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
55030709
label
Meet the Press 11/7
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
55030709
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Meet the Press 11/7
citationUrl
collections
Records of the Office of Communications (Clinton Administration)
Mark Gearan's Files
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
55030709
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-7431965-20110584F-005-011-2017
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
07b76e7f1f333632
ocrText
FOIA Number: 2011-0584-F
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the William J. Clinton
Presidential Library Staff.
Collection/Record Group:
Clinton Presidential Records
Subgroup/Office of Origin:
Communications
Series/Staff Member:
Mark Gearan
Subseries:
OA/ID Number:
7550
FolderID:
Folder Title:
Meet the Press 11/7
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
S
90
4
11
2
THE WHITE HOUSE
MASTERCOPY
fle: Meet The
Press 11/7/93
FROM : GRUNWALD, ESKEW8DONILON
TEL: 202 973 9408
NOV.
5.1993
2:41 PM
P 2
MEMORANDUM
TO
Mark Gearan
FROM
Mandy Grunwald
DATE
November 5, 1993
RE
President's Appearance on Meet the Press
As you requested, a few thoughts on the President's appearance on Meet the Press. First, a few
general points about style.
1. Be the President, not the pundit.
Russert will try to draw the President into an analysis of where the votes are on
NAFTA, why Republicans won so many elections on Tuesday etc. I know it's
tough for him, but he's got to resist his inclination to be Bill Schneider instead of
Bill Clinton.
2. Be confident, not combative or defensive.
I've noticed recently that the President has sounded defensive and overly combative
on a number of issues from his accomplishments to date, to his effort on NAFTA,
to his foreign policy decisions. It's important that he not let Russert make him
defensive, but be confident and firm.
3. Talk about people, not macro-policy or Congressional language.
The President needs to get to back to one of his greatest strengths - talking about
the challenges that families are facing. Lately, he's been talking in more macro
terms ["economic stagnation" instead of "families who are working two jobs just to
make ends meet"].
4. Don't get trapped in the details or the numbers.
Russert loves numbers questions ["How can you justify 100 million people paying
more for health care..."] or specific policy questions [the sugar & citrus side deals
for NAFTA]. The President obviously has to answer the questions, but he's got
to make sure he doesn't get trapped in the details, but uses them 10 make his
broader thematic points.
5. A little candor and A little humor go a long way.
FROM : GRUNWALD, ESKEW&DONILON
TEL: 202 973 9408
NOV. 5.1993
2:41
PM
P3
As to the substance of what the President should convey. I'm not going to make specific
issue by issue suggestions. I'll convey my health care advice separately. Overall, I think he
should convey a sense that he is tackling the real problems of real people.
The American people are struggling to make ends meet in a changing world.
We're trying 10 provide them the tools and security to do that.
How?
*
Creating jobs
*
Breaking down trade barriers
*
Getting our fiscal house in order
*
Providing the security of health care that can never be taken away
*
Providing the opportunity to any child, regardless of income, who wants to
go to college.
Finally, I hope you have prepared him with answers on Moynihan's ammunition tax and the
whole Packwood mess. On the latter, 1 hope he has no problem slamming the Senate and saying
that this week's events remind people of everything they dislike about Congress. Further, that it's
unfortunate that the focus on the Senator's diary has obscured the very troubling question of
sexual harrassment.
Let me know when the prep session will be on health care, or any other sessions you would like
me to join.
November 4, 1993
TO:
Mark Gearan
FROM: Bill Galston
SUBJ: Meet the Press
No individual issues in my domain seem terribly burning, but I do
want to raise two larger contextual points.
1. Like it or not, Tuesday's elections are likely to form
the context for the President's interview. Analysis and
commentary such as today's articles by Al Hunt, David Broder, Tom
Edsall, and others will constitute the conventional wisdom
baseline for Russert's opening political questions, which will
suggest that the voters are registering their disapproval of the
President and administration and that things look bad for 1994
and beyond.
I don't believe that our current public line--that Tuesday
simply represents a continuation of the public's desire for
change--is entirely adequate. In my judgment, the President
should begin his response by forthrightly acknowledging the
actual content of the public's complaints: violent crime without
the certainty of swift punishment, higher taxes without improved
government performance, an economy in recovery that still hasn't
generated enough jobs and opportunity. He should then say that
turning the country around is a huge job that will take time.
"We've made a good beginning, but there's much more to do. The
administration's historic deficit reduction has set the stage for
a long period of steady economic growth and job formation with
low inflation. Economic developments in recent months have been
very encouraging. We've begun to attack the federal government's
archaic procedures and entrenched bureaucracy. Within the next
year, we're going to enact fundamental reforms in health,
welfare, crime, and education. And the passage of NAFTA will
mean more production right here iQ America, more exports, and
more high quality jobs.
That's a record on which Democrats can run and win. But I don't
expect the American people to take my word for it. They're going
to judge our party and administration by results, not rhetoric.
If they can't feel the change in their lives, it doesn't matter
what I say. And if they can, it doesn't matter what my critics
say."
2. I think the President was really on the right track in
his North Carolina speech, and he should return to it. During
the interview, he should seize every opportunity to relate
specific questions to the broader themes of security versus
insecurity and change versus the status quo:
"It's my administration's responsibility to help the American
people face up to the changes that we can no longer postpone
evade. But if people feel insecure--in their streets and tl.
schools, about their jobs and their health care--it will be
harder for them to summon the courage to change.
The politics of nostalgia just won't work. We cannot freeze
change and return to a vanished past. But to the millions of
Americans who feel so threatened today, we must extend a helping
hand and a solemn pledge: when you accept the challenge of
change, you won't be abandoned. And that's what my
administration is all about: getting beyond the false choice
between the politics of protection and the politics of
abandonment, and recognizing that we can't advance unless we go
forward together."
November 5, 1993
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
Ann Walker, Paul Meyer
SUBJECT: Meet the Press
Background Information & Tim Russert Positions
HISTORY
NBC's Meet the Press debuted on November 6, 1947, making it the longest-running
show on television. The show's first host was Lawrence Spivak who remained with
the show until his death in 1975. He was followed by, respectively, Bill Monroe (9
years), Marvin Kalb, Roger Mudd, Chris Wallace, and Garrick Utley. Tim Russert
took over the show on December 8, 1991 and expanded it to a full hour. Since then,
the ratings have nearly doubled, beating "This Week With David Brinkley" and "Face
the Nation" in Washington and New York.
HIGHLIGHTS
Over the years, Meet the Press hosted every president since John Kennedy, though
only Carter and Ford were interviewed while in office. Jimmy Carter announced the
U.S. boycott of the Moscow Olympics on the show in January, 1980. Rep. John
Kennedy did his first television interview on the show, as did his brother Robert.
Former President Herbert Hoover appeared in 1955.
PREVIOUS APPEARANCES
This will be your sixth appearance on Meet the Press. Previous appearances were:
9/6/87; 2/25/90; 5/5/91; 1/5/92; 3/22/92. On your last appearance, with Andrea
Mitchell and David Broder, debate centered on the character issue; the gas tax; Mrs.
Clinton's role; congressional reform; the Seawolf submarine; and the choice of a
running-mate. On the January 5, 1992 show, discussion focused on trade with Japan,
controlling the budget deficit, health care, term limits, welfare reform, and Middle
East peace. On May, 5, 1991, you debated the direction of the Democratic party and
the DLC with Rep. Bill Gray. Selected quotations from previous appearances:
Deficit: "I think that reducing the annual budget deficit to zero is very likely possible
in the next four years if we can control health care costs and stop the financial failures
because of defense reductions and because of the enormity of health care cost
increases driving entitlements." (1/5/92)
Health Care: "I don't want to make any American pay more for the same health
care." (1/5/92)
Medicare and Medicaid "Means testing means you don't get them at all if you're
above a certain income. I said before and I will say again in connection with a
comprehensive national health program, I would be for imposing increases on
Medicare recipients at high levels of income." (3/22/92)
Gas Tax: In response to Andrea Mitchell's claim that your criticism of Senator
Tsongas on the gas tax contradicted with your record in Arkansas: "What I said was I
was opposed to the federal government raising the gas tax up to 5 percent a year
every year for 10 years, a 50-cent increase." (3/22/92)
Mrs. Clinton's Role: "No, she wouldn't be a co-president. We have our difference of
opinion, and in the end, I have to decide I would rely on her very heavily for advice
and for input And since she does care about [public issues] and since if I were to
become president, she'd have a chance to work on those issues, that's what I assume
she would be doing." (3/22/92)
Political Reform: "I think the Congress has been basically entrenched in its ways
for a long time, and it's become increasingly subject to the influence of organized
interest groups through the power of PACs and the reelection process I think they
should pass a law which says that political action committees can give no more money
than people They ought to pass a law limiting the aggregate amount of money that
can be spent in any race for Congress or Senate and mandating open debate in the
airwaves so that the media can become an instrument of education, not a weapon of
assassination." (3/22/92)
Trade with Japan: "[President Bush] should say to the Japanese, look, there are at
least twenty significant areas - high tech electronics, agriculture, construction, services
- where your trade barriers are costing us $10 billion and $300,000 jobs a
year
We're going to have to [reduce] these trade barriers if you don't want us to
retaliate." (1/5/92)
RUSSERT PROFILE:
Timothy J. Russert, the 43 year old NBC Washington bureau chief has moderated
Sunday morning's "Meet the Press" for the past two years. In April 1985, he
supervised the NBC News "Today" program live broadcasts from Rome, negotiating
and arranging for a televised private mass and greeting form Pope John Paul II, a first
for American television. In 1986 and 1987 he led NBC News week-long efforts from
South America, Australia and China. In 1990 he oversaw production of prime time
news special "A Day in the Life of President Bush" and in 1993, "A Day in the Life
of President Clinton." Prior to joining NBC News, Russert served as Counselor to
New York Governor Mario Cuomo in 1983 and 1984. From 1977 to 1982, he served
first as Special Counsel and then Chief of Staff to Senator Moynihan.
Russert was also, at one time, an altar boy and a garbage collector. Mr. Russert was
born in Buffalo, N.Y. on May 7, 1950. He is a graduate of Canisius High School,
John Carroll University and the Cleveland-Marshall College of Law. He is married
to Maureen Orth, a writer for Vanity Fair. They live in Washington, D.C. with their
eight-year old son, Luke.
Russert is also a vociferous supporter of the Buffalo Bills, and often refers to them on
his show. The Bills, who share the best record in the NFL with the Dolphins (6-1),
have lost the last three Super Bowls. Russert has commented that his first question on
Sunday will be: "Are you going to invite the Bills to the White House when they win
the Super Bowl this year?" Also, Miami coach Don Shula, who hopes to break
George Hallas' 324 win record this Sunday, graduated from Russert's alma mater,
John Carroll University.
RUSSERT ROAST
Tim Russert was roasted October 19 at the fifth annual benefit for the Spina Bifida
Association of America, which raised $200,000 for research and treatment of the
disabling spinal condition. (Al Hunt and Judy Woodruff's son has Spina Bifida).
Attendees included George Stephanopoulos, Dee Dee Myers, Roger Altman, Molly
Raiser, Donna Shalala, Sargent, Eunice, and Maria Shriver, and Arnold
Schwarzenegger. The night was full of NBC jokes and political potshots directed at
the roasters instead of the roastee; Russert received an unusually mild ribbing.
TIM RUSSERT; Comments from the Charlie Rose Show, November 4, 1993
Russert appeared on the Charlie Rose Show Thursday night with Cokie Roberts,
Johnny Apple and Andrew Sullivan. In discussing Sunday's show, he said he will ask
you what went wrong and what worked over the past year and where you plan on
taking the country in the future. He also plans to cover NAFTA, health care, crime,
and foreign policy, specifically Haiti and Somalia. He advised you to be realistic and
optimistic and fight hard for NAFTA and health care, and to try to move health care
and the crime bill through very quickly.
He also spoke about the following issues:
Tuesday's Election Result: He said that defeats in New York, New Jersey and
Virginia should serve as a wakeup call to the White House and the Democratic party.
He also pointed out that, on Monday, the Administration told the press to look
towards the NJ election as a referendum on raising taxes. Now that Florio has lost,
Russert feels that the Congress will say, "let's go slow raising taxes for health care."
NAFTA: He urged you to tell Congress that the day after the NAFTA vote you must
go to Seattle to meet with Asia's foreign ministers and you do not want to go
wounded.
The Clinton Administration: He said that the administration has been and will continue
to be a roller coaster ride. He pointed out that there are many similarities between the
first year of the Kennedy and Clinton Administrations. This White House is not
hierarchical, but like "spokes in a wheel." There are no gatekeepers. The President is
more relaxed than he was when he took office. George Stephanopolous seems to be a
very influential sounding board for the President. The First Lady has redefined the
role of women in D.C. Al Gore has been helpful to the President. He congratulated
the Administration on the handling of Russia, the Middle East and National Service.
Recent Poll: He referred to a 10/28 Peter Hart/Bob Teeter poll which matched
Clinton, Perot, and Dole in 1996. The results were Clinton 37%; Dole 32%; Perot
23%. In a Clinton-Dole match-up, both got 45%.
TIM RUSSERT; Questions and Statements from "MEET THE PRESS"
Following are selected statements and questions by Tim Russert on recent "Meet the
Press" shows. Russert is generally supportive of the Administration. Most of his
questions on health care focus on the financing. His NAFTA questions tend to deal
more with politics and less with policy. He has been critical of American military
involvement abroad and has questioned America's unconditional support of Yeltsin.
RUSSERT ON HEALTH CARE
"Health care is not going to be the political bonanza the Clinton White House thinks it
is going to be And when the truth comes out that you have to have a higher
premium, limit your choice of doctor, and perhaps even limit the amount of services
you might get, it's not going to be a popular proposal." ( 8/8/93)
In an October 31 interview with Ira Magaziner, Russert asked how the Administration
planned to convince the American people to pay a higher price for health care. He is
skeptical of the Administrations claims on financing.
"If we want to limit [health care spending], or keep it as close to $900 billion as
possible and eliminate or at least slow down the rate of growth, somebody's going to
have to lose. If we have a fixed amount of money and we're trying to bring in 35
million more people into the system, there are no losers? Is this going to be Utopia?"
"When Medicare was created in 1965, it was projected it would cost $9 billion. It
now costs $106 billion. Medicaid, they said, would cost a billion. It costs $76 billion
- 76 times as much. Why wouldn't we think that your plan, which his so much
broader, even if it costs twice as much as your projecting, which is far less than the
growth of these programs, wouldn't put this country near bankruptcy?" (10/31/93)
On the September 19 show, Russert interviewed Senator Moynihan on health care.
Moynihan referred to the Administration's hopes of recouping $238 billion from
Medicare and Medicaid programs and providing $90 billion in deficit reduction by the
year 2000 by saying, "It's fantasy, but accurate fantasy. The numbers all come out of
their computer that way. They won't last, they mustn't last." (9/19/93)
RUSSERT ON TAXES
Russert hosted Carville and Haley Barbour after the budget vote. Russert was very
critical of the Republicans mislabeling the Clinton budget as the largest tax increase in
history. He asserted Reagan's 1982 tax increase ($26 billion in 1993 dollars), if
adjusted for inflation, was the largest. He also pointed out that both Ronald Reagan
and George Bush raised the gasoline tax. In defense of the Clinton plan, he cited the
example of Mississippi, where, of 2.5 million residents, only 6,082 will pay higher
taxes while 306,581 will get a tax break through the EITC. (8/15/93)
RUSSERT ON NAFTA
In repeated interviews with Administration officials, Members of Congress, and
reporters, Russert asked: "How committed is this President and his Administration,
the First Lady and all the political advisors in the White House to the passage of
NAFTA?" (9/19 to Gergen)
Russert has, on several occasions, referred to Speaker Foley's statement: "if there
was a secret ballot, NAFTA would clearly pass." On October 3, he asked both
Gephardt and Gingrich if they agreed, and, if so, what that said about the House of
Representatives. Gingrich predicted it would pass two-to-one on a secret ballot.
Gephardt would not commit.
Russert pushed Gephardt on his motives for opposing NAFTA. He quoted one senior
administration official who said "Intellectually Dick is for this treat, but politically
he's playing House politics; he wants to be speaker; he's pandering to labor."
Gephardt responded by citing his long-standing concerns with a free trade agreement
and his interest in a "NAFTA done right." (10/3/1993)
RUSSERT ON ROSS PEROT
"President Carter recently said "Unfortunately in our country now, we have a
demagogue, who has unlimited financial resources and who is extremely careless with
the truth, who is preying on the fears and uncertainties of the American public. Is
Mr. Carter correct?" (9/19/93 to Gergen)
"But Mr. Perot is a big boy. You have to hold him accountable." (9/19/93 to Gergen)
"Intellectually, on the deficit, his [Perot's] plan in the end of the campaign last
November was more intellectually honest than either Bush or Clinton But when he
first started out, calling for $400 billion in cuts by waste, fraud and abuse, and getting
money from Germany and Japan, it was kooky Now he's been very constructive
focusing on the deficit. I am interested and intrigued by the way he's supporting
constitutional amendments to balance the budget, term limitations, taking on some
issues that have a much more political tone." (3/21/93)
RUSSERT ON REINVENTING GOVERNMENT
"Your plan - you say - would save $108 billion over the next five years. My
calculation is that's a cut in federal spending of about 1.3%. And, at the same time,
the cost of entitlement is going up, going up a trillion dollars. How are you going to
go after that trillion-dollar problem rather that focus on this 1.3%:" (9/12/93 to Gore)
RUSSERT ON GAYS IN THE MILITARY
"I think the President's gone for half a loaf and I think that's better for gay Americans
and probably the right thing to do politically." (7/18/93)
RUSSERT ON FOREIGN POLICY
Russia:
"Boris Yeltsin is abolishing political parties, closing down newspapers. Isn't it about
time for you to tell Mr. Yeltsin as a price for continued U.S. support he start
behaving as a democrat with a small "d" and not a totalitarian." (10/10/93 to
Christopher)
"Should we take a wait and see attitude before we continue this complete support for
Mr. Yeltsin?" (10/3/93 to Gephardt)
Haiti:
On October 17, Russert asked Madeline Albright about the reports of Aristide's
mental instability. He also pushed her to define the U.S. mission there.
