President Bill Clinton, Vice President Al Gore, Sen. Tom Daschle, Rep. Dick Gephardt
April 21, 1998
CLINTON: In the coming weeks, Congress will be making an
awful lot of important decisions about how to best prepare our
children and our nation for the 21st century.
First, we have a historic opportunity to pass bipartisan
legislation to protect our children from the dangers of tobacco.
The legislation would put an end to the tobacco industry's
calculated,
multimillion dollar media campaign to hook our children early to
the deadly habit of smoking.
For years the cartoon character, Joe Camel, was the star of
their efforts to create a new generation of customers for
cigarettes, what the tobacco industry euphemistically called
"replacement smokers" -- what most of us call our children.
Even as the executives denied they were targeting children,
Joe Camel became as recognizable to them as Mickey Mouse. Now,
some in Congress say that teen smoking has nothing to do with
Joe Camel. Medical science and common sense makes it plan. Teen
smoking has everything to do with Joe Camel, with unscrupulous
marketing campaigns that prey on the insecurities and dreams of
our children.
Indeed, a recent study by the American Medical Association
found that over a third of our young people who try cigarettes
do so because of advertising and promotion, and that Joe Camel
was the overwhelming favorite among 12- to 15-year-olds.
The industry has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on
such marketing campaigns, plainly not designed to appeal to
adults.
It is time to end this story once and for all.
So again I say to Congress -- Now is the time to
pass strong bipartisan tobacco legislation. And again I say --
I hope that both parties will work together for the benefit of
our children.
Today is an extremely important day for the future of public
education in America. Soon, the United States Senate will be
faced with a clear choice -- whether to modernize 5,000 schools
and strengthen educational opportunity for all children or offer
families about a $7 tax rebate that would barely cover the cost
of school supplies and, in the process, would weaken our
national commitment to education.
Above all, the Information Age is an Education Age. And the
most important thing we can do to strengthen our country for the
21st century is to give our people the best education system in
the world.
In our balanced budget, I have proposed a plan that would
help us to do that. It would help all Americans -- teachers,
parents, students, principals -- bring a revolution of
standards, accountability and choice to our schools.
I am committed to seeing that our students master the basics
with national standards and an exam to measure those in fourth
grade reading and eighth grade math, to reduce class sizes in
the early grades to an average of 18, to encouraging public
school choice, charter schools, and to ending social promotion.
Making sure that every child in America has an opportunity to
learn in a modern, safe, state-of-the-art school is also a
centerpiece of our plan.
The need is great with the number of school-age children at a
record high and growing, schools across the country already are
at or beyond capacity. One-third of our schools need to be
modernized. Nearly half don't have the wiring to support basic
computer equipment.
The federal government helps to build roads and bridges and
other infrastructure projects because they are in the national
interest.
But none of that will matter if we do not see that
our national interest for an adequate education infrastructure
is also preserved.
Today, Senator Carol Moseley-Braun will offer an amendment
that will offer an amendment that will help communities raise
the funds to modernize 5,000 schools. If we want our children
to be prepared for the 21st century, they ought to have 21st
century schools. I urge Congress to adopt the amendment right
away.
Today, the Senate will also vote on the wrong way, an
ill-advised tax incentive for elementary and secondary expenses.
The proposal is bad education policy and bad tax policy. It
won't do anything to strengthen our schools and in fact would
weaken public education by siphoning limited federal resources
away from public schools.
The $1.6 billion proposal would do very little for average
families, offering an average of $7 in tax relief for parents of
the 90 percent of our children who are in public schools and $37
for the parents with children in private schools.
It would disproportionately benefit highest-income taxpayers.
Families who are struggling to make ends meet would never see a
penny of each it. It would shortchange our children. The right
way to fix the schools is to fix them, not walk away from them.
We have 600 days left before the turn of the century. We
have to prepare our children for it. We should begin with
protecting their health and giving them the best schools in the
world.
I'd like to ask the vice president and Senator Daschle and
Mr. Gephardt to make some remarks.
Thank you.
GORE: Thank you, Mr. President.
Just briefly, ladies and gentlemen, the president just led a
discussion about the priorities that are best for our country.
