the bill, have
also agreed to a dramatic change—I want to
emphasize this; this is new from the last bill—
to say that lobbyists give money to or raise
money for Members of Congress whom they
have lobbied within the previous year. And if
they do that, then they cannot lobby them for
a year after this. That is a very significant
change. Did you say 1 got the facts right?
Q. Mr. President, you have no Republicans
here. I know you have been trying to get some
bipartisan support. Do you think now this is
fated to be filibustered and won't
The President. Why don't I ask maybe one
of the Senators to discuss that. Senator Boren
and I have already talked about it. Senator
Mitchell.
Senator Mitclicll. We've reached out to Republican Senators. Senator Boren and Senator
Ford have met individually with a large number
of Republican Senators. And as you know, yesterday a group of five of them sent me a letter
detailing concerns they have and principles they
hold with respect to campaign finance reform.
And we're going to continue our dialog with
them. Having received the letter, it's my hope
that we can shortly meet with them, talk with
them, and work together to try to achieve a
bipartisan bill.
Q. Well, is the issue of public financing negotiable?
Senator Mitchell. Well, we think that the bill
the President has presented is the right way
to go. Obviously, we're going to listen to, consider thoughtfully and seriously suggestions
made by anyone, especially and including the
Republican Senators who sent the letter and
others. We hope very much that we can reach
a bipartisan agreement. We passed this bill last
year with Republican Senators' votes. We hope
we can do so again this year.
The President. I'd like to make two points.
if I may. First of all, the House Members reminded me in response to the previous question
that this bill also does something that we don't
do now. This limits the contributions from individuals that House Members can get above $200
to one-third of the total, which is a pretty dramatic change.
Secondly, I think we ought to hone in on
the question you just asked, Andrea [Andrea
Mitchell. NBC News], in terms of the expressed
reservations. And 1 had talks with Senator Boren
and Senator Ford as well as Senator Mitchell
before we came out here. The people who will
oppose this bill and will say, well, this is public
financing, and we're against public financing,
and we have so many other needs, how can
we spend tax dollars on it—I want to make
two points. First of all, this bill will be financed
entirely by repealing the lobbyist tax deduction
and voluntary contributions from the American
people. No taxpayer who's paying anything now
will pay any more to finance this bill. No expenditure now going to the education and welfare or national defense of this country will be
diverted to pay for this bill, not one red cent.
The second point I want to make is this:
If you wish to limit the expenditures on congressional races, as we limit the expenditures in
Presidential campaigns, it can constitutionally
only be done if it is tied to the receipt of public
financing, because the Supreme Court has ruled
that a millionaire or a billionaire can spend as
much money as they want and that anybody
can spend as much money as they can raise
on any campaign, unless there is some benefit
tied to it. Correct? So there is no way, we will
never limit spending in national races unless
we can tie it to a broad-based stream of financing, accountable to all the people. That's why
some Republicans voted for this bill 2 years
ago. They understood this—or last year. And
I hope they will again.
Yes, sir.
Q. You're stressing no public support here,
but on the Presidential checkoff and presumably
the congressional checkoff and also the loss of
a deduction of lobbyists, wouldn't that revenue
be useful for things such as jobs programs and
other areas that you favor? How is it not public
support? Could you go into that a little more
deeply?
The President. Well, that's only if the individual taxpayers want it to be diverted to that.
If they make a decision to do that in the context
587
�May 7 I Administration of William ]. Clinton, 1993
of a very large budget, it would be a tiny
amount that they can divert. But their lawmakers will not divert it; the taxpayers can do
it. The taxpayers won't pay extra. Tliey can say,
well, we'll spend up to $5 of our money on
this. But that is their decision. That's not our
decision. 1 like that. I wish we could give people
more control over their lives, not less. So I
think that's an advance.
Q. Mr. President, on a different subject, now
with the Christopher mission over, can you tell
us what you and the Europeans have accomplished? The impression is that despite all of
his diplomatic skills, that nothing on the ground
in Yugoslavia or Bosnia is going to change, at
least for the foreseeable future.
The President. I'll be happy to answer that,
but if I might, can I just answer—and I'll come
back to you before 1 leave, but could we—
if there are any other questions on this subject
from the press, on the campaign finance reform.
Yes.
Q. Mr. President, how do you intend to convince the public to spend tax dollars on Federal
election campaigns? Because, back to Frank's
[Frank Murray, Washington Times] question,
they haven't been checking off that dol ar. One
of the reasons it has to be raised to $5 is because the fund is running out of money.
The President. Why don't you answer this?
tangible evidence of political reform which is
worth their money. I remind you, we had a
big outpouring of voters in the last election.
I don't take full credit for it; they voted for
all three candidates. But there was a big increase in voter participation, a huge increase
in voter participation among young people. This
White House has already received more letters
in 1993 than came into the White House in
the entire year of 1992. People are interested
now. They're concerned. Thev want their country back. They want their Government back.
And I think they will seize this opportunity if
we give it to them.
Now, we had a couple of young people who
had questions there on this. Go ahead.
Q. I was wondering, because incumbents
don't have to spend as much money as their
challengers, how are you going to make that
equal for everyone?
The President. Well, the truth—you can't give
the challengers more than the incumbents,
but—I have two responses. One, as a practical
matter, what often happens is the incumbents
hugely outspend the challengers unless the challengers are very well-known or independently
wealthy, 4 to 1 is the average. So this will even
it up. That's a long way from 4 to 1.
The second thing is that all of us who have
run in elections know that there is a core, a
[At this point. Representative Gejdenson, Sen- threshold amount of money you have to have
ator Mitchell, and Senator Boren each responded to make sure your voice is heard. After that,
to the question on the voluntary taxfiayer check- if somebody's got a little more, it's not as imporo f f , and the Vice President commented on public tant. But this will even up the spending, number
one; and number two, it will bring everybody
support for campaign finance reform. ]
to that threshold where they can be known by
The President. One of the reasons that I think the voters and their message can be heard.
people will participate, by the way, is exempliQ. My question is this: Do you feel that
fied by the enormous way that lobby registration PAC's like Emily's List that aren't funded by
and disclosure bill carried through the Senate big business and big corporations should be exyesterday. I think that when it finally got on empt from your proposal?
the floor it was 95 to 2. The only argument
The President. That's a hot issue up here.
against this will be, well, there's public money The answer is, 1 don't, from the bundling proinvolved. But people are smart enough to know posal. The question is whether Emily's List or
that we're paying for it by repealing the lobbyist any other list not tied to a specific interest group
deduction. The public knows that they're not like labor or manufacturers or whatever but ingoing to get the money in their back pocket, stead tied to a set of ideas should be able to
and they're not going to get the money spent go and gather up contributions from people all
on their favorite program. We're either going over America and then send them to the canto repeal the lobbyist deduction and do this didates of their choice who may or may not
and open up this system, or we're not. And be known to the people who gave the money
to Emily's List. I can only tell you this bill
I think we ought to.
Let me also say that I think one reason more does not explicitly address that.
people will participate is, they can see some
My own view is—and I really appreciate the
588
�Administration of William ]. Clinton, 1993 I May 7
work that Emily's List has done—is that you
can't just make an exemption for Emily's List.
Anybody who says, we stand for certain ideas
and certain values, whether you like them or
not, could do the same thing. So 1 think there's
a way that can be compromised. I think, you
know, you might have Emily's List, for example,
or any other similar PAC be able to send specific envelopes to their contributors and have
the contributors send them directly. But my own
personal view is that the law should be the
same for everyone.