"What is our mission in Haiti? To what end will we go to reinstate Mr. Aristide? If
the blockade does not work, will the U.S. intervene militarily in Haiti?" (10/17/93)
Somalia:
"There seems to be some ambiguity today though as to what our posture is vis-a-vis
General Aidid. And a week ago today, 17 Americans died and 75 were wounded
trying to capture General Aidid. What do you say to their parents when a week later
the policy seems confused and ambiguous?" (10/10/93 to Christopher)
"Can we say to the American people this morning then that this will be strictly a
humanitarian mission and there will be no more offensive raids by U.S. Rangers or
others to capture General Aidid and his supporters?" (10/10/93 to Christopher)
Bosnia:
In relation to President Izetbegovic's request that a deadline for bombing be set if the
siege of Sarajevo is not lifted, and your response that only NATO can do that, Russert
asked the Vice President: "How did we come to the point where NATO is making
foreign policy decisions like that for the United States?" (9/12/93 to Gore)
Middle East:
"What will it cost the taxpayers of the United States to help guarantee peace in the
Middle East?" (9/12/93 to Gore) The Vice President responded that the price of
peace is invariably less than the price of war.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
November 6, 1993
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
MICHAEL WALDMAN
SUBJECT:
NAFTA EMPHASIS FOR MEET THE PRESS
*
The NAFTA emphasis on Meet the Press should continue to be upbeat and
visionary, as was the case in the remarks at the Lexmark plant in Kentucky. There is still a
need to lay out the basic, positive case for why NAFTA will expand exports, create jobs and
bolster competitiveness. As in the last weeks of a political campaign, the public is only now
focusing with any intensity on this issue, and we cannot assume that the basic sale has been
made.
*
Clearly, the possible encounter between the Vice President and Perot may be the
subject of some interest. You won't be in a position to make major news, but in talking
about it, it is important to weave in our argument/facts so it's not just a "horse race" quote:
We are willing to debate Ross Perot because he is spreading misinformation to the
American people. Working people have legitimate fears, but this agreement makes
things better, not worse. Perot is trying to stir people up without regard for the truth.
We have the facts on our side; he has fear on his side.
*
We will have a better sense tomorrow of what can be specifically newsworth
(particularly after the radio address).
HEALTH SECURITY
1.
WHY UNIVERSAL COVERAGE IS IMPORTANT : Your most important goal is to
deepen the 'line-in-the-sand' you established by vowing to sign only a bill that would provide
universal coverage and comprehensive benefits. That means making a moral argument as well
as the jobs and cost arguments for universal coverage.
2.
READ THE BOOK: Amplify the message you delivered earlier this week, and
strongly encourage the American people to learn about the plan and recognize what it will
mean to them. Of specific interest here are the premium costs and the analysis on how much
more or less consumers will pay.
3.
HEALTH INSURANCE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA: Without being defensive,
continue to expose HIAA motivations in opposing the plan.
1.
WHY UNIVERSAL COVERAGE IS IMPORTANT
HEALTH SECURITY
-- Real health security means comprehensive health benefits guaranteed for every
American that can never be taken away and that's possible only with universal coverage. We
cannot continue with a system that leaves millions without adequate care and without
security. That's wrong. It's time the American people no longer had to live with the fear that
they could lose their health insurance at any time, that they won't be able to get health care
when they or their children need it, that if they lose their jobs, they lose their health care.
JOBS
-- With American workers changing jobs so often they'll hold an average of eight jobs
in a lifetime, we need universal coverage to make sure no one will ever lose their health
insurance.
COST
Without universal coverage, too many will continue to get care from emergency
rooms instead of doctor's offices -- they've waited too long, their illnesses are more severe,
and the costs are too expensive. Today, each of us pays part of the $25 billion health care
bill for the uninsured.
-- Newly available health insurance benefits at low wage jobs will encourage people
to move from welfare to work. One study suggests that universal coverage could reduce
welfare caseloads by up to 25 percent.
-- Savings from simplifying and reducing the bureaucracy can't be realized without
universal coverage. For example, a single claims form doesn't work unless everyone is in the
system and following the same rules.
(NOTE: In Congressional context, the Chafee-Dole bill and single payor are the
only ones that would provide universal coverage. Chafee-Dole is closest to our proposal.
Cooper-Breaux-Graham belong on the margins.)
2.
READ THE BOOK
>
Get the facts. Learn about our plan. Read the book. It deals with nothing less
than overhauling the system we all must depend on when we are most vulnerable, when we
or our loved ones are sick. For that reason alone, it may be the most important book of
information you'll read for yourself, your children, and others you care about. Understand
what it will mean for you and your family -- comprehensive benefits you can never lose,
premiums you can afford. The more people know about our plan, the more they support it.
>
Study the figures for a two parent family with children, premiums will
average about $73/month, with a maximum deductible of $400. For an individual, premiums
will average about $32/month. Reasonable prices considering today's constantly rising costs.
>
We've examined the impact this plan will have, including premium costs and
out-of-pocket expenses such as co-payments and deductibles. Seven out of ten Americans will
pay the same or less for benefits that are the same or better, with savings averaging about $61
a month. Three of ten will pay more, on average about $24 a month, but they'll receive
benefits that can never be taken away and many will receive better benefits, such as
preventive care. Let's be clear, without reform, every American can expect to pay higher
insurance premiums and higher health care bills with no guarantee of security, no guarantee
of benefits, and no guarantee that their health insurance will be there when they need it.
3.
HEALTH INSURANCE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA
>
Learn the truth. Recognize the distortions the special interests are putting into
the debate. And understand what's motivating those special interests, like the Health Insurance
Association of America.
>
The facts: My plan would provide every American with health benefits they
could never lose; with a choice of plans and the freedom to choose their own doctor. It would
put an end to lifetime limits, the practice insurance companies have of limiting benefits just
when you need them most. And, it includes new prescription drug and long-term care benefits
for seniors.
>
The insurance companies don't like the plan because it makes it illegal for them
to indiscriminately raise rates, illegal for them to deny you coverage because of a pre-existing
condition; illegal for them to drop your coverage because you get sick; illegal for them to put
a limit on the benefits you could receive, taking away coverage when you need it most.
They've forgotten why insurance companies were created in the first place and they've
abandoned the old-fashioned principle that was at the industry's foundation: insurance is about
sharing risk and about everyone taking responsibility.
HEALTH CARE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
for "MEET THE PRESS"
November 5, 1993
THIS WEEK'S NEWS
Q:
Senator Moynihan this week proposed an ammunition tax to
pay for health care and Secretary Bentsen could only say that
he would consider it. Would you support an ammunition tax to
help pay for your plan?
A:
I think that Secretary Bentsen spoke for the administration when he
said it was something we'd be willing to consider. The bill I
transmitted to Congress last week, however, was in no need of
additional revenues. It has a responsible, conservative financing
structure which will fully pay for my health care reform proposal.
Q:
Why all the confusion over who will pay more and how much?
Do you really think your numbers are credible - considering
how quickly they're changing? Just last week on this show,
your senior health advisor said 40 percent of Americans would
pay more. Now you're saying 30% will pay more. What's the
deal?
A:
Let's be clear -- without reform, every American can expect to pay
higher insurance premiums and higher health care bills with no
guarantee of security, no guarantee of benefits, and no guarantee that
their health insurance will be there when they need it. My plan
provides every American peace of mind and security that health care
will always be there.
Ira referred to an earlier analysis based on premium costs alone that
showed 40 percent would pay more in premiums. Of this 40 percent,
25 percent would get better benefits -- and would probably end up
paying less overall once co-pays and deductibles are added in. And, 15
percent -- mostly young people who have the lowest rates in today's
system -- would pay more for the same benefits. We've just completed
a more accurate analysis including not just premium costs but out of
pocket costs, such as co-payments and deductibles -- because these
must be included if you're going to accurately measure what people
pay. Some policies have deductibles as high as $3,000.
HEALTH CARE Q & A
November 5, 1993
Page 2
We found that seven out of 10 Americans will pay the same or less for
benefits that are the same or better, saving on average about $61 a
month. About 30 percent will pay more, on average about $24 a month,
but they'll receive benefits that can never be taken away and many
will receive better benefits, such as coverage for preventive care.
Q:
Why did you release the first set of numbers at all if you wanted
more precise figures? How much of a political problem did those
earlier numbers create?
A:
There is no political problem. The first set of numbers, taking only
premiums into account, showed that most Americans -- 6 in 10 -- would
pay the same or less for the same or better benefits. After the first
analysis was finished, we realized that it didn't give us the whole
picture. We needed to compare the total amount people will pay for
health care -- not just premiums but co-payments and deductibles too.
We think it's important for the American people and the Congress to
have all the facts SO we did a more complete analysis to provide the
most accurate and realistic picture possible of what people will really
pay. And it showed that 7 out of every 10 Americans would pay the
same or less for the same or better benefits
Q:
Both you and the First Lady have attacked the insurance
industry pretty hard this week. Is this part of a new strategy to
make the insurance industry the bad guys?
A:
We want the American people to get the facts about our plan, to read
the book, talk about it with their co-workers, their family, their elected
officials. And, we want them to recognize the distortions the special
interests are putting into the debate like the ads being run by the
Health Insurance Association of America -- and understand what's
motivating those special interests. These ads have been disputed by
independent source after independent source.
They're running a new ad which says that the government will limit
spending on health care under my plan. Well, that's wrong -- there's no
limit on spending, but there is a limit on how much insurance
companies can overcharge on premiums. And that's how they make a
lot of their money and why they're SO upset about my proposal.
HEALTH CARE Q & A
November 5, 1993
Page 3
Q:
The HIAA says your plan limits choice. Is that true?
A:
It's not true. One of the principles of our plan is choice -- ensuring
people can continue to choose the doctor they want. Our plan increases
the choices most consumers will have. Every American will be able to
choose from at least three and likely more kinds of health care plans,
no matter where they work. And the choice will be theirs, not their
employer's. And, every American will be able to switch plans every
year if they're not satisfied with their care or service.
Q:
The HIAA also says that the system will run out of money. With
both premium caps and subsidy caps, how can you be sure that
the system won't break down and run out of money?
A:
Our plan is based on the most responsible financing possible and on
very conservative assumptions. There is a 15 percent "cushion" -- about
$45 billion -- to cover unexpected costs. We believe that's more than
enough to protect against even the most unforeseen emergency. For
example, one model showed that a 2 percent increase in unemployment
-- which would be massive and highly, highly unlikely -- would
increase the costs of our insurance discounts by $2 billion a year. The
cushion is nearly six times larger, about $11 billion a year and any
funds that are not used in one year can be carried over to the next year
SO that a contingency reserve will build over time.
The fact is, you've got to consider the source of the charge. The
Insurance Association of America is running a scare campaign. They
don't like my plan because it would make it illegal for them to
indiscriminately raise rates, illegal for them to deny you coverage
because of a pre-existing condition, illegal for them to drop your
coverage because you get sick, illegal for them to put a limit on
benefits you could receive, taking away coverage when you need it
most. They've forgotten why insurance companies were created in the
first place and they've abandoned the old-fashioned principle that was
at the industry's foundation: insurance is about sharing risk and
everyone taking responsibility.
Q:
All of your advisors have been saying that if the system fails,
you will recommend action to Congress. What could you do
except raise premiums or cut benefits?
HEALTH CARE Q & A
November 5, 1993
Page 4
A:
We believe that there are enough protections within the system to
prevent us from ever reaching the point where emergency
Congressional action would be necessary.
Our plan is based on the most responsible financing possible and on
very conservative assumptions. There is a 15 percent 'cushion' -- about
$45 billion -- to cover unexpected costs. We believe that's more than
enough to protect against even the most unforeseen emergency. For
example, one model showed that a 2 percent increase in unemployment
which would be massive and highly, highly unlikely -- would
increase the costs of our insurance discounts by $2 billion a year. The
cushion is nearly six times larger, about $11 billion a year and any
funds that are not used in one year can be carried over to the next year
SO that a contingency reserve will build over time.
So we have that cushion, we have the reserve build-up. And, there are
early warning mechanisms built in -- the alliances have options they
can take when they see a problem developing. The system is designed
to prevent the kind of situation you're talking about. We believe the
financing is solid and the early warning system will be effective. But, if
Congressional action is needed, it will be taken -- and not just on auto-
pilot, as it has in the past, but in a way that can re-examine the
system, identify, and solve the problems.
Q.
How do you respond to those who say that the only thing that
connects your fall agenda is that both NAFTA and health care
will cost American jobs?
A.
That is absolutely wrong. This is a pro-competitiveness, pro-jobs
package. First of all, let's look at what is going on so far. The economy
has created more private sector jobs in nine months than the previous
Administration did in four years. Health care is going to lower costs
for most businesses that now cover their workers, allowing them to
increase wages, increase profits, or hire more people. Within a few
years, overall business spending on health care will be down, which
will lead to long-term wage and job growth. The studies our opponents
cite on jobs have been discredited because they do not take into
account either our discount system for small businesses or the jobs our
plan will create.
HEALTH CARE Q & A
November 5, 1993
Page 5
NAFTA is more important for jobs than ever. Right now one of the
things hurting our economic growth is that our exports are weak due to
slow growth in Japan and Europe. We need to increase exports with
countries like Mexico with whom we have surplus to create more jobs.
Q:
Are you giving older Americans less generous benefits than all
other Americans, creating a two-tier system biased against our
grandparents?
We are not creating a two-tiered system: we are guaranteeing all
Americans -- including seniors -- health care security, and enhancing
the benefits older Americans have today.
My plan is the only plan that invests Medicare savings in new benefits
for older Americans, including coverage for prescription drugs under
Medicare and a new community-based long-term care program. In
fact, Dr. Arthur Flemming -- the former Secretary of Health under
Eisenhower and the co-chair of an aging coalition called Save Our
Security -- says that the proposal will "mean a strengthened
Medicare program - providing greater security and expanded
benefits for older Americans."
And by simultaneously controlling spending on both the public sector
and the private sector, we are narrowing the payment gap that exists
today, which would get inevitably get worse under the alternative
plans that have been proposed. Most of those plans control Medicare
and Medicaid spending while doing nothing to control spending on the
private side, which will likely result in an even bigger gap in rates
between Medicare and Medicaid, and could mean more doctors would
decide to stop seeing Medicare patients altogether. That's a two-tiered
system.
Q:
On early retirees, why do you provide this huge subsidy to
employers and then take back all the money with an
"assessment"? Isn't that just a new tax?
A:
First of all, this benefit is something that we thought was important to
protect working Americans from losing the benefits they've worked
hard for all their lives. But we want to make sure that we're fiscally
responsible about it, and SO we phase in the benefit, making sure
HEALTH CARE Q & A
November 5, 1993
Page 6
everything is fully paid for up front. The government will pick up 50%
of the costs that employers now pay for their early retirees for three
years. And, after that, it will guarantee the entire employer share.
The retiree will pay the rest of the premium.
Q:
Why are you covering the early retirees at all?
A:
Right now, more and more companies are being forced to drop benefits
for early retirees, leaving these employees who have worked hard and
played by the rules all these years with no benefits. We want to make
sure these workers have the security they deserve. And that's why we
guarantee them comprehensive benefits.
GENERAL CHANGES SINCE SEPTEMBER 7 DRAFT
Q:
Why did this process take so long?
Compared to what? This is the most detailed, comprehensive plan for
national health reform in history. One of the first things I did when I
took office was to establish the Health Care Task Force chaired by the
First Lady. Hundreds of people from around the country did an
extraordinary amount of work in a very short time period. This has
been an unprecedented process in terms of openness, consultation,
thoroughness, and attention to detail -- and I welcome the national
debate that this introduction will bring. And the fact is, we've changed
the terms of this debate. No one argues any more that reform isn't
needed. Everyone agrees the current system is broken and the time
has come to fix it.
Q.
How does the legislation differ from the draft that leaked in
September?
NOTE: When asked to compare the "leaked" draft and the legislation:
"First, let me make it clear that the policy notebook which was made
public back in early September was just an early draft. The bill I
transmitted last week is my Health Security Act. No one should be
surprised that changes were made between September 7 and today. We
had always intended to modify the plan as we ran our final estimates,
HEALTH CARE Q & A
November 5, 1993
Page 7
consulted with Members of Congress and interested groups, and worked
out more refined policies."
A.
The Health Security Act which I presented to Congress has been
carefully reviewed in the months since an early draft of the plan was
made public. We have had an extensive consultation process with
Congress, state leaders and interest groups which resulted in changes
and clarifications to achieve the following goals:
First, to ensure the most responsible and conservative
financing possible
For example, the Health Security Act now has a 15% reserve or
"cushion" as a safeguard in estimates of the projected cost of
discounts provided to small businesses and low-income families.
Secondly, to minimize regulation in a health care system based
in the private sector.
For example, alliances will have to offer as many fee-for-service
plans as meet qualifications and will not limit the market to
three. Alliances may not conduct a bidding process to select and
limit the number of fec-for-service plans offered, as the policy
previously stated.
Thirdly, to increase choices for consumers.
For example, all plans -- even HMOs will make available a
"point-of-service" option, where people can choose to go to any
doctor they want.
Fourth, to protect more small businesses.
For example, discounts -- which formerly available to companies
with less than 50 workers -- are now available to employers of
up to 75 workers and vary with size and average wage. This is
to provide adequate protection with a smooth transition as
companies grow in size -- enabling small businesses to continue
to thrive and create jobs.
HEALTH CARE Q & A
November 5, 1993
Page 8
Q.
Why did you delay full implementation of the plan until 1998?
A.
This is incorrect. My plan will be fully implemented by the end of
1997. There have been changes in the pace of the implementation
within the three years, but the full implementation deadline remains
the end of 1997.
Q:
Why did you change your assumptions about the timing of the
phase-in?
A:
As part of our extensive consultation with Governors and state
legislators, we have been made aware of legislative and other
constraints to rapid phase-in: some states have bi-annual sessions,
others meet for short legislative sessions, etc. We have decided to be
more conservative in our estimate of how rapidly we can expect states
to get the new system up and running.
It is important to note that we give states a two-year window from
passage of federal legislation to implement the program, and our
current timetable still assumes that nearly half the states beat that
deadline.
Q.
Does everyone really have to pay 3.9% of their income for health
care?
A.
Absolutely not. On average, the individual share of the premium for
an average-cost plan will be between 1 and 2 percent of income. For
most Americans who are now insured, this will be the same or less
than they are currently paying for the same or better benefits. The
ceiling was added to protect some people with low incomes living in
areas with high health care costs who would not get sufficient
protection from the discounts. The extra layer of security offered by
the 3.9% ceiling assures those individuals that the responsibility to
purchase health coverage will be manageable.
