[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 33, Number 43 (Monday, October 27, 1997)]
[Pages 1634-1641]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Remarks During the Morning Session of the White House Conference on 
Child Care

October 23, 1997

[The First Lady welcomed the conference participants, and a videotape 
was shown.]

    The President. Thank you very much. Welcome to the White House. 
Thank you very much, Kathy Carliner, for your remarkable statement. And 
I thought you were very good in the film. Rob Reiner wants to give you a 
screen test. [Laughter]
    I am so happy to see all of you here. There are many people here who 
might well be introduced, but I think I must start with the

[[Page 1635]]

people who are terribly important to whether we will be able to fully 
achieve our part of the great agenda we are going to lay out today, the 
Members of Congress who are here. And I'd like to call their names and 
then, when I finish, ask them all to stand.
    Senator Herb Kohl, who sponsored legislation on child care; Senator 
Jack Reed; Congressman Bill Clay; Congressman Sandy Levin; Congresswoman 
Rosa DeLauro; Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey; Congresswoman Sue Kelly; 
Congresswoman Maxine Waters; Congressman Xavier Becerra; and Congressman 
Nick Lampson. Would the Members of Congress who are here please stand? 
Thank you for coming.
    I'd also like to thank my longtime friend--Hillary and I have been 
friends of Governor Jim Hunt and his wife, Carolyn, who are here, for 
almost 20 years now. And I think Governor Romer is here or on his way. 
Mayor Cleaver, we're glad to see you. And John Sweeney, the head of the 
AFL-CIO, and others who have come to be with us today, I thank you very 
much.
    This is a happy day at the White House, first, for all the people in 
the administration and all those who have worked with them for months 
and months and months to help this day come to pass. And second, and 
even more important from my point of view, this is a happy day because I 
have been listening to the First Lady talk about this for more than 25 
years now--[laughter]--and it may be that I will finally be able to 
participate in at least a small fraction of what I have been told for a 
long time I should be doing. And I say that in good humor but also with 
great seriousness.
    This is an anniversary of sorts for me. It was 6 years ago today, as 
a newly announced candidate for President, that I went back to my alma 
mater at Georgetown and began a series of three speeches outlining what 
I thought America ought to look like in the 21st century and what I 
thought we would have to do to create a country in which everyone had an 
opportunity, everyone was expected to be a responsible citizen, and 
where we came together, across all the lines that divide us, into one 
community.
    There are many things that are necessary for that to be done, but 
clearly two of them are, first, people in this country have to be able 
to succeed at work and at home in raising their children. And if we put 
people in the position of essentially having to choose one over the 
other, our country is going to be profoundly weakened. Obviously, if 
people are worried sick about their children and they fail at work, it's 
not just individual firms, it's the economic fabric and strength of the 
country that is weakened. Far more important, if people fail at home, 
they have failed in our most important job and our most solemn 
responsibility.
    Second, we'll never be the kind of country we ought to be unless we 
believe that every child counts and that every child ought to have a 
chance to make the most of his or her God-given abilities.
    That's why we're here today, to examine where we are and what we 
still have to do. And what we still have to do is quite a lot, to make 
sure we live by what we believe when we say that all parents should be 
able to succeed at home and at work and that every child counts. No 
parent should ever had to choose between work and family, between 
earning a decent wage and caring for a child. Especially in this day and 
age when most parents work, nothing is more important, as you have just 
heard Kathy Carliner say, than finding child care that is affordable, 
accessible, and safe. It is America's next great frontier in 
strengthening our families and our future.
    As the Catholic Conference has noted, no government can love a child 
and no policy can substitute for a family's care. But there is much that 
we can do to help parents do their duty to their children. From my days 
as Governor of Arkansas to my service as President, strengthening 
families has been a central goal of what I have worked on. I'm very 
proud that the first bill I had the opportunity to sign into law as 
President was the Family and Medical Leave Act, so that no parent has to 
choose between caring for a child or keeping a job when a family member 
is ill.
    The expanded earned-income tax credit helps to ensure that parents 
who work don't have to raise their children in poverty. No one who is 
out there working full-time with children should have to worry about 
that. Ex- 