You know, this is the second Congress where we have seen a very
strong difference of opinion between the president and the
Democratic leadership on the one hand and the Republican
leadership on the other hand.
It seems to me, looking at how well the country is
doing under President Clinton's leadership, that it's about time
that they would start giving him the benefit of the doubt on
knowing what works and what doesn't work.
For example -- just two quick examples. On protecting our
children against the leading preventable cause of death and
disease in the United States -- cigarette smoking and the use of
tobacco -- the president has been right, right down the line.
For a while there, the Republican leadership in the Congress
talked as if they were going to fall in behind the president's
leadership and do the right thing.
Is it a coincidence that immediately after the tobacco
industry executives switched signals, called a new play and
publicly announced their opposition to legislation, that right
away the Republican leadership switched their signals, adopted
the new play and announced their opposition to legislation?
I don't think it's a coincidence.
Congressman Gephardt, Senator Daschle, the Democrats in the
House and Senate -- and some Republicans, let me add -- are
anxious to follow the president's leadership.
Now second, the second example, on education -- as the
president made it clear, there is a vote coming up right away on
legislation that the president has strongly supported, that
these two Democratic leaders have strongly supported -- Senator
Carol Moseley-Braun is the principal advocate in the Senate --
to say: Look, our schools are falling down. We need to repair
them. We need to build new schools.
We need to modernize them so that we can reduce classroom
size and accommodate the 100,000 new teachers that are
well-trained that the president is calling for, and upgrade our
schools.
Just as the president has pointed the way to how to
balance the budget, how to reduce the crime rate, how to promote
prosperity and progress in this nation, he is now pointing the
way on how we can fix the problems in our educational system and
prepare our children for the 21st century.
But again, the Republican leadership is standing in
opposition to this measure.
Well, this is yet another occasion where the people of this
country will have the final say. And when they weigh in -- as I
hope very much they will -- in support of President Clinton's
leadership, then we'll have the kind of progress on education
that we've had in all of these other areas.
It was really a wonderful discussion, and I'd like to now
call on Senator Tom Daschle, and then the Democratic leader in
the House, Dick Gephardt.
U.S. SENATOR TOM DASCHLE (D-SD), SENATE MINORITY LEADER:
Thank you, Mr. Vice President. I, too, would share the views
expressed by both the president and the vice president about the
productive meeting we've just had.
I think the Republican leadership has to make a decision --
whether they're for Joe Camel or whether they're for the kids of
the United States of America who are looking to us for
leadership on tobacco policy.
Newt Gingrich seems to be hinting now that he's more on Joe
Camel's side. And I hope he changes his mind -- as he did once
before on this very important issue.
We've got a fundamental debate ongoing that both the vice
president and the president have talked about with regard to the
direction of this country. Whether it's tobacco or whether it's
education, unfortunately, in these cases, there is a profound
difference of opinion that I wish wasn't there expressed with
Republicans and Democrats.
When it comes to education, the clear difference
could not be more clear than what we now see in the debate
ongoing. The Republicans' answer to education is -- surprise,
surprise -- another tax break.
Unfortunately, that tax break is only for largely the richest
in this country. Seventy-four percent of the tax break they're
proposing -- and as the president said, it's a $37 tax break --
goes to the richest 20 percent in America. That's their answer
-- that and abolishing everything this administration has done
in the last five years to turn education around.
We have made remarkable change in our educational agenda in
the last five years in large measure because of the commitment
made through the budget and through good policy from this
administration. And I applaud this president and vice president
for their remarkable leadership in that regard.
But now the question is, how do we resolve the huge
difference of opinion between this administration and our
Republicans in Congress about key, fundamental issues on how
we're going to proceed as people of the United States on
education for the next several years?
Do we recognize that 78 percent of schools in this country --
78 percent, by the way, of schools in South Dakota -- are in
need of modernization or repair. Whether we recognize that or
not will happen this afternoon on a very critical vote. Do we
recognize we need 100,000 teachers? Do we recognize that we've
got to create afterschool programs? Do we recognize that we've
got to find ways with which to ensure that we access technology
in schools in an information age? Those will be the questions
that we face today and tomorrow.
And I just hope our Republican colleagues will follow this
administration's leadership in saying yes to kids, no to Joe
Camel, yes to good education and yes to a good tobacco bill
before it's too late.