D:
Does your plan include an open-ended entitlement?
A:
No. As we've said, this plan is built on responsible and conservative
financing. We felt an open-ended entitlement left the federal budget
HEALTH CARE Q & A
November 5, 1993
Page 9
vulnerable for unpredictable costs in the future, and that was not an
option. This program must pay for itself, and costs must be clear and
predictable.
That said, we are confident we have been conservative in estimating
the needed funds for discounts and that caps will never be reached.
These estimates are based on sophisticated models built from very
specific information about factors like family income data, numbers of
firms at certain sizes and wage-rates, etc. Some behavioral changes --
both positive and negative -- are difficult to quantify in a program of
this magnitude. This is why we have also specifically built in a
cushion for these unknowns, giving us even greater confidence in these
estimates.
Q:
Isn't a capped entitlement incompatible with universal
coverage?
A:
Absolutely not. Health care security means universal coverage and
comprehensive benefits that can't be taken away. As I said last week
when I presented the bill, I will not sign a health reform bill that does
not achieve universal coverage with comprehensive benefits -- security
is non-negotiable.
Q:
Haven't you scaled back your benefits package by pushing
mental health benefits and long term care far into the future?
A:
The phase-in for the mental health benefit has not changed. And we've
always said that there were two primary reasons the mental health
benefit needed to be phased in: first, we needed time to experience
savings before we could extend certain benefits. Responsible financing
means the program has to pay for itself and contribute to deficit
reduction. Secondly, there simply isn't a good infrastructure for
managed mental health today; we need time to build up the capacity.
As far as the long-term care benefit, it is true that we have decided to
phase it in at a more conservative pace. We simply couldn't afford to
extend benefits before we had the savings to pay for them.
HEALTH CARE Q & A
November 5, 1993
Page 10
Q.
Aren't we just seeing lower costs in your plan because costs are
being pushed past the year 2000 - past the budget window -
when new benefits like dental care and mental health coverage
will be added? Is this sustainable in the long run?
A:
This plan is completely sustainable in the long run. In revising our
assumptions and estimates to prepare the final estimates, we took
pains to be as prudent and conservative as possible. This meant that
in some cases, benefits needed to be phased in more slowly, until some
savings had been generated. Over time, our deficit savings increase.
As our plan saves more and more from getting Medicare and Medicaid
under control, there are more savings available after 2000. So there is
no question that we will have the capacity to bring on these new
benefits in 2001 and 2002 and still bring down the deficit.
Q.
Many in Congress suggest that you wait to get the savings before
you begin to provide generous benefits. What's wrong with that?
A.
This strategy misses the point entirely. Quite simply, you need
comprehensive coverage to reform the system to get the savings. You
have to provide the benefits -- that give you universal coverage -- that
allow you to have real health care reform -- where you can control
costs, stop-cost-shifting, start having more preventative care, and
bring real competition to the health care system.
Q:
If the savings you predict don't come to pass, would you
consider scaling back your benefits package to help make this
plan more affordable?
Our first principle -- from which we will not back away -- is security:
To us this means a comprehensive package of benefits -- that is
detailed, spelled out in advance and guaranteed SO that it can never be
taken away. While we are willing to work with Congress on this
legislation, we are committed to the benefits we have outlined.
As I have said many times, health security -- which I define as
universal coverage and comprehensive benefits -- is absolutely non-
negotiable. I think that an employer mandate is the best way to
achieve universal coverage while preserving a uniquely American
system, rooted in the private sector. There are only a few ways to
HEALTH CARE Q & A
November 5, 1993
Page 11
guarantee coverage for all Americans. One is to raise a broad-based
tax, and have the government finance and deliver health care.
Another is to require all individuals to purchase insurance for
themselves. The third is to require employers to contribute to coverage
for all of their workers -- as SO many do today. Nine out of every ten
people with private insurance get it from their employers and it would
be disruptive to completely reverse this.
Q:
Haven't we learned from our past experiences in the Nixon era
that price controls don't work? Aren't we really going back to
these price controls under the guise of premium caps?
A:
We have considered -- but specifically rejected -- a policy imposing
price controls on health care. Our primary strategy for cost
containment is private sector competition -- creating the right
economic incentives to bring costs in line and encourage health plans
to compete on price and quality.
But we strongly believe that, regardless of how quickly or how firmly
competitive reforms take hold, we need to build some discipline and
certainty into our system so that businesses and consumers know
that their health insurance premiums will not be allowed to suddenly
spiral out of control one year, and that the federal government will not
spend without accountability. That is why we reinforce the competitive
system with a fail-safe limit on health care premium increases.
Our policy acts like a speed limit on how fast premiums can go up.
Like a speed limit only affects those cars that are speeding, limits will
only apply to plans whose prices go up faster than the targeted rate; it
will not apply to any other plans in the area.
In contrast, price controls call for government micro-management of
every health care service, drug, technology and product. Price controls
would have the government substitute its views for the markets in
hundreds -- maybe thousands -- of decisions. We reject that type of
micro-management in favor of letting a market that truly competes
work.
Q:
The last thing we need is more government bureaucracy. Isn't
that all these alliances are?
HEALTH CARE Q & A
November 5, 1993
Page 12
A:
The last thing we want is big government bureaucracies, and that is
exactly why we rejected a government-run plan. What we designed
instead is a plan that calls for the minimal amount of new government
needed to ensure that the market is operating to ensure real choice,
real quality and real competition that serves the consumers -- and not
the health care industry at the expense of the rest of us. We expect
most alliances will be run by groups of local businesses and consumers,
not by the government, and not by insurance companies. They are
purchasers, not government regulators. We expect the alliance will
function on a budget of about 2% of premiums -- reducing buying,
marketing, and selling costs for employers and health plans. This will
reduce overall administrative costs.
Alliances replace thousands of small inefficient purchasers of
insurance (small and mid-size employers and self-employed
individuals) with one larger, stronger, more sophisticated buyer that's
able to get better value and offer much more choice. People will
continue to get their care through private health care plans. The
alliance enables them to have maximum choice between those plans.
D:
Won't your health plan cause job loss?
A:
I'll tell you what will cause job loss -- sticking with the current system.
Today, the rising cost of health care is a hidden tax on American
workers and employers -- hurting businesses, limiting job creation and
threatening our competitiveness. That is why we believe that
comprehensive health care reform is a necessary element in a strategy
to increase long-term economic growth, reduce the deficit, and create
jobs.
The bottom line is this: health care reform will bring down the costs of
most businesses who provide insurance to their workers -- allowing
them to create jobs and increase wages. CEOs at some of the top
companies in America -- companies like Chrysler, Ford, Bethlehem
Steel and Xerox -- have said that they support my plan because it will
help them become more competitive. And even a leading health
economist who has at times criticized our plan, Henry Aaron of the
Brookings Institution, said that "Successful implementation of health
care reform is one of the best pieces of news American business could
receive."
HEALTH CARE Q & A
November 5, 1993
Page 13
Manufacturers -- the employers that pay the highest wages to
middle-class Americans -- have been forced to lay off workers
because of rising health costs. But a recent study (from the
Economic Policy Institute) indicates that my plan will lower
manufacturers' health costs and create over 258,000 jobs over
the next decade.
Small Businesses that currently provide insurance
including the fastest growing businesses will be one of the
biggest winners. The Wall Street Journal has called the plan "an
unexpected windfall" for those small businesses. And the fastest
growing small businesses are the ones that provide health
insurance.
Jobs in the Health Care Industry: In addition, there will be
jobs created in the health care industry, particularly for nurses
and home health workers who will be providing more care.
Joshua Weiner, a health economist at the Brookings Institution,
predicts that the Health Security Act will create 750,000 home
health care jobs, and that overall the plan will be a job creator.
Q:
It seems that many Americans are uncomfortable with the idea
of a National Health Care Board. What is your response?
A:
Well, if we were creating a board like some opponents of reform have
described the National Board, I would be uncomfortable with it too.
People who have opposed reform have seized on the National Board
recently -- exaggerating both its staff and power to mis-characterize it
as a huge bureaucracy.
The Board will consist of only seven individuals, appointed by the
President for staggered four-year terms. Recent reports have
exaggerated the National Board's "enormous new federal bureaucracy"
with "thousands of Washington bureaucrats." It has always been the
position of the administration that if the Board has 100 employees, it
will be far too many.
The Board will set broad national guidelines for quality and then get
out of the way and let states craft health care solutions that respond to
their individual situations. It will oversee the state health plans and
HEALTH CARE Q & A
November 5, 1993
Page 14
guarantee that they meet federal standards, update the standard
benefits package, ensure that the quality of medical care doesn't suffer,
and assure that the nation's health care needs are being addressed.
Q:
You say rising health care costs are one of the main reasons you
are doing all this. But isn't health care inflation coming down
by itself?
Although recent reports have indicated that medical inflation did not
rise as quickly last year as it has in the past -- this is, by itself, no
cause to rejoice. First of all, historically, every time comprehensive
health reform has loomed on the horizons, those who profit from the
waste and excess in the health care system have curbed their excessive
prices for a time. It happened in the 1970's when President Nixon was
putting together his health reform package. Leading health care
economists, such as Uwe Reinhardt, have even dubbed this phenomena
the "Hillary Factor" because -- ever since the First Lady was named
Chair of the Health Care Task Force in January -- medical price
increases have been slowing.
You should also note that medical costs are still rising two to three
times as high as other prices. The average employers' cost for health
care benefits rose by 8% last year -- exceeding by far the 2.5% to 3%
overall rate of inflation. And more than two thirds of companies with
over 200 employees reported that their health care costs rose last year.
And, this does not even include small companies, whose annual costs
rise significantly more than those of large companies.
Q:
We can also expect to hear more in the coming months about the
fact that the plan will cover abortions. How can you justify
spending federal funds for abortion when that is prohibited
today by law?
A:
One of the goals that we kept in mind when designing this legislation
was to preserve those health benefits that Americans have today. We
didn't want to take away anything -- just add security and protection
to a system that is out of control. Most private insurance plans today
offer "pregnancy-related services" -- which, in many cases, includes
abortion -- and we don't think its fair to take these benefits away from
women who now have them.
HEALTH CARE Q & A
November 5, 1993
Page 15
FINANCING/NUMBERS
Q:
Isn't it the case that not a single outside economist will validate
your numbers?
A:
It's just not true. What may be true is that probably any experts who
look at this plan may find some policy or political judgment they
disagree with. But when you ask economists whether this plan is
sound and whether the numbers add up, you find a lot of support --
among top economists like Uwe Reinhardt of Princeton, Henry Aaron
of the Brooking Institute, and Ted Marmor of Yale. These are people
who may sometimes be critical of our policy decisions, but they agree
that our numbers are honest and sound.
Typically estimates of the cost of a government health care program
are developed by CEA and confirmed by other government analysts.
We insisted on an unprecedented degree of outside review and
validation -- with independent double- and triple-checking. Why?
Because we wanted to get the best data available validated by the best
people possible so that the national debate would be able to focus on
the policy itself -- instead of getting caught up in minute debates
about the numbers.
Q:
How do you respond to those who seek to cast doubt on your
long-range cost estimates - claiming that when the Medicare
program was enacted, it was estimated to cost about $9 billion
in 1990 but ended up costing $66 billion - 7.5 times that
amount?
A:
This criticism is exaggerated and unfair. Much of the difference
between the actual and projected estimates has nothing to do with
health care: the general price level (inflation) is simply much higher
than anyone would have predicted in 1965. In addition, many benefits
have been added over the years as the Medicare program was
broadened. For example, non-elderly disabled persons and those with
chronic kidney disease are now covered. Failure to predict these new
expenditures is not a forecast error.
HEALTH CARE Q & A
November 5, 1993
Page 16
But in addition, times have changed, and our ability to forecast has
improved. The people who are preparing the budget estimates for
health care reform have much more data and significantly more
advanced computers than their counterparts had in 1965. We also
have developed sophisticated modeling techniques after almost three
decades of experience in projecting Medicare and Medicaid
expenditures.
At the same time, we recognize the difficulty and importance of getting
the numbers right. Experts at the Treasury Department and other
agencies are making every effort to make our budget projections
accurate. We have had an unprecedented process of developing and
double and triple checking the numbers with outside experts to ensure
they are as accurate and conservative as possible.
Q.
You had a hard time getting tax increases that only affected 2%
of the richest Americans. Aren't you worried about a health
care plan where you are raising some taxes and making 30% of
all Americans pay more?
A.
No, we're not worried. Remember, under our plan, 7 out of 10
Americans will pay the same or less for the same or better benefits.
And of the ones who will pay more some have bare-bones coverage
now and will be getting much better benefits; and the rest are young,
healthy people who will have the security of guaranteed,
comprehensive benefits for the rest of their lives. And smokers will pay
a little more because of the cigarette tax to make up for the health
costs they incur.
Q.
Will this bring down the long-term deficit or will the deficit still
spike up after 1998 even with these savings?
A.
First of all, our mid-session review already shows the long-term deficit
not only being reduced by half in terms of our national income, but we
believe that the deficit will now stay level even in the later years. So
we believe that if we get the savings we expect from health care, we
will see the line continue downwards even after 1998.
HEALTH CARE Q & A
November 5, 1993
Page 17
Q:
Your administration has consistently maintained that your
plan was financed with only a tobacco tax and an assessment
on corporations who form their own alliances. Now we read
that there are actually several other hidden tax increases in
your plan - such as elimination of the tax benefit for flexible
benefit packages. Why have these been kept a secret?
A:
There have been no secrets. As we have said all along, we are
financing the plan by asking everyone to contribute to the cost of their
health care, by slowing down the growth in federal programs and by a
tobacco tax and a corporate alliance assessment. However, designing a
system with a comprehensive package of benefits that is guaranteed
for all Americans where employees' contributions are limited and all
employers are asked to help contribute -- has resulted in some small
changes in tax policy.
In the case of the cafeteria plan, we decided to take health care out of
the cafeteria -- where it is just one of many options, such as flexible
leave, savings plans, and vacation days -- in order to make health
security a guaranteed right for all Americans. In addition, one main
focus of my health reform plan is to enable people to make cost
conscious decisions about their health care alternatives -- paying a
little more for higher cost plans and a little less for lower cost plans.
Cafeteria plans -- which give the impression of "free" health care --
work against this objective, by artificially lowering the prices people
pay for health care. Eliminating these artificial prices will allow
people to become more aware of the true cost of for additional benefits.
In order to preserve the benefits people have today, employers will
still be permitted to pay 100% of the cost of their employees' health
care if they choose, under our plan. This essentially allows them to
continue providing their employees with pre-tax money for their
premiums much as the cafeteria plan was designed to.
OTHER PROPOSALS
Q:
All the other plans on the table today seem to accomplish all
that yours says it will but with considerably less pain. What is
your comment on that?
HEALTH CARE Q & A
November 5, 1993
Page 18
A:
My plan stands alone as the only proposal that is universal,
comprehensive, logistically feasible and politically realistic. It's the
only proposal that keeps everything that's right about the current
system in place-- private sector health care, employer-based coverage,
choice of doctors and plans, and high quality American medicine --
fixes what's wrong without any new broad- based taxes.
Besides a government-run system, it's the only proposal that achieves
universal coverage without shifting the full cost of health care to
American families, like Senator Chafee's plan. We have a lot in
common with the Chaffee-Dole plan -- it is probably closer to our plan
than any of the others. But, we think sharing the costs between
employers and workers, as the current system does, is the best way to
accomplish universal coverage. Nor do we think turning American
health care over to the federal government involves less pain; they
require several new federal taxes to raise huge new federal revenues.
Most other proposals do not guarantee every American that they will
never lose their health coverage. In fact, some plans actually
encourage companies to drop the coverage they now provide their
workers. And the other proposals don't do anything to expand
coverage, while paving the way for discriminatory insurance practices
to continue. One thing is clear, under these alternative plans, millions
of Americans will continue to lose their health insurance, and the rest
of us will foot the bill for their care.
I have put forth a thorough and explicit proposal that answers the
tough questions: it spells out what's covered, how the system works,
and most importantly, how it's paid for. These other proposals are
long on rhetoric but short on specifics. On all the decisions that affect
Americans most-- who's in, who's out, what's covered, who pays -- they
basically punt.
If these other plans want to be a part of the debate, then fine, let's
debate. But first, level with us and give us the details. Tell us what
your plan will do for people. Under your plan, who can feel sure they'll
have coverage? What will they be covered for? Which services will be
covered and which will be denied? And most importantly, what will
the whole thing cost, and who'll get stuck with the bill? If they really
think their plans are better, it's time they come forward with specifics.
November 5, 1993
To:
Mark Gearan
Fr:
Gene Sperling
Subject: Positive Themes for Mcct the Press
Bob Rubin, Bob Reich, Alan Blinder and I discussed this matter and we felt that other
than NAFTA and health care, the only economic theme he should stress is that 1) we have a
comprehensive economic plan; 2) while all might not be well, it is working, and 3) that we
care about jobs, have a job plan, and it has created 1.2 million private sector jobs in only 9
months.
POSITIVE ECONOMIC THEMES
I. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR JOBS AND GROWTH THAT IS WORKING: [Strategy:
Point out that we have a comprehensive economic plan to invest in our future -- not just
separate parts -- that is starting to work, while recognizing that things are not good enough
yet, and we need the rest of this comprehensive strategy to move us further toward solving
our long-term challenges]
WE CAME INTO OFFICE WITH A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR ECONOMIC
GROWTH AND JOBS. It was a plan to grow the economy and invest in our people,
by borrowing less, investing more, making our tax system is fair, and that our people
have the security to embrace the change we need to create economic growth.
YES, WE STILL HAVE A LONG WAY TO GO, AND YES, THERE ARE FAR
TOO MANY WORKING FAMILIES THAT THE ECONOMY IS NOT WORKING
FOR, BUT WE ALSO NOW HAVE AN ECONOMIC STRATEGY THAT IS
FALLING IS STARTING TO WORK AND PUT US ON THE PATH TO
ECONOMIC RENEWAL
Our historic deficit reduction is already bringing down interest rates and bringing up
investment in housing, business and technology investment.
We've passed a historic tax break for 20 million working families and houscholds
making under $27,000.
Our economy has now created 1.2 million private sector jobs in the past nine
months -- that is 200,000 more private sector jobs created than were created in the
last four years.
