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
20015036
label
7-31-95 NGA [National Governors Association] Meeting in VT, Burlington, VT
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
20015036
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
7-31-95 NGA [National Governors Association] Meeting in VT, Burlington, VT
citationUrl
collections
Records of the Office of Speechwriting (Clinton Administration)
James (Terry) Edmonds' Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
20015036
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-7763294-20060462F-024-003-2014
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
7f01a2aad15fa539
ocrText
FOIA Number: 2006-0462-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:
Speechwriting
Series/Staff Member:
Terry Edmonds
Subseries:
OA/ID Number:
10984
FolderID:
Folder Title:
7-31-95 NGA [National Governors Association] Meeting in VT, Burlington, VT
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
S
0
0
0
0
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
SUBJECT/TITLE
DATE
RESTRICTION
AND TYPE
001. memo
To Terry Edmonds from Mimi Castaldi/Carrie Wofford re: President's
07/29/95
P6/b(6)
July 31 Speech to the NGA (partial, p. 2) (1 page)
COLLECTION:
Clinton Presidential Records
Speechwriting
Terry Edmonds
OA/Box Number: 10984
FOLDER TITLE:
7-31-95 NGA [National Governors Association] Meeting in VT Burlington, VT
2006-0462-F
ry634
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - 15 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
b(1) National security classified information |(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
b(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute |(a)(3) of the PRA]
an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA|
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRAJ
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.
draft 7/29/95
REMARKS BY PRESIDENT WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON
NATIONAL GOVERNORS ASSOCIATION ANNUAL MEETING
BURLINGTON, VERMONT
JULY 31, 1995
[Acknowledgements: Governor Dean for introduction; Governor
Thompson, in-coming chairman; Mayor Peter Clavelle; Ray Sheppach,
NGA Executive Director; Madeline Kunin, Deputy Sec., Education
and former Governor of Vermont; fellow Governors; ladies and
gentlemen]
It's great to be back in New England and in Vermont, especially
this time of year. Let me begin by congratulating Governor
Thompson for taking over the reins of the NGA for the next year.
He really has a tough act to follow. Governor Dean has been a
terrific leader. His "Campaign for Children" has helped focus
much-needed attention on the responsibilities we owe our children
-- as parents, as citizens and as leaders. There is no more
important issue facing this nation.
I share Governor Dean's sense of urgency about our children. In
fact, I ran for President because I wanted to ensure a better
future for our children. I did not want my daughter to be a part
of the first generation of Americans to do worse than their
parents. I also did not want to be a passive spectator at the
funeral of our core American values: work and responsibility,
community and family. So I took office to do two things: first,
to expand opportunity and demand responsibility from every
citizen. And secondly, to bring this country together again
through a recommitment to the shared values that have made us
great. And I have realized something during the course of this
journey. You can't do one without the other. We must all pull
together to rebuild the American Dream.
That's why, for the past two-and-a-half years, I have sought
common ground with the American people about the needs of
children and families. We've worked hard to give hard-working
families the help they need to make the most of their God-given
potential -- and to give their children a good start in life.
The Earned Income Tax Credit now provides an average tax
deduction of about $1350 for working families with children with
incomes below $28,000. The Family and Medical Leave Law now
helps more people be good parents and successful workers. The
crime bill we enacted protects our children with 100,000 more
police officers on the street and prevention programs that give
our young people something to say yes to. We've expanded Head
Start and made historic strides in education reform with efforts
like Goals 2000, direct student loans, and our national service
program, AmeriCorps.
1
promote work and responsibility without being stifled by
Washington one-size-fits-all rules.
None of this is a replacement for bold Congressional action.
Rather, I hope these steps will spur the Congress to get off the
dime. Let me be clear: Congress still needs to pass a
comprehensive welfare reform bill that contains work
requirements, time limits, the toughest possible child support
enforcement laws, and gives states the tools to succeed.
I ran for President to bring new opportunity to the American
people and to demand more responsibility in return. That's what
I call the New Covenant. Welfare reform is a crucial part of
this effort. We are now at an historic moment. The failure to
pass welfare reform this year would be a breach of faith with the
American people. Republicans and Democrats alike have a
responsibility to bring real change to Washington.
I hope Congress will act, and soon. But even if they don't, I
will work with you and your legislatures to get this job done.
Thank you.
5
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF
SPEECHWRITING
PHONE: (202) 456-2777
FAX: (202) 456-5709
TO:
Dick Morris
FROM:
Terry 207-646-9137 Edmond
RECEIVER FAX:
RECEIVER PHONE:
NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING COVER SHEET): 6
COMMENTS: I'll page you tomorrow at
// A.M.
Thanks,
Terry
***WARNING***
Unauthorized use of these materials is subject to federal prosecution
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF
SPEECHWRITING
PHONE: (202) 456-2777
FAX: (202) 456-5709
TO:
Mary Jo Bane
FROM:
Terry Edronds / Bruce Reed
RECEIVER FAX:
401-4678
RECEIVER PHONE:
NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING COVER SHEET):
COMMENTS: Bruce will talk with you
Sat. morning.
Thanks,
Terry
***WARNING***
Unauthorized use of these materials is subject to federal prosecution
TO
94565709 P.09
MAY-31-1995 16:43 FROM ACF/OPA
SEND
The Nonerable Bob Fearwood
May 17, 1995
page %
STATE contingency fund proposal represents an improvement
ever the ralny day loan fund. States will be given an
incentive 20 maintain levels of effort without the Benata
mandating it. ze 18 also fiscally responsible since 10
requires # state estah.
In addition, : believe the inclusion of # state option
contingency fund could help you via bipartisan support among
Senators and Governors WAO have voiced serious reservations
about sending block grants to states.
Thank you for your consideration and for your continued
leadership on this important issue.
Fauly Yours,
Donistine will
Christine road Whitman
Governor
07/28/95
18:42
202 219 5529
WOMENS BUREAU
002
U.S. Department of Labor
Office of the Secretary
OF
Women's Bureau
LABOR
Washington, D.C. 20210
UNITED STATES OF
TO:
Terry Edmonds
FR:
Mimi Castaldi/Carrie Wofford
RE:
President's July 31 speech to the NGA
DATE:
July 29, 1995
Carrie Wofford, who works with Betsy Myers in the Women's
Initiatives office, asked me to fax you some information about
pledges Governor's have made to the Administration's Working
Women Count campaign (through the Women's Bureau at the
Department of Labor).
Since two Governor's have made significant pledges to our
campaign, this is an excellent opportunity for the President to
link one of his initiatives to their work. I'm attaching a
section of a speech the President gave to La Raza where he used
information about Working Women Count in response to his first
question--he even got to welfare reform by the end. (attachment
#1) It was amazingly effective with that constituency (we're
still getting calls), and we thought it might have a similar
effect with the governors. Since there's one Democratic Governor
and one Republican who've made pledges so far, it will not appear
partisan to mention them.
The Administration established the Working Women Count Honor Roll
to stimulate voluntary action to help working women and their
families. With the Administration acting as a catalyst, partners
in business, government, and organizations will pledge specific
actions to respond to issues raised in the Working Women Count
report. Once organizations implement changes and make new
options available to workers, they will become members of the
Honor Roll and serve as a resource for others.
The President accepted the Working Women Count recommendations,
which included establishing an Honor Roll, at a White House
ceremony on April 10, 1995.
Two states, Missouri and Arizona, have developed state-wide
initiatives that serve as excellent examples of how governors can
promote the Working Women Count Honor Roll in their states. The
following is a brief summary of those initiatives:
Memo / of 2
Withdrawal/Redaction Marker
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
SUBJECT/TITLE
DATE
RESTRICTION
AND TYPE
001. memo
To Terry Edmonds from Mimi Castaldi/Carrie Wofford re: President's
07/29/95
P6/b(6)
July 31 Speech to the NGA (partial, p. 2) (1 page)
COLLECTION:
Clinton Presidential Records
Speechwriting
Terry Edmonds
OA/Box Number: 10984
FOLDER TITLE:
7-31-95 NGA [National Governors Association] Meeting in VT Burlington, VT
2006-0462-F
ry634
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 PRAJ
b(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRAJ
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 PRAJ
b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy |(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy |(a)(6) of the PRA]
b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes |(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
of gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
b(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
2201(3).
concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA|
RR. Document will be reviewed upon request.
d
003
07/28/95 18:42
202 219 5529
WOMENS BUREAU
Missouri:
Governor Mel Carnahan's Missouri Women's Council has pledged to
support the Working Women count initiative throughout the entire
state by encouraging businesses to make a pledge to make work
better for women in the areas of: improving pay and benefits;
building the family friendly workplace; and valuing women's work
through job training and career advancement. Pledges will be
requested from businesses and organizations at seven TOWN HALL
MEETINGS scheduled across Missouri. (see attachment # 2 for actual
pledge)
[LINK TO WELFARE: through these pledges, many of the barriers
that prevent women from entering the workforce could be
addressed, e.g. employers could pledge to hire and train women
currently on welfare and/or to provide child care; organizations
could pledge to provide transitional services, etc.]
Arizona:
Governor Symington has established a Family Friendly Task Force
to study employer policies and to develop a template for both
public and private employers. The task force will present the
template to employers, work to enact legislation that is
beneficial, and create a recognition program for employers who
implement programs. (see press release, attachment #3)
[LINK TO WELFARE: since welfare recipients are often single
parents, family friendly policies can help them make the
transition from welfare to work]
In addition, the Governor's Commission on Nontraditional
Employment for Women is establishing a Clearinghouse and Resource
guide to provide women statewide with information on
nontraditional jobs, training programs and necessary
qualifications. (see pledge card, attachment #4)
[LINK TO WELFARE: since non-traditional jobs provide
significantly better pay and benefits than traditional jobs for
women, these jobs will really make work pay for former welfare
recipients.]
For further information, please call Carrie Wofford or me.
Thanks.
Carrie Wofford
Home:
(b)(6)
[001]
Office: 202-456-7300
Mimi Castaldi
Home:
(b)(6)
Office: 202-543-0250
neno 2 of 2
WOMENS BUREAU
4
004
07/28/95
18:43
202 219 5529
Attactiment # I
Page 1 of 2
Castaldi Mimi
From:
Jason S. Goldberg
To:
@a1.eop.gov
Subject:
1995-7-19 Speech to La Raza Convention
Date:
Wednesday, July 19, 1995 7:10PM
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
July 19, 1995
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT IN SATELLITE FEED TO LA RAZA CONVENTION IN DALLAS, TEXAS 2:16
P.M. EDT
[The speech was on affirmative action-this begins with the first question]
Q Mr. President, we have three important questions we want to ask. I will ask the first one.
A recent NCLR report shows that Hispanic women are the lowest-paid workers in the country and
there is substantial evidence that Latinos experience discrimination on the basis of both national origin and.
gender. In light of your speech earlier today, how do you see the administration addressing the needs and
interests of Hispanic women?
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
First of all, I'd like to talk a little bit about our
survey. In our Working Women Count Campaign, conducted by Secretary Reich at the Department of
Labor, with the able assistance of Hermalinda Pompa of the Women's Bureau, we circulated a questionnaire
to working women. Two hundred and fifty thousand Hispanic women (sic--it was 250,000 women total)
replied. They told us they were interested in paying benefits and having the ability TO both work and to
care for their children, and in making sure that women could be valued and treated properly and fairly in the
workplace.
