    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1995, Book II)]
    [September 20, 1995]
    [Pages 1411-1419]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Remarks at a Clinton/Gore '96 Dinner in Denver, Colorado
    September 20, 1995

        Thank you very much, Mr. Vice President; you certainly convinced me.
    [Laughter] Folks, I hope I live long enough to see Al Gore look at this
    seal when he won't have to close his eye to read, ``President of the
    United States of America.'' [Applause] Thank you. You have no idea how
    good a speech that was. Sunny must have waked him up down there at
    dinner or something because the Vice President and I were in
    Philadelphia 2 nights ago; I flew to Miami; he flew back to Washington.
    But the next night when we were speaking in Miami, he was in Miami. Now
    here we are in Denver. I flew to Denver last night; he flew back to
    Washington--[laughter]--and then got up this morning and flew to New
    Mexico and then came here. He is a bionic person. He actually has a
    little computer chip at the base of his spine that was about to play
    out. [Laughter] And I don't know how he got through this tonight, but
    I'm grateful to him for doing it. [Laughter]
        Let me say that I am honored to be here with Wellington Webb and
    with Wilma. I admire his leadership, and I admire their partnership.
    That has a pretty high place in our family's deliberation; I like that.
    I've enjoyed working with Mayor Webb on many things, and we've got a lot
    of things to work on in the future for the benefit of the people of
    Denver, and I look forward to that.
        I always love the time that I have to spend with Roy Romer, who, as
    all of you know, is a longtime friend of mine. He and Bea and Hillary
    and I have known each other a long time because we both were fortunate
    enough to serve as Governors for a long time. And I said today down in
    Pueblo, I want to say again--by the time I left the governorship in 1992
    to become President it was the consensus of the Governors of the United
    States in both parties that Roy Romer was the best and most innovative
    Governor in the entire country.
        I also want to thank all of you who sold the tickets and who raised
    the money and those

    [[Page 1412]]

    of you who gave it and came here. Tonight I want to talk to you a little
    bit about--the Vice President has talked about what we have done--I want
    to talk about what we're going to do and what matters to our country.
    And I want to ask you when you leave here not to think that your job is
    done.
        I am profoundly grateful for the support, for the work that Terry
    McAuliffe and Laura Hartigan and our people have done and all the people
    here in Colorado and the folks who have come from Arizona and other
    places all across America. I thank you for that. But I would remind you
    that this is just a beginning. Every one of you was given at your seats
    a little article about our administration, written by a person I've
    never even met, but it's pretty favorable. [Laughter] And you can read
    the other stuff every day--[laughter]--and a summary of the things that
    the Vice President just talked about. I hope you'll take it home with
    you. I hope you'll give it to your friends. I hope you'll use it. I hope
    you'll begin to speak about why this election is important, because I
    believe that what we have done and what it is we still have to do as a
    people, make this coming election one of the most important elections of
    this century.
        I also want to say one very serious word about the Vice President.
    You know, all those things he said we've done he told the truth about,
    but what he didn't say is a lot of them would not have happened if he
    hadn't been the Vice President. And I think even the people who don't
    like me and don't agree with a lot of our policies cannot dispute that
    because of his role in reinventing Government, in telecommunications
    policy, in the environment, and in foreign policy, he is the most
    influential Vice President in the history of the United States of
    America.
        Now, one of the things that wasn't on his David Letterman's list of
    the 10 best reasons to be Vice President that should have been is,
    working with Bill Clinton. I know so much more about so many things than
    he does, I have an interesting job, and when it goes wrong, he takes the
    heat. [Laughter] But nonetheless, it's been an incredible partnership.
        First thing I want to tell you is that this is one of those sort of
    get-off-the-dime elections. You know how people always say they want you
    to be brave and courageous and they want this, that, and the other
    thing, but they don't, really? [Laughter] You know? It's fine if you do
    it, but not them. Or, one of Clinton's laws of politics is, everybody is
    for change in general, but against it in particular.
        I heard a story the other day that a friend of mine--actually, my
    senior Senator--told me about our neighbors in Louisiana, when Huey Long
    was preaching his ``share the wealth'' gospel in the Great Depression.
    And he was out in a country crossroads speaking to a bunch of farmers in
    their overalls. And he saw one he knew out there, and he was trying to
    make the point that half the people in the country were starving and out
    of work, people in Louisiana were in terrible shape. And he saw this old
    farmer, and he said, ``Now, Brother Jones, if you had three Cadillacs,
    wouldn't you give one of them up so that we could drive these country
    roads and collect all these kids up and take them to school during the
    week and to church on Sunday?'' He said, ``Of course I would.'' He said,
    ``Brother Jones, if you had $1 million, wouldn't you give up half of it
    so we could build a house for every family in this county and put a roof
    over their heads, give them three good meals a day?'' He said, ``You bet
    I would.'' He said, ``And Brother Jones, if you had three hogs--'' He
    said, ``Now, wait a minute, Governor, I've got three hogs.'' [Laughter]
    So everybody's for change in general.
        Or my favorite story--I've got to quit this, but--[laughter]--my
    favorite story is the minister who gave very boring sermons, and finally
    he decided he would, if he never gave another one, finally give a
    passionate sermon that would move his congregation to give up all their
    inhibitions and stand up and shout and reaffirm their faith. And he
    worked and worked and worked, and he was doing a brilliant job. And he
    got to the climax of the sermon and he says, ``I want everybody who
    wants to go to Heaven to stand up.'' And the whole congregation leapt to
    their feet, except one old lady on the front row that hadn't missed a
    Sunday in 40 years. And he was crestfallen. And he said, ``Miss Jones,
    don't you want to go to Heaven when you die?'' And she leapt up, and she
    said, ``I'm sorry, Preacher, I thought you were trying to get up a load
    to go right now.'' [Laughter] So we're all for this in general but not
    in particular.
        Now, what is the point of all of this? What is the point of all
    this? We are living, I believe--when historians look back at this time,
    they will say that we are living now through a period

