[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 11 (Thursday, January 19, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1136-S1140]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      MARIO CUOMO AND COMMON SENSE

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the wail and cry around Washington today 
is similar to what we heard 14 years ago when President Reagan came to 
town--get rid of the Government, downsize, the Government is the enemy. 
Today, like 14 years ago, the game to blame Government sounds good to 
many voters across the land. But look at the reality that has been 
inflicted on our country by 12 years of Republican rule--a deficit that 
is exploding and a debt that has more than quadrupled. The return of 
this feel-good kind of blaming in Washington is what Mario Cuomo 
related in his last official talk as Governor of New York. As he told 
reporters at the National Press Club on December 17, 1994, the game 
being played is ``deja voodoo'' and return to ``plastic populism.''
  Government is not an evil that the Founding Fathers thrust upon the 
people. Government in its best form is a means to provide economic 
opportunity, create jobs, and rebuild our American standard of living. 
It is time for all of us to work together to rebuild America, instead 
of only harping, squawking, and howling at the Moon.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to read and study this talk by 
Governor Cuomo. He speaks commonsense truths that are rooted in 
reality. As he says, we need a cure for our problems not a simple 
reaffirmation of the disease. We have to fix what is broken, but not 
break what works. To that end, I ask unanimous consent that his talk be 
reported in its entirety in the Congressional Record.
  There being no objection, the talk was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

 Remarks of Gov. Mario Cuomo at the National Press Club, December 16, 
                                  1994

       Governor Cuomo. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. 
     There are a lot of things I wanted to say immediately, just 
     in quick response to Gil Klein's introduction. I--the truth 
     about 1992 was that Klein, or somebody like him, just before 
     that plane took off, over the wire came a story in which I 
     was referred to as a consummate liberal. And that did it. I 
     decided to stay behind in New York State. (Laughter.)
       And I must say this--although I was going to say nothing at 
     all, because I don't want to use the 25 minutes they gave 
     me--there's a lot I do want to tell you. I did note with some 
     interest that the two biggest laughs from this rather 
     difficult looking groups were for the postmaster general and 
     Dan Quayle. (Laughter.)
       I am going to do something unusual now in this, what 
     appears I think to be the last time I'll be able to speak as 
     a public official, because nothing is going to happen over 
     the [[Page S1137]] next couple of weeks--and that didn't 
     strike me until I sat down and started making some notes. But 
     maybe especially because it is the last opportunity--there is 
     a whole lot I want to get in. And because of that I'll stay 
     close to my notes, closer than I usually do--and I'll rush a 
     bit, if you don't mind, because I want you to have time to do 
     the questions and answers. You know by now that I was elected 
     a private citizen--(laughter)--effective January 1st.
       It wasn't my first choice. Abraham Lincoln's familiar line 
     in a similar situation, which I think the President used the 
     other day, comes to mind. He said he felt like a young boy 
     who has just stubbed his toe; it hurt too much to laugh, but 
     he was too old to cry. The temptation, you should know, is to 
     whine, you know--(laughter)--at least a bit--Why not?--you 
     served 12 years, you're entitled. And I caught myself doing 
     that.
       I began pointing out to people that even since the 
     Republican landside on November 8th, it's been getting dark 
     outside a little earlier every day. (Laughter.) You notice 
     that? (Laughter. Applause.) The whining is not what we need. 
     So let me talk to you about some of the things I learned on 
     the way back to private life, and there's a lot. Let's talk 
     just a bit about America and how together we can make her 
     stronger and sweeter. Founded by the most optimistic people 
     in history, in just 200 years, as we all know, would become 
     the most dominant military and economic machine, and the 
     greatest engine of opportunity that the world has ever seen.
       But recently, say, within the last 15 years, we have made 
     some terrible mistakes as well. We produced two devastating 
     recessions that stripped from millions of our middle--class 
     families the basic promise of the American dream, and even 
     the simple security of steady work; mistakes that for 
     millions more have produced lives of sheer desperation, 
     dependence, and despair.