We are determined to do what WB can to advance this cause. First of all, we want to make sure
Hispanic women understand the rights and opportunities to which they're entitled as working Americans.
And we have translated into Spanish, for example, information on the family leave law; information on the
sexual harassment laws, information on pregnancy and other employment discrimination practices. I think
that is very important.
But secondly, and even more important, we have to pursue and economic agenda that will help
Hispanic women. We, first of all, have to raise the minimum wage. (Applause.) There are 300,000
Hispanic women in this country who would make an average of more than $1,800 more than they're
making now and put another $1 billion into the American economy if we raised the minimum wage. And if
we don't raise the minimum wage, next year, in terms of its real buying power, the minimum wage will fall
TO a 40-year low.
One of the real big fights we're having up here in Washington today is the fight between my
vision of a smart-work, high-wage future and the alternative vision of a high-profit, but hard-work and
low-wage future. I think it's clear which one is in the best interest of the American people. We ought to
start with raising the minimum wage,
The second thing we need to do is to pass the G.I. Bill of Rights for America's workers, which
includes consolidating all the various government training programs into one big pool and then giving people
who are unemployed or under-employed the right TO a voucher worth $2,600 a year for two years, which
they can take to the local community college or anyplace else if they want to,get retraining and education
after they have left high school and when they're in the work force. That is a very important proposal we
have made that has achieved -- gotten too little attention. I think we have a chance to pass it and we
ought to do so.
The third thing that we ought to do in my opinion is to concentrate tax relief on middle income
families and on child-rearing and education costs. That will help Hispanic women enormously.
Page 1
07/28/95 18:44
202 219 5529
WOMENS BUREAU
4
005
The fourth thing we need to do is to pass the welfare reform bill that has been proposed in the
United State Senate by Senator Barbara Mikulski, Senator Daschle and Senator Breaux, which focuses on
giving people who are on welfare the child care they need to that they can be able to go to work, they can
be required to work -- (applause) and we can end welfare as we know it by helping people be good
parents. (Applause.)
So these are just some of the things that I think we ought to do, and I hope you'll help me
implement it. We have to win this budget fight. All this is going to play out in the context of the budget
fight. Our budget fight is good for growing Americans. It's good for children. It's good for middle class
people. It's good for people who want to work their way out of poverty. And we have to win it.
Q Thank you Mr. President. This is Raul Yzaguirre
Attacmt #1 - Page 2.+2
Page 2
07/28/95
18:44
202 219 5529
WOMENS BUREAU
4
006
ATTACHMENT II 2:
Page of I
State of Missouri
MDCCCXX
Mel Carnahan, Governor
Department of Economic Development
Deborah Borchers-Ausmus, Chair
Missouri Women's Council
Sue P. McDaniel, Executive Director
P.O. Box 1684
Jefferson City, MO 65102
(314) 751-0810
FAX: (314) 751-8835
On this 25th day of July in 1995, the state of Missouri pledges to
support the Working Women Count initiative throughout the entire
state by encouraging businesses to make a pledge to make work
better for women in the areas of:
improving pay and benefits,
building the family friendly workplace 8 and
valuing women's work through job training and career
advancement.
This pledge will be carried out under the direction of the Missouri
Women's Council, a statutory agency under sections 186.005 to
186.019 of the Missouri revised statutes, of the Missouri
Department of Economic Development. Pledges will be requested from
businesses and organizations at each of seven TOWN HALL MEETINGS
scheduled across Missouri from August 1995 to January 1996.
Signed this 25th day of July, 1995
sue P. McDaniel, Ph.D.
Executive Director
Missouri Women's Council
07/28/95
18:44
202 219 5529
WOMENS BUREAU
5.
007
'95 07/27 10:32
$ 4157119611
S.F. OIPN
02
WORKING WOMEN COUNT HONOR ROLL
In 1994-with the help of more chan 1,600 partners in business, labor. national and
SS
community organizations, and government-the Women's Bureau of the U.S.
Department of Labor launched an unprecedented effort to find (sut what working
women really think about their jobs.
Through the Women's Bureau's Working Women Count! questionnaire, more than
250,000 women voiced their concerns. Now It's our turn to respond.
The Women's Bureau established the Working Women Count Honor Roll to stimulate
voluntary local action and recognize employers In both the private and public sectors,
unions and other local, state, and national organizations, who through their our poll-
cles and practices are valuing the work that women do.
To find out how you can join the Honor Roll. please all our and return this card! By
filling out this card, your business/organization voluntarily piedges to listen and re-
spond TO the concerns of working women in your area or at your job site. You may
choose to work on one or more of the following Issues:
&
Improving Pay and Benefits
Building the Family Friendly Workplace
Valuing Women's work through Job Training and Career Advancement
Please provide a description of your planned activity: (Attach additional pages if necessary)
The Governor's appointed Family Friendly Task Force will be meeting for.
approx. 18 months to develop a template for both public and private
employers. When the example is completed, the tack force will work to
present the template to employers. work to enact legislation that is
beneficial and create 0 recognition program for employers who implement
BUSINESS program Organization Governor's Family Friendly Task Reducle one:
Business
Gov'vElected Official
Contact Person Mary Lu Nunley
labor Union
On-line Service
Thurroject Specialist
Nonprofit
Media
Family Friendly Taskforce
Other
Address 1700 W. Washington, Room 420
City Phoenix, A2
State
Zip Code 85007
Phone (602) 542-1755
Pax (603) 542-5804
Internet Address
All submitted information will he made available In the public.
AHachnat #3 page / of 3
07/28/95
18:45
202 219 5529
WOMENS BUREAU
008
GOVERNOR SYMINGTON ANNOUNCES FIRST TASK FORCE TO
STUDY FAMILY FRIENDLY EMPLOYER POLICIES
PHOENIX (May 12, 1995) -- Governor Symington announced today the
chairman and members of his Family Friendly Task Force. Arizona is the first state
in the country to form a task force to examine policies that help coordinate benefits,
resources, and options in the work place that are beneficial to families based on the
results of the Arizona and national Working Women Count! survey completed
last year. The ground breaking efforts were coordinated in Arizona by the
Governor's Office for Women and the Women's Bureau at the Department of
Labor and 40 business partners in the public and private sectors.
In October, 1994, the Governor's office released the results of over 4,000
survey responses from women throughout the state. In acknowledgment OF the
need for employers to address the issues of working mothers and single parents,
Governor Symington issued All executive order to form the Family Friendly Task
Force.
"Arizona has repeatedly been a trailblazer in promoting the family and
community," said Symington. "We must cultivate policies for both public and
private employers that are family friendly in order to encourage healthy working
environments, healthy families and communities. These efforts lead not only to
community well-being, but to a strong economy."
L.). "Chip" U'Ren, Associate General Manager of Operations, Information &
Human Resources Services, Salt River Project, has been named chairman of the task
force. SRP was recognized last year as on of the top 100 employers in the United
States by Working Mother magazine.
"We realize that family matters often conflict with work responsibilities and
that we must be responsive to employees' needs tu maintain a healthy balance
between work and family," U'Ren said. "By doing so, we see more productive and
satisfied employees."
Members named to the task force are: Harriet "Hank" Barnes, Director,
Governor's Office for Women; William Bell, Arizona Department of
Administration; William Brice, First Interstate Bank; John Corbett, Arizona
Attached #3, 2 of 3
07/28/95
18:45
202 219 5529
WOMENS BUREAU
0
009
Governor Symington Announces First Task Force To Study Family Friendly
Employer Policies
ADD ONE
Department of Administration; Sally Garza Pernandez, Hughes Missile Systems;
Kathy Gash, Ernst & Young; Valerie Golembiewski, Pima County Attorney's Office;
Kimberlee Joseph, Motorola, Inc.; Barbara Kell Kelly, Center for New Directions;
Annie Mooney, Cigna Healthcare of Arizona; Judith Morse, Gallagher & Kennedy;
Teresita Nelson, U.S. West; Mary Peters, Arizona Department of Transportation;
Marilyn Seyman, M ONE, Inc.; and Jennifer Shrader, St. Joseph's Hospital
AttachnA #3, 3.+3
07/28/95
18:47
202 219 5529
WOMENS BUREAU
002
'95 07/27 10:24
to 4157449611
OMB Number 1225.0060
Expires 5/31/98
WORKING WOMEN COUNT
HONOR ROLL
A Hachet # 4
Page 1 of )
In 1994 - with the help of more than 1,600 partners in business, labor, national and
community organizations, and government - the Women's Bureau of the U.S.
Department of Labor launched an unprecedented effort to find what working
women really think about their jobs
Throi
Date 8/27
pages
5
7671
Post-il" Fax Note
tionnaire, more
than
TO Celeba
From Mary hu
respond.
8.
The V
CONDEPL
Phone #
x Honor Roll to
stimul,
Phone 5/741-4629 # 744-2611
Fax #
e. private and
public
Fax #
who through
their 01
releing the work that women do.
To find out how you can join the Honor Roll, please fill out and return this cardl By
filling out this card, your business/organization voluntarily pledges to listen and
respond to the concerns of working women in your area or at your job site. You may
choose to work on one or more of the following issues:
Improving Pay and Benefits
Building the Family Friendly Workplace
Valuing Women's Work through job Training and Career Advancement
Please provide a description of your planned activity: (Attach additional pages if necessary.)
the gov. Commission 100 nontrade tional Employment for Women
is establishing a clearing housed Resource guideEnglish!
Spanish) to provide weren statewide with information
on nontral jobs, training propares. oniciosary
qualifications
Nontradional Employment for Women Commission
Business/Organization: 12 Gov. OFFice
Check One:
Contact Person: PAULA Cleveland
Business
Gov't/Elected Official
Labor Union
On-line Service
Non-profit
Media
Title: Project Supervisor
Other
Address: 1700 W. Washington 420
City: Phoenix
State: Ac
Zip Code: 85007
Phone: (602) 542-1755
Fax: 602 542-5804
Internet Address:
All submitted Information will he made available in the public
July 28, 1995
Note to
Bruce Reed
Terry Edmonds
From:
Ken Apfel
Subject:
Comments on President's NGA Speech
Thanks for sharing the draft of the President's NGA speech. It looks good. We have a couple of
suggestions.
On page one, change the figure for the average EITC tax deduction from $1000 to $1350.
On page three, I strongly suggest we add the points made by the President in his last NGA
speech on the importance of maintaining State financing in the program and protections against
economic downtums. See items marked 4 and 5 on the attachment.
At the top of page 4, where it says "new benchmark are recognized and rewarded", please drop
the "and rewarded". HHS didn't think there was any authority to do this under current law, and
we don't want to imply in any way here that we plan to drop cost neutrality requirements.
In the next paragraph, change "who refuse to work" to "who refuse to go to work or training".
