    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1997, Book II)]
    [October 8, 1997]
    [Pages 1326-1330]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    [[Page 1326]]

    Remarks at a Democratic National Committee Dinner in Philadelphia
    October 8, 1997

        Thank you. If I had any sense at all, I would simply quit while I'm
    ahead. [Laughter] That was a wonderful statement, Mr. Mayor, given by a
    person who's in a position to know.
        I've said many times in the last 6 years or so that, as I've had a
    chance to travel this country, the most gifted and innovative public
    servants in America today are the mayors of the cities that are
    beginning to work again for all the people. And Philadelphia certainly
    is, and in no small measure because of you.
        I know most of you heard what I had to say downstairs, and I won't
    make you sit through it again. So I would just like to try to build on
    what the mayor said. I've been feeling rather nostalgic lately; last
    week was the 6th anniversary of my declaring for President, and the end
    of this week is my 22d wedding anniversary. And Hillary and I are
    dealing with the empty nest syndrome, so we have time to think--
    [laughter]--we have time to think high thoughts at night now, instead of
    wondering when Chelsea is going to bed--``Stop studying, turn out the
    light, you can't learn after one o'clock,'' or something. [Laughter]
        Let me just say that I am, first of all, very grateful for the last
    almost 5 years. I've tried to do what I said I would do when I ran for
    President. A leading political scientist said before I was reelected
    that I had already kept a higher percentage of my promises than the last
    five Presidents and that I made more than they did, which really was
    something. And I was very grateful to hear that.
        This last balanced budget meant a great deal to me because I thought
    it would be a good thing for the country psychologically, as well as
    economically, to have a balanced budget for the first time in a
    generation. And I thought it was important to prove that you could
    balance the budget and still have the biggest increase in investment, in
    health care for working families and poor children, and in education
    since 1965.
        And I do agree with Mayor Rendell, I think the biggest legacy of
    that budget over the long term will be that we literally have opened the
    doors of college to everybody who will work for it now--because we had
    the biggest increase in Pell grants in 20 years; we go up to a million
    people in work-study; we have IRA's that people can save in and withdraw
    from without penalty if you use it to pay for education. You get a
    $1,500 tax credit for the first 2 years of college, the HOPE
    scholarship, and then other tax credits for the junior, the senior year,
    graduate school, or when people go back. It's a great, great thing. But
    I'd like to just sort of ask you to take a few minutes and sort of look
    at what underlies that.
        Six years ago when I decided to run for President, I had been a
    Governor for quite a long while. And one of the things that bothered me
    was that the rhetoric that came out of Washington and the fights that
    the political parties had seemed increasingly disconnected from the life
    that I knew my friends to be living and my people to be living. And it
    was all sort of left-right, liberal-conservative, this box-that box,
    this conflict-that conflict, and it didn't seem to me to really work. I
    mean, I didn't know anybody that talked like that except in Washington.
    I never met anybody on the street that talked like that. And it really
    bothered me, because I admired a lot of the people in Washington,
    frankly, in both parties, with whom I had worked. I didn't understand
    it. But I just thought that we were locked into a dialog with each other
    in Washington that was actually preventing anything from getting done
    and moving the country forward.
        And essentially what I thought was that the Republicans understood
    the importance of the market but were blind to the needs to give
    everybody the tools and conditions to take advantage of the market; that
    the Democrats understood the importance of compassion and of trying to
    take care of everybody in the social contract but too often were
    unwilling to make the tough decisions to get the economy going, which is
    still the best social program for everybody who has got a good job; and
    that somehow we had to reconcile that and develop a dynamic approach to
    politics so that we could have this debate between the two parties, and
    one would be more liberal and the other would be more conservative and
    the debate would go on, but

    [[Page 1327]]

