    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1995, Book I)]
    [March 16, 1995]
    [Pages 362-367]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Remarks to the National Conference of State Legislatures
    March 16, 1995

        Thank you, Jane Campbell, and thank you, Senator Lack, and thank you
    to the other leaders of the NCSL for meeting me outside. And welcome,
    all of you, to Washington. I know you just heard from Secretary Reich.
    He actually--he hasn't been here? [Laughter] That gives me something
    else to make fun of my staff about. That's what it says. Let me try--
    what else does it say? Maybe I should put my glasses on, and it will
    come out differently. [Laughter]
        Let me say, I am delighted to see all of you. I'm about as happy to
    see you as you acted like you were to see me. [Laughter] I loved the
    legislative process when I was Governor,

    [[Page 363]]

    and in Arkansas we had an interesting system. We were all there in our
    old State capitol, and the legislature was on the third floor, and I was
    on the second floor. And when the legislature was in session I just sort
    of kept open house. If a legislator showed up, I saw him or her. And
    we'd have morning planning meetings at 7:30 a.m. every morning, and half
    the time legislators just wandered in and sat at the administration's
    planning meeting. And I must say, I often think in the course of working
    here both for the last 2 years and for the last 2 months, if we wouldn't
    be better off as a country if we worked more like that up here.
    [Applause] Yes, you can clap for that. That's all right. That's a pretty
    good idea.
        I've even met half a dozen of my State legislators since I've been
    gone from Arkansas who said they missed me, which is something I never
    thought I'd hear. [Laughter] Warmed my heart.
        We have a lot of former legislators in this administration, as I'm
    sure you know. I see the Deputy Secretary of Education out there,
    Madeleine Kunin, also the former Governor of Vermont. And Arthur
    DeCoursey of SBA was a State legislator in Massachusetts; Patrick
    McGowan with the SBA was a State legislator in Maine; Thomas Redder with
    the SBA was a State legislator in Colorado--all the other employees for
    the SBA were actually in small business at one time or another.
    [Laughter] Of course, Secretary Pena was as well, and Gary Blumenthal,
    the Executive Director of the President's Committee on Mental
    Retardation. So we're interested in what you're going through and in
    working with you.
        I have said many places, but I'd like to have the privilege of
    repeating it here today, that I ran for this job because I felt the
    mission of this country at the end of the 20th century was to get us
    into the next century with the American dream alive and well and with
    America still the strongest country in the world, the greatest force for
    peace and freedom and democracy. Alive and well means that we have to
    have opportunities for more jobs and higher incomes. Half the American
    people are living on less money today when you adjust for inflation than
    they were making 15 years ago. That's one of the reasons a lot of people
    aren't happy in the recovery. We've got 6.1 million new jobs and the
    lowest combined rates of unemployment and inflation in 25 years, but a
    lot of folks' incomes are not going up. And they feel uncertain,
    insecure.
        I get letters all the time from people I grew up with in Arkansas
    who are nearing that magic age of 50 talking about the uncertainty they
    feel about their future, their children. Are they going to be able to
    educate their children? Are they going to be caught up in some great
    downsizing move, kind of the other side of this great churning change
    and all this opportunity that's out there?
        The other part of the American dream is keeping our values alive,
    work, family, community, values you might put under the general heading
    of responsibility, so that we can pull back together. So I think we
    ought to offer more opportunity and more responsibility. I also think to
    do it here in Washington, we have to have a dramatic change in the way
    Government has worked. And I have been working hard at that for the last
    2 years.
        The old view was that there was kind of a one-size-fits-all--drove
    you nuts in the statehouses of the country, I'm sure--that there was a
    one, single big Government solution for every big problem in America.
    And half the time we told you what to do and didn't give you the money
    to do it with.
        The other view that seems to have a lot of energy around here is
    that, basically, maybe there's nothing for the Federal Government to do
    except to give the problem to you and give you less money to deal with
    it, and the idea is that since Government would mess up a one-car
    parade, we just ought to walk away from all these problems.
        My view is different from that, and I guess it's forged largely on
    my 12 years of experience as a Governor and the fact that before I got
    this job I actually used to be able to spend large amounts of time
    talking to real people every day. I don't mean that the people I talk to
    aren't real people; I mean that mostly the people I talk to have
    business before the Government or work for the President or in some
    event that I've set up. I don't get to walk the streets the way I used
    to and just visit with people in a more informal setting.
        My view is that what we need is a Government that is very different,
    that has less bureaucracy, that is lean but not mean, that operates in a
    more entrepreneurial fashion, that gives more decision to the State and
    local governments and to the private sector, but that is an

