[Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: WILLIAM J. CLINTON (2000, Book II)]
[October 5, 2000]
[Pages 2033-2037]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]
Remarks Following a Meeting With Congressional Leaders and an Exchange
With Reporters
October 5, 2000
``Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Act''
The President. Good morning. I want to thank Senator
Daschle and Congressman Gephardt and the distinguished Members of the House and
Senate who have come here today for a meeting on education. And I want
to direct my remarks toward that and then call on Senator Robb and Representative Berkley to talk. But before I do, I would like to say a few
words about the ``Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Act,'' which
passed the Senate unanimously yesterday.
This bill will help thousands of low-income women with cancer get
the early, affordable treatment which can save their lives. I just spoke
with Speaker Hastert, and he said that he
expected the bill to pass the House immediately, so that help can start
flowing to women for whom it could be a matter of life and death.
I was glad to include this initiative in my budget, and I'll be
proud to sign it into law. It is a good example of how we can work
together for the good of the American people.
Education Legislation
Unfortunately, so far we still don't have that same approach on our
most important priority, education. So far, the majority party has not
joined us in providing the investments necessary to support a strategy
that has been working to improve our schools for 7 years now. We have
pursued this strategy relentlessly, under the leadership of Secretary
Riley, and we have pursued investments
which will support that strategy. Every year we've had to fight for
them, but every year we've been successful in the end in getting enough
bipartisan support to prevail.
Unfortunately, this year education seems to be almost the only thing
on Capitol Hill where they don't want to spend a lot of extra money. As
all of you know, lots of extra money has been added to many
appropriations bills; billions of dollars has been spent on special
projects and other things that cannot possibly be characterized as the
Nation's highest priorities, over and above what were the budget limits
back at the beginning of the year when we didn't know that the budget
would be in as good a shape as it's in.
We have worked over the last several years to restore billions of
dollars in educational funding, and we are prepared to fight for it
again. I'd like to explain why and talk about the latest evidence we
have that our strategy is working.
For 7 years we've had a straightforward approach. We've worked to
increase standards, raise accountability, and make critical investments
in education. We promoted standards in every State, required States to
identify failing schools and make efforts to turn them around. We've
increased Head Start dramatically and begun to provide funding for
after-school and summer school programs. We have worked to connect 95
percent of our schools to the Internet, and we provided more choice
through charter schools. We've hired more teachers and improved teacher
quality. We're gaining ground.
For example, in 1993 only 14 States had real standards and a core
curriculum. Today, 49 States do. In 1993 only 14 percent of our schools
and 3 percent of our classrooms were connected to the Internet. Today,
95 percent of the schools and 65 percent of the classrooms
[[Page 2034]]
are connected. In 1993 there was only one charter school in the entire
country. Today, there are 1,700. In 1993 there was no Federal funding
for after-school and summer school programs. Today, there are 600,000
children in such programs instead of on the streets. In 1993 there were
no nationally certified master teachers. Today, there are almost 5,000,
and by the end of the year, there will be well over 10,000.
All over the country States are turning around troubled schools. And
I might say, this is due in no small measure to the leadership of the
Secretary of Education, who will be talking
later to the press about the report I'm going to discuss. But since
1993, he has reduced, by two-thirds, regulations imposed on States and
local school districts under the previous administrations. And a new GAO
report just came out showing that 99 percent of the funds appropriated
by the Congress for the 10 largest Federal education programs actually
are received by the local school districts for the purpose for which
they were intended.
Math and reading scores are now rising across America. Some of the
greatest gains are in the most disadvantaged schools. The number of
students taking advance placement tests has increased by two-thirds in 8
years, the increase among Latino students, 300 percent; among African-
American students, 500 percent. College exam scores are rising--entrance
exam scores--even though more students from more disadvantaged
backgrounds are taking the tests. The high school dropout rate is down,
the college-going rate at an all-time high.