    at least it would be about the real choices facing the country and the
    real lives of people.
        And I decided that if I didn't do anything else in the campaign--and
    when I started only my mother thought I could win--[laughter]--that I
    was going to try to change the terms of the debate, so we would be
    talking about real things in a real way that could have a real impact on
    the way people live. And in a way, I tried to be President the way I
    served as Governor or the way Ed Rendell serves as mayor.
        So let me just sort of take stock about where we are. I said,
    ``We're going to have to take a new direction. If we're going to have
    opportunity for everybody responsible enough to work for it, if you're
    going to rebuild the American community with all this diversity, and if
    we're going to maintain America's leadership, then we have to focus on
    it.'' Instead of the old left-right, liberal-conservative, we said, ``We
    have to be for the future, not the past; for change, not the status quo;
    for unity, not division; for policies that help everybody, not just a
    few people; and we have to do things that will help us lead, not
    follow.''
        I love that old one-liner, you know, that unless you're the lead dog
    on the sled, the view's always the same. [Laughter] And I think it's
    something that we have to remember. Because as I told the young people
    down there tonight, it's very frustrating to me that I have not been
    able to persuade my fellow Americans of the benefits of our involvement
    in the world on a general, philosophical level. And I regret that. I've
    got to keep working on that. I've got to find a way to do a better job
    of that.
        But if you look at where we are now compared to where we were, with
    an economic policy that says basically we're going to charge head on
    into the global marketplace, but we're going to try to preserve the
    social contract at home and give everybody a chance to play--what that
    has meant in practical terms is expand trade; be fiscally responsible
    and balance the budget, but invest more in education, invest more in
    environmental technology, invest more in the health care of our people,
    and support things like family and medical leave and the minimum wage
    and the adoption tax credit and things that enable people to build
    strong families while they go to work; support the empowerment zone,
    like the one Philadelphia has, and community financial institutions that
    loan money to new entrepreneurs that couldn't get money at the local
    bank otherwise, do things that bring the benefits of free enterprise
    into the inner cities. The other big trade opportunity we've got in
    America is all these neighborhoods where people are unemployed or
    underemployed. If they were all working, that would be a big market for
    America's future.
        So that's what we've tried to do. And I think it's incontestable
    that it has worked. We've never generated so many jobs in such a short
    time, over 13 million now in less than 5 years. And it has worked. There
    is more to do, but it has worked.
        With the crime program--the mayor talked about that--what we wanted
    to do was to be tough and smart. We had people in Washington that wanted
    to pass tougher and tougher sentences when the police were screaming,
    ``Give me more police officers, and I'll not only catch more criminals,
    I'll prevent crime. Give me people who can walk the streets and know the
    kids and know the parents and know the neighbors, and we'll drive the
    crime rate down.'' And that's what we did. And it had to be done. It
    cost us a few Members of Congress in 1994, but sooner or later the
    Federal Government had to take on the people who said that it was wrong
    to have any restriction on guns. And what we did with the Brady bill and
    the assault weapons ban has made this a safer country. It was the right
    thing to do. It's something we take for granted now--we wonder what else
    we ought to do--but it was a huge thing at the time it occurred. And our
    party sacrificed so many House Members that it may--that alone may have
    cost us the House in '94, including some here in Pennsylvania, because
    all these people were told we were coming after their guns.
        But in 1996, I had the pleasure of going back to New Hampshire and
    looking at all those people with their hunting license and saying, ``You
    remember 2 years ago when they told you we were coming after your guns,
    and you beat one of our Congressmen?'' I said, ``Every one of you that
    lost your gun, you ought to vote against me, too. But if you didn't, you
    need to know they lied to you, and you need to let them know you don't
    appreciate it.'' And we carried New Hampshire again and turned it
    around, because people now say, ``We can have safe streets, we can have
    responsible gun laws. There's no reason somebody who's got a felony
    record or a serious mental instability should be

    [[Page 1328]]

