[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 37, Number 12 (Monday, March 26, 2001)]
[Pages 470-474]
[Online from the Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
<R04>
Remarks to Women Business Leaders
March 20, 2001
Thank you. Thank you for being here. Please sit down. First Lady--
it's got a nice ring to it. [Laughter] I'm proud of Laura. She is--she
makes this White House special for me. She is--brings a lot of
perspective to our household. She kind of reminds the President where he
came from--[laughter]--and always makes sure my tie lies straight. But
I'm proud of the job she's doing for America, and she's going to be a
great First Lady.
And I am proud of the ladies behind me, as well. We've put together
a great Cabinet. They're not afraid to speak their mind. They're smart.
They're capable, and they represent America. And they're good; they're
really good. We've got a great Cabinet, and
[[Page 471]]
these good folks up here make a big difference.
And I've got a great staff, as well. And I appreciate Margaret
LaMontagne being here. Margaret's the Domestic Policy Adviser to the
President. And I've known her a long time. She's plenty capable, and
she's spending a lot of time on education, which is one of the subjects
I want to discuss with you today. And I appreciate you, Margaret.
I also want to thank Bonnie for your hard work and for putting this
on. And I want to thank you all for coming. I know you all are going to
Capitol Hill today. I hope you help us deliver a couple of messages. One
is going to be on education. Another is on commonsense budgeting and tax
relief, and why it's important to all people, particularly those who
have decided to invest capital in the private sector. And I want to
explain why this tax relief package will spur economic activity and
entrepreneurship in America.
First, let me talk about education. I said it was my priority in the
campaign. It is our priority in this administration. An educated child
is one much more likely to realize his or her dreams. And we've got to
do a better job of making sure every child--I mean every child--is
educated.
One of things about this administration I think people will find is
that we are consistent. We set out a set of principles and stand by
them, that we don't try to figure out polls and focus groups--we don't
use polls and focus groups to figure out where to head.
And there are some solid principles involved with our education
plan. One of them is setting high standards and high expectations for
every child. We believe if you have low expectations, you get lousy
results. If you believe in the best in every single child and set high
expectations, good folks will follow.
Secondly, we believe strongly in local control of schools. We
believe in aligning authority and responsibility at the local level.
Many of you, as you run your own businesses, know full well that when
you separate accountability and responsibility or responsibility and
authority, it creates an excuse for failure. ``Oh, I would have done it
a different way.'' And so we align authority and responsibility where it
belongs, at the local level. And I hope you help Congress understand the
importance to pass power out of Washington, to provide flexibility at
the State and local level.
Thirdly, we believe strongly in a results-oriented system. A lot of
times in education, people focus on process. We think the world needs to
start focusing on results. People need to start asking the question,
``What do you know?'' not ``How old are you?'' In a world that asks the
question, ``How old are you?'' oftentimes people just get shuffled
through regardless of what they know. ``If you're 12, you're here. If
you're 14, you're here,'' and, ``Let's just move you through.'' And
those of us who have been involved in public education know full well
who gets left behind--children whose parents don't speak English as a
first language, for example, inner-city kids. It's so much easier to
quit on children. We strongly believe that by insisting upon results, it
will begin to change the mentality of public schools all across America.
And so, one, we've asked for more money for our budgets. We've
increased education spending quite significantly. And we've said, in
return, however, we expect States and local jurisdictions to measure, to
show us whether or not students can read and write and add and subtract,
to focus on every child since every child matters. We've got to end the
process-oriented world of public schools.
And we firmly believe that through accountability not only can we
diagnose and solve problems, but accountability serves as a catalyst for
reforms. It's the accountability system that encourages local folks to
say, ``Wait a minute, the status quo is unacceptable. Let's try
something else.'' It's strong accountability measures that will foster
charter school movements, or public school choice movements, if
necessary, to make sure not one single child gets left behind.
So we've got an education vision that says, there will be more money
in the system, but let's make sure that we have high standards, local
control of schools, and strong results-oriented systems. I firmly
believe that when we get the system right, the results will begin to
improve dramatically. And we've targeted some money. We've set aside $5
billion for a national reading agenda.
[[Page 472]]
It's not the Federal Government telling you what to do, but the
Federal Government saying, ``Here's money available for K-through-two
diagnostic tools, so that we can determine early in a child's career
where that child may need extra help.'' There's teacher training money.
One of the failures--one of the deficiencies--I wouldn't call it a
failure, but deficiencies in the system is that oftentimes--our teachers
are not given a--taught how to teach a curriculum that works. And we
need to retrain teachers. So we've got money available to do that.
We've got intense--money available for after school programs or
schools within schools to help young readers get up to speed early.
We've set a goal that all children ought to be reading by third grade.