    [[Page 364]]

    active partner in doing three things: promoting economic opportunities
    through jobs and incomes, empowering people through education and
    training to make the most of their own lives, and enhancing the security
    of our people, both in terms of safe streets and our security around the
    world.
        And that's what I have worked to do so that if you believe that, it
    means that you have to have a smaller Government that is still
    effective, that does what it's supposed to do well and stops doing
    things that it shouldn't do, and that works more in partnership with
    you. Since I have been President, we have now given 26 States waivers
    from Federal rules to enact their own welfare reform proposals and 9
    States waivers to do major, major health care reform, more States that
    the previous two administrations combined.
        We've also done a lot to try to deregulate certain aspects of the
    private economy from undue Federal oversight. And we did a lot more
    about that today, and I'll say more about that in a minute. We have
    reduced the size of the Federal payroll by more than 100,000. We've
    reduced the size of the Federal deficit by $600 billion. We're on our
    way to the smallest Government in Washington since Kennedy was President
    and 3 years of deficit reduction in a row for the first time since
    Truman was President. We are changing the way things operate around
    here.
        Now that the new Congress is here, we're having a huge debate about
    what the role of Government ought to be. And it can be a very healthy
    thing indeed. I must tell you, as all of you know, I have real
    differences as well as real agreements with this Congress. I have
    vigorous agreements and vigorous disagreements. I strongly agreed with
    the bill that applies to Congress the laws Congress imposes on the
    private sector. I thought it was long overdue and was elated to sign it.
    I campaigned on it in '92.
        We're about to get a bill out of the conference and to my desk which
    will end unfunded mandates that are unreasonable and sharply reduce the
    ability of Congress to impose on you and on local governments
    requirements which we don't give you the money to pay for. And I think
    that is a very good thing indeed.
        But I do not agree with the proposals that undermine our fundamental
    mission, more economic opportunity, empowering people through education
    and training, and increasing our security. Therefore, I don't agree with
    the proposal that would eliminate the 100,000 police commitment and the
    crime bill that we worked for 6 years for or cut school lunches or cut
    our education programs, the Goals 2000 program for 4,000 schools in
    America or the proposal for safe and drug-free schools.
        Some of these proposals are embodied in the so-called rescission
    bill which was adopted by the House today. Some of them are embodied in
    their general budget. What they have in common is, in my view, is they
    cut too much of people and not enough pork.
        The proposal passed today would virtually eliminate the AmeriCorps
    program, our national service program, which is not a bureaucracy, which
    many of you have worked with which, as you know, is helping police on
    the street, helping people to build houses, helping to fight fires in
    the West, doing work that wouldn't be done otherwise, and letting young
    people earn money to pay for their education. It is a great grassroots
    program. It should not be eliminated.
        So as we move into the future and as these bills go to the Senate,
    we're going to have an interesting debate here. And a lot of it will
    affect you. I wondered when the unfunded mandate bill passed why it
    wasn't made immediately effective, because I'm strong for it. I'm for
    the line-item veto, too, and I hope we get that up here pretty soon.
    There's a lot of things Republicans want to do that I am strongly in
    favor of. But I said to myself, why aren't we making an unfunded
    mandates bill immediately effective? And I read that rescission bill,
    and I realized you're going to get some ``defunded'' mandates. If you
    look at some of those cuts to the States, the responsibilities are still
    on you, but the money is being taken back.
        So I say to you, what kind of Government do we want? We knew we had
    to cut some money out of the Agriculture Department, just for example.
    You know, the Agriculture Department got real big. And the best line
    that came out of the 1992 Presidential campaign, I'm embarrassed to
    say--I wish it were mine, but it wasn't--was Ross Perot's line about the
    Agriculture Department employee that had to go see a psychiatrist
    because he lost his farmer. You remember that? I thought it was funnier
    than you did, apparently. [Laughter]
        But anyway--so, we knew that we had to cut some money. What did we
    do? We closed

