    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1997, Book II)]
    [September 26, 1997]
    [Pages 1248-1252]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Remarks at a Democratic National Committee Dinner in Houston
    September 26, 1997

        Thank you very much. I told Tilman he should have just made the
    speech. [Laughter] He's about to get the hang of this. [Laughter] I'd
    like to thank Tilman and Paige for having me back. I thank Ken and John
    Eddie and all the others who made this night such a success. And I thank
    Alan Solomont for coming down here to be with us. Thank you, Governor
    Richards, for being here. And thank you, Garry Mauro and Bill White. And
    thank you, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee.
        I had a good day in Texas, and I've had a kind of interesting 2
    weeks. Someone asked me when I got here if I knew what State I was in,
    because I've been traveling around. We took Chelsea to college in
    California last week, and then I went back to New York for the opening
    of the United Nations. And then I went to Pittsburgh to speak to the
    AFL-CIO. And then I came to--I went home to Arkansas for a magnificent
    day yesterday. We celebrated the 40th anniversary of the Little Rock
    Central High School crisis. And then before I came here, I went out to
    San Jacinto Community College, where I got to talk a little bit about
    the education provisions of the balanced budget act, some of the issues
    we are dealing with in Congress now, and a little about the whole issue
    of affirmative action, and I understand you've got a local initiative
    here you're dealing with on that.
        And so I've had a very full and fascinating week. Tomorrow I'm going
    back home, and I'm going to the town where I graduated from high school,
    and we're trying to save our old high school. So I'm dealing with issues
    big and not so big. The older I get, the so-called little issues seem
    bigger to me. I want to save my high school, you know. I think it's
    important.
        I was here with many of you exactly one year ago tomorrow. And I
    think we ought to make this an annual thing. I don't know--[laughter]--
    and maybe we could have another baby every year, too. And we could just
    celebrate a new birth. That ends my invitations coming here. [Laughter]
    I'm delighted to be back.
        Let me make a couple of very brief points. First of all, I said
    something at the community college today I'd like to reiterate. These
    community colleges work the way I think America ought to work. You think
    about it. We're living in a time of dramatic change in the way we work
    and live and relate to each other and the rest of the world. The economy
    is new and emerging with all kinds of possibilities. And these community
    colleges all across our country are open to people of all ages looking
    for a way to better themselves.
        First of all, they're open to everybody and you get treated the
    same, whether you're a man or woman, without regard to your age, without
    regard to your racial or ethnic background or your economic standing
    when you get in.
        Secondly, they're very much oriented toward change, not the status
    quo. Why? Because if they don't change, then they'll be educating people
    for jobs that don't exist anymore, and they'll go out of business.
        Thirdly, they're oriented toward results, not rhetoric, something I
    wish we could have even more of in Washington. I work on it all the
    time. Why? Because if they don't educate you well, no matter how much
    they exhort, people won't be functional and they won't be hired and
    they'll go out of business.
        And third, they're oriented toward partnerships, not political
    division. Why? Because there's no Republican or Democratic way to run a
    machine tool operation or to understand how sophisticated manufacturing
    processes work, so

    [[Page 1249]]

