Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
55280369
label
Questions and Answers
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
55280369
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Questions and Answers
citationUrl
collections
Records of the Domestic Policy Council (Clinton Administration)
Dorothy Karayannis Craft's Files
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
55280369
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-7367473-20120255S-002-004-2017
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
82f8ae9135b73c21
ocrText
DPC PEOPLE MAGAZINE Q & A's
Updated 10/6/95
ABORTION/REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS Q/As
Domestic Policy Council: Jeremy Ben-Ami, 65584/Debbie Fine, 65572
Updated 10/6/95
Q:
The Congressional majority has passed a number of provisions relating to abortion in the various
authorization and appropriations bills about to be sent to you as part of the FY96 budget. Will you
be vetoing those provisions?
A:
As I have often said, I believe that abortion should be safe, legal and rare. The Supreme Court has
prescribed the conditions under which the Constitution provides individuals the right to make this
difficult decision for themselves. I believe that Congress should be focussing in these appropriations
bills on designing a balanced budget that provides America's working families the supports they need
in terms of health care, education and tax relief -- not on contentious social issues. Instead, now
some Republicans in Congress are using the complicated budget process to launch a stealth campaign
to undermine the reproductive health of American women.
[If pressed on the veto question] I have already said that I would veto a number of theses bills for a
range of reasons -- primarily because I disagree with the budget priorities of the Congressional
Republicans. I want a balanced budget that invests in education, does not devastate Medicaid and
Medicare and focusses tax relief on the middle class helping them meet critical expenses like buying
a home and putting their children through college.
Q:
A bill to outlaw the D&X abortion procedure (called "partial birth" by its proponents) is ready to be
considered on the House floor. If the bill is passed, will you sign it?
A:
The Constitution permits states to ban abortion after fetal viability except when necessary to preserve
the woman's life or health. As I have stated consistently, I support such post-viability restrictions.
However, the House bill, as currently written, is another matter entirely. First of all, its ban on the
D&X procedure applies even in cases where the procedure is needed to preserve the health of the
woman. Second, the ban applies even pre-viability. And finally, I think the bill makes a real
mistake in picking and choosing among different kinds of procedures. It is a physician's job -- not
the government's -- to use medical discretion to determine whether a certain procedure is the safest
and most medically appropriate method for his or her patient.
CRIME/DRUGS
Domestic Policy Council: Dennis Burke, 65568
Updated 10/29/95
The Administration's Crack Sentencing Guidelines Legislation
Q.
Why did you sign legislation that would disapprove of the Sentencing Commission guideline
recommendation on crack sentencing?
A.
We submitted this legislation to Congress and I signed it because we are concerned that the
equalization of the penalties for crack and cocaine powder trafficking does not reflect:
*
the significant differences between the two;
*
the impact crack has had on our communities;
*
and the effect a drastic change in penalties would have on deterring those who traffic in this
dangerous drug.
Q.
What's the point of sending this back to the Sentencing Commission -- aren't you just punting a
political hot potato?
A.
No. I recommended this legislation to Congress and signed it for a good policy reason. Had we
not enacted this legislation, the Sentencing Commission's recommendations would have gone into effect on
November 1. Their guidelines would have created bad policy. The truth of the matter is this --
permitting these guidelines recommendations to become law -- without changing the underlying statutes on
powder cocaine and crack -- will create even greater sentencing disparity than what some believe exists
under the current guidelines.
What I did here -- by proposing this legislation and signing it -- is tell the Sentencing
Commission -- "I disagree with your recommendations; I want you to go back, work with my Attorney
General, and come back in May with sentences that treat crack distribution generally harsher than powder
cocaine, but I also want sentences that ensure that we treat a high-level powder cocaine distributer harsher
than a street-level crack distributors."
Q.
Does this proposed Conference really mean anything or is the President just doing this to appease
leaders in the African-American community?
A.
The idea for this conference has been in the planning stages for sometime and I was actually
intending to mention it in a drug speech this Thursday. All we are doing today is moving up the
announcement date -- by just a few days -- of a idea that has been vetted and approved. This is a very
important issue to me and I am committed to reducing drug use in this country and the violence that is
linked to it.
Q.
Why don't you increase the sentences for cocaine -- won't that reduce the disparity in the current
sentencing system?
A.
That indeed might be the result. But I want the Sentencing Commission, working with the Attorney
General, to have the opportunity to reexamine their recommendations and return with sentences that still
reflect our concern with crack distribution.
In the mean time, I have also asked the Attorney General to begin working immediately with United
States Attorneys to make sure that high-level power cocaine distributors are prosecuted for what they know
they are doing -- selling powder cocaine that is ending up as crack on our streets.
Crack is a more dangerous drug than powder cocaine; I believe that the sentencing structure should
reflect this in some way. But a high-level drug distributor who knows his powder cocaine is ending up as
crack vials on the street, should be punished for what he is doing -- pushing crack.
Q.
Isn't crack and cocaine powder effectively the same drug?
A.
Crack is more psychologically addictive than cocaine powder. Our conclusions about the harmful
effects of crack as compared to cocaine powder are virtually the same as those reached by the Sentencing
Commission. Indeed in its report to Congress on this issue, the Sentencing Commission concluded that:
"[T}he higher addictive qualities associated with crack combined with its inherent ease of use can
support a higher ratio for crack over powder."
Furthermore, as the Sentencing Commission itself stated:
"crack dealers generally tend to have a stronger association with systemic violence and are more
likely to possess weapons than powder cocaine dealers."
Q.
Doesn't the current penalty structure discriminate against African-Americans?
A.
As you know, I recently spoken out on my concern with the number of African-Americans who are
in our criminal justice system. This is a very important issue to me and it is on that I will continue to
address. But reducing crack cocaine sentences is not the solution to that problem.
Instead, reduced sentences for crack trafficking would ignore the devastation this drug has cause so
many communities and victims across the country. A crack dealer could only interpret it one way -- the
cost of business is going down, keep pushing.
The legislation I signed includes an amendment by Senator Kennedy that was unanimously accepted
in the Senate, which instructs the Sentencing Commission to undertake a review and report back to
Congress its findings and recommendations on what sentencing structure can both provide the penalties
needed by law enforcement but also ensure that our drug enforcement laws and policies are fair.
100,000 COPS Program
Q:
As a candidate for President, you proposed to provided funds for 100,000 new police officers. Last
year, Congress passed and you signed a crime bill that contained this provision. Now, I understand
that Congress is going to eliminate this program. How has this program worked and are you going
to oppose congressional efforts to end this program?
A:
After 6 years of political bickering -- on one of the most important issues to the American public -
- Congress finally passed a comprehensive crime bill last year; and I proudly signed it. Every
major law enforcement organization in America strongly supports this legislation -- because it is
the toughest and smartest crime bill ever enacted. Through the COPS program, the Crime Bill will
put 100,000 new community police officers on the streets of America.
In one year, we have already authorized funding for over 25,000 additional police officers. These
officers are already making an impact, and for the first time in a long while, the violent crime rate
in this country is actually going down. Yet, now, the Republican leadership in Congress wants to
eliminate this program and replace it with a program that would not require that even 1 new officer
be hired.
There is absolutely no reason to abandon such a successful program.. Anyone on Capitol Hill who
wants to play partisan politics with police officers for America should listen carefully -- I will veto
any effort to repeal or undermine the 100,000 police commitment -- period.
Adolscent Drug Use
Q:
The 1994 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse was released last month and it found that
marijuana use is rising among American teenagers. What is your Administration planning to do to
address this problem?
A:
Over the last 3 years, my Administration has recognized and drawn attention to the increase in
marijuana use among American teenagers. We have challenged parents, teachers and leaders in the
public and private sectors -- including media -- to be active and aggressive in the struggle against
drug abuse.
I also proposed the largest drug control budget ever. We are working to get hard-core drug users
off the street; we are giving local communities the resources to fight drugs; we are working to stop
drugs at their source before they get to our borders; and we are preventing drug use by teaching our
children about the dangers drugs pose and de-glamorizing drug use in the minds of every child.
But while we are witnessing the rise of teenage use of marijuana, the Republican Congress plans to
cut 23 million students from the Safe and Drug-Free Schools program. They are sending the wrong
message to the youth in this country. We can not afford to turn our backs on our children.
Gun Control
Q:
You have supported and signed both the Brady Bill and the ban on assault weapons. Have these
measures worked? Why do you think gun control is the solution to the crime problem in this
country?
A:
I support both tougher penalties for the criminal use of firearms and I also support effective gun
control -- and both these measures have proven to be effective.
In just its first 100 days, the Brady Law stopped the sale of handguns to thousands of convicted
felons, fugitives from justice, and persons under restraining orders for alleged stalking, harassment or
other forms of domestic threats or intimidation. Yet, at the same time, honest law-abiding citizens
were able to continue to purchase handguns for their own personal safety.
Military-style assault weapons were designed for one purpose only -- to kill humans beings as
rapidly as possible. I strongly supported the assault weapons ban contained in last year's crime bill
because we can not continue to witness innocent citizens and police officers gunned down with these
weapons. This provision was tailored to go after the weapons of choice of criminal gangs, drug
traffickers and mentally deranged persons -- and it did so without effecting the legitimate use of
firearms by honest law-abiding citizens. For it also specifically exempted certain firearms
traditionally used for hunting and other legitimate sporting purposes.
December 6, 1995
Terrorism
Q:
In light of the World Trade Center bombing, the Oklahoma City bombing, and the closing of
Pennsylvania avenue in front of the White House, are we losing to terrorists here in the United
States?
A:
The tragic bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City on April 19th made clear the
need to enhance the Federal government's ability to investigate, prosecute, and punish terrorist
activity. I was pleased that the Senate acted quickly on the 2 anti-terrorism bills that I transmitted
to Congress earlier this year -- passing them as one bill in June with over 90 votes.
Unfortunately, this important legislation, which passed the House Judiciary Committee sometime ago,
has been languishing before the full House.
I know understand that the House Republicans have worked out a deal to bring the Anti-Terrorism
Bill to the House Floor for a vote before the end of the year. I was disappointed that they are going
to take out provisions that were passed in Committee and overwhelmingly supported in the Senate.
I want to take this opportunity to urge the House leadership to provide me with a strong and
effective Anti-Terrorism bill -- like the one that I sent them after the Oklahoma City bombing.
The bill that I submitted to Congress will increase our security from terrorist attacks and save
American lives; it should not be delayed any longer.
Juvenile Crime
Q:
The Attorney General came out with a report recently that found that juvenile crime is on the rise
and will continue to rise. What is your Administration doing to address this problem?
A:
It is true that while overall crime rates have been dropping, the incidence of youth crime have risen.
That is why my anti-crime strategy has and will focus on youth crime and violence.
The 1994 Crime Bill that I signed sends a strong message to young criminals: it bans handguns for
juveniles, imposes stiff penalties for gang members who commit crimes, establishes boot camps and
drug courts to discipline first-time offenders. At the same time, it invests in smart prevention
programs that offer at-risk youth positive alternatives to criminal activities.
But we are going to continue to do more to help the local levels deal with this problem. Indeed
recently, I announced grants to 10 cities across the country to implement programs to reduce youth
firearm violence.
EDUCATION Q/As
Domestic Policy Council: Jeremy Ben-Ami/Gaynor McCown, 65575
Updated 10/6/95
Mr. President, you recently said that "cutting education today would be like cutting defense budgets at the
height of the cold war." Can you explain what you mean by this comment.
Let me just begin by saying that I firmly believe that the American people want to balance the budget to lift
the burden of debt off of our children and to strengthen our economy. But I also believe that the American
people want to strengthen families, expand our economy, and raise living standards and that nothing is more
critical to that effort than education. My budget proposal proves that it is possible to deal with the deficit
while investing in human capital. Education is the key to the future of America and demolishing our
investment in education is not the means to balance the budget. Yet, in the last two weeks, both the House
and the Senate have taken a variety of actions that are direct attacks on our nation's investment for the
future.
On September 28, the House Educational and Economic Opportunities Committee approved a bill
that would dramatically reduce federal support for Americans going to college and would eliminate
my Direct Lending program.
I am strongly opposed to any action which would raise the cost of college for students and their families.
In particular, I will oppose any plan that contains an unwise and unjustified elimination of my Direct
Lending program. This program works! It is already saving taxpayers billions of dollars and students are
getting their funds with less government red tape. Students are getting flexible repayment plans, schools
have less administrative costs, and thousands of intermediaries and attendant complexities are eliminated. It
is inexcusable for Congress to allow the banks and special interest to pass a law that would take away the
choice for hundreds of schools. My Direct Lending program is "good government" at its best and I will
fight to keep it.
On September 26, the Republican majority in the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee
voted to cut $10.8 billion from student loans over the next seven years.
Tucked in this legislation is a series of provisions that sign over $1.8 billion of taxpayers' money to
guaranty agencies in the student loan program. In the name of balancing the budget, the Senate committee
has voted to cut back funds available to students while padding the pockets of this little-known special
interest.
My bottom line is that I cannot support any proposal that will raise the cost of college and deny our young
people the opportunity to make the most of the opportunities of the coming century.
It's a question of values. We can balance the budget and still maintain our investment in education, in our
children and in our future.
In addition to the reconciliation bills, it seems likely that one of the biggest battles in the budget will be
over the Labor/H appropriations bill which contains funding for several of your initiatives in the education
area. Would you really bring the whole budget process to a halt over a few billion dollars in this bill?
Let me be clear. This is not a question of money and dollars. It's not an abstract budget fight. We're
talking about critical investments in the future of our children, our families and our country.
Education has clearly emerged as the fault line between those who are making it and those who are falling
behind in the new economy. Every year of education beyond high school adds six to twelve percent to a
person's income.
It has always been a shared value in this country that we should support efforts to prepare our children to
learn, to improve our schools, to help those who can't afford it to pay for college.
So, yes, I will stand firm in my opposition to efforts to cut these investments to pay for a tax cut for those
who don't need it.
[Follow] The Senate Appropriations Committee did put back some of the funding eliminated by the House,
particularly for Goals 2000. If the final version of the bill is closer to what the Senate is likely to approve,
would you sign the bill?
We cannot allow some of these marginal improvements to make the Senate version seem acceptable. To
me, even with some of the changes, it still represents a break with our traditional support for our children
and their education.
I stand behind my proposal to balance the budget AND increase our investments in these areas.
Background
The Labor/H bill has passed the House but has not gone to the Senate floor. The House bill would, for
example:
fund $500 million less for Head Start than my request. To maintain current program quality,
that would mean denying services to more than 45,000 children next year.
cut Title One funding by $1.1 billion in 1996, denying this crucial assistance to improve basic
and advanced skills to 1.1 million students nationwide.
eliminate Goals 2000 and deny funding to as many as 17,500 schools.
It would gut Safe and Drug-Free Schools, a program which 14,575 out of 14,783 school
districts in the U.S. use to keep crime, violence, and drugs away from students and out of
schools.
deny Pell Grants to 380,000 students in 1996 alone, possibly forcing them to drop out of
college.
It would eliminate AmeriCorps and deny 50,000 young people the chance to serve in 1996
(note: this is in HUD/VA, not Labor/H)..
It would cut job training programs by $1.4 billion and deny training opportunities to 506,100
dislocated workers and 84,000 disadvantaged adults in 1996.
It would eliminate summer jobs, denying jobs to over 600,000 youths in 1996 and almost 4
million youths over 7 years and it would severely cut my School to Work initiative.
EDUCATION VOUCHERS/CHOICE Q/As
Domestic Policy Council: Gaynor McCown, 65575
Updated 9/13/95
Q: Mr. President, many people including New York Mayor Rudolph Guiliani, have said that Catholic
schools have provided a model for how young people in this country should receive their education. As
President, you have made education a priority and have indicated that you want to see to it that every
child in this country gets the quality education they need and deserve. Yet, your policies do not allow
vouchers for parents who want to send their children to Catholic schools instead of Public schools.