    able to walk in and buy a handgun without even being checked out.''
        So we changed the debate now. The debate is not this sort of
    abstract argument about the second amendment. The debate is, how can we
    preserve the culture, the way of life, the legitimate desire of people
    to go out and hunt and fish and do what they ought to be able to do, and
    make our streets safe and stop these kids from getting killed in
    Philadelphia. The mayor told the truth: There are kids all over this
    country that don't believe they'll ever live to be 50. Why should they
    ever forgo anything that's bad for them since they're not going to be
    around very long? But at least we've changed the debate now; we're
    moving forward.
        I think we changed the nature of the welfare debate. Today we found
    out another 250,000 people moved off the welfare rolls last week. There
    are now 3.6 million Americans living off paychecks, instead of welfare
    checks, that weren't when I became President. That's how much we've
    reduced the rolls by, 3.6 million. Why? Because the answer was not to
    throw people in the street. And it's fine to require people to go to
    work, but you also have to realize they had young children--that's why
    they're on welfare in the first place--so they've got to be able to take
    care of their kids. So don't take their health care away. Don't take
    their food stamps away. And give them medical care, and give them child
    care.
        Because the biggest problem most families face--even a lot of well-
    to-do families with young children face terrible problems of reconciling
    their responsibilities as parents and their responsibilities to the work
    force. There are people in this room who have good incomes who have had
    lots of days where you were tearing your hair out, trying to figure out
    how you could do what you thought you ought to be doing at work and
    still do the right thing by your children. It is the single most
    significant social challenge facing all classes of Americans. Why?
    Because our biggest job is still raising our kids right. That's more
    important than everything else. If we do that right, most everything
    else will be all right.
        On the other hand, if we have to, in order to do that, basically
    crater our family's income, wreck a business, or weaken the American
    economy, that's a price we shouldn't have to pay. That's why all these
    family leave policies and all that is so important.
        So we tried to say, ``Okay, we'll step into the gap here.'' That's
    why we passed family and medical leave and raised the minimum wage and
    passed that Kennedy-Kassebaum bill that said you can keep your health
    insurance when you change jobs or if somebody in your family gets sick,
    or stopped the sort of drive-by deliveries where women could be thrown
    out of the hospital after they had a baby within 24 hours, or provided
    the extra tax credit so we get people to adopt kids that are homeless
    and desperately need homes. Why? Because we're trying to figure out a
    way to grow the economy and support families. Not the same debate--it's
    not an either-or. We have to find a way to do both things, to have
    balance and harmony in America.
        The same thing with the environment. I consider myself a passionate
    environmentalist, and yet you know that I have devoted most of my
    energies in my first term to getting the economy going again. I think if
    we have to choose, we're in terrible trouble.
        But most of the choices are false choices. I remember when the
    United States decided--this was before my time--to limit sulfur dioxide
    emissions into the atmosphere. And everybody said, ``This is going to
    cost a ton of money, and it's going to bankrupt the country, and we'll
    never get it done on the timetable.'' And we let the market take over.
    They set up a permit trading system for sulfur dioxide emissions
    permitting. And a few years later, we're way ahead of schedule at far
    less than half the predicted cost, and the economy is booming because we
    found a way to get the private sector and its creativity involved in
    protecting and cleaning up our environment.
        That's what we have to do with this greenhouse gas problem that's
    warming the climate. If we do this right, we will create jobs, we will
    not shut down jobs, and we'll preserve the environment for our children.
        So we got out of the environment--so the Republicans are for jobs,
    and the Democrats are for the environment; the liberals are for the
    environment, the conservatives for jobs--what a crazy way to live. I
    want to be able to breathe when I go to and from work. [Laughter] This
    is not a debate that should be structured this way. So I think we've
    changed it.
        And the last thing I'd like to say in that regard is this whole
    business about how we should handle our diversity. I could see it coming
    even in '92. The whole thing was, are you for or

    [[Page 1329]]

    against affirmative action. What I'm for is everybody having a chance to
    participate in this country's life. And if people don't have a chance,
    then I am poorer. It is a selfish thing to want every American, without
    regard to their race, their neighborhood, their background, or where
    they start out in life, to have a good chance to make it. That is a
    selfish thing for you to feel, because if they don't, then they're a
    drag on your future. And if they do, then they're contributing to your
    future.
        So we tried to reform the affirmative action programs without
    getting rid of them. Why? Because it was manifestly clear that there is
    still an absence of completely equal educational and economic
    opportunity in America. But that's not the main thing. The main thing
    we've got to do is get everybody a job, everybody an education, and open
    opportunity to people.
        The other thing I tried to get the American people to think about
    is, we are well on our way to becoming a country in which there is no
    majority race. Before midway through the next century, people of
    European heritage will not have a majority of the population, before
    2050. We don't know exactly when, but sometime before then. Within about
    5 years, that will be the case in California.
        Now, we have always said we were a country bound together by ideas
    and ideals, not by any particular piece of land and not by any race and
    not by any standard. When we started out, you had to be a white male
    property owner to vote. We've slowly shed all that stuff. We've moved
    toward more and more and more equality. But we are now going to have to
    face the fact that in a global society our greatest asset is our
    diversity. But if you look at the problems other countries are having,
    and the problems that are still lurking under the surface here from
    place to place, it could also be our greatest problem.
        Now, it seems to me to be foolish to have yesterday's debate about
    this. The facts are, here we are. I said to the group downstairs and I'm
    going to say again: The most diverse school district in the country
    apparently is the one that's across the river from Washington, DC, in
    Fairfax County, Virginia, where there are children from 182 countries in
    one school district, speaking over 100 languages. But there are 5 school
    districts already in America where there are kids whose native tongues
    number more than 100. And there will be 12 within a couple years. And
    every school district--there are school districts that had no diversity
    at all 4 or 5 years ago that now have large Hispanic populations where
    people had to be brought in because there was a negative unemployment
    rate. So this is happening across America.
        Now, what's our attitude about this? Are we going to think about
    this in future terms or in yesterday's terms? Are we going to look at
    people who are different from us as a great opportunity to make our
    lives more interesting or as some problem we have to deal with? This is
    a huge issue.
        The one thing I'm convinced of is, if we think about the future
    instead of the past, and change and not the status quo, and unity
    instead of division, and what helps everybody instead of what helps a
    few people, we are highly likely to make the right decision. And it is
    very important.
        So if--in addition to what the mayor said about hope for young
    people, I want you all to think about this. I want you to do what I try
    to do. When you get up tomorrow, think about: What would I like America
    to look like 20 years from now? What would I like America to look like
    when my children are my age? What would I like my legacy to my children
    to be in terms of my country? And I think that if we do that, we're
    going to be just fine.
        I have seen, in the last 5 years--if I had told you 5 years ago when
    I was inaugurated President, in 5 years we'll have over 13 million new
    jobs and the biggest drop in welfare in history and 5 years of dropping
    violent crime, and the environment will be cleaner, and the public
    health will be more secure, and America will be clearly leading the
    world toward a more peaceful situation--you would have been pretty
    happy, wouldn't you? But you probably wouldn't have believed it. At that
    point, we didn't have much self-confidence. And this was not rocket
    science; we just sort of showed up for work every day. This was not
    rocket science.
        I thought about how would I--how should I be President in the way I
    would behave if I were mayor--it's the way I would behave if I were
    Governor, it's the way I would behave if I were running any other big
    enterprise--remembering that my bosses are the American people as a
    whole. And I think we've changed the direction of the Democratic Party.
    I hope we've changed the direction of the political debate in the
    country. I hope eventually we'll also