    [[Page 1413]]

    of change so profound that its only parallel really is what happened 100
    years ago when we became an industrial and urbanized society, moving out
    of a rural agricultural society. We are now becoming not an industrial
    society but a society rooted in information and technology, even in
    manufacturing where the permutations of the uses of information and
    technology are staggering, unending, and rapidly increasing all the
    time.
        We are moving from a bipolar world of nation-states roughly
    organized by the cold war into a post-cold-war era where there is
    remarkable global economic integration but very frightening forces of
    disintegration all across the globe, mostly organized forces of
    religious or racial or ethnic bigotry that can access technology to do
    terrible damage, whether it's a bomb blowing up a bus in Israel or a
    fanatic breaking open a vial of sarin gas in a subway station in Tokyo
    or a disturbed young man blowing up the Federal building in Oklahoma
    City with a bomb, the instructions for making which you can now find
    over the Internet if you're plugged into one of the fanatic programs.
        On balance, this is a very exciting world we are moving into, and
    most of the people in this room, we're going to do great. And it's the
    most exciting time you can imagine. But it's also a time that is full of
    challenge.
        Whenever people have to change, as I just tried to illustrate from
    my little stories, there is always a sort of inbred reluctance. We can't
    get to where we need to go, we can't make the 21st century America's
    century, we can't keep the American dream alive for all our people
    unless we're willing to embrace new ideas and new approaches. But we
    also have to be faithful to our basic values.
        To go back to the remarks that Governor Romer made earlier tonight,
    that really is what this debate in Washington is all about today. How
    can we change and do what we need to do and be true to our basic values:
    freedom and responsibility, work and family and community, the
    obligation to find common ground and to work together, the obligation to
    do some things that may be unpopular in the present because they will be
    right for our kids 20 and 30 years from now? How can we help families to
    stick together? How can we help parents to raise their children in the
    right way? How can we give communities the capacity to solve their own
    problems and seize their own opportunities? How can we both help people
    who are trying to help themselves but hold people accountable who are
    doing things that are destructive of where we all want to go? That, it
    seems to me, is the great question of the day.
        Now, you heard what the Vice President said. Our economic policies
    have brought a lot of good. We didn't do it alone, but we were a good
    partner with the private sector. And I want us to do more. Some of you
    here tonight are into communications. I want us to have a
    telecommunications reform in this country that will unleash enormous
    competitive impulses and create tens of thousands of new jobs. But I
    don't want to do it at the expense of ordinary people; I want us to have
    a fair and balanced approach to this. And let me explain why.
        If I had told you on the day I was inaugurated--just consider this--
    now, if I told you on the day I was inaugurated, 30 months from now
    here's what will happen: We'll have 7\1/2\ million jobs, 2\1/2\ million
    new homeowners, 2 million new small businesses, the largest number of
    new entrepreneurs than at any time in our history; we will have the
    largest number of new self-made millionaires in American history--
    hallelujah--the stock market will be at 4,700; but the wage of the guy
    in the middle in America will have dropped one percent, you would think,
    ``Nah, no way, can't have happened.'' But that's exactly what's
    happened.
        In other words, in the midst of what by any standard is a very
    strong economic recovery, the 25 percent increase in exports and all the
    other things the Vice President said and with the jobs being created, on
    balance, paying way above average wages, the median wage, the wage of
    the person in the middle, is still slipping.
        Why is that? Because all these forces toward global integration work
    to press disintegration on families and communities who aren't prepared
    to compete and win in that world. That means if our value is to keep the
    American dream alive for everybody who's willing to work hard, we have
    to ask ourselves, now what do we have to do, not only to keep the
    economic recovery going but to spread its benefits to all those people
    that are out there doing the right thing and still can't keep up?
        If I had told you 30 months ago that the crime rate would be down in
    this country, the murder rate would be down, the welfare rolls would be
    down, the food stamp rolls would be