Please explain what seems to me to be a blatant contradiction.
A: Well, let me just begin by saying that education is a priority of mine and I do care deeply about
ensuring that every individual in this country has the opportunity to receive the quality education they
need and deserve. I also believe strongly in private education and the right of parents to choose that
option for their children. And, for the most part, I think all educators, whether they are from a Catholic
school or a public school have a common purpose and concern which is for children and families.
However, it is my belief that using public funds for private education has two fundamental problems:
(1) At a time when enrollment is at an all-time high and we need public schools the most, I
don't think we should be taking funds away. A good, strong public school system is essential
to our Democracy and in order to improve and maintain the quality of education in this
country, we must keep available funds in the system.
(2) Equally important, part of the beauty of our system is that private schools, because they
don't all general education funds from the government, do not have to be regulated as strictly.
Public funds would require a great deal of oversight that in effect would destroy the very
nature of private and parochial schools.
Q: Mr. President, you have talked a lot about the need for parents to have an opportunity to help their
children choose what school they want to go to. Yet, the public school system today, rarely allows that
to happen. Young people who live in a certain district are often forced to go to schools in that same
district unless their parent are savvy enough to break the rules. What are you doing to prevent this trend
from continuing.
A: Let me begin by saying that I believe strongly in public school choice. That is, if a student lives in one
part of the city and wants to go to school in another part of the city simply because that schools meets
his / her needs and the parents are amenable, that student should be free to go wherever he / she wants.
I think a little bit of competition among public schools is not only acceptable, it is healthy. I also
believe in and have supported charter schools, magnet schools and other alternative approaches to
education that meet the needs of different populations.
Q: Mr. President, Catholic schools in this country are slowly becoming a thing of the past largely due to
lack of funding. How do you feel about Catholic or any other religious education and what is your
Administration doing to prevent the demise of these institutions that have served so many children for so
long?
A: I just want to begin by saying that even if Catholic and other parochial schools got the same amount of
federal funding that other elementary and secondary schools receive, it would not be enough. You have
to remember that the federal role in elementary and secondary education is limited to less than 10%. As
my Education Secretary Dick Riley so often and eloquently says: "Education is a national priority, a
state responsibility and a local function." We don't provide for general support of elementary and
secondary education.
Now, having said that, I also want to let you in on a little known fact. Catholic and other parochial
schools in very needy areas do receive federal support -- the same support that similar public schools in
those areas receive. But, it still is not enough. The federal government will never be able, and I don't
think it should be responsible for supporting or saving public or parochial schools. Does that mean, I
want them to fail, no but, general funding for K-12 education comes from state and local government
and support from the federal government is not the answer.
Q: Mr. President, for years the federal government has been subsidizing loans for young people to attend
private colleges. The objective here is to provide an opportunity for an individual to make choices about
their own education. However, your policies do not allow parents and children to make choices about
where they go to elementary and secondary schools. Why is it more important for an individual to make
a choice for higher education than it is for elementary and secondary education?
A: Let me again emphasize that for the k-12 levels, state and local governments - not the federal
government - provide general support. The federal government's support goes primarily toward needy
populations and helps out with special needs. For this, parochial and private schools also benefit. On
the other hand, at the post-secondary level, the federal government provides over half of the funding for
students to attend college.
Another important point here is that college age students are no longer minors and college is not
mandatory. Therefore, in choosing to go to a particular college, whether it is private or public, they can
make their own decisions about religious affiliation. A key factor in elementary and secondary
education is that students don't leave their religion at the school house door and they must be allowed to
have their religious freedom. But, because they are minors, the state cannot dictate a particular religious
belief.
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Q/As
Domestic Policy Council: Molly Brostrom, 65561
Updated 9/28/95
Q: Secretary Cisneros has made a number of statements recently about the severity of the cuts to housing
assistance. Are the Republican cuts really as bad as Secretary Cisneros claims?
A: Absolutely. The House appropriations bill would cut housing assistance to very low- income families
and the homeless in 1996 by 19 percent compared to my budget plan -- a cut of nearly $5 billion. As I
said when I introduced my 7-year budget plan, the budget can be balanced by FY 2005 while preserving
essential commitments to low-income households and communities.
The House cuts would provide no new housing vouchers, breaking a 20-year bipartisan precedent at a
time when the number of families with severe housing needs has been rising. In contrast, my budget
adds over 500,000 voucher subsidies over 7 years.
Q: How do the Congressional cuts differ from your budget plan in meeting the needs of homeless families
and individuals?
A: While taking actions that would increase the number of homeless families, the House also reduced
funding for HUD's homeless programs by 40 percent (-$444 million) from the previous year and cut
another $30 million in the Emergency Food and Shelter program operated by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency. Secretary Cisneros has pointed out that the housing assistance cuts, along with
reductions in other aid to poor families, would increase the numbers of homeless families in
communities al over the country while, at the same time, denying those communities help needed to
create transitional and longer-term housing options for the homeless.
Q: Are you concerned about the proposed Congressional budget cuts to HUD's public housing programs?
A: Yes. The House-passes appropriations bill would make deep cuts to public housing capital and operating
funds that will likely force rent increases and worsen living conditions for families living in public
housing. Specifically, the House-passed appropriations bill would cut public housing capital funding by
$2.3 billion. This reduction would severely impede demolition of the worst obsolete projects and prevent
improvements needed to ensure the remaining housing stock's viability. In addition, the $720 million
reduction in public housing operating funds would force localities raise rents and curtail security,
maintenance, and drug elimination efforts. In contrast, my budget plan would provide $8.1 billion in
1996 public housing capital and operating funds, enough to reduce a backlog of capital needs, bring
down or reconfigure the worst projects, and prepare for our proposed transition to portable assistance
that gives public housing residents housing choices.
Q: Would you veto the VA/HUD appropriations bill as passed by the House?
A: Yes. The budget can be balanced by FY 2005 while preserving these essential commitments to low-
income households and communities. My Administration is now working with the Congress to restore
FY 1996 funding for critical investments, including housing and homeless assistance programs. This is
one of the bills I would veto if presented to me in its current form.
IMMIGRATION Q/As
Domestic Policy Council: Stephen Warnath, 65576
Updated 10/30/95
Both the House and the Senate are considering immigration legislation right now. What are your thoughts
on these bills?
I want Congress to pass immigration reform legislation quickly to provide the Administration with the
enforcement tools and resources that we need to deal effectively and comprehensively with the problem of
illegal immigration. And I want legal immigration reform. The Congress should not delay on this
important legislation and I have challenged them to present me with immigration legislation before the end
of the year.
Both houses are considering bills that are very similar to much of the legislation the Administration
proposed and work we are already doing.
The House bill would strengthen our border patrol and efforts to check work authorization -- which I
strongly support. However, I would like the House to put more emphasis on worksite enforcement -- for
instance, funding more Labor investigators and enforcement officers. The problem of the immigrant slave
labor at the El Monte garment factory underscores the need for this
Can you expand on the Administration's views regarding the immigration legislation being considered now
in the House (HR 2202)?
Many of the provisions of the House bill -- which the Judiciary Committee just completed marking up --
advance the Administration's strategy to control illegal immigration. This strategy calls for regaining control
of our borders; removing the job magnet through worksite enforcement; and aggressively pursuing the
removal of criminal aliens and other illegal aliens. Much of the House bill at this point is similar the
Administration's enforcement bill. We are therefore pleased that the bill follows our policies to a significant
extent. This includes:
a significant increase in border patrol agents.
work authorization pilots, including SSA and INS database checks.
making immigration documents more fraud-resistant.
strong penalties for violation of the immigration laws including for illegal entry.
expedited exclusion to increase the Attorney General's authority to effectively address mass migration
situations.
We do not agree with every detail of the proposed legislation. Reductions in legal immigration must
promote underlying principles that are pro-family, pro-work and pro-naturalization. We have been
working with Democrats and Republicans to attempt to arrive at bipartisan immigration reform legislation
that is in the national interest.
What is an example of an area where you disagree with the House bill?
Employment is the biggest magnet for illegal immigration to this country. If you are serious about curbing
illegal immigration you have to be serious about effective worksite enforcement. Border enforcement alone
is not enough. Thus, we are disappointed by some Republican efforts to water down enforcement at the
workplace. For example, the bill currently does not provide for all of the worksite investigators and
enforcement officers that we need and have asked for. Some provisions seek to limit enforcement
discretion. We also want to ensure that while worksite enforcement is strengthened, adequate safeguards
against discrimination are included in the legislation.
What are you doing to stop illegal immigration?
At the Border: We are engaged in an unprecedented buildup of Border Patrol Agents as part of
Operations Gatekeeper in California, Hold-the-Line in Texas, and Safeguard in Arizona -- and we are
deploying more technology (like sensors and night scopes). Our new computerized fingerprinting illegal
crosser identification system and dedication of increased resources has led to a 240% increase in
prosecutions on felony charges for reentry after deportation since 1992 in California.
At the Worksite: Employment is the largest magnet for illegal immigration. We are intensifying
worksite enforcement by the INS and the Department of Labor. We support work authorization
verification and are presently recruiting and training employers in California to participate in an
expanded telephone verification system. We have taken steps to make INS immigration cards more
fraud-resistant. We have asked Congress for more investigators and enforcement personnel to bolster
the deterrence effect of effective worksite enforcement.
Deportations: We are increasing deportations, especially of criminal aliens. The number of criminal
aliens removed from the U.S. increased by 17.6% in 1994 over 1992 levels. This has resulted from
stepped up vigilance in identification, detention, and deportation of criminal aliens rather than just letting
them back into our communities at the end of their sentences, which is what happened in the past. For
example, we conducted a pilot at L.A. County Jail to identify and deport criminal aliens. Under this
program, INS officers staff the release lines at the jail 24 hours a day, seven days a week to ensure that
deportable aliens are taken into Federal custody to be deported rather than released out into the streets.
We are looking to expand this effort in L.A. and elsewhere.
Some people have expressed concem about a national work registry. Please expand on your view on this.
We need to find an effective, non-discriminatory way to verify employment authorization of all new
employees. I support the recommendation of the Commission on Immigration Reform, chaired by former
Congresswoman Barbara Jordan, to test different ways to do this, including use of the Social Security and
INS databases.
In fact, we're not waiting for Congress to act in this area, we are right now recruiting and training
employers in the Los Angeles area to participate in a telephone verification system with the INS.
Let me add, however, that we are absolutely committed to protecting privacy and civil rights. The
Administration will develop pilots carefully, building in safeguards against the invasion of privacy and
discrimination. All employers will be instructed as to the laws against discrimination as well as the
verification requirements. We will also monitor these pilots closely for evidence of discriminatory action.
What is the Administration doing about the terrible El Monte, CA sweatshop slavery situation?
First, we are prosecuting those involved and seeking millions in unpaid wages due the workers.
More generally, the Administration is intensifying our enforcement efforts against sweatshops which hold
workers in involuntary servitude or generally exploit immigrant workers. Already the INS and Department
of Labor have followed-up with additional raids of sweatshops in the Los Angeles area. We are committed
to stepped-up worksite enforcement targeted especially at low-wage industries, and will continue such
initiatives in the future.
The INS, with other agencies, has significantly increased anti-smuggling efforts to reduce the ability of
these criminals to bring smuggled workers into the country. More than any previous Administration, we
have clamped down on alien smuggling by land and sea into California. For example, prosecution of
antismuggling cases rose 24 percent in July 1995 over July 1994. Along with increased interdiction and
prosecution of smugglers, we have asked Congress to increase penalties to punish these criminals.
Secretary Reich has been working with the garment industry to make that industry and their retailers more
accountable for preventing this type of abuse. Secretary Reich convened a Summit of some of the country's
largest clothing retailers immediately after the El Monte raid to enlist the cooperation of retailers to end
subcontracting with illegal sweatshops and to improve labor law compliance within the garment industry.
Under Secretary Reich's leadership, the Department of Labor has also been working hard over the last few
years to get the assistance of garment manufacturers to promote labor law compliance by their production
contractors. We will continue our efforts to gain industry assistance in this area.
We are now seeking more worksite enforcement resources and tools from Congress for both the Department
of Labor and the Immigration and Naturalization Service needed to protect workers and fight against any
recurrence of this type of subjugation. Unfortunately, present Republican legislation would provide less
resources for this purpose than my Administration has requested.
The El Monte sweatshop was uncovered as a result of cooperation by federal, state and local officials.
Attorney General Reno has asked the U.S. Attorney in Los Angeles and Immigration and Naturalization
Service Commissioner Doris Meissner to thoroughly review the actions of federal law enforcement in this
case since 1992. We hope to find ways to improve this cooperative work. On the federal level, we are
taking steps to enhance interagency enforcement coordination.
You opposed prop. 187. Do you favor benefits for illegal aliens?
No, except public health and safety and a child's constitutional right to an education.
What is the Administration's position on the restrictions on eligibility of legal immigrants for benefits in the
House and Senate Welfare bills?
The Administration supports holding sponsors who bring immigrants into this country legally responsible for
their financial support, but these changes should be made in an equitable manner.
Both bills go too far in cutting benefits to legal immigrants who find themselves temporarily in need of
help. In addition, I think that it is likely to result in a very significant shift in costs from the federal
government to states with substantial numbers of immigrants (e.g. California, Texas, Florida, N.Y., New
Jersey, and Illinois).
In particular, the Administration opposes the Senate provision that would discriminate against U.S. citizens
by denying benefits to legal immigrants even after they become naturalized citizens. We cannot have two
categories of citizens, and a provision that treats naturalized citizens less favorably than the native born
raises serious Constitutional issues.
I am also deeply concerned about the Senate provision that would require sponsors' income to exceed 200
percent of poverty. Working families who are U.S. citizens should not have to pass a wealth test in order to
be reunited with a family member. This would reverse a fundamental element of our country's immigration
heritage.
The Administration will also seek other changes in conference including adopting the House provision to
exempt those over age 7 from benefit cut-offs, letting those who become disabled after entering the country
remain eligible for benefits, and making sure that benefit restrictions do not apply to discretionary programs
and certain mandatory programs such as student loans.
Applications for citizenship have increased dramatically ( 78% during first 10 months of '95 compared to
the same period of '94) and waiting periods for processing those applications are very long. What are you
doing about it?
We want to encourage and help immigrants who qualify and who want to become citizens to do so as
quickly as possible. In so doing, we will maintain the requirements (e.g. English language proficiency) that
demonstrate an individual's readiness to accept the responsibilities of citizenship and full participation in our
National community. Streamlining and promoting citizenship are priorities of the INS and it is dedicating
more personnel and resources to addressing this problem.
INS has just announced a new initiative, Citizenship USA, to ensure that by the summer of 1996, eligible
persons applying for citizenship can be accepted within six months.
Los Angeles will be the first site for this nationwide initiative. We'll be increasing staff levels, expanding
facilities, using new technology, streamlining procedures, and forging new and better partnerships with
community organizations.
Perhaps too often we allow ourselves to take for granted what U.S. citizenship means. One need only
attend a naturalization ceremony and observe the depth of the pride and hope of our newest citizens to be
reminded of how fortunate we are to be Americans.
What do you think about the apparent undercurrent of anti-immigrant feelings in the country?
Some are trying to use immigration, like affirmative action, to drive a wedge in this country. This is wrong
and we must fight "immigrant-bashing." We need to examine our immigration policies in the same factual,
nonpolitical way that we tried to do with affirmative action.
We need to crack down on illegal immigration, but we must not allow immigration to become a wedge.
