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
34429222
label
Todd [Stern]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
34429222
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Todd [Stern]
citationUrl
collections
Records of the First Lady's Office (Clinton Administration)
Jennifer Klein's Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
34429222
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-7422560-20140536S-049-012-2016
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
3c5287cf5f3c1ca9
ocrText
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
SUBJECT/TITLE
DATE
RESTRICTION
AND TYPE
001. letter
Jim Weill to Jennifer Klein (personal) (1 page)
12/18/1995
Personal Misfile
002. form
SF 50, Klein, Jennifer (1 page)
05/07/1997
b(6)
COLLECTION:
Clinton Presidential Records
Office of the First Lady
Jennifer Klein
OA/Box Number: 12507
FOLDER TITLE:
Todd [Stern]
2014-0536-S
kc1345
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - 144 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - 15 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
b(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office |(a)(2) of the PRA)
h(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
an agency |(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute |(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information |(a)(4) of the PRA]
b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information |(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors. or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA
b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy |(a)(6) of the PRA
b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes |(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
of gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
b(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
2201(3).
concerning wells |(b)(9) of the FOIA]
RR. Document will be reviewed upon request.
Todd Stern
11/17/97 09:53:06
AM
Record Type:
Record
To:
Jennifer L. Klein/OPD/EOP
CC:
Subject: adoption
Big NYT article on adoption today saying the bill represents "the most sweeping changes to the
nation's adoption and foster-care system in two decades." It wouldn't have happened without you,
so if you can step back for a moment from the frustrations of having too many competing demands
on you, the frustrations of missing out on some of the action you'd like to be a part of, and the
general frustrations of work here, you should feel very proud. And you should think, from time to
time, about the children who will never know the role you played but will have better and less
painful lives because of what you and the others who worked with you did. Nice work, sweetie.
me
TODD STERN
2011 Hillyer Place, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20009
(202) 265-8398 (h)
(202) 456-2702 (o)
WORK EXPERIENCE
THE WHITE HOUSE January 1993 - Present
Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Staff Secretary
Manage and control paper flow to the President; special legal and political assignments.
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE June 1990 - January 1993
Senior Counsel to Senator Patrick Leahy -- Technology and Law Subcommittee.
Responsibilities included telecommunications; trade; intellectual property; antitrust; Supreme Court
nominations; foreign aid; speechwriting.
PODESTA ASSOCIATES Washington, D.C. 1989-1990
Vice President -- Media and public affairs; campaign consulting; government relations.
ASSOCIATED MILLS/POLLENEX Chicago; New York 1985-1987
General Counsel -- Supervised litigation and general corporate matters.
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON New York 1979-1985
Associate -- General litigation including antitrust, securities, libel, intellectual property.
LEGAL AID SOCIETY -- Criminal Appeals Bureau New York 1977-1979
Staff Attorney -- Wrote and argued appeals in state and federal courts.
CAMPAIGN EXPERIENCE
CLINTON/GORE
Campaign -- Prepared materials for domestic policy briefing book for presidential debates.
Transition -- Prepared memos on potential cabinet appointees; Justice Department cluster.
DUKAKIS/BENTSEN
General Election -- Deputy Research Director
Primaries -- New York Issues Director
EDUCATION
HARVARD LAW SCHOOL
J.D. Cum Laude, 1977
DARTMOUTH COLLEGE
B.A. Summa Cum Laude, 1973
Phi Beta Kappa
LANGUAGE
French
To:
Don Baer
Michael Waldman
Fr:
Todd Stern
Re:
State of the Union
Da:
December 29, 1995
A few unsolicited thoughts about the structure of the State of the Union.
Message
Structure and content should be driven by the implicit messages we wish to send. I'd
define them as follows: (i) President as moderate alternative between extremes of left and
right; (ii) President as leader; (iii) President on the side of ordinary Americans rather
than the wealthy or special interests; (iv) President as healer who can help us find common
ground; (v) President having the energy and vision to lead this country toward a new
century (as Dole cannot).