But no one believes that we have finished the job of renewing
American education, so that all students can get the world-class skills
they need. The students who went back to school this fall are the
biggest, most diverse group in our history. We owe it to them to make
sure they're prepared to succeed in the high-tech information society in
which they will live. That's what we have to do.
For example, we've been working for years to reduce class size,
because study after study from Tennessee to Wisconsin to California has
shown that smaller classes boost test scores and learning, especially
among the most disadvantaged students who need the most personal
attention. Two years ago we launched a class size reduction initiative
to put more teachers in the classroom and train better those that are
already there. It has allowed school districts across our country
already to hire 29,000 new, well-trained teachers.
Today the Council of Great City Schools issued its second annual
report on the results of the class size initiative. Last year alone,
according to the report, 25 of our biggest city school systems used
Federal funds to hire more than 2,700 teachers and to train 25,000 more.
In Philadelphia, the teacher-student ratio in kindergarten and first
grade has been cut to 15 to 1. San Francisco used the funds to get
eighth grade math and language-arts classes down to 20 to 1, from a high
of 33 to 1.
Just as all previous academic studies have shown, urban schools
across the country report that test scores are up in smaller classes.
Student confidence and teacher morale are higher; disciplinary problems
are down. Michael Casserly, who runs the
Council of Great City Schools, is with us today. I want to thank him for
his commitment to our schools, and I want to thank him for this report,
which he just gave me. And as I said, he and Secretary Riley will be discussing it later out in front of the
White House.
I have been fortunate to visit schools like the ones documented in
this report. From small-town Kentucky to inner-city New York, around the
country, what you see clearly, based on the evidence, is an education
revival, not an education recession. The report is more unequivocal
proof that cutting class size and investing in teacher quality does
produce results, whether the schools are urban or rural, large or small.
But every year we have to fight the majority in Congress for funding the
class size initiative. The budget proposed by the Republican leadership
does nothing to meet our goal of hiring 100,000 new teachers to reduce
class size in the early grades.
Our budget would help build or dramatically remodel 6,000 schools
and repair another 5,000 a year for 5 years. Their budget fails to
guarantee investment in building or modernizing classrooms, although our
school construction deficit is now $127 billion. And I do believe that
we have a bipartisan majority in both Houses for this initiative if we
could just get it to a vote.
The budget also shortchanges funding for after-school programs and
for teacher quality. We have a proposal that could allow us to put over
2 million kids in after-school programs. It underfunds our GEAR UP
program, denying as
[[Page 2035]]
many as 600,000 children help in preparing for college. And perhaps
worst of all over the long run, it walks away from our $250 million
commitment not only to identify failing schools but to help them turn
around, or to shut them down and reopen them under new management.
It fails to give middle class families a $10,000 tax deduction for
college or to provide a tax credit to help local school districts build
new schools. And it fails to fund our billion-dollar initiative for
teacher quality.
We get returns on every cent we spend for teacher quality. We should
be using some of it to reduce the number of uncertified teachers in our
classrooms. In the schools with the highest minority enrollment in this
country, students have less than a 50 percent chance of having a math or
a science teacher with a license and degree in the field. There is no
excuse for this. We have the money to address it. We can do better, and
we must.
We have lots of evidence now if you invest more in schools and
teachers, if you demand more of them, you can turn schools around and
change young people's lives for the better.
Now, as I said, this is not a strategy for micromanaging our
schools. We've reduced regulations on them by two-thirds. It is a
strategy for making national priorities out of what educators have told
us and proved time and time again will work to give all our kids a
world-class education.
Everyone here is committed to staying at the negotiating table until
we have an education budget worthy of America's children in the 21st
century. We're going to keep fighting to strengthen accountability, to
hire 100,000 new teachers, to help communities build or modernize
schools, to expand after-school programs and college opportunities, to
put a qualified teacher in every classroom in America. That is our
commitment. We owe it to our children to keep it.
Now I'd like to call on Senator Robb,
who has been a real leader in this effort, to speak.