Some are proposing a new guestworker program What is your position on this?
I oppose a guestworker or "bracero-type" program because it will lead to increased illegal immigration,
depressed wages and work standards for citizens and legal immigrants already in this country.
What is your view on legal immigration reform?
I have always said that while we must crack down on illegal immigration -- because we are a nation of
laws we are also a nation of immigrants. Nearly all of us can trace our roots beyond the shores of this
country, and we have a historic commitment to immigration. I believe that legal immigration strengthens
this country.
I support the recommendations of Barbara Jordan's Commission on Immigration Reform as the framework
for Congress to consider for legal immigration reform. The Commission has recommended moderate
reduction in the level of legal immigration and gives high priority to reunifying Americans with their close
family members. I share this view.
Reuniting closest family members should be the highest priority and basic unit of immigration. At the same
time, this Administration has proposed a way to lower the level of legal immigration while retaining more
family reunification opportunities than the Republicans would allow (i.e. for adult children and parents.)
We support reduction in employment-based immigration as a means of encouraging employers to hire and
train domestic workers -- both citizens and legal immigrants. I favor eliminating the unskilled category of
immigration to reduce job competition with those in our own country who need work.
Legal immigration reform must be based upon principles that are pro-family, pro-work, and pro-
naturalization. My Administration anticipates working with Congress in a spirit of bipartisanship to craft the
details of the specific legislation that will put these principles into practice. We must not let this issue
become divisive in this country.
LINE ITEM Q/As
Domestic Policy Council: Paul Weinstein, 65577
Updated 9/28/95
Q:
Mr. President, why are Republicans backing away from passing the line-item veto and
why aren't you more vocal about the dwindling prospects for getting the line-item veto
power you have so long demanded. Isn't this just Washington as usual?
A:
I have actively sought passage of the line-item veto. Since my January 5 letter to
Congressional leaders, I have called on Congress on at least 17 different occasions to pass
line-item veto authority so that I can start cutting pork out of the budget this year.
The American people have waited long enough for the line-item veto. Congress should
stop the delaying tactics, stop playing politics, and pass the line-item veto now.
This is not a partisan issue, Presidents Reagan and Bush asked Congress for the line-item
veto time and again. It was part of the "Republican Contract with America" and my book
"Putting People First." It has strong support from Members of Congress in both parties
and both houses. No matter what party the President belongs to or what party has a
majority in Congress, the line-item veto would be good for America.
WOMEN'S ISSUES (Points to emphasize)
Domestic Policy Council: Jennifer Klein, 62599
Updated 9/28/95
President Clinton: you may want to contrast your record on women's issues with that of the Congressional
majority. For example, you have:
revoked the "Gag Rule," the import ban on RU-486, the ban on abortion services at military
hospitals and the "Mexico City policy."
signed the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act,
and the Violence Against Women Act
appointed the highest percentage of senior women officials of any Administration in history
dramatically increased the Earned Income Tax Credit
dramatically increased small business loans to women entrepreneurs
promoted the study of science and math by women and girls
By contrast, the Congressional majority is attempting to:
undermine the reproductive health of American women
endanger the health of older women by slashing Medicare
cut the Earned Income Tax Credit
cut funding for battered women's shelters, rape prevention, and other Violence Against
Women Act programs
cut or eliminate initiatives that promote equity in education and train women for high skill
jobs such as Goals 2000 and School-to-Work.
LARRY KING LIVE Q/A's
CRIME/DRUGS
Domestic Policy Council:
Dennis Burke, 65568
Updated 9/18/95
Q:
Just last week, the 1994 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse was released and
it found that marijuana use is rising among American teenagers. What is your
Administration planning to do to address this problem?
A:
Over the last 3 years, my Administration has recognized and drawn attention to the
increase in marijuana use among American teenagers. We have challenged parents,
teachers and leaders in the public and private sectors -- including media -- to be
active and aggressive in the struggle against drug abuse.
I also proposed the largest drug control budget ever. We are working to get hard-
core drug users off the street; we are giving local communities the resources to fight
drugs; we are working to stop drugs at their source before they get to our borders; and
we are preventing drug use by teaching our children about the dangers drugs pose and
de-glamorizing drug use in the minds of every child.
But while we are witnessing the rise of teenage use of marijuana, the Republican
Congress plans to cut 23 million students from the Safe and Drug-Free Schools
program. They are sending the wrong message to the youth in this country. We can
not afford to turn our backs on our children.
Q:
You have supported and signed both the Brady Bill and the ban on assault weapons.
Have these measures worked? Where do you stand on efforts to repeal them?
A:
I support both tougher penalties for the criminal use of firearms and I also support
effective gun control -- and both these measures have proven to be effective.
In just its first 100 days, the Brady Law stopped the sale of handguns to thousands of
convicted felons, fugitives from justice, and persons under restraining orders for
alleged stalking, harassment or other forms of domestic threats or intimidation. Yet, at
the same time, honest law-abiding citizens were able to continue to purchase
handguns for their own personal safety.
Military-style assault weapons were designed for one purpose only -- to kill humans
beings as rapidly as possible. I strongly supported the assault weapons ban contained
in last year's crime bill because we can not continue to witness innocent citizens and
police officers gunned down with these weapons. This provision was tailored to go
after the weapons of choice of criminal gangs, drug traffickers and mentally deranged
persons -- and it did so without effecting the legitimate use of firearms by honest
law-abiding citizens. For it also specifically exempted certain firearms traditionally
used for hunting and other legitimate sporting purposes. I will veto any attempt to
repeal this ban.
Q:
In light of the World Trade Center bombing, the Oklahoma City bombing, and the
closing of Pennsylvania avenue in front of the White House, are we losing to terrorists
here in the United States?
A:
The tragic bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City on April 19th
made clear the need to enhance the Federal government's ability to investigate,
prosecute, and punish terrorist activity. I was pleased that the Senate acted quickly
on the 2 anti-terrorism bills that I transmitted to Congress earlier this year -- passing
them as one bill in June with over 90 votes. Unfortunately, this important
legislation, which passed the House Judiciary Committee some time ago, has been
languishing before the full House. I want to take this opportunity to urge the House
leadership to move quickly on this legislation so that I can sign it and increase our
security from terrorist attacks. This is a bill that will save American lives and it
should not be delayed any longer.
Q:
I heard the Attorney General came out with a report recently that found that juvenile
crime is on the rise and will continue to rise. What is your Administration doing to
address this problem?
A:
It is true that while overall crime rates have been dropping, the incidence of youth
crime have risen. That is why my anti-crime strategy has and will focus on youth
crime and violence.
The 1994 Crime Bill that I signed sends a strong message to young criminals: it bans
handguns for juveniles, imposes stiff penalties for gang members who commit crimes,
establishes boot camps and drug courts to discipline first-time offenders. At the
same time, it invests in smart prevention programs that offer at-risk youth positive
alternatives to criminal activities.
But we are going to continue to do more to help the local levels deal with this
problem. Indeed just last week, I announced grants to 10 cities across the country to
implement programs to reduce youth firearm violence.
Q:
Is Mark Fuhrman an accurate reflection of policing in this country?
A:
Absolutely not. The vast majority of police officers in this country do their job well
and every day they are out there risking their lives for our personal safety. These
men and women do so without discriminating and by playing by the rules.
We have so many great success stories from the 25,000 new community police
officers that we have funded from my crime bill. Those individuals are the ones who
accurately reflect policing in this country.
Q:
As a candidate for President, you proposed to provided funds for 100,000 new police
officers. Last year, Congress passed and you signed a crime bill that contained this
provision. Now, I understand that Congress is going to eliminate this program. How
has this program worked and are you going to oppose congressional efforts to end this
program?
A:
After 6 years of political bickering -- on one of the most important issues to the
American public -- Congress finally passed a comprehensive crime bill last year; and
I proudly signed it. Every major law enforcement organization in America strongly
supports this legislation -- because it is the toughest and smartest crime bill ever
enacted. Through the COPS program, the Crime Bill will put 100,000 new
community police officers on the streets of America.
In just its first year, the COPS program has already authorized funding for over 25,000
additional police officers. These officers are already making an impact, and for the
first time in a long while, the violent crime rate in this country is actually going down.
Yet, now, the Republican leadership in Congress wants to eliminate this program and
replace it with a program that would not require that even 1 new officer be hired.
There is absolutely no reason to abandon such a successful program.. Anyone on
Capitol Hill who wants to play partisan politics with police officers for America
should listen carefully -- I will veto any effort to repeal or undermine the 100,000
police commitment -- period.
IMMIGRATION
Domestic Policy Council:
Steve Warnath, 65576
Updated 9/18/95
Q:
What are you doing to stop illegal immigration in California?
At the Border: Large buildup of Border Patrol Agents as part of Operation
Gatekeeper -- and more technology (like sensors and night scopes). Our new
computerized fingerprinting identification system and dedication of increased
resources has led to a 240% increase in prosecutions on felony charges for
reentry after deportation since 1992. As part of the first anniversary of
Operation Gatekeeper, we will be announcing additional steps to strengthen
control of the border very soon.
At the Worksite: Employment is the largest magnet for illegal immigration.
We are intensifying worksite enforcement by INS and the Department of
Labor. We support the work authorization verification that the Jordan
Commission recommended. We have taken steps to make INS cards more
fraud-resistant and the INS is working with the California DMV to check
license applicants. We have asked Congress for more investigators and
enforcement personnel to bolster the deterrence effect of effective worksite
enforcement.
Deportations: We are increasing deportations, especially criminal aliens. The
number of criminal aliens removed from the U.S. increased by 17.6% in 1994
over 1992 levels. For example, we conducted a pilot at L.A. County Jail to
identify and deport criminal aliens. Under this program, INS officers staff the
release lines at the jail 24 hours a day, seven days a week to ensure that
virtually all deportable aliens are taken into Federal custody to be deported
rather than released out into the streets. We are looking to expand this effort in
L.A. and elsewhere.
Q:
What are you doing about the terrible El Monte, CA sweatshop slavery situation?
First, we are prosecuting those involved. More generally we are increasing our work
in this area and will be vigilant in shutting down these sweatshops. The INS, with
other agencies, has significantly increased anti-smuggling efforts. For example,
prosecution of antismuggling cases rose 24 percent in July 1995 over July 1994.
Secretary Reich has been working with the garment industry to make that industry and
the retailers more accountable for preventing this type of abuse.
Q:
You opposed prop. 187. Do you favor benefits for illegal aliens?
A:
No, except to protect public health and safety and a child's constitutional right to an
education.
EDUCATION
Domestic Policy Council:
Gaynor McCown, 65575
Updated 9/18/95
Q:
You have made a big issue of Republican cuts in education spending, but why
shouldn't we leave education to the state and local level where it has traditionally been
funded?
A:
Education is truly the fault line dividing those who are getting ahead and those falling
behind in the new economy. The income gap between those with a college education
and those who have only graduated high school is now 74 percent. Every additional
year of graduate education and training adds six to twelve percent to a family's
income. We have to address the budget deficit, it's true, but equally important we
have to address the education deficit facing the country. My balanced budget plan
would address both these deficits.
Background on the types of cuts being considered that could be used in answering education
questions.
The House would cut Title One funding by $1.1 billion, and the Senate by
$679 million in 1996, denying this crucial assistance to improve basic and
advanced skills to as many as 1,150,000 students nationwide.
The House would eliminate and the Senate would reduce funding for Goals
2000 by 17% from the 1995 level and 60% less than the $750 million I
requested for 1996.
The House would eliminate and the Senate would reduce by 60% the Safe and
Drug-Free Schools, a program which provides safer, ore drug-free learning
environments for 39 million children in 14,575 out of 15,000 school districts in
the U.S.
It would eliminate AmeriCorps and deny 50,000 young people the chance to
serve in 1996.
It would cut job training programs by $1.4 billion and deny training
opportunities to 506,100 dislocated workers and 84,000 disadvantaged adults in
1996.
It would eliminate summer jobs, denying jobs to over 550,000 youths in 1996
and 3.9 million youths over 7 years. It would also stall progress on my school
to work efforts after just 27 states have received support to start implementing
systems for young people to leave school with a marketable skill.
At risk for higher education are millions of Pell Grants, the in-school interest
subsidy and the Direct Lending Program which makes borrowing simpler and
faster for students and schools.
DPC HEARST Q & A's
10/6/95
ABORTION/REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS Q/As
Domestic Policy Council: Jeremy Ben-Ami, 65584/Debbie, Fine, 65572
Updated 10/6/95
Q:
The Congressional majority has passed a number of provisions relating to abortion in the various
authorization and appropriations bills about to be sent to you as part of the FY96 budget. Will you
be vetoing those provisions?
A:
As I have often said, I believe that abortion should be safe, legal and rare. The Supreme Court has
prescribed the conditions under which the Constitution provides individuals the right to make this
difficult decision for themselves. I believe that Congress should be focussing in these appropriations
bills on designing a balanced budget that provides America's working families the supports they need
in terms of health care, education and tax relief -- not on contentious social issues. Instead, now
some Republicans in Congress are using the complicated budget process to launch a stealth campaign
to undermine the reproductive health of American women.
[If pressed on the veto question] I have already said that I would veto a number of theses bills for a
range of reasons -- primarily because I disagree with the budget priorities of the Congressional
Republicans. I want a balanced budget that invests in education, does not devastate Medicaid and
Medicare and focusses tax relief on the middle class helping them meet critical expenses like buying
a home and putting their children through college.
Q:
A bill to outlaw the D&X abortion procedure (called "partial birth" by its proponents) is ready to be
considered on the House floor. If the bill is passed, will you sign it?
A:
The Constitution permits states to ban abortion after fetal viability except when necessary to preserve
the woman's life or health. As I have stated consistently, I support such post-viability restrictions.
However, the House bill, as currently written, is another matter entirely. First of all, its ban on the
D&X procedure applies even in cases where the procedure is needed to preserve the health of the
woman. Second, the ban applies even pre-viability. And finally, I think the bill makes a real
mistake in picking and choosing among different kinds of procedures. It is a physician's job -- not
the government's -- to use medical discretion to determine whether a certain procedure is the safest
and most medically appropriate method for his or her patient.
CRIME/DRUGS
Domestic Policy Council: Dennis Burke, 65568
Updated 10/6/95
Q:
As a candidate for President, you proposed to provided funds for 100,000 new police officers. Last
year, Congress passed and you signed a crime bill that contained this provision. Now, I understand
that Congress is going to eliminate this program. How has this program worked and are you going
to oppose congressional efforts to end this program?
A:
After 6 years of political bickering -- on one of the most important issues to the American public -
- Congress finally passed a comprehensive crime bill last year; and I proudly signed it. Every
major law enforcement organization in America strongly supports this legislation -- because it is
the toughest and smartest crime bill ever enacted. Through the COPS program, the Crime Bill will
put 100,000 new community police officers on the streets of America.
In one year, we have already authorized funding for over 25,000 additional police officers. These
officers are already making an impact, and for the first time in a long while, the violent crime rate
in this country is actually going down. Yet, now, the Republican leadership in Congress wants to
eliminate this program and replace it with a program that would not require that even 1 new officer
be hired.
There is absolutely no reason to abandon such a successful program.. Anyone on Capitol Hill who
wants to play partisan politics with police officers for America should listen carefully -- I will veto
any effort to repeal or undermine the 100,000 police commitment -- period.
Q:
The 1994 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse was released last month and it found that
marijuana use is rising among American teenagers. What is your Administration planning to do to
address this problem?
A:
Over the last 3 years, my Administration has recognized and drawn attention to the increase in
marijuana use among American teenagers. We have challenged parents, teachers and leaders in the
public and private sectors -- including media -- to be active and aggressive in the struggle against
drug abuse.