Incidentally, I don't think a speech of the kind Benjamin Barber suggests, explicitly
constructed around the concept of leadership, is a good idea. It would sound forced. Best
way for President to appear as a leader is to talk about what he has done rather than about
leadership, and to speak in strong, declarative sentences.
Structure
I would organize the speech in three basic parts: (I) introduction, starting with a nod
toward troops in Bosnia, laying out a roadmap of where the speech is going, and then
pausing -- briefly -- to take stock of how much we've accomplished so far; (II) a second
section built around the budget confrontation. We must address this early, with President
articulating what he believes is at stake -- his conception of government's role vs. GOP (and
distinguished from old-fashioned liberal); and (III) a third section on where we go from here
-- domestically (preparing for new century [education, technology, etc.]; increasing
wages/incomes; making our streets safer; community/values) and internationally.
1
I.
Introduction --Nod to troops/roadmap/where we've come
Troops. I'd follow Jeremy Rosner's advice with a nod to our troops in Bosnia. His
suggested language is excellent.
Roadmap. "The past few months have been a difficult and confusing period of
struggle over our budget. I want to discuss with you what that battle is/was really about,
and then talk about where we're going from here both at home and abroad.' (It's a great
help to the listener to say where you're going before you go there.)
Where we've come. 'But first, I want to take a brief look at where we've come. I
arrived in Washington three years ago dedicated to reviving our economy and ushering in a
new period of American renewal -- of economic growth, political reform, social progress and
leadership around the world. We have much yet to do, but let us not lose sight of how far
we have come. Economy strong with low interest rates, lowest combination of inflation and
unemployment in past X years. American companies most competitive in the world. Strong
in trade. Leader in technology. Federal government smallest in 30 years. Crime down.
Real political reform, with last big step to reform campaign finance. America as leader and
peacemaker on the world stage. A time of promise and a time of hope. No nation on earth
is in better shape than the United States to meet the new century.'
II.
The Budget Battle -- Role of Government
'For past several months, we have been engaged in struggle over the shape and nature
of our national budget. I know it seems to many people watching from outside Washington
like a confusing, perplexing debate over numbers and economic assumptions. But it is about
much more than that. It is about real people. And about what we expect from our national
government. Let's talk for a few moments about what's at stake in this budget fight.
Not about who wants balanced budget. 'First, let me tell you what the budget
battle was/is not about. Not about one side wanting a balanced budget and the other
opposing it. I came into office understanding how crucial it was to reduce the massive
budget deficits I inherited from my predecessors. And we did that. Three straight declining
budgets. Lowest budget deficit of any major industrial country. And last June, I put
forward a plan to balance the budget using real numbers -- no smoke and mirrors. Numbers
favored by the mainstream economists of Wall Street; even by the Wall Street Journal.
Not about who wants big government. 'Nor is the budget battle about one side
wanting big government and the other opposing it. During my three years, the number of
workers employed by the federal government has shrunk by nearly 200,000 workers. To a
level smaller than Bush. Or Reagan. Or Carter. Ford. Nixon. Johnson. To smallest level
since President Kennedy.
2
Different conceptions of role of government. 'What confrontation was/is about is
fundamentally different conceptions of role of federal government. There are three basic
models of what our government should do. On one side, the old-fashioned, liberal model
that searches for a government program, managed in Washington, to fix every problem. On
the other side, the minimal conception favored by many in the congressional majority, which
believes government should handle national defense and then, for the most part, get out of
the way. My view is different. I favor a middle way -- a government wise enough to
understand the challenges confronting us, vigorous enough to address those challenges
effectively, but smart enough to know its own limits.
Examples. [Then give examples from Medicare/Medicaid; education; technology; the
environment; crime. In each case on the pattern of: "a government dedicated to maintaining
Medicare and Medicaid for our elderly, our disabled and others in need, not one that wants
to slash those programs; a government committed to helping young people get a college
education through Direct Lending, not one that wants to eliminate government support for
education; a government that demands clean air and safe drinking water, not one that wants
to let companies that pollute off the hook; a government pledged to keep taxes down for our
working families, not one that wants to raise taxes on families making just $30,000 a year,
while cutting them for families making over $100,000, etc."]