To Date 7/25 Time
While You Were Out
of M Emily Blomberg
Phone
62896
Area
Number
Extension
Fax
Area
Number
Extension
TELEPHONED
PLEASE CALL
CALLED TO SEE YOU
WILL CALL AGAIN
WANTS TO SEE YOU
RETURNED CALL
URGENT
Message
A
Operator
690-6853
To Terry
Date 7-26-95
Time 6:06PM
WHILE YOU WERE OUT
M
Emily Bromberg
of
Phone
6-2896
Area Code
Number
Extension
TELEPHONED
PLEASE CALL
CALLED TO SEE YOU
WILL CALL AGAIN
WANTS TO SEE YOU
URGENT
RETURNED YOUR CALL
Message
Vermont
Freedom + United ~
State molto
Sumption
legerdary Operator independence
AMPAD
EFFICIENCY
23-020
To
TERRY
Date 28 July Time 3:44Pm
While You Were Out
M
Cathy In Bruce Reed's
of
6-6515 office
Phone
Area
Number
Extension
Fax
Area
Number
Extension
TELEPHONED
PLEASE CALL
CALLED TO SEE YOU
WILL CALL AGAIN
WANTS TO SEE YOU
RETURNED CALL
URGENT
Message mtg 345 noton
Call farmore information.
207-646-9157
Page at 11 A.M.AL Operator
J. Clinton, 1995
Administration of William J. Clinton, 1995 / June 6
983
too much. It uses
dollars so we can get our training and our
The President. You're a good man, you
cut that is entirely
readiness up and support a good quality of
got a real future in this business. [Laughter]
income individ-
life so we can keep first-rate people in the
Mr. King. Thank you. Thank you.
ell in the present
military because it's the people that make it
The President. Good night.
just want us to
go.
Mr. King. Good night.
The answer to your question, ma'am, is
The Vice President. Good night.
ut there's a right
that we actually have more base capacity than
lo it. And at the
the number of our men and women in uni-
NOTE: The interview began at 9 p.m. in the Li-
I think the right
form would justify. So we have to bring down
brary at the White House.
the bases a little more so that they're basically
er time is immi-
in line with the size of our forces. The size
Remarks to the National Governors'
of our forces now will enable to meet our
it when I think
Association Summit on Young
security needs and meet our strategic objec-
Children in Baltimore, Maryland
tives. But we can't cut it a lot more. We
California, with
June 6, 1995
should stay about where we are.
sident Clinton—
Mr. King. Barbara Streisand is here to-
Thank you very much. To Governor Dean
show. My name
morrow night. And are you both fans of hers?
and Governor Leavitt and all of the Gov-
like you to know
Do you like her speaking out on politics, by
ernors who are here, Governor Glendening
the way?
and Mayor Schmoke and Congressman
He's an inter-
The President. I think she's-just as-if
Cardin. I'm glad to be back in Baltimore. I'm
we have a right to speak out on entertain-
going to have to register as a citizen and
ment, I think she has the right to speak out
begin to pay taxes if I don't stay out of your
on politics. [Laughter] I think that she should
State a little more, Governor.
good in those
do it.
I am delighted to be here in Baltimore be-
Mr. King. David Letterman is here on Fri-
cause Baltimore was one of the six cities
y. This trial is
day.
which won a highly contested race for the
The Vice President. Tell him I said hello.
empowerment zones in our country. And I
Mr. King. I will. Do you plan to return
congratulate Mayor Schmoke on that, and I
to that show?
look forward to his work, along with the Gov-
or Mr. Clinton
The Vice President. I hope to sometime.
ernor and others, in making Baltimore an
tinue our mili-
Mr. King. Would you recommend the
even stronger and greater city as a result of
that.
ration that we
President even appear with David?
The Vice President. I'm going to let him
Governor Dean, I want to thank you for
ourselves too
make that decision. [Laughter]
your leadership of the Governors' Associa-
t?
The President. But you know, since we
tion. I don't think I ever enjoyed any job
the base clo-
got this procurement reform passed, there
more than being chairman of the Governors'
are no more of those $10 ashtrays and $500
Association, although it was not always easy
W. It's biparti-
hammers. So he's got no gig anymore.
to please all the Governors. I think it's still
t of difficulty.
Cabinet to ad-
[Laughter]
not always easy to please all of the Governors.
[Laughter]
been created.
Mr. King. Thanks guys. You don't want
I'm delighted to see so many representa-
ginative plans
to do a Brando close, do you? [Laughter]
ities for other
tives of State government, county govern-
The Vice President. Just a handshake.
ment, local government here. My good
loyment and
[Laughter]
friend, Representative Blute from North
inity. But this
Mr. King. Just a handshake.
Carolina, it's nice to see you here. Represent-
we got here,
The President. We've enjoyed doing the
ative Campbell and Commissioner Franke,
going to con-
show.
thank you for your work, sir.
Mr. King. Oh, let me-here-President
I thank all of you for coming here to meet
iswer the se-
Clinton does Brando. Do it once.
about the fate of ourchildren. This has been
d. Defense
The Vice President. You missed it.
a concern of mine, as the Governor said, for
7, and since
The President. It's been great being on
a long time and, of course, a profound con-
percent. We
your show, Larry.
cern for my wife. When I met her, she was
a few billion
Mr. King. Thank you.
spending an extra year in law school to do
984
June 6 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1995
Administration of V
4 years instead of 3, so that she could devote
If we are going to rescue our children's
most of you have
a year to the study of the laws that affected
future, we have to do a number of things.
forms to achieve
our children. And I might say she then pre-
We have to grow the middle class and shrink
national standards of
dicted a lot of the more disturbing trends
the under class. We have to support policies
When children ar
which we've seen unfold in our country over
that reinforce work and families and commu-
the last 20 years.
nities. We have to change the way the Gov-
have given them ac
Hillary is working on a book now about
ernment operates so that it promotes inde-
repayment terms
children's issues and the responsibilities we
pendence, not dependence, opportunity and
tougher requiremer
worked with you f
owe to them, and she picked the title of the
not bureaucracy. We have to give our young-
old African proverb: "It takes a village to
est children things that they can't guarantee
programs for the yo
raise a child." I want to come back to that
for themselves.
to 4-year colleges a
the school-to-work
a little bit during my remarks because I think
If you believe it takes a whole village to
there is a great difference of opinion about
raise a child, it means that the Government
many of you have
that in the United States today. I began with
has a responsibility, working with people in
national service ]
the premise that the first responsibility for
the private sector, to guarantee children who
which gives our yo
children lies with their parents, but that since
can't get it for themselves health, safety, and
give something bac
and earn more fund
all our futures are bound up in theirs, the
education, and then when they get older, to
rest of us share a responsibility in the United
empower them to make the most of their
I want to say a speci
ator Mikulski of M.
States and in our States and in our commu-
own lives. To do that, I believe, we need not
national service.
nities for their welfare. I do believe, in other
another ideological war, but a passionate and
The crime bill "
words, that it takes a village to raise a child,
practical commitment to what we know will
especially when you consider the facts of life
work.
this because it emp
that children face today.
The whole issue of welfare is at the core
punishment and mc
I ran for this job because I wanted to en-
of that. But let me just say for a moment,
tecting children thro
officers on the stree
sure a better future for our children, to en-
for the last 2½ years a great deal of what
sure that instead of losing so many of our
I have sought to do has been centered in
programs that give
children and seeing so many of them grow
that conviction, that we have to have a pas-
thing to say yes to
up with the American dream beyond their
sionate and practical effort to go beyond ide-
say no to.
We were able to
grasp, that they could be rewarded for their
ological wars right to the heart of what will
reduce the deficit. 1
work and that the values that we all share
make life better for our children.
of work and family and community would be
We've worked hard to strengthen families
gress uses 7-year tel
stronger, not weaker, when they came of age.
and to give children a better start. The
is going down by
I realize that people my daughter's age
earned-income credit will now provide a tax
years, thanks to th
More than 6.3 mill
were in danger of growing up to be the first
reduction for working families with children
generation of Americans to do worse eco-
our economy. But w
with incomes below $27,000 an average of
it takes a whole vill
nomically than their parents but, perhaps
$1,000 a year. That's a profamily policy. We
children deserve ed
even more important, to live in a country that
should continue that, not reverse it. The fam-
was less supportive of the kind and quality
ily and medical leave law, more than anything
ty; that families sho
of life that most people in my generation took
I've done as President, has caused ordinary
supported; that wor
for granted.
citizens. to come up to me and say, "Thank
that parents have t
the world we are 1
The recent report of the Carnegie Cor-
you. I had a sick child. I had a sick spouse.
and as workers.
poration tends to corroborate a lot of those
My wife had a baby. We were able to con-
disturbing trends with statistics you all know
tinue to work and to provide for ourselves.
One thing we di
well. In the quiet crisis, they say, that still,
We were able to be good parents and suc-
prehensive welfare
what is before the (
after years of effort, compared to other in-
cessful workers."
dustrialized countries, our infant mortality
That, it seem to me, is the kind of thing
than anything else
rates are higher, our low-birth-weight baby
that we ought to do. Secretary Shalala, who
a lot of the philosop
at the core of what i
rates are higher, our teen pregnancy rates
is here, has worked very hard to expand im-
discussion today.
are much higher, our childhood immuniza-
munization so that all our children under the
I don't think the
tion rates are lower, and of course, our chil-
age of 2 will be properly immunized by the
dren are subjected to far, far higher rates
turn of the century. We have expanded Head
believe we ought to
of violence in the United States than they
Start dramatically. The Goals 2000 program
tem. I was proud to
would be in any other country in the world.
in which many of you have participated-
when the Family :
under President
Administration of William J. Clinton, 1995 / June 6
985
most of you have-emphasizes grassroots re-
with strong bipartisan support. I realize what
forms to achieve national, indeed, inter-
the shortcomings of it are, especially since
national standards of excellence.
it was never properly funded. And therefore,
When children are more independent, we
I have now given, the Secretary and I have,
have given them access to lower cost, better
29 of the 50 States exemptions from Federal
repayment terms for college loans with
rules and regulations to pursue your own
tougher requirements to repay them. We've
path to welfare reform to move people to
worked with you for more apprenticeship
work. Nothing like that has ever been done
programs for the young people who don't go
before.
to 4-year colleges and universities, through
In Missouri, Vermont, and Wisconsin,
the school-to-work program. And of course,
Governors Carnahan, Dean, and Thompson
many of you have been very active in the
are using their waivers to impose time limits
national service program, AmericCorps,
and to require work. In Ohio and Oregon,
which gives our young people a chance to
Governors Voinovich and Kitzhaber are mov-
give something back to their communities
ing people to work by using money now spent
and earn more funds to go on to school. And
on welfare and food stamps to subsidize pri-
I want to say a special word of thanks to Sen-
vate sector jobs. Others are doing other
ator Mikulski of Maryland for her work on
things that are very important. Every Gov-
national service.
ernor I've ever spoken with, without regard
The crime bill was an important part of
to party, understands that welfare reform is
this because it emphasized not simply more
important and must, first and foremost, be
punishment and more prisons but also pro-
about work.
tecting children through 100,000 more police
Unfortunately, to my mind, the welfare re-
officers on the street and through prevention
form bill in Congress-or the debate-has
programs that give our young people some-
not focused as much as it should have about
thing to say yes to as well as something to
work. And I believe that in important re-
say no to.
spects the tenor of the debate not only in
We were able to do those things and still
the House but also in the Senate, puts both
reduce the deficit. The new majority in Con-
children and States at risk. The House bill,
gress uses 7-year terms. We use-the deficit
clearly, was too tough on children and too
is going down by a trillion dollars over 7
weak on work. Finally, after a lot of efforts,
years, thanks to the '93 and '94 budgets.
the House did agree to be tough on deadbeat
More than 6.3 million new jobs came into
parents, something that everyone among the
our economy. But we did it while saying that
Governors agree it needed to be done. The
it takes a whole village to raise a child; that
Senate Finance Committee reported a bill
children deserve education, health, and safe-
out the other day that clearly is a step in
ty; that families should be strengthened and
the right direction in many areas but, I be-
supported; that work should be exalted; and
lieve, still misses the point on work and on
that parents have to be able to succeed in
children.
the world we are living in, both as parents
According to the Congressional Budget
and as workers.