AND IN JUST OUR FIRST YEAR, WE'RE MAKING GREAT PROGRESS AT
INVESTING MORE IN OUR PEOPLE AND HAVING A COMPREHENSIVE
JOBS STRATEGY including a new national service legislation, a technology
reinvestment program to convert to a post-cold war economy, new job creating tax
incentives for small business, empowerment zones, a new college loan program --
and we are hard at work to pass our school-work-apprenticeship program,
comprehensive worker training.
WE HAVE TO TAKE THE NEXT STEPS TO MAKE OUR ECONOMIC
STRATEGY FOR GROWTH WORK. That means passing health care reform that not
only provides security for all Americans, but is our best hope for keeping the deficit
on a downward path. And that means going further with a job creation strategy by
opening markets with NAFTA, and by finding the savings we need so that we can
invest more in defense conversion, fighting crime and investing in our people.
II. THE DEFICIT OR BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT: [Three part answer:1) We
have done much and it is paying off already; 2) We are taking other intelligent steps. 3) But
one way not to do this is to pass an rigid balanced budget amendment]
1) We have done much: I am deeply committed to ensuring that we enforce every
penny of the $500 billion deficit reduction plan we passed the largest in history.
That plan included a 12% real cut in all discretionary spending, which is
unprecedented.
2) I am deeply committed to enforcing this deficit reduction plan, and keeping it
on a downward path. The number one way to do this is to pass health care reform,
because it is the 11-16% - increase in health care spending that threatens our long-term
deficit. In addition we have additional savings from the Vice President's National
Performance Review, a rescission bill, and I have just announced the creation of a
Bipartisan Entitlement Commission to look at long-term ways to control entitlement
spending SO we can bring down the deficit and have more funds available for the
investments in the future we desperately need.
3) I oppose the balanced budget, however, for four basic reasons:
One, almost every economists believes it can threaten our economic well-being by
putting economic policy in a straight-jacked and has a tendency to make bad
economic times worse, longer and more costly to jobs. Two, I believe it is a poor way
to govern because it allows us here in Washington to hide from hard choices, and
because it is so vague that it will end up putting economic policy in the Courts and
not with our elected officials. Three, I fear that it would result in large middle class
tax increases, massive cuts to Social Security and that it would have the effect of
derailing health care reform, which is our best answer to bringing down the long-term
deficit. Four, we need an intelligent process that brings down the deficit without
threatening our national or economic security, by distinguishing between investment
and consumption and not making unwise cuts in defense or in defense conversion,
training or job creation --where few serious people do not believe that we must do
more.
III. BIPARTISAN COMMISSION: [Overall, remember that we must stress health care
reform is the main answer to controlling entitlements, and that this Commission is another
step -- not our main vehicle] Everyone on all sides of the political spectrum agrees that we
must do something about entitlement spending if we want to bring down the deficit and still
be able to invest in the things that matter for growth. The main problem is by far the
escalation of health care spending. Medicare and Medicaid growing 11 and 16% respectively.
Only with health care reform can we bring about long-term deficit reduction that helps the
economy. If we just cut health care programs without reform, we would threaten the security
of seniors and just shift costs to the private sector. But there are other serious issues on
entitlements that are politically sensitive, and need both serious study and true bipartisan
support. That is why I will think the work of this Commission could be so important.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
November 6, 1993
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
Rick
Cliff
FROM:
BILL BURTON & CLIFF SLOAN
Steam
SUBJECT:
Child Pornography Case
1. Call to Attorney General Reno
You should call the Attorney General and tell her that:
You want the broadest possible child pornography laws.
*
You expect the Justice Department to vigorously enforce
our child pornography laws.
*
If the current child pornography law does not go as far as
the sense of the Senate resolution suggests, you want the
law changed promptly to go that far.
2. Talking points on "Meet the Press"
If asked about the child pornography case, you should say that:
*
As a parent and a citizen, you are appalled if child
pornography laws are not as broad and as tough as possible.
You have called the Attorney General and told her that you
want the broadest possible child pornography laws and that,
if there are any loopholes in the current law, you want them
closed promptly.
*
You were pleased that, in another child pornography case,
the Justice Department on Friday asked the Supreme Court to
overturn a lower court decision finding an important part of
the child pornography statute unconstitutional. You expect
the Justice Department to be very tough and aggressive in
defending and enforcing the child pornography laws.
You agree with the unanimous view of the Senate that the
child pornography statute should have the coverage set out
in the sense of the Senate resolution, and you support
prompt legislation to accomplish that goal.
*
You will not comment on the particular Knox case or the
position that the Solicitor General took in that case
because the case is still in the courts and you don't want
to risk jeopardizing a possible conviction. But let nobody
doubt that you are personally sickened and outraged by any
exploitation or abuse of children, and you are committed to
this Administration doing everything it can to crack down on
child pornography. If we find any weaknesses in the current
laws or their enforcement, we will change them promptly.
3. Other possible actions
* You could direct the Attorney General to identify any
loopholes or weaknesses in the current child pornography
laws and their enforcement, and report to you within 30
days. You could state that you will introduce legislation
correcting any problems promptly after receiving the
Attorney General's report.
* You could direct FBI Director Freeh to set up a Child
Pornography Strike Force to undertake tough and aggressive
enforcement of the child pornography statute.
November 4, 1993
MEMORANDUM FOR MARK GEARAN
FROM:
BRUCE REED
SUBJECT:
MEET THE PRESS:
1) Crime & Violence
2) Welfare Reform
Here are the key points on crime, violence, and welfare reform:
CRIME: The President will be asked about the House and Senate consideration of the
crime and Brady bills. One clear message of Tuesday's elections is that Americans fear for
their personal security. He can make news on crime by embracing the bipartisan Senate
agreement on a Crime Trust Fund that will make good on his promise to put 100,000 cops on
the street by cutting 252,000 bureaucrats. We'll be discussing this with him on Friday
morning.
On guns, he can point to likely Senate passage of the Kohl bill to ban handguns for
minors -- which has the NRA's support -- and the growing momentum for the Brady bill,
which should pass the House next week.
He undoubtedly will be asked about youth violence as well. He should talk about the
boot camps and juvenile detention measures in the Senate bill.
If asked about drugs, he should talk about drug treatment for criminal addicts, which
is also addressed in the crime bill.
WELFARE REFORM: There's an outside chance he may be asked about the House
Republican welfare reform plan, which could be released as early as next week. We don't
want a headline here. Our response should be that we like parts of the GOP bill, we're not
sure about other parts (it doesn't do enough on child support enforcement and it caps work
incentives like the EITC), but we want to work with them. He can stress the waivers his
administration signed this week in Wisconsin and Georgia.
November 5, 1993
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
BRUCE REED
SUBJECT:
SENATE ACTION ON CRIME BILL
The Senate voted 94-4 last night to double the crime bill and create a $22 billion
Crime Reduction Trust Fund to pay for it by dedicating the 252,000 FTE reduction called for
by the National Performance Review.
The Crime Trust Fund includes:
*
$8.995 billion to fully fund your 100,000 cops pledge over the next 5 years, at a
declining match of 75-50-40-25-10;
*
$3 billion for 10 regional prisons, with an 85% truth-in-sentencing requirement;
*
$2 billion for boot camps and state prisons for violent offenders;
*
$1.8 billion for the Violence Against Women Act;
*
$1.2 billion for drug courts for criminal addicts;
*
$500 million for grants to states to house violent juveniles;
*
$300 million for Safe Schools
*
$200 million for Police Corps
*
$150 million for law enforcement scholarships; etc.
The deal was worked out with unprecedented bipartisan support not only from
Mitchell, Byrd, Sasser, and Biden, but from Dole, Hatch, and Gramm. Gramm called it "the
most important crime bill in years." The agreement extends only to the program funding; the
Senate will now begin debate over habeas, death and other penalties, and a host of get-tough
amendments to the bill.
Certainly, you can welcome the Senate's bipartisan enthusiasm to help fulfill your
campaign pledges. After all, this was your idea in the first place: You said in your speech to
the 1992 Democratic Convention that as President, you would
"
streamline the federal government, and change the way it works; cut
100,000 bureaucrats, and put 100,000 new police officers on the streets of
American cities."
Putting People First, p. 224
Beyond broad support for the Senate action, the question is whether you want to
embrace the agreement by bringing the sponsors (and key House members) down to the
White House. That would ensure that you get the credit for your idca, and more important,
let the country know that we are taking unprecedented steps to fight crime and violence. It
might also increase the chance that Congress will have the bill on your desk by Thanksgiving.
Not surprisingly, the sponsors would like to come down here for an event with you as soon as
possible.
At the same time, the Senate approach will have considerable consequences on the
FY95 budget and beyond. Embracing the deal will put you on record for these funding
levels. It is possible, though by no means certain, that the authorizations will be reduced in
conference. But with the Senate Majority Leader and the Appropriations, Budget, and
Judiciary Committee chairmen leading the charge for this bill, we may well be forced to face
these budget consequences whether we embrace them now or not. Moreover, any effort by
the Administration to downplay the Senate deal would give Bob Dole and Phil Gramm
bragging rights to claim that they're willing to do more to fight crime than we are.
The Senate will continue to debate the crime bill over the next few days, and pass it
perhaps as soon as next week. On Wednesday, by voice vote, the House approved $5 billion
in crime authorizations for cops, juvenile detention, and drug treatment. It is not yet clear
whether the House and Senate will undertake a crime bill conference before Thanksgiving.
On the gun front, the House Judiciary Committee reported out the Brady Bill
yesterday without any weakening amendments. The House should vote on it next week. The
Senate still plans to vote on Brady after dispensing with the crime bill.
Metzenbaum, DeConcini, and Feinstein have reached agreement on a reasonable
assault weapons compromise. We don't know yet whether they have the votes, or whether
Biden will decide to let them offer it.
DOMESTIC POLICY Q&A
Meet the Press
November 5, 1993
CRIME
Q. On Friday, the Senate more than doubled the size of your crime bill, and paid for it
with the cuts in the bureaucracy you recommended in NPR. Do you support the Senate's
action?
A. I'm delighted that both the House and Senate broke gridlock this week after all
these years by setting politics aside and passing bold measures to fight crime and put more
police on the street. I'm especially pleased about the support for 100,000 more cops in
community policing, which is one of the most important things I came here to do. In my
acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention last year, I said I wanted to reduce the
federal bureaucracy by 100,000, and use the money to put 100,000 more police on the streets
to give people the personal security they deserve. One message of the elections this week is
that people want government to change, they want it to stop simply spending their money and
start making a difference in their lives. That's what our crime bill will do.
Q. Many believe that we are in the midst of an epidemic of violence in this country.
Beyond your crime bill, what do you plan to do?
A. We are in an epidemic of gun violence and youth violence. We're the only
advanced country that lets teenagers roam the streets with assault weapons, better armed than
the police. That's crazy. We need the Brady Bill, and I'm hopeful that the Congress will put
it on my desk soon. And we need to use this crime bill to get handguns out of the hands of
children. Young children in our cities shouldn't be planning their own funerals on the way to
school.
Q. You've been criticized about your Administration's lack of interest in the war on
drugs. What do you plan to do about drugs?
A. Drugs are a priority, and I've got a Drug Director in Lee Brown who knows how to
fight crime and drug-related crime. The crime bill that is rushing through Congress will set
up drug courts across this country that will require criminal addicts to get drug treatment to
break their habit, so when they get out of jail they won't go out and prey on more people by
committing more crimes to buy more drugs.
WELFARE REFORM (This question is a longshot)
Q. House Republicans are expected to announce a welfare reform plan next week that
is designed to keep your pledge to end welfare as you know it. When can we expect a
welfare reform plan from your Administration?
A. I haven't reviewed the Republican plan yet, but I look forward to working with
them. This isn't a partisan issue; Americans across party, class, and racial lines believe that
the current system is broken, and we need to do much more to move people off welfare and
into the work force. This past week, my Administration signed a waiver so the state of
Wisconsin can try to do what I promised in my campaign: to give people the education and
training they need for up to two years, but at the end of that time, to require those who can
work to go to work.
We've already done two things that will go a long way toward reducing the welfare
rolls: expanding the EITC and introducing a health reform plan that will remove the current
incentive for people to stay on welfare instead of going to work because that's the only way
they can get health care for their children.
& & A'S RE: DOJ'S CHILD PORNOGRAPHY BRIEF
1. Isn't the Justice Department's brief in the Supreme Court
admission that the Clinton Administration doesn't care about
child pornography?
No, it certainly is not. This Administration is strongly
committed to cracking down on child pornography. In fact,
just this week, in another case, the Justice Department
filed an appeal to the Supreme Court strongly challenging a
federal court decision which struck down an important part
of the federal child pornography statute. We will fight
vigorously to protect this important tool in the war against
child pornography.
And let me be clear that nobody needs to convince this
Administration about the need to be tough on child
pornography and the exploitation and abuse of children. I
am absolutely convinced that this Administration will have
the best record of preventing abuse of children of any
Administration in history. Attorney General Janet Reno and
FBI Director Louis Freeh are as tough and experienced as
they come in fighting crime and protecting children against
abuse and exploitation.
2. But what about the Justice Department's brief in the Knox
case?
Let me explain a few facts. First of all, the Justice
Department's brief says only that the lower court
misinterpreted the particular language of the statute. The
Justice Department's brief does not say that the defendant
should go free. It says that the defendant's conduct should
be considered under the correct standard. That's all.
Also, I should point out that the Justice Department
rejected many broad arguments raised by the defendant. A
major part of the Justice Department's brief was devoted to
opposing broad attacks on the child pornography statute.
3. But didn't the Supreme Court say that the defendant should go
free because of the government's position?
No. The Supreme Court said only that the case should go
back to the lower courts for further consideration.
4. Will the government continue to try to get a conviction in
the Knox case or will it drop the prosecution?
As I said, the Justice Department's brief suggested that the
case should be sent back to the lower courts to consider the
defendant's conduct under the proper standard. The Supreme
Court sent the case back to the lower courts, and any other
statements about the pending case at this time would be
inappropriate.
5. Won't the Justice Department's position in the Knox brief
interfere with many prosecutions?
Absolutely not. The facts of this prosecution were unique.
There has never been a prosecution like it before. There
will be no effect on the government's efforts against child
pornography.
6. Did you approve of the Justice Department's position in this
case?
The Solicitor General made this determination in the
ordinary course of reviewing Supreme Court cases. He
concluded that the lower court had applied the wrong
standard under the language of the statute and that the
lower courts should consider the case under the correct
standard. Neither I nor anybody else at the White House had
any part in the decision.
7. What do you think of the Senate's "Sense of the Senate"
resolution opposing the Justice Department's brief in this case?
I have no problem with the Senate's action in expressing its
views.
I also want to point out that the Senate's resolution is
part of the crime bill, which I have strongly supported and
which will make our streets safer and more secure. As I
have said many times, we need to pass the Brady bill, put
more cops on the street, and impose swift and certain
penalties on criminals. I urge Congress to pass the anti-
crime legislation promptly and send it to my desk.
8. Would you support a change in the child pornography statute to
make it as broad as the lower court thought that it was?
Yes. I have no problem with such a change. [NOTE: Some DOJ
officials have privately stated -- and been reported as
saying without attribution -- that there may be
constitutional problems with the broader interpretation.
But DOJ's brief does not make this point. ]
[Possible alternative answer: Any discussion about a
statutory change is premature. The Supreme Court sent the
case back to the lower courts to work out the proper
standard and the resolution of the particular case, and we
should let the process take its course. But let me say
again that I and my Administration stand firmly against
child pornography and against any abuse or exploitation of
children, and we will continue to take vigorous actions to
crack down on this terrible evil.]
Q and A's on Drug Policy
Your Administration is being attacked for your approach to the drug issue - your
Interim Drug Strategy was vague on funding details and implementation, the
staff of the Office of National Drug Control Policy has been heavily reduced, and
various Members have criticized the lack of your personal involvement. What are
you doing to deal with the pressing problem of drugs in this country?
First of all, I have publicly mentioned the problem of drugs in our society in the
context of both crime and violence and as a public health issue - more than fifty
times since I have been President. This is not an issue that can, has, or will be
ignored.
Accordingly, I appointed Dr. Lee Brown, someone who has enormous experience
and credibility on this issue, to be director of the ONDCP and I elevated the
Director to the cabinet level. The Interim Drug Strategy that we have unveiled is
an excellent blueprint that documents a reevaluation of both our domestic and
international approach. There will be a new sense of direction towards the tough
job of focusing on hard-core drug use and treatment. And there will of course be
continued efforts on the law enforcement side - this policy will not ignore the
safety and security of Americans.
On the matter of funding, we have taken a hard look at the drug budget and have
attempted at every turn to be able to put forth our agenda and have the money to
pay for it. In addition to the initiatives in the strategy, we have made a significant
effort to deal with drugs as they relate to almost every major initiative I have
announced; there are substance abuse provisions in my health care package,
school education proposals and community policing initiatives in my crime bill,
drug education programs within the National Service program, and improved
chances for better interdiction in the NAFTA.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
As of 11/6/1993
CLINTON ADMINISTRATION ACCOMPLISHMENTS
AGRICULTURE
Proposed comprehensive reforms on the nation's pesticide and food safety laws.
Increased Farmers-Owned reserve to maximum allowable levels to help improve farm
income and began reform of Federal Crop Insurance Program to make it more affordable
and provide better service to farmers.
Announced the $700 million Food for Progress program expanding U.S. agricultural exports
to the Russian Federation.
APPOINTMENTS
Appointed the most diverse Cabinet and Administration in history: 29% African-American
and 14% Hispanic.
Appointed women to nearly half of all Clinton Administration positions and to six cabinet
level posts.
Named the first ever White House AIDS policy coordinator.
BUDGET
Passed the single largest deficit-cutting plan in history $496 billion over five years.
Created a Deficit Reduction Trust Fund which locks up $496 billion for the sole purpose of
cutting the deficit over the next five years.
Issued an Executive Order to control the growth of entitlement spending while allowing for
increasing caseloads.
Outlined an additional $11 billion in new spending cuts over the next six years.
Prepared by the Office of Communications Research (x7845)
1
CRIME & DRUGS
Introduced a tough new crime package that places heavy emphasis on community
and marks the first step toward putting 100,000 more police officers on the streets
reducing gun violence.
Ordered the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to tighten Federal licensing rules for
gun dealers and to ban imports of foreign assault pistols such as the Israeli-made Uzi.
Announced strong support for the Brady Bill - five day waiting period on the purchase of
handguns.
Signed Presidential Directives to reform federal firearms licensing procedures by
improving background checks and imposing other security measures to keep guns out
of the hands of criminals and to close loopholes on importation of assault pistols.
