Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "135839070",
    "label": "JGR/Presidential Remarks, [Statements, & Addresses] (02/19/1986-02/24/1986)",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/135839070"
}

{
    "id": "135839070",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/135839070",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "JGR/Presidential Remarks, [Statements, & Addresses] (02/19/1986-02/24/1986)",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/135839070",
    "identifierLocal": "485",
    "collections": [
        "Records of the Office of Counsel to the President (Reagan Administration)",
        "John Roberts' Subject Files"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/6908381/40-485-6908381-042-004-2017.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/6908381/40-485-6908381-042-004-2017.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/6908381/40-485-6908381-042-004-2017.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/135839070",
    "naId": 135839070,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1986-12-31",
        "year": 1986
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1982-01-01",
        "year": 1982
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/6908381/40-485-6908381-042-004-2017.pdf",
    "mediaId": "84615ed83f1746cc",
    "ocrText": "Ronald Reagan Presidential Library\nDigital Library Collections\nThis is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.\nCollection: Roberts, John G.: Files\nFolder Title: JGR/Presidential Remarks,\n[Statements, & Addresses] (02/19/1986-02/24/1986)\nBox: 42\nTo see more digitized collections visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library\nTo see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection\nContact a reference archivist at: [email protected]\nCitation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing\nNational Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nFebruary 19, 1986\nMEMORANDUM FOR BEN ELLIOTT\nDEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND\nDIRECTOR OF SPEECHWRITING\nFROM:\nASSOCIATE COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT\nJOHN G. ROBERTS Jon\nSUBJECT:\nPresidential Remarks: Peace\nand National Security\nCounsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced Presidential\nremarks and finds no objection to them from a legal perspective.\nCC: David L. Chew\nID #.\nCU\nWHITE HOUSE\nCORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET\n0 OUTGOING\nH INTERNAL\nI INCOMING\nDate Correspondence\nReceived (YY/MM/DD)\n/\n/\nName of Correspondent:\nHave Chew\nMI Mail Report\nUser Codes: (A)\n(B)\n(C)\nSubject: Presidential remarks: Peace and\nnational Security\nROUTE TO:\nACTION\nDISPOSITION\nTracking\nType\nCompletion\nAction\nDate\nof\nDate\nOffice/Agency\n(Staff Name)\nCode\nYY/MM/DD\nResponse\nCode\nYY/MM/DD\nCUHOLL\nORIGINATOR 86,02,19\n/ /\nReferral Note:\ncuat 18\nR\n86,02,19\n5 86,02,19\nReferral Note:\n10am\n/ /\n/ /\nReferral Note:\n/ /\n/ /\nReferral Note:\n/ /\n/ /\nReferral Note:\nACTION CODES:\nDISPOSITION CODES:\nA Appropriate Action\n1. Info Copy Only/No Action Necessary\nA Answered\nC Completed\nC - Comment/Recommendation\nR Direct Reply w/Copy\nB Non-Special Referral\nS Suspended\nD Draft Response\nS For Signature\nF Furnish Fact Sheet\nX Interim Reply\nto be used as Enclosure\nFOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE:\nType of Response = Initials of Signer\nCode = \"A\"\nCompletion Date = Date of Outgoing\nComments:\nExtreme clase hald\nKeep this worksheet attached to the original incoming letter.\nSend all routing updates to Central Reference (Room 75, OEOB).\nAlways return completed correspondence record to Central Files.\nRefer questions about the correspondence tracking system to Central Reference, ext. 2590.\n5/81\nEXTREME CLOSE HOLD\nDocument No.\nWHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM\nDATE: 2/18/86\nACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY: Wed. 2/19/86, 10:00 am\nSUBJECT: PRESIDENTIAL REMARKS: PEACE AND NATIONAL SECURITY\n(2/18 - 7:00 pm draft)\nACTION FYI\nACTION FYI\nVICE PRESIDENT\nOGLESBY\nREGAN\nPOINDEXTER\nMILLER\nRYAN\nBUCHANAN\nSPEAKES\nCHAVEZ\nSPRINKEL\nCHEW\nP\nSS STEELMAN\nDANIELS\nSVAHN\nFIELDING\nTHOMAS\nHENKEL\nTUTTLE\nHICKS\nELLIOTT\nKINGON\nLACY\nREMARKS:\nAttached is a revised draft of the President's remarks on peace and\nnational security. Please comment to Ben Elliott by 10:00 a.m.\ntomorrow with an info copy tomorrow. We expect to forward it to\nthe President tomorrow afternoon.\nRESPONSE:\nDavid L. Chew\nStaff Secretary\nExt. 2702\n(Elliott/Noonan/Buchanan)\nFebruary 18, 1986\n7:00 p.m.\nPRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS: PEACE AND NATIONAL SECURITY\nWEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 1986\nMy fellow Americans, I want to speak to you this evening\nabout our deep hopes for peace and the great responsibility we\nshare to build a strong, lasting peace -- by protecting our\nindependence, our freedom, and this American way of life we hold\ndear.\nWe know that peace is God's will, the condition under which\nmankind was meant to flourish. Yet, peace is passive; it does\nnot exist of its own will. Ultimately, peace depends on us -- on\nour courage to build it and guard it and pass it on to succeeding\ngenerations.\nForty-one years ago, U.S. marines stormed the island of\nIwo Jima in one of the bloodiest battles of World War II. How\nmany of those brave men, and others throughout that long,\nterrible war might have been spared, if only good people had\nresponded to the first tremors of danger with more than a resort\nto the delusions of blind and innocent trust?\nGeorge Washington's words may seem hard and cold today, but\nhistory has proven them right again and again: \"To be prepared\nfor war,\" he said, is among \"the most effective means of\npreserving peace.\"\nTo those who insist that strength provokes conflict, Will\nRogers had his own answer: \"I've never seen anyone insult Jack\nDempsey,\" he said.\nPage 2\nThat's why our program for peace depends on a strong\nAmerica. That's why the past 5 years have shown that American\nstrength is once again a sheltering arm for freedom and security\nin a dangerous world.\nIn a moment, I'm going to give you a clear but stark\nportrait of the threat we face. I want to make it clear why any\nslackening of our defense effort in today's world would invite\nthe very risks, the very dangers America can and must avoid.\nBut first, let me report to you on what we've done so far.\nWhen we arrived in Washington back in 1981, I couldn't help\nrecalling a quip John Kennedy made -- that what surprised him\nmost when he came into the White House was finding that things\nwere really as bad as he'd been saying they were.