Office, the current Senate Finance Commit-
One thing we did not do is to pass com-
tee bill will not succeed in moving people
prehensive welfare reform. And that is now
from welfare to work. The Congressional
what is before the Congress. And that, more
Budget Office and the person who wrote the
than anything else in this debate, captures
report was generally acknowledged to be one
a lot of the philosophical arguments that are
of the preeminent Republican experts on
at the core of what is going on in our national
welfare reform, concluded that only six of our
discussion today.
States would be able to fulfill the bill's work
I don't think there's any question that I
requirements in the year 2000 with the bill's
believe we ought to reform the welfare sys-
funding provisions. Forty-four States will fail.
tem. I was proud to represent the Governors
Six out of 50 in baseball is a 1120 batting
when the Family Support Act was written
average. You can't play for the Orioles with
under President Reagan's administration
that batting average. You can't stay in the
986
June 6 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1995
minor leagues, and you sure won't elevate
ance bonus but one that will force the welfare
children or end welfare as we know it.
bureaucracy and the welfare recipients to
The reason the Senate bill failed on the
focus on work.
standard of work seems to me is clear: It
The fourth thing I believe is that the legis-
takes away the tools that States now use to
lation should protect States so they can con-
move people from welfare to work, child
tinue to move people from welfare to work,
care, job training, greater incentives for job
even when there is an economic downturn,
placement.
extraordinary population growth, or unpre-
I very much want to work across party lines
dictable emergencies. In their current forms,
to solve this problem. But if we're going to
these bills could really hurt the high-popu-
end welfare as we know it, Congress must
lation States, the growth States, like Florida
pass a bill that meets some basic principles.
and Utah and others, and could put every
First, we have to require people who can
State at risk in the next recession or profound
work to go to work and make sure that they
natural disaster.
have the child care to do it so that they don't
Finally, let me say we ought to protect our
have to hurt their children to do the right
children. If you believe it takes a whole vil-
thing as citizens. It defies common sense to
lage to raise a child, we should avoid mean-
insist that people go to work when they have
spirited restrictions on benefits to children.
very young children if doing so will actually
We should avoid cuts in child nutrition and
cost them money.
adoption and child protective services. We
Second, the legislation should have real
should give States more flexibility, but we
work requirements, but it ought to be backed
should also make sure States continue to ful-
up with the resources necessary to get people
fill their responsibilities. The proposed legis-
into jobs and keep them there.
lation contains no incentives or requirements
According to the CBO, the Congressional
for States to maintain their own funding for
Budget Office, it would cost you, the States,
cash assistance or for child care or work sup-
$10 billion a year by the year 2000 to meet
ports.
these requirements just in the Senate bill.
Now, I know that if you believe in the pure
And yet, this bill asks you to meet these re-
theory of State experimentation-and you
quirements with less money than you have
know that I believe a lot of that, because if
now.
you just look at what's in these 29 waivers,
Now, I was a Governor long enough to
I have pretty much gone along with anything
remember what an unfunded mandate is. A
the States wanted to do to move people from
lot of you-Governor Voinovich was in the
welfare to work. So you might argue that,
Rose Garden celebrating when we signed the
in theory, if we believe that States ought to
unfunded mandates bill; I strongly supported
have great flexibility, why don't we just give
it. Just because this doesn't say it's one
them a block grant without any requirement
doesn't mean it isn't by another term. So I
for local maintenance or anything of that
think we have to look at this forthrightly.
kind? But the serious danger there is that
The third thing that I think is important
this will become a race to the bottom. It's
is that welfare reform should have real incen-
always cheaper to cut people off welfare than
tives to reward the States who do succeed
to move them to work. It will always be
in putting people to work, not for cutting
cheaper to lower benefits than to figure out
them off. The current bill gives States an in-
how to reduce the caseload by moving them
centive instead to save money simply by
to work.
throwing people off the welfare roles.
We already do less for young children than
The House bill even gives States what the
most of our major competitors-perhaps all
Catholic Church has called an illegitimacy
of our major competitors-throughout the
bonus, an incentive for more people to have
world. And I just believe that we cannot allow
abortions. That is not welfare reform. If
welfare reform to be a race to the bottom.
we're going to change the culture of welfare,
Let me say again, I know in theory it's
we have got to reward success, we've got to
right, but let me remind all of you, I served
depart from the status quo. I want a perform-
for 12 years as a Governor. I served in good
J. Clinton, 1995
Administration of William J. Clinton, 1995 / June 6
987
force the welfare
times and bad times. I know that the last
family and medical leave, every single thing
recipients to
2 years, this is the second year in a row when
was a bipartisan issue, everything.
in all probability all 50 States will have eco-
Now, I think there are two big debates
is that the legis-
nomic growth. That is a highly unusual cir-
that are undergirding this welfare debate,
so they can con-
cumstance over the last two decades.
and I'd like to just put it out on the table
welfare to work,
And I'm just telling you, I've been in
today. One is the debate about what causes
downturn,
enough State legislatures in my life, not just
people to be on welfare. Is it economic and
owth, or unpre-
in my State but all around this country, to
politics, or is it culture? That's really what's
current forms,
know what's going to happen. If you put this
behind all this debate about what's in the
the high-popu-
welfare reform block grant with less money
movies and in the rap lyrics and all.
like Florida
and no local maintenance requirement up
And by the way, think it's a positive thing.
could put every
against the Medicaid cuts and the education
You know, Mrs. Gore was talking 18 years
or profound
cuts and the other things that are in this
ago about the dangers of destructive enter-
budget, you tell me how the poor children
tainment forces on children. I've been chal-
to protect our
of your State are going to fare when they
lenging Hollywood and the television net-
a whole vil-
have to deal with the nursing home lobby.
works to reduce violence for years. I don't
avoid mean-
And I'm not complaining about the nursing
mind this debate. I think this is a good de-
to children.
home lobby; you just tell me how they're
bate.
nutrition and
going to fare.
But the truth is, it's not either/or. You see,
services. We
You know, everybody wants to cut Medic-
there was one young girl interviewed in a
exibility, but we
aid to shreds, because they say that's just a
movie line last week-asked her, what do you
continue to ful-
poor person's health care. You know as well
think about this debate in Washington about
proposed legis-
as I do almost 70 percent of that money goes
whether movies were causing the breakdown
or requirements
to the elderly and the disabled. And they're
of families. And she said, "Well, my father's
own funding for
all coming to see you and your State legisla-
working three jobs. I'll tell you, that's not
or work sup-
tors.
good for our family. I wish he'd just come
Now, how are they going to do? How are
home and spend some time with me."
elieve in the pure
these poor children going to do? How are
On the other hand, people who deny that
itation-and you
they going to do against some of my favorite
culture is a force are wrong. The States in
that, because if
lobbies-the education lobbies? How are
this country with the lowest incarceration
hese 29 waivers,
they going to do? Not very well. How are
rates also have the highest high school grad-
with anything
they going to do against a lobby that no one
uation rates and they often don't spend the
people from
can say no to, the prison lobby? The crime
most money. There are almost no poor chil-
night argue that,
rate goes up and your legislature stiffens sen-
dren in families with two parents in the
States ought to
tences, and people don't want you paroling
home. So if I could just wave a magic wand
on't we just give
folks that have no business on the street. And
and make this problem go away, I would
any requirement
the only way you can get this Federal money
never have another kid in a home where
anything of that
for prisons is if you promise to leave people
there weren't two parents until the child
there is that
in longer and ignore your own parole laws.
reached a certain age so that then the child
the bottom. It's
When you have to match that money or build
could take care of himself or herself. That
off welfare than
prisons on your own, how are you going to
would be a wonderful thing if that could be
will always be
stand up and say, "Well, somehow we're
done. And in that sense, there is a cultural
an to figure out
going to keep doing what we used to do for
component to all this.
by moving them
poor children?" And you can walk away and
So the people that are out there exhorting
say, "Well, what we used to do doesn't work,
parents to be more responsible, and espe-
children than
so maybe we shouldn't do anything." But the
cially male parents to be more responsible,
ors-perhaps all
truth is we do less—I will say it again-we
people like this Promisekeepers Group, they
-throughout the
do less for children than the countries with
deserve our support. They deserve our sup-
: we cannot allow
which we compete.
port. There is a cultural element in all this.
e to the bottom.
And this is not a partisan issue, at least
But to say that there is no national respon-
w in theory it's
it never has been before. Everything that
sibility on the economic and political side,
of you, I served
happened in the last 2 years on Head Start,
I think is just plain wrong and defies the ex-
I served in good
on every education initiative we did, on the
perience of every, single, solitary country in
988
June 6 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1995
Administratio
the world. And I might add, that all the peo-
waivers from Federal rules on welfare is just
What's it goin
ple that are out there working in the private
one example. The deficit has been brought
there's a high-
charities, go interview them and ask them
down three times in a row for the first time
are in trouble ai
if they think that we can just walk away from
since Mr. Truman was here. Nobody is for
well? What's it
this.
a higher deficit. That is not the issue.
we have a serio
So I would say, this cultural debate is a
The issue is: Are there any other respon-
is not even a m
very good thing, and we ought to have it.
sibilities of the National Government? I be-
ment? If there il
But there is plainly a political and economic
lieve there are some. I think we have to help
You know what
root to this. If you look at rising poverty and
people who cannot help themselves through
have less peop
stagnating middle class incomes in this coun-
no fault of their own, not because they're
work, more pec
try, it is clearly the result of international eco-
irresponsible, but through no fault of their
the most import
nomic trends sweeping all advanced coun-
own, like little children who are poor. And
future, will b
tries and national economic policies. And all
I think we have to empower people to make
cumstances.
those things are reinforced, one with an-
the most of their own lives, because that way
You could not
other.
we'll all be better off. That's what I believe.
be too tough on
We are on the verge of having a 40-year
Therefore, I don't think that you can sacrifice
design a prograr
low in the minimum wage. Why would some-
our responsibility to educate people and our
any more flexibil
body who was on welfare who had two kids,
responsibility for basic health and safety, se-
as long as we re
who at least had health care from Medicaid
curity issues, on the alter of deficit reduction.
ican village, have
and they've got food stamps, go to work, if
You know, sometimes I think my big prob-
dren and that in
we won't even raise the minimum wage to
lem is that I was for some of these things
economic policie
keep it up to where it was 10 years ago, in
before they were popular, like deficit reduc-
we're trying to
fact, we're going to let it go to a 40-year low.
tion. Everybody's for it now. That doesn't
profamily and pr
So I implore you, Governors are supposed
mean we didn't do a lot of it in the last 2
fix in this country
to be the places where people look at the
years.
ceed as parents
real world and they get away from all this
So we have to decide that. Now, don't kid
work or they cann
theory and look at the practice. There's a po-
yourself-from the point of view of the Con-
being derelict to
litical and an economic element to this prob-
gress, welfare reform has stopped being wel-
actly what exists
lem, and there is a cultural element to the
fare reform primarily. Primarily welfare re-
America today or
problem. That is one big deal. I think there
form is a way to cut spending on the poor
then we are goin
is a public responsibility and there is a private
so that we don't have to worry about it and
to suffer economi
responsibility, both, not either/or.
we can balance the budget in 7 years and
suffer culturally.