    [[Page 1414]]

    down--even some of our deeper social issues that don't go directly to
    Government actions--the divorce rate is down, the number of abortions in
    America is down, we seem to be coming back to a more traditional way of
    coming to grips with our problems, you would say, ``That's very good.''
    And a lot of our policies did contribute to some of that. We're
    collecting more child support as well. We are collecting more
    delinquencies on student loans. We are holding people more accountable
    for their actions. That's all great. How could this happen and at the
    same time we are facing, as the mayor and I talked about tonight, an
    explosion in crime among juveniles between the ages of 12 and 17? Drug
    use among people between the ages of 18 and 34 is down in America, but
    casual drug use among people between the ages of 12 and 17 is up. There
    are a lot of reasons for this, folks. And I may be stepping on
    somebody's toes tonight, but a lot of these kids are out there raising
    themselves. A lot of the schools are turning them out too early. And a
    lot of them see people their own age being manipulated in horrible ways.
    And as I said, this may not be popular. I don't have any comment on
    whether those Calvin Klein ads were legal or illegal, but those kids
    were my daughter's age that were in those ads, and they were outrageous.
    It was wrong.
        And it is wrong to manipulate. It is wrong to manipulate these
    children, to use them for commercial benefit. It's hard enough to grow
    up in this world as it is without confusing people further. It's hard
    enough to give kids a chance to grow and to learn and to adjust to how
    they ought to relate to other people without their being either ignored
    or manipulated.
        So I say to you, we ought to be happy about these good things that
    are happening. I am ecstatic. But we cannot lose a whole generation of
    our children. And if they don't happen to be in our families, and they
    happen to be poor and they happen to live a long way from us, we still
    better be concerned about them.
        Yesterday when I was with Governor Romer's and my friend Lawton
    Chiles, the Governor of Florida, who used to be the chairman of the
    Senate Budget Committee and was always trying to get us to do something
    about the deficit, he said an interesting thing. He said America has to
    decide whether we are a community or a crowd. He said a crowd is just a
    bunch of people that just do the best they can and the strongest win and
    the weakest lose. And most folks just get pushed around. A community
    recognizes that we do better if we go up together and that we have
    obligations to one another and that when we change, as we are now, we
    have to ask ourselves all over again, what are those obligations going
    to be, and how will they be defined in this new age?
        Now, that's what this budget debate is all about. Make no mistake
    about it, this is not about money; it's about values. The money is
    almost incidental to the decisions that are being made to affect
    people's lives.
        But I ask you to consider this: The issue is not whether we should
    balance the budget. The Vice President told you the truth. We have
    effected a great change in the Democratic Party. People used to say,
    ``Well, the Democrats are the party of Government and big spending.'' It
    was always overstated. The truth is that in every year of the Reagan and
    Bush years except one, in every year but one, the Congress spent less
    money than the President asked them to. A lot of the Democrats won't
    believe that, but it's the truth. I went back and checked myself.
    [Laughter]
        We said to the Democratic Party in Congress, we said, we shouldn't
    be running a permanent deficit. We never had a permanent deficit in this
    country until 1981. Oh, yes, we ran a little deficit in the 1970's
    because we had all that stagflation, and it was a bad economy. But we
    never committed ourselves to the proposition that we ought to just spend
    more than we take in forever and a day until 1981. And in 12 years, we
    quadrupled the debt of this country. The budget of this country would be
    balanced today but for the interest we have to pay on the debt run up in
    the 12 years before I moved to Washington as your President. Now, that's
    the truth.
        So, now we've got both parties saying, ``Let's balance the budget.
    Hallelujah, it's the right thing to do.'' But how we do it in a period
    of great change will make all the difference. So I say to you, let's
    look at these things. What are our obligations to the next generation to
    build the American dream? What are our obligations to our parents who
    built this country, defeated the Depression, won World War II, set up
    the cold war, prevailed there, gave us the greatest period of prosperity
    the world had ever known? What are our obligations across the lines of
    generations and incomes? And how are we