'That is the kind of government I believe in. Not oversized. Not believing it has the
answer for every problem. But understanding that this country can only make progress, meet
its challenges, preserve God's green earth, and remain true to its historic mission of fairness
and justice if our national government remains engaged. That is what I believe in and, as
long as I remain President, that is what this government will do.'
III.
Where Do We Go From Here
'What then are the challenges we must meet as we go forward from this day?'
Domestic
Prepare for challenges of new era. First, prepare our nation for the economic
challenges of a new century and a new era. [Talk about education, technology, conditions
for investment such as low interest rates.]
Work to increase incomes of ordinary Americans. 'Second, commit ourselves to
tackling one of the central dilemmas of our time -- that the incomes of ordinary, working
Americans are not keeping pace with our overall economic growth. This is a bipartisan
problem that has persisted for 20 years through Republican and Democratic Administrations,
caused not so much by government policy as by changes in the global economy and the
nature of technology. But the bottom line is that average American workers -- the men and
women who work the day shifts and the night shifts, who wear blue collars and white collars
-- are not sharing as they should in this nation's wealth. Therefore, having put the nation's
economic house in order during the past three years, I intend to rededicate myself to
increasing the wages and incomes of ordinary Americans. [Use appropriate Reed proposals.]
3
"This is not an issue of labor VS. management or management vs. labor. We do best
as a people and as a nation when each of us shares fairly in this nation's bounty. We are all
in this together and must never forget that.'
Safety in our streets. Third, safe streets. [Any of Reed tough-on-crime proposals
that work.] Press for 100,000 cops. Blast away on efforts to repeal assault weapons ban.
Community/Values. Fourth, an area beyond government programs but not beyond
the scope of our national dialogue -- restoration of values and community.
Faith, discipline, hard work. First, reinvigorate the basic American values of faith,
discipline [Taylor Branch's "favorite words"] and hard work. Opportunity and
responsibility. Children learning that there's no something for nothing. Criticize Hollywood
excess. Pro-marriage, anti-divorce (though I'd avoid calling on States to enact legislation, as
Galston recommends). Making abortion rare. Fathers taking responsibility for children they
bring into world. Child support enforcement. Welfare -- tough work requirements. But
President couldn't sign bill that is too tough on kids and not tough enough on work. Perhaps
pick up "challenge" theme from Reed memo.
Common Ground. Listen to one another. Dialogue. This nation's glory and
greatness is its diversity. E Pluribus Unum. We must say no to the grisly murder of a black
couple by white racists on a military base in North Carolina. We must also say no to the
firebombing of a store in Harlem because the owner was white or Jewish. No to extremists
on all sides. Yes to our vital center. To reason and tolerance. To understanding. To
reaching out across races, ethnicities, religions, nationalities. A House Divided has never
been able to stand. Let us pledge -- not through government, but through families, churches,
synagogues and neighborhood organizations -- to finding common ground.
Foreign
A key section that should be strong and substantial, both because of Bosnia and as
surest way to project leadership. Talk of this as a pivotal year for American leadership
around the world. Bosnia, N. Korea, Haiti, Northern Ireland, Middle East. Emphasize
successes, but also challenges ahead. Obviously need serious discussion of Bosnia. And
position President on middle ground between isolationists and trying to solve all the world's
problems. I agree with Rosner on bipartisan nod to Dole and McCain. I am in general
agreement with Rosner's take on emphasizing the hard security challenges over the
humanitarian, addressing the audience that we need to convince, not the one already with us.
V.
Conclusion. Strong, upbeat, dynamic. And short.
4
[Note: If budget battle is still unresolved, and particularly if we're still in a shutdown mode,
we could wack them hard on their strongarm tactics. No way for serious representatives of
the American people to behave. Hurting real people. Time for adult leadership. Etc., etc.]
5
TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:
I am returning herewith without my approval H.R. 1058,
the "Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995." This
legislation is designed to reform portions of the Federal
securities laws to end frivolous lawsuits and to ensure that
investors receive the best possible information by reducing
the litigation risk to companies that make forward-looking
statements.