       Government did not create all these all these problems, but 
     government didn't solve them either. And the people know 
     that. Many of them are frightened, resentful, even angry. The 
     conservative Republicans measured that seething unhappiness 
     with polls, then designed some painless home remedies which 
     they strung together in a new political agenda that they call 
     now the ``Contract With America.'' And tell us it will solve 
     our problems. I don't think so.
       Some of the agenda puts the spotlight on relevant issues--
     at least for the moment. But the truth is, the contract fails 
     to deal substantially with the fundamental problems we face. 
     It's not a plan--it's an echo of selected polls. It adds 
     nothing to the opinion surveys. It makes absolutely no demand 
     on our political leadership, other than that they set sail in 
     whatever direction the political winds appear to be blowing 
     at the moment.
       It offers a kind of plastic populism, epitomized by its 
     bold promise of a balanced budget that will bend--or probably 
     break--when tested with the full weight of our real problems. 
     We need something much sturdier. We need an agenda that deals 
     with our real problems--all of them, especially the toughest 
     ones--and proposes real, concrete solutions, even if they are 
     politically inconvenient. The truth is--and I think we all 
     know this, too: America is faced with a double-barreled 
     challenge to our future. The most significant is an economy 
     that is rewarding investors for sure, but at the same time 
     threatening our workers.
       You tell a $30,000-a-year factory worker in Georgia or 
     California that this is a growing economy, this third-wave 
     economy, and see what reaction you get. The second challenge 
     is the frightening cultural corruption of drugs, degradation, 
     violence, and children having children, that's deteriorating 
     our cities, crippling much of our potential work force, and 
     alienating many of us from one another. And it is cultural. 
     It is a cultural problem.
       But the conservative Republican contract deals only 
     superficially with our economic challenge, and offers us 
     little more than castigation and negativism with respect to 
     our cultural weakness.
       Now, Democrats should show America that we can do better. 
     We should start by reaffirming our fundamental democratic 
     principles, beginning with the confidence that this country 
     can provide opportunity for everyone willing to earn it. And 
     the first mistake would be to give up on that aspiration, to 
     believe that somehow we are not as strong as we thought we 
     were--we can't do it--take up the gangplank!--we can't afford 
     them: That would be a mistake, an excuse if not a mistake, a 
     cynical excuse for not making the tough decisions that will 
     make it possible for us to realize what is obvious, enormous 
     potential strength still unused.
       Our strong suit as Democrats has always been our concern 
     for the vast majority of Americans who must work for a 
     living--that's where we come from. That means we are 
     committed to creating good jobs in a strong free-enterprise 
     system, and to making sure that every working family in this 
     country can earn enough to live with a reasonable degree of 
     security and comfort. We believe that as part of the 
     Democratic bargain every American has responsibilities.
       Everyone who can work should work, instead of expecting 
     others to pay their way. Businesses that thrive should share 
     the rewards with their workers fairly--business has a 
     responsibility as well. And government should help create 
     jobs, not discourage them; nor should it burden the rewards 
     of work with unreasonable heavy taxes.
       Now, we believe in law and order. I have built more prison 
     cells than all of the governors in history of New York State 
     before me put together. But we will insist on fairness, and 
     privacy, and civil rights. We agree with Lincoln that we 
     should have only the government we need. But we agree with 
     Lincoln, as well, that we must have all the government we 
     need. We must have all the government we need.
       And so a balanced budget that fails to meet the basic needs 
     of the struggling middle class or the desperate poor would be 
     an emblem of failure. We believe in the common sense value of 
     sticks, but we also believe in the common sense power of 
     carrots. We believe that prevention is always a good idea, 
     and almost always cheaper.
       We'd rather preserve a family than build an orphanage. We 
     believe that we're too good as a people to seek solutions by 
     hurting the weakest among us--especially our children. And at 
     our wisest--at our wisest, and it's not always true. It is 
     probably not true at this moment. But at our wisest, we 
     believe that we are all in this together, that Jeremiah was 
     right, thousands of years ago, that we will find our own good 
     in the good of the whole community.