I also proposed the largest drug control budget ever. We are working to get hard-core drug users
off the street; we are giving local communities the resources to fight drugs; we are working to stop
drugs at their source before they get to our borders; and we are preventing drug use by teaching our
children about the dangers drugs pose and de-glamorizing drug use in the minds of every child.
But while we are witnessing the rise of teenage use of marijuana, the Republican Congress plans to
cut 23 million students from the Safe and Drug-Free Schools program. They are sending the wrong
message to the youth in this country. We can not afford to turn our backs on our children.
Q:
You have supported and signed both the Brady Bill and the ban on assault weapons. Have these
measures worked? Why do you think gun control is the solution to the crime problem in this
country?
A:
I support both tougher penalties for the criminal use of firearms and I also support effective gun
control -- and both these measures have proven to be effective.
In just its first 100 days, the Brady Law stopped the sale of handguns to thousands of convicted
felons, fugitives from justice, and persons under restraining orders for alleged stalking, harassment or
other forms of domestic threats or intimidation. Yet, at the same time, honest law-abiding citizens
were able to continue to purchase handguns for their own personal safety.
Military-style assault weapons were designed for one purpose only to kill humans beings as
rapidly as possible. I strongly supported the assault weapons ban contained in last year's crime bill
because we can not continue to witness innocent citizens and police officers gunned down with these
weapons. This provision was tailored to go after the weapons of choice of criminal gangs, drug
traffickers and mentally deranged persons and it did so without effecting the legitimate use of
firearms by honest law-abiding citizens. For it also specifically exempted certain firearms
traditionally used for hunting and other legitimate sporting purposes.
Q:
In light of the World Trade Center bombing, the Oklahoma City bombing, and the closing of
Pennsylvania avenue in front of the White House, are we losing to terrorists here in the United
States?
A:
The tragic bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City on April 19th made clear the
need to enhance the Federal government's ability to investigate, prosecute, and punish terrorist
activity. I was pleased that the Senate acted quickly on the 2 anti-terrorism bills that I transmitted
to Congress earlier this year -- passing them as one bill in June with over 90 votes.
Unfortunately, this important legislation, which passed the House Judiciary Committee sometime ago,
has been languishing before the full House. I want to take this opportunity to urge the House
leadership to move quickly on this legislation so that I can sign it and increase our security from
terrorist attacks. This is a bill that will save American lives and it should not be delayed any longer.
Q:
The Attorney General came out with a report recently that found that juvenile crime is on the rise
and will continue to rise. What is your Administration doing to address this problem?
A:
It is true that while overall crime rates have been dropping, the incidence of youth crime have risen.
That is why my anti-crime strategy has and will focus on youth crime and violence.
The 1994 Crime Bill that I signed sends a strong message to young criminals: it bans handguns for
juveniles, imposes stiff penalties for gang members who commit crimes, establishes boot camps and
drug courts to discipline first-time offenders. At the same time, it invests in smart prevention
programs that offer at-risk youth positive alternatives to criminal activities.
But we are going to continue to do more to help the local levels deal with this problem. Indeed
recently, I announced grants to 10 cities across the country to implement programs to reduce youth
firearm violence.
Q:
Do you approve of the use of cameras in the courtroom?
A:
I don't think we know enough yet to decide whether cameras in the courtroom are a good idea. The
idea of opening up our judicial system to public scrutiny is very appealing. In general, it is true that
the more information the public has about the way the government works, the stronger our
democratic indications that the presence of cameras in the courtroom changes the way witnesses,
lawyers, and jurors behave. For example, I think some of the circus atmosphere of the O.J. Simpson
trial came from the presence of cameras.
I think this should be a time of experimentation and study with respect to cameras in the courtroom.
The federal courts do not allow cameras in the courtroom in either civil or criminal cases. Some
state judicial systems allow cameras in all cases, some in only certain kinds of cases, some in no
cases at all. Perhaps the best thing to do right now is to leave the choice up to each judicial system
and try to learn something from the variety of rules they adopt -- try to see what consequences
follow from different rules on using cameras. I certainly wouldn't favor throwing open the federal
courts to cameras tomorrow; that would be, at the least, very premature.
EDUCATION Q/As
Domestic Policy Council: Jeremy Ben-Ami/Gaynor McCown, 65575
Updated 10/6/95
Mr. President, you recently said that "cutting education today would be like cutting defense budgets at the
height of the cold war." Can you explain what you mean by this comment.
Let me just begin by saying that I firmly believe that the American people want to balance the budget to lift
the burden of debt off of our children and to strengthen our economy. But I also believe that the American
people want to strengthen families, expand our economy, and raise living standards and that nothing is more
critical to that effort than education. My budget proposal proves that it is possible to deal with the deficit
while investing in human capital. Education is the key to the future of America and demolishing our
investment in education is not the means to balance the budget. Yet, in the last two weeks, both the House
and the Senate have taken a variety of actions that are direct attacks on our nation's investment for the
future.
On September 28, the House Educational and Economic Opportunities Committee approved a bill
that would dramatically reduce federal support for Americans going to college and would eliminate
my Direct Lending program.
I am strongly opposed to any action which would raise the cost of college for students and their families.
In particular, I will oppose any plan that contains an unwise and unjustified elimination of my Direct
Lending program. This program works! It is already saving taxpayers billions of dollars and students are
getting their funds with less government red tape. Students are getting flexible repayment plans, schools
have less administrative costs, and thousands of intermediaries and attendant complexities are eliminated. It
is inexcusable for Congress to allow the banks and special interest to pass a law that would take away the
choice for hundreds of schools. My Direct Lending program is "good government" at its best and I will
fight to keep it.
On September 26, the Republican majority in the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee
voted to cut $10.8 billion from student loans over the next seven years.
Tucked in this legislation is a series of provisions that sign over $1.8 billion of taxpayers' money to
guaranty agencies in the student loan program. In the name of balancing the budget, the Senate committee
has voted to cut back funds available to students while padding the pockets of this little-known special
interest.
My bottom line is that I cannot support any proposal that will raise the cost of college and deny our young
people the opportunity to make the most of the opportunities of the coming century.
It's a question of values. We can balance the budget and still maintain our investment in education, in our
children and in our future.
In addition to the reconciliation bills, it seems likely that one of the biggest battles in the budget will be
over the Labor/H appropriations bill which contains funding for several of your initiatives in the education
area. Would you really bring the whole budget process to a halt over a few billion dollars in this bill?
Let me be clear. This is not a question of money and dollars. It's not an abstract budget fight. We're
talking about critical investments in the future of our children, our families and our country.
Education has clearly emerged as the fault line between those who are making it and those who are falling
behind in the new economy. Every year of education beyond high school adds six to twelve percent to a
person's income.
It has always been a shared value in this country that we should support efforts to prepare our children to
learn, to improve our schools, to help those who can't afford it to pay for college.
So, yes, I will stand firm in my opposition to efforts to cut these investments to pay for a tax cut for those
who don't need it.
[Follow] The Senate Appropriations Committee did put back some of the funding eliminated by the House,
particularly for Goals 2000. If the final version of the bill is closer to what the Senate is likely to approve,
would you sign the bill?
We cannot allow some of these marginal improvements to make the Senate version seem acceptable. To
me, even with some of the changes, it still represents a break with our traditional support for our children
and their education.
I stand behind my proposal to balance the budget AND increase our investments in these areas.
Background
The Labor/H bill has passed the House but has not gone to the Senate floor. The House bill would, for
example:
fund $500 million less for Head Start than my request. To maintain current program quality,
that would mean denying services to more than 45,000 children next year.
cut Title One funding by $1.1 billion in 1996, denying this crucial assistance to improve basic
and advanced skills to 1.1 million students nationwide.
eliminate Goals 2000 and deny funding to as many as 17,500 schools.
It would gut Safe and Drug-Free Schools, a program which 14,575 out of 14,783 school
districts in the U.S. use to keep crime, violence, and drugs away from students and out of
schools.
deny Pell Grants to 380,000 students in 1996 alone, possibly forcing them to drop out of
college.
It would eliminate AmeriCorps and deny 50,000 young people the chance to serve in 1996
(note: this is in HUD/VA, not Labor/H)..
It would cut job training programs by $1.4 billion and deny training opportunities to 506,100
dislocated workers and 84,000 disadvantaged adults in 1996.
It would eliminate summer jobs, denying jobs to over 600,000 youths in 1996 and almost 4
million youths over 7 years and it would severely cut my School to Work initiative.
IMMIGRATION Q/As
Domestic Policy Council: Stephen Warnath, 65576
Updated 10/5/95
Both the House and the Senate are considering immigration legislation right now. What are your thoughts
on these bills?
I want Congress to pass a strong bill -- quickly to deal effectively and comprehensively with the problem
of illegal immigration. And I want legal immigration reform. The Congress should not delay on this
important legislation and I have challenged them to present me with immigration legislation before the end
of the year.
Both houses are considering bills that are very similar to legislation the Administration proposed and work
we are already doing.
The House bill would strengthen our border patrol and efforts to check work authorization -- which I
strongly support. However, I would like the House to put more emphasis on worksite enforcement --
funding, for instance, more Labor investigators and enforcement officers. The problem of the immigrant
slave labor at the El Monte garment factory underscores the need for this
Can you expand on the Administration's views regarding the immigration legislation being considered now
in the House (HR 2202)?
Many of the provisions of the House bill -- now being marked-up in full committee -- advance the
Administrations strategy to control illegal immigration. This strategy calls for regaining control of our
borders; removing the job magnet through worksite enforcement; and aggressively pursuing the removal of
criminal aliens and other illegal aliens. Much of the House bill at this point is similar the Administration's
enforcement bill. We are therefore pleased that the bill follows our policies to a significant extent. This
includes:
a significant increase in border patrol agents.
work authorization pilots, including SSA and INS database checks.
making immigration documents more fraud-resistant.
strong penalties for violation of the immigration laws including for illegal entry.
expedited exclusion to increase the Attorney General's authority to effectively address mass migration
situations.
reductions in the total level of legal immigration.
We do not agree with every detail of the proposed legislation. We have been working with Democrats and
Republicans to attempt to arrive at bipartisan immigration reform legislation that is in the national interest.
The President has requested that Congress get immigration legislation to him before the end of the year to
ensure that the Administration is provided with the needed tools and resources to effectively address the
immigration problems that the country faces.
What is an example of an area where you disagree with the House bill?
Employment is the biggest magnet for illegal immigration to this country. If you are serious about curbing
illegal immigration you have to be serious about effective worksite enforcement. Border enforcement alone
is not enough. Thus, we are disappointed by some Republican efforts to water down enforcement at the
workplace. For example, the bill currently does not provide for all of the worksite investigators and
enforcement officers that we need and have asked for. Some provisions seek to limit enforcement
discretion. We also want to ensure that while worksite enforcement is strengthened, adequate safeguards
against discrimination are included in the legislation.
What are you doing to stop illegal immigration?
At the Border: We are engaged in an unprecedented buildup of Border Patrol Agents as part of
Operations Gatekeeper in California, Hold-the-Line in Texas, and Safeguard in Arizona and we are
deploying more technology (like sensors and night scopes). Our new computerized fingerprinting
identification system and dedication of increased resources has led to a 240% increase in prosecutions on
felony charges for reentry after deportation since 1992 in California.
At the Worksite: Employment is the largest magnet for illegal immigration. We are intensifying
worksite enforcement by the INS and the Department of Labor. We support work authorization
verification and are presently recruiting and training employers in California to participate in an
expanded telephone verification system. We have taken steps to make INS immigration cards more
fraud-resistant. We have asked Congress for more investigators and enforcement personnel to bolster
the deterrence effect of effective worksite enforcement.
Deportations: We are increasing deportations, especially of criminal aliens. The number of criminal
aliens removed from the U.S. increased by 17.6% in 1994 over 1992 levels. This has resulted from
stepped up vigilance in identification, detention, and deportation of criminal aliens rather than just letting
them back into our communities at the end of their sentences, which is what happened in the past. For
example, we conducted a pilot at L.A. County Jail to identify and deport criminal aliens. Under this
program, INS officers staff the release lines at the jail 24 hours a day, seven days a week to ensure that
deportable aliens are taken into Federal custody to be deported rather than released out into the streets.
We are looking to expand this effort in L.A. and elsewhere.
Some people have expressed concern about a national work registry. Please expand on your view on this.
We need to find an effective, non-discriminatory way to verify employment authorization of all new
employees. I fully support the recommendation of the Commission on Immigration Reform, chaired by
former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan, to test different ways to do this, including use of the Social
Security and INS databases.
In fact, we're not waiting for Congress to act in this area, we are right now recruiting and training
employers in the Los Angeles area to participate in a telephone verification system with the INS.
Let me add, however, that we are absolutely committed to protecting privacy and civil rights. The
Administration will develop pilots carefully, building in safeguards against the invasion of privacy and
discrimination. All employers will be instructed as to the laws against discrimination as well as the
verification requirements. We will also monitor these pilots closely for evidence of discriminatory action.
What is the Administration doing about the terrible El Monte, CA sweatshop slavery situation?
First, we are prosecuting those involved and seeking millions in unpaid wages due the workers.
More generally, the Administration is intensifying our enforcement efforts against sweatshops which hold
workers in involuntary servitude or generally exploit immigrant workers. Already the INS and Department
of Labor have followed-up with additional raids of sweatshops in the Los Angeles area. We are committed
to stepped-up worksite enforcement targeted especially at low-wage industries, and will continue such
initiatives in the future.
The INS, with other agencies, has significantly increased anti-smuggling efforts to reduce the ability of
these criminals to bring smuggled workers into the country. More than any previous Administration, we
have clamped down on alien smuggling by land and sea into California. For example, prosecution of
antismuggling cases rose 24 percent in July 1995 over July 1994. Along with increased interdiction and
prosecution of smugglers, we have asked Congress to increase penalties to punish these criminals.
Secretary Reich has been working with the garment industry to make that industry and their retailers more
accountable for preventing this type of abuse. Secretary Reich convened a Summit of some of the country's
largest clothing retailers immediately after the El Monte raid to enlist the cooperation of retailers to end
subcontracting with illegal sweatshops and to improve labor law compliance within the garment industry.
Under Secretary Reich's leadership, the Department of Labor has also been working hard over the last few
years to gain the attention and constructive action of garment manufacturers to promote labor law
compliance by their production contractors. We will continue our efforts to gain industry assistance in this
area.
We are now seeking more worksite enforcement resources and tools from Congress for both the Department
of Labor and the Immigration and Naturalization Service needed to protect workers and fight against any
recurrence of this type of subjugation. Unfortunately, present Republican legislation would provide less
resources for this purpose than my Administration has requested.
The El Monte sweatshop was uncovered as a result of cooperation by federal, state and local officials.
Attorney General Reno has asked the U.S. Attorney in Los Angeles and Immigration and Naturalization
Service Commissioner Doris Meissner to thoroughly review the actions of federal law enforcement in this
case since 1992. We hope to find ways to improve this cooperative work. On the federal level, we are
taking steps to enhance interagency enforcement coordination.
I would be interested in additional ideas you may have to increase my Administration's ability to work with
your community and others to achieve our shared objective to end illegal sweatshops.
You opposed prop. 187. Do you favor benefits for illegal aliens?
No, except public health and safety and a child's constitutional right to an education.
Some are proposing a new guestworker program -- What is your position on this?
I oppose a guestworker or "bracero-type" program because it will lead to increased illegal immigration,
depressed wages and work standards for citizens and legal immigrants already in this country.
Applications for citizenship have increased dramatically ( 78% during first 10 months of '95 compared to
the same period of '94) and waiting periods for processing those applications are very long. What are you
doing about it?
