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
289844594
label
Asian Pacific American Appointees
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
289844594
contentType
document
title
Asian Pacific American Appointees
citationUrl
collections
Records of the Office of National Service (Clinton Administration)
Shirley Sagawa's Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
289844594
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
99905611-20130661F-Seg2-024-004-2023
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
f7fcdadb0e09739f
ocrText
FOIA Number: 2013-0661-F (2)
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the William J. Clinton
Presidential Library Staff.
Collection/Record Group:
Clinton Presidential Records
Subgroup/Office of Origin:
National Service
Series/Staff Member:
Shirley Sagawa
Subseries:
OA/ID Number:
24268
FolderID:
Folder Title:
Asian Pacific American Appointees
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
S
66
1
9
2
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
SUBJECT/TITLE
DATE
RESTRICTION
AND TYPE
001. memo
Donald L. Fowler & Christopher J. Dodd to Asian Pacific Elected
08/01/1995
Personal Misfile
Officials & Community Leaders; re: Delivering the Democratic
Message (3 pages)
002. list
re: Democratic National Committee - Contact List (2 pages)
08/01/1995
Personal Misfile
003. memo
Jon-Christopher Bua to Interested Democrats; re: Talk Radio (7
05/09/1995
Personal Misfile
pages)
COLLECTION:
Clinton Presidential Records
National Service
Shirley Sagawa
OA/Box Number: 24268
FOLDER TITLE:
Asian Pacific American Appointees
2013-0661-F
jp4946
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
b(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
b(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
of gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
b(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
2201(3).
concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]
RR. Document will be reviewed upon request.
Asian Pacific American
Office of the Managing Director
08/02/96
PHOTOCOPY
PRESERVATION
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 21, 1995
par. to jurgular
TO:
Asian Pacific American Appointees
FROM:
Doris O. Matsui
IMS
Deputy Assistant to the President and
Deputy Director of Public Liaison
RE:
Affirmative Action
Affirmative action is a defining issue for the Clinton
Administration. In his speech earlier this week, the President
stood by his longtime convictions and made it clear that this
Administration will not shy away from the issue for political
expediency. We have received overwhelmingly enthusiastic
responses from people throughout the country.
At the same time he steadfastly supports affirmative action, the
President has instructed federal agencies to review their
procedures. Affirmative action programs that discriminate
against anyone, must be revised accordinging. He has also
ordered vigorous prosecution of cases of fraud and misuse of
affirmative action programs.
Yesterday, as many Asian Pacific appointees as could attend on
short notice, met here for a briefing by Stuart Ishimaru, counsel
to Deval Patrick, Asst. Attorney General for Civil Rights.
Stuart was intimately involved in the work of President Clinton's
task force which reviewed affirmative action. Also participating
was Dennis Hayashi, director of civil rights for HHS, a member of
the President's task force on affirmative action.
As leaders from your communities and as Clinton appointees, you
will likely be asked to speak, explain or defend this
administration's position on affirmative action. I want to make
sure that those of you who could not attend, do have copies of
the handouts. We will send you additional materials as they
become available.
When you hear from people in your hometown, please let us know
what they are saying. Fax news clips or just a couple of
sentences of comments to us. It is very important to have
ongoing input from our communities. We have also faxed a copy of
the President's speech and a news release to Asian community
media across the country. If we can be of further assistance,
please do not hesitate to contact us.
July 19, 1995
MEMORANDUM FOR HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
SUBJECT: Evaluation of Affirmative Action Programs
This Administration is committed to expanding the economy, to strengthening programs
that support children and families, and to vigorous, effective enforcement of laws
prohibiting discrimination. These commitments reflect bedrock values -- equality,
opportunity, and fair play -- which extend to all Americans, regardless of race, ethnicity,
or gender.
While our Nation has made enormous strides toward eliminating inequality and barriers
to opportunity, the job is not complete. As the United States Supreme Court recognized
only one month ago in Adarand Constructors, Inc. V. Pe?a, "[t]he unhappy persistence of
both the practice and the lingering effects of racial discrimination against minority
groups in this country is an unfortunate reality, and government is not disqualified from
acting in response to it." This Administration will continue to support affirmative
measures that promote opportunities in employment, education, and government
contracting for Americans subject to discrimination or its continuing effects. In every
instance, we will seek reasonable ways to achieve the objectives of inclusion and
antidiscrimination without specific reliance on group membership. But where our
legitimate objectives cannot be achieved through such means, the Federal Government
will continue to support lawful consideration of race, ethnicity, and gender under
programs that are flexible, realistic, subject to reevaluation, and fair.
Accordingly, in all programs you administer that use race, ethnicity, or gender as a
consideration to expand opportunity or provide benefits to members of groups that have
suffered discrimination, I ask you to take steps to ensure adherence to the following
policy principles. The policy principles are that any program must be eliminated or
reformed if it:
(a)
creates a quota;
(b) creates preferences for unqualified individuals;
(c) creates reverse discrimination; or
(d) continues even after its equal opportunity purposes have been
achieved.
In addition, the Supreme Court's recent decision in Adarand Constructors,
Inc. v. Pe?a requires strict scrutiny of the justifications for, and provisions
of, a broad range of existing race-based affirmative action programs. You
recently received a detailed legal analysis of Adarand from
the Department of Justice. Consistent with that guidance, I am today
instructing each of you to undertake, in consultation with and pursuant to
the overall direction of the Attorney General, an evaluation of programs
you administer that use race or ethnicity in decision making. With regard
to programs that affect more than one agency, the Attorney General shall
determine, after consultations, which agency shall take the lead in
performing this analysis.
Using all of the tools at your disposal, you should develop any information
that is necessary to evaluate whether your programs are narrowly tailored
to serve a compelling interest, as required under Adarand's strict scrutiny
standard. Any program that does not meet the constitutional standard
must be reformed or eliminated.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
CLINTON SUPPORTS AFFIRMATIVE ACTION DONE THE RIGHT WAY
"It (affirmative action) is a moral
imperative, a Constitutional mandate, and
a legal necessity."
"Affirmative action has been good for
America. But that does not mean it has
always been perfect. That does not mean
that it should go on forever. Affirmative
action should be retired when its job is
done -- and I am resolved that that day will
come. But the job is not done."
President Clinton
Wednesday, July 19, 1995
Our Central Challenge. As we approach the 21st century, the
President believes we must restore the American Dream of
opportunity; find Common Ground amid our great diversity of
opinion and experience; and strengthen the American commitment to
Equal Opportunity for all, special treatment for none.
Presidential Directive to Ensure Affirmative Action is Fair.