       Now, this is not the time or the place to give all the 
     details of what we can and must do to deal with the 
     challenges and opportunities, while living up to these 
     principles. But we should reflect on enough of them, and I 
     have the responsibility to give you at least enough of them 
     so that you can see that the agenda offered by the Contract 
     is obviously incomplete, and utterly inadequate to this 
     moment in American history. Most of all, we need to generate 
     more jobs.
       We'll accept that--jobs that pay a living wage and make 
     hope a possibility, and a global economy, where labor often 
     costs less in other places in the world--and that's the key. 
     This is a complex challenge. But the Republicans would have 
     us believe that the solution is remarkably simple.
       Now, do you know how hard it is? Taiwan and that part of 
     the world, in China, Mexico--they can make things a lot 
     cheaper than you can. That puts an enormous pressure on your 
     manufacturing. How do the Republicans deal with this problem? 
     That's why the $30,000 a year factory worker is scared to 
     death. He knows it. He knows the investors are getting 
     richer, and everybody is downsizing here, and the competition 
     is enormous all over the world--a competition that I grew up 
     without having to face.
       Well, their proposal--the Republican proposal is right out 
     of the permanent conservative Republican playbook. Cut the 
     tax on capital gains, boost the defense budget, amend the 
     Constitution to enforce a balanced budget. But let's not get 
     bogged down in the awkward details about what we'd actually 
     have to cut. Cut the taxes, boost the defense budget, and 
     then provide a balanced budget. Does it sound familiar to 
     you? Do you remember hearing that before? Cut your income, 
     raise your expenses, and promise the bank that, this time, 
     you're sure you can make ends meet. Does it sound familiar? 
     It's nothing more than deja voodoo. (Laughter.)
       In the early '80s--in the early '80s, the conservative 
     Republicans promised huge tax cuts, a huge military, and a 
     balanced budget--and we wound up, as we all know, with a deep 
     recession and $4 trillion more in debt. Now, why is it 
     different now? Why would it work any differently now? Has 
     something changed? Has there been some kind of cosmic 
     alteration? Only the language has changed.
       In the '80s, they talked about the magic of supply side. 
     Now, they have thought up a new way to count. It's called 
     dynamic scoring. Do you know what dynamic scoring means? It 
     means that, for every basket they put in the whole, they get 
     ten points. That's dynamic scoring. And it would be wonderful 
     if it were as easy as that--free up the wealth in the hands 
     of the wealthy, and it will eventually take care of all of 
     us. Now, this country tries that every so often. We tried it 
     in the '80s--the early '80s.
       But then the truth re-emerges. Life is more complicated and 
     harder. It includes bothersome details, like a national 
     deficit, leashed in by President Clinton, but ready to run 
     wild at the least relaxation or provocation. Life includes 
     popular entitlement programs that won't be around for our 
     children at all, if we cannot bring ourselves to make 
     intelligent, but different sacrifices now. Everybody in this 
     room knows it. In every conversation in Washington or New 
     York or the capitals of the country, where people know what 
     they're talking about, they all say the same thing. ``You 
     must do something about Social Security.'' We all know that. 
     ``You must deal with Medicare.'' You can't deal with our 
     deficit problem without doing something about Social Security 
     and Medicare.
       However, it's political poison, so we won't do it. But 
     didn't you just tell me that, if we don't do something about 
     it, we're in terrible trouble? Yes. And then you tell me that 
     it's going to be very difficult to deal with it politically. 
     Yes. And what do you prescribe then? Keep yourself alive 
     politically, and let the country die. Am I exaggerating? Do 
     you hear it differently? You write about it. You write about 
     it glibly. Everybody comments on it--most of the time, 
     snidely. But nobody changes it. Warren Rudman leaves. Paul 
     Tsongas creates a group. Peter Peterson writes books.
       Everybody is saying the same thing, and all the people who 
     are bright, saying they're right, and admitting--at the same 
     time--we do not have the will to change it. Why don't 
     [[Page S1138]] you at least say this to the American people. 
     Why don't you say, ``Look, let's get this clear, because I 
     have the obligation to tell the truth.'' Who knows? Maybe 
     there is a heaven. Worse than that, maybe there's a hell. 