Passed the Police Hiring Supplement, making $150 million available to communities
most in need of community policing.
Supported for the Violence Against Women Act.
Elevated the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy to Cabinet rank.
Introduced an Interim Drug Strategy which calls for more emphasis on hard-core
drug users and links the drug policy agenda to other related initiatives - job creation,
health care, reduction in crime, and education reform.
Issued Presidential Decision Directive to increase the authority of the Office of National
Drug Control Policy to better integrate national interdiction and foreign area drug control
programs.
Disrupted the international drug trade by intensifying pressure on the kingpin
organizations, seizing their drugs and assets, and destroying their crops, most recently
assisting the Mexican government in an eight ton cocaine seizure in the Gulf of
Mexico.
CIVIL RIGHTS
Signed a Motor-Voter Bill on May 20, 1993 which greatly advances voting rights for 65
million Americans.
Committed to vigorous enforcement of fair housing laws. HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros
and Associate Attorney General Webb Hubbell took control of an East Texas housing
authority that failed to desegregate housing developments in Vidor, an all-white community.
2
Committed to protecting the right of American women to choose. The Justice Department
declared support for legislation preventing the use of force, threats of force, or physical
obstruction to prevent women from visiting medical clinics. DOJ is also defending before
the Supreme Court the position that the RICO statute can be used to prevent interference
with the constitutional right to choose.
Conducting nationwide investigation into discrimination by financial institutions to help end
race discrimination in the provision of home mortgages.
Argued the so-called Retroactivity Cases before the Supreme Court. The Administration's
position is that the Congress intended the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to apply to cases
pending on the date of enactment.
Declared support for the Equal Remedies Act, which will remove damage caps on gender
and disability so that equal remedies are available to all victims of discrimination.
Committed to vigorous enforcement of the Voting Rights Act; to defending the
constitutionality of African American majority Congressional districts; and to the elimination
of language barriers in voting.
Committed to guaranteeing equal educational opportunities. The Administration intervened
on behalf of women at The Citadel, and is continuing efforts to gain admittance for women
to the Virginia Military Institute.
Committed to the vigorous enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The DOJ
has already achieved its first consent decree in an ADA case, allowing people without
drivers licenses - such as those with vision impairment - to pay by check using alternative
forms of identification. DOJ has filed three lawsuits against dentists who refused to treat
patients infected with HIV.
DEFENSE
Completed the first comprehensive strategic review of defense needs for the post-
Cold War world. DOD's bottom-up review identified $91 billion in pragmatic
specific cuts over the next five years.
Announced a comprehensive five-year package to ensure that those people and communities
that helped fight and win the Cold War are not forgotten. This effort includes a joint
program of the Defense Department and the National Economic Council to provide
economic development assistance to hard-hit communities, worker training to dislocated
defense workers, and a new emphasis on dual-use technologies.
Signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Russian Federation that establishes a
framework for a military and defense partnership, and accelerated destruction of further
Nuclear weapons to reduce the nuclear threat to Americans.
3
Launched a comprehensive DOD review of nuclear posture for the post-Cold War world.
Opened the first DOD office for Civil Military Cooperation programs. In July, Secretary
Aspin released $57.7 million to begin several pilot programs. The Challenge Program is a
22-week residential program run by the National Guard for 16-18 year-old dropouts to earn
their GED; there are ten states currently participating. The Medretes Program offers medical
assistance to under-served communities in the US; there are currently five states
participating.
Developed a comprehensive new non-proliferation policy, including a fissile material
cutoff, major departures in missile non-proliferation, and the strengthening of the
Biological Weapons Convention.
Signed implementing agreements for use of $275 million in nuclear safety, security,
and dismantlement funds (Nunn-Lugar) with Russia and Belarus, and signed an
umbrella agreement with Ukraine. Of $800 million available in Nunn-Lugar funds,
$789 million has now been committed.
DEFENSE CONVERSION
Developed a plan to assist shipyards to move from military to commercial markets.
The plan, "Strengthening America's Shipyards: A Plan for Competing in the
International Market," was delivered to Congress.
Promoted Defense Conversion through the highly successful Technology Reinvestment
Project and comprehensive procurement reform.
DISASTER RELIEF
Mobilized federal resources to aid victims of the floods and restore commerce at
earliest possible point.
Signed Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1993 to provide $207.5 million in
additional aid for the hurricane disaster areas of Miami/South Dade, Hawaii,
Louisiana, and Guam.
Passed a $6.3 billion aid package for Midwestern flood relief.
ECONOMY
So far this year, the economy has added - on average - more than 152,000 non-farm payroll
jobs a month. That's nearly twice the 1992 rate.
In the first eight months of the Clinton Administration, 1,067,000 new private non-farm jobs
have been created. That compares with 1,002,000 jobs created over the entire four years of
the Bush Administration.
4
September unemployment figures remained at 6.7%, the lowest rate in 26 months.
October mortgage rates were at a 21-year low.
New single-family home sales jumped 20.8% in September, the highest level in seven years.
Since January, housing starts have climbed from 1.17 million to 1.35 million (annual rates)
in September, the highest level in more than three years.
In September, domestic auto sales were up 4.3 percent on a year-over-year basis, compared
with a growth rate of 2.3 percent in 1992.
Interest rates have fallen sharply. Since January, the rate on 30-year mortgages has fallen
by more than a percentage point to 6.86%.
In September, sales of new single-family homes surged 20.8% in Sept to 766,000 seasonally
adjusted annual rate, the highest rate since December 1986.
EDUCATION
Passed the Student Loan Reform Act of 1993 which will make college more affordable and
save taxpayer money through direct Federal lending and income contingent loans. $.3
billion will be saved over the next five years and $2 billion a year will be saved thereafter.
Introduced to Congress the "Goals 2000: Educate America Act," a comprehensive national
education reform program. The bill has passed the House with a substantial bipartisan
majority and is currently waiting to go to the floor in the Senate. Supported by the
Governors, teachers, business groups and labor, the bill simulates reform in states based on
world-class standards, local school flexibility through waivers, and a performance-based
accountability system. $110 million is appropriated for FY 94 for this program.
Expanded funding for a SAFE Schools initiative.
Introduced the School-to-Work Act Opportunities Act, providing funding to states and
communities to develop and implement training programs that have been developed with
industry, that span high school and college, that engage students in on the job learning and
that culminate in a portable nationally accepted certificate. The Act is currently awaiting
floor action in the House and Senate.
5
Introduced the Improving America's Schools Act, the reauthorization of the $10
billion Elementary and Secondary Education Act and other programs. This Act
focuses on providing opportunities to all students to meet challenging standards of
performance, creates a new teacher professional development program, consolidates a
variety of programs to create a new technical assistance system, combines the
mission of safe and drug free schools into a single comprehensive and substantial
program, and establishes a broad system of waivers, and new programs in technology
and charter schools.
Substantially increased funding for Head Start by $550 million, allowing 100,000
additional children to participate.
Signed an Executive Order on Historically Black Colleges and Universities.
Created the Institute for Public Policy to tap the talents of underrepresented
minorities for the foreign service and private international volunteer organizations.
Created the Faculty Development Fellowship Program to assist talented faculty from
underrepresented groups obtain advance degrees and develop their careers.
ENERGY
Allocated, for the first time in history, more of the Department of Energy's budget toward
environmental efforts than to defense projects.
Extended moratorium on nuclear testing through at least September 1994.
Established a "Clean Cities" program in which major cities, like Atlanta, Philadelphia and
Washington, have pledged to increase their use of alternative fuel vehicles to reduce energy
use and emissions of greenhouse gases.
Convened economic development summit in Washington and Oregon to chart a course
towards a more diversified post Cold-War economy. The summit focused on technology
development and environmental protection involving the multi-billion dollar cleanup of the
Hanford nuclear weapons plant.
Convened a U.S./Russian Summit and reached agreement on developing a U.S.-Russian
legislative and regulatory framework to encourage energy production and efficiency and the
independent regulation of Russia's nuclear facilities.
6
ENVIRONMENT
Issued executive order establishing the President's Council on Sustainable Development
advise him on matters related to "economic growth that will benefit present and future
generations without detrimentally affecting the resources or biological systems of the
planet."
Signed the Convention on Biological Diversity.
Signed Forest Resources Conservation and Shortage Relief Amendments Act of 1993
banning the export overseas of unprocessed timber taken from state and federal lands.
Announced the Administration's Wetlands package, calling for long-term protection and
restoration of the Nation's wetlands.
Began implementation of the Forest Conservation Plan, a balanced program aimed at
strengthening the long-term economic and environmental health of the Pacific Northwest.
Introduced the Climate Change Action Plan, designed to curb global warming by
reducing the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to their 1990
levels.
Announced new federal Grazing Fees to bring fees closer to market value and to improve
the long term health of America's rangeland.
Signed a number of Executive Orders to lead by example, and use the federal government's
enormous purchasing power to drive markets for more environmental products while saving
taxpayers' money:
- Recycled paper and environmentally preferable goods for Federal purchases.
- A Iternative-fuel vehicles.
- Energy-efficient computers for all government uses.
- Accelerated phase-out of ozone-depleting chemicals.
- Pollution Prevention -- Federal facilities to cut toxic emissions 50% and report
them under Right to Know laws.
The EPA announced steps to reduce the amount of hazardous waste produced in the U.S.
and is developing Superfind legislative reforms.
Signed the Colorado Wilderness Act of 1993.
Created the National Biological Survey at the Department of the Interior to focus on the
status and trends of our national biological resources.
7
FOREIGN POLICY
Brokered a historic Mideast peace agreement, the Declaration of Principles betw
and the Palestinians, signed at the White House September 13.
Sponsored Israeli-Jordanian agreement for bilateral negotiations.
Established a U.S.-Israel-Jordan Economic Committee to coordinate economic
development and integration in support of Middle East peace and mobilized $2
billion in pledges at the Washington Conference in Support of Middle East Peace.
Led the international effort to preserve Russian democracy by public and unwavering
support of President Yeltsin, obtaining a historic $2.5 billion U.S. assistance package,
mobilizing a multi-billion dollar G-7 economic support package, and ensuring steady
Western political and economic backing for Russian reform.
Initiated the Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission, a forum for expanding U.S.-Russian
cooperation in energy, space, defense conversion and other areas.
Obtained commitments from Kazakhstan and Belarus to accede to the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty.
Led U.S. forces in a successful military strike against Iraq's major intelligence facility in
response to the Iraqi government's plot to assassinate President Bush.
Reached agreement at Tokyo Economic Summit on G-7 policies to restore growth
and job creation markets.
Brought the Cambodian Peace Process to a successful conclusion with the holding of
elections, drafting of a constitution and installation of a coalition government.
Led the allied effort to promote peace negotiations in Bosnia and enhance the threat
to Serbian aggression by negotiating NATO decisions to enforce the no-fly zone over
Bosnia, to undertake air strikes if the siege of Sarajevo continues, and to provide
close air support to UNPROFOR forces in Bosnia
Encouraged South Africa's transition to democracy, which will culminate in one-
person/one-vote elections scheduled for April 27, 1994, through diplomacy and $20
million in election assistance.
Overturned the "Mexico City" policy, which denied funding to international non-
governmental organizations providing abortion counselling and services with non-
U.S. funds, and resumed funding to the U.N. Population Fund.
8
HEALTH CARE
Delivered to Congress the President's Health Security Act of 1993, a comprehensive pla:
reform the nation's health care system to ensure that every American has access to good,
affordable health care. The Health Security Act of 1993 guarantees these six principles:
Security of guaranteed, comprehensive benefits
Health care costs that are under control
Improved quality of care
Increased choices for consumers
Less paperwork and a simpler system
Responsibility from everyone
Revoked the Reagan/Bush restrictions on abortion counseling ("the gag rule"), fetal-tissue
research, abortions in military hospitals, "Mexico City" policy and RU-486 imports.
Signed the Family and Medical Leave Act, providing for up to 12 weeks of unpaid job-
protected leave for family members who need time off in order to care for a newborn or
newly adopted child, a seriously ill child, parent or spouse, or to recover from their own
disabling illness.
Signed into law the National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act, removing the federal
ban on fetal-tissue transplants and research, establishing the Offices of Women's Health
Research, Minority Health Research and Alternative Medicine, and consolidating the
direction and the budget of AIDS research.
Reorganized the Health Care Financing Administration and streamlined procedures, making
the delivery of Medicaid and Medicare services more accessible and more user-friendly.
Signed a comprehensive child immunization plan which will provide vaccines, free of
charge, to Medicaid eligible children, the uninsured and underinsured. Gained an increase
of 50% in the FY94 immunization budget as compared with the FY93 enacted level.
Instituted the Medicare Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment System policies and rates for
Fiscal Year 1994 which will generate $1.16 billion in savings.
Issued memorandum to heads of executive departments and agencies instructing them
to implement ongoing HIV/AIDS education and prevention programs and to develop
nondiscriminatory workplace policies for employees with HIV/AIDS.
9
HOUSING
Reformulated mission and priorities of HUD, making a commitment to community,
family support, economic lift, individual rights and responsibilities, and reduction of
spatial separation by race and income.
Submitted the Housing and Community Development Act of 1993 to address the
explosive growth of FHA's multifamily inventory and to remove statutory
impediments from HUD's programs.
Granted $300 million to the Urban Revitalization Demonstration Program (HOPE VI) to
revitalize the most severely distressed public housing developments in the nation.
Established partnership with the AFL-CIO, Fannie-Mae and Freddie-Mac to create a housing
investment trust fund that will provide an additional $600 million to rebuild and create
affordable housing.
Created new partnerships with nonprofit organizations, the private sector,
foundations, and labor leaders to construct low-income housing, emergency shelters,
and to invest in the National Community Development Initiative.
Announced funding of $109.6 million for economic development activities and to
finance the production of low-income rental housing in California.
Extended low-income housing credit permanently, increasing opportunities for affordable
housing development by the private sector.
Established the Innovative Homeless Initiative, allowing the Administration to
undertake comprehensive strategies with cities committed to ensuring that homeless
persons receive the full range of services they need to transition out of shelters and
move into independent living.
Proposed the "D.C. Initiative," which will create a comprehensive program for
dealing with homelessness in the District of Columbia.
IMMIGRATION
Delivered to Congress the Expedited Exclusion and Alien Smuggling Enhanced Penalties
Act of 1993, a bold new plan to fight illegal immigration which calls for stiffer penalties for
alien smuggling and to implement expedited exclusion procedures to curtail abuse of
political asylum laws at airports and ports of entry.
Designed a strategy for enhanced border enforcement resulting in Congressional approval of
$45 million to hire and train up to 600 additional Border Patrol officers.
Established an in-country refugee processing center in Port au Prince, Haiti.
10
LABOR
Introduced the School-to-Work Act Opportunities Act, providing funding to states and
communities to develop and implement training programs and establish national standards
for such programs.
Passed the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1993, providing $4 billion in
emergency unemployment compensation to approximately 1.9 million unemployed American
workers.
Rescinded Ronald Reagan's Executive Order prohibiting the rehiring of fired PATCO air-
traffic controllers.
NATIONAL SERVICE
Signed into law a National Service Plan enabling 100,000 Americans to serve their
communities and our country while earning credit toward higher education. These
Americorps participants will directly address our nation's critical education, human, public
safety and environmental needs.
POLITICAL REFORM
Passed a lobbying disclosure bill in the Senate designed to provide full accounting of
lobbyist working to influence government policy. The bill creates a new Office of Lobbying
Registration and Public Disclosure and requires anyone hired to lobby the Executive branch
or Congress to register.
Cut the lobbying expense deduction for corporations from this year's budget.
Broke gridlock and passed a campaign finance reform bill in the Senate which limits the
influence of special interests in campaigns.
Signed the Hatch Act legislation.
Signed the Federal Employees Political Activities Act of 1993.
11
REINVENTING GOVERNMENT
Delivered the report of the Vice President's National Performance Review (NPR), an
intensive six-month study on how to make the federal government work better and cost less.
The recommendations will, if enacted, save $108 billion over five years.
HUD has identified 75 rules and statutes that impede housing and redevelopment.
The IRS has committed to mailing refunds within 40 days for paper returns, or 14
days for electronic returns.
NASA is implementing significant procurement reforms.
Agencies have created about 100 reinvention labs to test out the concepts of
reinventing government. The labs are a test bed for agency innovations,
deregulation, streamlining, and other NPR proposals.
The GSA is simplifying procurement and reducing costs for everything from office
supplies to vehicle leases.
State has already issued its own NPR report.
Agriculture has moved to close surplus field offices.
Signed into law the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, requiring agencies to
develop strategic plans and performance measures, thereby improving Federal program
effectiveness and public accountability.
Ordered agencies to reduce by 50% their internal regulations within three years.
Created the National Partnership Council to involve government employees and their
union representatives in achieving the goals of the NPR.
Ordered agencies to reduce staff by 252,000 over the next five years.
Ordered the abolition of unnecessary Federal advisory boards, commissions and committees
for a savings of $150 million per year.
Reformed the regulatory review process signed a Presidential Executive Order
prohibiting the promulgation of unfunded mandates for state and local governments.
Reduced Federal perks, including the use of executive dining rooms, Government aircraft
and Government vehicles.
Ordered, within minutes of taking office, the strictest Executive appointee ethics code in
history.
12
SMALL BUSINESS
Signed into law the Small Business Guaranteed Credit Enhancement Act of 1993,
significantly increasing the availability of loans that can be guaranteed by the Small
Business Administration.
Passed a targeted capital gains tax cut for investments in small businesses held over 5 years;
increased by 75% the investment that small businesses will be able to expense; and
retroactively extended the 25% deduction for health insurance premiums for the self-
employed.
Initiated aggressive action to alleviate the credit crunch. Issued over 10 regulatory
initiatives to reduce regulatory burdens on banks, thereby creating greater access to credit for
many small and medium-sized businesses.
TECHNOLOGY
Announced a comprehensive technology initiative, Technology for America's Economic
Growth.
Provided incentives for private-sector research and development and new business formation
by extending the Research and Experimentation Tax Credit and reducing the capital gains
tax for investments in small business.
Developed an action plan for the National Information Infrastructure and ordered the transfer
of 200 MHz of spectrum from the Federal Government to the private sector to jump-start
new wireless technologies.
Signed National Cooperative Production Amendments Act providing anti-trust relief for joint
manufacturing.