Affirmative Action must be consistent with our ideals of personal
responsibility and merit. Today, the President directs all
federal agencies to comply quickly with the Supreme Court's
decision in Adarand and to apply four standards to make sure that
all affirmative action programs are fair:
No quotas.
No reverse discrimination.
No preferences for unqualified individuals.
No continuation of programs that have met their goals.
Any program that does not meet any of these four principles must
be eliminated or changed.
Done Right, Affirmative Action Works. President Clinton ordered
a review of the government's affirmative action programs. That
review concluded affirmative action is still an effective tool to
expand economic and educational opportunity:
The military's approach, ensuring it has a wide pool of
qualified candidates for every promotion, has given us the
world's most diverse and best qualified military leadership.
Education Department programs targeted at minorities do a
lot of good with a small investment -- about 40 cents of
every $1,000 in student aid.
The goals and timetables first instituted by President Nixon
for large federal contractors have prevented discrimination
and fostered fairness-- without quotas or mandated outcomes.
"Set-asides" have helped build up firms owned by minorities
and women who were historically excluded from the "old boy"
network. They have helped a new generation of entrepreneurs
to flourish, fostering self-reliance and economic growth.
We Have Made Progress Toward the Ideal of Equal Opportunity: We
have passed major milestones: Emancipation, women's suffrage,
civil rights, voting rights and equal rights. That progress, won
by hard work and countless acts of conscience, has allowed
millions of Americans, once on the fringe, to contribute to our
democracy and prosperity:
Asian Pacific Americans have made real gains in employment,
education and contracting.
Women are now major earners.
A true black middle class is emerging.
Higher education is now more open to women, racial and
ethnic minorities.
Police departments across the country reflect diversity of
their communities.
We Cannot Retreat While Discrimination Continues. We must not
become the first generation of Americans since the end of
Reconstruction to narrow the reach of equal opportunity. We must
continue the struggle toward equal opportunity for all and
special treatment for none. America cannot afford to waste a
single person as we confront new challenges. Affirmative action
has closed many gaps in economic opportunity, but we still have a
long way to go:
Asian Pacific Americans have faced historic discrimination and
continue to face discrimination today.
Racial discrimination is typically based on appearance and
physical characteristics.
APAs face additional discrimination based on real or
perceived immigrant status, including explicit citizenship
discrimimation and national origin discrimination such as
accent discrimination or English-only discrimination.
APAs continue to hit the "glass ceiling" and are channeled
away from managerial positions.
Discrimination continues for other groups as well:
Unemployment rate for African-Americans remains about twice
that of whites.
Women still make only 72 percent as much as men.
Average income for a Hispanic woman with a college degree is
less than that of a white man with a high school degree.
The recent Glass Ceiling Report found that women in the
nation's largest companies hold less than 5 percent of
senior management posts. The number is lower for African-
Americans, Hispanic and Asians, who hold less than 1 percent
each of those positions.
In 1994, federal government received more than 90,000
complaints of employment discrimination based on race,
ethnicity and gender.
Hate crimes and violence are still ugly realities in the
lives of many Americans.
"Set-Asides" Need Reform. In some cases, "set-asides" have been
misapplied, misused or even intentionally abused. Therefore,
President Clinton has ordered that we:
Crack Down on "Set-Aside" Fraud and Abuse. Make sure set-
asides go to businesses that need them most. No permanent
set-asides for any company.
Comply with the Supreme Court's Adarand decision. Limit
set-asides to areas where serious discrimination remains.
Do More to Help Disadvantaged People and Distressed
Communities. The President has directed the Vice President
to develop new ways to use government contracting to help
businesses locate in distressed areas and hire workers from
those areas.
Those Who Would Divide Us Threaten America's Future. Those who
prey on our worst instincts and SOW division cannot succeed.
APAs have often been singled out as the "model minority." This
so called positive stereotype has been used to admonish other
minorities to be more like the "quiet, hard working Asians." At
the same time, it is being used as a rationale on some campuses
to limit APA student admission. It is important that we
understand how these divisive tactics are being used to pit us
against other people of color.
America will survive and prosper as a society if we are confident
and united. Today in America, 150 racial and ethnic groups co-
exist in harmony -- an achievement unmatched in human history.
President Clinton believes we have a responsibility to renew and
strengthen the ideals that fostered that unity.
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
ON AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
July 19, 1995
The Rotunda
National Archives
In recent weeks I have begun a conversation with the
American people about our fate and our duty to prepare our nation
not only to meet the new century, but to live and lead in a world
transformed to a degree seldom seen in all of our history. Much
of this change is good, but it is not all good, and all of us are
affected by it. Therefore, we must reach beyond our fears and
our divisions to a new time of great and common purpose.
Our challenge is twofold: first, to restore the American
dream of opportunity and the American value of responsibility;
and second, to bring our country together amid all our diversity
into a stronger community, so that we can find common ground and
move forward as one.
More than ever these two endeavors are inseparable. I
am absolutely convinced we cannot restore economic opportunity
or solve our social problems unless we find a way to bring the
American people together. To bring our people together we must
openly and honestly deal with the issues that divide us. Today
I want to discuss one of those issues: affirmative action.
It is, in a way, ironic that this issue should be divisive
today, because affirmative action was begun 25 years ago under
a Republican president with bipartisan support. It began simply
as a means to an end of enduring national purpose -- equal
opportunity for all Americans.
So let us today trace the roots of affirmative action in
our never-ending search for equal opportunity. Let us determine
what it is and what it isn't. Let us see where it has worked and
where it hasn't, and ask ourselves what we need to do now. Along
the way, let us remember always that finding common ground as we
move toward the 21st century depends fundamentally on our shared
commitment to equal opportunity for all Americans. It is a moral
imperative, a constitutional mandate, and a practical necessity.
There could be no better place for this discussion than the
National Archives, for within these walls are America's bedrocks
of our common ground -- the Declaration of Independence, the
Constitution, the Bill of Rights. No paper is as lasting as the
2
words these documents contain. So we put them in these special
cases to protect the parchment from the elements. No building
is as solid as the principles these documents embody, but we sure
tried to build one with these metal doors 11 inches thick to keep
them safe. These documents are America's only crown jewels. But
the best place of all to hold these words and these principles is
the one place in which they can never fade and never grow old --
in the stronger chambers of our hearts.
Beyond all else, our country is a set of convictions: "We
hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created
equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness."
Our whole history can be seen first as an effort to preserve
these rights, and then as an effort to make them real in the
lives of all our citizens. We know that from the beginning,
there was a great gap between the plain meaning of our creed
and the meaner reality of our daily lives. Back then, only
white male property owners could vote. Black slaves were not
even counted as whole people, and Native Americans were regarded
as little more than an obstacle to our great national progress.