\nWe need to remember why Americans 5 years ago were so\ntroubled by the state of the world:\nIt was not just the Iranian hostage crisis or the Soviet\ninvasion of Afghanistan, but the rejection of American aid,\nridiculed as \"peanuts,\" by Pakistan, the country most threatened\nby the invasion. Nations were saying that it was dangerous,\ndeadly dangerous, to be a friend of the United States.\nIt was not just years of declining defense spending, but a\ncrisis in recruitment and the outright cancellation of programs\nvital to our security. The Pentagon horror stories at the time\nweren't about $400 hammers -- more on that later -- but about\nflotillas of ships that couldn't sail, squadrons of planes that\ncouldn't fly, and army divisions unprepared to fight.\nPage 3\nAnd it was not just an arms control treaty flawed by\ninadequate verification and one-sided terms, but a treaty that\nactually endorsed steady increases in strategic forces. Even its\nsupporters were demoralized saying, well, it's the best we can\nhope for; the Soviets won't agree to anything better. And when\nPresident Carter had to withdraw SALT II because the leaders of\nhis own party like Henry Jackson and John Glenn wouldn't support\nit, the United States was left without a national strategy for\nthe control of nuclear weapons.\nWe need to recall the atmosphere of that time -- the anxiety\nthat events were out of control, the fears that the West was in\ninexorable decline, that our enemies were on the march, that we\nhad few ways to constrain them or avoid the dangerous\nconfrontations that loomed ahead.\nWe knew immediate changes had to be made. So here's what we\ndid:\nWe set out to show that the long string of governments\nfalling under Soviet domination was going to stop. And we did\nit. In the 1970's, South Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Angola,\nEthiopia, Afghanistan, and Nicaragua all fell under the grip of\npro-Soviet dictatorships. In these last 5 years, not one square\ninch of territory has been lost and Grenada has been set free.\nEl Salvador is a case in point. When we arrived in 1981,\ncommunist guerillas in El Salvador were launching what they\ncalled their final offensive to convert that nation into the\nsecond communist state on the mainland of North America. Many\npeople said it was hopeless and didn't want to help El Salvador.\nPage 4\nWe didn't agree; we did help, and today the communists are on the\ndefensive. El Salvador is a democracy and freedom fighters are\nputting communism on the defensive in Nicaragua, Angola,\nCambodia, and Ethiopia.\nWe set out to show that the Western alliance could meet its\ndefense needs, despite Soviet intimidation. And we did it. Many\nsaid that to try to counter the Soviet SS-20 missiles would split\nNATO because Europe no longer believed in defending itself.\nWell, that was nonsense. Today, Pershing and cruise deployments\nare on course under an alliance-wide agreement.\nWe set out to reverse the decline in morale in our Armed\nForces. And we did it. Pride in our Armed Forces has been\nrestored. More and more qualified men and women want to join --\nand remain in -- the military. In 1980, only 54 percent of the\nArmy's recruits were high school graduates; last year, 91 percent\nhad high school degrees.\nOur Armed Forces may be smaller in size than in the 1950's,\nbut they're some of the finest young people this country has\nproduced. And as long as I'm President, the quality of the\nequipment they need to carry out their mission will remain\nsecond to none.\nWe set out to narrow the growing gaps in our strategic\ndeterrent caused by a decade of neglect. And we're beginning to\ndo that. Our modernization program begun in 1981 -- the MX, the\nTrident submarine, the B-1 bomber -- represents our first\nsignificant improvement in America's deterrent capabilities in\n20 years.\nPage 5\nThose who speak SO often about the so-called arms race\nignore a central fact: Until 1981, there was an arms race all\nright, but only the Soviets were racing.\nWe set out to control the ballooning costs of defense\nprograms. When I first came to office, I called waste and fraud\nin the Federal Government an unrelenting national scandal. That\nis why we appointed the first Inspector General in the history of\nthe Defense Department and appointed the Packard Commission to\nreview procurement policies in the department.\nWe knew we could never rebuild America's strength without\ncontrolling the growth in costs of new systems. And we did it.\nCosts were increasing at an annual rate of 14 percent in 1980.\nIn the last 2 years, costs have increased less than 1 percent.\nAn F-18 fighter costs $3 million less today. Our AIM-9L\nair-to-air missile costs barely half as much.\nWe've tried to make competitive bidding the rule. In 1981,\n26 percent of ship-building contracts were awarded competitively.\nToday, that figure is 90 percent.\nWell, you may be asking, what about those defense horror\nstories -- the $435 hammer, and other outrages. It is true that\nthe Defense Department paid $435 for a claw hammer. The error\nwas discovered by a Navy employee and the contractor refunded the\nprice. It's also true that the Defense Department bought 80,000\nhammers between $6 and $8 each.\nThe Defense Department each year deals with over 300,000\ncontractors. So an occasional bonafide horror story will turn up\ndespite the best efforts and intentions. The irony is that\nPage 6\nvirtually every case of blatant fraud or abuse, in which the\nmedia have reveled of late, has been uncovered by our own Defense\nDepartment, our own Inspector General. Secretary Weinberger\nshould be praised, not pilloried, for cleaning up the mess he\ninherited.\nFinally, we set out to do all we could to reduce the danger\nof nuclear war. Here, too, we're achieving what our critics said\ncouldn't be done. We've put forth a plan for deep reductions in\noffensive nuclear systems; and we're pushing forward highly\npromising research and testing on the Strategic Defense\nInitiative -- a security shield that may one day protect the\nworld from nuclear attack.\nOur message is getting through. The Soviets once said that\nreal reductions in offensive missiles were out of the question.\nNow they say they accept the idea that strategic forces must be\ncut back. Well, we shall see. One thing is certain: If the\nSoviets truly want a fair and verifiable agreement that reduces\nnuclear forces, we'll have an agreement.\nThis is a long list of accomplishments, and while I don't\nwant to boast about them, I am proud of what we've done. Our\ndefense problems 5 years ago were enormous: It was a true\nnational crisis, and anything less than drastic action would have\nbeen irresponsible.