9
nbents
3 chalidently
1 have
> even
ore, a
- have
that,
mporimber
ybody
vn by
I that
id by
> exe
here.
pro'st or
;roup
it inle to
Ie all
cannot
on n | ^
,
Q. My question is, with the bill that was
passed through the Senate, and if it is passed
through the House, would that hurt or will it
help your bill if it is passed through legislation?
The President. It will help. Let me tell you
what the difference is. The bill that the Senate
passed yesterday requires much more extensive
registration by people who lobby the Congress,
so that the press will be able to find and tell
you who is obbying on what issues, who they
are and where they live and what they do. It
furthermore now requires the Senate and the
House Members who receive any kind of benefit
like a trip, a hunting trip or something like
that, that is over a certain amount of money,
that that has to be disclosed. I think it's over
$20, isn't it? Over $20. There has to be a record
made of that. That will almost certainly discourage a number of those things. And if they occur,
then you'll know what kind of lobbying is really
going on. A lot of money is spent on that every
year. So getting that into the light of day is
a big deal. I f that were to pass the House,
that would not—I think it would help to pass
this, because that bill only deals with the activities of lobbyists. It doesn't deal with the activities of lobbyists and spending limits and political
action committees in campaign financing. So I
see these two things as going hand-in-hand.
When I ran for President, I said I wanted
to have lobby reform and campaign finance reform and motor voter registration and a lot of
those things which will all fit together to open
the system to the people. So I think it will
help. If the Senate bi 1 passes the House, I
think it will help campaign finance reform.
That's a very intelligent question, by the way.
The Vice President. They're recommending
that you just take one more because of the
group from the
>
The President. They say 1 can—go ahead. I
have a crowd waiting for me. I'm sorry. And
then I've got to answer your question.
Q. If the bill doesn't pass, what aspects of
it would you be willing to change, if any?
The President Well, I don't want to say that,
because if I do that, then the people who don't
want it will tr) to go to the lowest common
denominator. Senator Boren 1 think made the
comment, or Senator Mitchell, one of them
talked about the letter that was received from
the five Republican Senators. So we will see
what they have to say as we go along. But let's
see, first of all, let's see if it can pass the House.
Let's see how the Democrats feel about it and
whether there are some Republicans who favor
it. And if we can pass it, then we'll go forward.
I think the key thing, frankly, is whether you
could say we shouldn't spend taxpayers' money
on this when there are so many other needs.
If that can really be presented, then the opponents will have won an enormous victory. They
will just keep the system just the way it is.
When the truth is that we're going to pay for
it with voluntary contributions and repealing the
lobbyist deduction that they've enjoyed for 31
years. I think if people see this as a way of
controlling spending, limiting lobbyists, and limiting PAC's, then the support for it will be overwhelming. And that's why we've been so careful
in the way it's been drawn up.
7
Bosnia
Now, to your question. First, when Secretary
Christopher gets back, I expect to see him. I
also expect to see Senators Nunn and Lugar
at a minimum from the representatives of—the
three Republican and three Democratic Senators who have been in the area. Secretary
Christopher and I will meet with the other
members of our national security group, and
we will see where we go from there.
But I've been keeping up with this trip as
well as with events and been making some calls
overseas myself. I expect we will be able to
reach a consensus fairly shortly on which approach to take. And as soon as we do, we will
announce it and go forward.
Thank you very much.
NOTE: The President spoke at 9:40 a.m. on the
South Lawn at the White House. A part of the
question-and-answer session could not be verified
because the tape was incomplete.
589
�Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
16
Divider Title:
�THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
March 25, 1997
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
In my State-of-the Union Address, I challenged Congress to pass bipartisan campaign finance
reform by July 4th ~ the date we celebrate the birth of our democracy. The only way that political
reform will become law is if citizens raise their voices to demand change. I strongly support the
bipartisan legislation introduced by Senators John McCain and Russ Feingold, and Reps. Chris Shays
and Marty Meehan. It is real, it is fair, it is tough, and it will curb the role of big money in our
politics.
We know the pressing need for reform; the campaignfinancelaws are two decades out of
date, and have been overwhelmed by a flood of money that rises with every election. Above all,
campaignfinancereform will help us to meet our nation's fundamental challenges. It will help us
balance the budget, fight crime, extend health care to our children, protect our young people from
the dangers of tobacco. Reform will help make sure that our political system stands for ordinary
Americans and helps them in their daily lives.
At Faneuil Hall, the "Cradle of Liberty," and at Independence Hall, our Founders forged our
democracy. Now it is up to all of us, in a new time, to renew that democracy, and to make sure that
our government represents the national interest, not just narrow interests. I thank those who are
fighting for reform and who are gathered at Faneuil Hall for their leadership, and urge all citizens to
join in this effort. This year can be the year that wefinallypass campaign finance reform.
-30-30-30-
�THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
March 25, 1997
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
In my State-of-the Union Address, I challenged Congress to pass bipartisan campaign finance
reform by July 4th « t h e date we celebrate the birth of our democracy. The only way that political
reform will become law is if citizens raise their voices to demand change. I strongly support the
bipartisan legislation introduced by Senators John McCain and Russ Feingold, and Reps. Chris Shays
and Marty Meehan. It is real, it is fair, it is tough, and it will curb the role of big money in our
politics.
We know the pressing need for reform; the campaignfinancelaws are two decades out of
date, and have been overwhelmed by a flood of money that rises with every election. Above all,
campaignfinancereform will help us to meet our nation's fundamental challenges. It will help us
balance the budget, fight crime, extend health care to our children, protect our young people from
the dangers of tobacco. Reform will help make sure that our political system stands for ordinary
Americans and helps them in their daily lives.
At Faneuil Hall, the "Cradle of Liberty," and at Independence Hall, our Founders forged our
democracy. Now it is up to all of us, in a new time, to renew that democracy, and to make sure that
our government represents the national interest, not just narrow interests. I thank those who are
fighting for reform and who are gathered at Faneuil Hall for their leadership, and urge all citizens to
join in this effort. This year can be the year that wefinallypass campaignfinancereform.
-30-30-30-
�Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
17
Divider Title:
�THE
WHITE
HOUSE
W A S H I N G T O N . D.C.
20500
DATE: 1-30-97
T
Q.
Rahm Emanuel
Laura Capps
Barry Toiv
FROM: Staff Secretary
The a t t a c h e d i s f o r w a r d e d
f o r your i n f o r m a t i o n .
�THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 30, 1997
The Honorable Grant Woods
A t t o r n e y General
State o f Arizona
Phoenix, A r i z o n a 85007
Dear Grant:
I want t o t a k e t h i s o p p o r t u n i t y t o express my a p p r e c i a t i o n
f o r t h e a c t i o n you have t a k e n on t h e i s s u e o f r e f o r m i n g o u r
campaign f i n a n c e system. For t o o l o n g , t h i s i s s u e has been
m i r e d i n p a r t i s a n s h i p and half-measures.
While t h e r e a r e
d i f f e r e n t views on how t o f i x t h e campaign f i n a n c e r e f o r m system,
I am p l e a s e d t h a t you have crossed p a r t y l i n e s t o speak o u t i n
u n i s o n on t h i s i m p o r t a n t n a t i o n a l i s s u e .