    [[Page 1415]]

    going to change to build the kind of economy that will permit everybody
    to benefit from the explosion of opportunity that is the information
    age?
        The first thing we have to recognize is, we'll never get everybody's
    income up until we educate everyone. The plain, hard fact is that in the
    world we are moving toward, people in rich countries with low levels of
    education are going to be pounded. We know that. Therefore, we ought to
    help more kids get started right. Therefore, we ought to help our
    schools have smaller classes and higher standards and greater
    accountability and more computers and whatever else they need.
    Therefore, we ought to help people move from school to work. If they're
    not going to a 4-year college, at least give them the kind of training
    they need to get a good job with growing prospects. And therefore, we
    certainly ought to help our young people do things like national service
    or get Pell grants or get more affordable college loans with better
    repayment terms so they can go on to college and make the best of their
    own lives. This is huge deal.
        So I say to you, we do not have to destroy the education budget of
    this country to balance the budget. Therefore, we shouldn't do it. Now,
    the congressional plan reflects a different value judgment. Their value
    judgment is, ``We said we'd do it in 7 years, and we didn't know how.
    But we're going to do it in 7 years, not 8, 9, or 10, even though if we
    took a little longer, we could protect education. And we said we were
    going to give a $250 billion tax cut, and we're going to do it if we
    have to bust a gut doing it, even though half the money will go to
    people who are doing real well now who haven't asked for it and most of
    them don't want it, we're going to do it anyway. And if it means we have
    to cut education, if we have to kick kids out of Head Start, or we raise
    the cost of college loans or do other things that are bad for America,
    well, it's just too bad. We've got to have 7 years and $250 billion.''
        I say we ought to do what's right for the children of this country.
    We owe it to them. And we know, we know, that America will not be the
    place that we grew up in if we have another 30 years where half the
    people work harder every year for lower wages. Now, we know that. You
    don't have to be brilliant; we know that. So we ought to do it.
        There are those who say that the free enterprise system is being
    hobbled by all these terrible rules for clean air and clean water. In
    the Congress this year in one House, they voted to say we couldn't
    enforce the Clean Air Act. It wouldn't be so good for Denver. They voted
    to say that we couldn't enforce the rules to keep cryptosporidium out of
    municipal water supplies. That's what killed all those people in
    Milwaukee. It wouldn't be so hot if it got in your water supply.
        They voted to say for a while, until we defeated them, that we
    couldn't even implement the regulations for safe meat to stop more E.
    coli outbreaks like those that killed those kids in those fast food
    places a couple of years ago. We're still inspecting meat the way dogs
    do. [Laughter] That's the truth. We smell it and look at it. [Laughter]
    Your Government has never modernized the technology that's there
    available. Now we're going to do it. Our administration has worked for 2
    years to do it. Mike Espy, when he was Secretary of Agriculture, started
    it. And they tried to delay it, because it was going to add the
    teeniest--I mean the teeniest--amount to the cost of a hamburger. If it
    keeps a kid alive, it's worth it.
        Some of them have suggested we ought to close a couple of hundred
    national parks. You know, Hillary and Chelsea and I went to Grand Tetons
    and Yellowstone this summer, and we spent our time in the national
    parks. We got to feed the wolves that we're trying to reintroduce into
    Yellowstone. We got to see things that were priceless.
        But you know what was unique about it? Anybody in America in a car
    could get in for $10. Anybody in America in a car could get in for $10.
    We've got some folks wanting to build a gold mine 3 miles from
    Yellowstone. And you know, when you mine gold or any other mineral, you
    have a lot of waste product, and it's acidic, and if it gets into the
    water, it will ruin the water quality. And up there where they want to
    mine it, they only have about 2 months of frost-free days a year, so
    you've got a lot of variation in the temperature. They want to build
    sort of a hard plastic bag, 70 football fields long and 6 or 7 or 8
    stories high, and put it between 2 mountains and say, ``Well, we're just
    sure nothing will happen to Yellowstone in the next 20 or 30 or 40
    years.''
        This is the sort of mentality--this is not about money. Eighty
    percent of that gold will go to