\nNow we're over the hump -- the biggest increases in defense\nspending are behind us. That's why last fall I agreed with\nCongress to freeze defense funding for 1 year, and after that to\nresume a modest 3-percent annual increase. Frankly, I hesitated\nPage 7\nto make this agreement because we still have far too much to do\nin restoring our strength to afford a freeze. But I thought that\ncongressional support for steady, modest increases was a step\nforward. Certainly if Congress had held up its end of the\nbargain, we would have had the kind of bipartisan consensus that\nis essential to continue our re-building.\nUnfortunately, this isn't what happened. Congress broke the\nbargain almost immediately. It had agreed to a freeze, but\ninstead, it imposed a sharp cut. Together with the additional\ncuts already required under Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, the effect has\nbeen to cut this year's defense funding by about 6 percent. And\nalthough the same Congress also agreed that we needed 3 percent\nreal growth in funding for next year, some are now saying that\nperhaps we need to carve another 20 or $30 billion out of\ndefense.\nThis is reckless, dangerous, and wrong. It's political\nbacksliding of the most irresponsible kind. You need to know\nabout it, because you are the ones who've paid for what we've\naccomplished over the past 5 years.\nThere are two very simple reasons not to cut defense now.\nOne, it's not cheap. Two, it's not safe. If we listen now to\nthose who want to forget about restoring our defenses, we can say\nright now what the result will be: We will increase both the\ndangers and the costs to our country -- and that means, to you.\nI said it wouldn't be cheap to cut. How can cutting not be\ncheap? Simple. We tried cutting in the seventies, and we saw\nPage 8\nwhat happened. In hopes of saving money, purchases were\nstretched out: fewer planes, fewer tanks, fewer ships per year.\nThe result was waste, on an enormous scale. Hundreds of\nmillions of dollars were wasted, because the cost of each plane\nand tank and ship went up, often way up. In the seventies we\nspent less on defense, but we got much less defense for it.\nThis will happen again if Congress does what some propose:\nThey say, let's cut now -- and catch up later. They say that\nbookkeeping tricks can save us money.\nThat's exactly the position we were in 5 years ago, when my\nAdministration took office. I have no intention of putting my\nsuccessor in that same position too. It's not fair to the next\nAdministration, and it's not fair to the American people.\nReal cuts only bring phony savings, but there's a more\nimportant reason that we must not cut our defense effort. It's\nnot safe.\nAll the reasons that we needed a restored national defense\nin 1981 are still there. We have closed the gap in annual\npurchases of military equipment, but we are still living with the\neffects of a decade in which that gap was huge. Remember that\nbetween 1970 and 1984, the Soviet Union invested $300 billion\nmore than we did in defense. With that extra money, they built\nthree times as many tanks, three times as many attack submarines,\nfive times as many intercontinental missiles, and forty-two times\nas many artillery pieces and rocket launchers!\nPage 9\nWe're gaining ground, but unless we continue to do what we\nhave to, the gap will open again. Certainly the Soviets aren't\nslowing down.\nFor example, we estimate that the Soviets will build 18,000\ntanks in the next 5 years. My budget provides for building\nof our new M-1 tanks. Can we afford to do less than this?\nIn the next 5 years, the Soviets will build 540 new\nintercontinental ballistic missiles. My budget provides for\nbuilding\n.\nShould we do even less than that?\nAnd in the next 5 years, the Soviets will add some\n50 submarines to their fleet of 300, and they'll add these subs\nto a fleet that is already three times as large as ours. The\nbudget I've submitted will enable us to build\nsubmarines.\nHow can those in the Congress who want to cut justify reopening\nthe gap between us and the Soviet Union?\nAlmost 25 years ago, when John Kennedy occupied this office\nduring the dramatic days of the Cuban missile crisis, he\ncommanded the greatest military power on Earth. Today we\nAmericans must live with a dangerous and demanding new reality.\nThrough a generation of costly building, year-in and year-out, at\nthe expense of its peoples' well-being, the Soviet leadership has\ngained military superiority in one category after another of\nmilitary power.\nBut it is not simply the enormous arsenal of weapons that\nthey have acquired that puts us on our guard. The long record of\nSoviet behavior -- its history of brutality toward those who are\nweaker -- tells us that the only guarantee of peace, security,\nPage 10\nand freedom is this: To maintain our military strength and our\nnational will.\nThe peoples of Afghanistan, of Czechoslovakia and Hungary,\nof Poland and the Baltic Republics, of more distant countries in\nAfrica and Central America -- they understand this. Few of them\nwould be able to understand how it can be that today we are\nspending a third less of our Gross National Product on defense\nthan we did under John Kennedy -- and yet some of us are talking\nabout further cuts.\nSome have been led to believe that our dialogue with the\nSoviets means we can treat our defense programs more casually.\nNothing could be further from the truth. It was our seriousness\nabout defense and about responding to Soviet intervention that\ncreated a climate in which serious talks could finally begin.\nStopping before the job is done will jeopardize all those gains.\nVacillation leads our enemies and our friends to\nmiscalculate our strength, misjudge our resolve, and mistake our\npurpose. That's why weakness is ultimately provocative.\nIf we are steady, however, we can be hopeful about the\nfuture. But we do not intend to stand pat or be complacent.\nFirst, we must be smart about what we build. No view could\nbe more mistaken than to believe we have to ape everything the\nSoviet Union does. To do so would lock us into a dismal\ncompetition on Soviet terms, one that reflected their advantages\nand they would be likely to win.\nThat's not what we intend to do. Our job is different:\nIt's to provide for our security by understanding -- and using --\nPage 11\nthe strengths of a free society. If we can think smart enough,\nwe don't have to think quite so big.\nWe don't have to increase the size of our forces from\n2 million to their 5 million -- as long as our military men and\nwomen have the tools they need to keep the peace. We don't have\nto have just as many tanks as the Soviets as long as we have\nenough sophisticated anti-tank weapons.