We want to encourage and help immigrants who qualify and who want to become citizens to do so as
quickly as possible. Streamlining and promoting citizenship are priorities of the INS and it is dedicating
more personnel and resources to addressing this problem.
INS has just announced a new initiative, Citizenship USA, to ensure that by the summer of 1996, eligible
persons applying for citizenship can be accepted within six months.
Just last month, Commissioner Doris Meissner announced that Los Angeles will be the first site for this
nationwide initiative. We'll be doing this by increasing staff levels, expanding facilities, using new
technology, streamlining procedures, and forging new and better partnerships with community organizations.
Perhaps too often we allow ourselves to take for granted what U.S. citizenship means. One need only
attend a naturalization ceremony and observe the depth of the pride and hope of our newest citizens to be
reminded of how fortunate we are to be Americans.
What do you think about the apparent undercurrent of anti-immigrant feelings in the country?
Some are trying to use immigration, like affirmative action, to drive a wedge in this country. This is wrong
and we must fight "immigrant-bashing." We need to examine our immigration policies in the same factual,
nonpolitical way that we tried to do with affirmative action.
We need to crack down on illegal immigration, but we must not allow immigration to become a wedge.
What is your view on legal immigration reform?
I have always said that while we must crack down on illegal immigration -- because we are a nation of
laws -- we are also a nation of immigrants. Nearly all of us can trace our roots beyond the shores of this
country, and we have a historic commitment to immigration.
I support the recommendations of Barbara Jordan's Commission on Immigration Reform as the framework
for Congress to consider for legal immigration reform. The Commission has recommended moderate
reduction in the level of legal immigration and gives high priority to reunifying Americans with their close
family members. I share this view.
Legal immigration reform must be based upon principles that are pro-family, pro-work, and pro-
naturalization. My Administration anticipates working with Congress in a spirit of bipartisanship to craft the
details of the specific legislation that will put these principles into practice. We must not let this issue
become divisive in this country.
DOMESTIC POLICY COUNCIL
African American Press Roundtable
EDUCATION Q/As
Domestic Policy Council: Jeremy Ben-Ami/Gaynor McCown, 65575
Updated 10/30/95
Mr. President, you recently said that "cutting education today would be like cutting defense
budgets at the height of the cold war." Can you explain what you mean by this comment.
Let me just begin by saying that I firmly believe that the American people want to balance
the budget to lift the burden of debt off of our children and to strengthen our economy. But
I also believe that the American people want to strengthen families, expand our economy, and
raise living standards and that nothing is more critical to that effort than education. My
budget proposal proves that it is possible to deal with the deficit while investing in human
capital. Education is the key to the future of America and demolishing our investment in
education is not the means to balance the budget. Yet, in the last two weeks, both the House
and the Senate have taken a variety of actions that are direct attacks on our nation's
investment for the future.
On October 26, the House approved a bill that would dramatically reduce federal
support for Americans going to college and would eliminate my Direct Lending
program.
I am strongly opposed to any action which would raise the cost of college for students and
their families. In particular, I will oppose any plan that contains an unwise and unjustified
elimination of my Direct Lending program. This program works! It is already saving
taxpayers billions of dollars and students are getting their funds with less government red
tape. Students are getting flexible repayment plans, schools have less administrative costs,
and thousands of intermediaries and attendant complexities are eliminated. It is inexcusable
for Congress to allow the banks and special interest to pass a law that would take away the
choice for hundreds of schools. My Direct Lending program is "good government" at its best
and I will fight to keep it.
On October 27, the Republican majority in the Senate voted to cut $5 billion from
student loans over the next seven years.
While the Senate bill is clearly "better," it is still not good enough. The senate bill still
places an arbitrary cap on the Direct Loan program. The result of this cap will be an end to
competition in the loan industry, and a return to years past. My bottom line is that I cannot
support any proposal that will raise the cost of college and deny our young people the
opportunity to make the most of the opportunities of the coming century.
It's a question of values. We can balance the budget and still maintain our investment in
education, in our children and in our future.
In addition to the reconciliation bills, it seems likely that one of the biggest battles in the
budget will be over the Labor/H appropriations bill which contains funding for several of
your initiatives in the education area. Would you really bring the whole budget process to a
halt over a few billion dollars in this bill?
Let me be clear. This is not a question of money and dollars. It's not an abstract budget
fight. We're talking about critical investments in the future of our children, our families and
our country.
Education has clearly emerged as the fault line between those who are making it and those
who are falling behind in the new economy. Every year of education beyond high school
adds six to twelve percent to a person's income.
It has always been a shared value in this country that we should support efforts to prepare our
children to learn, to improve our schools, to help those who can't afford it to pay for college.
So, yes, I will stand firm in my opposition to efforts to cut these investments to pay for a tax
cut for those who don't need it.
[Follow] The Senate Appropriations Committee did put back some of the funding eliminated
by the House, particularly for Goals 2000. If the final version of the bill is closer to what the
Senate is likely to approve, would you sign the bill?
We cannot allow some of these marginal improvements to make the Senate version seem
acceptable. To me, even with some of the changes, it still represents a break with our
traditional support for our children and their education.
I stand behind my proposal to balance the budget AND increase our investments in these
areas.
Background
The Labor/H bill has passed the House but has not gone to the Senate floor. The House bill
would, for example:
fund $500 million less for Head Start than my request. To maintain current
program quality, that would mean denying services to more than 45,000
children next year.
cut Title One funding by $1.1 billion in 1996, denying this crucial assistance to
improve basic and advanced skills to 1.1 million students nationwide.
eliminate Goals 2000 and deny funding to as many as 17,500 schools.
It would gut Safe and Drug-Free Schools, a program which 14,575 out of
14,783 school districts in the U.S. use to keep crime, violence, and drugs away
from students and out of schools.
deny Pell Grants to 380,000 students in 1996 alone, possibly forcing them to
drop out of college.
It would eliminate AmeriCorps and deny 50,000 young people the chance to
serve in 1996 (note: this is in HUD/VA, not Labor/H)..
It would cut job training programs by $1.4 billion and deny training
opportunities to 506,100 dislocated workers and 84,000 disadvantaged adults in
1996.
It would eliminate summer jobs, denying jobs to over 600,000 youths in 1996
and almost 4 million youths over 7 years and it would severely cut my School
to Work initiative.
EDUCATION VOUCHERS/CHOICE Q/As
Domestic Policy Council: Gaynor McCown, 65575
Updated 10/30/95
Q: Mr. President, many people including New York Mayor Rudolph Guiliani, have said that Catholic
schools have provided a model for how young people in this country should receive their education. As
President, you have made education a priority and have indicated that you want to see to it that every
child in this country gets the quality education they need and deserve. Yet, your policies do not allow
vouchers for parents who want to send their children to Catholic schools instead of Public schools.
Please explain what seems to me to be a blatant contradiction.
A: Well, let me just begin by saying that education is a priority of mine and I do care deeply about
ensuring that every individual in this country has the opportunity to receive the quality education they
need and deserve. I also believe strongly in private education and the right of parents to choose that
option for their children. And, for the most part, I think all educators, whether they are from a Catholic
school or a public school have a common purpose and concern which is for children and families.
However, it is my belief that using public funds for private education has two fundamental problems:
(1) At a time when enrollment is at an all-time high and we need public schools the most, I
don't think we should be taking funds away. A good, strong public school system is essential
to our Democracy and in order to improve and maintain the quality of education in this
country, we must keep available funds in the system.
(2) Equally important, part of the beauty of our system is that private schools, because they
don't all general education funds from the government, do not have to be regulated as strictly.
Public funds would require a great deal of oversight that in effect would destroy the very
nature of private and parochial schools.
Q: Mr. President, you have talked a lot about the need for parents to have an opportunity to help their
children choose what school they want to go to. Yet, the public school system today, rarely allows that
to happen. Young people who live in a certain district are often forced to go to schools in that same
district unless their parent are savvy enough to break the rules. What are you doing to prevent this trend
from continuing.
A: Let me begin by saying that I believe strongly in public school choice. That is, if a student lives in one
part of the city and wants to go to school in another part of the city simply because that schools meets
his / her needs and the parents are amenable, that student should be free to go wherever he / she wants.
I think a little bit of competition among public schools is not only acceptable, it is healthy. I also
believe in and have supported charter schools, magnet schools and other alternative approaches to
education that meet the needs of different populations.
Q: Mr. President, Catholic schools in this country are slowly becoming a thing of the past largely due to
lack of funding. How do you feel about Catholic or any other religious education and what is your
Administration doing to prevent the demise of these institutions that have served so many children for so
long?
A: I just want to begin by saying that even if Catholic and other parochial schools got the same amount of
federal funding that other elementary and secondary schools receive, it would not be enough. You have
to remember that the federal role in elementary and secondary education is limited to less than 10%. As
my Education Secretary Dick Riley so often and eloquently says: "Education is a national priority, a
state responsibility and a local function." We don't provide for general support of elementary and
secondary education.
Now, having said that, I also want to let you in on a little known fact. Catholic and other parochial
schools in very needy areas do receive federal support -- the same support that similar public schools in
those areas receive. But, it still is not enough. The federal government will never be able, and I don't
think it should be responsible for supporting or saving public or parochial schools. Does that mean, I
want them to fail, no but, general funding for K-12 education comes from state and local government
and support from the federal government is not the answer.
Q: Mr. President, for years the federal government has been subsidizing loans for young people to attend
private colleges: The objective here is to provide an opportunity for an individual to make choices about
their own education. However, your policies do not allow parents and children to make choices about
where they go to elementary and secondary schools. Why is it more important for an individual to make
a choice for higher education than it is for elementary and secondary education?
A: Let me again emphasize that for the k-12 levels, state and local governments - not the federal
government - provide general support. The federal government's support goes primarily toward needy
populations and helps out with special needs. For this, parochial and private schools also benefit. On
the other hand, at the post-secondary level, the federal government provides over half of the funding for
students to attend college.
Another important point here is that college age students are no longer minors and college is not
mandatory. Therefore, in choosing to go to a particular college, whether it is private or public, they can
make their own decisions about religious affiliation. A key factor in elementary and secondary
education is that students don't leave their religion at the school house door and they must be allowed to
have their religious freedom. But, because they are minors, the state cannot dictate a particular religious
belief.
CRIME/DRUGS
Domestic Policy Council: Dennis Burke, 65568
Updated 10/30/95
The Administration's Crack Sentencing Guidelines Legislation
Q. Why did you sign legislation that would disapprove of the Sentencing Commission guideline
recommendation on crack sentencing?
A. We submitted this legislation to Congress and I signed it because we are concerned that the equalization
of the penalties for crack and cocaine powder trafficking does not reflect:
the significant differences between the two;
the impact crack has had on our communities;
and the effect a drastic change in penalties would have on deterring those who traffic in this
dangerous drug.
Q. What's the point of sending this back to the Sentencing Commission -- aren't you just punting a
political hot potato?
A. No. I recommended this legislation to Congress and signed it for a good policy reason. Had we not
enacted this legislation, the Sentencing Commission's recommendations would have gone into effect on
November 1. Their guidelines would have created bad policy. The truth of the matter is this --
permitting these guidelines recommendations to become law -- without changing the underlying statutes on
powder cocaine and crack -- will create even greater sentencing disparity than what some believe exists
under the current guidelines.
What I did here -- by proposing this legislation and signing it -- is tell the Sentencing Commission -
- "I disagree with your recommendations; I want you to go back, work with my Attorney General, and
come back in May with sentences that treat crack distribution generally harsher than powder cocaine, but I
also want sentences that ensure that we treat a high-level powder cocaine distributer harsher than a street-
level crack distributors."
Q. Does this proposed Conference really mean anything or is the President just doing this to appease
leaders in the African-American community?
A. The idea for this conference has been in the planning stages for sometime and I was actually intending
to mention it in a drug speech this Thursday. All we are doing today is moving up the announcement date
-- by just a few days -- of a idea that has been vetted and approved. This is a very important issue to
me and I am committed to reducing drug use in this country and the violence that is linked to it.
Q. Why don't you increase the sentences for cocaine -- won't that reduce the disparity in the current
sentencing system?
A. That indeed might be the result. But I want the Sentencing Commission, working with the Attorney
General, to have the opportunity to reexamine their recommendations and return with sentences that still
reflect our concern with crack distribution.
In the mean time, I have also asked the Attorney General to begin working immediately with United
States Attorneys to make sure that high-level power cocaine distributors are prosecuted for what they know
they are doing -- selling powder cocaine that is ending up as crack on our streets.
Crack is a more dangerous drug than powder cocaine; I believe that the sentencing structure should
reflect this in some way. But a high-level drug distributor who knows his powder cocaine is ending up as
crack vials on the street, should be punished for what he is doing -- pushing crack.
Q. Isn't crack and cocaine powder effectively the same drug?
A. Crack is more psychologically addictive than cocaine powder. Our conclusions about the harmful
effects of crack as compared to cocaine powder are virtually the same as those reached by the Sentencing
Commission. Indeed in its report to Congress on this issue, the Sentencing Commission concluded that:
"[T}he higher addictive qualities associated with crack combined with its inherent ease of use can
support a higher ratio for crack over powder."
Furthermore, as the Sentencing Commission itself stated:
"crack dealers generally tend to have a stronger association with systemic violence and are more likely
to possess weapons than powder cocaine dealers."
Q. Doesn't the current penalty structure discriminate against African-Americans?
A. As you know, I recently spoken out on my concern with the number of African-Americans who are in
our criminal justice system. This is a very important issue to me and it is on that I will continue to address.
But reducing crack cocaine sentences is not the solution to that problem.
Instead, reduced sentences for crack trafficking would ignore the devastation this drug has cause so
many communities and victims across the country. A crack dealer could only interpret it one way -- the
cost of business is going down, keep pushing.
The legislation I signed includes an amendment by Senator Kennedy that was unanimously accepted in
the Senate, which instructs the Sentencing Commission to undertake a review and report back to Congress
its findings and recommendations on what sentencing structure can both provide the penalties needed by law
enforcement but also ensure that our drug enforcement laws and policies are fair.
100,000 COPS Program
Q: As a candidate for President, you proposed to provided funds for 100,000 new police officers. Last
year, Congress passed and you signed a crime bill that contained this provision. Now, I understand that
Congress is going to eliminate this program. How has this program worked and are you going to
oppose congressional efforts to end this program?
A: After 6 years of political bickering -- on one of the most important issues to the American public --
Congress finally passed a comprehensive crime bill last year; and I proudly signed it. Every major law
enforcement organization in America strongly supports this legislation -- because it is the toughest and
smartest crime bill ever enacted. Through the COPS program, the Crime Bill will put 100,000 new
community police officers on the streets of America.
In one year, we have already authorized funding for over 25,000 additional police officers. These
officers are already making an impact, and for the first time in a long while, the violent crime rate in
this country is actually going down. Yet, now, the Republican leadership in Congress wants to eliminate
this program and replace it with a program that would not require that even 1 new officer be hired.
There is absolutely no reason to abandon such a successful program.. Anyone on Capitol Hill who
wants to play partisan politics with police officers for America should listen carefully -- I will veto any
effort to repeal or undermine the 100,000 police commitment -- period.
Adolscent Drug Use
Q:
The 1994 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse was released last month and it found
that marijuana use is rising among American teenagers. What is your Administration
planning to do to address this problem?
A: Over the last 3 years, my Administration has recognized and drawn attention to the increase in marijuana
use among American teenagers. We have challenged parents, teachers and leaders in the public and
private sectors -- including media -- to be active and aggressive in the struggle against drug abuse.