There's another debate going on here
give a big tax cut, largely benefiting upper
Now, I think t
which is: What is the most important thing
income people who have done pretty well
We can save som
we can do to help grow the economy and
in the 1980's. That's what this is about.
deficit in this well
stabilize the society? And on one side of that
It is true that a lot of people genuinely
that. I think we (
debate there are those who say the most im-
believe the States ought to have more sav
penny we're spend
portant thing we can do is to reduce the defi-
over this. So do I. It is true that a lot of
would say to you
cit and shrink the Government. And nothing
people believe the prior system didn't do
and you should 1
else really matters because the Federal Gov-
much good for people who were perma-
shouldn't want us
ernment would mess up a one-car parade.
nently dependent on welfare. So do I. And
to walk away from
And on the other side of that debate are not
I have for 15 years. But we should not con-
sibilities. Just imag
people who say we need a Government; we
fuse-if we really say it's more important to
going to occur hei
need an expanded bureaucracy. That debate
cut spending so that we can balance the
well organized. Poc
is not existent in Washington.
budget in 7 years and still give a tax increase
organized. They wi
You look at the record. We have reduced
to upper income people, even if we're going
in all the State legis
already, with the two budgets already adopt-
to hurt poor children, people ought to just
next time things a
ed, the size of the Federal Government by
say that flat out because that's what's really
cially, after all the
270,000. Congressman Cardin's already
underneath this.
down to all the ot]
voted to do that, to bring the Federal Gov-
So I ask you to think about it. What's it
be on your doorstep
ernment to its smallest size since President
going to be like the next time the coasts are
We can have wel
Kennedy was President. We've had dramatic
growing and the Middle West is in a depres-
ance the budget. W
changes in regulation. The 29 States with the
sion, when the farmland goes to pieces²
ment and still be fai
Clinton,
1995
Administration of William J. Clinton, 1995 / June 7
989
welfare is just
What's it going to be like the next time
responsibilities to our children and our fu-
been brought
there's a high-tech collapse and the coasts
ture. Let's don't make it either/or. Let's do
the
first
time
are in trouble and only the Heartland is doing
it all, do it right, and take this country to
Nobody is for
well? What's it going to be like the next time
the next century in good shape.
issue.
we have a serious national recession if there
Thank you, and God bless you all.
other respon-
is not even a maintenance of effort require-
vernment? I be-
ment? If there is not real effort to have work?
NOTE: The President spoke at 1:38 p.m. at the
we have to help
You know what it's going to be like. You'll
Stouffer Renaissance Harbor Place. In his re-
mselves
through
have less people moving from welfare to
marks, he referred to Gov. Howard Dean of Ver-
because they're
work, more people getting less money, and
mont; Gov. Mike Leavitt of Utah; Gov. Parris N.
fault
of
their
the most important thing is our children, our
Glendening of Maryland; Mayor Kurt Schmoke
of Baltimore; Gov. Mel Carnahan of Missouri;
are poor. And
future, will be in more difficult cir-
Gov. Tommy G. Thompson of Wisconsin; Gov.
people to make
cumstances.
George V. Voinovich of Ohio; and Gov. John A.
because that way
You could not design a program that would
Kitzhaber of Oregon.
what
I
believe.
be too tough on work for me. You could not
you can sacrifice
design a program that would give the States
people and our
any more flexibility than I want to give them
Remarks at the Safe and Drug-Free
and safety, se-
as long as we recognize that we, our Amer-
Schools Recognition Program
leficit reduction.
ican village, have a responsibility to our chil-
June 7, 1995
my big prob-
dren and that in the end, our political and
of these things
economic policies must reinforce the culture
Jaime, I think I can speak for every adult
deficit
reduc-
we're trying to create. They ought to be
in this audience today and say that there's
That
doesn't
profamily and prowork. But if we get in the
not a person here who wouldn't be proud
it
in
the
last
2
fix in this country where people cannot suc-
to be your parent when you graduate from
ceed as parents without being derelict at
high school tomorrow. Thank you, and God
Now, don't kid
work or they cannot succeed at work without
bless you for everything you've done. Thank
view of the Con-
being derelict to their children, which is ex-
you, Marilyn, for being here. Thank you, Di-
being wel-
actly what exists for too many people in
rector Brown. And thank you, Secretary
welfare re-
America today or that is their deep worry,
Riley.
on the poor
then we are going to suffer. We are going
Ladies and gentlemen, the statement you
about it and
to suffer economically, and we are going to
just heard from this fine young women, about
in 7 years and
suffer culturally.
to begin her life after high school, is as clear
enefiting upper
Now, I think this is a huge opportunity.
an example as I could ever think of, of what
pretty well
We can save some money and reduce the
I think we ought to be doing as a country.
is
about.
deficit in this welfare area. I have proposed
You hear all these debates up here in Wash-
eople genuinely
that. I think we can. I don't believe every
ington about whether the government should
have more say
penny we're spending is sacrosanct, but I just
do this, that, or the other thing, whether our
that a lot of
would say to you we must not walk away,
problems are fundamentally to be addressed
stem didn't do
and you should not walk away. And you
by political action, or whether all of our prob-
were perma-
shouldn't want us to put you in a position
lems are just cultural and if people would
e. So do I. And
to walk away from our fundamental respon-
just simply take responsibility for themselves
should not con-
sibilities. Just imagine all the debates that are
and do the right thing we wouldn't have any
re important to
going to occur here. Children are not very
problems, and therefore, we should just ig-
an balance the
well organized. Poor children are very poorly
nore any spending call-nothing is really
a tax increase
organized. They will not do well on balance
worth investing in, let's just make everybody
n if we're going
in all the State legislatures of the country the
do the right thing.
e ought to just
next time things are really bad and, espe-
The truth is, in the real world we need
t's what's really
cially, after all the other budget cuts come
to do both things. Parents have to set better
down to all the other people who will also
examples; they have to teach their children.
ut it. What's it
be on your doorstep.
We need to tell young people at the earliest
e the coasts are
We can have welfare reform. We can bal-
possible age, "There comes a time in life
t is in a depres-
ance the budget. We can shrink the Govern-
when you cannot blame other people for
oes to pieces?
ment and still be faithful to our fundamental
your own problems, and whatever your dif-
07/29/95
13:25
202 690 5673
HHS-PUBLIC AFFAI
002
DRAFT
EXECUTIVE ACTION ON WELFARE REFORM
DRAFT
Today, President Clinton announces bold new measures to help states move people from welfare
to work. The Clinton administration is also approving welfare reform waivers for West Virginia,
Texas, and Utah today bringing the total to 32 states that are now implementing welfare reform
at the local level because of our waivers. We're not waiting any longer for Congress to act on
legislation for national reform. With these new measures, we're focusing on the centerpiece of real
welfare reform: work. Our plan will increase work requirement goals for states, impose tough new
sanctions for failure to work, cut red tape in the waiver process, and put all states on a faster track
to ending welfare as we know it.
INCREASED WORK REQUIREMENTS
Under current law, the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills (JOBS) program offers education,
training, work preparation, and job placement services to help AFDC recipients move into the
workforce. States are currently required to have 20 percent of their non-exempt recipients
participating in the JOBS program.
Today, President Clinton will use his executive authority to set for states a tougher performance
benchmark for moving people from welfare to work, which counts people who are working and
seriously preparing themselves for work. Beginning October 1, 1995, when current participation
rates expire, the President will challenge states to meet a 40 percent work participation goal,
double the current 20 percent participation rate. The Clinton administration will also ensure that
states meeting this tough new benchmark are recognized and rewarded.
TOUGH NEW SANCTIONS
Under existing rules, when AFDC recipients fail to play by the rules and participate in mandatory
work activities, they lose some of their cash benefits. However, their food stamp benefits increase
to offset this reduction.
President Clinton is now changing federal regulations so that states can impose tougher sanctions
on recipients who refuse to work. The Department of Agriculture has drafted new regulations to
ensure that the AFDC program (managed by HHS) and the Food Stamp program (managed by
USDA) work together, not at cross purposes with one another. As a result, we're changing the
culture of the welfare system to reward those who are trying to move towards self-sufficiency and
to send a strong message to those who don't.
FAST-TRACK DEMONSTRATION APPROVAL
Currently, most state requests for welfare reform waivers are evaluated by the Department of
Health and Human Services within 120 days. Today, President Clinton is simplifying the application
process and dramatically cutting this approval time to 30 days for state projects that meet the
administration's work-oriented goals. The administration's plan will enable states to easily adopt
various tested strategies to transform their welfare systems. We will enable states to institute new
work requirements, time limits, and financial incentives for work, as well as to develop innovative
public-private partnerships to provide jobs to welfare recipients. In addition, in order to promote
parental responsibility and prevent teen pregnancy, states can adopt stronger child support
enforcement provisions, and require minor mothers to live at home, stay in school, and identify the
father of their child. Under all of the approved demonstrations, the administration will ensure that
children are protected and adequate accountability measures are in place.
06/02/95
07:00
874 3182
BEP/OIR
005
Upon This Ground
"CHILD FIRST"
Each child is a unique expression of God's work and blessing. The child's develop-
ment is a continuous, highly complex process involving numerous interactions. Although
children differ, there are basic needs which require attention to positively develop their
authentic identities. For over 25 years, Union Baptist Church has been a major participant
in this process of development with its creation of a structured environment of love, care
and intellectual stimulation through its Headstart/Day Care Program
It was axiomatic, then for Rev. Dobson to direct the energies of the Church to
rededication of its historic mission of service in celebrating our 140th anniversary through
participation in a "Child First" Campaign OUR RESOLVE: To construct a modern, first
class HEADSTART facility costing $2,000,000 to meet our expanding need in this ministry.
For organizational purposes, we divided our campaign into three phases.
Phase I began with members engaging in a pledge campaign of sacrificial giving to
raise seed money for initial expenses and a demonstrated commitment of support Phase
II solicited funds from the State through a Bond Bill and considered ideas for negotiating
aid from commercial institutions. Phase III reaffirms our intent by developing long range
plans for giving that pays off indebtedness and builds strong operational support base.
Special opportunities for giving memorials, tributes and other commemorative expres-
sions are planned.
Research has shown that space quality clearly predicts teacher behavior and pupil
responses. The potential for peak operation is boundless in our venture for the creativity
and imagination exhibited in daily programming is being utilized in building design.
It's an accepted fact that the growth patterns of children are affected by the physical
environment. We have seen that good programs for young children can be developed in
converted settings. However, these programs can be enhanced in a plant designed with
specific activities in mind
We feel unrestrained elation in this expansion of our horizon by participating in
something larger than ourselves. We are enriching our journey by providing increased
opportunities for the children of our community.