[[Page 1636]]

panded Head Start programs are serving more families than ever before. 
We've collected record sums of child support enforcement. The historic 
balanced budget I signed this summer provides a $500-per-child tax 
credit and helps parents to pay for their children's college education 
through IRA's, expanded loans and Pell grants, the HOPE scholarship, and 
other tax credits.
    The Congress has before it now a program of Secretary Riley's called 
21st Century Community Schools, in which we ask for funds to help our 
States keep our schools open after classroom hours for children who have 
no place else to go and need that environment.
    We've also made some progress on child care. Since 1993, child care 
assistance has increased by 70 percent to help families pay for nearly a 
million children. Last year in the welfare reform debate, we fought and 
won the battle to expand child care assistance by $4 billion over the 
next 6 years, giving States an unprecedented opportunity to lead, to 
innovate in efforts to make child care more affordable.
    But we have to do more. With more families required to rely on two 
incomes to make ends meet, with more single-parent families then ever, 
more young children are left in the care of others even in their 
earliest years. And as the First Lady said, we learned at our Conference 
on Early Childhood and the Brain, that's when children develop or fail 
to develop capacities that will shape the entire rest of their lives. 
It's also true that more and more schoolchildren are returning to empty 
homes after school.
    The first thing we have to do is to make it possible for parents to 
spend time with their children whenever possible. That's why I hope the 
Congress will vote to expand the family and medical leave law so that 
parents at least can take some time off for their children's medical 
appointments, teacher conferences, and other basic duties. And I support 
flex-time laws that will allow workers to choose between receiving 
overtime in pay or in time off with their families.
    But during those times when children can't be with their parents, 
they must get care that keeps them safe and that helps them to learn and 
grow. As we all know, too often that isn't the case. Too often child 
care is unaffordable, inaccessible, and sometimes even unsafe. The cost, 
as Hillary said, strains millions of family budgets. And government 
assistance meets just about a quarter of the need. Even for those who 
can afford it, sometimes good care is hard to find, as Kathy said in her 
remarks. Waiting lists sometimes takes months or years to move, forcing 
many parents to cobble together unstable arrangements.
    The shortage of care puts older children at risk, as well. Five 
million of them between the ages of 5 and 14 are left to fend for 
themselves after school. And as they get older, that increases the 
chances that they'll be exposed to drugs, tobacco, and crime.
    Finally, studies have shown that too many child care facilities are 
literally unsafe. The tragedies that have befallen families who depended 
on child care continue to make headlines all across our nation. This 
conference is an important step forward in addressing all these issues. 
What we learn today should spur us on to find ways to help parents, all 
parents, afford safe, affordable, high quality child care, whether it's 
at home, a child care center, or a neighbor's house.
    In the coming months, our administration will develop a plan, to be 
unveiled at the next State of the Union, to improve access and 
affordability and to help to assure the safety of child care in America. 
In the meantime, I want to announce four specific things we can do right 
now.
    First, I'm asking Congress to establish a new scholarship fund for 
child care providers. Too many caregivers don't have the training they 
need to provide the best possible care. Those who do have training are 
rarely compensated with higher wages. The scholarship program I propose 
will help students earn their degrees as long as they remain in the 
child care field for at least a year, and it will ensure that caregivers 
who complete their training will receive a bonus or a raise.
    Second, we have to weed out the people who have no business taking 
care of our children in the first place. I am transmitting to Congress 
the ``National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact,'' which will make 
background checks on child care providers easier and more effective by 
eliminating

[[Page 1637]]

State barriers to sharing criminal histories for this specific purpose. 
I urge Congress to pass and States to ratify this legislation.
    Third, I've asked Secretary Rubin to oversee a working group on 
child care, composed primarily of business leaders working with labor 
and community representatives, to find ways more businesses can provide 
child care or help their employees afford high quality child care. And 
again, I thank John Sweeney for his important support of this 
initiative. In some ways, the most gripping part of that film we saw was 
the father talking about how he was just consumed with worry at work. No 
parent should ever have to go through that.
    Finally, we must use community service to strengthen and expand 
access to after-school programs. Today, the Corporation for National 
Service through its To Learn and Grow Initiative will pledge to help 
after-school programs all across our country to use volunteers to 
provide better care to children. It is releasing a how-to manual for 
groups who want to incorporate community service into after-school 
programs. And I think that, Secretary Riley, if we can win in our little 
budget battle here on the 21st Century Community Schools, then together, 
we can do some real good out there on this issue.
    My friends, for centuries--over two now--the American dream has 
represented a compact that those who work hard and play by the rules 
should be able to build better lives for themselves and for their 
children. In this time and even more into the future, child care that is 
too expensive, unsafe, or unavailable will be a very stubborn obstacle 
to realizing that dream. So let us commit ourselves to clearing the 
obstacle, to helping parents fulfill their most sacred duty, to keeping 
the American dream alive for them and, most important, for their 
children.
    Thank you very much.

[At this point, the First Lady opened the panel discussion. Ellen 
Galinsky, president and cofounder, Families and Work Institute, 
discussed the need to provide better quality child care as a choice for 
parents.]

