B. Support Civilian R&D To be the world's economic leader tomorrow, we clearly have to invest in R&D and new technologies today. Given the pace of change, we have to both come up with new inventions and organize ourselves to deploy new technology without delay. The changes in industrial organization that I described earlier have three major implications for technology development. First, the more rapid product development cycle places a premium on bringing an idea quickly from the lab to the marketplace. Second, we need to put new technologies to work in all applications in order to reap the full competitive and economic benefits from our R&D. While Americans invented VCR technology and the FAX machine, we did not capitalize on their explosive popularity. Third, we need to rely increasingly on flexible, agile manufacturing, rather than old style mass production. We should have the capability to make a variety of products quickly and economically -- a process characterized by short product cycles, but also high quality output. Taken together, these developments emphasize decentralization -- an approach exactly opposite to my opponent's "national industrial policies" led by Government bureaucrats. We need to get technology development, production, and marketing closer to the consumer, not further away. Moreover, my opponent's call for a cut in support for university-based research will hurt the development of cutting edge technology. My agenda will increase funding for basic research and complement that work with a focus on applied research and development. Despite cuts by Congress, we have managed to increase funding for basic research by 26% since 1989 -- to a record level. We are supporting applied R&D through a series of new, high pay-off investments in critical technologies: _ a High Performance Computing and Communications Initiative that will enable the development of a thousand-fold increase in computing capability by 1996 and a one hundred-fold increase in communications speed. _ an initiative to improve the manufacturing and performance of materials -- improvements that will enable advances in a wide range of other technologies. _ an expanded program in biotechnology research with application in health, agriculture, and environmental protection. _ the establishment of the U.S. Advanced Battery consortium, a jointly-funded four-year effort to develop an advanced battery for an emissions-free electric car. _ a significant increase in our aeronautics research budget, underscoring the importance we place on the U.S. aeronautics industry in an increasingly competitive global market place. _ the establishment of seven regional manufacturing technology centers for the distribution of modern manufacturing tools, such as computer-aided design, numerically-controlled machines, and robotics. These efforts to develop and apply new technologies need to be complemented by the identification and removal of barriers to the private sector's ability to bring new products and services to the market. That's why my regulatory reform efforts -- including a process that subjects regulations to a competitiveness analysis while still protecting health and safety, and a proposal to "sunset" regulations -- are critical to supporting our enhanced technology development. Just take one example: my opponent has proposed a major new Federal Government investment in the field of national telecommunications networks at the exact time that our private sector is seeking to develop such a network on its own, but has been stopped from doing so by federal regulations. C. Reform Our Legal System Our competitive edge will be dulled if businesses are continually handicapped by a legal system that serves lawyers but frightens people. Therefore, another component of my agenda is a reform of the American civil justice system. America has suffered a civil litigation explosion. Over the past 30 years, federal lawsuits have almost tripled. Instead of being fast, fair, and affordable, our civil justice system is slow, expensive, and putting us at a global disadvantage. Long delays in dispute resolution waste valuable judicial resources, force early settlement by those who cannot afford to wait, discourage those who have meritorious suits, and encourage frivolous suits by those who hope to leverage unjust settlements. High punitive damage awards are passed on to consumers through higher prices, job cuts, higher insurance, and fewer new products. According to a soon-to-be released study by the National Association of Manufacturers, Americans spend up to $200 billion a year just on direct costs to lawyers. That does not even count lawyers on payrolls or the money spent on court settlements. Our legal system is killing our international competitiveness. Other nations do not face high domestic litigation costs. Foreign companies only need 6% of the product liability insurance our firms must carry because we do not have uniform state standards for product liability and punitive damages. The litigation explosion affects everyone. High liability costs have closed playgrounds and pools, forcing kids on to the street with nothing to do. Some companies are afraid to offer products at home that are available overseas because they fear the liability. My product liability reform legislation confronts the trial lawyers head on. I want to stop wide variation among states' product liability rules; stop important products from being kept off the market; stop excessive litigation costs with more money going to lawyers than to injured consumers; cut excessive insurance rates; and end excessive consumer costs. My "Access to Justice Act of 1992" is intended to restore fairness and efficiency to the nation's civil justice system through: alternatives to federal civil trials such as alternative dispute resolution; incentives