The enthusiastic support and personal involvement of the membership has been
uplifting inspiring and a source of great joy to all The membership has wholeheartedly
embraced and incorporated this effort as a consuming and unrelenting passion.
Within these walls of our new center with its activity designed settings, space quality
will doubtless be higher because of twenty-five years of outstanding know-how.
Today, in the midst of our 140th Anniversary Year, we break ground to anchor the
physical manifestation of our dream, celebrating not only our past, but our vision of the
future, particularly the future of our children.
07/28/95 18:42
202 219 5529
WOMENS BUREAU
001
WOMEN'S BUREAU FAX TRANSMISSION
COVER SHEET
Date:
July 28,1995
Number of Pages:
10
(including cover)
TO: Terry Edmonds
FAX NO. (including area code): 456-5709
TELEPHONE NO. (including area code):
MESSAGE: As we discussed, info for NGA Speech
neno- 2 pages, LA RAZA Speed exerpt - 2 pages,
Missouri Pledge -1 p-jc, AZ pledger- 4 payes
FROM: Carrie Wotford
PHONE#: 456-7300
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
WOMEN'S BUREAU
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210
TELEPHONE: (202)219-6593
FAX:
(202)219-5529
401-4678
many Jo Bane
able to do -- pass comprehensive welfare reform. The American
people have been clear: They want welfare reform and they want
it now.
We have found common ground, across partisan and ideological
lines, on most of the issues surrounding welfare reform. Not so
very long ago, many liberals opposed requiring all welfare
recipients who can work to do SO. And not SO long ago, most
conservatives thought the government shouldn't spend money on
child care to give welfare mothers a chance to go to work and
still be good parents. Now we have a broad consensus from both.
We should do both.
We also began this year with some in Washington suggesting that
ending welfare meant taking children from their parents and
putting them in orphanages. Now there's a bipartisan consensus
even in Washington that that would be the wrong way to go. When
this Congress first took up welfare reform, some questioned the
need to include strong child support enforcement. But when
governors and Members of Congress came together at our White
House summit on welfare reform in January, Tommy Thompson, Howard
Dean and every other governor there let Congress know that tough
child support enforcement should be the law of the land.
So, why has the Congress failed to act? Unfortunately, in recent
days, partisan, ideological in-fighting has stalled the progress
on welfare reform. Some on the far right have been holding
welfare reform hostage because they want to punish children whose
parents are poor, young, and unmarried. That's wrong. There
isn't a governor in either party who thinks that mandating every
state to do that is a good idea. Instead of punishing children
for their parents' mistakes, we should require teen mothers to
live at home, stay in school, and turn their lives around.
Welfare reform isn't about just cutting people off. It will only
succeed if it moves people from welfare to work.
For weeks, the Senate has been hung up over another issue that
pits Congress against the states and pits states against each
other. I am firm believer in more state flexibility and tougher
work requirements. But, states will never have the flexibility
they need to reform welfare and put more people to work if all we
do is give you a bunch of new mandates and a lot less money.
There's another crucial element that's missing from the current
approach of many in Congress. Instead of providing the child
care people need to get off welfare, some in Congress actually
are trying to cut child care. It is pure fantasy to think we can
put a welfare mother to work without child care for her children.
We don't need more latchkey kids. We don't need more neglected
children. And we don't want more welfare mothers staying at
home, living on welfare just because they can't find child care.
2
[insert any additional reactions to Dole's speech]
Welfare reform doesn't have to be a huge unfunded mandate on
state and local governments. There is an alternative. The
Senate has before it a bill that demands work and responsibility
and gives states the tools they need to succeed. The Work First
Plan sponsored by Senators Daschle, Breaux and Mikulski ends the
current welfare system and replaces it with one based on work.
That's real welfare reform and we should work across party lines
to pass it.
We just can't afford to let this die. I've worked on this issue
for most of my public career, and so have many of you. It's time
for Congress to stop the ideological bickering and send me a
strong, bipartisan welfare reform bill without further delay.
The American people have waited long enough.
You and I have been working hard to move the ball forward. We're
collecting child support at a record level from delinquent
parents, and earlier this year I signed an executive order to
crack down on federal employees who owe child support. We could
move 800,000 people off welfare tomorrow if parents paid the
support they should.
In the last two-and-a-half years, my Administration has approved
waivers for 29 states to reform welfare their way. The very
first waiver we approved, was for Governor Dean to put in place
time limits that make it clear here in Vermont that welfare is a
second chance, not a way of life. We cut through red-tape so
that Governor Thompson could send the same message in Wisconsin.
And we've given waivers to Ohio, Missouri, and Oregon to move
people to work by using money now spent on welfare and food
stamps to subsidize private sector jobs. That's a win-win.
Businesses are hiring more people, taxpayers are saving money,
and people who used to get welfare checks are now earning
paychecks.
The American people demand that anyone on welfare who can work,
must work. And that there ought to be limits so that no one who
can work can stay on welfare forever. I am determined to use the
full range of my authority as President to reform welfare and
promote work.
Today, I want to announce a series of measures we can take
together that will move us closer to ending welfare as we know it
while we wait for Congress to end the logjam and act.
First, I am using my executive authority to hold states to a
tougher performance standard for moving people from welfare to
work and giving them the tools to do so. Starting October 1, I
am doubling the work participation goal from 20 percent to 40
percent. And we'll make sure that States that meet this tough,
3
new benchmark are recognized and rewarded.
Second, I am changing federal regulations so that states can
impose tougher sanctions on recipients who refuse to work. Right
now, when a state reduces someone's welfare check for failing to
hold up their end of the bargain, that person's food stamp
benefit goes up, so it turns out not to be a real sanction at
all. If we're going to move people from welfare to work, we have
to change the culture of the welfare system to reward people who
take responsibility for their lives and not let them off the hook
if they don't.
Third, as another downpayment on our commitment to our
partnership with you on welfare reform, today my Administration
is announcing welfare reform waivers for five states: [West
Virginia, Utah, Texas, California?, and Massachusetts?]. We are
also announcing food stamp waivers for [Delaware, Virginia, ?,
?]. That means that a total of
states have now been freed
up to try out their ideas without being stifled by Washington
one-size-fits-all rules.
None of this is a replacement for bold Congressional action.
Rather, I hope it will spur the Congress to get off the dime.
Let me be clear: Congress still needs to pass a comprehensive
welfare reform bill that contains work requirements, time limits,
the toughest possible child support enforcement laws, and gives
states the tools to succeed.
I ran for President to bring new opportunity to the American
people and to demand more responsibility in return. That's what
I call the New Covenant. Welfare reform is a crucial part of
this effort. We are now at an historic moment. The failure to
pass welfare reform this year would be a breach of faith with the
American people. Republicans and Democrats alike have a
responsibility to bring real change to Washington.
I hope Congress will act, and soon. But even if they don't, I
will work with you and your legislatures to get this job done.
Thank you.
4
Document No.
WHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM
DATE: 7/28/95
ACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY: Sp.m. 7/28/95
SUBJECT: POTUS - NG A speech
ACTION FYI
ACTION
FYI
VICE PRESIDENT
McGINTY
PANETTA
NASH
McLARTY
QUINN
ICKES
RASCO
BOWLES
SOSNIK
RIVLIN
STEPHANOPOULOS
EMANUEL
TYSON
GEARAN
WEBSTER
GIBBONS
WILLIAMS
GRIFFIN
Rivlin
HALE
HERMAN
Apfel
Bromberg
HIGGINS
Edmunds -
LAKE
Reed
LINDSEY
MIKVA
McCURRY
REMARKS:
Please reviewt Comment by 5 p.m. today. Call Terry
RESPONSE: Edmunds at 6-2777 or Bruce Reedat 6-6515.
Staff Secretary
Ext. 6-2702
draft 7/28/95
95
REMARKS BY PRESIDENT WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON
NATIONAL GOVERNORS ASSOCIATION ANNUAL MEETING
BURLINGTON, VERMONT
28
JULY 31, 1995
[Acknowledgements: Governor Dean for introduction; Governor
Thompson, in-coming chairman; Mayor Peter Clavelle; Ray Sheppach,
16
NGA Executive Director; fellow Governors; ladies and gentlemen]
It's great to be back in New England and in Vermont, especially
this time of year. Let me begin by congratulating Governor
Thompson for taking over the reins of the NGA for the next year.
He really has a tough act to follow. Governor Dean has been a
terrific leader. His "Campaign for Children" has helped focus
much-needed attention on the responsibilities we owe our children
-- as parents, as citizens and as leaders. There is no more
important issue facing this nation.
I share Governor Dean's sense of urgency about our children. In
fact, I ran for President because I wanted to ensure a better
future for our children. I did not want my daughter to be a part
of the first generation of Americans to do worse than their
parents. I also did not want to be a passive spectator at the
funeral of our core American values: work and responsibility,
community and family. So I took office to do two things: first,
to expand opportunity and demand responsibility from every
citizen. And secondly, to bring this country together again
through a recommitment to the shared values that have made us
great. And I have realized something during the course of this
journey. You can't do one without the other. We must all pull
together to rebuild the American Dream.
That's why, for the past two-and-a-half years, I have sought
common ground with the American people about the needs of
children and families. We've worked hard to give hard-working
families the help they need to make the most of their God-given
potential -- and to give their children a good start in life.
The Earned Income Tax Credit now provides an average tax
deduction of $1000 for working families with children with
incomes below $28,000. The Family and Medical Leave Law now
helps more people be good parents and successful workers. The
crime bill we enacted protects our children with 100,000 more
police officers on the street and prevention programs that give
our young people something to say yes to. We've expanded Head
Start and made historic strides in education reform with efforts
like Goals 2000, direct student loans, and our national service
program, AmeriCorps.
So, we have done a lot to improve the quality of life for
children and families. But, there is one thing we have not been
1
able to do -- pass comprehensive welfare reform. The American
people have been clear: They want welfare reform and they want
it now.
We have found common ground, across partisan and ideological
lines, on most of the issues surrounding welfare reform. Not so
very long ago, many liberals opposed requiring all welfare
recipients who can work to do SO. And not so long ago, most
conservatives thought the government shouldn't spend money on
child care to give welfare mothers a chance to go to work and
still be good parents. Now we have a broad consensus from both.
We should do both.
We also began this year with some in Washington suggesting that
ending welfare meant taking children from their parents and
putting them in orphanages. Now there's a bipartisan consensus
even in Washington that that would be the wrong way to go. When
this Congress first took up welfare reform, some questioned the
need to include strong child support enforcement. But when
governors and Members of Congress came together at our White
House summit on welfare reform in January, Tommy Thompson, Howard
Dean and every other governor there let Congress know that tough
child support enforcement should be the law of the land.
So, why has the Congress failed to act? Unfortunately, in recent
days, partisan, ideological in-fighting has stalled the progress
on welfare reform. Some on the far right have been holding
welfare reform hostage because they want to punish children whose
parents are poor, young, and unmarried. That's wrong. There
isn't a governor in either party who thinks that mandating every
state to do that is a good idea. Instead of punishing children
for their parents' mistakes, we should require teen mothers to
live at home, stay in school, and turn their lives around.
Welfare reform isn't about just cutting people off. It will only
succeed if it moves people from welfare to work.