And now it's my pleasure to introduce a very good colleague
and dear friend of mine, Dick Gephardt.
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD GEPHARDT (D-MO), HOUSE MINORITY
LEADER: Thanks, Tom. Thank you, Mr. President, Mr. Vice
President.
The most important goal before us is to be sure
that every young person in our country is a productive, healthy
citizen.
We have right now in April -- in the spring of 1998 -- the
possibility of passing two very important pieces of legislation
that will make a big stride in making sure that every young
person in this country is productive and is healthy.
Every time I go to my district in St. Louis and meet with
parents and teachers, school administrators, they say: "When
will we get the 100,000 additional teachers? When will we get
the funds to expand and repair our school buildings?"
They want this help. They need this help, and they need it
now. They need it this year.
By the same token, I am asked by my constituents, "When are
you going to finally do something to stop young people from
starting to smoke?"
They know that thousands of youngsters begin to smoke every
day. They also know that thousands of Americans die every day of
lung cancer that is caused by smoking.
These two issues are simple and they're clear. These are two
issues we can make a difference on together in these next few
weeks.
We call upon the leaders in the Congress -- in the House and
in the Senate -- to schedule votes on these important bills, to
help us put together a bipartisan coalition to pass this
legislation, and to make it the law of this country before the
summer comes.
It can be done. This president is leading. He's
willing to sign this legislation. We hope they'll move forward.
We stand ready to work with them for the children, the future
resource of this country.
QUESTION: Mr. President, do you think that other cartoon
characters used to market other products that potentially are
dangerous to children, like beer, should be outlawed as well?
The frogs in the Budweiser commercial, for example?
CLINTON: I think that by an order of magnitude, what we saw
with the tobacco marketing is far greater in its impact on
children and in its destructive capacity. And so I don't want
to be deterred by focusing on other things when the business at
hand is to pass this tobacco legislation.
I don't think there's anything -- no other thing I can think
of compares with what has been done there in terms of the
destructive impact on our children and their health.
And also, I would say based on all these documents which are
coming out now in all these lawsuits, the latest one in
Minnesota, it appears unambiguous that they were designed to do
just what they did, which was to appeal to children.
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: ... Republicans, and they bash you with the kind
of rhetoric that we've heard here today.
CLINTON: Well, first of all, you know, I haven't bashed all
the Republicans. I -- Senator McCain, I bragged on the bill
that came out of his committee 19 to 1. I talked to -- I called
Senator Lott a few days ago and said that I very much wanted to
get this bill passed.
What has caused our concern here is this apparent dramatic
change in the statements made by the Republicans about this.
I mean, it wasn't so very long ago when the speaker
said that there's no way in the world that I could ever be for a
more progressive tax bill -- tobacco bill than he would be for.
And I, frankly, loved hearing that.
I don't mind sharing the credit for this. I don't want this
to be a partisan thing. I want this to be an American thing.
The -- let's look what had happened here. All of us have
been talking about trying to get bipartisan agreement on this.
The tobacco industry says they don't like the McCain bill and
they refuse to negotiate any further and they're fighting for
their life and this is war. And then all of the sudden, we get
different public statements coming out of people in important
positions in the Republican Party.
Now, I still believe and hope that there will be enough
Republicans to make a genuinely bipartisan effort to pass
sensible, sound, strong legislation. And that is my commitment.
That is all of our commitments.
We are responding to events as they have unfolded. But I
would remind you that what sparked all this was the bipartisan
action of the Senate committee. That is what I have lauded and
that is what I want.
QUESTION: Regarding the education bill -- regarding the
education bill, sir. Mr. President, regarding...
CLINTON: Education first.
QUESTION: Regarding the education bill, you seem to be
unwavering over the vouchers issue. The Republicans have
indicated they're going to be unwavering on the vouchers issue.
Isn't the reality that there probably isn't going to be an
education bill this year over this issue, perhaps?
CLINTON: Well, I hope not. This may be just the opening
foray. But I think a lot of them are genuinely opposed to the
concept embodied in Senator Carol Moseley-Braun's bill. That is
they believe it's OK for Congress to invest money in highly
specific local transportation projects but not to give even the
most general kind of support for our education infrastructure.