    [[Page 1416]]

    jewelry, not to some great scientific purpose. What's Yellowstone worth?
    What's our natural heritage worth? What's clean air and clean water
    worth?
        Now, Al Gore--we have worked very hard to take some of the crazy
    regulations out of the EPA. Next year, the average person complying with
    the EPA regulations will spend 25 percent less time than they used to.
    If a small business person calls the EPA and asks for help now, they
    cannot be fined--listen to this--they cannot be fined for 6 months
    because they're trying to do the right thing.
        We have tried to change the burdensome things. But I'm telling you,
    there is no value to put on the preservation of our natural heritage,
    and it is not necessary to balance the budget to destroy it. It will
    only undermine the future of America if we do that, and we must not do
    it.
        You heard what the Vice President said about the crime bill. Some
    people say that we should cut spending on the crime bill--which we paid
    for by eliminating 100,000 Federal employees--we ought to cut spending
    on the crime bill, not require 100,000 new police officers, and send a
    block grant to local governments and hope it gets spent right.
        I never thought there was a constituency for raising the crime rate
    until this happened. [Laughter] The one thing any law enforcement
    officer in America will tell you is if you put more police into
    community policing and they walk the streets or they drive around the
    same blocks all the time and they know their neighbors, you can actually
    lower the crime rate.
        This is a big deal. If you told anybody 5 years ago we could lower
    the crime rate, most Americans would say, ``Nah, not a chance,'' you
    know, ``We're just going in the wrong direction, people don't have
    enough respect for each other. There's too much violence, too much guns,
    too much this, too much that.'' Well, it's not true.
        We passed the Brady bill, and tens of thousands of people now, tens
    of thousands of people with criminal histories or dangerous mental
    health histories have not gotten guns who would have gotten it
    otherwise. It has worked. And those police officers, they're working.
    We're lowering the crime rate. You cannot convince me that we have to
    raise the crime rate to balance the budget. It is not true. That is a
    value judgment. That is a value--you're laughing, but you know, you've
    got to be like Abe Lincoln, you're laughing because you're too old to
    cry. [Laughter] This is true.
        And I could give you so many other examples. Ronald Reagan said the
    best antipoverty program put in in the last 30 years was the program the
    Vice President talked about, the earned-income tax credit. It's a family
    tax credit. And I increased it dramatically, or at least I asked the
    Congress to and they did, because I had a simple idea. I said, ``Look,
    everybody wants to reform welfare, but if we're going to reform welfare,
    we ought to make work pay.''
        And most people who are parents in this country today have to work,
    so we ought to want people to succeed as parents and workers. Therefore,
    we should use the tax system to lift people out of poverty if they're
    working 40 hours a week and they've got kids in their home. And by the
    way, it's had an ancillary economic benefit because, as the Vice
    President said, those folks spend all the money they make, and it's
    helped to jump the economy; it's helped to support our economy. But it's
    been--basically, it wasn't a money deal, it wasn't all that much money.
    It was about family and work and fairness and responsibility. And it
    worked.
        So there are people now in the Congress who say that the best way to
    pay for our tax cut is to cut back on the earned-income tax credit and
    thereby raise the taxes of the working poor. Now, I didn't think there
    was any constituency in America for making welfare more attractive than
    work again. But that would be the necessary impact of this. We don't
    have to do it to balance the budget, and we shouldn't. It's not about
    money; it's about our values.
        The last thing I want to say is, there's a lot of talk about
    Medicare and Medicaid. I understand there was some talk in the local
    paper about it today. And some people say, ``Now, the acid test about
    whether you really want to balance the budget is just how much you want
    to cut Medicare and Medicaid. That shows whether you're really macho on
    balancing the budget.''
        Well, I want to say this: When I became President, the Medicare
    Trust Fund was in trouble. Now, you hear the leaders of the Congress
    telling you how much trouble it's in now. It's still in trouble, but
    it's in 3 years less trouble than it was when I became President when
    they denied it and wouldn't help us. And we fixed