\nCreativity is our edge, and where we have a technological\nedge we need to make the most of it. While it would not be\nappropriate to get into classified details, let me simply point\nout that advances in making airplanes and cruise missiles\ninvisible to Soviet radar could make immediately obsolete the\nvast and costly air defense systems upon which the Soviets and\ntheir client states depend.\nHowever, creativity is not enough if we don't follow up. My\nsuccessors won't be able to deter aggression with blueprints\nalone. We have to translate our lead in the lab to a lead in the\nfield. But when Congress cuts our budget, they make it harder to\ndo either.\nSecond, we need to realize that our security assistance\nprogram frequently gives us as much security for the dollar as\nour own defense budget. Military assistance to friends in\nstrategic parts of the world is not \"give-away\" aid, but part of\na careful plan to increase the capability of others who share our\nvalues and interests. When they are strong, we are strengthened.\nIt is in our interest to help increase their influence, help them\nmeet threats that would ultimately cause harm to ourselves, and\nPage 12\ngive them greater confidence to work for peaceful solutions in\ntheir own regions. Moreover, if American force ever did have to\nbe used abroad, our network of security assistance partners could\nprovide important and protected points of entry.\nThird, where defense reform is needed, we will pursue it\nrelentlessly. That is why I created the Packard Commission last\nJune. They will be reporting to me in the next few days. Their\nmandate has been to look at how we go about the business of\nproviding for our defense -- to go beyond improvements already\nmade by Secretary Weinberger in procurement and management. We\nare eager for good ideas. These are, after all, America's\nspecial genius. Wherever the Commission's recommendation point\nthe way to greater effectiveness, I will implement them, even if\nthey run counter to the will of the entrenched bureaucracies and\nspecial interests.\nI am committed to this goal because defense shouldn't cost a\npenny more than it has to. But using our advantages is not just\na matter of efficiency and good management. It's much more, and\nit means as much to me as anything I will do as President. A\nfree society, in which the people make the decisions about\ndefense, simply must seek to reduce its dependence on nuclear\nweapons. This is the fourth important element of our strategy\nfor the future.\nYou've heard me talk many times before about the need for\nthe Strategic Defense Initiative, our research program to explore\nthe possibility of a security shield that could one day make\nnuclear weapons obsolete. I am very hopeful, but meanwhile, we\nPage 13\nmust consider the dangers of the world we inhabit now. We have\nto do everything we can to guarantee that we'll be able to repel\nany aggression -- without resorting to nuclear weapons.\nThese are not distant issues for a future President.\nThey're here today. The technology we have today, for example,\nmakes it possible to destroy a tank column 200 miles away. This\ntechnology, perhaps the first cost-effective conventional defense\nagainst the giant Red Army in post-war history. When we decide\nto equip our troops in Europe with these systems, we're saying we\nare determined to defend ourselves. When we decide not to, we're\nsaying that we simply hope and pray no one will attack us.\nThese are the practical decisions we have to make when we\nsend a defense budget to Congress. We would prefer not to bear\nthis burden -- but the choice is not ours: We can either keep up\nand assure our safety, or fall behind and expose ourselves -- and\nfuture generations -- to danger.\nEach generation has to live with the challenges history\ndelivers. And you can't handle these challenges by evasion. You\nmust recognize reality, accept it, and do what you can to meet\nthe challenge and improve the situation.\nThat's why we're talking to the Soviets, bargaining -- if\nCongress will support us -- from strength. We want to make this\na more peaceful world.\nWe want to reduce arms, we want agreements that truly\ndiminish the nuclear danger, agreements that are verifiable. We\ndon't just want signing ceremonies and color photographs of the\nleaders toasting each other with champagne -- we want real\nPage 14\nagreements that really work, and we want them more today than\ntomorrow and more tomorrow than next year.\nThat's what we're working and hoping for. But until that\nday, I want America to be as strong as she is good -- and that's\nstrong.\nI will never ask for what isn't needed; I will never fight\nfor what isn't necessary. But now, I need your help. Please\nwrite or call your Representatives in Congress and tell them that\nyou do want cuts in the budget -- but not in the national\ndefense.\nI really need your help, and I don't mind putting a\nconsiderable amount of my so-called \"political capital\" on the\nline. I'd rather spend it on this -- on protecting our freedom,\nour country and the West -- than on anything else in the world.\nThanks for listening. God bless you. Good night.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nFebruary 19, 1986\nMEMORANDUM FOR BEN ELLIOTT\nDEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND\nDIRECTOR OF SPEECHWRITING\nFROM:\nASSOCIATE COUNSEL JJR THE PRESIDENT\nJOHN G. ROBERTS\nSUBJECT:\nPresidential Remarks: Dinner\nWith the Nation's Governors\nCounsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced Presidential\nremarks and finds no objection to them from a legal perspective.\nCC: David L. Chew\nID #.\nCU\nWHITE HOUSE\nCORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET\no OUTGOING\nH INTERNAL\nI . INCOMING\nDate Correspondence\nReceived (YY/MM/DD)\n/\n/\nName of Correspondent: Name Chew\nMI Mail Report\nUser Codes: (A)\n(B)\n(C)\nSubject: Remarks: Dinner with the nations\nGovernors\nROUTE TO:\nACTION\nDISPOSITION\nTracking\nType\nCompletion\nAction\nDate\nof\nDate\nOffice/Agency\n(Staff Name)\nCode\nYY/MM/DD\nResponse\nCode\nYY/MM/DD\nCUHOLL\nORIGINATOR\n86,02,19\n/ /\nReferral Note:\ncuat 18\nR\n86,02,19\nS 86,02,20\nReferral Note:\n10 am\n/ /\n/ /\nReferral Note:\n/ /\n/ /\n-\nReferral Note:\n/\n/\n/ /\nReferral Note:\nACTION CODES:\nDISPOSITION CODES:\nA - Appropriate Action\nI Info Copy Only/No Action Necessary\nA Answered\nC Completed\nC Comment/Recommendation\nR Direct Reply w/Copy\nB - Non-Special Referral\nS Suspended\nD Draft Response\nS For Signature\nF Furnish Fact Sheet\nX Interim Reply\nto be used as Enclosure\nFOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE:\nType of Response = Initials of Signer\nCode = \"A\"\nCompletion Date = Date of Outgoing\nComments:\nKeep this worksheet attached to the original incoming letter.