I have made c l e a r what r e a l r e f o r m s h o u l d c o n s i s t o f : i t
must be b i p a r t i s a n ; i t must be comprehensive; i t must reduce t h e
amount o f money t h a t i s r a i s e d and spent on f e d e r a l e l e c t i o n s ;
i t must h e l p l e v e l t h e p l a y i n g f i e l d between c h a l l e n g e r s and
incumbents; and i t cannot f a v o r one p a r t y over t h e o t h e r . I
am committed t o c u r b i n g t h e i n f l u e n c e o f money i n o u r p o l i t i c a l
system.
T h i s year p r o v i d e s t h e best o p p o r t u n i t y i n a g e n e r a t i o n t o
enact m e a n i n g f u l r e f o r m .
I urge you t o c o n t i n u e t o speak o u t a t
b o t h t h e s t a t e and n a t i o n a l l e v e l . Together we w i l l r e f o r m t h e
system so t h a t i t serves t h e i n t e r e s t o f t h e American people and
encourages g r e a t e r c i t i z e n p a r t i c i p a t i o n and c o n f i d e n c e i n t h e
p o l i t i c a l process.
Sincerely,
JUL
�Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
18
Divider Title:
�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
August 4, 1995
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
ON POLITICAL REFORM
The Oval O f f i c e
2:15 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Good a f t e r n o o n . I have j u s t f i n i s h e d a v e r y
p r o d u c t i v e and s t i m u l a t i n g meeting w i t h two o u t s t a n d i n g Americans,
John Gardner and D o r i s Kearns Goodwin.
I n t h e best t r a d i t i o n o f
our c i t i z e n s h i p , t h e y have s e t aside t h e i r v e r y busy l i v e s and
concerns and work t o t a k e some time t o come t o Washington t o t r y t o
h e l p make p o l i t i c a l r e f o r m a r e a l i t y .
We d i s c u s s e d how t h e t r u s t o f t h e American people has been
eroded by what t h e y see i n Washington, by how t h e l o b b y i s t s h o l d
sway more today t h a n ever b e f o r e . And t h e American people don't
like i t .
The hardworking American f a m i l i e s o f t h i s c o u n t r y know
t h a t t h e y d i d n o t pay f o r t h e k i n d o f i n f l u e n c e t h a t t h e y see
e x e r c i s e d t o o o f t e n i n today's Congress.
^
\
/
/
\
j
/
/
When Congress t r e a t s telecommunications r e f o r m , f o r example,
m e r e l y as a j o u s t among would-be m o n o p o l i s t s , o r d i n a r y consumers
l o s e o u t . When t h e NRA h i j a c k s a c o n g r e s s i o n a l h e a r i n g process,
crime v i c t i m s and p o l i c e o f f i c e r s l o s e o u t . And everybody knows
t h a t l a s t week's v o t e i n t h e House t o d r a m a t i c a l l y undermine o u r
a b i l i t y t o e n f o r c e our e n v i r o n m e n t a l laws would n o t have happened
i f r e a l campaign f i n a n c e r e f o r m and r e a l l o b b y i n g r e f o r m would have
been on t h e books.
For t o o l o n g these i s s u e s have been mired i n p a r t i s a n
i n - f i g h t i n g and p a r a l y z e d by s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t .
We have an
o b l i g a t i o n t o a c t when we can t o move beyond p a r t i s a n s h i p . I had
hoped we had reached such a p o i n t s e v e r a l weeks ago i n New
Hampshire when I shook hands w i t h Speaker G i n g r i c h on a p r o p o s a l
made t o us by an o r d i n a r y American i n t h e audience t h a t we c r e a t e
a p o l i t i c a l r e f o r m commission t h a t would work more o r l e s s l i k e t h e
Base C l o s i n g Commission t o make recommendations on campaign f i n a n c e
r e f o r m and l o b b y i n g r e f o r m .
S h o r t l y a f t e r I r e t u r n e d from New Hampshire, I sent t h e
Speaker a l e t t e r p u t t i n g f o r w a r d my ideas on how t o do t h a t . That
moment o f optimism gave way t o f i v e weeks o f s i l e n c e . When I asked
John Gardner and D o r i s Kearns Goodwin t o h e l p me make t h i s happen,
�I c e r t a i n l y hoped t h a t the r e s p e c t and eminence t h a t t h e y b r i n g t o
t h i s process would h e l p move t h i n g s f o r w a r d .
I f t h e r e were a
commission these are t h e k i n d s o f people I would a p p o i n t t o i t .
We c o n t i n u e t o hope t h a t the Speaker w i l l l i v e up t o h i s
handshake and move f o r w a r d on t h i s commission. But we s h o u l d n ' t
w a i t and Congress s h o u l d n ' t e i t h e r .
Today I am announcing t h a t I w i l l use the power o f my o f f i c e
t o b r i n g t h e s u n l i g h t of f u l l d i s c l o s u r e t o the l o b b y i n g process i n
Washington. R i g h t now l o b b y i s t s can operate i n s e c r e t . They can
l a w f u l l y conceal who t h e y work f o r , what l o o p h o l e s o r c o n t r a c t s o r
r e g u l a t i o n s t h e y are seeking t o pass, o r what a c t i o n s t h e y are
seeking t o stop.
And l o b b y i n g of t h e E x e c u t i v e Branch i s n ' t
disclosed at a l l .
Last week an overwhelming b i p a r t i s a n m a j o r i t y i n t h e U n i t e d
S t a t e s Senate v o t e d f o r l o b b y i n g r e f o r m . But t h e House l e a d e r s h i p
has made i t c l e a r t h a t t h e y w i l l not even schedule a v o t e on t h i s
measure f o r q u i t e a l o n g w h i l e . Delay, debate and d i v i s i o n , t h a t ' s
t h e same o l d t h i n g . They won't put l o b b y i s t s i n t h e i r p r o p e r p l a c e
i n our governmental s t r u c t u r e .
So today I have decided t o a c t on my own w i t h i n my e x e c u t i v e
authority.
I am r e q u e s t i n g the A t t o r n e y General t o prepare an
e x e c u t i v e o r d e r t h a t would bar E x e c u t i v e Branch employees from
meeting w i t h any l o b b y i s t who does not f u l l y d i s c l o s e h i s o r her
a c t i v i t i e s t o the p u b l i c .
I n o t h e r words, i f l o b b y i s t s want t o
c o n t a c t t h e E x e c u t i v e Branch, f i n e , t h e y can. That's an i m p o r t a n t
p a r t o f our work here.
But t h e y can do i t o n l y i f t h e y t e l l t h e
p u b l i c who t h e y are, what t h e y ' r e w o r k i n g on, how much t h e y ' r e
spending and what p o l i c y t h e y are pushing o r t r y i n g t o b l o c k .
We
w i l l , i n o t h e r words, f o l l o w the s t r i c t and m e a n i n g f u l standards o f
t h e Senate b i l l . From now on, the E x e c u t i v e Branch w i l l o p e r a t e as
i f t h e Senate b i l l had become law.
I have now a c t e d on lobby r e f o r m . Now t h e r e i s no excuse f o r
congressional delay.
The Senate has done i t s work.
I urge t h e
House t o f i n i s h t h e j o b .
T h i s i s r e a l l y a moment f o r r e a l
b i p a r t i s a n p r o g r e s s on p o l i t i c a l r e f o r m .