No wonder Thomas Jefferson, reflecting on slavery, said he
trembled to think God is just.
On the 200th anniversary of our great Constitution,
Justice Thurgood Marshall, the grandson of a slave, said, "The
government our founders devised was defective from the start,
requiring several amendments, a civil war, and momentous social
transformation to attain the system of constitutional government
and its respect for the individual freedoms and human rights we
hold as fundamental today."
Emancipation, women's suffrage, civil rights, voting
rights, equal rights, the struggle for the rights of the
disabled -- all these and other struggles are milestones on
America's often rocky, but fundamentally righteous journey to
close the gap between the ideals enshrined in these treasures
here in the National Archives and the reality of our daily lives.
I first came to this very spot where I'm standing today
32 years ago this month. I was a 16-year-old delegate to the
American Legion Boys Nation. That summer was a high-water mark
on our national journey. That was the summer that President
Kennedy ordered Alabama National Guardsmen to enforce a court
order to allow two young blacks to enter the University of
Alabama. As he told our nation, "Every American ought to have
the right to be treated as he would wish to be treated; as one
would wish his children to be treated."
3
Later that same summer, on the steps of the Lincoln
Memorial, Martin Luther King told Americans of his dream that
one day the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave-
owners would sit down together at the table of brotherhood;
that one day his four little children would be judged not by the
color of their skin, but by the content of their character. His
words captured the hearts and steeled the wills of millions of
Americans. Some of them sang with him in the hot sun that day.
Millions more, like me, listened and wept in the privacy of their
homes.
It's hard to believe where we were just three decades ago.
When I came up here to Boys Nation and we had this mock congres-
sional session, I was one of only three or four southerners who
would even vote for the civil rights plank. That's largely
because of my family. My grandfather had a grade school
education and ran a grocery store across the street from the
cemetery in Hope, Arkansas, where my parents and my grandparents
are buried. Most of his customers were black, were poor, and
were working people. As a child in that store I saw that people
of different races could treat each other with respect and
dignity.
But I also saw that the black neighborhood was the only one
in town where the streets weren't paved. And when I returned to
that neighborhood in the late '60s to see a woman who had cared
for me as a toddler, the streets still weren't paved. A lot of
you know that I am an ardent movie-goer. As a child I never went
to a movie where I could sit next to a black American. They were
always sitting upstairs.
In the 1960s, believe it or not, there were still a few
courthouse squares in my state where the rest rooms were marked
"white" and "colored." I graduated from a segregated high school
seven years after President Eisenhower integrated Little Rock
Central High School. And when President Kennedy barely carried
my home state in 1960, the poll tax system was still alive and
well there.
Even though my grandparents were in a minority, being poor,
Southern whites who were pro-civil rights, I think most other
people knew better than to think the way they did. And those
who were smart enough to act differently, discovered a lesson
that we ought to remember today: Discrimination is not just
morally wrong, it hurts everybody.
In 1960, Atlanta, Georgia, in reaction to all the things
that were going on all across the South, adopted the motto,
"The city too busy to hate." And however imperfectly over the
4
years, they tried to live by it. I am convinced that Atlanta's
success -- it now is home to more foreign corporations than any
other American city, and one year from today it will host the
Olympics -- that success all began when people got too busy to
hate.
The lesson we learned was a hard one. When we allow people
to pit us against one another or spend energy denying opportunity
based on our differences, everyone is held back. But when we
give all Americans a chance to develop and use their talents,
to be full partners in our common enterprise, then everybody is
pushed forward.
My experiences with discrimination are rooted in the South
and in the legacy slavery left. But I also lived with a working
mother and a working grandmother when women's work was far rarer
and far more circumscribed than it is today. We all know there
are millions of other stories -- those of Hispanics, Asian
Americans, Native Americans, people with disabilities, others
against whom fingers have been pointed. Many of you have your
own stories, and that's why you're here today -- people who were
denied the right to develop and use their full human potential.
And their progress, too, is a part of our journey to make the
reality of America consistent with the principles just behind
me here.
Thirty years ago in this city, you didn't see many people
of color or women making their way to work in the morning in
business clothes, or serving in substantial numbers in powerful
positions in Congress or at the White House, or making executive
decisions every day in businesses. In fact, even the employment
want ads were divided, men on one side and women on the other.
It was extraordinary then to see women or people of color
as television news anchors, or, believe it or not, even in
college sports. There were far fewer women and minorities as
job supervisors, or firefighters, or police officers, or doctors,
or lawyers, or college professors, or in many other jobs that
offer stability and honor and integrity to family life.
A lot has changed, and it did not happen as some sort of
random evolutionary drift. It took hard work and sacrifices
and countless acts of courage and conscience by millions of
Americans. It took the political courage and statesmanship of
Democrats and Republicans alike, the vigilance and compassion of
courts and advocates in and out of government committed to the
Constitution, to equal protection, and to equal opportunity. It
took the leadership of people in business who knew that in the
end we would all be better. It took the leadership of people in
labor unions who knew that working people had to be recognized.
5
Some people, like Congressman Lewis here, put their lives
on the line. Other people lost their lives. And millions of
Americans changed their own lives and put hate behind them. As
a result, today all our lives are better. Women have become a
major force in business and political life and far more able to
contribute to their families' incomes. A true and growing black
middle class has emerged. Higher education has literally been
revolutionized, with women and racial and ethnic minorities
attending once overwhelmingly white and sometimes all male
schools. In communities across our nation, police departments
now better reflect the make-up of those whom they protect. A
generation of professionals now serve as role models for young
women and minority youth. Hispanics and newer immigrant
populations are succeeding in making America stronger.
For an example of where the best of our future lies, just
think about our space program and the stunning hook-up with
the Russian space station this month. Let's remember that that
program, the world's finest, began with heroes like Alan Shepard
and Senator John Glenn, but it's also had American heroes like
Sally Ride, Ellen Ochoa, Leroy Chiao, Guy Bluford and other
outstanding, completely qualified women and minorities.
How did this happen? Fundamentally, because we opened
our hearts and minds and changed our ways. But not without
pressure -- the pressure of court decisions, legislation,
executive action, and the power of examples in the public and
private sectors. Along the way we learned that laws alone do not
change society: that old habits and thinking patterns are deeply
ingrained and die hard; and that more is required to really open
the doors of opportunity. Our search to find ways to move more
quickly to equal opportunity led to the development of what we
now call affirmative action.
The purpose of affirmative action is to give our nation a
way to address the systemic exclusion of individuals of talent,
on the basis of their gender or race, from opportunities to
develop, perform, achieve and contribute. Affirmative action is
an effort to develop a systematic approach to open the doors of
education, employment and business development opportunities to
qualified individuals who happen to be members of groups that
have experienced longstanding and persistent discrimination.