Unveiled joint effort between the government and U.S. automakers to develop within
10 years an automobile that is three times as fuel efficient as existing vehicles.
Announced support for continued funding for a scaled-back version of Space Station
Freedom.
13
TRADE
Negotiated with Canadian and Mexican trade ministers tough NAFTA side agreements
import surges, labor, worker safety and environmental standards. The Administration and
the Government of Mexico also announced final agreement on the creation of two
organizations, one the Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC), the other the
North American Development Bank (NAD Bank).
Achieved a GATT Uruguay Round break-through on market access. Leaders of G-7 nations
in Tokyo agreed on developing a comprehensive market access package to reduce tariffs on
a wide variety of products.
Finalized agreement achieving the long-sought objective of gaining access to EC
market for EC government-procured heavy equipment from non-EC vendors.
Signed into law HR 1876, which extends legislative "fast track" procedures to
conclude the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade talks.
Negotiated a Framework Agreement with Japan designed to open markets for U.S. firms,
serve as a mechanism for resolving commercial issues in U.S.-Japanese relations, and
provide a forum for cooperation on environmental protection, technological development,
population, and AIDS.
Administration efforts resulted in the Government of Japan's announcement that it
would undertake an action plan to reform its long-standing discriminatory practices in
the construction sector. Japan also agreed to move expeditiously on permitting entry
of 1994 crop year apples from the U.S.
Took steps toward expanding market access in China and conditioned further extension of
China's Most Favored Nation status on improvements in human rights, expanded trade, and
weapons non-proliferation.
Developed a National Export Strategy, including the elimination of export controls on
computers and telecommunications that will enable U.S. exportation of up to $35 billion in
high-tech exports.
Held the first meeting of the U.S.-South Pacific Joint Commercial Commission aimed
at enhancing our relations and expanding trade with these island nations.
TRANSPORTATION
Reconvened the National Commission to Ensure a Strong Competitive Airline Industry and
recommended steps to revive the nation's airline industry.
Mandated that airbags be installed in all passenger cars, light trucks and vans.
14
Announced $147 million program to support $3 billion in loan guarantees to boost
the U.S. shipbuilding industry.
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Delivered the Housing and Community Development Act of 1993 to Congress, significantly
changing rent policy for public housing tenants and making home ownership easier for low
income Americans.
Transmitted to Congress the Community Development Banking and Financial
Institutions Act of 1993, which will fund the creation of community development
financial institutions.
Created nine Economic Empowerment Zones and 95 Enterprise Communities. The plan
gives local communities the incentives and regulatory flexibility to work with the private
sector in developing comprehensive economic development strategies.
Through enforcement of the Community Reinvestment Act, encouraged banks to reinvest
and loan money in targeted neighborhoods.
Established the Community Enterprise Board to assist in the successful implementation of
the Administration's empowerment zone legislation.
WELFARE REFORM
Expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit by $21 billion over five years to lift working
families out of poverty with incentives to work. When fully implemented, over 20 million
households with incomes of $27,000 or less dollars will benefit. By 1996, families earning
the minimum wage could increase their wage rates by 38 percent.
Fully funded the special supplemental food program for Women, Infants and Children so
that, by the end of FY 1996, all eligible children between 1 and 4 are served. WIC funding
was increased $350 million from FY93 to FY94, increasing average participation by 300,000
families.
Enacted key provisions of the Mickey Leland Act, broadening food stamp assistance
for poor families with children, and increased food stamp funding by $2.5 billion
over five years.
Achieved $1 billion in funding for the Family Preservation and Support Initiative over fiver
years which would help prevent child abuse and help parents learn the skills and tools they
need to raise their children.
15
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL
WASHINGTON DC 20506
November 4, 1993
MEMORANDUM TO MARK GEARAN
FROM:
NANCY SODERBERG/V
SUBJ:
National Security Themes for President's Interview
with "Meet the Press"
Attached are the themes you requested on national security issues
for the President's interview with "Meet the Press". As
requested, we will provide Q's and A's by COB tomorrow.
Tony was out sick and thus has not reviewed, although Sandy has.
Tony may have some changes on Friday.
National Security Themes
Even as we focus on the more dramatic and immediate foreign
policy issues of the past month, we cannot lose sight of the
real progress we're making on the issues that will have the
most important and long-lasting impact on our security and
prosperity.
We have raised the issue of stimulating world growth to the
top of the global agenda, helping to create American jobs
and exports.
O
We've pursued this through our work on NAFTA and the
Uruguay Round and coordinating economic policies with
our G-7 allies.
We have also focused unprecedented U.S. attention to our
economic relations with Asia, one of the most dynamic and
rapidly-growing regions of the world.
O
We have negotiated a new economic framework for working
with a change-oriented government in Japan, achieving a
commitment for market opening that will yield new jobs
and new exports.
We proposed building up regional institutions, an idea
I will highlight when I meet two weeks from now with
the fifteen leaders at the Asia Pacific Economic
Cooperation meeting in Seattle, leaders who represent
countries accounting for half of the world's GDP.
Our steadfast support for democratic and market reform in
Russia has helped President Yeltsin overcome numerous
threats from reactionary forces.
A successful transition in Russia will allow us to
continue to cut defense spending, open markets of
hundreds of millions of consumers and eliminate for
good the destructive Cold War competition.
Secretary Christopher's work to reinvigorate the Middle East
peace talks created an environment that allowed the
momentous achievements over the past months, including the
Israeli-PLO peace signing at the White House.
On defense issues, Secretary Aspin's "bottom up" review has
given us a road-map for restructuring the military to face
the challenges of the post Cold War world, ensuring
continued security while allowing us to make even greater
defense cuts.
We've also unveiled a proposal embraced by our
allies, Russia and others to offer former Soviet
republics and East European nations closer ties with
NATO, helping to adapt NATO to the post-Cold War world
and promote transatlantio security.
We've also provided new global impetus to efforts to protect
the global environment and to prevent proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction.
We've also announced new policies to stem the flow
illegal immigration and to combat international dri
trafficking.
On the issues that confronted us when we came to office,
there have been some difficult times over the past weeks,
but we are making progress.
In Somalia, we are seeing results from the policy I
announced on October 7. African leaders are promoting
political reconciliation; attacks on U.S. and U.N. forces
have ceased; the Rangers have been brought home; and a
commission of inquiry is being set up to hold those
responsible for the attack of U.N. peacekeepers accountable
for their actions.
O
We cannot rebuild Somalia - - the Somali people must do
that for themselves - - but our commitment to complete
our mission there in a disciplined manner is giving
them a chance to avoid a return to anarchy and
starvation that resulted in the loss of 350,000 lives
before our engagement began last December.
In Haiti, we have tough international sanctions in place and
diplomatic discussions underway in an effort to restore
democracy and President Aristide to that country in line
with the Governor's Island process. The anti-democratic
forces must understand they cannot indefinitely thwart the
will and commitment of the Haitian people and the
international community.
O
We have strong national interests in helping foster
democracy and human rights on our doorsteps in the
Caribbean, protecting 1000 Americans in Haiti and
preventing a recurrence of mass exodus of Haitians at
great risk to themselves and great disruption to us.
Lessons of the Past Month
We've faced some tough problems over the past month that
have commanded Americans' attention. The situations in
Somalia, Haiti and Bosnia are not unique: in the uncharted
ground after the end of the Cold War, we're likely to face
more and more instances in which societies are tearing
themselves apart.
O
We cannot turn our backs on all such conflicts: some,
such as Haiti, have broad implications for us. But our
primary focus must and will remain on the challenges of
primary and lasting importance: Russia, trade, Asia,
NATO, Japan, NAFTA, military readiness, combatting
narcotics, non-proliferation.
We intend to work more closely with Congress and the
American people to communicate our priorities and to build
consensus regarding when and how we get involved in
humanitarian and peacekeeping operations that warrant our
participation.
O
At the United Nations, I laid out conditions and
questions we must consider before we become involved in
these situations: what are our national interests; what
are our specific goals; can our involvement really make
a difference; what is the exit strategy.
We welcome the emergence of a new bipartisan spirit of
consultation and cooperation on these issues as well as
Congressional reaffirmation of the President's
authority to conduct foreign policy.
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
Mark Gearan
DATE:
6 November 1993
Inside this miscellaneous section you find the following briefing
materials in order:
-FEMA issues
-Political Reform
-National Service
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
November 5, 1993
MEMORANDUM FOR MARK GEARAN
FROM:
CHRISTINE A. VARNEY
CAN
Secretary to the Cabinet
SUBJECT:
President's Briefing on FEMA Issues
The fires have died down and are currently contained. Unless there is another outbreak
of fires, I don't anticipate questions on FEMA or the fires for the President on Sunday.
If anything comes up, it may be along the lines of an interview Secretary Babbitt did with
"Good Morning America". A transcript of that interview is attached. In that interview,
Secretary Babbitt stated that we may have to look into the "process of building into these
deep canyons whether or not we should do more prescribed burning more
setbacks stronger laws requiring brush clearance". These remarks created some
controversy in California. I think it is fair to say that the Secretary only stated that we
will look at those rules. He did not indicate in any sense that the current rules are
inadequate or that they would be changed.
The President is very well versed on the Federal efforts on the fire. To refresh him, you
may want to go over the following Federal resources that were committed to Southern
California during the firestorms:
Federal Fire Engines - 97
Dozers 6
Federal Firefighting Crews - 106 (approximately 20 members per crew)
Helicopters - 22
Air Tankers 29
Lead Planes - 14
Total Federal Personnel Committed to Firefighting in Southern California -
3,500
During the first phase of the fires, the President declared Los Angeles, Ventura, San
Diego, Riverside and Orange counties as major disaster areas. At the President's
instruction, FEMA released $15 million to the California State Emergency Services to
help pay for the overtime and other costs associated with the California State
Department of Forestry's firefighting efforts.
The coverage in California of the Federal firefighting effort has been quite positive.
11/05/93
12:06
003
ABC Good Morning America
11/3/93 - California Fires
Secretary Bruce Babbitt/Joan Lunden
Lunden: With 30,000 acres burned since yesterday on top of the 175,000 acres last week,
California will be reeling from the effects of this season's fire long after the last embers die
out. Many Californians will be turning to government officials for help. The government's
point man is Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior and he joins us this morning from
Washington. Good morning, Mr. Secretary.
Babbitt: Good morning.
Lunden: What kind of damage are you anticipating from these latest fires?
Babbitt: Well I think that another couple hundred structures as of this point and that's
surely another couple hundred million perhaps 500 million dollars worth of damage.
Lunden: How can the government, the Federal government best help the state of
California?
Babbitt: Well, we're responding to all the requests. We kept about a 100 crews on the
ground over the weekend. I was out these and we decided to keep a lot of the resources
right there anticipating this might happen. We've got a couple thousand people out there
now, about 15/20 additional aircraft and we've got more reserves out of the National Fire
Center, if necessary.
Lunden: We've heard an awful lot about land management. Should the Federal role, the
Federal Government play a different role perhaps a bigger role in terms of land management
to help control these fires and prevent them?
Babbitt: Well, I think that once this is all over, we'll really have to do some soul-searching
about the process of building into these deep canyons with all the brush, and start examining
zoning ordinances and Federal policies and look at whether or not we should do more
prescribed burning and whether there should be more set-back requirements, whether there
ought to be stronger laws requiring brush clearance as a condition of building up in these
canyons. It's a tough problem and we obviously have to figure out a better way to manage
it.
Lunden: Not only brush clearance but perhaps even the building materials that people are
allowed to use whenever they build in an area like this?
Babbitt: Well in fairness, California has moved toward building codes. Shake shingles, for
example, have been outlawed in most of these areas but I think we probably do more and
this certainly underlines the need to have a careful look at it.
004
11/05/93
12:06
Lunden: We're of course skipping a couple of places here-we're going to building again.
Just right now in terms of cleaning up?
Babbitt: We'll obviously we have a big mess on our hands and I'll tell you the biggest
danger is when is starts raining. Ironically when the rains come this winter, we'll have mud
slides. These fires have burned away all the vegetation that holds those incredibly steep
hillsides into place so we're going to have to start clearing away the check dams looking at
retention structures and attempt to prevent a second disaster which will be flooding from all
those exposed sides.
Lunden: Thank you Mr. Secretary for joining us.
11/05/93
12:07
005
TO:
The President
FROM:
Interior Dept. Communications
DATE:
November 5, 1993
RE:
California Fires & Sensitive Environmental Issues
1. Babbitt's "Soul Searching" Quote
In an ABC interview, Secretary Babbitt said Californians must do
some "soul searching" about their lives in and near such fire
hazards. He clarified by saying they should consider tougher
standards for clearing brush from residential areas, greater use
of fire retardant building materials, etc. The LA Times said he
was on the mark -- - but that his timing was impolitic. This is a
sensitive area, and one you should avoid at this time.
Suggested remarks:
There clearly are steps we can take to provide greater
safety but those steps are down the road. Right now,
that's not our primary concern. Right now, our concerns are
to get through the rest of this fire season, to prepare for
the coming winter rains, and to help in the recovery process
for those families that have been devastated by this fire.
2. Destroyed Gnatcatcher Habitat:
15% of the endangered California gnatcatcher's habitat was
decimated. Again, we suggest you defer response until later.
Suggested remarks:
We take our responsibilities for environmental protection
very seriously. But right now there are families without
homes and there is a continued threat of fires -- and that
is our primary focus. We'll look at the other issues down
the road, once we've gotten through this immediate crisis.
[If reporters persist] I realize this is a serious issue.
But frankly, I think it's disrespectful to the human victims
to begin talking about these other issues right now. We do
take this issue seriously, and we will address it. But we
also know that there are families whose lives have been
horribly disrupted, and that is our current focus.
WHITE HOUSE PRESS GUIDANCE - - 11:00 A.M.
Friday, November 5, 1993
Over-All Clinton Foreign Policy Record
Even as we focus on the more immediate and dramatic foreign
policy issues of the past month, we cannot lose sight of the
progress that we're making on the issues that will have the
most important and long-lasting impact on our security and
prosperity.
We've raised the issue of stimulating world growth to the
top of the global agenda, helping to create American jobs
and exports.
O
We've pursued this through our work on NAFTA and the
Uruguay Round, opening Japanese markets through our
framework talks, coordinating economic policies with
our G-7 allies, and meeting later this month with the
15 leaders of the Asian Pacific Economic Council
whose economies make up half the world's GNP.
Our steadfast support for democratic and market reform in
Russia has helped President Yeltsin overcome numerous
threats from reactionary forces.
o
A successful transition in Russia will allow us to
continue to cut defense spending, open markets of
hundreds of millions of consumers and eliminate for
good the destructive Cold War competition.
Secretary Christopher's work to reinvigorate the Middle East
peace talks created an environment that allowed the
momentous achievements over the past months, including the
Israeli-PLO peace signing at the White House.
On defense issues, Secretary Aspin's "bottom up" review has
given us a road-map for restructuring the military to face
the challenges of the post Cold War world, ensuring
continued security while allowing us to make even greater
defense cuts.
o
We've also unveiled a proposal -- embraced by our
allies, Russia and others to offer former Soviet
republics and East European nations closer ties with
NATO, helping to adapt NATO to the post-Cold War world
and promote transatlantic security.
We've provided new global impetus to efforts to protect the
global environment and to prevent proliferation of weapons
of mass destruction.
We've also announced new policies to stem the flow of
illegal immigration and combat international drug
trafficking.
On the issues that confronted us when we came to office,
there have been some difficult times over the past six
weeks, but we are making progress.
In Somalia, we are already seeing results from the policy I
announced on October 7. African leaders are promoting
political reconciliation; attacks on U.S. and U.N. forces
have ceased; the Rangers have been brought home; and a
commission of inquiry is being set up to hold those
responsible for the attack of U.N. peacekeepers accountable
for their actions.
O
We cannot rebuild Somalia the Somali people must do
that for themselves but our commitment to complete
our mission there in a disciplined manner is giving
them a chance to avoid a return to anarchy and
starvation that resulted in the loss of 350,000 lives
before our engagement began last December.
In Haiti, we have tough international sanctions in place and
diplomatic discussions underway in an effort to restore
democracy and President Aristide to that country in line
with the Governor's Island process. The anti-democratic
forces must understand they cannot indefinitely thwart the
will and commitment of the Haitian people and the
international community.
o
We have strong national interests in helping foster
democracy and human rights on our doorsteps in the
Caribbean, protecting 1000 Americans in Haiti and
preventing a recurrence of mass exodus of Haitians at
great risk to themselves and great disruption to us.
Lessons of the Past Month
We've faced some tough problems over the past month that
have captured Americans' attention. The situations in
Somalia, Haiti and Bosnia are not unique: in the uncharted
ground after the end of the Cold War, we're likely to face
more and more instances in which societies are tearing
themselves apart.
O
We cannot turn our backs on all such conflicts some,
such as Haiti, have broad implications for us But
our main focus must and will remain on the challenges
of primary and lasting importance: Russia, trade, Asia,
NATO, Japan, NAFTA, military readiness, combatting
narcotics, non-proliferation.
We intend to work more closely with Congress and the
American people to communicate our priorities and to build
consensus regarding when and how we get involved in
humanitarian and peacekeeping operations that warrant our
participation.
O
At the United Nations, the President laid out
conditions and questions we must consider before we
become involved in these situations: what are our
national interests; what are our specific goals; can
our involvement really make a difference; what is the
exit strategy.
O
We welcome the emergence of a new bipartisan spirit of
consultation and cooperation on these issues as well as
Congressional reaffirmation of the President's
authority to conduct foreign policy.
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
MICHAEL WALDMAN
Special Assistant to the President
for Policy Coordination
SUBJECT:
GOALS ON POLITICAL REFORM
I. GENERAL GOAL
As the elections Tuesday showed, the public still harbors an
anti-incumbent anger that crosses political lines and reflects a desire
for fundamental change. Political reform is an essential aspect of this
demand. Thus far, however, the administration has supported political
reform efforts, but has not trumpeted its support. A cynical press has
charged the political establishment with giving lip service to reform
but putting it on the back burner.
The principal goal on political reform issues, then, is to
demonstrate your personal commitment to political reform. What you say
about political reform is less important than how you say it --
impassioned and impatient, rather than "more in sorrow than in anger. "
To do this, and to make news, you should do two things:
? Call for the House to pass campaign finance reform legislation this
year (before the end of the session). (This won't put the House
leadership in too much of a spot, since this is their goal, too.
But most people don't realize it's happening this fast.)