    people have to work together. As a result, they become the kind of
    dynamic community organizations that really are taking this country into
    a new century in good shape.
        And I got to thinking about it because I love the community
    colleges, and as you know, one of the major parts of the budget that I
    was so proud of fulfilled my commitment to open the doors of college to
    every American for the first time and to make it possible for us to make
    the 13th and 14th years of education just as universal by the year 2000
    as a high school diploma is today, because we give a $1,500 tax credit
    for the first 2 years of college which will cover the average cost of
    tuition and fees of 90 percent of the community colleges in the country.
    That's very important. And we give further tax credits for the junior
    and senior year, for graduate study, for older people who come back for
    job training, an IRA that people can withdraw from tax-free if it's used
    for education, more work-study slots, the biggest increase in Pell
    grants in 20 years. This is a huge deal that is in this budget.
        And I think perhaps the most--30 years from now when people look
    back at this, I think two things will live out of this budget more than
    anything else. One is that we balanced the budget for the first time
    since President Johnson's last budget. And the second was that we opened
    the doors of college to all and gave the American people a chance to
    make 2 years of college as universal as a high school education is today
    and, therefore, that we made the country far more competitive. And I'm
    very proud of that.
        But in general, that is the sort of thing I have been trying to do
    since I went to Washington 6 years ago. I can't believe it, it's been
    almost 6 years since I announced for President. I don't know where the
    time went. But a lot of you spent a lot of it with me, and I appreciate
    that. And I said then I had a simple but I believe profound vision of
    what I wanted our country to look like. When I leave this office and we
    start a new century I want every American who is willing to work for it
    to be able to get the American dream. I want our country still to be
    leading the world for peace and freedom and prosperity. And I want us to
    be one America across all these lines that divide us.
        Now, to do that, we have to sort of be like the community colleges.
    I have said this many times over the last 6 years, but I'll say it
    again: We need to be oriented toward the future, not the past; toward
    unity, not division; toward change, not the status quo; and we need to
    lead, not follow. I believe that. And I hope you believe it. And that
    means a lot. We also need to be oriented toward people, not just
    existing power institutions.
        Let me just give you some examples. What does that mean for the
    Democratic Party? Well, we gave the country the family and medical leave
    law. Everyplace I go, some ordinary person comes up and says, ``If it
    hadn't been for that law, my life would have been diminished
    considerably, because I got to take a little time off when my baby was
    sick, when my spouse was sick, when my father was dying''--or whatever--
    ``and I didn't lose my job.''
        We gave the country the economic plan of 1993, completely without
    any votes from the other side. And what that meant was, by the time we
    got ready to pass this balanced budget law, the deficit had already been
    reduced by 87 percent from the level it was when I took office.
        We gave the country the crime bill over the bitter opposition of the
    Republican leadership in 1994. They said it was not going to do any
    good, putting 100,000 people on the street. What's happened? The crime
    rate has gone down in virtually every community in America. The Brady
    bill kept 250,000 people with criminal or mental health histories from
    getting handguns and ended a lot of illegal gun trafficking. And as far
    as I know, not a single Texas hunter lost her rifle. [Laughter]
        When I went up to New Hampshire in '96--it was unusual for a
    Democrat to carry New Hampshire, and they voted for me in '92. Then they
    rebelled in '94. The NRA had them all in a lather. And I went up there
    and talked to a bunch of hunters, and I said, ``Do you remember what
    they told you in '94 about us coming after your guns?'' I said, ``I want
    every one of you that lost your gun to vote against me. But if you
    didn't, they lied to you, and you need to get even.'' [Laughter] It was
    an interesting experience, and we carried again.
        Why am I saying this? It makes a difference. The parties have
    honestly different views. We ought to be free to bring our views to the
    table. In this last session where we had the balanced budget, the system
    worked as it should. Heavy majorities in both parties honestly wanted a
    balanced budget and realized that the record of

    [[Page 1250]]

    the eighties could not be sustained and we had to go on and balance the
    budget to keep interest rates down and the economy rolling. But we had
    drastically different ideas about how to do it. Thank goodness we were
    able to get it done, because we argued and compromised in good faith and
    on principle, in a principled way.
        What was the Democratic contribution to this balanced budget? I'll
    give you three. Number one, we made sure that we had a $500-per-child
    tax credit and that it extended even to lower income working people like
    rookie police officers and beginning teachers and others who have
    children who needed the tax benefits, even if their income tax liability
    was very low. Number two, we got $24 billion in there to provide health
    insurance to 5 million--half of the children of this country that don't
    have health insurance--$24 billion over the next 5 years. Number three,
    we got the biggest increased investment for education since 1965, and
    all these tax credits and IRA's and Pell grants for college; it's the
    biggest increase in aid for ordinary Americans seeking college education
    since the GI bill 50 years ago. That's what our party contributed to
    that budget agreement. I am proud of that, and I think that is worth
    supporting, and I feel very good about it.
        So I just say to you, this matters. And I associate myself with the
    remarks that Mr. Solomont made. I think that our friends in the
    Republican Party can stand a fair fight, and I'd like to see us have a
    fair fight, because I think we can in the end put people ahead of
    politics and have principled agreement, as long as we have both parties
    able to take their ideas to the people and to make their case to the
    American people and to put their positions forward. You are making that
    possible, and for that I'm grateful.
        Now, as you look ahead, I'd just like to mention a couple of things.
    Let's look into the future, short term and long term. What it's going to
    take to make this country work over the long term I think is continued
    success of the economic policy, dramatically improving the quality and
    reach of our educational efforts, figuring out a way to reconcile our
    obligation to preserve the environment and still grow the economy, and
    continuing to expand American trade. And this is one area where I think
    we have got to make a decision as Democrats where we're going to stand
    on the trade issue.
        And I'd like to talk just briefly about each of those and one or two
    other things. One, let me just make this case. We're having this fast-
    track debate in Congress. Let me tell you, if you don't know what it is,
    fast track is simple. It sounds strange; it's basically normal trade
    authority for the President or his representative to make an agreement
    with another country about tearing down trade barriers, which then the
    Congress gets to vote on, but they have to vote it up or down.
        Why? Well, if you were making a business deal with somebody and you
    signed on the dotted line, would you sign on the dotted line--and then
    it was contingent on its approval by the board of directors--you might
    sign that deal. If they said, ``Everybody this person works for, every
    employee in the company can put an amendment on the deal'' that you just
    made if you wanted to, you probably wouldn't sign the deal. You wouldn't
    know what it was.
        All fast track is, it's just a power that's been given to Presidents
    over the last 20 years, mostly from Democratic Congresses to Republican
    Presidents, to go meet with other countries, make an agreement, and then
    be able to tell the other country, ``My word is good. I'll deliver if
    the Congress approves it or if the Congress does not disapprove it.''
    That's all it is. But if you don't have it, the other countries don't
    think you're serious, and they're not all that interested in doing
    business.
        Why is it important to America? Number one, as a practical matter,
    our markets are more open than most other countries, so nearly anybody
    we can make a trade agreement with we'd wind up ahead because when they
    dropped their barriers and we dropped ours, they'd be dropping more than
    we would.
        In a larger sense, what is the economic issue? We have 4 percent of
    the people in the world. You can look around this house tonight and tell
    that most of us have been very fortunate. And we as a people have 22
    percent of the world's wealth, with 4 percent of the world's people. The
    developing countries, principally in Asia and Latin America but also
    increasingly in Africa, are going to grow at 3 times the rate of the
    wealthy countries, Europe, Japan, the United States, and Canada. Now,
    you tell me, if they grow 3 times as fast as we're going to grow in the
    next 10 years, and we have 4 percent of the world's people and 22
    percent of the income, I do not believe we can keep