It is a policy that grew out of many years of trying to
navigate between two unacceptable paths. One was to say simply
that we declared discrimination illegal and that's enough. But
that way still relegated blacks with college degrees to jobs as
railroad porters and kept women with degrees under a glass
ceiling with a lower paycheck.
6
The other path was simply to impose change by leveling
draconian penalties on employers who didn't meet certain imposed,
ultimately arbitrary, and sometimes unachievable quotas. That,
too, was rejected out of a sense of fairness.
So a middle ground was developed that would change an
inequitable status quo gradually, but firmly, by building the
pool of qualified applicants for college, for contracts, for
jobs, and giving more people the chance to learn, work and earn.
When affirmative action is done right, it is flexible, it is
fair, and it works.
I know some people are honestly concerned about the times
affirmative action doesn't work, when it's done in the wrong
way. There are times when some employers don't use it in the
right way. They may cut corners and treat a flexible goal as a
quota. They may give opportunities to people who are unqualified
instead of those who deserve it. They may, in SO doing, allow a
different kind of discrimination. When this happens, it is also
wrong. But it isn't affirmative action. And it is not legal.
When our Administration finds cases of that sort, we
will enforce the law aggressively. The Justice Department
files hundreds of cases every year, attacking discrimination in
employment, including suits on behalf of white males. Most of
these suits, however, affect women and minorities for a simple
reason because the vast majority of discrimination in America
is still discrimination against them. But the law does require
fairness for everyone, and we are determined to see that that is
exactly what the law delivers.
Let me be clear about what affirmative action must not
mean and what I won't allow it to be. It does not mean -- and I
don't favor -- the unjustified preference of the unqualified over
the qualified of any race or gender. It doesn't mean -- and I
don't favor -- numerical quotas. It doesn't mean -- and I don't
favor -- rejection or selection of any employee or student solely
on the basis of race or gender without regard to merit.
Like many business executives and public servants, my views
on this subject are, more than anything else, the product of my
personal experience. I have had experience with affirmative
action, nearly 20 years of it now, and I know it works.
When I was Attorney General of my home state, I hired a
record number of women and African American lawyers -- every
one clearly qualified and exceptionally hardworking. As
7
Governor, I appointed more women to my Cabinet and state boards
than any other governor in the state's history and more African
Americans than all the governors in the state's history combined.
No one ever questioned their qualifications or performance. And
our state was better and stronger because of their service.
As President, I am proud to have the most diverse
Administration in history in my Cabinet, my agencies and my
staff. And I must say, I have been surprised at the criticism
I have received from some quarters in my determination to achieve
this.
In the last two and a half years, the most outstanding
example of affirmative action in the United States, the Pentagon,
has opened 260, 000 positions for women who serve in our Armed
Forces. I have appointed more women and minorities to the
federal bench than any other president, more than the last two
combined. And yet, far more of our judicial appointments have
received the highest rating from the American Bar Association
than any other Administration since those ratings have been
given.
In our Administration, many government agencies are doing
more business with qualified firms run by minorities and women.
The Small Business Administration has reduced its budget by close
to 40 percent, doubled its loan output, and increased the number
of loans to women by more than 80 percent and to minority small
business people by nearly sixty percent, without reducing the
number of loans to white male business owners and without
changing the loan standards for a single, solitary application.
Quality and diversity can go hand in hand, and they must.
Affirmative action has also done more than just open the
doors of opportunity to individual Americans. Most economists
who study it agree that affirmative action has also been an
important part of closing gaps in economic opportunity in our
society, thereby strengthening the entire economy.
A group of distinguished business leaders told me just a
couple of days ago their companies are stronger and their profits
are larger because of the diversity and the excellence of their
work forces achieved through intelligent and fair affirmative
action programs. They said they had gone far beyond anything
the government requires they had because managing diversity and
individual opportunity and being fair to everybody is the key
to their future economic success in the global marketplace.
Now, there are those who say that even good affirmative
action programs are no longer needed; that it should be enough
to resort to the courts or the Equal Employment Opportunity
8
Commission in cases of actual, provable, individual
discrimination because there is no longer any systematic
discrimination in our society. In deciding how to answer
that let us consider the facts.
The unemployment rate for African Americans remains about
twice that of whites. The Hispanic rate is still much higher.
Women have narrowed the earnings gap, but still make only
72 percent as much as men do for comparable jobs. The average
income for an Hispanic woman with a college degree is still
less than the average income of a white man with a high school
diploma.
According to the recently completed Glass Ceiling Report,
sponsored by Republican members of Congress, in the nation's
largest companies only six-tenths of one percent of senior
management positions are held by African Americans, four-tenths
of a percent by Hispanic Americans, three-tenths of a percent
by Asian Americans; women hold between three and five percent
of these positions. White males make up 43 percent of our work
force, but hold 95 percent of these jobs.
Just last week, the Chicago Federal Reserve Bank reported
that black home loan applicants are more than twice as likely to
be denied credit as whites with the same qualifications; and that
Hispanic applicants are more than one and a half times as likely
to be denied loans as whites with the same qualifications.
Last year alone the federal government received more than
90,000 complaints of employment discrimination based on race,
ethnicity or gender. Less than three percent were for reverse
discrimination.
Evidence abounds in other ways of the persistence of the
kind of bigotry that can affect the way we think, even if we're
not conscious of it, in hiring and promotion in business and
education.
Crimes and violence based on hate against Asians, Hispanics,
African Americans and other minorities are still with us. And,
I'm sorry to say, that the worst and most recent evidence of this
involves a recent report of federal law enforcement officials in
Tennessee attending an event literally overflowing with racism
a sickening reminder of just how pervasive these kinds of
attitudes still are.
By the way, I want to tell you that I am committed to
finding the truth about what happened there and to taking
appropriate action. If anybody who works in federal law
enforcement thinks that that kind of behavior is acceptable,
they ought to think about working someplace else.
9
Now, let's get to the other side of the argument. If
affirmative action has worked and if there is evidence that
discrimination still exists on a wide scale in ways that are
conscious and unconscious, then why should we get rid of it as
many people are urging? Some question the effectiveness or the
fairness of particular affirmative action programs. I say to all
of you, those are fair questions, and they prompted the review of
our affirmative action programs, about which I will talk in a few
moments.
Some question the fundamental purpose of the effort.
There are people who honestly believe that affirmative action
always amounts to group preferences over individual merit; that
affirmative action always leads to reverse discrimination; that
ultimately, therefore, it demeans those who benefit from it and
discriminates against those who are not helped by it.