I n r e c e n t days s t r o n g and o f t e n growing b i p a r t i s a n m a j o r i t i e s
i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Senate have v o t e d t o p r e s e r v e , f i r s t o f a l l ,
p u b l i c f u n d i n g of p r e s i d e n t i a l campaigns -- something John Gardner
here d i d so much t o c r e a t e -- t o schedule a v o t e on campaign
f i n a n c e r e f o r m over the o b j e c t i o n of t h e Senate M a j o r i t y Leader;
and t o pass a tough g i f t and lobby r e f o r m program i n t h e Senate.
T h i s b i p a r t i s a n impulse i s our best hope f o r t r u e and l a s t i n g
reform.
But t o get t h e r e i t w i l l have t o spread t o t h e House,
which has been moving back i n t o t h e p a s t , not g o i n g f o r w a r d i n t o
the f u t u r e .
That i s our c h a l l e n g e today.
From
the
reform
victories
of
the
turn
of
the
century
�p r o g r e s s e s t o t h e changes t h a t f o l l o w e d Watergate, moments o f
n a t i o n a l renewal have always c a l l e d f o r t h people o f g o o d w i l l ,
r e g a r d l e s s o f p a r t y , who were w i l l i n g t o do what i t t a k e s t o change
t h i n g s f o r t h e b e t t e r . T h i s i s p a r t o f our n a t i o n a l h i s t o r y , and
i t must be p a r t o f o u r common ground.
I c a l l on Congress t o j o i n us here t o pass l o b b y r e f o r m and
campaign f i n a n c e r e f o r m , t o do i t i n a b i p a r t i s a n way, and t o
restore the public trust.
I n t h e meanwhile, I am g o i n g t o
e s t a b l i s h l o b b y r e f o r m i n t h e E x e c u t i v e Branch by e n a c t i n g by
e x e c u t i v e o r d e r t h e b i l l passed by t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Senate.
to
I ' d l i k e now t o i n v i t e John Gardner and D o r i s Kearns Goodwin
say a few words.
MR. GARDNER: I ' l l be v e r y b r i e f . I ' v e -- as everyone knows,
I have f e l t f o r some years t h a t campaign f i n a n c e r e f o r m was t h e
most s e r i o u s problem f a c i n g government.
I t ' s a cancer e a t i n g a t
the v i t a l s o f o u r government.
Americans have always b e l i e v e d i n
the consent o f t h e governed. I t now l o o k s as though we're t a l k i n g
about t h e consent o f t h e donors.
I s t h a t what we r e a l l y wanted?
That's what we've g o t .
For many members o f Congress, t h e p r e s e n t system i s a k i n d o f
f a t a l a d d i c t i o n . They can't
break t h e a d d i c t i o n , though
t h e y have seen t h e p o l l s showing t h e p u b l i c c o n f i d e n c e i n Congress
g o i n g lower and lower i n t o t h e sub-basement. They know t h a t such
p u b l i c c y n i c i s m i s a danger t o t h e Congress, i t ' s a danger t o t h e
country.
Oklahoma C i t y was a f i r e b e l l i n t h e n i g h t .
But many
members o f Congress cannot break t h e a d d i c t i o n .
That i s why t h e handshake i s so i m p o r t a n t .
I t may h e r a l d a
break i n t h i s s i t u a t i o n .
Republicans and Democrats must a c t
t o g e t h e r and t h e y must a c t i n t h i s s e s s i o n . The t i m e has r u n o u t .
Thank you.
Doris.
MS. KEARNS GOODWIN:
Well, I f e e l l i k e t h e rookie i n
comparison t o John Gardner who has spent so much o f h i s l i f e on
t h i s i s s u e . There's no q u e s t i o n t h a t once you s t a r t t h i n k i n g about
i t you r e a l i z e t h a t t h e s o a r i n g power o f money w i t h i n o u r p o l i t i c a l
process i s one o f t h e most damaging f o r c e s i n o u r n a t i o n a l l i f e .
T a l k t o any p o l i t i c i a n and y o u ' l l hear t h e c o m p l a i n t t h a t t h e y must
spend h a l f t h e i r t i m e , h a l f t h e p u b l i c ' s t i m e , r a i s i n g money, f o r ,
as t h e y would say, d i s t a s t e f u l as i t i s , money t r a n s l a t e s i n t o
v o t e s , which i s t h e l i f e b l o o d o f any p o l i t i c i a n .
Moreover, t h e more expensive campaigning becomes, t h e more
money i s needed. I n t h e overwhelming number o f cases, t h i s money
does n o t come from t h e average American c i t i z e n , b u t r a t h e r from
b u s i n e s s , from o r g a n i z a t i o n s , from i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h money f o r whom
the
c o n t r i b u t i o n i s n o t h i n g l e s s t h a n an i n v e s t m e n t w i t h an
�expected r e t u r n .
To be sure, t h e p o l i t i c i a n s p r o f e s s t o care about a l l t h e i r
constituents.
But no p o l i t i c i a n has t i m e f o r everyone. I t ' s
always a q u e s t i o n o f p r i o r i t i e s , and money e s t a b l i s h e s those
priorities.
Money g e t s t h e i n d i v i d u a l s i n t o t h e door.
Money
revises l e g i s l a t i o n .
Money r e s t r a i n t h e enforcement o f laws.
Money has a d i r e c t impact on t h e substance o f almost e v e r y p i e c e o f
legislation.
I t i s l i t t l e wonder, t h e more I t h i n k about i t , t h a t o u r
c i t i z e n s a r e d i s e n c h a n t e d w i t h p o l i t i c s and government.
This
process has c o r r u p t e d b o t h p a r t i e s .
I t has been t h e r e f o r a l o n g
time,
probably reaching
a stage now never
before
seen.
P o l i t i c i a n s , I t h i n k , p e r s i s t e n t l y underestimate the i n t e l l i g e n c e
and i n s t i n c t s o f t h e A m e r i c a n . c i t i z e n s who are f u l l y aware o f t h e
c o r r u p t i n g power and i n f l u e n c e o f money, and, t h e r e f o r e , f e e l
d i s e n c h a n t e d from h a v i n g any impact on t h e p o l i t i c a l system.
P o l i t i c i a n s know t h e system s t i n k s ; t h e people know t h e system
stinks.
And y e t , as John s a i d , t h e r e ' s a f a t a l a d d i c t i o n t h a t
p r e v e n t s a n y t h i n g from t u r n i n g i t around.
My o n l y hope i n b e i n g p a r t o f t h i s e f f o r t r i g h t now t o make
good on t h i s handshake t h a t t h e P r e s i d e n t and Mr. G i n g r i c h t o o k i n
New Hampshire i s t h a t by h a v i n g some s o r t o f commission t h a t ' s
o u t s i d e t h e system p u s h i n g i n from t h e o u t s i d e , i t may be o u r o n l y
chance t o s t a r t t u r n i n g t h e c o u n t r y around and l e t t i n g democracy
get back on i t s head i n t h e r i g h t way.
Thank you.
Q
Mr. P r e s i d e n t , t h e Speaker today s a i d t h a t t h e reason he
hasn't responded t o t h e handshake i s because h i s p r i o r i t y now i s
s a v i n g Medicare and t h a t you're n o t d o i n g a n y t h i n g t o save Medicare
and why n o t focus i n on t h a t as an i s s u e i n s t e a d o f p o l i t i c a l and
campaign f i n a n c e r e f o r m .