     (Laughter.)
       Maybe I'm going to be accountable. Maybe I'd better tell 
     you the truth. So, I'm going to take a chance.
       Ladies and gentlemen, all the tax cuts in the world won't 
     wave you. They're popular, but we need a double bypass--and 
     we're talking about giving you cosmetic surgery. And the 
     reason we're doing that is, it's too tough to give you a 
     bypass. We have to cut with a knife. That's very expensive. 
     It's very costly. It's unpleasant for you. We have to do 
     Social Security. We have to do Medicare. You have to apply a 
     needs test of some kind. Everybody knows it.
       Now, why, therefore, don't the Republicans tell you that? 
     Well, because they're into popularity. Why don't we tell you 
     that? Because we're into popularity, too. (Laughter.) But 
     we're going to say this to you. As long as the Republicans 
     are in power in the Congress, and as long as it's absolutely 
     clear that they will have a Pavlovian response to whatever 
     you tell them in the polls, start telling them in the polls 
     that you've finally awakened. You know they have to do 
     something about Social Security and Medicare. Please do 
     Social Security and Medicare. They will write a new Contract 
     with America, addendum to the Contract with America. We've 
     seen the latest poll. It just came in over the Internet. 
     Okay. You can have Social Security. (Laughter/Applause.)
       There's another--there is another inconvenient truth, and 
     that is that you have to make investments if you want to get 
     returns. The Republicans especially should know that. And 
     that means, if we want to be the high tech capital of the 
     world--which you have to be, because if you're going to 
     compete with cheap labor, how are you going to do it? You're 
     going to have to make things with exquisite high tech 
     capacity and superb productivity so that you can make things 
     better and faster and different from the things that they can 
     make--even with cheaper labor.
       How else do you do it? The only other way is to expand a 
     whole other thing beyond manufacturing, make exquisite 
     improvements in services. We're doing that. We're the service 
     capital of the world already--and we will stay that way for a 
     long time, especially as long as New York stays strong, 
     because you have banking, investment banking, and a lot of 
     that there, publishing, et cetera. We're doing fine with 
     services. On the manufacturing side, you can't do it without 
     high tech. You have to do what we're doing in New York 
     State--make a unique lens that we just sold to the Japanese. 
     And when I complained to the University of Rochester about 
     selling a unique lens to the Japanese, who are so good at 
     replicating our products and getting--and producing something 
     cheaper, they said, ``Don't worry about it. We're working on 
     a second lens.'' (Laughter.)
       Making a new mammography machine on Long Island through 
     high tech--a mammography machine that solves the problem that 
     the woman has with the old machine, where she has to press 
     herself up against this plate, where there's constriction, 
     discomfort, and a poor picture. This one inclines. Bennett X-
     ray. You incline and gravity does the work. And there's a 
     full picture. And my daughter, the radiologist loves it. And 
     the woman is pleased by it. And the physician who has to 
     operate feels better about it because he has a better 
     picture. And we sell it to the Germans that make surgical 
     instruments. And when I say to Bennett X-ray, ``I created a 
     center of high technology. Now you take this wonderful 
     product. You send it to the Germans. How long before they 
     replicate it?'' He says, ``Five months.'' I said, ``Well, 
     what are we going to do about that?'' He said, ``Don't worry 
     about it, Governor. We're working on digitalizing it. We're 
     taking the digital engineers from Grumman who have gone down, 
     because they're no longer making planes. They're coming here. 
     They're working on our mammography machine.'' You have to 
     stay one step ahead of them in high tech.
       That's the way you became great the first time around. You 
     used to make all the things of value in this world. You were 
     the makers and the sellers, the creditors and the bankers. 
     That's how we became dominant. You can't get out of that 
     business now because you're in a global economy. You have to 
     make things. That means high tech. That means research. That 
     means investment, investment, investment. And someone has to 
     pay for it. There are plenty of good way of making our 
     workers better equipped, too. And you can't do that.
