    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1993, Book I)]
    [March 11, 1993]
    [Pages 272-277]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Remarks to the Children's Defense Fund Conference
    March 11, 1993

        The President. Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen,
    distinguished members of the Children's Defense Fund board, Secretary
    Reich, and Secretary Riley. Did you see the way Secretary Reich rushed
    out when they said the President of the United States? [Laughter] That's
    not true. I pushed him through the door so I could get a laugh out of
    it. [Laughter]
        My dear friend Marian Wright Edelman, as usual, your introduction
    has left me nothing to say. I will say this: I know a lot of people will
    come here and tell you how much they appreciate people who are
    children's advocates. Not very many people appreciate it enough to marry
    one, and I did. [Laughter] I also have savaged the ranks of the CDF
    board. My wife had to resign because she was married to a Presidential
    candidate. And then Donna Shalala had to resign because I gave her a
    job--[laughter]--which on Sunday she'd probably rather swap for being
    chair of the Children's Defense Fund board.
        I am delighted to be here. I look out on this crowd and I see many
    old friends. You know, a lot of people ask me what it's like to be
    President. And I don't know if I can explain it, but it is different.
    People either want to walk around on tippy-toe or take a baseball bat
    and whack your head off. There seems to be nothing in between. The other
    day Hillary had a number of people into the White House on the first
    floor to some sort of meeting, and I got off on the floor, and I had to
    go someplace else. And all of a sudden, all these people were there. And
    I walked out into this crowd, and I started shaking their hands. And the
    guy who was with me said, ``Oh, Mr. President, I'm so sorry that you had
    to deal with all those people.'' I said, ``That's all right, I used to
    be one.'' [Laughter] I hope I will be again some day. Meanwhile, I'm
    going to depend on you and the American people to keep me just as close
    to humanity as I possibly can.
        I've just come from a remarkable event in Maryland with a number of
    Members of the Congress who are friends of the Children's Defense Fund.
    We were there; Secretary Reich was there with me; we flew back. And we
    were at a plant that belongs to Westinghouse. It used to be a defense
    plant, and it is increasingly becoming a domestic technology plant. And
    we went there to announce an economic conversion program to try to help
    more people who are losing their jobs from military cutbacks either in
    the private or the public sector find new opportunities moving toward
    the economy of the 21st century.
        This is a very important thing. We've been reducing defense since
    1985, and no nation would so reduce one sector of its economy that

    [[Page 273]]