All of you have to decide how you feel about that, and all
of our fellow countrymen and women have to decide as well. But
I believe if there are no quotas, if we give no opportunities
to unqualified people, if we have no reverse discrimination, and
if, when the problem ends -- the program ends, that criticism is
wrong. That's what I believe.
Now let's deal with what I really think is behind so much
of this debate today. There are a lot of people who oppose
affirmative action today who supported it for a very long time.
I believe they are responding to the sea change in the expe-
riences that most Americans have in the world in which we live.
If you say now you're against affirmative action because
the government is using its power or the private sector is using
its power to help minorities at the expense of the majority,
that gives you a way of explaining away the economic distress
that a majority of Americans honestly feel. It gives you a way
of turning their resentment against the minorities or against a
particular government program, instead of having an honest debate
about how we all got into the fix we're in and what we're all
going to do together to get out of it.
That explanation, the affirmative action explanation for
the fix we're in is just wrong. It is just wrong. Affirmative
action did not cause the great economic problems of the American
middle class. And because most minorities or women are either
members of that middle class or people who are poor who are
struggling to get into it, we must also admit that affirmative
10
action alone won't solve the problems of minorities and women who
seek to be a part of the American Dream. To do that, we have to
have an economic strategy that reverses the decline in wages and
the growth of poverty among working people. Without that, women,
minorities and white males will all be in trouble in the future.
But it is wrong to use the anxieties of the middle class to
divert the American people from the real causes of their economic
distress -- the sweeping historic changes taking all the globe in
its path, and the specific policies or lack of them in our own
country that have aggravated those challenges. It is simply
wrong to play politics with the issue of affirmative action and
divide our country at a time when, if we're really going to
change things, we have to be united.
I must say, I think it is ironic that some of those - -
not all, but some of those who call for an end to affirmative
action also advocate policies that will make the real economic
problems of the anxious middle class even worse. If the real
goal is economic opportunity for all Americans, why in the world
would we reduce our investment in education from Head Start to
affordable college loans? Why don't we make college loans
available to every American instead?
If the real goal is empowering all middle class Americans
and empowering poor people to work their way into the middle
class without regard to race or gender, why in the world would
the people who advocate that turn around and raise taxes on our
poorest working families, or reduce the money available for
education and training when they lose their jobs or they're
living on poverty wages, or increase the cost of housing for
lower-income, working people with children?
Why would we do that? If we're going to empower America,
we have to do more than talk about it, we have to do it. And
we surely have learned that we cannot empower all Americans by
taking opportunity away from some Americans.
So to those who use this as a political strategy to divide
us, we must say: no.
But to those who raise legitimate questions about the way
affirmative action works, or who raise the larger question about
the genuine problems and anxieties of all the American people and
their sense of being left behind and treated unfairly, we must
say, yes, you are entitled to answers to your questions. We must
say yes to that.
That's why I ordered this review of all of our affirmative
action programs; a review to look at the facts, not the politics
of affirmative action. This review concluded that affirmative
11
action remains a useful tool for widening economic and
educational opportunity. The model used by the military,
the Army in particular and I'm delighted to have the
Commanding General of the Army here today because he set such
a fine example has been especially successful because it
emphasizes education and training, ensuring that it has a wide
pool of qualified candidates for every level of promotion.
That approach has given us the most racially diverse and best-
qualified military in our history. There are more opportunities
for women and minorities there than ever before. And now there
are over 50 generals and admirals who are Hispanic, Asian or
African Americans.
We found that the Education Department had programs targeted
on under-represented minorities that do a great deal of good
with the tiniest of investments. We found that these programs
comprised only 40 cents of every $1,000 in the Education
Department's budget.
College presidents say that their schools benefit from
diversity. If their colleges look like the world students are
going to live and work in, and they learn from all different
kinds of people things they can't learn in books, our systems
of higher education are stronger.
On the other hand, every child, without regard to race or
gender, needs the chance to go to college. Every child. That
means every child has to have a chance to get affordable and
repayable college loans, Pell Grants for poor kids and a chance
to do things like join AmeriCorps and work their way through
school. Every child is entitled to that. But that is not an
argument against affirmative action, it's an argument for more
opportunity for more Americans until everyone is reached.
This review also found that the executive order on
employment practices of large federal contractors also has
helped to bring more fairness and inclusion into the work force.
Since President Nixon's Administration, America has used
goals and timetables to preserve opportunity and to prevent
discrimination, to urge businesses to set higher expectations
for themselves and to realize those expectations. But we did
not and we will not use rigid quotas to mandate outcomes.
We also looked at the way we award procurement contracts
under the programs known as set-asides. There's no question that
these programs have helped to build up firms owned by minorities
and women, who historically have been excluded from the old-boy
networks in these areas. They have helped a new generation of
12
entrepreneurs to flourish, opening new paths to self-reliance
and an economic growth in which all of us ultimately share.
Because of the set-asides, businesses ready to compete have had
a chance to compete, a chance they would not have otherwise had.
But as with any government program, set-asides can be
misapplied, misused, even intentionally abused. There are
critics who exploit that fact as an excuse to abolish all these
programs, regardless of their effects. I believe they are wrong,
but I also believe, based on our factual review, we clearly need
some reform. So first, we should crack down on those who take
advantage of everyone else through fraud and abuse. We must
crack down on fronts and pass-throughs, people who pretend to
be eligible for these programs and aren't. That is wrong.
We also, in offering new businesses a leg up, must make
sure that the set-asides go to businesses that need them most.
We must really look and make sure that our standard for
eligibility is fair and defensible. We have to tighten the
requirement to move businesses out of programs once they've had
a fair opportunity to compete. The graduation requirement must
mean something -- it must mean graduation. There should be no
permanent set-aside for any company.
Second, we must, and we will, comply with the Supreme
Court's Adarand decision of last month. In particular,
that means focusing set-aside programs on particular regions
and business sectors where the problems of discrimination or
exclusion are provable and are clearly requiring affirmative
action. I have directed the Attorney General and the agencies
to move forward with compliance with Adarand expeditiously.
But I also want to emphasize that the Adarand decision
did not dismantle affirmative action and did not dismantle set-
asides. In fact, while setting stricter standards to mandate
reform of affirmative action, it actually reaffirmed the need
for affirmative action and reaffirmed the continuing existence
of systematic discrimination in the United States.
What the Supreme Court ordered the federal government to
do was to meet the same more rigorous standard for affirmative
action programs that state and local governments were ordered to
meet several years ago. And the best set-aside programs under
that standard have been challenged and have survived.