    [[Page 1251]]

    22 percent of the income unless we sell more of what we produce to them.
    And no one has been able to describe to me how we can do that. It can't
    happen.
        Furthermore, if we want to lead the world for peace and freedom and
    we want to have more countries that are success stories on their own and
    fewer countries like Bosnia where we have to intervene to stop people
    from killing each other, then we need to be in a position to have
    political influence and form political partnerships with countries that
    are democracies and committed to free market economics. And you can't do
    that, you can't lead, if you are bringing up the rear.
        So this is a big issue in the Congress. I hope I will prevail. I do
    believe that when we trade with other countries in the right way, we
    help to lift their labor standards. I think that if we have to honor
    environmental standards, they should, too. But the bottom line is, we
    got 4 percent of the folks. If we want 22 percent of the income, we have
    to sell to the other 96 percent. It is not complicated. And I hope that
    you will all support that position.
        The second big issue we've got to face is the campaign finance
    reform issue. And there are two issues to campaign finance, not one. One
    is how much money we raise and how it's raised. The second is, how much
    money you have to spend to get elected.
        And I saw on one of the networks tonight--maybe it was CNN--a clip
    where I was asking the students at San Jacinto--I said, ``Most of you
    probably thought at some time or another that it was a terrible thing
    that politicians spent so much time raising money and the elections were
    so expensive.'' I said, ``Let me ask you something. How many people have
    you voted for because you thought they had the best television ads? How
    many people have you voted for because you saw more of their ads? How
    many people have you voted against because you saw a negative campaign
    ad against them, and you didn't see them answer it on television so you
    thought you'd better not take a chance on that, and you voted for
    somebody else?'' And they all started laughing as we rocked along, you
    know.
        The fundamental problem in campaigns is the cost of communications
    has exploded and, therefore, the demand for the funds to raise that and
    to keep communicating for political parties and for candidates has been
    severe.
        So I hope that this debate we're having on the McCain-Feingold bill
    will produce a bill that will, in effect, alleviate some of the
    pressures that have been on some of you in this room but will also keep
    you heavily involved in the process and get you to involve other people.
    I personally don't think it's a bad thing for a person who has done well
    in this country and believes in politics and wants to contribute
    something back to be able to do that. I think it's a good thing you're
    here tonight, not a bad thing, and I'm proud of you for doing it.
        But I do think we ought to have a system that the American people as
    a whole have confidence in. Now, we can pass the McCain-Feingold bill. I
    hope we do. But in addition to that, I ask you also to recognize we have
    to cut the cost of the campaign. And the only way to do that in our
    country is to give people the benefit of free or reduced television,
    radio, newspaper, other communications time in return for cutting the
    cost of their campaign.
        So when our friends in the media say that we ought to do something
    to clean up our house, I say, ``You're going to have to help us. You
    can't say, `Give me your money on the one hand, and stop raising it on
    the other.' '' We have to do both these things, and I think we can
    together.
        The second thing I want to say is, we're in a huge debate in
    Washington over education standards. Nearly everybody says we've got the
    best higher education system in the world. Most people concede we can
    improve our public education, and we have to. We are the only advanced
    country that has no national education standards and, therefore, no way
    of measuring whether all kids are meeting them.
        So I have suggested we start with a reading test for fourth graders
    and a math test for eighth graders that would be voluntary, that could
    not be used against the children but would tell you how every child,
    every class, every school, every school district is doing against
    national standards. It is very important that our children be able to
    read and do basic math if you want them all to go to college. And I
    believe this is a good beginning.
        There are areas of--a curious set of opposition to this, but I think
    that lower income kids, kids from difficult backgrounds, I think they
    need high educational standards in their schools even more than the rest
    of us do, because they have very few opportunities to make up for it