THE PRESIDENT: F i r s t o f a l l , i t t a k e s no energy a t a l l . He
doesn't have t o do a n y t h i n g i n t h e Congress r i g h t now. A l l he has
t o do i s t o do what he s a i d he'd do when he shook hands w i t h me - l e t ' s s e t up a commission. He can make h i s appointments, Senator
Dole can make h i s appointments, I ' l l make my appointments and
Senator
Daschle
and Congressman Gephardt
can make
their
appointments, and t h e n l e t t h e commission go do i t s work. That i s
not a p e r s u a s i v e reason. There i s n o t h i n g t o do. That t a k e s about
two o r t h r e e hours o f s t a f f t i m e and about 30 minutes o f h i s t i m e .
So -- and l e t ' s say t h i s .
Our a d m i n i s t r a t i o n has made t h e
Medicare T r u s t Fund b e t t e r . T h e i r Medicare c u t s a r e n o t necessary
e i t h e r t o f i x t h e T r u s t Fund o r t o balance t h e budget. Over h a l f
of t h e i r Medicare c u t s - - o r r o u g h l y h a l f o f them -- a r e i n c r e a s e d
c o s t s t o b e n e f i c i a r i e s o f Medicare which w i l l n o t p u t one r e d cent
i n t o t h e Medicare T r u s t Fund. That i s n o t what t h i s i s about.
�We have shown you can balance the budget w i t h o u t h u r t i n g
people on Medicare. And t h a t ' s what I t h i n k t h e Speaker and the
m a j o r i t y i n t h e House and t h e Senate ought t o say t h e y want t o do.
And when t h e y say t h a t , we can r e s o l v e f u r t h e r problems w i t h the
Medicare T r u s t Fund. I have shown I'm w i l l i n g t o d e a l w i t h t h a t .
I proposed some savings t o h e l p d e a l w i t h t h a t .
T h i s i s not about t h e Medicare T r u s t Fund.
T h i s i s about
whether these b e n e f i c i a r i e s are g o i n g t o be soaked f o r no good
reason.
Q
Mr. P r e s i d e n t , why not take the same k i n d of u n i l a t e r a l
a c t i o n on campaign f i n a n c e r e f o r m as you seem t o be d o i n g on
l o b b y i n g r e f o r m , say, w i t h r e s p e c t t o s o f t money d o n a t i o n s t o t h e
party?
And does t h e p a r t y understand f u l l y , s i r , y o u r f e e l i n g s
about them s e l l i n g access t o you t o b i g money donors?
that.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, and we changed t h a t . And we can change
And I have no problem changing t h a t . That i s wrong.
I t h i n k - - b y t h e way, I t h i n k t h a t t h e P r e s i d e n t and t h a t any
o t h e r person i n p u b l i c o f f i c e ought t o meet w i t h h i s o r her
supporters, i n c l u d i n g f i n a n c i a l supporters.
I think that's
i m p o r t a n t . I would do t h a t anyway. I have always done t h a t , from
t h e t i m e I was A t t o r n e y General of my s t a t e I have done t h a t .
But
i t i s wrong t o r a i s e money on the promise of guaranteed s p e c i f i c
k i n d s o f access. That i s wrong, and we are -- stopped t h a t .
Now, the d i f f e r e n c e i s , I can do t h i s l o b b y r e f o r m and h o l d
t h e E x e c u t i v e Branch t o a h i g h e r s t a n d a r d and c h a l l e n g e t h e
Congress t o f o l l o w s u i t i n a way t h a t does not i n any way undermine
the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t .
But i f I h o l d the Democrats t o a s t a n d a r d
which i n e f f e c t p a r a l y z e s them f i n a n c i a l l y , i n comparison t o the
Republicans, I w i l l be p u n i s h i n g t h e v e r y p u b l i c i n t e r e s t t h a t I
seek t o advance because i t w i l l make i t l e s s l i k e l y t h a t t h e r e w i l l
be c o m p e t i t i v e e l e c t i o n s .
The American people's o n l y chance t o make the r i g h t choices i s
when t h e r e are genuine c o m p e t i t i v e e l e c t i o n s . I would l o v e n o t h i n g
b e t t e r -- i f I c o u l d get an agreement w i t h the Republican P a r t y we
c o u l d shut t h i s whole t h i n g down tomorrow.
We c o u l d , by mutual
agreement, a t l e a s t change the p a r t y r u l e s on campaign f i n a n c e
r e f o r m . And i f t h e y would do i t , we c o u l d do i t and we wouldn't
have t o w a i t f o r Congress t o a c t .
Q
You mentioned the telecommunications b i l l , s i r . Have the
changes t h a t have been made t o i t today made i t any more a c c e p t a b l e
t o you?
THE PRESIDENT: W e l l , I want t o w a i t and see what happens. I
know t h a t t h e y a c t e d t o t r y t o s t o p one person from b e i n g a b l e t o
own t e l e v i s i o n s t a t i o n s , newspapers, r a d i o s and cable networks i n
t h e same market.
That was a v e r y i m p o r t a n t s t e p f o r w a r d .
I
c o n g r a t u l a t e the House on t h a t .
Did the V-chip amendment pass?
�They're w o r k i n g on t h a t .
That's a l s o v e r y i m p o r t a n t t o me.
As you know, I i s s u e d a l e t t e r on t h e House b i l l which was
changed markedly a f t e r i t came o u t o f committee -- t h a t ' s a v e r y
unusual procedure -- s e t t i n g f o r t h t h e concerns t h a t I have, t h e
Vice P r e s i d e n t shares, o u r a d m i n i s t r a t i o n has. We'll j u s t have t o
r e v i e w t h e b i l l when i t gets i n i t s f i n a l form.
Q
What about t h e war i n C r o a t i a ?
Are you concerned t h a t
t h a t c o u l d spread i n t o an a l l - o u t war i n t h e Balkans?
THE PRESIDENT:
Yes -- w e l l , I'm concerned t h a t i t c o u l d
spread t h e war i n Bosnia and i n t h e C r o a t i a - S e r b i a area.
Let me j u s t back up and say t h e C r o a t i a n o f f e n s i v e o r i g i n a l l y
was launched i n response t o t h e Serb a t t a c k on Bihac, one o f t h e
p r o t e c t e d areas. And i t has l a r g e l y , a p p a r e n t l y , r e l i e v e d a l o t o f
p r e s s u r e on Bihac. But because i t i s so comprehensive, i t runs t h e
r i s k o f a w i d e r war. And t h a t i s what we have c a u t i o n e d a g a i n s t i n
our c o n t a c t s w i t h t h e Croats.
Q
So, Mr. P r e s i d e n t ,
offensive i s justified?
you're
saying
that
the
actual
THE PRESIDENT: I e x p l a i n e d t h a t t h e o r i g i n a l C r o a t i a n a c t i o n ,
which we were t o l d by t h e C r o a t i a n government t h e y would f e e l
compelled t o t a k e , was animated by t h e Serbian a t t a c k on Bihac.
But we have asked them t o e x e r c i s e r e a l r e s t r a i n t because we a r e
v e r y concerned about a wider war.
Thank you.
THE PRESS:
END
Thank you.
2:33 P.M.
EDT
�Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
19
Divider Title:
�Cf(?