? Stress that you hope that they will not weaken the legislation from
what you proposed/negotiated in the Spring. (There is significant
sentiment to weaken the PAC and soft money language.)
II. BACKGROUND
Campaign reform
The House leadership is circulating a version of campaign finance
reform that is modeled after our proposal, but which contains
significant loopholes and weakening provision. In particular, a) the PAC
provision allows more PAC money in than we had agreed to, and b) the
soft money provision is basically gutted. Common Cause is furiously
negotiating with the leadership on these provisions. You should not be
expected to express familiarity with the details of the legislation as
it is being drafted.
Lobby disclosure
A House Judiciary Subcommittee (chaired by Rep. John Bryant) was
scheduled to mark up the lobby disclosure bill last month, including the
gift-disclosure provisions you have previously publicly supported, but
the session was canceled at the last minute. Speaker Foley --
responding to pressure from Newt Gingrich -- said he was appointing a
bipartisan task force to study how to limit gifts to lawmakers. If
asked, you should simply express support for lobby disclosure, including
disclosure of gifts from lobbyists.
POLITICAL REFORM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
QUESTION: Haven't you merely given lip service to campaign finance
reform and political reform? Here it is, the end of the year,
and Congress still hasn't passed a bill that is virtually
identical to the one they passed last year.
ANSWER:
I am firmly and deeply committed to political reform. We will
never provide economic renewal and health security if we don't
reform our political system.
We proposed a strong, comprehensive bill that limits spending
and curbs the role of special interests and lobbyists. It was
endorsed as real reform by Common Cause and every other reform
group.
- We imposed the toughest ethics rules ever on any
administration. We barred officials from lobbying their
agency for five years after leaving office.
- We fought for and won passage of campaign finance reform
legislation by breaking a Republican filibuster in the Senate.
- In our budget bill, we ended the tax deductibility of
lobbying.
- Lobby disclosure also passed the Senate.
Now we are awaiting House action on campaign finance reform.
The House leadership is rounding up the votes for our plan. I
strongly urge the House to act on campaign finance reform
before the end of the year. This issue cannot wait any
longer. The voters have made it clear that they want change,
and they regard this as an essential component of that change.
QUESTION: Last year during the campaign you said that you wanted
campaign finance reform legislation to be stronger than last
year's bill. Instead, this year the bill is getting weaker.
The House leadership has proposed a bill that allows
candidates to receive significantly more PAC money than your
proposal, and that does not ban the use of soft money. Common
Cause says that it is not acceptable reform. Will you sign a
weakened bill?
ANSWER:
I am not familiar with the specifics of the House draft, so I
cannot comment specifically on it -- but I will say this. In
May we proposed legislation that is real reform, and which
also has a good chance of passing. I certainly don't think it
should be watered down. If we are going to enact political
reform, we have an obligation to be serious, and to pass a
plan that really will limit PACs, curb the special interests,
and ban the corrupting soft money from the system. I know
that the Democratic leadership is working hard to pull a good
bill together, and I hope that the House passes a strong plan.
I especially hope that the conference committee that merces
the two bills produces a plan with teeth. I won't
to
support legislation that's not real reform.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
November 4, 1993
MEMORANDUM TO MARK GEARAN
FROM:
RICK ALLEN
SUBJECT: MEET THE PRESS
Eli indicated that you wanted suggestions for the President's appearance on Meet the Press this
weekend. We would assume that the desired impression would be of firm leadership, moving
the country forward. Legislative victories (particularly for Meet the Press' audience) provide
the most unequivocal demonstrations of these traits, and in that context, passage of the national
service legislation is an early landmark.
The President has a rhetorical progression he normally uses on this subject: the importance of
national service to Americans during the 1992 campaign; the bipartisan and speedy passage of
the bill; and the prospect of tens of thousands (and ultimately hundreds of thousands) of
Americans of all ages helping to change their communities. The themes of responsibility,
opportunity and community are particularly apt with this subject.
Additionally, national service participants have been vitally involved in disaster relief (on the
front-lines of Florida's hurricanes, the Midwest's floods, and southern California's fires), and
will play highly cost-effective and visible roles in the Administration's solutions to the crises of
crime and health care.
We would be happy to expand on any of these matters, and to provide examples, if you would
desire. Eli, Diana Aldridge and I can be reached at 606-5000.
MEMORANDUM
To:
Distribution
Fr: Mark Gearan
Re: Meet the Press POTUS Preparation
November 3, 1993
As you know, President Clinton will be the guest on Meet the
Press this Sunday, November 7th. Tim Russert will moderate the
show with Tom Brokaw from the Oval Office. In preparation for
the program, I am asking you to provide two documents:
First, by close of business Thursday, please
submit a memo not to exceed two pages which
contains your suggestions to the President on the
themes and news ledes he should provide in answers
to questions on topics in your area. Unlike a Q+A
memo, this involves what you want the President to
stress.
Second, by close of business Friday, please submit
a concise document suggesting answers to
anticipated questions in your area.
If you have any suggestions, please do not hesitate to
contact me. I look forward to receiving your materials. The
President will be briefed for the program during the weekend, so
it is vital that we meet these deadlines. Many thanks for your
cooperation.
cc: Nancy Soderberg/National Security
Rahm Emanuel/NAFTA
Jeff Eller/Health Care
Bruce Reed/Crime, Violence, Domestic
Ann Walker/Research
Jonathan Prince/Planning
Christine Varney/FEMA
Gene Sperling/Economy
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mark Gearan
FROM:
Paul Carey PC
Date:
November 5, 1993
RE:
MEET THE PRESS
Two items that I want to pass along regarding the
President's appearance on Meet The Press this weekend:
1) For what it's worth--- I spoke to someone this afternoon
who spoke to Tim Russert about the questions he intends to ask
the President. He is a very reliable source and wouldn't tell me
much, but virtually guaranteed that Tim will ask about
illegitimacy rates and family breakdown and it's effect on crime,
etc. A stong answer on this would go a long way. Tim is in love
with the phrase "predatory males" that Moynihan coined on his
show, though it may be too strong for the President, nevertheless
the "Defining Deviancy Down" themes are popular and the President
has referred to this before (crime speech in Tampa) This may be
all farly obvious because it's a theme Russert's worked on with
Moynihan, Reno, and William Raspberry when they were on. He also
indicated that he intends to focus on issues much more than
inside baseball, (Tuesday's elections are almost certain to come
up, though).
2) Enclosed are two photographs Tim gave me that he was
hoping to have the President sign. It would be a nice touch and
might throw Tim off balance if the President were to give them to
him before the show.
Mark-
I
I more "Meet the Press" tid-bit -
at roughly the some time Sunday, Gl.
will be appearing at Tim Russert's
alma mater (Jonn Carroll university
in Ohio) to Keynote a Major conference
or national service. (Russert has talked
w/ Eli about it & been very helpful.)
-
Might be a hook if the President wants
to talk about service.
Rick Allen
?
4
SPOILLING
HEALTH
NAF7A
CLINTON LIBRARY PHOTOCOPY
Note to Mark Gearan
From Cathy Zoi
RE: Ideas for Meet the Press message
Attached are some general talking points/notes I have used recently to provide a lead-in to
speeches I have given on the Administration's environmental agenda that have played very
well.
In general, people seem delighted to be reminded of the themes they heard in the campaign,
and even more delighted to understand how those themes are translating into real activities.
Our themes resonate and inspire!
Perhaps this is useful for the Meet the Press message -- at any rate, you now
have an idea of the song we sing as we segue into our "environmental stump speech."
What's Needed:
To remind America of the overarching
principles that made them confident that Bill
Clinton was the guy to put in office.
To tell America that those principles weren't
just about campaigning -- those are the
principles that are now guiding this
Administration's agenda.
When acted on, these principles demonstrate
VISION, COURAGE AND LEADERSHIP.
Some guiding principles of the Clinton
Administration:
"make change our friend"; replace fear with
hope
position the U.S. for a world economy/global
marketplace
reinvent government
share responsibility for problem solving --
government helps, citizens help, businesses
help
not shrink from difficult problems
Our big issues so far:
o
are consistent with these guiding principles
o
demonstrate Bill Clinton's courage, vision
and leadership.
NAFTA
Health care reform
National Performance Review
National Service
Budget
o
deficit reduction
o
base closures
Fighting Crime
(and so on...)
Environment
In a nutshell, what these principles translate into is:
Environment and Economy -- Reinventing the
way environmental business gets done. Creating
jobs, enhancing security, investing in our
children's future, facing tomorrow with hope
Environmental Initiatives
o
the forest plan
o
new wetlands policy
o
biodiversity treaty
o
establishment of the PCSD
o
executive orders: such as recycling &
using made in USA energy-efficent
computers -- the most efficient in the
world!
o
the climate plan
SLIVE!
A
TRIBUTE
To
FELLINI:
THE
CLINTON
WHITE
HOUSE
; B' fing
Record of
Adm
1. 1 FRi ÷ Overview
Competence
- Thematics -
- feelings
Tany Rubin Lake
- disapplets
Sat
Health Care (Mandy)
Q+A Munder Boal
Sun
Refeesh + Newsppr
Style 57 Governance
-give elites sause of
progress -doing - a lot
- -doen + activits
-fryig- to D things
3
Security acquired
- itequated Wew
-Chintan Visia
-diverse - subjects
Stan
Mid Sept annuat of Nafta
-shows he believes
- more prosperous Aneica
Engage in jobs/economic argument
- - show he believes it will
create
Salf depracating huner
on screwi yps / energizar louncy
football
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
November 4, 1993
MEMORANDUM TO MARK GEARAN
FROM:
RICK ALLEN
SUBJECT: MEET THE PRESS
Eli indicated that you wanted suggestions for the President's appearance on Meet the Press this
weekend. We would assume that the desired impression would be of firm leadership, moving
the country forward. Legislative victories (particularly for Meet the Press' audience) provide
the most unequivocal demonstrations of these traits, and in that context, passage of the national
service legislation is an early landmark.
The President has a rhetorical progression he normally uses on this subject: the importance of
national service to Americans during the 1992 campaign; the bipartisan and speedy passage of
the bill; and the prospect of tens of thousands (and ultimately hundreds of thousands) of
Americans of all ages helping to change their communities. The themes of responsibility,
opportunity and community are particularly apt with this subject.
Additionally, national service participants have been vitally involved in disaster relief (on the
front-lines of Florida's hurricanes, the Midwest's floods, and southern California's fires), and
will play highly cost-effective and visible roles in the Administration's solutions to the crises of
crime and health care.
We would be happy to expand on any of these matters, and to provide examples, if you would
desire. Eli, Diana Aldridge and I can be reached at 606-5000.
November 4, 1993
MEMORANDUM FOR MARK GEARAN
FROM:
BRUCE REED
SUBJECT:
MEET THE PRESS:
1) Crime & Violence
2) Welfare Reform
Here are the key points on crime, violence, and welfare reform:
CRIME: The President will be asked about the House and Senate consideration of the
crime and Brady bills. One clear message of Tuesday's elections is that Americans fear for
their personal security. He can make news on crime by embracing the bipartisan Senate
agreement on a Crime Trust Fund that will make good on his promise to put 100,000 cops on
the street by cutting 252,000 bureaucrats. We'll be discussing this with him on Friday
morning.
On guns, he can point to likely Senate passage of the Kohl bill to ban handguns for
minors which has the NRA's support -- and the growing momentum for the Brady bill,
which should pass the House next weck.
He undoubtedly will be asked about youth violence as well. Hc should talk about the
boot camps and juvenile detention measures in the Senate bill.
If asked about drugs, he should talk about drug treatment for criminal addicts, which
is also addressed in the crime bill.
WELFARE REFORM: There's an outside chance he may be asked about the House
Republican welfare reform plan, which could be released as carly as next weck. We don't
want a headline here. Our response should be that we like parts of the GOP bill, we're not
sure about other parts (it doesn't do enough on child support enforcement and it caps work
incentives like the EITC), but we want to work with them. Hc can stress the waivers his
administration signed this week in Wisconsin and Georgia.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
November 5, 1993
MEMORANDUM FOR MARK GEARAN
FROM:
CLIFF SLOAN
SUBJECT:
Child Pornography Case
Attached are four items that might be helpful in considering
the child pornography case -- talking points, Q & A's, a summary
of the case, and DOJ's letter to Biden on the case. Let me know
if anything else -- or any revisions of this material -- would be
helpful.
Also, Bernie wanted me to let you know that I'll be
available, as the representative of the Counsel's office, to
address any issues that arise in the "Meet The Press" prep
session. I could either attend the Oval Office session or be
available for any questions, depending on your preference.
TALKING POINTS RE: CHILD PORNOGRAPHY CASE
* This Administration is strongly committed to fighting
child pornography and protecting children against child
abuse and exploitation. In fact, just this week, the
Justice Department filed an appeal in the Supreme Court
vigorously challenging a lower court decision that found an
important part of the federal child pornography statute
unconstitutional.
* The Justice Department's brief in the other child
pornography case did not say that Congress could not enact a
different standard. It said only that the language of the
statute and the legislative history required the conclusion
that the lower court had applied the wrong standard.
* I would support a statutory change to adopt the broader
standard. [NOTE: Some officials at DOJ have privately
stated that, in their view, there may be "serious
constitutional questions" regarding the broader standard.
Press accounts have also included statements to that effect
by unnamed Justice Department officials. But DOJ's brief
does not make this statement. Another possibility, if asked
about a statutory change, is to say that discussion of a
statutory change is premature while the matter is in the
courts.]
* The Justice Department's brief in the Knox case did not
say that the defendant should go free. It said only that
the case should be sent back to the lower courts to consider
his conduct under the correct standard. And the only thing
the Supreme Court did was send the case back to the lower
courts for further consideration.
* The Justice Department's brief strongly rejected many of
the defendant's arguments which would have weakened the
child pornography statute.
* The Justice Department's position in the case will have no
effect in the fight against child pornography. The
prosecution in this case was unique -- there's never been
another like it.
*
I am convinced that this Administration will have the best
record of any Administration in history in fighting child
exploitation and child abuse. Attorney General Janet Reno
and FBI Director Louis Freeh are as tough and experienced as
they come in fighting crime and protecting children.
SUMMARY OF KNOX CASE
1. In 1991, Stephen Knox was charged with two counts of
receiving and possessing videotapes in violation of the federal
child pornography statute. That statute prohibits receipt or
possession of visual depictions of "a minor engaging in sexually
explicit conduct.' One definition of "sexually explicit conduct"
is "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any
person. Knox's three videotapes featured extended closeups of
the mid-sections of minors, which were covered by bathing suits,
panties, and the like.
2. Knox was convicted in a bench trial. The trial court
concluded that the statutory requirement of "exhibition of the
genitals or pubic area" was satisfied because the upper thighs
are part of the pubic area and were exposed in the videos. Knox
was sentenced to five years in jail.
3. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed.
It rejected the trial court's conclusion that thighs are part of
the pubic area. But it concluded that the federal child
pornography statute "applies equally to any lascivious exhibition
of the genitals or pubic areas whether those areas are clad or
completely exposed." It also said that the lasciviousness
question "is essentially a subjective inquiry into whether or not
the material is intended to elicit a sexual response from a
viewer."
4. In January 1993, Knox filed a petition for Supreme Court
review. In March 1993, the Acting Solicitor General filed an
opposition defending the Court of Appeals' decision. The Supreme
Court granted cert.
5. In September 1993, Solicitor General Drew Days filed the
Justice Department's brief on the merits. The DOJ brief argued
that the Court of Appeals' legal standard was incorrect. DOJ
said that, based on the statutory language and the legislative
history, (1) an "exhibition" of the genitals or pubic area
requires "visibility" (either nudity or visibility through
clothing) and (2) lasciviousness requires that the minor
personally pose or act in a lascivious manner. The SG stated
that it was possible that Knox's conviction could stand under the
standard DOJ suggested. The SG also rejected Knox's claims that
nudity is required in all cases and that the evidence in this
case does not support a finding that Knox had the necessary
criminal intent.
6. On November 1, 1993, the Supreme Court remanded the case
to the Court of Appeals for consideration in light of the SG's
position.
7. On November 4, 1993, the Senate passed a "sense of the
Senate" resolution by a vote of 100-0. The resolution states
that (1) congressional intent is that "exhibition of the genitals
or pubic area
is not limited to nude exhibitions or
exhibitions in which the outlines of those areas were discernible
through clothing"; (2) the statutory requirements "are satisfied
if a person photographs a minor in such a way as to exhibit the
child in a lascivious manner"; and (3) the DOJ brief "deprive [d]
the United States Supreme Court of the adverseness necessary for
full and fair presentation of the issues in the case" and "did
not accurately reflect the intent of Congress."
Office of the Deputy Attorney General
Mushington, B.C. 20530
November 4, 1993
The Honorable Joseph Biden
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Biden:
During the course of the debate on S. 1607, the Violent
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1993, a question has
been raised concerning whether the position taken by the
Solicitor General in Knox V. United States evidences a lack of
commitment to fighting child pornography. We want all who are
concerned to understand that the Department of Justice is fully
committed to continuing to play a leading role in the fight
against such material.
As part of that effort to fight child pornography, the
Solicitor General has authorized the filing of a petition for a
writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court seeking to overturn the
decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
circuit in United States V. X-Citement Video, Inc., 982 F.2d 1285
(1992). That decision held unconstitutional that portion of the
federal child pornography statute prohibiting transportation,
shipping, receiving or distributing material involving the sexual
exploitation of minors (18 U.S.C. Section 2252). We will urge
the Supreme Court to review and reverse that decision, restoring
this important tool in the fight against child pornography.
In Knox, after careful review, the Department determined
that prosecution had been inconsistent with the definitions set
forth in the Congressionally enacted statute. The Solicitor
General strongly believes that he should not defend criminal
convictions in the Supreme Court where the prosecution rests on
an erroneous interpretation of the applicable statute. You
should be aware, however, that the facts in Knox were unique.
The pictures in that case were of adolescent girls who were
clothed and who were not engaging in any sexual activity and the
defendant was an individual who had purchased and possessed three
videotapes. It is the only case of which we are aware which was
prosecuted on such a factual basis. The position taken in that
case will not adversely effect our prosecutorial efforts against
child pornography.
100
VTO ГОД
6116 TTS 2022
14:02
08/10/11
- 2 -
I hope that this letter answers the questions which have
been raised concerning the Knox case. The Department remains
committed to fighting child pornography and defending the federal
child pornography statute. We look forward to working with you
and other Senators in that effort.