       You can't leave that factory worker where he is now, or she 
     is now, at $30,000, and say, ``Look, in this high tech world 
     where we have to be smarter and slicker than they are, I'm 
     afraid you're going to fall behind because you don't have the 
     training.'' The GI Bill is a good idea for workers. Training 
     vouchers is a good idea. Head Start is absolutely 
     essential--learning technologies.
       Is there any way you can explain how every kid in the 
     United States of America doesn't have the opportunity to 
     learn at a computer? How do you explain that to yourself? The 
     richest place in world history, with all the tremendous 
     wealth you have. How do you explain to yourself that there 
     are kids who never see a computer--in my state, where people 
     have Porsches parked or BMWs parked next to Jaguars? How do 
     you explain it, when you're selling the airwaves for billions 
     of dollars that you didn't even expect to have? Vice 
     President Al Gore is right. Let's take some of that money and 
     invest it in learning technologies.
       Tax cut--hell of an idea. Learning technologies--an even 
     better idea. Make your children the smartest in the world. 
     Everybody knows that that's the avenue to the future. You 
     write tracts about it. Kids write essays about it in the 8th 
     grade.
       But we're not doing it. That's the real world. It means 
     investing, then capitalize, on the most extensive higher 
     education system in the world. Promoting its strength and 
     research, and making sure that it does not--that it becomes 
     accessible to everybody. It means infrastructure. There is no 
     money for infrastructure. Have you heard any Republican step 
     forward and say, ``And another thing we're going to do is 
     we're going to build the infrastructure.'' Why? 
     Infrastructure is an arcane word. You get no political points 
     for infrastructure.
       I wish I could think of some sexy way to say roads, 
     bridges, telecommunication, fiber optics. Infrastructure. 
     Forty percent of the roads and bridges are in trouble. 
     Overseas, they spent $6 billion, Maglev, they're way ahead of 
     you. You cannot succeed economically unless you invest in 
     infrastructure. Where are you going to get the money? They 
     didn't even mention it. How could you not mention it? Is 
     there anybody alive with any brains at all who knows anything 
     about the economy who would not say to you that, ``Of course, 
     we must invest more in the infrastructure.'' Or do they get 
     challenged?
       Does the public rise up after they have heard somebody on 
     television say, ``Well, I'll never vote for you. You never 
     even mentioned--what was that--infrastructure.'' 
     Infrastructure. (Laughter.)
       Those conservative Republicans cannot deny that all of 
     these investments are essential. They simply ignore them 
     because they're politically difficult truths, and because the 
     polls don't give you points for arcane things like 
     infrastructure. They know America needs a double bypass. And 
     they know they're only suggesting cosmetic surgery. But as 
     long as its popular, that's what they're going to give you.
       Now, massive tax cuts of any kind would surely ring the 
     popularity bell. But would you insist on them, if it meant 
     that local tax rates would explode across the country--which 
     they could, if you cut back programs that the states are 
     going to have to pay for instead. Would they insist on tax 
     cuts if they knew that bridges would collapse, that the 
     deficit might go up again, that you were failing to meet your 
     educational needs? And if we can afford to lower taxes, would 
     you give 70 percent of the immediate benefits to people who 
     make $100,000 a year, or would you give 70 percent of the 
     immediate benefits to the ordinary families across America?
       And as long as you Republicans are so quick to point out 
     that the people have spoken--who told you? The poll. Why 
     don't you take a poll on it. Mr. and Mrs. America, we're 
     going to give you a tax cut. What do you want? A tax cut the 
     immediate benefit of which goes to--70 percent of which goes 
     to the people above 100,000, or one that goes to people under 
     100,000? What do you think the poll would say? How about this 
     one. Mr. and Mrs. America, would you like to shorten the 
     congressional session and cut everybody's salary in half--
     senators and congressmen? What do you think they'd say? 
     (Laughter.)
       Last time I looked, it was 82 percent said yes. I didn't 
     see a single Republican hold up, ``The people have spoken.'' 
     (Laughter.)
       Of course, Democrats respect and believe in the efficiency 
     of capitalism. A capital gains tax cut, in some 
     circumstances, could be a very, very good thing. 