I also proposed the largest drug control budget ever. We are working to get hard-core drug users off
the street; we are giving local communities the resources to fight drugs; we are working to stop drugs at
their source before they get to our borders; and we are preventing drug use by teaching our children
about the dangers drugs pose and de-glamorizing drug use in the minds of every child.
But while we are witnessing the rise of teenage use of marijuana, the Republican Congress plans to cut
23 million students from the Safe and Drug-Free Schools program. They are sending the wrong
message to the youth in this country. We can not afford to turn our backs on our children.
Gun Control
Q: You have supported and signed both the Brady Bill and the ban on assault weapons. Have these
measures worked? Why do you think gun control is the solution to the crime problem in this country?
A: I support both tougher penalties for the criminal use of firearms and I also support effective gun control
-- and both these measures have proven to be effective.
In just its first 100 days, the Brady Law stopped the sale of handguns to thousands of convicted felons,
fugitives from justice, and persons under restraining orders for alleged stalking, harassment or other
forms of domestic threats or intimidation. Yet, at the same time, honest law-abiding citizens were able
to continue to purchase handguns for their own personal safety.
Military-style assault weapons were designed for one purpose only -- to kill humans beings as rapidly
as possible. I strongly supported the assault weapons ban contained in last year's crime bill because we
can not continue to witness innocent citizens and police officers gunned down with these weapons.
This provision was tailored to go after the weapons of choice of criminal gangs, drug traffickers and
mentally deranged persons and it did so without effecting the legitimate use of firearms by honest
law-abiding citizens. For it also specifically exempted certain firearms traditionally used for hunting
and other legitimate sporting purposes.
Terrorism
Q: In light of the World Trade Center bombing, the Oklahoma City bombing, and the closing of
Pennsylvania avenue in front of the White House, are we losing to terrorists here in the United States?
A: The tragic bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City on April 19th made clear the need
to enhance the Federal government's ability to investigate, prosecute, and punish terrorist activity. I was
pleased that the Senate acted quickly on the 2 anti-terrorism bills that I transmitted to Congress earlier
this year -- passing them as one bill in June with over 90 votes. Unfortunately, this important
legislation, which passed the House Judiciary Committee sometime ago, has been languishing before the
full House. I want to take this opportunity to urge the House leadership to move quickly on this
legislation so that I can sign it and increase our security from terrorist attacks. This is a bill that will
save American lives and it should not be delayed any longer.
Juvenile Crime
Q: The Attorney General came out with a report recently that found that juvenile crime is on the rise and
will continue to rise. What is your Administration doing to address this problem?
A: It is true that while overall crime rates have been dropping, the incidence of youth crime have risen.
That is why my anti-crime strategy has and will focus on youth crime and violence.
The 1994 Crime Bill that I signed sends a strong message to young criminals: it bans handguns for
juveniles, imposes stiff penalties for gang members who commit crimes, establishes boot camps and drug
courts to discipline first-time offenders. At the same time, it invests in smart prevention programs that
offer at-risk youth positive alternatives to criminal activities.
But we are going to continue to do more to help the local levels deal with this problem. Indeed
recently, I announced grants to 10 cities across the country to implement programs to reduce youth
firearm violence.
IMMIGRATION Q/As
Domestic Policy Council: Stephen Warnath, 65576
Updated 10/30/95
Both the House and the Senate are considering immigration legislation right now. What are your thoughts
on these bills?
I want Congress to pass immigration reform legislation quickly to provide the Administration with the
enforcement tools and resources that we need to deal effectively and comprehensively with the problem of
illegal immigration. And I want legal immigration reform. The Congress should not delay on this
important legislation and I have challenged them to present me with immigration legislation before the end
of the year.
Both houses are considering bills that are very similar to much of the legislation the Administration
proposed and work we are already doing.
The House bill would strengthen our border patrol and efforts to check work authorization -- which I
strongly support. However, I would like the House to put more emphasis on worksite enforcement -- for
instance, funding more Labor investigators and enforcement officers. The problem of the immigrant slave
labor at the El Monte garment factory underscores the need for this
Can you expand on the Administration's views regarding the immigration legislation being considered now
in the House (HR 2202)?
Many of the provisions of the House bill -- which the Judiciary Committee just completed marking up --
advance the Administration's strategy to control illegal immigration. This strategy calls for regaining control
of our borders; removing the job magnet through worksite enforcement; and aggressively-pursuing the
removal of criminal aliens and other illegal aliens. Much of the House bill at this point is similar the
Administration's enforcement bill. We are therefore pleased that the bill follows our policies to a significant
extent. This includes:
a significant increase in border patrol agents.
work authorization pilots, including SSA and INS database checks.
making immigration documents more fraud-resistant.
strong penalties for violation of the immigration laws including for illegal entry.
expedited exclusion to increase the Attorney General's authority to effectively address mass migration
situations.
We do not agree with every detail of the proposed legislation. Reductions in legal immigration must
promote underlying principles that are pro-family, pro-work and pro-naturalization. We have been
working with Democrats and Republicans to attempt to arrive at bipartisan immigration reform legislation
that is in the national interest.
What is an example of an area where you disagree with the House bill?
Employment is the biggest magnet for illegal immigration to this country. If you are serious about curbing
illegal immigration you have to be serious about effective worksite enforcement. Border enforcement alone
is not enough. Thus, we are disappointed by some Republican efforts to water down enforcement at the
workplace. For example, the bill currently does not provide for all of the worksite investigators and
enforcement officers that we need and have asked for. Some provisions seek to limit enforcement
discretion. We also want to ensure that while worksite enforcement is strengthened, adequate safeguards
against discrimination are included in the legislation.
What are you doing to stop illegal immigration?
At the Border: We are engaged in an unprecedented buildup of Border Patrol Agents as part of
Operations Gatekeeper in California, Hold-the-Line in Texas, and Safeguard in Arizona and we are
deploying more technology (like sensors and night scopes). Our new computerized fingerprinting illegal
crosser identification system and dedication of increased resources has led to a 240% increase in
prosecutions on felony charges for reentry after deportation since 1992 in California.
At the Worksite: Employment is the largest magnet for illegal immigration. We are intensifying
worksite enforcement by the INS and the Department of Labor. We support work authorization
verification and are presently recruiting and training employers in California to participate in an
expanded telephone verification system. We have taken steps to make INS immigration cards more
fraud-resistant. We have asked Congress for more investigators and enforcement personnel to bolster
the deterrence effect of effective worksite enforcement.
Deportations: We are increasing deportations, especially of criminal aliens. The number of criminal
aliens removed from the U.S. increased by 17.6% in 1994 over 1992 levels. This has resulted from
stepped up vigilance in identification, detention, and deportation of criminal aliens rather than just letting
them back into our communities at the end of their sentences, which is what happened in the past. For
example, we conducted a pilot at L.A. County Jail to identify and deport criminal aliens. Under this
program, INS officers staff the release lines at the jail 24 hours a day, seven days a week to ensure that
deportable aliens are taken into Federal custody to be deported rather than released out into the streets.
We are looking to expand this effort in L.A. and elsewhere.
Some people have expressed concern about a national work registry. Please expand on your view on this.
We need to find an effective, non-discriminatory way to verify employment authorization of all new
employees. I support the recommendation of the Commission on Immigration Reform, chaired by former
Congresswoman Barbara Jordan, to test different ways to do this, including use of the Social Security and
INS databases.
In fact, we're not waiting for Congress to act in this area, we are right now recruiting and training
employers in the Los Angeles area to participate in a telephone verification system with the INS.
Let me add, however, that we are absolutely committed to protecting privacy and civil rights. The
Administration will develop pilots carefully, building in safeguards against the invasion of privacy and
discrimination. All employers will be instructed as to the laws against discrimination as well as the
verification requirements. We will also monitor these pilots closely for evidence of discriminatory action.
What is the Administration doing about the terrible El Monte, CA sweatshop slavery situation?
First, we are prosecuting those involved and seeking millions in unpaid wages due the workers.
More generally, the Administration is intensifying our enforcement efforts against sweatshops which hold
workers in involuntary servitude or generally exploit immigrant workers. Already the INS and Department
of Labor have followed-up with additional raids of sweatshops in the Los Angeles area. We are committed
to stepped-up worksite enforcement targeted especially at low-wage industries, and will continue such
initiatives in the future.
The INS, with other agencies, has significantly increased anti-smuggling efforts to reduce the ability of
these criminals to bring smuggled workers into the country. More than any previous Administration, we
have clamped down on alien smuggling by land and sea into California. For example, prosecution of
antismuggling cases rose 24 percent in July 1995 over July 1994. Along with increased interdiction and
prosecution of smugglers, we have asked Congress to increase penalties to punish these criminals.
Secretary Reich has been working with the garment industry to make that industry and their retailers more
accountable for preventing this type of abuse. Secretary Reich convened a Summit of some of the country's
largest clothing retailers immediately after the El Monte raid to enlist the cooperation of retailers to end
subcontracting with illegal sweatshops and to improve labor law compliance within the garment industry.
Under Secretary Reich's leadership, the Department of Labor has also been working hard over the last few
years to get the assistance of garment manufacturers to promote labor law compliance by their production
contractors. We will continue our efforts to gain industry assistance in this area.
We are now seeking more worksite enforcement resources and tools from Congress for both the Department
of Labor and the Immigration and Naturalization Service needed to protect workers and fight against any
recurrence of this type of subjugation. Unfortunately, present Republican legislation would provide less
resources for this purpose than my Administration has requested.
The El Monte sweatshop was uncovered as a result of cooperation by federal, state and local officials.
Attorney General Reno has asked the U.S. Attorney in Los Angeles and Immigration and Naturalization
Service Commissioner Doris Meissner to thoroughly review the actions of federal law enforcement in this
case since 1992. We hope to find ways to improve this cooperative work. On the federal level, we are
taking steps to enhance interagency enforcement coordination.
You opposed prop. 187. Do you favor benefits for illegal aliens?
No, except public health and safety and a child's constitutional right to an education.
What is the Administration's position on the restrictions on eligibility of legal immigrants for benefits in the
House and Senate Welfare bills?
The Administration supports holding sponsors who bring immigrants into this country legally responsible for
their financial support, but these changes should be made in an equitable manner.
Both bills go too far in cutting benefits to legal immigrants who find themselves temporarily in need of
help. In addition, I think that it is likely to result in a very significant shift in costs from the federal
government to states with substantial numbers of immigrants (e.g. California, Texas, Florida, N.Y., New
Jersey, and Illinois).
In particular, the Administration opposes the Senate provision that would discriminate against U.S. citizens
by denying benefits to legal immigrants even after they become naturalized citizens. We cannot have two
categories of citizens, and a provision that treats naturalized citizens less favorably than the native born
raises serious Constitutional issues.
I am also deeply concerned about the Senate provision that would require sponsors' income to exceed 200
percent of poverty. Working families who are U.S. citizens should not have to pass a wealth test in order to
be reunited with a family member. This would reverse a fundamental element of our country's immigration
heritage.
The Administration will also seek other changes in conference including adopting the House provision to
exempt those over age 7 from benefit cut-offs, letting those who become disabled after entering the country
remain eligible for benefits, and making sure that benefit restrictions do not apply to discretionary programs
and certain mandatory programs such as student loans.
Applications for citizenship have increased dramatically ( 78% during first 10 months of '95 compared to
the same period of '94) and waiting periods for processing those applications are very long. What are you
doing about it?
We want to encourage and help immigrants who qualify and who want to become citizens to do so as
quickly as possible. In so doing, we will maintain the requirements (e.g. English language proficiency) that
demonstrate an individual's readiness to accept the responsibilities of citizenship and full participation in our
National community. Streamlining and promoting citizenship are priorities of the INS and it is dedicating
more personnel and resources to addressing this problem.
INS has just announced a new initiative, Citizenship USA, to ensure that by the summer of 1996, eligible
persons applying for citizenship can be accepted within six months.
Los Angeles will be the first site for this nationwide initiative. We'll be increasing staff levels, expanding
facilities, using new technology, streamlining procedures, and forging new and better partnerships with
community organizations.
Perhaps too often we allow ourselves to take for granted what U.S. citizenship means. One need only
attend a naturalization ceremony and observe the depth of the pride and hope of our newest citizens to be
reminded of how fortunate we are to be Americans.
What do you think about the apparent undercurrent of anti-immigrant feelings in the country?
Some are trying to use immigration, like affirmative action, to drive a wedge in this country. This is wrong
and we must fight "immigrant-bashing." We need to examine our immigration policies in the same factual,
nonpolitical way that we tried to do with affirmative action.
We need to crack down on illegal immigration, but we must not allow immigration to become a wedge.
Some are proposing a new guestworker program -- What is your position on this?
I oppose a guestworker or "bracero-type" program because it will lead to increased illegal immigration,
depressed wages and work standards for citizens and legal immigrants already in this country.
What is your view on legal immigration reform?
I have always said that while we must crack down on illegal immigration because we are a nation of
laws -- we are also a nation of immigrants. Nearly all of us can trace our roots beyond the shores of this
country, and we have a historic commitment to immigration. I believe that legal immigration strengthens
this country.
I support the recommendations of Barbara Jordan's Commission on Immigration Reform as the framework
for Congress to consider for legal immigration reform. The Commission has recommended moderate
reduction in the level of legal immigration and gives high priority to reunifying Americans with their close
family members. I share this view.
Reuniting closest family members should be the highest priority and basic unit of immigration. At the same
time, this Administration has proposed a way to lower the level of legal immigration while retaining more
family reunification opportunities than the Republicans would allow (i.e. for adult children and parents.)
We support reduction in employment-based immigration as a means of encouraging employers to hire and
train domestic workers -- both citizens and legal immigrants. I favor eliminating the unskilled category of
immigration to reduce job competition with those in our own country who need work.
Legal immigration reform must be based upon principles that are pro-family, pro-work, and pro-
naturalization. My Administration anticipates working with Congress in a spirit of bipartisanship to craft the
details of the specific legislation that will put these principles into practice. We must not let this issue
become divisive in this country.
DOMESTIC POLICY COUNCIL Q & A's
Updated 9/13/95
ABORTION/REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS Q/As
Domestic Policy Council: Jeremy Ben-Ami, 65584
Updated 9/15/95
Q:
The Congressional majority has passed a number of provisions relating to abortion in
the various authorization and appropriations bills about to be sent to you as part of the
FY96 budget. Will you be vetoing those provisions?
A:
As I have often said, I believe that abortion should be safe, legal and rare. The
Supreme Court has prescribed the conditions under which the Constitution provides
individuals the right to make this difficult decision for themselves. I believe that
Congress should be focussing in these appropriations bills on designing a balanced
budget that provides America's working families the supports they need in terms of
health care, education and tax relief -- not on contentious social issues.
[If pressed on the veto question] I have already said that I would veto a number of
theses bills for a range of reasons -- primarily because I disagree with the budget
priorities of the Congressional Republicans. I want a balanced budget that invests in
education, does not devastate Medicaid and Medicare and focusses tax relief on the
middle class helping them meet critical expenses like buying a home and putting their
children through college.
Q:
A bill to outlaw the D&X abortion procedure (called "partial birth" by its proponents)
is ready to be considered on the House floor. If the bill is passed, will you sign it?
A:
The Constitution permits states to ban abortion after fetal viability except when
necessary to preserve the woman's life or health. As I have stated consistently, I
support such post-viability restrictions. However, the House bill, as currently written,
is another matter entirely. First of all, its ban on the D&X procedure applies even in
cases where the procedure is needed to preserve the health of the woman. Second, the
ban applies even pre-viability. And finally, I think the bill makes a real mistake in
picking and choosing among different kinds of procedures. It is a physician's job --
not the government's -- to use medical discretion to determine whether a certain
procedure is the safest and most medically appropriate method for his or her patient.