    [[Page 1417]]

    it because we knew something had to be done about this. And something
    does.
        Why? Because medical costs are going up faster than the rate of
    inflation, and we can't keep going. But I want you to understand, we can
    fix the Medicare Trust Fund and we can slow the rate of medical
    inflation without having huge increases on elderly people on Medicare--
    and keep in mind, three out of four of them live on less than $24,000 a
    year--without foreclosing 300,000 opportunities for people to be in
    nursing homes and over a million opportunities for people to have home
    health care under the Medicaid program. We can do that.
        I have proposed substantial reductions in Medicare and Medicaid that
    don't do that, that don't run the risk of hurting your city hospitals
    here or closing these rural hospitals in the Plains States. We can do
    this if we recognize our fundamental obligation, if we say, how are we
    going to balance the budget in a way that promotes our values?
        So I want to ask you all to do what you can to help, with all the
    people who represent you in Congress, without regard to their party.
    Tell them you want them to balance the budget. Tell them you expect them
    to balance the budget. We're doing it to lift this terrible burden of
    debt off our children and to free up money to be invested in the private
    economy to grow more jobs. But we cannot do it in a way that undermines
    the very fabric of what it means to be an American. That is the issue in
    the budget debate.
        I just want to make two other points. One is, we've got to keep
    trying to find common ground. There's too much in our politics today
    driving people to the extremes, trying to use every issue as a wedge
    issue. This welfare issue--it's very important to reform welfare. You
    know why? Because it isn't good for the children and their parents to be
    trapped on it and because it undermines our country when everybody can't
    live up to the fullest of their own abilities. But it is not busting the
    bank. It's only costing you about 2 or 3 percent of all the money that
    the Government spends.
        We need to do it because of the values involved. And therefore, it
    is important that we do it in a way that brings us together, not drives
    us apart. We shouldn't punish little babies for the mistakes of their
    parents. We shouldn't do anything that doesn't support the two
    objectives we have: We want these people to be good parents, and we want
    these people to be successful in the workplace. That should be our
    objective. And everything about welfare reform should be seen through
    that prism. I believe in being tough, holding people accountable,
    requiring them to work if they can, but not at the expense of raising
    their children successfully in the right way.
        Let me give you another example. This affirmative action issue,
    there are a lot of people who say this ought to be a big issue in the
    Presidential campaign because they believe that they can convince white
    voters who've got stagnant wages that the real reason is somebody did
    something for minorities or for women under affirmative action.
        Well, let me tell you, I conducted a huge review of all the
    affirmative action programs of the United States Government. And there
    are some problems with some. We've already abolished one. Some more may
    be abolished. Several more will have to be amended. But we are still not
    a country where people have equal opportunities without regard to their
    gender or their race. And until we are, it is okay to take account of
    that in trying to make sure that everybody has a fair chance.
        I'm against quotas. I'm against reverse discrimination. We have
    brought reverse discrimination suits in our administration. But I say we
    should not end affirmative action until we have gotten the job done, and
    we should not use this issue to divide the American people when we
    should be united over it.
        I feel the same way about immigration. There are people who want to
    make a big political issue out of that to divide us. We have had
    unprecedented levels of immigration and unprecedented problems with
    illegal immigration in the last 10 years. I have--instead of making a
    political issue out of it, I appointed Barbara Jordan, the distinguished
    former Congresswoman from Texas, to look at the issue and say what is
    right for America. And we have done far more than was done in the
    previous years to try to limit illegal immigration, and she has
    recommended and I have supported a reduction in the annual quota for
    immigration because we went way high after the cold war to try to help
    people adjust to the end of the cold war. And if we're going to lift
    wages, if we're going to expect people on welfare to go to work in those
    kinds of jobs that will be available, we have to make sure that we have
    a

    [[Page 1418]]

