    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1995, Book II)]
    [July 13, 1995]
    [Pages 1088-1091]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Remarks on Welfare Reform and an Exchange With Reporters
    July 13, 1995

        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
    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
    Governors' 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

    [[Page 1089]]

    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.

    Bosnia

        Q. 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.
        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.

    Cigarette Smoking

        Q. 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

    [[Page 1090]]

    the FDA's concern is, and that 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 their
    recommendation is.

    Base Closings

        Q. 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 9 more on, 3 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 2 big Air Force depots, they take an across-
    the-board cut in all 5 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 River 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 account. 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 3 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
    3 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----
        Q. Why do you think they did that?
        Q. Have you accepted their recommendations?
        Q. What is the reason that they did that?

    [[Page 1091]]

        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.
        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 or 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 gain--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.
        Thank you.

    Note: The President spoke at 10:08 a.m. in the Rose Garden at the White
    House. In his remarks, he referred to Gov. Tom Carper of Delaware and
    Mayor Dennis Archer of Detroit, MI.