U. S. Dtpartmtat of Justic*
Office of Legal Counsel
"•aiAw^wn. D C. 1CJ/0
Offtci tf ff>«
A J < I « U M A**««*7
CMMI
April 14, 1995
MEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
AND THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
FROM:
WALTER DEUJNGER
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL
SUBJECT:
ANTT-LOBBYING ACT GUIDELINES
The attached OLC gQidelinei are based on a 1989 opinion of the Office, issued by
then Aisutant Attorney Geoenl Willum P. Bait, and on long-standing Criminal Division
practice. The gutdeliiKS explain that the Anti-Lobbying Act, 18 U.S.C. | 1913, does not
prohibit officials from supporting ao Adtcinhtmioa's legislative program through direct
communications with Congress; through communications with the public in speeches,
writing*, and appearances: or throagh most forms of private commuokations to man ben of
the public. The Act, however, doe* bar high-expenditure campaigns in which members of
the public arc expressly ut^ed to write their Sen&tora or Representativee.
�U.5tffirartmcm of Juidce
O i l L . ^ J I
(*.u.
Apnl U, 199S
nirmFrrMFj; ON ifi u s e, s ion
The Ami-Lobbying Act, 18 U.3.C. { 1913, prohlblu offlccn and employees of the
executive bonch from engaging in certain forms of lobbyinj. If applied accordingtoits
literal terms, section 1913 would have extraordinary breadth, and it has long been recognized
that the statute, if so applied, might be uncmsdmtionaL The Office of Legal Counsel hit
interpreted the statute in light of iu undexlying purpose "to restrict the uce of appropriated
funds for large-scale, high-c*pcndirurc campaigns specifically urpng private recipients to
contact Members of Congress about peodlng legislative manen on behalf of an
AdmioistntioQ positioa." Memorandum for Dk± Thcrnburgh, Attoraey Geoenl, from
Willum P. BUT, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, "Constraints Imposed
by 18 U.S.C. 1913 on Lobbying Efforts,* 13 Op. O.L.C. 361, 365 (1989) (ptelim. prim)
(citation aad footnote omitted) ("1989 Bair Opinion'). Although then has never beea a
criminal prosecudoo under the Act since ia adoption in 1919, the Criminal Dtvirioa and ia
Public Integrity Section have frequently coostmed the Act in the context of particular
referrals. The principles that the Criminal Division has developed over time provide
guidance to the meanisg of the stamte that Is necessary in order for the Act to provide
reasonably aaoattaicablft guidaoca to those co w o it applies..
hm
Section A bdow describes ofllcials whose lobbying activities are not Inhibited by the
Anti'Lobbying Act Section B describes tie kind of lobbyin* petraitted under the Act
Section C describes the kind of lobbying prohibited by the Act Section D describes a
furtherrestrictionthat agencace may wish to obterve, although they axe not required to do so
under the Act Secdoa E describes additional prohibitions imposed by typical "poblichy or
propaganda*riden,as inteipmed by the Comptroller Geoenl, although identifying the
precise restrictions, if any, applicable to any particular agencyrequiresan examination of
that agency's appropriations act
A.
The Deputxneai of Justice consistently hw construed the Anti-Lobbjiag Act AS not
limiting the lobbying activities personally uadenakca by the Prcsideot, his aides and
assistants within the Executive Office of the President, the Vke President, cabinet members
within their areas of responsibility, and other Secate-confinned officials appointed by the
President within their areas of responsibility.
�B.
Under the Anti-Lobbywg Act. government employees MAY:
•
communicate ducoJy with Memben of Congress and their staffs
in support of Administration or department positions. The Act
docs not apply to such direct communications.
•
communicate with the public through public speeches,
appearances and puolished writings to support Admimstration
potitionx including using such public fora tn call on the public
to contact Members of Congre** in support of or opposition to
legislation.
•
•
C.
communicate privately with members of the public to inform
them of Administmion positions and to promote those positions
- but only to the extent that such communications do not
contravene the limitauons listed in Section C bdow.
lobby Congress or t e public (without anyrestrictionimposed
h
by the And-Lobbyine Act) to support Administration posidoos
on nominations, treaties, or any non-legislative, nonappropriadons issue. The Act applies only to lobbying with
respect to legislation or appropriations.
Under the And-Lobbying Act, govemmeot employees MAY NOT:
•
engage tn substantial 'grass roots" lobbying campaigns of
telegrams, letten, and other private forma of conunonicatum
expressly asJcing recipients to contact Memben of Congress, in
support of or opposition to legislation. Grass roots lobbying
does not include communicatioo with the publk through public
speeches, appearaaces, or wriungi. Although the 1989 Barr
Opinion does not define the meaning of "substantial* grass roots
campaigns, the opimoa notes thai the 1919 legislative hutoiy
cites an expenditure of $7500 - roughly etprivalent to $30,000
in 1989 - for a campaign of letter-writing urging redpieots to
contact Congress.
Although not required by the And-Lobbying Act, ageocies may wish to
observe a more general restriction withrespectto offlcials other than those listed in
Section A:
•-
against expressly urging citizens to conuct Congtecc in support
of or opposidon to legislation. As Sections B and C taken
together indicate, the Anii-Lobbying Act does hot forbid
-2-
�government employees from urging citizens to conuct Members
of Congrwi on behalf of an Administration position,fi&Qtin
the context of a grass roots campaign. Nevertheless, the
Comptroller General, following his uodentanding of the
Depajtmf..!t of Justice's histoncaJ interprvtauon of the Act
before the 1989 Bwr Opinion, has construed the restriction as
being triggered by explicit requests for citizens to contact their
represenutives in support of or opposition to legislation. Given
the Comptroller General's interpretadon. and given the difficulty
of predicting what m y be perceived as a grass roots campaign
a
in a pani=ular context, agenciee may wish to err on the side of
caution, by refraining from including in their commumcailons
with private citizens any requests tc contact Members of
Congress in support of or opposition to legislation.
E.
the Office of Legal Counsel's published opinions do not set out a detailed,
independent analysis of •publicity or propaganda"ridencontained in the appropriations acts
of some ageocies. The Comptroller General has suggested that, under such riders,
govcramem employees also MAY NOT (I) provide administrative support for the lobbying
activities of private organizations. (2) prepare editorials or other communications that will be
disseminated without an accurate disclosure of the government'srolein their origin, and (3)
appeal to members of the public to contact their elected represcntadves in support of or
opposition to proposals before Congress.
-3 -
�Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
20
Divider Title:
��DETERMINED TO BE AN ADMINISTRATIVE
MARKING Per E.0.12958 as amended, Sec. 3.3 (c)
Draft March 7, 1997,2pm
Confidential
FACT SHEET
President Clinton's Radio Address On Campaign Finance Reform
March 8, 1997
In today's radio address, the President announced that he will ask the Federal Election
Commission (FEC) to revisit its rules on "soft money" and act to ban the use of soft money in
federal elections, as proposed in bipartisan campaign finance reform legislation now before
Congress. The petition proposes to end the current soft money system by requiring that
candidates for federal office and national parties only be permitted to raise and spend "hard
money" — funds subject to the restrictions, contribution limits, and reporting requirements of the
1974 Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). This ban would apply to all political party
committees, as anticipated by the bipartisan campaign finance reform legislation.
"Soft money" and federal elections
"Soft money" plays an increasingly large role in funding political parties and campaigns.
So called "hard money" contributions are those that are given to candidates or parties subject to
the limits and disclosure of federal law. "Soft money," on the other hand, goes to national or
state political parties, and can be raised in large amounts and from sources that could not give
under federal election law (directly from corporations and unions).