    provided so many high-wage, high-growth jobs, that was on the cutting
    edge of new technology--no other nation would ever have done what we've
    done with no clear strategy for what to do with all those resources, all
    those people, to try to help to build our economic base. So we will
    continue to reduce defense, as we must, but we're trying to plan for the
    future of those people and those incredible resources.
        I saw military technology turn into an electric car that will drive
    over 80 miles an hour and which may hold the promise of ending our
    dependence on foreign oil and cleaning up our atmosphere. I saw a police
    car with a computer screen with visual imaging developed for defense
    technology, which can now be used immediately to transmit to police
    officers who have it pictures of missing children, immediately, while
    they're in their car. I saw a plane with radar technology which just
    came back from dealing with the difficult incident in Waco, Texas--
    defense technology--another plane with a different sort of technology
    now which can be put on all of our commercial air flights to detect wind
    shears, which is one of the major causes of airline misfortunes now
    among commercial airlines.
        I say all this because everybody says, well, that's a great idea,
    and it's self-evident, and why haven't we been doing this? But it is
    simply reflective of a problem we have had in this country for some
    time, which is that we have undervalued the importance of increasing the
    capacity of our people. We have talked a lot about a lot of things in
    America. But when you strip it all away and you look at where we have
    been, sort of out of sync with many other countries and with where we
    have to go in the future, it is clear that on a broad range of areas, we
    have simply undervalued the importance of making a commitment to the
    idea that we don't have a person to waste, that everybody counts, and
    that what you can do affects not only your future but mine as well.
        These, of course, are the arguments that the Children's Defense Fund
    has been making since its inception in its struggles to get a better
    deal for America's children. They have become far more important
    arguments in the last decade.
        In 1985 a remarkable thing happened, a thing altogether laudatory in
    our country: Our senior citizens became less poor than the rest of us, a
    thing we can be proud of. People used to have to live in absolute agony
    wondering what would happen to their parents. You still do if you have
    long-term care problems. But most elderly people now, because of Social
    Security and supplemental security income and Medicare and because of
    the pension reforms of the last several years, can look forward to a
    security in their later years that 10 or 20 or 30 years ago was utterly
    unheard of. And it is really a testimony to the farsightedness of our
    country.
        However, at the same time, in the same decade, we began to
    experience a new class of poor people who were dramatically undervalued.
    They were little children and their poor parents, usually their single
    poor parents. And they had no advocates in many councils of power. If it
    hadn't been for the Children's Defense Fund and a few others who walked
    with them through life, many of the good things which have been done
    would not have been done. And all the things which were done were not
    enough to reverse the trends of the 1980's, when the elderly became less
    poor and the children became more poor.
        Now, because many of you in this room have continued this fight, and
    because of the decisions the American people made in the last election,
    we once again have a chance to invest in the hopes and the dreams of our
    children.
        I have asked the United States Congress to embrace a program that
    recognizes, as was said earlier, that we have two big deficits in this
    country. We have a huge budget deficit, but we also have a huge
    investment deficit. It was a cruel irony of the last 12 years that we
    not only took the Government debt from $1 trillion to $4 trillion, with
    annual deficits now in excess of $300 million projected for the next few
    years unless we change it, but we found a way in all of that to actually
    reduce our investment in our future at the national level.
        How could it happen? Well, it happened because of a big military
    buildup. It happened because of a big tax cut early. It happened because
    health care costs have been completely out of control. It happened
    because an underperforming economy didn't produce many revenues. But it
    happened also because there were not enough people who said we must
    constantly invest in the most important thing in a modern society, the
    capacity of the people to be healthy and strong and good.
        So you have all these anomalies. The United States, the world's
    strongest economy, has the third worst record in the Western Hemisphere

    [[Page 274]]