for pre-litigation settlement, including pre-complaint notification; and a "loser pays" rule requiring the loser to pay the winner's legal fees in suits involving federal diversity jurisdiction. We also need to continue our work with the states to encourage fundamental change at the state and local level. Lawyers, especially trial lawyers, are a powerful vested interest in our society. They are well represented in Congress and high on the lists of political contributors. My opponent knows them very well. But this is a problem too important to leave to the lawyers and their friends in high places. We must sue each other less and care for each other more. VIII. Promoting Economic Security for Working People The American businesses of the 21st Century will need workers who will bring them to life and keep them ahead of our competition. To be able to contribute and concentrate, working men and women will want to know that they can enjoy economic opportunity and security. We can only achieve true security by developing people's capability, not dependency. And we can best supply security through the private sector, not Government bureaucracies. It will be Government's role to expedite workers' adjustments in a fast-changing marketplace, provide people the means to work and take care of their families, and arm people to face the future by empowering them to make their own choices. In particular, we can enable families to focus on building a future by alleviating their fears about one of the single biggest costs and problems that can knock them back: health care. And we can help foster retirement security through encouraging portable pension savings. A. Job Training Given the rapidity of change in the international and domestic marketplace, we have to prepare people for the prospect of changing jobs and learning new skills many times throughout the course of a productive life. Therefore, we need a range of job training and placement services -- for young people, factory workers, white collar employees, and particularly during this period, defense industry workers. That's why one important portion of my recently-announced workforce adjustment initiative is designed to shift the Government away from the old narrowly defined, expensive, and less effective trade adjustment assistance that paid people off without giving them real help to get back the work. Work means more than income to Americans. It is also fundamental to people's self-esteem, their self-confidence, and the respect of others. These are attitudes, values, that I want to encourage. I want all Americans to be builders -- for their families, their communities, their country. To encourage the work ethic, we need to make every effort to match people with the jobs created by our entrepreneurial capitalism. The three key features of my job training proposal are: (1) universal coverage, so all dislocated workers will have access to basic transition assistance and training support; (2) skill grant vouchers of up to $3000 to help meet the costs of adding new skills and training; and (3) a tripling of the resources currently devoted to training and worker adjustment, an allocation of $l0 billion over five years. This proposal builds on my January plan to streamline the federal job training system through "one-stop shopping" in every community. Experience has demonstrated that the most effective training and placement services are those closely developed with local employers through private industry councils. That way the training is designed to develop skills that employers know they will need. My expanded job training efforts will also be specially designed to help those who may need to change jobs or careers as a result of NAFTA or other trade agreements and the downsizing of our defense-related industries. But we will ensure that we offer training and placement to all workers. These dislocated workers would be eligible to receive three types of assistance: (1) transition-assistance that includes skills assessment, counseling, job-search assistance, and job referral; (2) training assistance in the form of skill grants; and (3) transition income support where necessary for workers completing retraining. I've also proposed a specially-targeted Youth Skills Initiative. A new Youth Training Corps will provide economically and socially disadvantaged young people with intensive vocational training through 55 residential YTC centers nationwide; these centers will be located primarily in rural areas and will seek to utilize converted defense facilities, putting them to good use. The YTC will draw from the military's high level of leadership and training expertise by giving a hiring preference to individuals leaving our armed forces. The discipline that triumphed in Desert Storm can win at home, too. I will also complement the YTC with a "Treat and Train" program to strengthen existing youth drug training programs. To help meet the needs of young people not planning to go on to college, I will expand the National Youth Apprenticeship Program that I began in January. This program offers high school juniors and seniors a combination of classroom instruction and a structured, paid, work-experience program. I want student apprentices to receive both a high school diploma and a widelyrecognized certificate of skill competency. Students will also have the opportunity to continue training at the post-secondary level. I started my Apprenticeship Program as a demonstration program in 6 states; in my second term, I will expand it to all 50. Finally, I will more than double the size of the present JROTC program, a very successful and popular partnership between the military and schools. JROTC emphasizes self-discipline, values, citizenship, personal responsibility, and staying in school -- it's a first class alternative to