The role of "soft money" has grown dramatically in the past several elections. In 1996,
the Democratic Party raised $124 million, and the Republican Party raised $154 million in soft
money — more than [triple] the total of four years before.
Soft money is today lawful under a series of regulations put forward by the Federal
Election Commission (FEC). The FEC first issued advisory opinions on this in 1978. It did not
take further action during the 1980's, as the role of "soft money" grew. In 1990, ordered to take
some action on "soft money" by a federal court, the FEC promulgated regulations that govern
how parties can allocate funds between federal and non-federal activities. (The court deferred to
the agency as to how to address the issue, but noted that the agency could go as far as to ban the
use of soft money for mixed federal- and state-political activity.)
In addition, the 1979 statutory amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act
(FECA) authorized allocation of national and state "hard money " for joint activities.
President Clinton's support for a soft money ban
President Clinton has consistently called for legislation that would ban the use of "soft
money" in federal elections. He called for this legislation during the 1992 campaign, and
supported the campaign finance reform legislaiton taht was vetoed that year by President Bush
�(which would have banned soft money). The campaignfinancereform plan he proposed in May
1993' included a "soft money" ban; this proposal was passed by both chhambers but was killed by
a Senate filibuster in 1994.
The bipartisan campaign finance reform legislation introduced by Senators McCain and
Feingold and Representatives Shays and Meehan would prohibit the use of soft money in federal
elections.
In January, 1993, the Democratic National Committee voluntarily announced that it
would restrict contributions it can currently accept under the law. It would not accept soft money
contributions in excess of $100,000 per year, and it would not accept contributions from
individuals who are not citizens or from domestic subsidiaries of foreign corporations.
Contents of the request to the FEC
The President will call on Congress to enact the bipartisan legislation to reform campaign
financign and ban soft money. And he will formally request the FEC to act now, under existing
law, to write new regulations banning the use of soft money to influence federal elections, as
envisioned in the legislation:
•
New rules should prohibit national political parties (and their congressional campaign
committees or agents) from soliciting or receiving anyfiindsnot subject to the limitations
or prohibitions of the Federal Election Campaign Act. (This would preclude, for
example, contributions directly from corporate or union treasuries, or contributions from
individuals in excess of the amount an individual can give to a federal party.)
•
Prohibit any federal officeholder or candidate (and their agents) from soliciting or
receiving any funds not subject to the limitations or prohibitions of FECA.
•
Provide that any amount of funds expended by a political party during a federal election
year for any activity that influences a federal election (including a get-out-the-vote drive,
generic advertising or any communication that mentions a federal candidate) must be paid
for from funds subject to FECA. (This would end the allocation system, currently
authorized by the FEC, under which "hard" and "soft" money are mixed for campaign
activities that affect both state and federal elections.)
Supplemental funding for the FEC
[Language to come]
�DETERMINED TO BE AN ADMINISTRATIS F
MARKING Per E.O. 12958 as amended, Sec. 3.3 (c)
'"'tials:
Date: 3[ WfoaM
Draft March 7, 1997,2pm
Confidential -
FACT SHEET
President Clinton's Radio Address On Campaign Finance Reform
March 8, 1997
In today's radio address, the President announced that he will ask the Federal Election
Commission (FEC) to revisit its rules on "soft money" and act to ban the use of soft money in
federal elections, as proposed in bipartisan campaign finance reform legislation now before
Congress. The petition proposes to end the current soft money system by requiring that
candidates for federal office and national parties only be permitted to raise and spend "hard
money" -- funds subject to the restrictions, contribution limits, and reporting requirements of the
1974 Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). This ban would apply to all political party
committees, as anticipated by the bipartisan campaign finance reform legislation.
"Soft money" and federal elections
"Soft money" plays an increasingly large role in funding political parties and campaigns.
So called "hard money" contributions are those that are given to candidates or parties subject to
the limits and disclosure of federal law. "Soft money," on the other hand, goes to national or
state political parties, and can be raised in large amounts and from sources that could not give
under federal election law (directly from corporations and unions).
The role of "soft money" has grown dramatically in the past several elections. In 1996,
the Democratic Party raised $124 million, and the Republican Party raised $154 million in soft
money - more than [triple] the total of four years before.
Soft money is today lawful under a series of regulations put forward by the Federal
Election Commission (FEC). The FEC first issued advisory opinions on this in 1978. It did not
take further action during the ^SO's, as the role of "soft money" grew. In 1990, ordered to take
some action on "soft money" by a federal court, the FEC promulgated regulations that govern
how parties can allocate funds between federal and non-federal activities. (The court deferred to
the agency as to how to address the issue, but noted that the agency could go as far as to ban the
use of soft money for mixed federal- and state-political activity.)
In addition, the 1979 statutory amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act
(FECA) authorized allocation of national and state "hard money " for joint activities.
President Clinton's support for a soft money ban
President Clinton has consistently called for legislation that would ban the use of "soft
money" in federal elections. He called for this legislation during the 1992 campaign, and
supported the campaign finance reform legislaiton taht was vetoed that year by President Bush
�(which would have banned soft money). The campaign finance reform plan he proposed in May
1993 included a "soft money" ban; this proposal was passed by both chhambers but was killed by
a Senatefilibusterin 1994.
The bipartisan campaign finance reform legislation introduced by Senators McCain and
Feingold and Representatives Shays and Meehan would prohibit the use of soft money in federal
elections.
In January, 1993, the Democratic National Committee voluntarily announced that it
would restrict contributions it can currently accept under the law. It would not accept soft money
contributions in excess of $100,000 per year, and it would not accept contributions from
individuals who are not citizens or from domestic subsidiaries of foreign corporations.
Contents of the request to the FEC
The President will call on Congress to enact the bipartisan legislation to reform campaign
financign and ban soft money. And he will formally request the FEC to act now, under existing
law, to write new regulations banning the use of soft money to influence federal elections, as
envisioned in the legislation:
•
New rules should prohibit national political parties (and their congressional campaign
committees or agents) from soliciting or receiving any funds not subject to the limitations
or prohibitions of the Federal Election Campaign Act. (This would preclude, for
example, contributions directly from corporate or union treasuries, or contributions from
individuals in excess of the amount an individual can give to a federal party.)
•
Prohibit any federal officeholder or candidate (and their agents) from soliciting or
receiving any funds not subject to the limitations or prohibitions of FECA.
•
Provide that any amount of funds expended by a political party during a federal election
year for any activity that influences a federal election (including a get-out-the-vote drive,
generic advertising or any communication that mentions a federal candidate) must be paid
for from funds subject to FECA. (This would end the allocation system, currently
authorized by the FEC, under which "hard" and "soft" money are mixed for campaign
activities that affect both state and federal elections.)
Supplemental funding for the FEC
[Language to come]
�DETERMINED TO BE AN ADMINIST!'.AT E
MARKING Per E.O. 12958 as amended. :•:«. . .3 (c)
•nitials:
Q&
n fr
^Jl^jsoll
f l
9>
Draft March 7, 1997,2pm
;
oo^O^-FC^)
-eoirfhleBtiaJFACT SHEET
President Clinton's Radio Address On Campaign Finance Reform
March 8, 1997
In today's radio address, the President announced that he will ask the Federal Election
Commission (FEC) to revisit its rules on "soft money" and act to ban the use of soft money in
federal elections, as proposed in bipartisan campaignfinancereform legislation now before
Congress. The petition proposes to end the current soft money system by requiring that
candidates for federal office and national parties only be permitted to raise and spend "hard
money" ~ funds subject to the restrictions, contribution limits, and reporting requirements of the
1974 Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). This ban would apply to all political party
committees, as anticipated by the bipartisan campaign finance reform legislation.