    [[Page 1330]]

    change the direction of the Republican Party so we'll have a principled
    debate about where the dynamic center of America ought to be on
    education questions and environmental questions and other questions for
    the future.
        But when you come here and contribute to this, I just want you to
    understand that. I'd also just like to say this last thing. I think that
    we have changed the way Government works. State and local governments,
    the private sector are in more partnerships with us now. We have 300,000
    fewer people than we used to, 16,000 fewer pages of regulation. We've
    reformed a lot of our laws and our processes. The only thing we haven't
    reformed is campaign finance, and that's because--if we had a majority
    in Congress today, at least enough to break a filibuster, we could do
    that. But we may get that if we keep working at it. And that will be
    nice, because I'll still have dinner with you and it will be less
    expensive for you--[laughter]--and we'll have a good time. That would be
    important, too. That's important, too.
        And let me just say one last thing to all of you. I'm glad you're
    here. I appreciate your support. We ought to pass this McCain-Feingold
    bill, but the work won't be done until we lower the cost of campaigns.
    And to do that, you have to lower the cost of communicating with the
    voters. That's what really has driven this whole thing. So people who
    observe strict campaign limits ought to be rewarded with free or reduced
    air time and other means of communication with people, so they can
    afford it. Sometimes we put the cart before the horse here, and we
    forget what has been driving all this. And I hope we can do that.
        I just want you to feel good about your country. We're in better
    shape than we were 5 years ago. We're having a debate that makes sense
    again, by and large. We're arguing over things that are important, that
    will make a difference to your future. And you should feel very good
    about your country. You should be very strongly confident in the role
    you've played in it.
        But I want to make it clear that for all the things that have been
    done, we've got a lot to do between now and the 21st century. And I
    intend to work to the last minute of the last hour of the last day,
    until the Constitution puts me out to pasture, to do my part. But even
    then, there will be more to do. And I just hope you can remember and
    believe in these basic ideas and make sure that our party keeps pushing
    this basic line, to throw this country into the future, because this is
    a great place and it has been given to us to sort of take it through
    this transition.
        And here in Philadelphia, where it all began--I was talking to the
    mayor tonight about what John Marshall wrote when he heard George
    Washington had died, and he heard it here, and he couldn't go home to
    Virginia and get there in time for his funeral. So all the Founding
    Fathers had to organize a service for President Washington here. And we
    were thinking about it--just think about it, over 200 years ago. We're
    still around because people like us, in the past, at every moment of
    change, did the right thing. And that's what we really have to be doing
    now.
        I think we're going in the right direction. But I need you--you
    should not flag in your commitment. You shouldn't be discouraged. You
    should be encouraged, and you should know that if we face the challenges
    that are still out there and complete this transition, that clearly--
    clearly--the best days of our country are still ahead.
        Thank you very much.

    Note: The President spoke at 9:45 p.m. in the Victors Restaurant at the
    CoreStates Arena. In his remarks, he referred to Mayor Edward Rendell of
    Philadelphia.