drugs and gangs. My goal is to establish 2,900 JROTC units by 1994. Initially, we will expand this program in inner-city high schools, but I want to make JROTC available to every high school across the country that requests it. This program is another way in which we can relate the successful experience of America's veterans to the next generation. B. Affordable Health Care for All Americans The economic security of men and women requires a major reform of the U.S. health care system. The present system provides high quality, high-tech medicine, but at an unacceptable price: spending has increased at a rate two to three times the rest of the economy; thirty-four million Americans have no health insurance; and millions more are afraid to change jobs for fear of losing their health insurance. My program will build on the strengths of the system -- consumer choice, innovation, and state of the art medicine -- while controlling costs and expanding access. I want to guarantee access to health insurance for all poor families through tax credits (or vouchers for those who don't pay taxes) sufficient to pay for a basic health insurance plan ($3,750 for a family). Other low and middle income families would get tax relief to partially offset the cost of their health insurance. In total, some 95 million Americans will benefit. My program also includes: _ provisions that encourage small businesses to develop less costly health care insurance networks for their employees by combining resources to achieve broader risk sharing, economies of scale, and purchasing power; _ "job lock" protection for employees and their families so that they will not lose coverage if and when a person changes jobs; _ guaranteed insurability so that people with "preexisting" illnesses cannot be denied a job or health coverage on the job; _ 100% tax deductibility of health care premiums paid by the self-employed, as compared to the present 25% deductibility; _ malpractice reforms that will reduce the number of unnecessary procedures performed on patients and thereby reduce the cost of medical care; and _ reforms to encourage widespread use of electronic billing to save an estimated $11 billion a year in paper costs. Taken together, my program would cut health care costs by $394 billion over five years through preventive care, malpractice reform, reducing defensive medicine, encouraging enrollment in cost-effective health plans, arming consumers with information about cost and quality, and eliminating administrative waste and unnecessary paperwork. I believe we can provide access to affordable health care for all Americans, while preserving choice for patients and their families in selecting doctors, hospitals, health care programs, and employment. My approach, in contrast with my opposition, relies on the private sector to deliver health care services. But I would make the market work for us by enhancing competition, which will cut costs. My malpractice reforms would cut costs further by removing the fear of lawsuits that leads to wasteful procedures. I firmly believe that a move to national health insurance, as some of my opponents want, would be a major, irretrievable mistake. That course would turn over the health care sector -- a full l3% of our economy -- to the Government. The result would be more bureaucracy, rationed care, inefficiency, and, in the end, even higher costs. My opponent's "play or pay" approach winds up in the same place as nationalized, bureaucratic health insurance -- but through a different route. And it is likely to kill a lot of jobs along the way, especially in small businesses. Increasing the costs of labor -- the "play" in his approach -- will lead businesses to hire fewer workers. Offering the alternative of Government-sponsored health care paid for with new taxes on payrolls -- the "pay" -- will dump the problem in the lap of a Government bureaucracy with the costs paid for by businesses and workers. C. Pension Portability I have also been concerned about the ability of workers to preserve their retirement pensions as they change jobs. This is a growing need because of the increased likelihood that most workers will have more than one employer over the course of their working years. I proposed an initiative last year to increase pension portability, expand pension coverage, and simplify the law governing pension plans. And I am pleased that I was able to sign a law this summer that incorporated my portability proposal. The new law enhances retirement security by permitting workers to transfer accrued pension benefits directly to an IRA or to their new employer's pension plan. Despite this improvement, I believe we must continue to look for ways to make it easier for workers who change jobs to take pensions with them. We need to eliminate incentives to "cash out" benefits and increase incentives to save for the future. Job training, affordable health care, retirement security -- when combined with a new system of education and entrepreneurial, competitive business, we can offer working men and women real economic security in the 2lst Century. IX. Leaving No One Behind: Economic Opportunity for Every American For over 200 years, the most exceptional aspect of American society has been the belief, the hope, that this is a land where people can make a better life for themselves and their children. It's this spirit, the commitment to the American Dream, that has made our country and our society the most dynamic in the world. If we are going to use that energy to drive us forward into the 21st Century, we will need to tap the aspirations of each and every one of our citizens. No one should be left behind for want of opportunity. Many of the programs that I have discussed above -- health care for all Americans, child care, job training, pension portability, a new competitive