     Deregulation--a very, very good thing. I did a lot of it in 
     my own state. But if our system works only for investors and 
     leaves millions of our people without the skills or 
     opportunity to do more than tread water against the tide, our 
     system fails. Now, if they're silent on these important 
     things, what are they loudest on? Now, I'm really going to 
     have to rush--and it's a shame.
       Welfare. Why? Because it's popular. Don't you see what's 
     happened? They've turned the middle class against the crowd 
     beneath them. In the depression, you know, when everybody was 
     angry, in 1932, whom did they blame? They blamed the power. 
     The people who made it happen.
       The bankers. The government. Everybody turned on the 
     government--and they were right. And what's happened this 
     time? Now they've turned the middle class downward. Instead 
     of looking up at the people with the wealth, they're looking 
     down at the people who are the victims. And who are you 
     blaming?
       The immigrants. That's easy. They have no political power, 
     really, to speak of. Forget the fact that everybody here is 
     an immigrant and that we all started by killing the only real 
     entitled people to the place--the Native Americans. We 
     butchered them. We savaged them. Everybody else is an 
     intruder by your popular current definition. Forget that, 
     because I'm lucky to be here now. It's the immigrants who are 
     our problem. It's that baby who's making a baby. Forget about 
     the fact that you allowed her, at the age of two, to be a 
     toddler in streets surrounded by pimps and prostitutes and 
     every kind of disorientation, that you allowed her to be 
     seduced by somebody with a crack pipe when she was only nine 
     years old.
       Forget about that, that you allowed that society, that you 
     allowed it to happen. She's the problem. Punish her. Punish 
     the mother. [[Page S1139]] No benefits for that child. Stick 
     the child in an orphanage. You really think that's the 
     answer? I don't.
       In New York State we have problems, but we have answers, 
     too, and they're not orphanages. We can show you ways to 
     bring down teenage pregnancy dramatically, and we have with 
     the new Avenues to Dignity program in New York. That's not as 
     popular as draconian devices, like what they want to do with 
     welfare or the death penalty. In the end, behind nearly every 
     one of the Republican proposals lurks the same harshness 
     and negativity. And I think we need better from our 
     leaders than to have them distill our worst instincts and 
     then bottle the bitter juices and offer them back to us as 
     a magic elixir.
       We need a cure, not a reaffirmation of our distress. We 
     must understand that our great social problems are not 
     visited upon us like earthquakes and floods. They are 
     uniformly avoidable disasters. And with intelligent and 
     timely action, we can prevent them before they pull our 
     children down. Punishment has its place, of course. But 
     prevention requires more than fear. In New York, the movement 
     toward prevention is the strongest element in our approach to 
     health care.
       Incidentally, that's what reforming health care should be 
     all about, prevention. The reason you need to cover those 39 
     million people is not compassion. It's not that they're not 
     getting health care. They are getting health care. In my 
     state, everybody gets health care, even the people without 
     insurance. They fall down in the street and they're taken to 
     the emergency room. Or they come with a terrible pain in 
     their belly that would have been nothing if they had been 
     insured and been to a doctor early, but now is acute. And we 
     take care of them. What would we do, let them die? ``You have 
     no Medicaid. You have no insurance. Lay here and die.'' Of 
     course not. We operate. You can find in the hospitals of New 
     York City women and men on machines being kept alive for 
     nobody knows how long except God, without any insurance, 
     without any name, and we take care of them. You can't afford 
     that.
       Health care costs are going through the roof everywhere 
     except in New York State. And they're high there, but we're 
     the lowest-growing in the United States of America. That 
     surprises a lot of people.
       You have to do something about those 39 million people. And 
     if Congress closed its eyes because it couldn't find a proper 
     solution last time, you can't simply say, ``This is too 
     difficult; leave the problem there.'' You will go bankrupt. 