    The President. I'd like to ask one question. First of all, I can't 
help saying this--when I heard you say that warm and responsive child 
care actually triggered a biochemical reaction that reduced stress--I 
wish we could have a center like that for the White House staff and the 
Congress staff. [Laughter] We may actually come up with a revolutionary 
new proposal here today. [Laughter]
    Let me ask you a serious question. One of the things that I 
constantly try to deal with here, that I'm supersensitive to because I 
was a Governor for 12 years before I came here, is trying to determine 
who should do what--what we can do and make a difference, what we have 
to basically either exhort or incentivize or require some other people 
to do.
    I was quite taken by the comment you made that only 36 hours of 
training of a child care worker can make a huge difference. I can't help 
thinking there probably are a lot of young, often single parents that 
might benefit from the same 36 hours of training. And I'm wondering how 
you think that issue ought to be dealt with. Should States basically 
upgrade their training standards and put funds into it? Should there be 
training centers established, more than are there now--even if everybody 
were required to do it, are there enough places that do the training in 
all States?
    Talk a little bit about how we might set up an infrastructure and 
pattern of training to give--let's suppose we said within 2 years we 
wanted every child care provider, even people who do it out of their 
homes, wherever, to get the 36 hours of training, and we'd like it to be 
open, let's say, to low-income parents who are having their first 
child--how would we do such a thing?

[Ms. Galinsky discussed available resources and the level of interest in 
training.]

    The President. But what percentage of the people who are now 
providing child care get that kind of training? That's the question I'm 
trying to get.

[Ms. Galinsky responded that in a recent study, few caregivers actually 
completed required training. The First Lady agreed that the child care 
licensing system compared poorly to that for other professions. The 
discussion then continued concerning care before and after school 
hours.]

[[Page 1638]]

    The President. Thank you. I would just like to make a couple of 
observations. I thought what you said was terrific. First of all, 
until--the crime rate in America has been going down for 5 years now, 
rather steeply, but it's been going up among people under 18. It may 
have leveled off, may be dropping a little bit now; we're hopeful. But 
if it is, it's because more and more communities are doing what you 
suggested. We need another--at least another year to see whether it's 
changed.
    You are very familiar with what's been done in Boston, and one of 
the things that's been done is the whole sort of juvenile justice system 
has been geared to be warm and responsive. Juvenile probation officers 
make house calls with police officers, and community groups walk the 
streets in the afternoon to, basically, almost pick the kids up and give 
them things to do and get them involved with things. And as far as I 
know, it's the only major city in America where nobody under 18 has been 
killed by a gun in 2 years now. But it's not rocket science. It's a 
systematic attempt to take personal responsibility for all these 
children after school. And I can tell you, if you see the flip side of 
it in these juvenile crime rates, it's really touching and quite moving.
    The other thing I wanted to say is, I wondered if you had any sense, 
just as a practical matter, of whether these programs tend to work 
better if they are school-based. And the reason I ask that is, I think 
that we fight these battles around here all the time of how to spend the 
school money--and most money for schools comes from the State and local 
level anyway. But I think one of the biggest problems that these schools 
have on the issue you've talked about is that in school after school 
after school after school, financial problems have caused them to cut 
back on their art programs, cut back on their music programs, cut back 
on their nonvarsity athletic programs. The things that children used to 
typically do after school or could stay after school and do, these 
school districts, as they're now budgeting and as they're now staffed 
and under the rules under which they now labor, they cannot--more and 
more schools are dropping these programs. And I think it's disastrous, 
because a lot of it is just exactly how children relate in a kind of a 
nonlinear, just purely intellectual way that both of you have said is so 
important. And I was wondering if you've seen that and if you think 
that's contributing to the problem.
    I mean, a lot of people, without any programs, used to just stay 
after school because there was an art project, there was a music 
project, you were getting ready for a concert, the intramural teams were 
playing. And this is--you know, there are huge school districts in this 
country where all of these things are a thing of the past. People look 
at you like you've lost your mind when you talk about this now; they 
haven't had these things in years.
    And it may be that one of the things we ought to be exploring is 
whether we can reinstitute some of these things in the lives of our 
schools that would naturally lead to an out-of-school atmosphere so they 
wouldn't think about adopting a new program approach. Anyway, I just 
kind of wanted to ask you that: Are the schools the best place if they 
work, or does it not matter, if you do it right?

[Michelle Seligson, founder and director, National Institute on Out-of-
School Time, responded that it was a community-by-community decision and 
then described the components of good after-school programs. The 
discussion then continued.]