    [[Page 365]]

    1,200 offices. What did they do? They propose cuts in the School Lunch
    Program. They say, ``Well, they're not really cuts in the School Lunch
    Program.'' Well, yes, they are. If this proposal had been law in 1989,
    this year there would be one million fewer kids getting lunch at school.
    And a lot of these kids show up at school, and they don't have enough to
    eat at home. The meals they get at school is the only dad-gum good meal
    they get all day. There are children going to school in this country
    that never see a dentist until they are 16, 17, 18 years old. We want
    them to learn, and you know, everybody rails about the schools; I'm
    telling you, it's hard for a teacher to teach a poor kid who's hungry.
        So I think there's a right way to do this and wrong way to do it.
    And it doesn't have to be a partisan deal. I told you, I'm for a lot of
    what they're trying to do. We do need to change the way we do business
    here. But we need to have the ability to bring common sense to bear in
    judgment, and we need to put our children and our educational system and
    our future first. We need to keep our eye on what is the mission, the
    mission to get the country into the 21st century still the strongest
    country in the world in a place where there's real opportunity.
        Today we had a meeting about regulation. We've got a lot of
    regulatory legislation here, freeze all pending regulations for 6 months
    or a year or whatever and a lot of other things. Well, what I've been
    trying to do is not freeze it, I've been trying to fix it. Today we
    announced the following things in the regulatory area, something that I
    think is very, very important, that should be popular in every State
    here: We announced some dramatic changes for small business, in the
    environment, and in the area of drugs and medical technology.
        We announced first of all, that small businesses who try to do the
    right thing but make a mistake will be given the opportunity not to pay
    their fine to the Government but to take the money in the fine they
    would have paid to the Government and fix the problem in the first
    place, and that small businesses who make a mistake for the first time
    can have their fines waived altogether if they have never had a record
    of bad behavior and who are obviously trying to do the right thing.
        We announced today that all Government agencies, when it is
    consistent with the public interest--that is, public health and well-
    being--will cut in half the reporting requirements for small businesses.
    So whenever possible, if they have to report four times a year, now they
    can report twice a year. If they have to report twice a year, now they
    can report once a year. And we think it will make a big difference, and
    so does the Small Business Administration. We are trying to change
    things.
        In the area of the environment we announced today that we would
    allow small businesses a grace period of 6 months to correct violations
    after they've been identified. We found out that a lot of people
    wouldn't call the Government and find out what the law is, because they
    were afraid that somebody would come see them and fine them. So we had a
    lot of people who were out of compliance because they were literally
    afraid to ask how to get in compliance.
        We're going to cut environmental paperwork by 25 percent, which will
    save--get this--20 million hours of work per year for the American
    people. We are going to launch a pilot program with 50 businesses which
    will allow companies to reach a pollution reduction goal however they
    want. And if they can reach it, they can throw out the EPA rule book.
    Doesn't matter how they reach it, as long as they reach the production
    goals.
        Same thing we tried to do for the schools, by the way, in the
    elementary and secondary education act, to give you more flexibility--
    here are the national goals, you figure out how to meet them--in the
    schools, the principals, the teachers. It's a very important policy
    change.
        In the area of drugs and biotechnology, we have decided to stop
    doing a full-blown and very expensive review every time a biotech
    company makes a minor and insignificant change in one of its products.
    We're going to stop requiring very costly assessments on drugs that
    obviously don't have any impact on the environment. We're going to
    eliminate 600 pages of regulation. I'll bet you nobody will ever miss
    them, and it will save this industry, one of our most productive
    industries, $500 billion a year.
        So this is the sort of thing we're trying to do. It will make a huge
    difference in the life of this country. But better to fix the problem
    than just to freeze it in place. Better to do something real than to do
    something that sounds good, that maybe causes more harm than good. We
    all want to have water we can drink and air we can breathe and food we
    can eat and