Third, beyond discrimination we need to do more to help
disadvantaged people and distressed communities, no matter what
their race or gender. There are places in our country where the
free enterprise system simply doesn't reach. It simply isn't
working to provide jobs and opportunity. These areas in urban
13
and rural America are populated by racial minorities, but not
entirely. To make this initiative work, I believe the government
must become a better partner for people in places in urban and
rural America that are caught in a cycle of poverty. And I
believe we have to find ways to get the private sector to assume
their rightful role as a driver of economic growth.
It has always amazed me that we have given incentives to
our business people to help to develop poor economies in other
parts of the world, our neighbors in the Caribbean, our neighbors
in other parts of the world, which I have supported except when
they have been abused, but we ignore the biggest source of
economic growth available to the American economy, the poor
economies isolated within the United States of America.
There are those who say, well, even if we made the jobs
available people wouldn't work. They haven't tried. Most of the
people in disadvantaged communities work today, and most of them
who don't work have a very strong desire to do so. In central
Harlem, 14 people apply for every single minimum-wage job
opening. Think how many more would apply if there were good jobs
with a good future. Our job is to connect disadvantaged people
and disadvantaged communities to economic opportunity so that
everybody who wants to work can do so.
We've been working at this through our empowerment zones
and community development banks, through the initiatives of
Secretary Cisneros and the Housing and Urban Development
Department, and many other things that we have tried to do to put
capital where it is needed. And now I have asked Vice President
Gore to develop a proposal to use our contracting to support
businesses that locate themselves in these distressed areas or
hire a large percentage of their workers from these areas -- not
to substitute for affirmative action, but to go beyond it, to do
something that will help to deal with the economic crisis of
America.
My fellow Americans, affirmative action has to be made
consistent with our highest ideals of personal responsibility
and merit, and our urgent need to find common ground, and to
prepare all Americans to compete in the global economy.
Today, I am directing all our agencies to comply with the
Supreme Court's Adarand decision, and also to apply the four
standards of fairness to all our affirmative action programs
that I have already articulated: No quotas in theory or
practice; no illegal discrimination of any kind, including
reverse discrimination; no preference for people who are not
qualified for any job or other opportunity; and as soon as a
program has succeeded, it must be retired. Any program that
doesn't meet these four principles must be eliminated or
reformed to meet them.
14
But let me be clear: Affirmative action has been good for
America.
Affirmative action has not always been perfect, and
affirmative action should not go on forever. It should be
changed now to take care of those things that are wrong, and it
should be retired when its job is done. I am resolved that that
day will come. But the evidence suggests, indeed screams, that
that day has not come.
The job of ending discrimination in this country is not
over. That should not be surprising. We had slavery for
centuries before the passage of the 13th, 14th and 15th
Amendments. We waited another hundred years for the civil
rights legislation. Women have had the vote less than a hundred
years. We have always had difficulty with these things, as most
societies do. But we are making more progress than many other
nations.
Since, based on the evidence, the job is not done, here
is what I think we should do. We should reaffirm the principle
of affirmative action and fix the practices. We should have a
simple slogan: Mend it, but don't end it.
Let me ask all Americans, whether they agree or disagree
with what I have said today, to see this issue in the larger
context of our times. President Lincoln said we cannot escape
our history. We cannot escape our future either. And that
future must be one in which every American has the chance to
live up to his or her God-given capacities.
The new technology, the instant communications, the
explosion of global commerce have created enormous opportunities
and enormous anxieties for Americans. In the last two and a half
years, we have seen seven million new jobs, more millionaires and
new businesses than ever before, high corporate profits, and a
booming stock market. Yet, most Americans are working harder for
the same or lower pay. And they feel more insecurity about their
jobs, their retirement, their health care, and their children's
education. Too many of our children are exposed to poverty and
welfare, violence and drugs.
These are the great challenges for our whole country on the
homefront at the dawn of the 21st century. We've got to find the
wisdom and the will to create family-wage jobs for all the people
who want to work; to open the door of college to all Americans;
to strengthen families and reduce the awful problems to which our
children are exposed; to move poor Americans from welfare to
work.
15
This is the work of our Administration -- to give the people
the tools they need to make the most of their own lives, to give
families and communities the tools they need to solve their own
problems. But let us not forget affirmative action didn't cause
these problems. And it won't solve them. And getting rid of
affirmative action certainly won't solve them.
If properly done, affirmative action can help us come
together, go forward and grow together. It is in our moral,
legal and practical interest to see that every person can make
the most of his or her life. In the fight for the future, we
need all hands on deck. And some of those hands still need a
helping hand.
In our national community we're all different, but we're all
the same. We want liberty and freedom. We want the embrace of
family and community. We want to make the most of our own lives
and we're determined to give our children a better one. Today
there are voices of division who would say forget all that.
Don't you dare. Remember we're still closing the gap between
our founders' ideals and our reality. But every step along the
way has made us richer, stronger and better. And the best is
yet to come.
Thank you very much. And God bless you.
Withdrawal/Redaction Marker
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
SUBJECT/TITLE
DATE
RESTRICTION
AND TYPE
001. memo
Donald L. Fowler & Christopher J. Dodd to Asian Pacific Elected
08/01/1995
Personal Misfile
Officials & Community Leaders; re: Delivering the Democratic
Message (3 pages)
COLLECTION:
Clinton Presidential Records
National Service
Shirley Sagawa
OA/Box Number: 24268
FOLDER TITLE:
Asian Pacific American Appointees
2013-0661-F
jp4946
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
PI National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
b(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
b(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
of gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
b(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
2201(3).
concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]
RR. Document will be reviewed upon request.
Withdrawal/Redaction Marker
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
SUBJECT/TITLE
DATE
RESTRICTION
AND TYPE
002. list
re: Democratic National Committee - Contact List (2 pages)
08/01/1995
Personal Misfile
COLLECTION:
Clinton Presidential Records
National Service
Shirley Sagawa
OA/Box Number: 24268
FOLDER TITLE:
Asian Pacific American Appointees
2013-0661-F
jp4946
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
b(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
b(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
of gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
b(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
2201(3).
concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]
RR. Document will be reviewed upon request.
Withdrawal/Redaction Marker
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
SUBJECT/TITLE
DATE
RESTRICTION
AND TYPE
003. memo
Jon-Christopher Bua to Interested Democrats; re: Talk Radio (7
05/09/1995
Personal Misfile
pages)
COLLECTION:
Clinton Presidential Records
National Service
Shirley Sagawa
OA/Box Number: 24268
FOLDER TITLE:
Asian Pacific American Appointees
2013-0661-F
P4946
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - |44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - 15 U.S.C. 552(b)]
PI National Security Classified Information |(a)(I) of the PRA]
h(l) National security classified information {(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office |(a)(2) of the PRAJ
h(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute 1(a)(3) of the PRA]
an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
h(3) Release would violate a Federal statute {(b)(3) of the FOIA)
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
h(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information |(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRAJ
b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy |(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy |(a)(6) of the PRA]
h(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes |(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
of gift.
financial institutions |(b)(8) of the FOIA]
PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
b(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
2201(3).
concerning wells {(b)(9) of the FOIA]
RR. Document will be reviewed upon request.
ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN DEMOCRAT
Democratic National Committee
July 1995
Volume 1, Issue 1
S.F. BAY AREA APAs SUPPORT DEMOCRATS
A non-partisan exit poll of the November 1994 elections found that 61.9% of Asian Pacific
Americans (APAs) in the San Francisco Bay Area identify with the Democratic Party as
opposed to only 21.6% who identify with the Republicans. Of the 4,009 citizens polled in
three cities, San Francisco, Oakland, and Daly City, 893 of the respondents were APAs. The
results dispel the prevailing notion that APA voters are politically conservative and tend to be
apathetic.
The study was sponsored by San Francisco based Asian Law Caucus and funded by the Ford
Foundation. Two further exit poll studies of APA voters in the Los Angeles and New York
City are expected to be released soon.
The following are some of the highlights of the findings:
When viable APA candidates run, APAs strongly vote in favor of APA candidates.
When informed of issues affecting their communities, APAs have greater turnout and vote
decisively.
73 percent of the surveyed APA voters voted against Proposition 187, a 1994 California
state initiative which sought to deny all educational, medical, and social services to
undocumented immigrants.
Generationally, the second generation and beyond APA voters tend to identify and
affiliate more with the Democratic Party than first generation APA voters.
APAs use bilingual materials, when available.
APAs have significant problems of underparticipation.
There continues to be racial polarization in voter behavior.
DR. FOSTER DENIED SENATE VOTE ON NOMINATION
The nomination of Dr. Henry Foster as U.S. Surgeon General was defeated by Republican
partisan politics and intra-party posturing. Dr. Foster became a pawn in the pre-election
struggle between Majority Leader Robert Dole and Senator Phil Gramm to win votes among
the far right in their pre-election bid for the White House. After two days of contentious
debate, Foster's supporters fell three votes short of the sixty required to end the debate on the
nomination and send it to the floor for an up or down vote.
President Clinton issued this statement, "The Senators who voted to deny Dr. Foster an up or
down vote did a disservice to a good man. They also did a disservice to our whole system of
democracy. And make no mistake about it, this was not a vote about
continued on next page
Asian Pacine American Democr
Page
FOSTER CONTINUED
the right of the President to choose a surgeon general. This was really a vote about every
woman's right to choose."
Dr. Foster is a prominent Nashville obstetrician/gynecologist who has devoted much of his 38
year career in medicine working to improve the health of women and children in poor and
rural areas. His efforts to curb teen pregnancy have earned him high praise among both
Democrats and Republicans, among which include former President George Bush who
declared Dr. Foster as one of America's Thousand Points of Light for his work in this area.
CLINTON SUPPORTS SMALL BUSINESSES
Recognizing the importance of small business, President Clinton welcomed 1,790 small
business representatives to the 1995 White House Conference on Small Business (WHCSB) at
the nation's capitol June 11-15, 1995. The conference produced 60 recommendations on small
business which will be submitted to President Clinton and Congress by September 30 of this
year.
There were a total of 75 Asian delegates attending the conference, the largest group coming
from California with a total of 28 delegates. APAs from across the country had an
opportunity to meet with each other as well as with APA Presidential appointees and APA
Congressional Caucus members at a special reception organized by the California Asian
Delegation. WHCSB Commissioner Josie Natori hosted the reception. Natori was one
member of the 11 member commission responsible for planning the massive policy-making
conference.
The Asian Small Business agenda focused on procurement, affirmative action, equal
opportunity, community development, and international trade. Clifford Tong, business
consultant from Northern California, was the lead negotiator on affirmative action and
procurement issues. Tong said, "We were unified. The Asian Delegation and all the
negotiators played a key role in shaping the majority support for issues that affected all small
business owners."
President Clinton's keynote address was the highlight of the conference. Clinton earned
applause and laughs when he promised delegates to cut 16,000 pages of federal regulations as
his aides toted out 39 pounds of regulations bound in red tape.
Clinton has an impressive record in improving the regulatory and economic environment
for small business among which include:
Amendments to bank regulatory policies which have expanded small businesses access to bank
loans.
Small businesses are now allowed the opportunity to escape penalties for first time violations.
Reducing the SBA loan application from a 1 1/2 inches of paper to a single, two sided form.
Providing tax credits for which currently 90 percent of small businesses are eligible.
Increasing the amount a small business can expense for equipment purchases from $10,000 to
$17,500 or 75% more.
Establishing the Extended Research and Experimentation Tax Credit which gives a 20% credit for
qualified research expenditures.
Expanding business opportunities for small businesses through the passage of NAFTA and the
successful conclusion of the Uruguay Round of GATT.
Asian Pacific American Democrat
REPUBLICAN CONTRACT WITH AMERICA IS
A CONTRACT AGAINST EDUCATION
Education has always been a top priority for the APA community, but access to higher
education and job training is being threatened by the Republican agenda of slashing education
to provide tax cuts for the wealthy. Here are some of the highlights of the Republican
"solution" for a balanced budget:
Make Student Loans More Expensive. Republicans want to help pay for their tax cuts for
the wealthy by eliminating the grace period that allows 4.5 million students to defer
interest charges while in school. For a four year student who borrowed the maximum
amount ($17,125) at the maximum interest rate (8.25%), this proposal would increase costs
by $3,150 or 18%.
Cut Back the New Direct Lending Program. The New Direct Lending Program was
developed by Clinton Administration to lower costs and provide better coverage of
students by eliminating banks as intermediaries and forwarding loans directly to the
schools. The President opposes Republican efforts to help banks by capping participation
in Direct Lending and preventing thousands of schools and millions of students from
receiving its benefits.
Cut Education, Training, and Employment Services. Republican cuts would eliminate
over three million training opportunities and Skill Grants.
The Republicans want to take away all this while providing over $630 billion in tax cuts
over 10 years with 51.5% of the benefits going to families making over $100,000 (the
Treasury estimates more).
Tax Breaks Weighted Toward the Wealthy - The wealthiest 1% (families making over
$350,000) get more tax breaks than the bottom 60% (over 65 million families).
Tax Cuts for the Wealthy are 75 Times Bigger than Breaks for Working Families - The
average tax cut for the wealthiest 1% is over $20,000 -over 75 times larger than the average
break for the 65 million families in the bottom 60%.