    [[Page 1252]]

    if they don't get it. And I am determined to see this fight through. But
    I hope you'll support me. It is not right for us not to have national
    academic standards of excellence.
        So campaign finance, academic standards, fast track. The last point
    I want to make is, I want to encourage those of you in Houston who are
    involved in trying to find a way to bring your community together and
    not divide it by race. What I said in Little Rock yesterday is true:
    This country is a lot better than it was 40 years ago. It's better in
    terms of less discrimination. It's better in terms of more economic
    opportunity. In percentage terms, African-American family income rose
    faster than white American family income did in the last 4 years. We are
    building a middle class of minorities. That's the good news.
        The bad news is that the disparities are still profound and access
    to credit and to being able to build businesses and to being able to be
    full participants in the American dream still show disparity in our
    country. And we have got to keep working to find fair ways not to give
    anything to anybody for which they are not qualified but to give
    everyone who is qualified a chance to fully participate in the American
    way of life and to give us a chance to work together across racial
    lines. I can't tell you how important I think that is.
        Let me just ask you, before I sit down, you just think about this
    and think about this when you go home. Think about how much time I, as
    your President, have had to spend these last 5 years as your President
    working on your behalf dealing with countries where people could not get
    along because of their racial, religious, or ethnic differences.
        In Bosnia, you have three groups of people who are ethnically,
    biologically indistinguishable, who are in different religious and
    ethnic groups by accident of history. Think about the Middle East. Think
    about my people, the Irish, where I'm hopeful we will have some real
    progress this year, arguing over what happened 600 years ago in battles.
    Think about Rwanda, where most of us might not be able to tell without
    being there a while a Hutu from a Tutsi, where hundreds of thousands of
    people were killed. How much time I have to spend on your behalf trying
    to keep people from literally killing each other because of their
    differences.
        And here we have our--the school district across the river from me,
    that I get up and look at every morning when I get up in the White
    House, Fairfax County school district, has kids from 182 nations,
    speaking over 100 languages in one school district. We have 5 school
    districts with people from over 100 countries in it. But 2 years from
    now we'll have 12. People still believe in this country. They're still
    looking to come here to redeem the promise of America.
        And I think that if we can figure out how to take a charitable but
    honest and open attitude toward working with people--which I must say I
    have seen more in abundance in Texas on questions of immigration and
    other things across party lines than I have in a lot of other States--if
    we can figure out how to do that, there is no stopping this country.
        We have a sound economic policy, everybody gets an education, and we
    all work together, then the 21st century will be the time of America's
    greatest days. And that vision I started with 6 years ago will be
    protected. And if we can keep working together and finding principled
    compromises in the Congress, if I can convince the Congress and the
    Senate to confirm my judges, for example--[laughter]--if we can do the
    things that we ought to do, I believe we're going to be fine. But don't
    forget that depends upon having two parties that can fight for what they
    believe in within honorable bounds. And there are differences, and I
    gave you some of them tonight. When you go home tonight, I hope you will
    think about it and be glad you came.
        Thank you, and God bless you.

    Note: The President spoke at 8:50 p.m. at a private residence. In his
    remarks, he referred to dinner hosts Tilman and Paige Fertitta; special
    hosts F. Kenneth Bailey and John Eddie Williams; Alan D. Solomont,
    national finance chair, Democratic National Committee; Ann Richards,
    former Texas Governor; and William H. White, chair, Texas Democratic
    Party.