school system based on community involvement and choice for all American families -- support my plan to empower all Americans to make their own choices and better their lives. But I believe we need to do more for certain citizens who have fallen too far behind. My philosophy for enabling all Americans to share the American Dream is simple: it's based on property and work. Our urban and welfare programs must be designed to enable people to break the cycle of poverty, get back on their feet, get back to work, and take responsibility for their own choices and their own lives. I disagree with the failed logic of "welfare rights" and its emphasis on entitlement. I disagree with "income maintenance" strategies -- strategies that merely maintain poverty and contain potential. Our goal should not be more dependence -- but rather a new Declaration of Independence -- to help people develop the human and financial capital to share the American Dream. We have taken the first step with our implementation of the welfare-to-work logic of the Family Support Act of 1988. We have been encouraging flexible and innovative implementation through waivers that enable states to develop new programs to enhance parental and family responsibility and to insist on education and job training for those on welfare. Welfare policies won't work unless people do. In our inner cities, we need to restore hope by clearing away the handicap of crime, building a core of property owners, creating business incentives, restoring infrastructure, and focusing our programs on work and discipline. Enterprise zones can create solid economic foundations in distressed communities. Our "Weed and Seed" effort can help reclaim and revitalize impoverished and embattled communities by eliminating the fear of drugs and violence, targeting coordinated human services programs, and improving the housing stock and infrastructure. We also need to extend opportunity by enabling lower income families to build assets -- for example, by allowing aid recipients to accumulate higher savings without losing their eligibility. And we need to expand homeowner opportunities for lower and middle income families. For example, HOPE grants enable more inner-city people to own their own homes. Our $5,000 tax credit for first- time home buyers would help; so would permitting voucher recipients to apply their rental subsidies toward the purchase of a home. We can enhance the choice, quality, and availability of housing through affordable rent subsidies in the form of housing vouchers, and through our "Perestroika in Public Housing" program that widens opportunities for public housing tenants to change the management of troubled projects. This property and work-based approach need not be more expensive than the traditional welfare bureaucracy. For example, over the past l2 years, federal spending for low income assistance doubled even after inflation -- from $9.l billion in l980 to $l8.3 billion this year (both in l992 dollars). This year, HUD is providing housing assistance to 4.6 million low-income families, up from 3.1 million in 1980. I have tried to rechannel some of this funding to vouchers because they are more cost effective than constructing new public housing units. Furthermore, families wouldn't have to wait five years for the units to be built, and the vouchers give families more choice. For too long, Congress has stubbornly refused to discard failed programs that perpetuate welfare dependency. No doubt, many of these programs were well intentioned. But now we know better. Give us a chance to try a different approach that will empower people to help themselves, to build some capital for their families, to make choices that develop self-respect and discipline. That's the real way to offer economic opportunity for every American, to leave no one behind. X. "Rightsizing" Government My blueprint envisages an important Government role to make a secure and strong America. But it is also important that Government not siphon off more private resources than are absolutely necessary to perform the functions that will help us win the economic competition. Because an overweight Government -- serving itself seconds rather than serving the people first -- will weigh us down in the race of a new era. Much of my agenda can be accomplished simply by redirecting current funding away from bureaucracies and towards people. My agenda empowers people with the means to work, own property, build capital, raise families, and be effective contributors within our private market economy. Some of my ideas -- legal and health care reforms, for example -- should even help us save money. Contrary to the assertions of some politicians and special interest groups, spending as a percentage of the nation's GDP has been going up, not down. In 1991, the Federal Government spent 23.5% of what our nation produced. That compares with 17.6% in 1965, 19.9% in 1970, 22.0% in 1975, and 22.3% in 1980. So not only has Government grown as the economy has grown, but Government is taking a bigger share. The American people are not taxed too little. The American Government spends too much. In my acceptance speech I noted some of the efforts I will make to hold down spending. I have proposed capping the growth of mandatory spending, other than social security. That would still permit spending at present levels plus an adjustment for inflation and population growth. Yet this cap would save $294 billion over five years. To start to implement this cap, I have proposed over $72 billion in specific spending cuts for "mandatory" programs (FY93-97). If you add these proposed cuts to others I have previously called for but which Congress has not yet enacted, my specific cuts would total about $132 billion over five years. I have also proposed the outright elimination of 246 