[At this point, Senator Charles S. Robb and
Representative Shelley Berkley made brief
remarks.]
The President. Let me just say in closing, obviously we wanted
Representative Berkley to speak because
she's been a leader in this whole effort for smaller classes, more
teachers, and modernized schools and because she represents a district
which is exhibit A of the problem. But it is a national problem.
We wanted Senator Robb to speak because
he has been a leader in the school construction and class size
initiative but also because he's a former Governor who, while he served,
clearly had one of the finest records in America in education. And I say
that because one of the things that we keep being told by the leadership
is that somehow we're, again I'll say, ``trying to tell the States what
to do.'' We have three people here who were Governors for a total of 20
years, and we know we have not designed programs to micromanage
education. What we have done is listened to educators, looked at the
results, and we understand there's a national priority here.
Look, when I became President, Federal spending as a portion of all
the education spending had dropped below 6 percent. When President
Johnson was here, it was 9 percent. And we, first of all, had to turn it
around when we got the budget under control. We've got the budget under
control; we've got it back up to 7 percent. It's still just 7 cents on
the dollar.
We have got to spend this money where it will have the biggest
impact on learning for children. That's what this is about. And so I
just wanted to make that clear. I thank them for what they've said, and
I thank all the others who have taken the trouble to come here today and
stand here, because we feel very, very strongly about this.
Now, I've said before, I'm a little concerned about some of the
money that is being spent in these appropriations bills, but I've always
been willing to work with Congress. I know there are always some special
projects, but surely to goodness, if we're going to have however many
billion dollars there are in special projects that don't reflect
national priorities, we could come up with the modest amount more
necessary to fund a truly aggressive education budget that would get the
job done.
Thank you.
Situation in Yugoslavia
Q. Mr. President, the situation in Belgrade appears very critical.
Citizens have stormed the Parliament building. What message today, sir,
do you have both to those folks who have stormed the Parliament and to
President Milosevic himself?
[[Page 2036]]
The President. The United States stands with people everywhere who
are fighting for their freedom. We believe in democracy. I have said
before, the opposition candidate who, according to all unbiased reports,
clearly won the election, obviously also has strong differences with us.
This is not a question of whether he agrees with us. All we want for the
Serbian people is what we want for people everywhere, the right to
freely choose their own leaders.
And it's been a hardcore dictatorship. They had an election. The
election results were then, apparently, altered and then--now the court
has made this decision. I think the people are trying to get their
country back. And we support--we support democracy and the will of the
Serbian people.
Q. Sir, will the U.S. in any way intervene if force is used against
the citizens in Belgrade or other parts of Serbia?
The President. I don't believe it's an appropriate case for military
intervention, and I don't believe that the United States should say or
do anything which would only strengthen Mr. Milosevic's hand. The people of Serbia have made their opinion
clear. They did it when they voted peacefully and quietly, and now
they're doing it in the streets because people tried to--there's been an
attempt to rob them of their vote.
And I think if the world community will just stand with--stand for
freedom, stand for democracy, stand for the will of the people, I think
that will prevail. It did all over Eastern Europe. We've had a peaceful
transition, democratic transition, with an election in Russia. The world
is moving toward freedom and democracy, and the United States should
support those forces, and we will do so strongly.
Yes.
Middle East Peace Process
Q. Mr. President, the latest crisis in the Middle East comes at a
politically sensitive time in Israel and, actually, for this country, as
well. Do you still hold out hope that before you leave office a
comprehensive peace agreement can be reached, or is there a point where
you just say it has to wait for the next President, the next Congress,
and the next Israeli leader?
The President. Well, first of all, the timetable has to be dictated
by the leaders in the Middle East. But the answer to your question is,
we know what the issues are; we know what the differences are. And what
my obligation will be, and what the next President's obligation will be,
is to do whatever we can to either help make the peace agreement or make
sure it takes hold.