    [[Page 366]]

    a place to work we can feel safe and secure in. We can do this.
        Now you have to decide, without regard to your party or your region
    what you believe our role is, too. To make a judgment about this debate
    that's unfolding here, you have to make up your own mind.
        You know, I spent, when I was a Governor, I bet I spent more time
    cussing the Federal Government than most of you do. And since I've been
    President, I bet I've spent even more time doing it. [Laughter] But the
    fact is that this country has benefited by 25 years of effort to clean
    the environment up. This country has benefited by our common efforts to
    make people secure at work, to make toys safe for our children. This
    country has benefited from these efforts, but we have forgotten common
    sense in a lot of the way we do things. So the trick is to put common
    sense back into this and reestablish a partnership that makes sense
    between the National Government, those of you at the State level, people
    at the local level, and most importantly, private citizens, so that what
    we do makes sense, it achieves common goals, and doesn't waste taxpayer
    money.
        That is going to be the great debate here. And to make the
    judgments, you have to move beyond the rhetoric to the reality of each
    issue here. Everybody is for cutting Government, but I think there's a
    real difference between closing 1,200 offices and cutting back on food
    stamps. I think there's a real difference between closing the regional
    offices at HUD and cutting back on a program for homeless veterans at
    the Department of Labor. I think there's a difference. I think it
    matters.
        I don't think all Federal Government spending is the same. I think
    with drug use on the rise and among young people again, for reasons that
    are almost impossible to understand--young people thinking that it's no
    longer really dangerous to fool with drugs again, not to mention
    illegal--to cut out all of these programs that would give 94 percent of
    the schools in this country an opportunity to make their schools safer
    and more drug-free, whether it's metal detectors and police officers or
    more folks in there teaching prevention, is not common sense.
        So I believe if we'll work together, check our rhetorical baggage,
    and try to get this country into the 21st century remembering our
    mission, we can cut a good deal more spending without cutting our kids
    and our future. We can absolutely dramatically reduce the unfair burden
    of regulation without undermining the quality of our environment or the
    safety of our lives.
        In short, we can do what Americans have always done. We have always
    been philosophically conservative, pragmatic, operationally progressive
    people who got the job done and moved the country into the future.
    That's how we have performed. That's why we're still around after over
    200 years. That is the genius of our constitutional system. That's how
    you pass a budget in your legislature every year.
        So, since you're up here in a leadership conference, I would urge
    you without regard to your party or your region, to urge this course on
    the Congress. Urge this course on the Congress. You know, I don't need
    any lectures in the need to cut spending. We reduced the deficit $600
    billion without a lot of help 2 years ago, and we're going to do it some
    more. But we cannot walk away from our responsibilities to our children
    and to our future. We have got to stop a lot of this crazy regulation,
    but we have got to do it in a way that leaves us not only more
    prosperous in the short run but leaves us with a safer and more secure
    environment and a healthier citizenry over the long run.
        We can do this. We don't have to make a bunch of bogus choices. But
    we've got to act more like most people do at the State level and at the
    local level. We've got to be committed to solving problems, putting
    people first, checking the ideological baggage at the door. I hope
    you'll help us do that. If you do, we'll help you make America a better
    place.
        Thank you, and God bless you all.

    Note: The President spoke at 2:20 p.m. at the Hyatt Regency Hotel. In
    his remarks, he referred to Jane Campbell, president, National
    Conference of State Legislatures, and James Lack, New York State
    senator.

    [[Page 367]]