    for immunizing its children against preventable childhood diseases. The
    United States, a country that has dominated the economy of the world for
    the last half a century, has higher rates of adult illiteracy and school
    dropout and dysfunction among adults than most of its major competitors,
    and the highest rate of incarceration of any country in the world,
    something we rank first in.
        That bespeaks our inability to make the diversity of our country a
    source of strength instead of weakness, and to deal with the stark
    dilemmas of poverty in ways that at least give the children a chance to
    do better. Well, now we have a chance.
        The good news is we know a lot about what works. We've known for
    years through clear studies that, though not perfect, Head Start and WIC
    and immunizations really do make a difference. We know that if you give
    children a better life and you strengthen their families, you make the
    economy stronger and you free up money to be spent on things like that
    economic conversion program I just visited today.
        We know that if we focus on people and their capacities, it really
    does work. That's why I was really pleased that the first bill I signed
    was the Family and Medical Leave Act because it will, even to those who
    oppose it, make their businesses more productive, not less, by securing
    family life and making it possible for people to be good parents. That's
    why the long-term economic plan and the short-term economic stimulus I
    asked the Congress to embrace includes funds to put our people first:
    for 700,000 summer jobs for young people; for the beginnings of summer
    Head Start programs where they don't exist; for beginning to set up the
    infrastructure of immunization where it isn't, so that we can start to
    do the work that has to be done.
        We have simply got to invest in our people in ways that work. Marian
    has already said it, but I will reiterate. This budget, if funded by the
    Congress, will fully fund Head Start and WIC, will create a network of
    immunization efforts which will permit us to finally immunize our little
    children against preventable childhood diseases, something that will
    save, over the long run, 10 bucks for every dollar we put into it. How
    do you explain, I mean, how can you possibly justify to anybody that our
    country, with the power of its economy, that produces the vast majority
    of vaccines produced anywhere in the world, is better only than Bolivia
    and Haiti in this hemisphere in immunizing our children?
        And you know, you have to have a certain core of immunization to
    make sure that there will be no outbreak of diseases. We are
    dangerously, perilously close to falling below that core of immunized
    children in many different areas. This is a big deal, folks.
        So I hope that we will have this attitude now that we ought to
    invest as we cut the deficit. The plan that I presented to the Congress
    reduces the deficit dramatically, has 150 specific budget cuts, starts
    with an example from the White House staff. We cut the staff in the next
    fiscal year 25 percent below the staffing levels that I found when I
    came. We cut $9 billion out of the administrative costs of Federal
    agencies. And I mean they're real cuts; they're going into the budget.
    They cannot be escaped. [Applause] I'm glad you're clapping for that,
    you know, because the people that are attacking me act like anybody that
    wants any money from the Government just loves all that bureaucracy you
    have to put up with. I know better. [Laughter] It's good for you to
    clap. [Applause]
        We also raised some tax money. I saw the proof of an article by
    David Stockman coming out in a magazine soon which talked about how the
    clear problem is that the tax base of this country was dramatically,
    fundamentally, and permanently eroded in 1981, that Social Security's
    about the same percentage of gross national product today it was back in
    1981.
        So we have to raise some more money if we want to reduce the debt.
    But we also try to reverse the investment gap in things that you didn't
    come here to talk about, like transportation and clean water and better
    sewage systems, in things that will strengthen the environment and put
    people to work and increase our productivity, in things like community
    development operations to add jobs to high unemployment areas, in
    national service, which Marian mentioned, and in other areas that will
    increase the capacity of people to work, to grow, to learn, to flourish.
        Now, there are people, believe it or not, who, number one, don't
    want to pass a stimulus package at all because they say the economy's
    great--that's because most people in Washington are employed; talk to
    them about that, will you--[laughter]--and who think that this program
    would be even better if it didn't have any new investment at all.

    [[Page 275]]