\nSend all routing updates to Central Reference (Room 75, OEOB).\nAlways return completed correspondence record to Central Files.\nRefer questions about the correspondence tracking system to Central Reference, ext. 2590.\n5/81\nDocument No.\nWHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM\nDATE: 2/19/86\nACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY: 10:00 a.m. 2/20/86\nSUBJECT:\nREMARKS: DINNER WITH THE NATION'S GOVERNORS\n(2/19/86 11:30 a.m. draft)\nACTION FYI\nACTION FYI\nVICE PRESIDENT\nOGLESBY\nREGAN\nPOINDEXTER\nMILLER\nRYAN\nBUCHANAN\nSPEAKES\nCHAVEZ\nR\nSPRINKEL\nCHEW\nP\n$$ STEELMAN\nDANIELS\nSVAHN\nX\nFIELDING\nTHOMAS\nHENKEL\nTUTTLE\nHICKS\nELLIOTT\nKINGON\nVERSTANDIG\nLACY\nFAULKNER\nREMARKS:\nPlease give your comments/edits directly to Ben Elliott,\nwith an info copy to my office by 10:00 a.m. tomorrow. Thanks.\nRESPONSE:\nDavid L. Chew\nStaff Secretary\nExt 2702\n(Dolan/BE)\nFebruary 19, 1986\n11:30 a.m.\nPRESIDENTIAL REMARKS: DINNER WITH THE NATION'S GOVERNORS\nSUNDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1986\nThere's a wonderful saying attributed to Churchill that the\nthree hardest things a man can be asked to do is: climb a wall\nleaning towards him, kiss a woman leaning away from him, and make\na good after-dinner speech.\nFortunately tonight -- and you're probably just as relieved\nas I am about this -- I won't be facing any of those dilemmas.\nMy job up here this evening is simple and brief: to say a few\nwords of welcome while doing my imitation of Rich Little's\nimitation of me\n\"Well \"\nActually, though, I think you can imagine the sense of\nsolidarity that, as a former Governor, I feel with all of you.\nIt's one of the reasons I look forward to your annual\nconferences. I must say, though, I question your timing; you\nalways arrive too late for the lighting of the Christmas tree,\ntoo early for the blooming of the cherry blossoms, but just in\ntime for the announcement of the budget cuts. Yet I think the\npeople in this room tonight are -- of all people -- sympathetic\nto the demands of budget-balancing; besides, as I have mentioned\nin the past, coming to the White House as a Governor does have\nits side benefits: it's a chance to look around, make yourself\nat home a little, and reflect: \"I could be happy here.\nBut that in a more serious vein, let me say how pleased\nI are you could join us. And just so you know I really Nancy mean and\nPage 2\nthis, let me point out that long before I ever thought of\npolitics as a profession, I was giving speeches on an\nextraordinary invention by our Founding Fathers -- it was called\nthe Federal system.\nOur Founding Fathers had learned first-hand a simple but\nvital fact of history: that the gravest danger to human freedom\nhas always come from the excessive power of Government. They not\nonly feared States where absolute power resided in the hands of\none man or a tiny few, they also knew that the democracies faced\na hidden danger -- through the encroachments of our central\ngovernment -- of slipping into the dangerous waters of too much\ngovernment. As James Madison put it: \"I believe there are more\ninstances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by\ngradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by\nviolent and sudden usurpations.\"\nIn the eyes of Madison and the other founders then, it is\nthe legitimate power of the States and the offices all of you\nhold that are the principal safeguards against those usurpations;\nthose potential abuses of power by the central Government.\nI needn't tell you how difficult that task has been during\nthe past few decades; and how unbalanced the relationship between\nthe Federal Government and the States became. That's why we've\nmade reinvigorating the Federal system and establishing the best\npossible working relationship with the Governors one of our\npriorities. And that's why I do look forward to the chance to\nspend some time here together with you tonight and over the next\nfew days.\nPage 3\nIt's true things are going better for America here at home\nand abroad; but I hope this will not blind us to the problems\nthat remain to be solved -- some of which we'll be discussing in\nthe days ahead. And so, if I have one thought for our\nget-togethers it would be this: let us reflect and remember the\nvery things that account for America's greatness, those\ntraditional values and concepts of government like decentralized\nauthority and a healthy federalist system that gave birth to our\nNation. A former Governor of Massachusetts and one of my\nfavorite Presidents put it this way about the Declaration of\nIndependence: \"We live in an age of science and of abounding\naccumulation of material things. These did not create our\nDeclaration. Our Declaration created them. The things of the\nspirit come first. Unless we cling to that, all our material\nprosperity, overwhelming though it may appear, will turn to a\nbarren scepter in our grasp. If we are to maintain the great\nheritage which has been bequeathed to us, we must be\n'like-minded' as the Fathers who created it.\"\nNow that may sound like a mouthful from old \"Silent Cal\"\nCoolidge but I think he hits home because our task here in the\nnext few days is to be \"like-minded\" with the Founding Fathers,\nto restore the balance between State and Federal prerogatives, to\nbring Government closer to the people. And in that spirit, I\nthink we can accomplish a great deal together.\nIf I might just finish up with one more story about Silent\nCal. Some of you may know that after he was introduced to the\nsport of fishing by his Secret Service detail, it got to be quite\nPage 4\na passion with him, if you can use that word about \"Silent Cal.\"\nAnyway, he was once asked by reporters how many fish were in one\nof his favorite angling places, the River Brule. And Coolidge\nsaid the waters were estimated to carry 45,000 trout. And then\nhe said, \"I haven't caught them all yet, but I sure have\nintimidated them.\"\nWell, we haven't solved all the problems that go with\nrestoring a sound Federal system but together we've made an\nimportant start. Times have changed, the climate is there now to\nmake the State-Federal relationship -- our relationship -- a much\nhealthier, much better one for our people, for America.\nAnd now it's my pleasure to introduce someone known to many\nof you for his imitations of yours truly; ladies and gentlemen, a\ntruly extraordinary talent and someone who will also be looking\nfor work in 1988 -- Rich Little.