ABORTION/REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS Q/As
Domestic Policy Council: Karen Guss, 65603
Q:
Where do you stand on the abortion-related provisions that the Congressional majority
has passed as part of many of its authorization and appropriations bills?
A:
As I have often said, I believe that abortion should be safe, legal and rare. But some
Republicans in Congress are using the complicated budget process to launch a stealth
campaign to undermine the reproductive health of American women.
Last week the House passed a bill that would allow states to deny Medicaid
funding for abortions for poor women who became pregnant because they were
victims of rape or incest.
The House has also voted to put servicewomen and women in military families
at risk by prohibiting them from obtaining abortion services -- services paid
for with their own money -- in military hospitals.
The House and Senate have both voted to tell insurance companies who
provide health insurance to federal workers that they cannot cover abortion
services except in the most extreme circumstances.
In addition, the House has voted to, in effect, undo the accreditation standards
established by the medical profession for training obstetricians and
gynecologists because those standards currently include a requirement that,
unless a training program is morally opposed to abortion, it must offer training
in abortion procedures.
And the House came dangerously close to scrapping the Title X program,
which provide family planning, pre-natal care and other health care to millions
of low-income women.
None of these actions by the House are consistent with abortion being safe, legal and
rare, and I oppose them.
Q:
A bill to outlaw the D&X abortion procedure is ready to be considered on the House
floor. If the bill is passed, will you sign it?
A:
The Constitution permits states to ban abortion after fetal viability except when
necessary to preserve the woman's life or health. As I have stated consistently, I
support such post-viability restrictions. However, the House bill, as currently written,
is another matter entirely. First of all, its ban on the D&X procedure applies even in
cases where the procedure is needed to preserve the health of the woman. Second, the
ban applies even pre-viability. And finally, I think the bill makes a real mistake in
picking and choosing among different kinds of procedures. It is a physician's job --
not the government's -- to use medical discretion to determine whether a certain
procedure is the safest and most medically appropriate method for his or her patient.
TEEN PREGNANCY Q/As
Domestic Policy Council: Janet Abrams, 62857
Updated 9/13/95
Q:
What progress has the Administration made in forming the "national campaign against
teen pregnancy" which President Clinton called for in January?
A:
In this year's State of the Union Address, I urged leaders from all sectors of society to
join in a national campaign to prevent teen pregnancy. The epidemic of teen
pregnancy -- with more than 1 million girls under age 20 becoming pregnant each
year -- is one of this nation's most serious social problems. Government has an
important role to play in addressing this dilemma, but the public sector cannot solve
the problem alone. The talents and energy of the private sector must be brought to
bear in addressing this complex dilemma affecting America's young people.
I believe we need a national campaign that sends a clear message: It is wrong to have
a child outside marriage. Nobody should get pregnant or father a child who isn't
prepared to raise the child, love the child, and take responsibility for the child's future.
Since January, the Administration has worked in partnership with a group of
concerned citizens to lay out a practical vision for a private-sector campaign. A
framework has been developed for a national independent, bipartisan organization
which will catalyze and support a sustained effort to reduce the incidence of teen
pregnancy in the U.S.
In October, I will meet with selected individuals from the private sector -- from the
business, religious, education, health care, media, and foundation communities -- to
explore opportunities for launching the national campaign.
Q:
What will this new private-sector organization do?
A:
The specific agenda of the organization will be determined by its leadership. The new
group will not impose any top-down solutions. Rather, it will encourage local
communities to forge their own approaches to teen pregnancy prevention consistent
with their values and experience. A major role of the organization will be to discover,
disseminate, and celebrate what is working in teen pregnancy prevention. Right now,
while many local efforts show great promise, information on what works in
fragmented.
Activities of the new group are likely to include:
spearheading a national grassroots campaign to make teen pregnancy
prevention a priority in every community;
launching a long-term, multi-dimensional media campaign to encourage and
reinforce local efforts and instill a new ethic of responsible patenting;
maintaining an accessible national database of teen pregnancy prevention
programs and providing better opportunities for those active in the field to
learn from one another;
supporting the comprehensive evaluation of promising programs and other
research as needed;
seeking to be the most credible, independent resource available to anyone
interested in preventing teen pregnancy and providing training, conferences,
newsletters, briefings, and speakers.
Q:
What will Dr. Henry Foster's role with the Administration and this new organization
be?
A:
I hope to make an announcement about Dr. Foster in the coming weeks.
Dr. Foster has worked tirelessly over his 38-year career in medicine to reduce the
incidence of teen pregnancy. He has counseled young people without other role
models that they should not have sex before marriage, that they should stay off drugs,
and that they should stay in school and make the most of their lives.
Q:
Why has it taken so long to organize the private-sector campaign?
A:
Outreach has been made to dozens of prominent citizens -- experts in the field of
teen pregnancy, leaders of the business, foundation, and religious communities. These
consultations have been essential. We're approaching this very complicated problem
in a serious, careful manner -- we don't want a band-aid solution.
Q:
What else has the Administration done to address the problem of teen pregnancy?
A:
The private-sector initiative is intended to complement and enhance government
initiatives supported by the Administration. The range of Administration efforts
related to teen pregnancy includes:
numerous service and research programs in teen pregnancy prevention within
the Department of Health and Human Services
In 1993, President Clinton lifted the "gag rule," enabling non-directive options
counselling in federally supported family planning clinics.
The Administration has supported increases in funding for family planning
services. In FY92, $149 million was spent on family planning. Current
funding is $193 million, and the Clinton budget request for FY96 is $199
million.
HHS provides grants to organizations across the country to support local teen
pregnancy prevention efforts and to evaluate strategies for effectiveness.
programs across several agencies to promote youth development and address
various risk factors associated with teen pregnancy
current and proposed welfare reform measures to provide young men and
women with incentives to delay parenthood until they are married and able to
support their children. President Clinton's welfare reform package includes the
following provisions:
Teen mothers on welfare would be required to live at home with their parents,
stay in school, identify the father, and move into employment within a limited
period of time.
Tough new child support laws would be strictly enforced so that prospective
teen fathers would know they had to provide child support for the next 18
years. (In 1993, the Administration collected a record $9 billion in child
support, a 12% increase over the previous year.)
States would have flexibility to try innovative ways to encourage responsible
behavior, such as rewarding teen recipients who make progress in school and
sanctioning those who drop out.
a comprehensive attack on background economic and social factors contributing
to rising teen pregnancy rates, including poverty, unequal educational
opportunity, and disinvestment in distressed urban and rural communities
Lifelong Learning Initiatives -- Pre-School and Patenting; Goals 2000;
School-to-Work; National Service; Training and Reemployment
Rewarding Work for Working Families -- Earned Income Tax Credit;
Minimum Wage Increase; Family and Medical Leave
Community Empowerment -- Empowerment Zones/Enterprise Communities;
Community Development Banking
WOMEN'S ISSUES (Points to emphasize)
Domestic Policy Council: Karen Guss, 65603
You may want to contrast your record on women's issues with that of the Congressional
majority. For example, you have:
revoked the "Gag Rule," the import ban on RU-486, the ban on abortion services at
military hospitals and the "Mexico City policy."
signed the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, the Family and Medical Leave
Act, and the Violence Against Women Act
appointed the highest percentage of senior women officials of any Administration in
history
dramatically increased the Earned Income Tax Credit
dramatically increased small business loans to women entrepreneurs
promoted the study of science and math by women and girls
By contrast, the Congressional majority is attempting to:
undermine the reproductive health of American women
endanger the health of older women by slashing Medicare
cut the Earned Income Tax Credit
cut funding for battered women's shelters, rape prevention, and other Violence Against
Women Act programs
cut or eliminate initiatives that promote equity in education and train women for high
skill jobs such as Goals 2000 and School-to-Work.
EDUCATION VOUCHERS/CHOICE Q/As
Domestic Policy Council: Gaynor McCown, 65575
Updated 9/13/95
Q:
Mr. President, many people including New York Mayor Rudolph Guiliani, have said that Catholic
schools have provided a model for how young people in this country should receive their education.
As President, you have made education a priority and have indicated that you want to see to it that
every child in this country gets the quality education they need and deserve. Yet, your policies do
not allow vouchers for parents who want to send their children to Catholic schools instead of Public
schools. Please explain what seems to me to be a blatant contradiction.
A:
Well, let me just begin by saying that education is a priority of mine and I do care deeply about
ensuring that every individual in this country has the opportunity to receive the quality education
they need and deserve. I also believe strongly in private education and the right of parents to choose
that option for their children. And, for the most part, I think all educators, whether they are from a
Catholic school or a public school have a common purpose and concern which is for children and
families. However, it is my belief that using public funds for private education has two fundamental
problems:
(1) At a time when enrollment is at an all-time high and we need public schools the most, I
don't think we should be taking funds away. A good, strong public school system is essential
to our Democracy and in order to improve and maintain the quality of education in this
country, we must keep available funds in the system.
(2) Equally important, part of the beauty of our system is that private schools, because they
don't all general education funds from the government, do not have to be regulated as strictly.
Public funds would require a great deal of oversight that in effect would destroy the very
nature of private and parochial schools.
Q:
Mr. President, you have talked a lot about the need for parents to have an opportunity to help their
children choose what school they want to go to. Yet, the public school system today, rarely allows
that to happen. Young people who live in a certain district are often forced to go to schools in that
same district unless their parent are savvy enough to break the rules. What are you doing to prevent
this trend from continuing.
A:
Let me begin by saying that I believe strongly in public school choice. That is, if a student lives in
one part of the city and wants to go to school in another part of the city simply because that schools
meets his / her needs and the parents are amenable, that student should be free to go wherever he /
she wants. I think a little bit of competition among public schools is not only acceptable, it is
healthy. I also believe in and have supported charter schools, magnet schools and other alternative
approaches to education that meet the needs of different populations.
Q:
Mr. President, Catholic schools in this country are slowly becoming a thing of the past largely due to
lack of funding. How do you feel about Catholic or any other religious education and what is your
Administration doing to prevent the demise of these institutions that have served so many children
for so long?
A:
I just want to begin by saying that even if Catholic and other parochial schools got the same amount
of federal funding that other elementary and secondary schools receive, it would not be enough. You
have to remember that the federal role in elementary and secondary education is limited to less than
10%. As my Education Secretary Dick Riley so often and eloquently says: "Education is a national
priority, a state responsibility and a local function." We don't provide for general support of
elementary and secondary education.
Now, having said that, I also want to let you in on a little known fact. Catholic and other parochial
schools in very needy areas do receive federal support -- the same support that similar public
schools in those areas receive. But, it still is not enough. The federal government will never be
able, and I don't think it should be responsible for supporting or saving public or parochial schools.
Does that mean, I want them to fail, no but, general funding for K-12 education comes from state
and local government and support from the federal government is not the answer.
Q:
Mr. President, for years the federal government has been subsidizing loans for young people to
attend private colleges. The objective here is to provide an opportunity for an individual to make
choices about their own education. However, your policies do not allow parents and children to
make choices about where they go to elementary and secondary schools. Why is it more important
for an individual to make a choice for higher education than it is for elementary and secondary
education?
A:
Let me again emphasize that for the k-12 levels, state and local governments - not the federal
government - provide general support. The federal government's support goes primarily toward
needy populations and helps out with special needs. For this, parochial and private schools also
benefit. On the other hand, at the post-secondary level, the federal government provides over half of
the funding for students to attend college.
Another important point here is that college age students are no longer minors and college is not
mandatory. Therefore, in choosing to go to a particular college, whether it is private or public, they
can make their own decisions about religious affiliation. A key factor in elementary and secondary
education is that students don't leave their religion at the school house door and they must be
allowed to have their religious freedom. But, because they are minors, the state cannot dictate a
particular religious belief.
EDUCATION Q/As
Domestic Policy Council: Gaynor McCown, 65575
Q:
Mr. President you have indicated that you would veto the Labor / HHS appropriations bill approved
by the Senate Appropriations Committee. Why would you veto that bill?
A:
This bill slashes critical education and training initiatives. This bill if passed in its current form
would severely limit effective federal support for improving academic achievement, creating safer
school environments, and bringing innovative technology into the classroom. It is bad for working
families, it is bad for the economy and it is bad for the country. Let me just give you a few
examples:
It would cut Title One funding by $679 million in 1996, denying this crucial assistance to
improve basic and advanced skills to 650,000 students nationwide.
It would reduce funding for Goals 2000 by 17% from the 1995 level and 60% less than the
$750 million I requested for 1996. This bill would terminate funding to 1,600 of the 9,000
schools, which have already completed their planning and have begun to implement
comprehensive educational reforms.
It would gut Safe and Drug-Free Schools, a program which provides safer, ore drug-free
learning environments for 39 million children in 14,575 out of 15,000 school districts in the
U.S.
It would eliminate AmeriCorps and deny 50,000 young people the chance to serve in 1996.
It would cut job training programs by $1.4 billion and deny training opportunities to 506,100
dislocated workers and 84,000 disadvantaged adults in 1996.
It would eliminate summer jobs, denying jobs to over 550,000 youths in 1996 and 3.9 million
youths over 7 years. It would also stall progress on my school to work efforts after just 27
states have received support to start implementing systems for young people to leave school
with a marketable skill.
If this isn't enough, I have more. But let me just reiterate that these cuts are not in the best interest of the
American people. Nothing is more critical to our nation's future than ensuring that all Americans have the
education and skills they need to navigate in these changing times.
IMMIGRATION Q/As
Domestic Policy Council: Stephen Warnath, 65576
Updated 9/29/95
Both the House and the Senate are considering immigration legislation right now. What are your thoughts
on these bills?
I want Congress to pass a strong enforcement bill to deal effectively and comprehensively with the
problem of illegal immigration. And I want legal immigration reform. The Congress should not delay on
this important legislation and I have challenged them to present me with immigration legislation before the
end of the year.
Both houses are considering bills that are very similar to legislation the Administration proposed and work
we are already doing.
The House bill would strengthen our border patrol and efforts to check work authorization -- which I
strongly support. However, I would like the House to put more emphasis on worksite enforcement --
funding, for instance, more Labor investigators and enforcement officers. The problem of the immigrant
slave labor at the El Monte garment factory underscores the need for this.
Can you expand on the Administration's views regarding the immigration legislation being considered now
in the House (HR 2202)?
Many of the provisions of the House bill -- now being marked-up in full committee -- advance the
Administrations strategy to control illegal immigration. This strategy calls for regaining control of our
borders; removing the job magnet through worksite enforcement; and aggressively pursuing the removal of
criminal aliens and other illegal aliens. Much of the House bill at this point is similar the Administration's
enforcement bill. We are therefore pleased that the bill follows our policies to a significant extent. This
includes:
a significant increase in border patrol agents.
work authorization pilots, including SSA and INS database checks.
making immigration documents more fraud-resistant.
strong penalties for violation of the immigration laws including for illegal entry.
expedited exclusion to increase the Attorney General's authority to effectively address mass migration
situations.
reductions in the total level of legal immigration.
We do not agree with every detail of the proposed legislation. We have been working with Democrats and
Republicans to attempt to arrive at bipartisan immigration reform legislation that is in the national interest.
The President has requested that Congress get immigration legislation to him before the end of the year to
ensure that the Administration is provided with the needed tools and resources to effectively address the
immigration problems that the country faces.
What is an example of an area where you disagree with the House bill?
Employment is the biggest magnet for illegal immigration to this country. If you are serious about curbing
illegal immigration you have to be serious about effective worksite enforcement. Border enforcement alone
is not enough. Thus, we are disappointed by some Republican efforts to water down enforcement at the
workplace. For example, the bill currently does not provide for all of the worksite investigators and
enforcement officers that we need and have asked for. Some provisions seek to limit enforcement
discretion. We also want to ensure that while worksite enforcement is strengthened, adequate safeguards
against discrimination are included in the legislation.