    decent tight labor market. And so I'm in favor of that.
        But let's not forget, except for the Native Americans in this
    audience tonight, we all came from somewhere else. We are a nation of
    immigrants, and we should not use immigration to divide us. Our
    diversity is our strength in America, not our weakness.
        And the last thing I want to say is this: I have no earthly idea
    what is popular or not or what will be on election day, because one of
    the things you have to reconcile yourself to in a period of great change
    is unpredictability. And we have to do things in Washington that look
    terribly unpopular in the moment because we think they're right for
    America 10 or 20 or 30 years from now.
        I'll give you a mundane example. When we decided to invest the Vice
    President's prestige and some of the most talented staff people in this
    reinventing Government thing, all the political advice I got was, ``This
    is nuts. No President has ever made a single vote on managing the
    Government.'' All I know is that they're having a terrible disaster now
    in the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. And our Emergency Management
    Agency used to be a disaster, but now they're down there helping people.
    And that was worth doing. And that's one example of what we've done.
        You heard the Vice President--they told me that I had absolutely
    slipped my lid when I made the decision to do what we did in Haiti.
    Everybody said, ``This is crazy. Nobody is for it. Nobody understands
    it.'' But I knew that those military dictators who were murdering people
    down there had promised us--they had given us their word on our soil
    that they would get out and let the elected President of Haiti return,
    and that if we didn't enforce their word to us, then the United States
    would not be able to be a force for peace and freedom and democracy in
    our own hemisphere. And nobody would respect us if we let them get away
    with lying to us. And what we did was right and decent, and it did not
    cost the life of a single American. It was the right thing to do.
        I can say this in Colorado; I know what I'm talking about here. All
    the political advice I had was not to do the Brady bill. And once we did
    the Brady bill, ``For goodness sake, don't ban assault weapons, because
    the NRA will convince all the country people with a gun that you're
    coming after their rifle.'' And that happened, folks. If you get them in
    a quiet room, the leaders of the Republican House will tell you they
    probably have a majority today because we banned assault weapons. And I
    knew it was bad politics. You know why? If you took a poll in Colorado,
    two-thirds of the people would have agreed with the Democrats to banning
    the assault weapons. But the people who didn't were all going to vote
    against them. The people that agreed with them found some other reason
    to vote against them.
        You want to know why people never take on organized interest groups?
    That's why. And if you want people in public life to do it, you need to
    stick with them when they do. But do you know why we did it? You know
    why we did it? You know why we did it? Because I went to city after city
    after city--I sat in Philadelphia, I sat in Chicago--I'll never forget
    this in my life--and I talked to all these people who were running
    emergency rooms in Chicago telling me that the mortality rate of
    children with gunshot wounds was 3 times what it was 15 years ago
    because they have 3 times as many bullets in them when they're brought
    into the hospital. And I say, if it gets the Uzis out of the high
    schools and off the streets and give some more kids a chance, it's worth
    the risk to do it. But we ought to do it.
        We've got another broadside today in Washington over this fight
    we're in to try to discourage teenage smoking. And all the experts said
    this is politically nuts because, while most people agree with you,
    those that don't will take you out, and those that do will find some
    other reason to oppose you. But you know what? We studied this problem
    for 14 months, and there were two inescapable conclusions. All previous
    voluntary agreements had failed. The tobacco companies knew that the
    product was addictive, was dangerous, and they were directing their
    efforts at children. And the second, and most important thing, was 3,000
    kids a day start smoking and a thousand of them are going to die sooner
    because of it.
        And if it saves a thousand kids a day, in the end who cares what the
    consequences are? In the 21st century that could make a huge difference
    to the children of America and to the kind of country we have and the
    kind of people we have and what we're attuned to.
        Now, these are the things I want you to think about. And these are
    the things I want you to talk about. This election is about more than

    [[Page 1419]]

    Bill Clinton and Al Gore. It's about more than the Democrats and the
    Republicans. This is an election about what kind of people we are and
    what we're going to do.
        But I want you to be fundamentally optimistic. You just remember,
    this is a very great country. We are the oldest democracy in the world
    because most of the time when the chips are down, we do the right thing.
    Nearly 50 years ago, when I was born in Arkansas, the per capita income
    of my State was barely half the national average. I was raised by my
    grandparents until I was 4. My grandfather had a sixth-grade education.
    Because of America, I became President, not because of my goodness or my
    ability or because I worked hard. There are people like me all over this
    world because this country stood for something and had the right values
    and gave people like me a chance.
        And I am telling you, if we do the right thing now, the best days of
    this country are ahead of us, the best is yet to come. But it depends
    upon you and people like you.
        So thank you for your contribution. But now go do your duty as
    citizens. The whole future of this country is riding on it.
        God bless you. Thank you.

    Note: The President spoke at 9:02 p.m. at the Marriott Center. In his
    remarks, he referred to Sunny Brownstein, executive committee member,
    Colorado Presidential Gala; Mayor Wellington E. Webb of Denver, CO, and
    his wife, Wilma; Governor Roy Romer of Colorado and his wife, Bea; and
    Terence McAuliffe, national finance chair, and Laura Hartigan, national
    finance director, Clinton/Gore '96.