For weeks, the Senate has been hung up over another issue that
pits Congress against the states and pits states against each
other. I am firm believer in more state flexibility and tougher
work requirements. But, states will never have the flexibility
they need to reform welfare and put more people to work if all we
do is give you a bunch of new mandates and a lot less money.
There's another crucial element that's missing from the current
approach of many in Congress. Instead of providing the child
care people need to get off welfare, some in Congress actually
are trying to cut child care. It is pure fantasy to think we can
put a welfare mother to work without child care for her children.
We don't need more latchkey kids. We don't need more neglected
children. And we don't want more welfare mothers staying at
home, living on welfare just because they can't find child care.
2
[insert any additional reactions to Dole's speech]
Welfare reform doesn't have to be a huge unfunded mandate on
state and local governments. There is an alternative. The
Senate has before it a bill that demands work and responsibility
and gives states the tools they need to succeed. The Work First
Plan sponsored by Senators Daschle, Breaux and Mikulski ends the
current welfare system and replaces it with one based on work.
That's real welfare reform and we should work across party lines
to pass it.
We just can't afford to let this die. I've worked on this issue
for most of my public career, and SO have many of you. It's time
for Congress to stop the ideological bickering and send me a
strong, bipartisan welfare reform bill without further delay.
The American people have waited long enough.
You and I have been working hard to move the ball forward. We're
collecting child support at a record level from delinquent
parents, and earlier this year I signed an executive order to
crack down on federal employees who owe child support. We could
move 800,000 people off welfare tomorrow if parents paid the
support they should.
In the last two-and-a-half years, my Administration has approved
waivers for 29 states to reform welfare their way. The very
first waiver we approved, was for Governor Dean to put in place
time limits that make it clear here in Vermont that welfare is a
second chance, not a way of life. We cut through red-tape so
that Governor Thompson could send the same message in Wisconsin.
And we've given waivers to Ohio, Missouri, and Oregon to move
people to work by using money now spent on welfare and food
stamps to subsidize private sector jobs. That's a win-win.
Businesses are hiring more people, taxpayers are saving money,
and people who used to get welfare checks are now earning
paychecks.
The American people demand that anyone on welfare who can work,
must work. And that there ought to be limits so that no one who
can work can stay on welfare forever. I am determined to use the
full range of my authority as President to reform welfare and
promote work.
Today, I want to announce a series of measures we can take
together that will move us closer to ending welfare as we know it
while we wait for Congress to end the logjam and act.
First, I am using my executive authority to hold states to a
tougher performance standard for moving people from welfare to
work and giving them the tools to do SO. Starting October 1, I
am doubling the work participation goal from 20 percent to 40
percent. And we'll make sure that States that meet this tough,
3
new benchmark are recognized and rewarded.
Second, I am changing federal regulations SO that states can
impose tougher sanctions on recipients who refuse to work. Right
now, when a state reduces someone's welfare check for failing to
hold up their end of the bargain, that person's food stamp
benefit goes up, so it turns out not to be a real sanction at
all. If we're going to move people from welfare to work, we have
to change the culture of the welfare system to reward people who
take responsibility for their lives and not let them off the hook
if they don't.
Third, as another downpayment on our commitment to our
partnership with you on welfare reform, today my Administration
is announcing welfare reform waivers for five states: [West
Virginia, Utah, Texas, California?, and Massachusetts?]. We are
also announcing food stamp waivers for [Delaware, Virginia, ?,
?]. That means that a total of
states have now been freed
up to try out their ideas without being stifled by Washington
one-size-fits-all rules.
None of this is a replacement for bold Congressional action.
Rather, I hope it will spur the Congress to get off the dime.
Let me be clear: Congress still needs to pass a comprehensive
welfare reform bill that contains work requirements, time limits,
the toughest possible child support enforcement laws, and gives
states the tools to succeed.
I ran for President to bring new opportunity to the American
people and to demand more responsibility in return. That's what
I call the New Covenant. Welfare reform is a crucial part of
this effort. We are now at an historic moment. The failure to
pass welfare reform this year would be a breach of faith with the
American people. Republicans and Democrats alike have a
responsibility to bring real change to Washington.
I hope Congress will act, and soon. But even if they don't, I
will work with you and your legislatures to get this job done.
Thank you.
4
draft 7/28/95
REMARKS BY PRESIDENT WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON
NATIONAL GOVERNORS ASSOCIATION ANNUAL MEETING
BURLINGTON, VERMONT
JULY 31, 1995
[Acknowledgements: Governor Dean for introduction; Governor
Thompson, in-coming chairman; Mayor Peter Clavelle; Ray Sheppach,
NGA Executive Director; fellow Governors; ladies and gentlemen]
It's great to be back in New England and in Vermont, especially
this time of year. Let me begin by congratulating Governor
Thompson for taking over the reins of the NGA for the next year.
He really has a tough act to follow. Governor Dean has been a
terrific leader. His "Campaign for Children" has helped focus
much-needed attention on the responsibilities we owe our children
-- as parents, as citizens and as leaders. There is no more
important issue facing this nation.
I share Governor Dean's sense of urgency about our children. In
fact, I ran for President because I wanted to ensure a better
future for our children. I did not want my daughter to be a part
of the first generation of Americans to do worse than their
parents. I also did not want to be a passive spectator at the
funeral of our core American values: work and responsibility,
community and family. So I took office to do two things: first,
to expand opportunity and demand responsibility from every
citizen. And secondly, to bring this country together again
through a recommitment to the shared values that have made us
great. And I have realized something during the course of this
journey. You can't do one without the other. We must all pull
together to rebuild the American Dream.
That's why, for the past two-and-a-half years, I have sought
common ground with the American people about the needs of
children and families. We've worked hard to give hard-working
families the help they need to make the most of their God-given
potential -- and to give their children a good start in life.
The Earned Income Tax Credit now provides an average tax
deduction of $1000 for working families with children with
incomes below $28,000. The Family and Medical Leave Law now
helps more people be good parents and successful workers. The
crime bill we enacted protects our children with 100,000 more
police officers on the street and prevention programs that give
our young people something to say yes to. We've expanded Head
Start and made historic strides in education reform with efforts
like Goals 2000, direct student loans, and our national service
program, AmeriCorps.
So, we have done a lot to improve the quality of life for
children and families. But, there is one thing we have not been
1
able to do -- pass comprehensive welfare reform. The American
people have been clear: They want welfare reform and they want
it now.
We have found common ground, across partisan and ideological
lines, on most of the issues surrounding welfare reform. Not so
very long ago, many liberals opposed requiring all welfare
recipients who can work to do SO. And not SO long ago, most
conservatives thought the government shouldn't spend money on
child care to give welfare mothers a chance to go to work and
still be good parents. Now we have a broad consensus from both.
We should do both.
We also began this year with some in Washington suggesting that
ending welfare meant taking children from their parents and
putting them in orphanages. Now there's a bipartisan consensus
even in Washington that that would be the wrong way to go. When
this Congress first took up welfare reform, some questioned the
need to include strong child support enforcement. But when
governors and Members of Congress came together at our White
House summit on welfare reform in January, Tommy Thompson, Howard
Dean and every other governor there let Congress know that tough
child support enforcement should be the law of the land.
So, why has the Congress failed to act? Unfortunately, in recent
days, partisan, ideological in-fighting has stalled the progress
on welfare reform. Some on the far right have been holding
welfare reform hostage because they want to punish children whose
parents are poor, young, and unmarried. That's wrong. There
isn't a governor in either party who thinks that mandating every
state to do that is a good idea. Instead of punishing children
for their parents' mistakes, we should require teen mothers to
live at home, stay in school, and turn their lives around.
Welfare reform isn't about just cutting people off. It will only
succeed if it moves people from welfare to work.
For weeks, the Senate has been hung up over another issue that
pits Congress against the states and pits states against each
other. I am firm believer in more state flexibility and tougher
work requirements. But, states will never have the flexibility
they need to reform welfare and put more people to work if all we
do is give you a bunch of new mandates and a lot less money.
There's another crucial element that's missing from the current
approach of many in Congress. Instead of providing the child
care people need to get off welfare, some in Congress actually
are trying to cut child care. It is pure fantasy to think we can
put a welfare mother to work without child care for her children.
We don't need more latchkey kids. We don't need more neglected
children. And we don't want more welfare mothers staying at
home, living on welfare just because they can't find child care.
2
[insert any additional reactions to Dole's speech]
Welfare reform doesn't have to be a huge unfunded mandate on
state and local governments. There is an alternative. The
Senate has before it a bill that demands work and responsibility
and gives states the tools they need to succeed. The Work First
Plan sponsored by Senators Daschle, Breaux and Mikulski ends the
current welfare system and replaces it with one based on work.
That's real welfare reform and we should work across party lines
to pass it.
We just can't afford to let this die. I've worked on this issue
for most of my public career, and SO have many of you. It's time
for Congress to stop the ideological bickering and send me a
strong, bipartisan welfare reform bill without further delay.
The American people have waited long enough.
You and I have been working hard to move the ball forward. We're
collecting child support at a record level from delinquent
parents, and earlier this year I signed an executive order to
crack down on federal employees who owe child support. We could
move 800, people off welfare tomorrow if parents paid the
support they should.
In the last two-and-a-half years, my Administration has approved
waivers for 29 states to reform welfare their way. The very
first waiver we approved, was for Governor Dean to put in place
time limits that make it clear here in Vermont that welfare is a
second chance, not a way of life. We cut through red-tape so
that Governor Thompson could send the same message in Wisconsin.
And we've given waivers to Ohio, Missouri, and Oregon to move
people to work by using money now spent on welfare and food
stamps to subsidize private sector jobs. That's a win-win.
Businesses are hiring more people, taxpayers are saving money,
and people who used to get welfare checks are now earning
paychecks.
The American people demand that anyone on welfare who can work,
must work. And that there ought to be limits so that no one who
can work can stay on welfare forever. I am determined to use the
full range of my authority as President to reform welfare and
promote work.
Today, I want to announce a series of measures we can take
together that will move us closer to ending welfare as we know it
while we wait for Congress to end the logjam and act.
First, I am using my executive authority to hold states to a
tougher performance standard for moving people from welfare to
work and giving them the tools to do so. Starting October 1, I
am doubling the work participation goal from 20 percent to 40
percent. And we'll make sure that States that meet this tough,
3
new benchmark are recognized and rewarded.
Second, I am changing federal regulations so that states can
impose tougher sanctions on recipients who refuse to work. Right
now, when a state reduces someone's welfare check for failing to
hold up their end of the bargain, that person's food stamp
benefit goes up, so it turns out not to be a real sanction at
all. If we're going to move people from welfare to work, we have
to change the culture of the welfare system to reward people who
take responsibility for their lives and not let them off the hook
if they don't.
Third, as another downpayment on our commitment to our
partnership on welfare reform, today my Administration is
announcing welfare reform waivers for five states: [West
Virginia, Utah, Texas, California?, -and Massachusetts?] We are
also announcing food stamp waivers for [Delaware, Virginia, ?,
?]. That means that a total of
states have now been freed
up to try out their ideas without being stifled by Washington
one-size-fits-all rules.
None of this is a replacement for bold Congressional action.
Rather, I hope it will spur the Congress to get off the dime.
Let me be clear: Congress still needs to pass a comprehensive
welfare reform bill that contains work requirements, time limits,
the toughest possible child support enforcement laws, and gives
states the tools to succeed.