And I look forward to working with the Congress, to make sure the
program gets funded, and our Secretary of Education, to make sure it
gets implemented in such a way as we don't erode local responsibility of
schools.
So that's the education plan. Oh, there's a lot of discussion you'll
hear about, ``We can't measure. It's too much Government to measure.'' I
just disagree. If we're spending money, we ought to get results for the
money. But this isn't a national test; this is a test where local folks
will design the test. The great State of Pennsylvania can design its own
test. Texas designs its own test. But there needs to be a sense of
accountability in the system. And then you'll hear people say, ``It's
racist to test.'' It's racist not to test. It's racist not to hold
people accountable. Those who say it's racist to test must assume that
certain children can't learn. We don't believe that. We believe all
children can learn.
So the principles involved in the education reform are sound and
solid, and they reflect what I hope you all agree with, that there is a
better way. We need to challenge the status quo when we find our
children trapped in schools that are just not going to teach and won't
change.
Secondly, I want to talk about the budget. There's a lot of talk
about the budget, of course. And I made some people nervous up here, to
be frank with you, because I've decided that instead of increasing
discretionary spending by 8 percent on an annual basis, which is a lot,
when you're talking in terms of trillions, that we'll have spending
increase at 4 percent, greater than the rate of inflation, larger than
most people's pay raises last year. And it's caused some consternation,
because the temptation is for people to appropriate when money's
available.
I was in Council Bluffs, Iowa, and a grandmother stood up and she
said, ``You know,'' she said, ``I've baked a lot of cookies in my day,
and I've had children and grandchildren go through the house. And every
time I leave them on the table, they get eaten.'' And that's kind of
what happens to Federal taxpayers' money.
So I've presented a realistic budget to the Congress. It says, like
many of you all do in your businesses, set priorities. I realize that--
we've got to realize it's important to set priorities. Education is a
priority. The military is a priority of mine, starting with making sure
people get better pay and better housing.
Now, we have stepped back from some of the big appropriation
requests, because I want Don Rumsfeld to take a full look at the
military, to make sure military spending meets a military strategy that
will help us keep the peace in the out years. And it's important to do
that. It's important to make sure taxpayers' money is well spent and
well focused on all areas of concern. And the Defense budget requires a
good scrubbing and a good looking-at. And that's exactly what this
administration is doing. But in the meantime, we need to send a clear
signal to the men and women who wear the troop--who wear the uniform,
the troops who wear the uniforms: We appreciate what you do on behalf of
America, so we're going to pay you a little better and house you better
and have a mission that is more focused, which is to be able to fight
and win war and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first
place.
We've got money in the budget for Medicare. Our Medicare budget
doubles over the next 10 years. And that's part of what's needed, but
also--but we also need to make sure the system is modern, that it meets
the needs of our seniors, it gives seniors a variety of options from
which to choose, and all the options should include prescription drugs.
So
[[Page 473]]
there's money in the budget for Medicare. That's a doubling.
And we set aside all the money for Social Security for only one
thing, and that is Social Security. Take all the payroll taxes and make
sure it's only spent on Social Security, and by the way, its system
needs to be reformed, as well. One of the major components of reform is
to allow younger workers to take some of their own money and put it in
safe and secure market-oriented investment vehicles which will yield a
greater rate of return than the paltry 2 percent our money now gets in
the Social Security Trust today.
And we pay down $2 trillion worth of debt in our budget. Somebody
said, ``Why don't you take all the excess money and pay down debt?''
Well, first of all, excess money tends to be spent on bigger baselines
of Government. And--but the 2 trillion is all that's retiring over the
next 10 years--all that's to be retired over the next 10 years. And it
doesn't make any sense to pay a premium to prepay debt, and so we're
paying down all the debt that's available.
We set aside money for contingencies. And I know this is getting to
be quite a long laundry list, but I'm trying to make a point that you
all can help me make, is that we've increased discretionary spending by
4 percent; we pay down debt; we protect Social Security; we set aside
one trillion over 10 years for contingencies; and there is still money
left over. And that's where the fundamental debate comes in Washington,
DC. There are those who want to increase the size and scope of the
Federal Government. I believe--I believe we need to remember who paid
the money in the first place, and I believe we need to pass it back.
Now, we drop all rates and simplify the code. Drop the bottom rate
from 15 percent to 10 percent. We increase the child credit from 500 to
1,000, and the purpose of that is to make sure that those who work hard
to get into the middle class are more likely to succeed. The Tax Code
today penalizes people in the outskirts of poverty.
The marginal rate for folks coming from--a single mom--the example I
like to use is a single mom making $22,000 a year who is struggling to
get ahead and trying to raise her two children, which I also happen to
believe is the toughest job in America. For every additional dollar she
earns above the 22,000, she pays a higher marginal rate than someone
making 200,000. And that's just not fair. And so we address the inequity
in the Tax Code by dropping the bottom rate and increasing the child
credit.