President Clinton wants to target tax cuts to middle income Americans and help our people
get the education and skills required to compete in today's global economy. He is
increasing educational opportunities for all Americans.
Here is what Clinton and the Democrats are fighting for:
Student Loan Reform Act. This act greatly increases access to higher education-20
million students can take advantage of low-interest rate loans and better repayment terms.
Direct Lending. The President wants to expand his Direct Lending program which
simplifies the application process for student loans, reduces fees for students, and offers
borrowers convenient repayment options, including pay-as-you-can. Direct Lending is
saving taxpayers billions of dollars in administrative expenses because it cuts out the
middlemen.
Bridging the Classroom and the Work Place. The School-to-Work Opportunities Act
bridges the classroom and the work place so that our young people can compete in the
global marketplace. School-to-work gives students the tools they need to succeed-strong
academic and occupational skills and education after high school to prepare young people
for first jobs and continuing education.
Asian Pacific American Democrat
Page
Statement by President Bill Clinton
The Supreme Court's Miller versus Johnson Redistricting Ruling
I am disappointed by the Supreme Court decision in the Georgia congressional redistricting
case. The decision is a setback in the struggle to ensure that all Americans participate fully in
the electoral process and it threatens to undermine the promise of the Voting Rights Act.
My Administration remains fully committed to full enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. We
will continue working to ensure that minority citizens in racially polarized areas have an
effective remedy against the unlawful dilution of their votes and against impairment of their
ability to participate in the electoral process. Congress, on a bipartisan basis, passed the
Voting Rights Act to fulfill the Constitutional guarantees of full political rights for all citizens,
regardless of race. The Justice Department will continue its vigorous enforcement of the law.
We have traveled a long road to fulfill the promise of political rights for all citizens. Today is
a difficult day on that journey, but the road does not end here. While the ruling in the
Georgia case is unfortunate, I am gratified that the Court's statements and actions make clear
that race properly may be considered in the drawing of legislative districts.
Despite today's setback, we will not let this decision turn back the clock. We will not abandon
those citizens who look to the Voting Rights Act to protect their constitutional rights.
REACTION FROM THE DNC ON THE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION RULING
Statement from DNC National Chairman
Statement from DNC General Chairman
Donald L. Fowler
Christopher Dodd
Under the leadership of six Democratic
The Supreme Court's decision signals a
presidents - Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy,
new era for affirmative action, but our goal
Johnson, Carter, and now Clinton - The
continues to be equal opportunity and
Democratic Party has been in the forefront
working towards a level playing field.
of the fight for equal rights and
opportunities for all of the citizens of this
Affirmative Action is about opportunity,
country. Even in the Supreme Court's 5 to
not entitlement, and must not become a
4 decision to establish new standards for
divisive issue in the months to come, but
affirmative action, it is encouraging that
rather one that will unify Democrats. The
four justices concur that there is a clear and
Democratic Platform states, "We don't have
present role for the government to continue
an American to waste. Democrats will
to work toward eliminating racial
continue to lead the fight to ensure that no
discrimination against minority groups in
Americans suffer discrimination or
America. And two of the five justices
deprivation of rights on the basis of race
rendering the majority decision, especially
[or] gender..."
justice Sandra Day O'Connor, offer some
hope for the preservation of affirmative
A color-and gender-blind society is the
action as a fair and just principle to provide
hope of all Americans. Unfortunately,
equal opportunity for all our citizens.
discrimination still exists.
NEW APA STAFF AT DNC
Director
Mona Pasquil was appointed by Chairman Don Fowler to serve as Director of Asian Pacific
Affairs and Communications for the Campaign Division. Pasquil will manage political
outreach to the Asian Pacific American community and constituency relations that will
complement the Democratic National Committee's (DNC) coordinated campaign program.
Pasquil comes to the DNC from the California Department of Education, where she served as
a Deputy to Boards and Commission for Superintendent Delaine Eastin. Prior to her
appointment, she served as Legislative Affairs Director for former State Treasurer Kathleen
Brown. Additionally, she served as Administrative Assistant to former Senator John
Garamendi.
Deputy
Yoko Nakagawa is the new Deputy Director of Communications. Nakagawa recently
received a Masters degree from the University of California at San Diego's International
Relations in Pacific Studies program. She was a California State Senate Fellow during 1993-94
where she worked as a legislative aide for State Senator Lucy Kiliea of San Diego. Nakagawa
also has experience in the private sector having worked as an analyst for Morgan Stanley in
New York. She also has international experience working for the public sector through
positions in the Japan Development Bank and the Japan Exchange and Teaching Program.
Summer Interns
Robie Evangelista, an undergraduate at the University of Southern California, is majoring in
Environmental Studies with an emphasis in Public Policy and Management. As an intern for
the Office of Asian Pacific Affairs at the DNC, she hopes to achieve a better understanding of
policies affecting Asian Americans nationwide. Upon completion of her Bachelor of Arts
degree, Evangelista plans to attend graduate school to pursue a Masters Degree in Public
Policy.
Dean Grafilo is a recent graduate from San Francisco State University who majored in
Political Science and minored in Asian American Studies. In addition to being a summer
intern with the DNC, he is an organizer for Filipino Civil Rights Advocates. In the future,
Grafilo hopes to attend law school in order to prepare for a career in the public interest arena.
Meg Mateo is currently an undergraduate at the University of California, Los Angeles. She is
majoring in Psychology and Asian American Studies. Through interning in the Asian Pacific
Affairs Office of the DNC she plans to acquire more knowledge about the issues affecting
Asian Pacific communities. Mateo aspires to pursue a career in the area of Asian American
Mental Health.
Lea Sugimura is currently attending Lakeside High School in Seattle, where she will be a
junior next year. She has participated in many local political campaigns and has been a
summer intern at the Smithsonian. She intends to go to college and is currently looking at
various schools.
CALENDAR OF EVENTS
July 27, 1995
August 23- August 26, 1995
President of South Korea, Official State Visit
Asian American Journalists Association
Korean War Memorial Dedication
Hawaii
Washington, DC
July 27- July 30, 1995
November 10, 1995
APA Leadership Conference
National Asian Pacific American Bar Association
Organization of Chinese Americans
Boston, MA
Miami, FL
November 17- November 19, 1995
August 3- August 6, 1995
Organization of National Asian Women's Health
Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance
Organizations
New York, NY
San Francisco, CA
For more comments, questions, and suggestions
PLEASE CONTACT:
THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE
ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN POLITICAL DESK
430 SOUTH CAPITOL ST., S.E.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20003
Fax: (202) 479-5135
Director:
Deputy Director of Communications:
Mona Pasquil
Yoko Nakagawa
(202) 588-5080
(202) 588-5067