     Really? Of course. You all know that. It's not just Ira 
     Magaziner. You can't make it go away by saying, ``Well, it 
     was very unpopular.'' So do something else. Do something like 
     what we're doing in New York. At least let the children of 
     working people get insurance, get them into plans. We 
     subsidize them to get them into plans. Why? Prevention. If 
     you can vaccinate them, it's cheaper than trying to deal with 
     their disease; so, too, with drugs. What is the answer to 
     drugs? Look, you can build all the prisons you want.
       You can contrive all the draconian punishments you want. 
     You can say what the Republicans say, that more police, more 
     prisons, more executions and reversing the ban on assault 
     weapons will take care of the drugs and take care of the 
     crime. It won't. Forget all about the complicated talk. 
     Imagine this. Imagine a village. Imagine a village where the 
     young people are drinking at a poisoned lake. And it makes 
     them mad, and they come in every night to the village and 
     they commit mayhem. And they rape and they kill and you 
     arrest more and more of them and you stick them into jails in 
     the village, and the jails are getting bigger and bigger and 
     you have more and more village police and the villagers are 
     complaining because they can't afford it.
       And the generation of criminals keeps pouring out of the 
     hills, having come from the poison lake. Wouldn't somebody 
     with some brains say, ``For God's sakes, let's dry up the 
     lake; let's find another source of water''? Of course you 
     would. But why aren't you doing it here? Why doesn't it 
     occur to you that unless you stop the generation of these 
     drug-ridden people who become criminals and then violent 
     criminals--your biggest problem now in terms of crime: 
     children with guns. You're not going to get at that. Take 
     it from me.
       I told you, I've built more prison cells than all the 
     governors in history before me put together, and it's not 
     going to work. Ask any policeman. Fifteen years ago they 
     would have told you something else. You have cultural 
     problems. I'm going to have to end it now, and it really is a 
     shame because I'm leaving out a lot of the good stuff. 
     (Laughter.)
       I really am. But let me leave with maybe the largest point, 
     and maybe the largest point that I have learned in public 
     life, and it's something that I kind of intuited before I was 
     in public life. It's something I spoke about in my first 
     speech before I ever even ran, and this was up in Buffalo in 
     1973 and I was talking about mama and papa and what was 
     important about mama and papa and what they taught me, these 
     two illiterate people, what they taught me by their example.
       And what they taught me, basically--and then a Vincencian 
     priest, you know, added to it, and then good books, you know, 
     taught you most of all, that you're going to spend your whole 
     life learning things and experiencing things, most of all 
     disappointment and occasionally moments of joy. But in the 
     end, you've got to find some raison d'etre. You have to find 
     some reason for living. You have to find something to believe 
     in. And for it to work, it has to be larger than you, that 
     you will discover that you are not enough to satisfy 
     yourself. Now, you might get to be 70 years old before you 
     figure it out, but sooner or later you'll figure it out, that 
     you must have something larger than yourself to hold on to.
       Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio, Bobby Kennedy, Martin 
     Luther King, Jr.; some great cause, some great purpose? The 
     Second World War did that. I remember a little bit of that. 
     The Second World War was a horrid thing, but it unified 
     everybody in America. They were evil; we were good. They were 
     Satan; we were doing God's work. And everybody got together--
     the men, the women, the blacks, everybody; forget about poor, 
     forget about middle class, forget about everything else.
       There's a grander purpose here. There's a greater truth 
     here, something we can give ourselves to, and we'll fight 
     like hell. And we did. We haven't had anything like that 
     since, and you don't have it now.
       You're turning those white factory workers all over the 
     country against people of color. You're turning them against 
     the immigrants. They're blaming them. And I understand why 
     they're blaming them. their life is vulnerable. They say, 
     ``You're doing nothing for me, everything for them.'' That's 
     the truth of it. You know it. We all talk about it. We don't 
     all write about it that clearly, but you know that the 
     society is being fragmented.
       It used to be the middle class against the rich, but now 
     somehow, I think with a little encouragement from some of the 
     politicians, you have turned the middle class to look 
     downward instead of up. And they're now pitted against the 
     poorest. So here are the least powerful people in your 
     society, the least fortunate, squabbling with one another.