specific discretionary programs. By way of comparison, my opponent has specifically proposed less than $5 billion in cuts in mandatory programs. And he has singled out only one program for elimination -- the honeybee subsidy program, which his running mate voted four times to retain. Furthermore, I proposed freezing all other spending, and I will enforce this freeze by vetoing any bill Congress sends me that spends more than I asked for in my budget. I've asked Congress for the line item veto, a disciplinary tool used effectively by the governors of 43 states. This veto authority is important not only to help cut, but to increase a President's leverage with a Congress that seeks to tax more and spend more. Government should be subject to the discipline of a balanced budget amendment. State governments operate that way. Businesses operate that way. Families operate that way. And given the breakdown of Congressional discipline, we need an amendment to ensure that the Federal Government operates that way, too. If we had had such an amendment years ago, we wouldn't be paying almost $200 billion dollars a year now on interest for the debt left us by earlier Congresses. I also believe taxpayers should have the right to direct 10% of their tax payments to reduce debt and spending through a "check-off" on their tax forms. If all taxpayers took the full 10%, the cut would be about $50 billion. That's only 3% of the Federal budget of about $1.5 trillion. Since federal spending has been growing at a rate of about 8% per year, even this proposed cut would still enable spending to grow; it would just grow more slowly. Some editorialists dismiss my checkoff proposal, but the American people seem to like it, and I think I know why. My proposal traces its roots to an American tradition. At the turn of this century, many people were concerned that the Government establishment was slipping away from the people it was supposed to serve. This movement led to such venerable "gimmicks" as referenda, the right of recall, and the direct election of U.S. Senators. The idea of term limits for Senators and Congressmen, which I fully support, is another reform of this type. At the time each was proposed, the conventional thinkers chuckled at the changes. The same is true today. Given the complete breakdown in spending discipline in Congress, it's time that we insist on compensating reforms that give the people a bigger say in the direction of Federal Government spending. I say it's time to give the people the power to cut the deficit. The size and structure of the Government also needs to be slimmed down and changed. The organization of the Federal Government reflects ways of doing business that are now 30 to 50 years old. Companies all across America have been restructuring, cutting costs, becoming more efficient -- preparing to be more competitive in a fast-changing marketplace. I believe the Federal Government can and should do the same thing. I believe a streamlining of the Federal Government should include three elements: First, I will cut the operating budget of the Executive Office of the President by 33% if Congress agrees to subject its operations to a cut of the same size. With fewer Congressional staffers badgering the Executive Branch, I know we can cut costs by that amount. Second, I believe all federal employees earning above $75,000 a year should be subject to a 5% pay cut; other Americans have tightened their belts, and so should the better-paid federal workers. Finally, I believe we can restructure and reduce the size of the Executive Branch through a consolidation of agencies and bureaus that will enable us to do our job better. Why should the Federal Government be the only large organization in America that continually adds size and offices, and never gets rid of anything? Therefore, I will submit a streamlined reorganization plan for the Executive Branch to the new Congress -- and I hope they take the hint, too. Let me give you an example. In many respects, the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, or ACDA, is a creature of the Cold War. It needs to adapt to the times. Its highly trained scientists and engineers are a valuable resource. Some of them can support our efforts to stem and reverse the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. But others may be well suited to work at weapons destruction and defense conversion -- transforming the genius of modern day swords into 2lst Century plowshares. Multiply this idea by a hundred, or even a thousand, others. We can get rid of some tasks, conduct others more efficiently, and add new ones where appropriate to support my agenda. I also am committed to reducing the tax burden on the American people. I have said that I will propose to further reduce taxes across-the-board, provided we pay for those cuts with specific spending reductions that I consider appropriate, so that we do not increase the deficit. To illustrate the kinds of tax cuts we could achieve if we discipline spending: just consider what we could do if Congress acted on the $132 billion in specific spending reductions that I have already proposed. These savings alone could finance an across-the-board rate cut of 1 percent, a reduction of the small business tax rate from 15% to 10%, an increase in small business expensing of investment in equipment, and a reduction of the capital gains tax. In sum, my direction is clear -- I want to spend less and tax less. My opponent wants to spend more and tax more. I believe the Federal Government can reallocate its almost $1.5 trillion in spending more effectively if we implement my agenda. The reductions in defense spending that we have already begun will provide some of these funds, and I don't want them wasted in a torrent of new spending programs designed by a horde of special interests. I