    The President. I have to excuse Secretary Rubin in a moment to 
return to his duties, but I wanted to make one point and ask one 
question. The point I want to make is, he tries real hard to put on that 
sort of cold shtick, you know, that this is just economics, but----
    Secretary of the Treasury Robert Rubin. ``Shtick'' is an Arkansas 
term. [Laughter]
    The President. I learned that from him, that word, you know. 
[Laughter] But I'm sure you could see there was more there.
    It occurred to me, listening to you talk about this, that this child 
care issue is an example of what makes our work both wonderful and 
maddening. How many times have Secretary Riley and I said that every 
problem in American education has been solved by

[[Page 1639]]

somebody in some school somewhere, so why don't we get uniform 
excellence?
    I just had the most difficult policy development process I have been 
through, I think, since I've been President, that Secretary Rubin and I 
did together. It was on trying to develop America's position on climate 
change. But it had very little to do with the science. There is 
literally enough technology out there today to enable us, without 
lowering our standing of living, indeed while raising our standard of 
living, to substantially cut our emissions of greenhouse gases. And I 
can cite you industry after industry after industry that's made a ton of 
money doing it on their own, so why doesn't everybody do it? Why don't 
we even have a critical mass of companies doing it? And I ask you that 
question.
    So we've got another example here with child care. If you can cite 
these examples where all of these companies are making money and having 
happy, more productive employees, what are the barriers? Why is the 
market dysfunctional in cases like this, and what can we do to make it 
work? Because if we were trying to get hookups to the Internet, we'd 
have 100 percent penetration in one-tenth of the time it takes us to get 
10 percent penetration for educational excellence, environmental 
conservation, or the spread of child care. What's the difference? 
[Laughter]
    Secretary Rubin.  Are you asking me? [Laughter]
    The President.  I think it's the single, most important question 
about social policy today. You and I think about this all the time, but 
I don't know what you think about this.
    This is not in the notes, you know, he's not prepared to say this.

[Secretary Rubin suggested a peer group approach to identify and promote 
best practices to deal with such problems.]

    The President.  Thank you.

[The First Lady then continued the panel discussion on ensuring access 
to safe, affordable child care.]

    The President.  I was glad to hear what you said about not being 
able to sit still after 3 o'clock. I'm glad to know you've been sitting 
still before 3 o'clock. [Laughter] I didn't know--I have never seen you 
still for 2 minutes in all of our acquaintance. This is amazing. 
[Laughter]
    I don't think you can answer this now, but I think it's quite 
important that we be explicit about a dilemma that we will face as we 
move toward next year--the State of the Union, what our position ought 
to be. We all know that there will be, in the context of the budget 
agreement we just adopted, fierce competition for limited money. We're 
going to have some more money to put into this; we'll do the very best 
we can. It will be a priority, but still, it seems to me that there will 
be competition for what the best way the Federal Government can spend 
more money in child care is.
    We could increase the tax credit to either make it more generous to 
people who get it now or move it up in the income limits. We could 
expand Head Start, particularly the Zero To Three program, where we've 
only got just a few thousand kids now--25,000 or something--and I think 
the early results are pretty promising. It's a terribly important 
initiative.
    Or we could devise some way to help get these salaries up, which--
you know, abysmal. When you were talking about the salaries, Hillary 
gave me a chart which showed that child care workers on the whole are 
better educated than the American work force and lower paid. So we keep 
saying we want all these people to come in and get more education and 
more training, and yet--and there are some cases where people don't have 
any education or training, but there are a lot of them that are quite 
well-educated that are working for ridiculously limited wages.
    So what's your sense about how we ought to go about making that 
decision? And I'll just give a blanket invitation to the audience, too, 
that if you were in my position and you knew you couldn't do 100 percent 
of all these things, would you do a little bit of all of them, would you 
focus on one, would you focus on the other? And I invite you to make 
your views known to us, either today during the conference or in 
writing, because this will be a difficult thing. Congressman Lampson is 
still here; he's going to have to make a decision about how to vote on 
this stuff. And we will have to decide.

[[Page 1640]]

[Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala said that 
resources should be invested in quality, focusing on caregivers. The 
discussion then continued.]