I support those goals. Indeed, I made clear my willingness
to support the bill passed by the Senate with appropriate "safe
harbor" language, even though it did not include certain
provisions that I favor -- such as enhanced provisions with
respect to joint and several liability, aider and abettor
liability, and statute of limitations.
I am not, however, willing to sign legislation that will
have the effect of closing the courthouse door on investors who
have legitimate claims. Those who are the victims of fraud
should have recourse in our courts. Unfortunately, changes
made in this bill during conference could well prevent that.
This country is blessed by strong and vibrant markets and
I believe that they function best when corporations can raise
capital by providing investors with their best good-faith
assessment of future prospects, without fear of costly,
unwarranted litigation. But I also know that our markets are as
strong and effective as they are because they operate - - and are
seen to operate with integrity. I believe that this bill, as
modified in conference, could erode this crucial basis of our
markets' strength.
Specifically, I object to the following elements of this
bill. First, I believe that the pleading requirements of the
Conference Report with regard to a defendant's state of mind
impose an unacceptable procedural hurdle to meritorious claims
being heard in Federal courts. I am prepared to support the
2
high pleading standard of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit the highest pleading standard of any Federal
circuit court. But the conferees make crystal clear in the
Statement of Managers their intent to raise the standard even
beyond that level. I am not prepared to accept that.
The conferees deleted an amendment offered by Senator
Specter and adopted by the Senate that specifically incorporated
Second Circuit case law with respect to pleading a claim of
fraud. Then they specifically indicated that they were not
adopting Second Circuit case law but instead intended to
"strengthen" the existing pleading requirements of the Second
Circuit. All this shows that the conferees meant to erect a
higher barrier to bringing suit than any now existing one
so high that even the most aggrieved investors with the most
painful losses may get tossed out of court before they have a
chance to prove their case.
Second, while I support the language of the Conference
Report providing a "safe harbor" for companies that include
meaningful cautionary statements in their projections of
earnings, the Statement of Managers which will be used by
courts as a guide to the intent of the Congress with regard to
the meaning of the bill attempts to weaken the cautionary
language that the bill itself requires. Once again, the end
result may be that investors find their legitimate claims
unfairly dismissed.
Third, the Conference Report's Rule 11 provision lacks
balance, treating plaintiffs more harshly than defendants in a
manner that comes too close to the "loser pays" standard I
oppose.
I want to sign a good bill and I am prepared to do exactly
that if the Congress will make the following changes to this
legislation: first, adopt the Second Circuit pleading standards
and reinsert the Specter amendment into the bill. I will
support a bill that submits all plaintiffs to the tough pleading
3
standards of the Second Circuit, but I am not prepared to go
beyond that. Second, remove the language in the Statement of
Managers that waters down the nature of the cautionary language
that must be included to make the safe harbor safe. Third,
restore the Rule 11 language to that of the Senate bill.
While it is true that innocent companies are hurt by
frivolous lawsuits and that valuable information may be withheld
from investors when companies fear the risk of such suits, it is
also true that there are innocent investors who are defrauded
and who are able to recover their losses only because they can
go to court. It is appropriate to change the law to ensure that
companies can make reasonable statements and future projections
without getting sued every time earnings turn out to be lower
than expected or stock prices drop. But it is not appropriate
to erect procedural barriers that will keep wrongly injured
persons from having their day in court.
I ask the Congress to send me a bill promptly that will
put an end to litigation abuses while still protecting the
legitimate rights of ordinary investors. I will sign such a
bill as soon as it reaches my desk.
William J. Clinten
THE WHITE HOUSE,
December 19, 1995.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 22, 1995
To: Leon Panetta
George Stephanopoulos
Gene Sperling
Don Baer
Michael Waldman
Fr: Todd Sternpo
Re: Budget message
Along the lines of the point I made at the meeting this
morning, I think the President could say something like this
today (assuming House goes out and we get no CR) :
My Administration and the Republicans in Congress are both
trying to achieve a balanced budget. They have one view of
how to try to do that. I have a different view. But there
is no question that the task before us is to try to
negotiate an agreement.