Now, during all the time I've been president, when
we had those tough budget years, I always tried to provide
enough room for there to be some increase in infrastructure for
transportation. But I believe the infrastructure of the '90s
will be the superhighway the carries information.
And I believe the people that can travel will be those that
have a good education and not the finest vehicle.
And so to me, when we've got cities that with the average
school building being 65-years-old, when we've got small
communities, like the one I visited in Florida, with 17 trailers
out back of the main school building where the kids are going to
school, this is a national infrastructure issue. And I think
it's important.
Now, on the -- on this education IRA, I mean, the -- I think
the real thing you have to ask yourself about that is this: Does
it make sense, when the federal government only spends about --
provides about 6 percent of the total education budget of the
country and when everybody recognizes we need more general
investment? Does it make sense to take $1.6 billion and put it
into a program that will give the average public school parent
seven bucks?
Let's assume the Republicans, who favor more private school
education, are right -- give the average public school parent
seven bucks to pay tuition to a private school, and for those
that already have their kids in private, if they're middle-class
families, give them an average of $37 a year. I think the $1.6
billion would be far better spent funding charter schools,
funding school standards programs, funding the master teacher
program, and helping to fund this school construction program.
That's what I believe. I don't think it's even close.
If they believe these programs are so great, then
they ought to be out there in every city and every state in the
country making this case instead of using the limited federal
money we have, which ought to be spent to benefit the largest
number of people in the most impactful way.
QUESTION: Mr. President, if Congress fails to lower the
spending levels in the transportation bills, will you veto the
bills? And if not, why not?
CLINTON: Well, first of all, the transportation bill has not
yet passed. It's going into conference. I have a lot of
problems with it, including the dropping of the provision for a
tougher DWI standard in the House bill.
But I think it is imperative that we wind up with a
transportation bill which increases our investment in
transportation but does not do so at the expense of education,
of research, medical research, the environment, all the things
that are all so important to our future, on the one hand, and on
the other hand, that it doesn't run away from our Social
Security first commitment on the surplus.
And so I'm going to do my best to fashion that sort of
infrastructure highway bill. And I am concerned that the bills
as passed are disembodied from the budget. They don't have any
relationship with all the other pieces in the budget, and at
least, on their surface, appear to be far in excess of anything
we can afford and still continue our commitments in education
and on our Social Security first.
But we -- but this is a process, and we're not there yet.
We're not to the point yet where we have to make the discussion
you said.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) it's a wonder that you can get anything
done as long as Congress meets on Tuesdays and Thursdays.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) Coverdell (OFF-MIKE) money you want
(OFF- MIKE).
CLINTON: Yes. Yes.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)
CLINTON: Well, first of all, I think the only time I've done
that since I was president was when we got that young man out of
Bosnia. And I think he's probably right about that. And I
think he's probably right about that.
But let me say, I do not -- I think just to contend
that that isolated event, it has a bigger impact on children
than these millions of dollars of deliberately calculated ads,
billions, it is just a way of avoiding taking responsibility for
doing the right thing.
Now -- and secondly, you know, he made another point, which I
agree, which is that there is too much -- there are too many
young actors and actresses in alluring movies in Hollywood
making smoking look alluring again.
But we've been talking about that for two or three years.
The vice president, I think, has already had two meetings with
people in Hollywood. I have voiced a concern publicly and
privately. I agree with that.
But you know, these things get said -- in the context in
which he said it, it was like to let them off the hook for
taking responsibility for passing tobacco legislation, and
making cigarettes both more expensive for kids to buy and then
using the money to deal with the health care consequences and to
fund an anti-smoking advertising campaign that they know would
be effective.
And I'll tell you -- I'll bet you anything that in addition
to their previously effective advertising campaigns, we'll be
treated to another big ad campaign from the tobacco industry
surrounding this before you know it.
So I -- you know, you can say all these things, but none of
us should ever, ever be guilty of that.
We can point the finger at others, but no amount of finger
pointing at others, by the president or anyone else, will ever
absolve us of our own responsibility to push the public
interest. And that's what I'm trying to do.
Thank you.
|
News
Clinton