[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.