And we also drop the top rate, of course, from 39.6 to 33. If you
pay taxes, you ought to get relief. Everybody who--but everybody
benefits, I'm convinced, when the top rate drops because of the effect
it will have on the entrepreneurial class in America. What the Congress
needs to hear is that most small businesses are unincorporated
businesses, sole proprietorships. Many are Subchapter S corps, who pay
at the highest marginal rate. And when you drop the top rate from 39.6
to 33 percent, you encourage the growth of small businesses, whether
they be women-owned small businesses or any other small businesses.
People like to deflect the debate. They like to turn it into a class
warfare debate. And you all can help by explaining clearly to people
that reducing the top rate will help with job creation and capital
formation and, as importantly, will help highlight the American Dream.
And that is, you can own your own business, that ownership is not
limited to just a few.
And we're going to do something on the marriage penalty. And we need
to eliminate the death tax. This is a realistic plan with the people's
money. It's a plan that meets needs. Admittedly, it doesn't grow the
budget the way people are used to in Washington. But it's time to change
that attitude about how prolific we're going to be with the people's
money. There needs to be a focus and a strategy and a discipline.
It seems like, at times, people forgot whose money it is we're
dealing with up here. It's not the Government's money. The rhetoric
sounds like, ``Oh, we're going to''--it's Government's money. But the
money is here in Washington because of the hard work of people--people
working hard, people who care. The cash flow coming into the Treasury of
the United States is exceeding expectations, even though we're in an
economic slowdown, which says to me, somebody is being overcharged.
[Laughter] And I know who it is.
[[Page 474]]
And so that's what the debate is all about. And I'd like your help.
You can influence Members of Congress, and people listen to you. And so
I hope you take folks aside and say, ``Be realistic about our money.
Let's don't balloon the size of the Federal Government.'' And let's also
remember that by giving people their money back, it will help provide a
second wind for our economy.
Many of you know better than me that our economy is slowing down,
and we've got some issues with which we'll deal. Yesterday, the Vice
President brought to me an interim report on energy--we've got a problem
with energy in America. Our demand is increasing, but our supplies
aren't. And it doesn't take much economics to figure out what will
happen.
And we're going to do something about it. This is going to be a very
practical administration. We will view problems, analyze them, and deal
with them. We'll be as upfront as we can with the American people. We'll
explain when we can get something done quickly, and we'll explain when
we can't get something done quickly. And we're not going to shirk from
the problems with which we're confronted. And one of the problems is an
energy crisis.
Another problem is a slowing economy, and we're going to deal with
it. We'll deal with it in a forthright way. And part of it is good
fiscal policy, which means when we give people their money back, it
should serve as a stimulus to economic growth.
So this is a plan that not only brings fiscal discipline to the
budgeting process; it's a plan that sets priorities. But it's also a
plan that remembers how America grows, and it grows through
entrepreneurship and the creation of small businesses and providing
capital in the private sector for the expansion of jobs and the purchase
of equipment. And that's what the plan is.
And I'd like your help. I'd like your help to sell it on the Hill.
Two things I hope that you notice when you go up there is that I believe
the country is beginning--or the Capitol is beginning to develop a
culture of respect.
I want the Members--I fully recognize not everybody is going to
agree with me, or us, and I respect that. I do. I may not agree with it,
but I respect it. One of my jobs is to change the tone of Washington.
Oh, occasionally, there's the voice out there that sounds a little
disgruntled. But that's okay. That's part of a democracy. But our
administration, or at least the people in my administration, will treat
people with respect.
I respect those who don't agree with me on every single issue. I
expect there not to be unanimity. And I believe by treating people
respectfully, it is possible to do some positive things. This is a
Congress that is beginning to get a sense of accomplishment. There is a
culture of accomplishment in Washington. There's a bankruptcy bill
that's working its way through the House and the Senate. There's an
ergonomics--change in ergonomics regulations that I believe is positive,
and I intend to sign today. There are some positive developments. Things
are getting done.
And that's important. And that will be a little change from the way
people have viewed Washington in the past. Washington seemed to be a
place of bitterness and acrimony, and it doesn't have to be that way.
It's important to change it not only to get good public policy done, but
it's important to change the tone of Washington so that when people look
at our Nation's Capital they understand that public service can be noble
and positive. Just like these ladies up here understand.
And our job is bigger than just legislation. Our job is to set a
good tone, a tone of respect, a tone of accomplishment for the Nation.
And that's exactly what we're going to do. And I want to thank you all
for being here to help us get it done.
Thank you.
Note: The President spoke at 10:50 a.m. in the East Room at the White
House. The transcript released by the Office of the Press Secretary also
included the remarks of the First Lady.