        Now, to be fair to those people, there are basically three lines of
    attack. You're going to the Hill. I want you to know I need your help. I
    need your help because there are a lot of people without jobs; there are
    a lot of people without adequate jobs. Most of the new jobs created in
    this last round--365,000 last month--hallelujah, that's great, but more
    than half of them were part-time jobs that don't have health care
    benefits for the kids and the families.
        You need to know what they are saying, the people against whom you
    must argue. They will say, number one, ``We can cut the deficit even
    more if we just didn't have any investment,'' or ``If we didn't pass any
    of the President's spending programs, we could cut the deficit as much
    and raise taxes less.''
        The problem with that argument is those people think there is
    absolutely no difference between putting another child in Head Start and
    keeping somebody working in an agency when the job is no longer needed
    and can be phased out, in supporting a regulatory apparatus that has
    long since lost its justification, in funding a pork barrel project that
    can't possibly be justified. In other words, these people think anything
    the Government spends is equally bad. Educating a kid to go to college
    is the same as continuing the subsidy for sheep or any other program; no
    difference. Government spending is Government spending is Government
    spending. There is no difference.
        Now, do you believe that in your own lives?
        Audience members. No-o-o!
        The President. No. I mean, in your lives, if you take home a check
    every month, is it the same whether you spend it on making a house
    payment, making a car payment, saving money for your child's education,
    or just paying for an extra helping at dinner? Of course not. There are
    distinctions in the relative impact of how you spend your pay, how your
    business invests its money, and how your Government invests your money.
    And so when people tell you there's no difference, tell them that's
    wrong.
        And then there is a crowd that say, ``Well, these programs don't
    really make any difference. Head Start doesn't work, and there's no
    proof Head Start works.'' Now, this is an interesting argument. Most of
    those who think there's no proof Head Start works still believe trickle-
    down economics did.
        Until I proposed phasing in the full funding of this program, many
    of those who themselves objected had previously voted to expand it. To
    be fair, President Bush praised Head Start at every turn. A few years
    ago, Senator Dole introduced his own legislation to expand it. Sure,
    there are serious criticisms rooted in the fact that this is now not a
    new program. There are people who say it's not evenly good across the
    country. That is true. There are people who say it could be managed
    better. That's true. There are people who say that cognitive
    improvements don't always last more than 2 years after children stop
    attending, depending on where they are. That's true. One big deal is how
    strong the parents' involvement really is. There are those who say there
    ought to be more school-based programs or more home-based programs, and
    we've worked hard on that at home. All that's true. That is not an
    excuse not to fully fund Head Start.
        Our program will serve more children, but it will also strengthen
    the quality of Head Start and put some flexibility back into the program
    so that it can meet the needs of the different communities that are
    served. But those who choose to ignore the overwhelming evidence of the
    program's success have an obligation to tell us why more children with
    high self-esteem and better grades and better thinking skills and better
    predictable long-term performance is such a bad idea. I think it's a
    great idea.
        But we must, in fairness to the criticisms, become our own most
    severe critics. That's where you come in, because all of you live out
    there where these programs work. You could give a better criticism of
    what's wrong with most of these public programs than those who don't
    want to fund them. Most of you could. So tell them you know it is up to
    us to be our own most severe critics.
        I just asked the Vice President to review every program in the
    Government, come back to me in 6 months with all kinds of other things
    that we can stop doing or that we can modify or that we can push back to
    people at the grassroots level. If we who believe in Government don't
    have the courage to change it, we cannot expect those who don't to help
    us in our efforts.
        And this is just the beginning. Just 2 days ago I asked Secretary
    Shalala to draft a new child welfare initiative to combine family
    support and family preservation services, to do more to build on the
    work of Senator Rockefeller and Congressman Matsui and Congresswoman
    Schroeder and to do more for families at risk,

    [[Page 276]]