I have been trying in good faith to do that. I have talked
with the Republican leadership on numerous occasions and
have met with them twice in this week, including several
hours Tuesday and several hours today. Our staffs met
yesterday for most of the day. I have offered several
proposals designed to try to bridge the gap between us.
Let me also say that I do not doubt the sincerity of the
Republicans in the House or Senate. I understand that they
have strongly held views. I disagree with them and I have
strongly held views of my own. But I accept that we have
honest differences.
What I cannot understand and cannot accept is their refusal
to allow this government to open while we negotiate. Let
there be no mistake -- the closure of our government is
causing real pain to real people at the cruelest possible
time -- during the Christmas season.
I am not just talking about the thousands of families who
cannot visit our nation's great monuments and museums --
though the disappointment of so many who have come to
Washington over the holidays for just that reason is real
enough. But I am talking most of all about our nation's
veterans who very soon will have to go without benefit
checks. I am talking about mothers in poverty who won't get
the checks they need to buy food for their children or pay
rent.
And I cannot understand how Republicans in Congress can vote
to leave town and go home for a Christmas recess while these
and so many other people who depend on our government are
left in the lurch. It is wrong.
Of course I know that there are many Republicans in Congress
who do not agree with these tactics. Who are prepared to do
the right thing, open the government, and then -- with the
government open -- negotiate like responsible adults.
Unfortunately, there are too many others who prefer to use
strong-arm tactics no matter who it hurts.
Their position is that they will open up the government and
allow checks to be sent to our veterans and neediest
citizens only if I accept their way of achieving a balanced
budget. This is no way for serious representatives of the
American people to behave. It is irresponsible.
Let me be clear: I am not making any comparable demand. My
position is simple. We have disagreements. Let's try to
work them out. But as we do that, let us not hold our
veterans, needy mothers and children hostage.
Whether the Republicans in Congress like it or not, neither
the Congress nor the President can act alone in our system.
We must work together. There is no other choice.
Thus, the question before us right now is not whose view on
balancing the budget is right and whose view is wrong. The
question is not about whether I agree with their proposal or
they agree with mine. There will be plenty of time to
discuss our opposing views at the bargaining table. The
question before us now is whether it is right to make
innocent Americans pay while we try to settle our
differences. It is not.
So I call on Republicans in Congress to put aside the demand
that says "it must be our way or no way. Let the
government open. Let the checks go out in this Christmas
season to our veterans and our hungry children. And then
let us work together at the bargaining table to try to reach
common ground. That is our job as elected officials.
It is time for responsible leadership.
Withdrawal/Redaction Marker
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
SUBJECT/TITLE
DATE
RESTRICTION
AND TYPE
001. letter
Jim Weill to Jennifer Klein (personal) (1 page)
12/18/1995
Personal Misfile
COLLECTION:
Clinton Presidential Records
Office of the First Lady
Jennifer Klein
OA/Box Number: 12507
FOLDER TITLE:
Todd [Stern]
2014-0536-S
kc1345
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - 15 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
b(1) National security classified information |(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office |(a)(2) of the PRA]
b(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information |(a)(4) of the PRA
b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information |(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors. or between such advisors |a)(5) of the PRA|
b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy |(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
of gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
b(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
2201(3).
concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]
RR. Document will be reviewed upon request.
Withdrawal/Redaction Marker
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
SUBJECT/TITLE
DATE
RESTRICTION
AND TYPE
002. form
SF 50, Klein, Jennifer (1 page)
05/07/1997
b(6)
COLLECTION:
Clinton Presidential Records
Office of the First Lady
Jennifer Klein
OA/Box Number: 12507
FOLDER TITLE:
Todd [Stern]
2014-0536-S
kc1345
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - |44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - 15 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P1 National Security Classified Information |(a)(1) of the PRA]
b(1) National security classified information |(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office |(a)(2) of the PRA]
b(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
an agency |(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute |(b)(3) of the FOIAJ
financial information |(a)(4) of the PRA|
b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors. or between such advisors |a)(5) of the PRAJ
b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA)
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
of gift.
financial institutions |(b)(8) of the FOIA]
PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
b(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
2201(3).
concerning wells |(b)(9) of the FOIA]
RR. Document will be reviewed upon request.