"Soft money" and federal elections
"Soft money" plays an increasingly large role in funding political parties and campaigns.
So called "hard money" contributions are those that are given to candidates or parties subject to
the limits and disclosure of federal law. "Soft money," on the other hand, goes to national or
state political parties, and can be raised in large amounts and from sources that could not give
under federal election law (directly from corporations and unions).
The role of "soft money" has grown dramatically in the past several elections. In 1996,
the Democratic Party raised $124 million, and the Republican Party raised $154 million in soft
money — more than [triple] the total of four years before.
Soft money is today lawful under a series of regulations put forward by the Federal
Election Commission (FEC). The FEC first issued advisory opinions on this in 1978. It did not
take further action during the 1980's, as the role of "soft money" grew. In 1990, ordered to take
some action on "soft money" by a federal court, the FEC promulgated regulations that govern
how parties can allocate funds between federal and non-federal activities. (The court deferred to
the agency as to how to address the issue, but noted that the agency could go as far as to ban the
use of soft money for mixed federal- and state-political activity.)
In addition, the 1979 statutory amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act
(FECA) authorized allocation of national and state "hard money " for joint activities.
President Clinton's support for a soft money ban
President Clinton has consistently called for legislation that would ban the use of "soft
money" in federal elections. He called for this legislation during the 1992 campaign, and
supported the campaign finance reform legislaiton taht was vetoed that year by President Bush
�(which would have banned soft money). The campaign finance reform plan he proposed in May
1993 included a "soft money" ban; this proposal was passed by both chhambers but was killed by
a Senate filibuster in 1994.
The bipartisan campaign finance reform legislation introduced by Senators McCain and
Feingold and Representatives Shays and Meehan would prohibit the use of soft money in federal
elections.
In January, 1993, the Democratic National Committee voluntarily announced that it
would restrict contributions it can currently accept under the law. It would not accept soft money
contributions in excess of $ 100,000 per year, and it would not accept contributions from
individuals who are not citizens or from domestic subsidiaries of foreign corporations.
Contents of the request to the FEC
The President will call on Congress to enact the bipartisan legislation to reform campaign
financign and ban soft money. And he will formally request the FEC to act now, under existing
law, to write new regulations banning the use of soft money to influence federal elections, as
envisioned in the legislation:
•
New rules should prohibit national political parties (and their congressional campaign
committees or agents) from soliciting or receiving any funds not subject to the limitations
or prohibitions of the Federal Election Campaign Act. (This would preclude, for
example, contributions directly from corporate or union treasuries, or contributions from
individuals in excess of the amount an individual can give to a federal party.)
•
Prohibit any federal officeholder or candidate (and their agents) from soliciting or
receiving any funds not subject to the limitations or prohibitions of FECA.
•
Provide that any amount of funds expended by a political party during a federal election
year for any activity that influences a federal election (including a get-out-the-vote drive,
generic advertising or any communication that mentions a federal candidate) must be paid
for from funds subject to FECA. (This would end the allocation system, currently
authorized by the FEC, under which "hard" and "soft" money are mixed for campaign
activities that affect both state and federal elections.)
Supplemental funding for the FEC
[Language to come]
�DETERMINED TO BE AN ADMINISTRATIVE
MARKING Per E.O. 12958 as amended, Sec. 3.3 (c)
Initials:
?>| N ) floil
Draft March 7, 1997,2pm
-Gonfidcirtia^
FACT S H E E T
President Clinton's Radio Address On Campaign Finance Reform
March 8, 1997
In today's radio address, the President announced that he will ask the Federal Election
Commission (FEC) to revisit its rules on "soft money" and act to ban the use of soft money in
federal elections, as proposed in bipartisan campaign finance reform legislation now before
Congress. The petition proposes to end the current soft money system by requiring that
candidates for federal office and national parties only be permitted to raise and spend "hard
money" ~ funds subject to the restrictions, contribution limits, and reporting requirements of the
1974 Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). This ban would apply to all political party
committees, as anticipated by the bipartisan campaign finance reform legislation.
"Soft money" and federal elections
"Soft money" plays an increasingly large role in funding political parties and campaigns.
So called "hard money" contributions are those that are given to candidates or parties subject to
the limits and disclosure of federal law. "Soft money," on the other hand, goes to national or
state political parties, and can be raised in large amounts and from sources that could not give
under federal election law (directly from corporations and unions).
The role of "soft money" has grown dramatically in the past several elections. In 1996,
the Democratic Party raised $124 million, and the Republican Party raised $154 million in soft
money — more than [triple] the total of four years before.
Soft money is today lawful under a series of regulations put forward by the Federal
Election Commission (FEC). The FEC first issued advisory opinions on this in 1978. It did not
take further action during the ^SO's, as the role of "soft money" grew. In 1990, ordered to take
some action on "soft money" by a federal court, the FEC promulgated regulations that govern
how parties can allocate funds between federal and non-federal activities. (The court deferred to
the agency as to how to address the issue, but noted that the agency could go as far as to ban the
use of soft money for mixed federal- and state-political activity.)
In addition, the 1979 statutory amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act
(FECA) authorized allocation of national and state "hard money " for joint activities.
President Clinton's support for a soft money ban
President Clinton has consistently called for legislation that would ban the use of "soft
money" in federal elections. He called for this legislation during the 1992 campaign, and
supported the campaign finance reform legislaiton taht was vetoed that year by President Bush
�(which would have banned soft money). The campaign finance reform plan he proposed in May
1993 included a "soft money" ban; this proposal was passed by both chhambers but was killed by
a Senatefilibusterin 1994.
The bipartisan campaign finance reform legislation introduced by Senators McCain and
Feingold and Representatives Shays and Meehan would prohibit the use of soft money in federal
elections.
In January, 1993, the Democratic National Committee voluntarily announced that it
would restrict contributions it can currently accept under the law. It would not accept soft money
contributions in excess of $100,000 per year, and it would not accept contributions from
individuals who are not citizens or from domestic subsidiaries of foreign corporations.
Contents of the request to the FEC
The President will call on Congress to enact the bipartisan legislation to reform campaign
financign and ban soft money. And he will formally request the FEC to act now, under existing
law, to write new regulations banning the use of soft money to influence federal elections, as
envisioned in the legislation:
•
New rules should prohibit national political parties (and their congressional campaign
committees or agents) from soliciting or receiving any funds not subject to the limitations
or prohibitions of the Federal Election Campaign Act. (This would preclude, for
example, contributions directly from corporate or union treasuries, or contributions from
individuals in excess of the amount an individual can give to a federal party.)
•
Prohibit any federal officeholder or candidate (and their agents) from soliciting or
receiving any funds not subject to the limitations or prohibitions of FECA.
•
Provide that any amount of funds expended by a political party during a federal election
year for any activity that influences a federal election (including a get-out-the-vote drive,
generic advertising or any communication that mentions a federal candidate) must be paid
for from funds subject to FECA. (This would end the allocation system, currently
authorized by the FEC, under which "hard" and "soft" money are mixed for campaign
activities that affect both state and federal elections.)
Supplemental funding for the FEC
[Language to come]
�
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
CFR [Campaign Finance Reform] - White House [4]
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 63
<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-Seg2-063-001-2015