Sincerely,
Philip Philip B. Heymann Heymann
Deputy Attorney General
£00
1
VT0 rod
6119 tts 2020 14:00 01/10/11
Q & A'S RE: DOJ'S CHILD PORNOGRAPHY BRIEF
1. Isn't the Justice Department's brief in the Supreme Court an
admission that the Clinton Administration doesn't care about
child pornography?
No, it certainly is not. This Administration is strongly
committed to cracking down on child pornography. In fact,
just this week, in another case, the Justice Department
filed an appeal to the Supreme Court strongly challenging a
federal court decision which struck down an important part
of the federal child pornography statute. We will fight
vigorously to protect this important tool in the war against
child pornography.
And let me be clear that nobody needs to convince this
Administration about the need to be tough on child
pornography and the exploitation and abuse of children. I
am absolutely convinced that this Administration will have
the best record of preventing abuse of children of any
Administration in history. Attorney General Janet Reno and
FBI Director Louis Freeh are as tough and experienced as
they come in fighting crime and protecting children against
abuse and exploitation.
2. But what about the Justice Department's brief in the Knox
case?
Let me explain a few facts. First of all, the Justice
Department's brief says only that the lower court
misinterpreted the particular language of the statute. The
Justice Department's brief does not say that the defendant
should go free. It says that the defendant's conduct should
be considered under the correct standard. That's all.
Also, I should point out that the Justice Department
rejected many broad arguments raised by the defendant. A
major part of the Justice Department's brief was devoted to
opposing broad attacks on the child pornography statute.
3. But didn't the Supreme Court say that the defendant should go
free because of the government's position?
No. The Supreme Court said only that the case should go
back to the lower courts for further consideration.
4. will the government continue to try to get a conviction in
the Knox case or will it drop the prosecution?
As I said, the Justice Department's brief suggested that the
case should be sent back to the lower courts to consider the
defendant's conduct under the proper standard. The Supreme
Court sent the case back to the lower courts, and any other
statements about the pending case at this time would be
inappropriate.
5. Won't the Justice Department's position in the Knox brief
interfere with many prosecutions?
Absolutely not. The facts of this prosecution were unique.
There has never been a prosecution like it before. There
will be no effect on the government's efforts against child
pornography.
6. Did you approve of the Justice Department's position in this
case?
The Solicitor General made this determination in the
ordinary course of reviewing Supreme Court cases. He
concluded that the lower court had applied the wrong
standard under the language of the statute and that the
lower courts should consider the case under the correct
standard. Neither I nor anybody else at the White House had
any part in the decision.
7. What do you think of the Senate's "Sense of the Senate"
resolution opposing the Justice Department's brief in this case?
I have no problem with the Senate's action in expressing its
views.
I also want to point out that the Senate's resolution is
part of the crime bill, which I have strongly supported and
which will make our streets safer and more secure. As I
have said many times, we need to pass the Brady bill, put
more cops on the street, and impose swift and certain
penalties on criminals. I urge Congress to pass the anti-
crime legislation promptly and send it to my desk.
8. Would you support a change in the child pornography statute to
make it as broad as the lower court thought that it was?
Yes. I have no problem with such a change. [NOTE: Some DOJ
officials have privately stated -- and been reported as
saying without attribution -- that there may be
constitutional problems with the broader interpretation.
But DOJ's brief does not make this point.]
[Possible alternative answer: Any discussion about a
statutory change is premature. The Supreme Court sent the
case back to the lower courts to work out the proper
standard and the resolution of the particular case, and we
should let the process take its course. But let me say
again that I and my Administration stand firmly against
child pornography and against any abuse or exploitation of
children, and we will continue to take vigorous actions to
crack down on this terrible evil.]
REICH
BRiefing Book
I. GOALS AND OBJECTIVE
- STAW
- MANDY
-
II NR SECURITY
(NANCY
BOSNiA
DON
)
SOMALIA
HAirl
ET AL.
RAHM
m NAFTA
WALDOW
]
W HEALTH CARE
[MAKLA] IRA Elter
V. CRiME / ViOLENCE
[REED]
D2
VI Anniversary
PRINCE]
VU FIRES
VARNEY]
Vm ELECTIONS
[Ann + kim]
IX Economy
[spenline]
GRUNWALD, ESKEW8DONILON TEL No. 2024670818
Nov 4.93 19:00 No. 001 P.02
MEMORANDUM
TO
Mark Gearan
FROM
Mandy Grunwald
DATE
November 5, 1993
RE
President's Appearance on Meet the Press
As you requested, a few thoughts on the President's appearance on Meet the Press. First, a few
general points about style.
1. Be the President, not the pundit.
Russert will try to draw the President into an analysis of where the votes are on
NAFTA, why Republicans won so many elections on Tuesday etc. ] know it's
tough for him, but he's got to resist his inclination to be Bill Schneider instead of
Bill Clinton.
2. Be confident, not combative or defensive.
I've noticed recently that the President has sounded defensive and overly combative
on a number of issues from his accomplishments to date, to his effort on NAFTA,
to his foreign policy decisions. It's important that he not let Russert make him
defensive, but be confident and firm.
3. Talk about people, not macro-policy or Congressional language.
The President needs to get to back to one of his greatest strengths -- talking about
the challenges that families are facing. Lately, he's been talking in more macro
terms ["economic stagnation" instead of "families who are working two jobs just to
make ends meet"].
4. Don't get trapped in the details or the numbers.
Russert loves numbers questions ["How can you justify 100 million people paying
more for health care "] or specific policy questions [the sugar & citrus side deals
for NAFTA]. The President obviously has to answer the questions, but he's got
to make sure he doesn't get trapped in the details, but uses them to make his
broader thematic points.
5. A little candor and a little humor go a long way.
GRUNWALD, ESKEW&DONILON TEL No 2024670818
Nov 4.93 19:00 No 001 P.03
As to the substance of what the President should convey. I'm not going to make specific
issue by issue suggestions. I'll convey my health care advice separately. Overall, I think he
should convey a sense that he is tackling the real problems of real people.
The American people are struggling to make ends meet in a changing world,
We're trying to provide them the tools and security to do that.
How?
*
Creating jobs
*
Breaking down trade barriers
+
Getting our fiscal house in order
*
Providing the security of health care that can never be taken away
*
Providing the opportunity to any child, regardless of income, who wants to
go to college.
Finally, I hope you have prepared him with answers on Moynihan's ammunition tax and the
whole Packwood mess. On the latter, I hope he has no problem slamming the Senate and saying
that this week's events remind people of everything they dislike about Congress. Further, that it's
unfortunate that the focus on the Senator's diary has obscured the very troubling question of
sexual harrassment.
Let me know when the prep session will be on health care, or any other sessions you would like
me to join.
November 4, 1993
TO:
Mark Gearan
FROM: Bill Galston
SUBJ: Meet the Press
No individual issues in my domain seem terribly burning, but I do
want to raise two larger contextual points.
1. Like it or not, Tuesday's elections are likely to form
the context for the President's interview. Analysis and
commentary such as today's articles by Al Hunt, David Broder, Tom
Edsall, and others will constitute the conventional wisdom
baseline for Russert's opening political questions, which will
suggest that the voters are registering their disapproval of the
President and administration and that things look bad for 1994
and beyond.
I don't believe that our current public line--that Tuesday
simply represents a continuation of the public's desire for
change--is entirely adequate. In my judgment, the President
should begin his response by forthrightly acknowledging the
actual content of the public's complaints: violent crime without
the certainty of swift punishment, higher taxes without improved
government performance, an economy in recovery that still hasn't
generated enough jobs and opportunity. He should then say that
turning the country around is a huge job that will take time.
"We've made a good beginning, but there's much more to do. The
administration's historic deficit reduction has set the stage for
a long period of steady economic growth and job formation with
low inflation. Economic developments in recent months have been
very encouraging. We've begun to attack the federal government's
archaic procedures and entrenched bureaucracy. Within the next
year, we're going to enact fundamental reforms in health,
welfare, crime, and education. And the passage of NAFTA will
mean more production right here ia America, more exports, and
more high quality jobs.
That's a record on which Democrats can run and win. But I don't
expect the American people to take my word for it. They're going
to judge our party and administration by results, not rhetoric.
If they can't feel the change in their lives, it doesn't matter
what I say. And if they can, it doesn't matter what my critics
say."
2. I think the President was really on the right track in
his North Carolina speech, and he should return to it. During
the interview, he should seize every opportunity to relate
specific questions to the broader themes of security versus
insecurity and change versus the status quo:
"It's my administration's responsibility to help the American
people face up to the changes that we can no longer postpone or
evade. But if people feel insecure--in their streets and their
schools, about their jobs and their health care--it will be
harder for them to summon the courage to change.
The politics of nostalgia just won't work. We cannot freeze
change and return to a vanished past. But to the millions of
Americans who feel so threatened today, we must extend a helping
hand and a solemn pledge: when you accept the challenge of
change, you won't be abandoned. And that's what my
administration is all about: getting beyond the false choice
between the politics of protection and the politics of
abandonment, and recognizing that we can't advance unless we go
forward together."
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL
WASHINGTON D.C 20506
:
November 4, 1993
MEMORANDUM TO MARK GEARAN
FROM:
NANCY SODERBERGND
SUBJ:
National Security Themes for President's Interview
with "Meet the Press"
Attached are the themes you requested on national security issues
for the President's interview with "Meet the Press". As
requested, we will provide Q's and A's by COB tomorrow.
Tony was out sick and thus has not reviewed, although Sandy has.
Tony may have some changes on Friday.
National Security Themes
Even as we focus on the more dramatic and immediate foreign
policy issues of the past month, we cannot lose sight of the
real progress we're making on the issues that will have the
most important and long-lasting impact on our security and
prosperity.
We have raised the issue of stimulating world growth to the
top of the global agenda, helping to create American jobs
and exports.
We've pursued this through our work on NAFTA and the
Uruguay Round and coordinating economic policies with
our G-7 allies.
We have also focused unprecedented U.S. attention to our
economic relations with Asia, one of the most dynamic and
rapidly-growing regions of the world.
O
We have negotiated a new economic framework for working
with a change-oriented government in Japan, achieving a
commitment for market opening that will yield new jobs
and new exports.
We proposed building up regional institutions, an idea
I will highlight when I meet two weeks from now with
the fifteen leaders at the Asia Pacific Economic
Cooperation meeting in Seattle, leaders who represent
countries accounting for half of the world's GDP.
Our steadfast support for democratic and market reform in
Russia has helped President Yeltsin overcome numerous
threats from reactionary forces.
A successful transition in Russia will allow us to
continue to cut defense spending, open markets of
hundreds of millions of consumers and eliminate for
good the destructive Cold War competition.
Secretary Christopher's work to reinvigorate the Middle East
peace talks created an environment that allowed the
momentous achievements over the past months, including the
Israeli-PLO peace signing at the White House.
On defense issues, Secretary Aspin's "bottom up" review has
given us a road-map for restructuring the military to face
the challenges of the post Cold War world, ensuring
continued security while allowing us to make even greater
defense cuts.
O
We've also unveiled a proposal - - embraced by our
allies, Russia and others - - to offer former Soviet
republics and East European nations closer ties with
NATO, helping to adapt NATO to the post-Cold War world
and promote transatlantic security.
We've also provided new global impetus to efforts to protect
the qlobal environment and to prevent proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction.
We've also announced new policies to stem the flow of
illegal immigration and to combat international drug
trafficking.
On the issues that confronted us when we came to office,
there have been some difficult times over the past weeks,
but we are making progress.
In Somalia, we are seeing results from the policy I
announced on October 7. African leaders are promoting
political reconciliation; attacks on U.S. and U.N. forces
have ceased; the Rangers have been brought home; and a
commission of inquiry is being set up to hold those
responsible for the attack of U.N. peacekeepers accountable
for their actions.
O
We cannot rebuild Somalia - - the Somali people must do
that for themselves - - but our commitment to complete
our mission there in a disciplined manner is giving
them a chance to avoid a return to anarchy and
starvation that resulted in the loss of 350,000 lives
before our engagement began last December.
In Haiti, we have tough international sanctions in place and
diplomatic discussions underway in an effort to restore
democracy and President Aristide to that country in line
with the Governor's Island process. The anti-democratic
forces must understand they cannot indefinitely thwart the
will and commitment of the Haitian people and the
international community.
We have strong national interests in helping foster
democracy and human rights on our doorsteps in the
Caribbean, protecting 1000 Americans in Haiti and
preventing a recurrence of mass exodus of Haitians at
great risk to themselves and great disruption to us.
Lessons of the Past Month
We've faced some tough problems over the past month that
have commanded Americans' attention. The situations in
Somalia, Haiti and Bosnia are not unique: in the uncharted
ground after the end of the Cold War, we're likely to face
more and more instances in which societies are tearing
themselves apart.
O
We cannot turn our backs on all such conflicts: some,
such as Haiti, have broad implications for us. But our
primary focus must and will remain on the challenges of
primary and lasting importance: Russia, trade, Asia,
NATO, Japan, NAFTA, military readiness, combatting
narcotics, non-proliferation.
We intend to work more closely with Congress and the
American people to communicate our priorities and to build
consensus regarding when and how we get involved in
humanitarian and peacekeeping operations that warrant our
participation.
At the United Nations, I laid out conditions and
questions we must consider before we become involved in
these situations: what are our national interests; what
are our specific goals; can our involvement really make
a difference; what is the exit strategy.
We welcome the emergence of a new bipartisan spirit of
consultation and cooperation on these issues as well as
Congressional reaffirmation of the President's
authority to conduct foreign policy.
November 5, 1993
To:
Mark Gearan
Fr:
Gene Sperling
Subject: Positive Themes for Meet the Press
Bob Rubin, Bob Reich, Alan Blinder and I discussed this matter and we felt that other
than NAFTA and health care, the only economic theme he should stress is that 1) we have a
comprehensive economic plan; 2) while all might not be well, it is working, and 3) that we
care about jobs, have a job plan, and it has created 1.2 million private sector jobs in only 9
months.
POSITIVE ECONOMIC THEMES
I. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR JOBS AND GROWTH THAT IS WORKING: [Strategy:
Point out that we have a comprehensive economic plan to invest in our future -- not just
separate parts -- that is starting to work, while recognizing that things are not good enough
yet, and we need the rest of this comprehensive strategy to move us further toward solving
our long-term challenges]
WE CAME INTO OFFICE WITH A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR ECONOMIC
GROWTH AND JOBS. It was a plan to grow the economy and invest in our people,
by borrowing less, investing more, making our tax system is fair, and that our people
have the security to embrace the change we need to create economic growth.
YES, WE STILL HAVE A LONG WAY TO GO, AND YES, THERE ARE FAR
TOO MANY WORKING FAMILIES THAT THE ECONOMY IS NOT WORKING
FOR, BUT WE ALSO NOW HAVE AN ECONOMIC STRATEGY THAT IS
FALLING IS STARTING TO WORK AND PUT US ON THE PATH TO
ECONOMIC RENEWAL
Our historic deficit reduction is already bringing down interest rates and bringing up
investment in housing, business and technology investment.
We've passed a historic tax break for 20 million working families and households
making under $27,000.
Our economy has now created 1.2 million private sector jobs in the past nine
months -- that is 200,000 more private sector jobs created than were created in the
last four years.
AND IN JUST OUR FIRST YEAR, WE'RE MAKING GREAT PROGRESS AT
INVESTING MORE IN OUR PEOPLE AND HAVING A COMPREHENSIVE
JOBS STRATEGY including a new national service legislation, a technology
reinvestment program to convert to a post-cold war economy, new job creating tax
incentives for small business, empowerment zones, a new college loan program --
and we are hard at work to pass our school-work-apprenticeship program,
comprehensive worker training.
WE HAVE TO TAKE THE NEXT STEPS TO MAKE OUR ECONOMIC
STRATEGY FOR GROWTH WORK. That means passing health care reform that not
only provides security for all Americans, but is our best hope for keeping the deficit
on a downward path. And that means going further with a job creation strategy by
opening markets with NAFTA, and by finding the savings we need so that we can
invest more in defense conversion, fighting crime and investing in our people.
II. THE DEFICIT OR BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT: [Three part answer:1) We
have done much and it is paying off already; 2) Wc are taking other intelligent steps. 3) But
one way not to do this is to pass an rigid balanced budget amendment]
1) We have done much: I am deeply committed to ensuring that we enforce every
penny of the $500 billion deficit reduction plan we passed -- the largest in history.
That plan included a 12% real cut in all discretionary spending, which is
unprecedented.
2) I am deeply committed to enforcing this deficit reduction plan, and keeping it
on a downward path. The number one way to do this is to pass health care reform,
because it is the 11-16% increase in health care spending that threatens our long-term
deficit. In addition we have additional savings from the Vice President's National
Performance Review, a rescission bill, and I have just announced the creation of a
Bipartisan Entitlement Commission to look at long-term ways to control entitlement
spending so wc can bring down the deficit and have more funds available for the
investments in the future wc desperately need.
3) I oppose the balanced budget, however, for four basic reasons:
One, almost every economists believes it can threaten our economic well-being by
putting economic policy in a straight-jacked and has a tendency to make bad
economic times worse, longer and more costly to jobs. Two, I believe it is a poor way
to govern because it allows us here in Washington to hide from hard choices, and
because it is so vague that it will end up putting economic policy in the Courts and
not with our elected officials. Three, I fear that it would result in large middle class
tax increases, massive cuts to Social Security and that it would have the effect of
derailing health care reform, which is our best answer to bringing down the long-term
deficit. Four, we need an intelligent process that brings down the deficit without
threatening our national or economic security, by distinguishing between investment
and consumption and not making unwise cuts in defense or in defense conversion,
training or job creation --where few serious people do not believe that we must do
more.
III. BIPARTISAN COMMISSION: [Overall, remember that we must stress health care
reform is the main answer to controlling entitlements, and that this Commission is another
step -- not our main vehicle] Everyone on all sides of the political spectrum agrees that we
must do something about entitlement spending if we want to bring down the deficit and still
be able to invest in the things that matter for growth. The main problem is by far the
escalation of health care spending. Medicare and Medicaid growing 11 and 16% respectively.
Only with health care reform can we bring about long-term deficit reduction that helps the
economy. If we just cut health care programs without reform, we would threaten the security
of seniors and just shift costs to the private sector. But there are other serious issues on
entitlements that are politically sensitive, and need both serious study and true bipartisan
support. That is why I will think the work of this Commission could be so important.