    especially those at risk of foster care placement, even as we try to
    strengthen our efforts to enforce child support enforcement for those
    who have been abandoned by one parent.
        Now, there is a third argument against this effort. There are those
    who say, ``Yes, Head Start's a good deal; WIC is a good deal; the
    immunization's a good deal. And yes, we ought to invest as opposed to
    consume. There is a distinction to be drawn in the way this money is
    spent, and investment is better, investment in our children, our future.
    But we still ought not to do it because we need even more deficit
    reduction.''
        And let me say, that is an argument you must treat with respect. We
    have gone from a $1 trillion deficit to a $4 trillion deficit in 12
    years. We have imposed a crushing burden on the present and a bigger one
    on the future. And if you think about it, it's really an income
    transfer. Now that we're spending 15 cents of every dollar you pay the
    Government--most of you are middle class people, and we spend 15 cents
    of every dollar you pay the Government paying interest on the debt.
    Those bonds are largely held by upper income people. So there are now a
    lot of liberals in the Congress who are rethinking their old positions
    on things like the mechanisms by which we move to balance the budget on
    the theory that we're spending all this money having an income transfer
    from middle class taxpayers, lower income taxpayers to people who hold
    the bonds because we didn't have the discipline to run our budgets
    better.
        And if we don't do something about the deficit, we just keep on
    spending like we are, by the end of the decade your annual debt will be
    $653 billion a year. The interest service will be about 22 cents of your
    tax dollar. Twenty cents on the dollar of every dollar in America,
    public and private, will go to health care. So we have to change.
        But my answer to those who say, ``Well, let's just don't invest
    because this deficit is such a big problem,'' is: Number one, we got
    into this mess over 12 years, and we have more than 4 years to get out
    of it. Number two, we are reaping the benefits of the clear and
    disciplined and determined effort that the congressional leadership has
    now agreed to make with me to bring the deficit down. We have interest
    rates at very, very low rates. We have the stock market back up. People
    say, ``Hey, this thing is going to work.'' All of you can now look at
    whether you should refinance your home or your car. Businesses should
    refinance their debt. If we get all this debt refinanced in the next
    year, that will add $80 to $100 billion back in our economy. We are
    reaping the benefits of a disciplined program to reduce the deficit
    today. But if we do not also at the same time recognize that for 12
    years we have ignored our obligations to invest in our jobs, in our
    people, in our education, if we don't do that, we will pay for that
    neglect tomorrow, just like we're paying for yesterday's neglect today.
    We can do both things.
        There's another argument you need to make--and I'm speaking for my
    wife now, as well as for me--which is that if you just cut out all these
    programs that we believe in, if you just cut them plumb out, you'll
    still have an increase in the deficit again, starting in about 5 years,
    because of the explosion in health care costs. The real, ultimate answer
    to the deficit problem is to bring health care cost in line with
    inflation and provide a decent system of health care for all Americans.
        And we can do that. So, with discipline, with a willingness to both
    cut and tax, with a willingness to reduce consumption expenditures and
    increase investment in our future, we can do the things that we have to
    do. But we can't walk away from any of our challenges and expect the
    results America needs.
        If we walk away from the health care challenge, it doesn't matter
    what they do on all these other cuts. You'll be swallowed up in debt in
    5 or 6 years again if we walk away from the health care challenge.
        If we walk away from the challenge to raise some more revenues and
    cut the spending we must, we'll lose control of our economic destiny
    even if we spend more money on the programs you want. You'll be raising
    and educating healthier, more well-educated kids to a weaker economy.
        But if we reduce the deficit and we forget about the fact that in
    the world we live in the only thing that really counts is people--every
    factory can be moved overseas. Three trillion dollars in money crosses
    national lines every day. Everything else is mobile except us. We're
    here. We don't want to move. [Laughter]
        All we've got's each other now in America. That's what we've got.
    And if we ignore that, we don't think those little kids that live in the
    Mississippi Delta, in my home State, many of

    [[Page 277]]

    whom never see a dentist the whole time of their childhood, need a
    better shot in life because of us as well as them; if we don't believe
    that those kids that are sitting out there in the barrios in Los
    Angeles, in the black community, in the Hispanic community, in the
    Asian-American community, waiting for the resolution of the Rodney King
    trial only because it stands for everything else that ever happened to
    them, not because of the trial but because of what it stands for; if we
    don't think that we need to prove that a county like Los Angeles County
    with people from 150 different racial and ethnic groups can live
    together and learn together and grow together and if they play by the
    rules can have the right to earn a decent living, and we don't think
    that affects the rest of us, we haven't learned very much in the last 12
    years.
        And so I ask you to do this: I ask you to go to the Congress and ask
    them to support this program. And go with respect, because I promise you
    most of these people are trying to come to grips with the dilemmas of
    this time. And they have gotten one big message: that is that we made a
    horrible mistake to let the deficit get out of hand like we did in the
    last 12 years. And they deserve respect for getting that message. And
    they now have a President who will take the lead and fade some of the
    heat for the unpopularity of the decisions which have to be made. Go
    with respect for that. Say, ``You had to do that, and we respect that.''
        But remind them that out in the country where you live, bringing
    down the deficit is important if it gives people jobs and raises
    people's incomes and if there are people out there who can seize the
    opportunities of the future. And what you represent is the future. You
    represent the needs of the people who will not be able to perform even
    with a sensible economic policy unless we do better in health care, in
    education, and in dealing with the needs of our poorest children. That
    is what you represent. None of this other stuff will amount to a hill of
    beans unless we put the American people first in all of these decisions.
    That is the message I plead with you to bring to the Congress.
        Thank you, and God bless you all.

    Note: The President spoke at 1:52 p.m. at the Washington Hilton. In his
    remarks, he referred to Marian Wright Edelman, president, Children's
    Defense Fund.