honestly believe that this is the only way to get the size and spending of Government under control. I know that serious-minded people believe we need to increase revenues to close the deficit. But it won't work. I have seen too many times that efforts to close the deficit by increasing taxes have only turned out to give Congress a license to spend more money. There's a reason for this. Spending is power for Congressmen. That's how they show influence, and placate their friends, the interest groups. If you give Congressmen more tax money, they will spend it. XI. A Strategy for Implementation This year is an important turning point for the United States. We are entering a new era, and for the first time in many years, it appears that Congress will have 150 new faces for the President to work with. That's why I'm asking for a mandate for my program. That's why I have promised that I will meet with all new members -- all 150 or more -- before they are besieged by the special interests and permanent staffs. I also believe we need to take another step to ensure that the new Congress does not become like the old one. The root of the present problem is political contributions from organized special interests through political action committees, or PACS. In the run up to the 1980 elections, PACs raised and contributed $55 million to political candidates. In the same time period before the '90 elections, PACs spent about $160 million. The other party doesn't want to do anything about it, because they are the biggest recipients. I want to put them to the test. I want a new Congress to stay clean. So an important part of my new legislative agenda will be a simple bill to abolish PACs subsidized by corporations, unions, and trade associations. I am committed to making my program work with Congress. Between the election and the convening of a new Congress, I will lay out an implementation plan for my agenda. I intend to be ready to present the new Congress a first-year plan to carry out the legislative proposals described in this agenda: - A radical overhaul of American education to emphasize excellence, standards, competition, entrepreneurial schools, and a "G.I. Bill for Kids" that will give parents a choice of schools - My job training programs - My health care reforms - A package to cut spending, including a cap on the growth of mandatory spending, a taxpayers' "checkoff" to reduce the debt, a line-item veto, and a balanced budget amendment - Tax cuts paid for through spending reductions and growth, including reductions to spur entrepreneurial capitalism and small business - NAFTA - New trade negotiating authority so we can conclude new Free Trade Agreements across the Atlantic, the Pacific, and in our own hemisphere - A Government reorganization plan to streamline the structure, ensure functions fit new needs, and cut salaries at higher levels - Reform of our legal system - A package to clear away crime, build business, and put people to work in our inner cities - An expansion of Civilian R&D linked to new applications - Ban on PAC contributions - Limits on Congressional terms Now I know I may not be able to get everything I want in the exact way I want it. But your support for a mandate to get it done would give me momentum. I intend to fight for this agenda, fight as hard as I can to get as much as I can, and then come back again to get more. If Congress hesitates on some fronts, I intend to keep moving forward. You have seen that we can implement back-to-work welfare reform by granting waivers that enable the states to do the job more effectively. Similarly, 44 states and more than 1700 communities have started to implement my educational reforms while Congress has stalled. We can get a great deal done at the state and local levels. I will work with governors, state legislatures, local governments, and the private sector to pursue my agenda. While I want a Congress that can help me do the job, I'm committed to getting the job done one way or the other. ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp This is my Agenda for American Renewal. With the end of the long Cold War, we can target peace, prosperity, and promise at home. The American people want that. The American people deserve that. At the same time, Americans recognize that the great events of recent years have shaken the world, and it will never be the same. If we are to succeed as a nation and as a people, if we are to hold true to all that has made America "the last, best hope of earth" then our renewal at home must at the same time enable us to make the 2lst Century another American Century. My Agenda draws together our people and our Government to take on this challenge. We will create a $l0 trillion economy. We will renew America. We will win the peace. My approach to this challenge is fundamentally different from my opponent's. I want to stimulate entrepreneurial capitalism. I want to help people by enabling them to make their own decisions about health, education, job training, and child care from a variety of competing alternatives. I want to supply services through the private sector. I believe people should sue each other less and care for each other more. I want Government to spend less and tax less. I will fight without hesitation for a free and fair flow of trade, capital, and ideas around the world. I believe America should compete, not retreat. I know times have been difficult for too many Americans. I have sought to explain the causes of these problems and what I will do about them. Of course you will have change. The question is what kind of change. You face a serious choice. And I ask, when you step into that voting booth, please consider carefully which candidate's agenda for change fits best with your beliefs, America's experience, and our hopes for lasting peace and prosperity.