What are you doing to stop illegal immigration?
At the Border: We are engaged in an unprecedented buildup of Border Patrol Agents as part of
Operations Gatekeeper in California, Hold-the-Line in Texas, and Safeguard in Arizona -- and we are
deploying more technology (like sensors and night scopes). Our new computerized fingerprinting
identification system and dedication of increased resources has led to a 240% increase in prosecutions on
felony charges for reentry after deportation since 1992 in California.
At the Worksite: Employment is the largest magnet for illegal immigration. We are intensifying
worksite enforcement by the INS and the Department of Labor. We support work authorization
verification and are presently recruiting and training employers in California to participate in an
expanded telephone verification system. We have taken steps to make INS immigration cards more
fraud-resistant. We have asked Congress for more investigators and enforcement personnel to bolster
the deterrence effect of effective worksite enforcement.
Deportations: We are increasing deportations, especially of criminal aliens. The number of criminal
aliens removed from the U.S. increased by 17.6% in 1994 over 1992 levels. This has resulted from
stepped up vigilance in identification, detention, and deportation of criminal aliens rather than just letting
them back into our communities at the end of their sentences, which is what happened in the past. For
example, we conducted a pilot at L.A. County Jail to identify and deport criminal aliens. Under this
program, INS officers staff the release lines at the jail 24 hours a day, seven days a week to ensure that
deportable aliens are taken into Federal custody to be deported rather than released out into the streets.
We are looking to expand this effort in L.A. and elsewhere.
Some people have expressed concern about a national work registry. Please expand on your view on this.
We need to find an effective, non-discriminatory way to verify employment authorization of all new
employees. I fully support the recommendation of the Commission on Immigration Reform, chaired by
former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan, to test different ways to do this, including use of the Social
Security and INS databases.
In fact, we're not waiting for Congress to act in this area, we are right now recruiting and training
employers in the Los Angeles area to participate in a telephone verification system with the INS.
Let me add, however, that we are absolutely committed to protecting privacy and civil rights. The
Administration will develop pilots carefully, building in safeguards against the invasion of privacy and
discrimination. All employers will be instructed as to the laws against discrimination as well as the
verification requirements. We will also monitor these pilots closely for evidence of discriminatory action.
What is the Administration doing about the terrible El Monte, CA sweatshop slavery situation?
First, we are prosecuting those involved.
More generally, we are increasing our work in this area and will be vigilant in shutting down these
sweatshops. The INS, with other agencies, has significantly increased anti-smuggling efforts to reduce the
ability of these criminals to bring smuggled workers into the country.
For example, prosecution of antismuggling cases rose 24 percent in July 1995 over July 1994. Secretary
Reich has been working with the garment industry to make that industry and their retailers more accountable
for preventing this type of abuse.
You opposed prop. 187. Do you favor benefits for illegal aliens?
No, except public health and safety and a child's constitutional right to an education.
Some are proposing a new guestworker program -- What is your position on this?
I oppose a guestworker or "bracero-type" program because it will lead to increased illegal immigration,
depressed wages and work standards for citizens and legal immigrants already in this country.
Applications for citizenship have increased dramatically ( 78% during first 10 months of '95 compared to
the same period of '94) and waiting periods for processing those applications are very long. What are you
doing about it?
We want to encourage and help immigrants who qualify and who want to become citizens to do so as
quickly as possible. Streamlining and promoting citizenship are priorities of the INS and it is dedicating
more personnel and resources to addressing this problem.
INS has just announced a new initiative, Citizenship USA, to ensure that by the summer of 1996, eligible
persons applying for citizenship can be accepted within six months.
Just last month, Commissioner Doris Meissner announced that Los Angeles will be the first site for this
nationwide initiative. We'll be doing this by increasing staff levels, expanding facilities, using new
technology, streamlining procedures, and forging new and better partnerships with community organizations.
Perhaps too often we allow ourselves to take for granted what U.S. citizenship means. One need only
attend a naturalization ceremony and observe the depth of the pride and hope of our newest citizens to be
reminded of how fortunate we are to be Americans.
What do you think about the apparent undercurrent of anti-immigrant feelings in the country?
Some are trying to use immigration, like affirmative action, to drive a wedge in this country. This is wrong
and we must fight "immigrant-bashing." We need to examine our immigration policies in the same factual,
nonpolitical way that we tried to do with affirmative action.
We need to crack down as hard as possible on illegal immigration, but we must not allow immigration to
become a wedge.
What is your view on legal immigration reform?
I have always said that while we must crack down on illegal immigration -- because we are a nation of
laws -- we are also a nation of immigrants. Nearly all of us can trace our roots beyond the shores of this
country, and we have a historic commitment to immigration.
I support the recommendations of Barbara Jordan's Commission on Immigration Reform as the framework
for Congress to consider for legal immigration reform. The Commission has recommended moderate
reduction in the level of legal immigration and gives high priority to reunifying Americans with their close
family members. I share this view.
Legal immigration reform must be based upon principles that are pro-family, pro-work, and pro-
naturalization. My Administration anticipates working with Congress in a spirit of bipartisanship to craft the
details of the specific legislation that will put these principles into practice. We must not let this issue
become divisive in this country.
LINE ITEM Q/As
Domestic Policy Council: Paul Weinstein, 65577
Q:
Mr. President, why are Republicans backing away from passing the line-item veto and
why aren't you more vocal about the dwindling prospects for getting the line-item veto
power you have so long demanded. Isn't this just Washington as usual?
A:
I have actively sought passage of the line-item veto. Since my January 5 letter to
Congressional leaders, I have called on Congress on at least 17 different occasions to pass
line-item veto authority so that I can start cutting pork out of the budget this year.
The American people have waited long enough for the line-item veto.
Congress should stop the delaying tactics, stop playing politics, and pass the
line-item veto now.
This is not a partisan issue, Presidents Reagan and Bush asked Congress for
the line-item veto time and again. It was part of the "Republican Contract
with America" and my book "Putting People First." It has strong support from
Members of Congress in both parties and both houses. No matter what party
the President belongs to or what party has a majority in Congress, the line-
item veto would be good for America.
TEEN PREGNANCY Q/As (1)
Domestic Policy Council: Janet Abrams, 62857
Teen Pregnancy Prevention Qs & As for President Clinton*
What progress has the Administration made in forming the "national campaign against teen pregnancy"
which President Clinton called for in January?
In this year's State of the Union Address, I urged leaders from all sectors of society to join in a national
campaign to prevent teen pregnancy. The epidemic of teen pregnancy -- with more than 1 million girls
under age 20 becoming pregnant each year -- is one of this nation's most serious social problems.
Government has an important role to play in addressing this dilemma, but the public sector cannot solve the
problem alone. The talents and energy of the private sector must be brought to bear in addressing this
complex dilemma affecting America's young people.
I believe we need a national campaign that sends a clear message: It is wrong to have a child outside
marriage. Nobody should get pregnant or father a child who isn't prepared to raise the child, love the child,
and take responsibility for the child's future.
Since January, the Administration has worked in partnership with a group of concerned citizens to lay out a
practical vision for a private-sector campaign. A framework has been developed for a national independent,
bipartisan organization which will catalyze and support a sustained effort to reduce the incidence of teen
pregnancy in the U.S.
In September, I will meet with selected individuals from the private sector from the business, religious,
education, health care, media, and foundation communities -- to explore opportunities for launching the
national campaign.
What will this new private-sector organization do?
The specific agenda of the organization will be determined by its leadership. The new group will not
impose any top-down solutions. Rather, it will encourage local communities to forge their own approaches
to teen pregnancy prevention consistent with their values and experience. A major role of the organization
will be to discover, disseminate, and celebrate what is working in teen pregnancy prevention. Right now,
while many local efforts show great promise, information on what works in fragmented.
Activities of the new group are likely to include:
spearheading a national grassroots campaign to make teen pregnancy prevention a priority in every
community;
launching a long-term, multi-dimensional media campaign to encourage and reinforce local efforts and
instill a new ethic of responsible patenting;
maintaining an accessible national database of teen pregnancy prevention programs and providing better
opportunities for those active in the field to learn from one another;
supporting the comprehensive evaluation of promising programs and other research as needed;
seeking to be the most credible, independent resource available to anyone interested in preventing teen
pregnancy and providing training, conferences, newsletters, briefings, and speakers.
What will Dr. Henry Foster's role with the Administration and this new organization be?
No specific role has been decided on as yet. I hope to make an announcement about Dr. Foster in the
coming weeks.
Dr. Foster has worked tirelessly over his 38-year career in medicine to reduce the incidence of teen
pregnancy. He has counseled young people without other role models that they should not have sex before
marriage, that they should stay off drugs, and that they should stay in school and make the most of their
lives.
Why has it taken so long to organize the private-sector campaign?
Outreach has been made to dozens of prominent citizens -- experts in the field of teen pregnancy, leaders
of the business, foundation, and religious communities. These consultations have been essential. We're
approaching this very complicated problem in a serious, careful manner -- we don't want a band-aid
solution.
What else has the Administration done to address the problem of teen pregnancy?
The private-sector initiative is intended to complement and enhance government initiatives supported by the
Administration. The range of Administration efforts related to teen pregnancy includes:
numerous service and research programs in teen pregnancy prevention within the Department
of Health and Human Services
In 1993, President Clinton lifted the "gag rule," enabling non-directive options counselling in
federally supported family planning clinics.
The Administration has supported increases in funding for family planning services. In FY92,
$149 million was spent on family planning. Current funding is $193 million, and the Clinton
budget request for FY96 is $199 million.
HHS provides grants to organizations across the country to support local teen pregnancy
prevention efforts and to evaluate strategies for effectiveness.
programs across several agencies to promote youth development and address various risk
factors associated with teen pregnancy
current and proposed welfare reform measures to provide young men and women with
incentives to delay parenthood until they are married and able to support their children.
President Clinton's welfare reform package includes the following provisions:
Teen mothers on welfare would be required to live at home with their parents, stay in school,
identify the father, and move into employment within a limited period of time.
Tough new child support laws would be strictly enforced so that prospective teen fathers
would know they had to provide child support for the next 18 years. (In 1993, the
Administration collected a record $9 billion in child support, a 12% increase over the
previous year.)
States would have flexibility to try innovative ways to encourage responsible behavior, such
as rewarding teen recipients who make progress in school and sanctioning those who drop
out.
a comprehensive attack on background economic and social factors contributing to rising teen
pregnancy rates, including poverty, unequal educational opportunity, and disinvestment in
distressed urban and rural communities
Lifelong Learning Initiatives -- Pre-School and Patenting; Goals 2000; School-to-Work;
National Service; Training and Reemployment
Rewarding Work for Working Families -- Earned Income Tax Credit; Minimum Wage
Increase; Family and Medical Leave
Community Empowerment -- Empowerment Zones/Enterprise Communities; Community
Development Banking
TEEN PREGNANCY Q/As (2)
Domestic Policy Council: Janet Abrams, 62857
Teen Pregnancy Prevention Qs & As for Mike McCurry*
What progress has the Administration made in forming the "national campaign against teen pregnancy"
which President Clinton called for in January?
In this year's State of the Union Address, President Clinton urged leaders from all sectors of society to join
in a national campaign to prevent teen pregnancy. He called the epidemic of teen pregnancy -- with more
than 1 million girls under age 20 becoming pregnant each year "our most serious social problem." Mr.
Clinton stated that while government has an important role to play in addressing this dilemma, the public
sector cannot solve the problem alone. He urged that a national campaign be organized and conducted from
the private sector.
The President spoke out again in March in a speech to the National Association of County Officials. He
said: "We need a national campaign that sends a clear message: It is wrong to have a child outside
marriage. Nobody should get pregnant or father a child who isn't prepared to raise the child, love the child,
and take responsibility for the child's future."
Since January, the Clinton Administration has worked in partnership with a small group of concerned
citizens to lay out a practical vision for the proposed private-sector initiative. Broad consultations have
been held with individuals across the country who are engaged in teen pregnancy prevention efforts and
with prominent individuals in the business, religious, and foundation communities. Guided by these
discussions, a framework has been developed for a national independent, bipartisan organization which will
catalyze and support a sustained effort to reduce the incidence of teen pregnancy in the U.S.
In September, President Clinton will meet with selected individuals from the private sector to explore
opportunities for launching the national campaign.
What will this new private-sector organization do?
The specific agenda of the organization will be determined by its leadership. As envisioned by the
President, the new group will not impose any top-down solutions. Rather, it will encourage local
communities to forge their own approaches to teen pregnancy prevention consistent with their values and
experience. A major role of the organization will be to discover, disseminate, and celebrate what is working
in teen pregnancy prevention. Right now, while many local efforts show great promise, information on
what works in fragmented.
Activities of the new group are likely to include:
spearheading a national grassroots campaign to make teen pregnancy prevention a priority in every
community;
launching a long-term, multi-dimensional media campaign to encourage and reinforce local efforts and
instill a new ethic of responsible patenting;
maintaining an accessible national database of teen pregnancy prevention programs and providing better
opportunities for those already active in the field to learn from one another;
supporting the comprehensive evaluation of promising programs and other research as needed;
seeking to be the most credible, independent resource available to anyone interested in preventing teen
pregnancy and providing training, conferences, newsletters, briefings, and speakers.
What will Dr. Henry Foster's role with the Administration and this new organization be?
No specific role has been determined. There may be an announcement in the coming weeks.
Why has it taken so long to organize the private-sector campaign?
Outreach has been made to dozens of prominent citizens -- experts in the field of teen pregnancy, leaders
of the business, foundation, and religious communities. These consultations have been essential. We're
approaching this very complicated problem in a serious, careful manner we don't want a band-aid
solution. The President's aim is to make a significant contribution to the future of America with this effort.
What else has the Administration done to address the problem of teen pregnancy?
The private-sector initiative is intended to complement and enhance government initiatives supported by the
Administration. The range of Administration efforts related to teen pregnancy includes:
numerous service and research programs in teen pregnancy prevention within the Department
of Health and Human Services
In 1993, President Clinton lifted the "gag rule," enabling non-directive options counselling in
federally supported family planning clinics.
The Administration has supported increases in funding for family planning services. In FY92,
$149 million was spent on family planning. Current funding is $193 million, and the Clinton
budget request for FY96 is $199 million.
HHS provides grants to organizations across the country to support local teen pregnancy
prevention efforts and to evaluate strategies for effectiveness.
programs across several agencies to promote youth development and address various risk
factors associated with teen pregnancy
current and proposed welfare reform measures to provide young men and women with
incentives to delay parenthood until they are married and able to support their children.
President Clinton's welfare reform package includes the following provisions:
Teen mothers on welfare would be required to live at home with their parents, stay in school,
identify the father, and move into employment within a limited period of time.
Tough new child support laws would be strictly enforced so that prospective teen fathers
would know they had to provide child support for the next 18 years. (In 1993, the
Administration collected a record $9 billion in child support, a 12% increase over the
previous year.)
States would have flexibility to try innovative ways to encourage responsible behavior, such
as rewarding teen recipients who make progress in school and sanctioning those who drop
out.
a comprehensive attack on background economic and social factors contributing to rising teen
pregnancy rates, including poverty, unequal educational opportunity, and disinvestment in
distressed urban and rural communities
Lifelong Learning Initiatives -- Pre-School and Patenting; Goals 2000; School-to-Work;
National Service; Training and Reemployment
Rewarding Work for Working Families -- Earned Income Tax Credit; Minimum Wage
Increase; Family and Medical Leave
Community Empowerment -- Empowerment Zones/Enterprise Communities; Community
Development Banking