       Ladies and gentlemen, unless we find a way to put this 
     whole place together, unless we find a way to see that your 
     interest depends upon your seeing the child in South Jamaica, 
     that Latina, that little Hispanic girl who just had a baby, 
     that little black girl who just had a baby, as your child, or 
     unless you see that factory worker in Georgia as your father 
     about to lose his job, unless you understand that it's not as 
     a matter of love, not even at Christmas and Hanukkah time; I 
     wouldn't ask that of anybody in a political context. It's too 
     much to use the word compassion. Forget that. You'll lose.
       As a matter of common sense, you cannot afford the loss of 
     productivity. You cannot afford the cost of drug addiction. 
     You cannot afford it. We will not make it in this country 
     unless we invest in dealing with those problems. And to deal 
     with those problems, you have to give them other avenues to 
     dignity instead of streets of despair. You will not frighten 
     them into being good. You will not punish them into stopping 
     drugs. You have to teach them. How to teach them?
       Have a crusade; not just a rhetorical crusade, a real 
     crusade. Invest in it. How would you teach children not to 
     have sex too soon, to treat it as a great gift, not to be 
     violent, not to take the drugs? How would you teach them? How 
     do you teach anybody? Well, at home; their family is broken. 
     In school; the teacher is too busy. In the church, the 
     temple, the mosque; if they went there, it wouldn't be a 
     problem. How do you teach them? Let the government teach them 
     with laws. There's a role there, yes.
       What's the best teaching instrument you have? Television. 
     Yes, that's right. Why don't we teach them every night on 
     prime time? Well, we have Partnership for a Drug-Free 
     America. Once every week or two weeks they'll see those great 
     commercials by the Partnership for a Drug-Free America. You 
     read the New York Times this week. Drug use is up with 
     teenagers. Why? Part of the reason, Partnership for a Drug-
     Free America isn't being seen enough. How do you explain that 
     to yourself? You know it works.
       You know the best thing you can do is teach the children 
     not to take the drugs. The best way to teach them is 
     television. Why aren't you on prime time? How can you settle 
     for once a week or once every two weeks? If you were a mother 
     of a child in South Jamaica, my neighborhood, and you knew 
     that they were out there, going to tempt her with a crack 
     pipe, and you had to go to work, would you settle for a 
     stick-it note on the refrigerator once a week saying, ``Hey, 
     dear, if they come at you with a pipe, make sure you don't 
     take it. See you tonight. Mother.'' Would you settle for 
     that?
       We're settling for it as a society. You want to talk about 
     tax cuts? You want to talk about all these nice things? Talk 
     about the real problems. Talk about how to invest in your 
     economy, how to create jobs, how to invest in a real crusade 
     that would have to--put up some money. Buy some time. Sit 
     down with Tisch at NBC and all the others. Say, ``We'll put 
     up 5 million bucks. We want you to do the same.'' Let's 
     saturate the place. Let's have billboards. Let the National 
     Press Club write about it. Let all the community groups talk 
     about it. Let's go at this problem for real because it's 
     killing them and it's killing us.
       Look, I lost an election. I've lost more than one, but I've 
     learned a whole lot on the way, and I haven't forgotten any 
     of it. And I'm telling you that I am absolutely certain we 
     are not being honest about our problems. And the person who 
     stands up and is honest with America and reminds America that 
     [[Page S1140]] they're now in charge--politicians used to 
     think of themselves as shepherds. That's all over now.
       Now the politicians are following the sheep. Read the 
     polls. They'll tell you where they should go to pasture. And 
     as long as you know that, you had better send the right 
     signals to your government, because if you tell them you want 
     the death penalty, you'll get it. If you tell them you want 
     tax cuts, you'll get it. If you tell them to take up the 
     gangplank, you'll get it. If you tell them to ignore sick 
     people, you'll get it. If you tell them to ignore the poor, 
     you'll get it. If you tell them to victimize young children, 
     you'll get it.
       Be careful what you ask for, because they're listening for 
     you. And ask for the right things. Ask for the truth. Ask for 
     the real solutions to the real problems. I learned that. I 
     won't forget it. Thank you for your patience.

                          ____________________