I ran for President to bring new opportunity to the American
people and to demand more responsibility in return. That's what
I call the New Covenant. Welfare reform is a crucial part of
this effort. We are now at an historic moment. The failure to
pass welfare reform this year would be a breach of faith with the
American people. Republicans and Democrats alike have a
responsibility to bring real change to Washington.
I hope Congress will act, and soon. But even if they don't, I
will work with you and your legislatures to get this job done.
Thank you.
4
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
July 13, 1995
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
FOLLOWING WELFARE REFORM MEETING
The Rose Garden
10:08 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. I want to thank Senator
Daschle, Senator Moynihan, Senator Mikulski, Senator Breaux,
Senator Harkin for coming. Governor Carper; Mayor Archer, a county
Executive from Madison, Wisconsin; Rick Phelps and the Majority
Leader of the Tennessee House of Representatives; Bill Purcell for
joining members of our administration here.
We have just had a good talk about welfare reform and the
growing consensus around the approach taken by the bill offered by
Senators Daschle and Mikulski and Breaux on welfare reform.
The American people have made it. abundantly clear that they
want us to fix the welfare system. It doesn't work for the people
who are stuck on it, and it doesn't work for the taxpayers.
Welfare reform furthers both of the primary objectives of our
administration. If it works, it will further the American Dream of
opportunity and it will further the American value of
responsibility. Our goal should be to help people be successful
and independent workers and to build strong families.
We ought to be able to do this. We've come a long way in this
debate. There's a broad consensus, for example, on tougher child
support enforcement requirements. And not SO very long ago,
liberals opposed work requirements; they don't anymore. Not SO
very long ago, conservatives opposed spending money to provide
child care when people move from welfare to work. Most
conservatives out in the country don't any more.
In America, where people live with this issue, there is a
great deal of consensus about what we ought to do. And we ought to
build on that consensus here in Washington. The reason we can't is
that some people on the far right are blocking any action on
welfare reform, and the Senate especially now, that doesn't cut off
children and parents if the parents if the parents are young, poor
and unmarried. I think that is a terrible mistake. We shouldn't
punish babies for their parents mistakes. We ought to be building
strong families and independent workers.
I'm not the only person who feels this way. Yesterday, I had
a meeting with the Catholic bishops, who deeply oppose the extreme
position of these far right senators. And they're helping to lead
the fight against it. They think it's cruel and they believe it
will even lead to more abortions.
I also think that people in the state legislatures and the
governor's offices throughout the country should think about the
approach that is being offered on the other side. We believe it
could constitute a huge, unfunded burden on state and local
governments people actually dealing with the welfare reform
issue in the years ahead.
Now, there is an alternative. This shouldn't be hard.
We basically all agree on what ought to be in a welfare reform
proposal. It isn't getting done because a few senators with an
extreme position have decided that it is in their political
interest to block any welfare legislation. The United States
Senate should not practice "just say no" politics on welfare
reform. We can fix this problem.
Every week that goes by, thousands of welfare mothers
stay on welfare instead of going to work simply because they can't
afford child care. Every week we don't make our child support laws
as tough as we possibly can, we leave 800,000 people on welfare who
could be off welfare if they got the child support to which they
are legally entitled. Every day without welfare reform drains our
economic strength, saps our community spirit and prevents Americans
from being able to live up to their full potential.
We need to work together and get this job done. This
coalition is growing. We're going to continue to work. We need
help. We cannot pass welfare reform without Republicans and
Democrats working together. It is time to move away from the
extreme position toward the common ground of sensible welfare
reform.
I thank all these people who are here for supporting
that.
I Mr. President, is it time for the U.N. troops to get
out of Bosnia and for the U.S. to lift the arms embargo, as Senator
Dole and others are proposing?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, let me comment on
the events of the last few days. I am very disturbed about what
has happened in Srebrenica. We are very concerned about the fate
of the refugees. And we have been working hard for the last couple
of days to determine what options there are to deal with the
immediate humanitarian problems. And we intend to do everything we
can on that. And that is the first and foremost thing.
2
The truth is that the Bosnian Serbs should do what they
did the last time this crisis arose, they should withdraw. And the
United Nations should go back in there and reestablish the safe
area, and the people should be able to go home. But we have to
deal with the humanitarian crisis.
Now, on the second issue, let me remind you of what my
position has always been and what it still is today. The Europeans
have tried to take the lead, under the umbrella of the United
Nations, in minimizing the loss of life in Bosnia, in keeping the
conflict from spreading and in urging a diplomatic resolution of
the war. They are still committed to do that.
I believe if the Rapid Reaction Force idea, which the
French and the British have pushed, had been fully implemented
before this occurred, this problem could have been minimized.
I still do not believe that it is in the interest of the
United States to collapse and force the Europeans out of their
willingness to put ground troops on the ground in Bosnia to try to
minimize the loss of life and limit the spread. If the United
Nations mission does collapse, then I believe that, together, the
allies should all vote on the arms embargo. That is the best way
to keep the NATO position unified, to keep the world position
unified, and to avoid overly Americanizing the dealings in Bosnia
should the U.N. mission collapse.
I'm quite concerned about that. The Europeans have been
willing to try to solve what is clearly the toughest problem they
face on their own continent in the aftermath of the Cold War. I
have tried to be supportive of that. There are serious problems
now with this. Unless we can restore the integrity of the U.N.
mission, obviously, its days will be numbered.
But let's not forget that it has accomplished a dramatic
reduction in the loss of life since 1992 and the conflict has not
spread. This is a serious challenge to the U.N. mission. It must
either be resolved or there will have to be some changes there.
I Mr. President, on another welfare issue that's
headed for your desk, what are you going to do about this tobacco
issue that is headed for your decision?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I haven't - - let me say this I
have not received a recommendation from the FDA. I saw the news
reports today and they struck me as somewhat premature inasmuch as
I have not yet received either a recommendation or, as the news
reports indicated, requests for my own guidance on that yet.
But we have had some discussions and I can tell you
this: My concern is apparently what the FDA'S concern is, and that
3
is the impact of cigarette smoking, particularly on our young
people, and the fact that cigarette smoking seems to be going up
among our young people and certainly among certain groups of them.
And I think we ought to do more about that than is being done and
I'm willing to do that. But I want to see exactly what there
recommendation is.
I Mr. President, how do you answer the charge that the
White House has injected politics into the base closing process?
THE PRESIDENT: First of all, it is absolutely false.
I intend to answer it in the letter that I write today, but since
you gave me a chance to do it, I'll answer it.
Let's look at the facts here. Where is the politics?
This Base Closing Commission made far more changes in the Pentagon
plan than either any of the three previous base closing
commissions, far more. They've been under a lot of political
pressure. I understand that. I don't disagree with all the
changes they made.
They acknowledge -- secondly, under the law they are
supposed to take into account economic impact. Based on their
report, which I have read -- and I urge all of you to read it if
you haven't before you make any judgments about where there was
political influence, I urge all of you to read it. They took 23
bases or realignments off that the Pentagon recommended, off the
list; and then put nine more on, three of which happen to be in
California, with the biggest job loss by far in San Antonio at
Kelly Air Force Base; rejecting the Defense Department's
recommendation that instead of closing these two big Air Force
depots, they take an across-the-board cut in all five of them.
That's what they did.
Apparently, in all of their deliberations the only place
where they took economic impact into account was at the Red Rive
Depot on the border of Texas and my home state. It is clear that
--I think they have a case there. It would have almost doubled
unemployment in that community.
But let's look at the facts on this politics. This is
about economics. In the report itself they acknowledge that at
Kelly Air Force Base 60 percent of the employees are Hispanic; 45
percent of the Hispanics employed in the entire area work there;
that it will have a devastating impact, and they were willing to
shut down about 16,000 jobs, when there was another alternative
that saved at least as much money, according to the Pentagon, or
nearly as much, according to them.
Secondly, in California here are the facts. I have not
seen these anywhere. I have not seen these anywhere. The law
requires economic impact to be taken into effect -- into account.
4
Here are the facts.
When this Base Closing Commission process started,
California had 13 percent of the population, 15 percent of the
people in military, 20 percent of the defense budget. In the first
three base closings they sustained 52 percent of the direct job
losses. We're not talking about indirect jobs, we're not talking
about speculation -- 52 percent.
In this recommendation the Pentagon hit them pretty
hard, recommended closing Long Beach, a big facility. This Base
Closing Commission, not satisfied with that, made a decision that
they had to add back a lot of other jobs. So they decided to take
almost all the jobs they took out, out of one place, San Antonio,
Texas, and by closing three California bases -- taking the
California job loss in this round to almost 50 percent.
Now, you tell me that my concern over that economic
situation when their unemployment rate is 8.5 percent, they have
borne over 50 percent of the burden of the job loss, is political.
My concern in San Antonio, Texas, where one decision could
virtually wipe out the Hispanic middle class is political, when
there was another alternative that the Pentagon said was better for
national security I am tired of these arguments about politics.
My political concern is the political economy of
America and what happens to the people in these communities and are
they being treated fairly.
Now, I do not disagree with every recommendation the
Base Closing Commission made, but this is an outrage. And there
has been a calculated, deliberate attempt to turn this into a
political thing and to obscure the real economic impact of their
recommendations in San Antonio and California, which were made
solely SO they could put back a lot of other things.
Now, let's not - -
I
Why do you think they did that?
Q
Have you accepted their recommendations?
I
What is the reason that they did that?
THE PRESIDENT: I don't know. I'm not imputing motives
to them. I'm just saying it's very interesting to me that there
has been almost no analysis of anything. This whole thing
immediately became, well, this is a big political story about
California. This is an economic story and it's a national security
story. And there has been no analysis of what got put back and
why, and what got taken off and why.
5
And I have been doing my best to deal with what is in
the national interest. There are two considerations here. We have
to reduce our base capacity. That's the most important thing. We
have twice as much base capacity as we need, more of less, for the
size of the military force we have. That is a national security
interest. And that is my first and most important duty.
But, secondly, under the law, economic impact was
supposed to be taken into account, and as nearly as I can
determine, it wasn't anywhere -- never in these determinations,
with the possible exception of the Red River Depot, based on my
reading of the report.
Now, the question is, is there a way to accept these
recommendations, because even though I think they' re far -- they' re
not as good as what the Pentagon recommended and they do a lot more
economic harm for very little extra security gains -- is there a
way to accept them and minimize the economic loss in the areas
where I think it is plainly excessive. And that is what we have
been working on. That is what I've been working hard on. But I
just want you to know that I deeply resent the suggestion that this
is somehow a political deal.
I have not seen anything written anywhere that the state
of California lost 52 percent of the jobs in the first three base
closings and that this commission took them back up to nearly 50
percent in this one, even though they only have 15 percent of the
soldiers and their unemployment rate is 50 percent above the
national average. I haven't seen anywhere what this was likely to
do to the Hispanic middle class and to the people of San Antonio,
Texas, unless we can save a lot of those jobs there so that a lot
of other things could be put back in 10 or 11 places around the
country.
And I think that you folks need to look at the real
impact of this. I am trying to do my job to reduce the capacity of
the bases in the country consistent with the national interest and
still be faithful to the statute requiring us to deal with the
economic impact on these communities.
END
10:23 A.M. EDT
6