    The President. Well, thank you very much. I agree with the last 
thing you said for sure. [Laughter]
    Let me say, the reason I wanted Governor Hunt to come here today, 
apart from our 20 years of friendship and my immense admiration for him, 
is that--if I could go back to the question I asked Secretary Rubin--the 
great trick we have with all great social questions in America is--that 
we know that Government can't solve alone, either because we don't have 
the resources or the capacity--is how to have grassroots, community-
based partnerships that still, when the day is over, add up to a system 
that serves everybody instead of just makes nice, touching stories we 
can all tell each other at seminars till kingdom come.
    And that is what they have done in North Carolina. They have kept 
the entrepreneurial spirit. They have the partnership. They've cobbled 
money together, from first one place, then another, and he's put a lot 
of new money in it, and because he has taken this initiative and set up 
a framework within which creativity and partnership can flourish, they 
have a system. And I still believe--I'll say it again--I think that is 
the great sort of challenge that America faces that goes across so many 
of our problems and plainly relates to this.
    The only question I wanted to ask you about it that I would like you 
to specifically address is, do you have enough money to deal with the 
dilemma that raising quality standards must increase your cost to some 
extent, and does that price anybody out of it? And if not, why not?

[Gov. James B. Hunt of North Carolina stressed the need for additional 
State and Federal funding, as well as help from the business and 
nonprofit sectors.]

    The President. You know, just one other thing I'd like to say that I 
think we ought to consider--this is a little thing, but you talked about 
the bully pulpit--I think a lot of people are just plain old-fashioned 
ignorant about what's involved in being an effective, successful child 
care worker--would be surprised at the average educational level of 
child care workers in America and the average pay. And I think that we 
ought--one of the things that we ought to do with this bully pulpit idea 
of yours is start trying to find ways that every community and every 
State can honor outstanding child care workers the same way we honor 
teachers today, or scientists or others, because I think that's terribly 
important. I just don't think society--I don't think they mean to 
devalue people in this work, I just think they don't know--most people.

[Governor Hunt agreed, noting that he held an awards banquet for child 
care workers in North Carolina last year.]

    President Clinton. I don't think you can underestimate how important 
it is for people to say to other people that they matter. And if it 
matters in your personal life, it's got to matter in all these other 
areas, too. I think it's a big issue.

[The First Lady thanked Governor Hunt for his example, and continued the 
discussion.]

    The President. Well, that is, I think, an extraordinary way to wrap 
up our morning session. I can't think of anything that could be added to 
what you said. But if you think about what all of our last speakers 
said, it amounts to a plea to us to do what we can to both increase the 
coherence and completeness of community-based action within a framework 
that creates a system that involves all our children.
    And again, let me say to all of you involved in this work, I am 
profoundly grateful to you. I thank you for being here today. This has 
been an immensely enlightening day to me. I have been struggling to 
understand this issue, especially since one day several years ago--we 
all have our little epiphanies in life about these matters, but Hillary 
had been talking to me about child care for years, and one day when I 
was running for Governor, well over a decade ago--I used to make a habit 
in every election season of going to the earliest plant gate in my 
State, because the workers came to work between 4:30 and 5:30, and even 
the vote-hungriest politicians

[[Page 1641]]

wouldn't get up that early, so I always had them all to myself. 
[Laughter]
    And I never will forget, one day I came home and I told Hillary, I 
said, ``You won't believe what happened to me at a quarter to 5 this 
morning.'' It was a Campbell soup plant in North Arkansas, and this 
pickup truck rolled up. And as often happened, the husbands and wives--
and one was taking the other to work, and they would come up in the dark 
and kiss each other good-bye. And so this pickup truck came up, and this 
lady leaned over and kissed her husband good-bye and opened the door. 
And the light came on, and inside were three children under the age of 
5.
    And so I went over and talked to the young man when his wife went 
into work at a quarter to 5. I said, ``What are you doing with these 
kids? I mean, how do you do this?'' He said, ``Well, we've got to get 
them up every morning at a quarter to 4, and we dress them up.'' And he 
said, ``I keep them as long as I can, but I have to be at work at 7. So 
I had to find somebody who would take care of them at 6:30.'' Three kids 
under five. But he said, ``We've got three kids under 5. We both have to 
work.''
    Now, there are millions of stories like that. And they are no less 
gripping for the parents than those who don't have quite such strange 
circumstances. But it is inconceivable to me that we have had all of you 
wonderful people working at this and we've put all this money in it, and 
we still never developed a systematic approach or, in the words of 
Patty, a quilt that everybody can be a part of. And that, I think, we 
should all leave as our mission.
    Thank you very much.

Note: The President spoke at approximately 10:15 a.m. in the East Room 
at the White House. In his remarks, he referred to working mother Kathy 
Carliner, who introduced the President; Gov. Roy Romer of Colorado; 
Mayor Emanuel Cleaver II of Kansas City, MO; John Sweeney, president, 
AFL-CIO, and Patty Siegel, executive director, California Child Care 
Resource and Referral Network.