But our timing should be completely irrelevant to this. I should be
available around the clock, every day, as long as I'm here, and we
should try to do it as soon as we can because it will keep more people
alive and give a much brighter future to the people in the Middle East.
So our timing here should be completely irrelevant to that. But let's
get back to basics here. The first thing we've got to do is to stop this
violence and to get beyond it.
Now, yesterday Prime Minister Arafat--I mean, Chairman
Arafat and Prime Minister Barak--excuse me--and Secretary Albright had what I think was a very productive meeting.
They made clear commitments which they communicated from Paris to their
people to take steps to shut this violence down. They're trying to work
out a process, in which we've offered to be involved, that would
evaluate what happened and why, and what went wrong.
But the most important thing is to stop people dying and then to get
back to the negotiating table. So the commitments that were made
yesterday and communicated by the leaders back to the Middle East now
have to be implemented on the ground. That's the most important thing.
There will be ample time for reassessments. There will be ample time for
evaluation. But the most important thing is to stop the killing and the
dying and the violence.
Now, the next most important thing is to get on with the peace
process. That's, by far, the next most important thing, because it's
obvious that on both sides, there's still underlying anxiety and fear
and misunderstanding. And we've just got to get beyond all this. We've
come too far in the last 7 years, 7\1/2\ years now, to turn back. We've
just come too far. We've got to stay after this.
Oil Supply
Q. Mr. President, the United States has taken steps to increase the
oil supply. Do you feel the United States Government can still do more?
Is there anything else your Government can do in the United States or
abroad to increase the oil supply?
The President. Well, I'm going to watch it every day. We've been
fortunate that the price has dropped several dollars a barrel, after the
[[Page 2037]]
last step we made. But there are still significant questions about how
soon the product will be--can go to the refinery and whether we not only
can get fuel but fuel oil out of the refinery and into the supply chain
in time to make sure there's no adverse price impact for the winter. I
do think we're going to have enough supplies to get through the winter.
And I'm just going to watch it every day and do what seems indicated.
I would just say this, since you raised that question--and then I
have to let these Members of Congress go, and Mr. Casserly and Secretary Riley
will go out and talk more about the education report--but what I would
hope is that what we're going through here would prompt the majority in
Congress to work with us on some longer term strategies on which we
ought to be able to agree.
We are very close to the development of very high mileage vehicles
with fuel cells, alternative fuels, blended fuels. We are within sight
of cracking the chemical mystery of the conversion of biomass to fuels
at a ratio that would make it--change the whole future of this issue.
Right now it takes 7 gallons of gasoline to make 8 gallons of ethanol or
any other biomass fuel, but the chemists believe they can get the
conversion down to one gallon of gasoline for 8 gallons of fuel. When
that happens, then all of you will drive to work every day with the
equivalent of 500 miles a gallon. And this will be a very different
world. We will be living in a different world when that happens.
And we ought to be investing money in that. There are technologies
available today off the shelf that pay out in 2 years or less that would
permit us to dramatically reduce energy consumption in homes, offices,
and factories all over America. We ought to give people a tax break to
buy them, and we ought to do it now. We ought to create a market that
will move quickly to a very different energy future that will actually
grow the economy faster.
So you know where--we differ over--and there are some production
incentives we could adopt now that we agree on. The most significant
difference we have I think is over whether there should be drilling in
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. And that's an issue that's being
debated in the election; the American people can draw their own
conclusions. I think we're right. They think they're right. They can
hear the debate. But that should not be an excuse to walk away from the
long-term elements of an energy strategy that I've been trying to pass
for more than 2 years, that we can do today at very modest cost and
enormous return.
Thank you very much.
Note: The President spoke at 11:27 a.m. in the Rose Garden at the White
House. In his remarks, he referred to Michael D. Casserly, executive
director, Council of Great City Schools; President Slobodan Milosevic of
the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro); Chairman
Yasser Arafat of the Palestinian Authority; and Prime Minister Ehud
Barak of Israel.