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nFebruary 19, 1986\nMEMORANDUM FOR THOMAS F. GIBSON III\nSPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND\nDIRECTOR OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS\nFROM:\nASSOCIATE COUNSEL JR THE PRESIDENT\nJOHN G. ROBERTS\nSUBJECT:\nRequest for Joint Statement of Past Four\nPresidents for 20th Anniversary Dinner\nInvitation of the Center for the Study\nof the Presidency\nYou have asked for our views on a request from the Center for\nthe Study of the Presidency that the President join former\nPresidents Nixon, Ford, and Carter in approving a joint\nstatement commemorating the Center's twentieth anniversary. We\nhave no objection to granting this request. If the Center will\naccept stylistic suggestions, \"appreciate\" works better than\n\"are appreciative for\" in the second line of the fourth\nparagraph, and a synonym should replace one of the two\n\"admirably's.\n382008\nID #.\nCU\n1.50$\nWHITE HOUSE\nPRD14-09\nCORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET\no - OUTGOING\nH INTERNAL\nI - INCOMING\nDate Correspondence\nReceived (YY/MM/DD)\n/\n/\nName of Correspondent: Tom Gibson\nMI Mail Report\nUser Codes: (A)\n(B)\n(C)\nSubject:\nRequest for joint Statement of past four\nPresidents for 20th Anniversory dinner invitation of\nthe Center for the Study of the Presidency.\nROUTE TO:\nACTION\nDISPOSITION\nTracking\nType\nCompletion\nAction\nDate\nof\nDate\nOffice/Agency\n(Staff Name)\nCode\nYY/MM/DD\nResponse\nCode\nYY/MM/DD\nCUHOLL\nORIGINATOR\n86102+10 PY\n/ /\nReferral Note:\nPY\nCUAT18\nR\n86102172\nS 86102121\nReferral Note:\n/ /\n/ /\nI\nI\nReferral Note:\n/ /\n/ /\nReferral Note:\n/ /\n/ /\n-\n-\nReferral Note:\nACTION CODES:\nDISPOSITION CODES:\nA Appropriate Action\nI - Info Copy Only/No Action Necessary\nA Answered\nC Completed\nC * Comment/Recommendation\nR Direct Reply w/Copy\nB. - Non-Special Referral\nS * Suspended\nD Draft Response\nS For Signature\nF Furnish Fact Sheet\nX Interim Reply\nto be used as Enclosure\nFREE\nFOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE:\nType of Response = Initials of Signer\nCode\n#\n\"A\"\nCompletion Date = Date of Outgoing\nComments:\nKeep this worksheet attached to the original incoming letter.\nSend all routing updates to Central Reference (Room 75, OEOB).\nAlways return completed correspondence record to Central Files.\nRefer questions about the correspondence tracking system to Central Reference, ext. 2590.\n5/81\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nFebruary 10, 1986\n382008\nMEMORANDUM TO DICK HAUSER\nFROM:\nTOM GIBSON\nTo\nSUBJECT:\nCenter for the Study of the Presidency\nThe Center for the Study of the Presidency is having its 20th\nAnniversary dinner on Wednesday. April 9, 1986, and plans to\ninclude on its invitation a joint statement by the past four\nPresidents. The Center has received approval from Presidents\nNixon, Ford and Carter but has not heard from the White House.\nI would appreciate your looking over the joint statement which is\nattached and advising me whether Counsel's Office has any\nobjection.\nThank you.\nCENTER FOR THE STUDY OF THE PRESIDENCY\n208 EAST 75TH STREET\nNEW YORK, N.Y. 10021\n212-249-1200\nNovember 29, 1985\nCENTER FOR THE STUDY OF THE PRESIDENCY TWENTIETH ANNIVERSARY\nSTATEMENT BY PRESIDENTS NIXON, FORD, CARTER, AND REAGAN\nCenter for the Study of the Presidency has recently completed\ntwenty years of distinguished public service. Inspired by at proposal\nfrom President Eisenhower for a center on the American Presidency\n\"characterized by accuracy, objectivity, and perspective, it has\nadmirably fulfilled those criteria.\nThe first non-partisan, privately supported public policy\nresearch center with its primary focus on the American Presidency,\nthe Center's Leadership Conferences, lectures, student symposia,\nand publications have been of great help in bringing better\nunderstanding of our American system of government, both at home\nand abroad.\nPresident Eisenhower had expressed the hope that the Center\nwould be for \"students old and young\n11\nHe predicted, \"The\nresult cannot fail to be good for them and for the Nation. \" His\nconception has been carried through admirably.\nThose of us who have been engaged in policy formulation and\ndecision making are appreciative for the services of the Center.\nDaily it helps fulfill the bold experiment of the Constitutional\nFramers by which \"We the People\" work together in advancing human\ndignity, peace, and security. We congratulate the Center as it\ncompletes this milestone and look toward its continuing outstanding\nservice for the Nation.\nRICHARD M. NIXON, GERALD 2. FORD, JIMMY CARTER, RONALD REAGAN\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nFebruary 20, 1986\nMEMORANDUM FOR BEN ELLIOTT\nDEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND\nDIRECTOR OF SPEECHWRITING\nFROM:\nASSOCIATE COUNSEL J2R TO THE PRESIDENT\nJOHN G. ROBERTS\nSUBJECT:\nPresidential Remarks: National\nGovernors' Association\nCounsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced Presidential\nremarks and finds no objection to them from a legal perspective.\nCC: David L. Chew\nID #\nCU\nWHITE HOUSE\nCORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET\no OUTGOING\nH * INTERNAL\nI INCOMING\nDate Correspondence\nReceived (YY/MM/DD)\n/\n/\nName of Correspondent:\nDave Chew\nMI Mail Report\nUser Codes: (A)\n(B)\n(C)\nSubject: Presidential remarks: national\nGovernors association\nROUTE TO:\nACTION\nDISPOSITION\nTracking\nType\nCompletion\nAction\nDate\nof\nDate\nOffice/Agency\n(Staff Name)\nCode\nYY/MM/DD\nResponse\nCode\nYY/MM/DD\nCUNOU\nORIGINATOR 86,02,19\n/ /\nCuat 18\nReferral Note:\nR 86,02,19\n586,02,20\nReferral Note:\n530\n/ /\n/ /\n-\nReferral Note:\n/ /\n/ /\nI\nReferral Note:\n/ /\n/ /\nReferral Note:\nACTION CODES:\nDISPOSITION CODES:\nA Appropriate Action\n1- I Info Copy Only/No Action Necessary\nA Answered\nC Completed\nC Comment/Recommendation\nR - Direct Reply w/Copy\nB Non-Special Referral\nS Suspended\nD Draft Response\nS For Signature\nF - Furnish Fact Sheet\nX Interim Reply\nto be used as Enclosure\nFOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE:\nType of Response = Initials of Signer\nCode = \"A\"\nCompletion Date = Date of Outgoing\nComments:\nKeep this worksheet attached to the original incoming letter.\nSend all routing updates to Central Reference (Room 75, OEOB).\nAlways return completed correspondence record to Central Files.\nRefer questions about the correspondence tracking system to Central Reference, ext. 2590.\n5/81\nDocument No.\nWHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM\nDATE: 2/19/86\nACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY: 5:30 p.m. 2/20/86\nSUBJECT: PRESIDENTIAL REMARKS: NATIONAL GOVERNORS' ASSOCIATION\nACTION FYI\nACTION FYI\nVICE PRESIDENT\nOGLESBY\nREGAN\nPOINDEXTER\nMILLER\nRYAN\nBUCHANAN\nSPEAKES\nCHAVEZ\nSPRINKEL\nCHEW\nP\n5S STEELMAN\nDANIELS\nSVAHN\nFIELDING\nTHOMAS\nHENKEL\nTUTTLE\nHICKS\nELLIOTT\nKINGON\nLACY\nREMARKS: Please provide any comments on the attached directly to\nBen Elliott by 5:30 p.m. Thursday, February 20th, with\nan info copy to my office. Thank you.\nRESPONSE:\nDavid L. Chew\nStaff Secretary\nExt. 2702\n(Robinson BE)\nFebruary 19, 1986\n2:00\nPRESIDENTIAL REMARKS: NATIONAL GOVERNORS' ASSOCIATION FEB\nMONDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1986\nChairman Lamar Alexander, Vice Chairman Bill Clinton, ladies\nand gentlemen, good afternoon and welcome to the White House.\nIt's an honor to have you join us this afternoon -- and it was\ngood to see so many of you here at dinner last night. I don't\nmean to give any of you ideas, but when those dinners are over,\nin my job you're already home.\nAs we gather today in this historic house, one President and\n50 Governors, we do so as the inheritors of the federalist system\ndesigned by the Founding Fathers some two centuries ago. Perhaps\nwe might consider that federalist system briefly this\nafternoon -- review its origin, consider its development, and\nsuggest the direction it should take in the days to come.\nWhen federalism was first devised, the Founding Fathers\nwanted not only to protect the people against a single,\nall-powerful government, but to keep government as close to the\npeople themselves as possible, enabling them to participate\nwidely in its activities. To this end, the State governments\nwere entrusted with duties like the protection of property rights\nand the enforcement of criminal justice -- duties that affected\nthe people in their everyday lives.\nWhen Alexis de Tocqueville toured America in 1821, he found\nthat it was indeed the State governments with which the people\nwere most closely involved. \"Men,\" he wrote, \"are affected by\nthe sovereignty of the Union only in connection with a few great\nPage 2\ninterests\nBut State sovereignty enfolds every citizen and in\none way or another affects every detail of daily life.' So from\nan early date, a federalist system with vigorous State\ngovernments had become an integral part of the American way of\nlife.\nIn subsequent decades, of course, the federalist system\nunderwent considerable development -- mostly in the direction of\ngreater power for the Nation at the expense of the States. In\ncertain respects, this growth of Federal power was necessary and\ngood. It was vital to our history as a Nation, for example, that\nStates should fail in their attempt to secede from and thus\ndestroy the Union.\nBut with the advent of the liberal experiment which began in\nthe 1930's -- the New Deal, the Great Society, the so-called War\non Poverty -- something profoundly unhealthy began to happen in\nthe relations between Washington and the States. The National\nCapital began to swamp the States with social programs and\neconomic regulations. It taxed the American people more and more\nheavily, leaving little leeway for the States to raise revenues\nof their own. In time, the States were in many respects reduced\nto the status of mere functionaries, mere units of\nadministration. This undermined the Constitution, removing\ngovernment from the people and placing it in the hands of the\nWashington elite. It permitted the National Government to become\nbloated and ineffective.\nSo when our Administration came to office, we took it as one\nof our chief aims to reawaken the federalist impulse -- in short,\nPage 3\nto restore power to the States. In an address to the National\nConference of State Legislatures nearly 5 years ago, I spoke of a\n\"quiet federalism revolution that promises to be one of the\nmost exciting and noteworthy in our generation.\"\nWe began to promote vigorous State government and widen the\nscope for independent State decision-making. Our Job Training\nPartnership Act, for example, enabled you in the States to work\ndirectly with private investment councils to create new jobs. In\n1985 alone, the number of jobs you created rose to more than half\na million -- 9 out of 10 of which went to the economically\ndisadvantaged.\nToday we're continuing this vital work. Our new\n$3.3 billion transportation block grant, our expanded primary\nhealth care block grant, and our new pollution control block\ngrant will give you in the States wide latitude in choosing how\nto administer them. I've directed my staff to work with you in\ncompiling lists of Federal regulations that impinge upon your\nprerogatives and can be changed without congressional approval.\nBut despite all we're doing to promote federalism here in\nWashington, our efforts take second place to the remarkable new\ninitiatives you're overseeing in the States. State governments\nare holding down the price of Medicaid. You're attracting\nventure capital. You're fostering international trade -- indeed,\nmany here today have traveled abroad on trade missions, and I\nurge you all to continue this vital work.\nIn education, States have moved with special energy. All\n50 States now have task forces on education, and in many States,\nPage 4\npromising new programs like merit pay for teachers are already in\nplace. On the economy, States have come to understand the power\nof tax policy to promote economic growth. In recent years, for\nexample, both Massachusetts and Delaware have cut their overall\ntaxes, soon benefiting from higher growth and lower unemployment.\nWhile our Administration has proposed the creation of\nenterprise zones to the Congress every year for the past\n5 years -- always to no avail -- today 26 States have more than\n1,300 enterprise zones in place. These enterprise zones have\nseen the creation of tens of thousands of jobs and billions in\ncapital investment.\nYes, the quiet revolution I spoke of 5 years ago is well\nunder way. No one should be prouder of it than you, the\nGovernors of our 50 States, for it is in large measure your\nrevolution. Indeed, the States today are governing so well that\nthey can teach the Federal Government some important lessons --\nlessons like the importance of operating in the black and of\ngiving the Chief Executive the line-item veto. In the words of\nJames J. Kilpatrick, \"it becomes increasingly evident that the\nState governments, as a group, are governing more responsibly\nthan the National Government. The most interesting political\nactivity these days is often not in the National Capital, but in\nthe State capitals.\" Now let me ask you: Don't you think that's\njust what the Founding Fathers had in mind?\nAs we turn to the future, I'd like to focus on one\nparticular aspect of federalism, one special area of shared State\nand national responsibility -- our system of welfare.\nPage 5\nOur welfare programs -- State and Federal alike -- add up to\none long tale of tragic failure. From the 1950's on, poverty in\nAmerica was on the decline as economic growth led millions up to\nprosperity. Then in 1964 the famous \"War on Poverty\" was\ndeclared. Billions were spent on programs of all kinds, but\npoverty, as measured by dependency, stopped shrinking and\nactually began to grow worse. I guess you could say, poverty won\nthe war.\nYet how could this have happened? How could such good\nintentions have gone so utterly awry, and the resources of a\ngreat Nation have been squandered in such futility? Today we are\nbeginning to understand.\nIn the fight against poverty, we now know, it is essential\nto have strong families -- families that teach children the\nsocial skills they will need to succeed in the wider world;\nfamilies that provide mothers and fathers with comfort,\ninspiration, and a focus for their labors. How often have we\nheard of the immigrant father, laboring long into the night to\ngive his children the advantages he never had? How many\nself-made men and women in America owe their success to the\nstrength of character given to them by hard-working, loving\nparents?\nYet when we ask ourselves whether our welfare programs have\nencouraged poor families to form and stay together, we must\nanswer, far from it. Instead, they have subjected poor families\nto the action of a subtle but constant undermining, like the\nlapping of a dreadful river.\nPage 6\nPerhaps welfare is most damaging in the way it takes the\nrole of provider away from parents and gives it to the impersonal\nState. Think of the working mother. In the parts of the country\nwhere payments are highest, a single mother can receive public\nassistance that amounts to much more than the useable income from\na minimum-wage job. In other words, it can pay her to quit work.\nor consider fathers. In many States, a family becomes\neligible for substantially higher benefits when the father is\nabsent. What must it do to a man to know that he has been\nstripped of his role as provider -- to know that his own children\nwill be better off if he is never legally recognized as their\nfather? Under certain welfare rules, a teenage girl who becomes\npregnant can receive benefits that will feed her, clothe her,\nprovide her with medical care, and set her up in an apartment of\nher own. She need only fulfill one condition -- not marry or\nidentify the father.\nGiven our welfare system, it should come as no surprise that\nin our inner cities, families as we have always thought of them\nare not even being formed. Since 1960, the percentage of babies\nborn out-of-wedlock has more than doubled. All too often, the\nmothers of these babies are themselves only children -- many of\nthem 15, 16, and 17 years old. And the fathers? The fathers are\nfrequently nowhere to be found.\nWhat of the babies themselves, these children born to\nchildren? Statistically, we know that out-of-wedlock babies are\nmuch more likely than others to suffer a low birth weight and\nconsequently serious health problems. We know that\nPage 7\nout-of-wedlock children often suffer abuse and neglect as well.\nEarlier this year, the Washington Post printed a story that\nreported on the children of young, unwed mothers. It described\nas typical a 6-year-old girl whose mother often left her alone in\ntheir apartment for hours on end -- alone, that is, to care for\nher 6-month-old sister. What sort of future can that child and\nthe hundreds of thousands like her ever hope to enjoy?\nThe welfare system has not only failed but become virtually\ninsane. With only about half the amount spent on welfare\nannually, we could give enough money to every impoverished man,\nwoman, and child to lift them above the poverty line for an\nentire year. Instead we waste vast amounts on a system that\nactually holds these people down, often in misery and squalor.\nNow we are in danger of creating a permanent culture of poverty,\nas inescapable as any chain or bond, a second and separate\nAmerica, an America of lost dreams and stunted lives.\nMy friends, I believe we're too great a Nation -- too good\nof heart, too bold in finding solutions -- to permit this to\ncontinue. Isn't it time for reform?\nIn my State of the Union Address, I directed our\nAdministration to study the effect on the American family of a\nwide range of Government programs, and to report back to me with\nrecommendations by December 1st. But the Federal Government is\nresponsible for only a portion of our welfare system and can do\nonly so much on its own. So today I invite you, the chief\nexecutives of the 50 States, to join our effort to reshape the\nsystem with which we help those in genuine need. In short, let\nPage 8\nus make welfare reform the next great step in the Federalist\nrevolution.\nMany of you already preside over important welfare\ninnovations. Perhaps the most striking among these is\nworkfare -- the attempt to give welfare recipients the training\nand sense of self-respect that can come only from work. Today\nmore than 20 States now have some form of workfare in place. In\na sentence I cherish, Time magazine reports that workfare, quote,\n\"has slowly evolved from a somewhat cranky conservative notion to\none with broad support.\" To tell you the truth, I kind of like\ncranky conservatives that end up with broad support.\nOf course no one can say just how successful workfare will\nfinally prove, but workfare does attempt to meet what I believe\nmust become the central criterion for all forms of public\nassistance -- not how much money we spend on welfare, but how\nmany Americans our programs make independent of welfare. The\n50 States present us with the opportunity to apply this criterion\nin endless ways, experimenting and testing in a manner from which\nall can profit. In welfare reform, the States can truly become\nthe laboratories of our democracy.\nToday, I believe, we have rediscovered the central truth of\nfederalism that the Constitution embodies: Washington must not\nignore the States but seek to involve them -- and even, on many\nissues, to follow their lead. Let us apply this sturdy old\ninsight to the problems of our time. Let us strive through the\nfederalist system to create a land where there is no permanent\nwelfare culture because there is opportunity for all. Let us\nPage 9\nlabor above all to build a Nation where the sacred institution of\nthe family receives unstinting encouragement and support.\nThank you, and God bless you."
}