    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: WILLIAM J. CLINTON (2000, Book I)]
    [March 30, 2000]
    [Pages 579-583]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    [[Page 579]]

    Remarks at a Democratic National Committee Dinner in New York City
    March 30, 2000

        You know what I want to do? I want to tell you this is Michael Sherman's birthday. It's also--
    George, where are you? Is that your name,
    George? George Beirne, it's his birthday also, and he came all the way
    from Alaska to be here. [Laughter] So I'm trying to think about what I
    should do when I leave office, and I think I'll do birthday parties.
    [Laughter] Birthday parties--no, this is good.
        John and Margo have been so good to us, and this is going to be such a
    long, arduous campaign. And Brian Snyder said to me when Ed
    Rendell was talking about how we just had
    this wonderful party here, Brian said, ``Well, why don't you just stand
    up and suggest to Margo that she just
    leave the table settings out''--[laughter]--``and we'll be back several
    more times.'' [Laughter]
        Let me say to all of you, I'm grateful for your presence here, but
    I'm particularly grateful to John and
    Margo for being so good to me and to the
    Vice President and to the DNC and also to Hillary. It means a lot to me.
    And their son, I'm grateful to him,
    because he keeps me in Pokemon cards--[laughter]--which I give to my
    nephew, which raises my status within our family. Far more important
    than being President is being able to give your nephew Pokemon cards. So
    I am profoundly grateful for that as well. [Laughter]
        Let me say to all of you, this is my speech--see, I made my big
    speech here. [Laughter] I know that many of you have come to a lot of
    these; others may be at your first one. But I wanted to tell you that
    I'm working very hard in this election, and not only because I like and
    admire and am grateful to my Vice President
    but because I think he understands the future and has the knowledge and
    experience to lead us there, not only because I want desperately to
    become a member of the Senate spouses club--[laughter]--but because I
    believe in what we've done in the last 7 years.
        I didn't run for President the first time I had a chance to run,
    because I didn't think I was ready to run. And I had been Governor for
    quite a long time in 1988, when the election was open, and it looked
    like we had a good chance to win, and I almost ran. And I realized that
    no one should run for President who does not have a very clear idea not
    only of what the conditions of the country are and the challenges facing
    it but of what you would do on the day after the Inauguration, across a
    whole broad range of issues.
        All of you, in your own ways, have been quite successful in life, or
    you wouldn't be here tonight. And one of the things that I always tell
    people when they ask me about this job is, I say, ``Well, I think a lot
    of folks get in trouble because they forget it is a job.'' I mean, it's
    a job like other jobs. And the only difference is, you have to
    completely define to some extent what it is for you; that is, how you
    will allocate your time, what you believe the priorities are, and what
    you intend to do.
        So I speak to you tonight as someone who is not on the ballot. For
    the first time in nearly a quarter century or more, I won't be an active
    participant in an election as a candidate. Most days, I'm okay with it.
    [Laughter] So I'm here--as much as I'm here as President, I'm here as a
    citizen of this country who desperately loves America, who is grateful
    for the good fortune that we enjoy at this moment but who has had the
    unique perspective, I believe, to know a few things about where we are
    and where we're going and what's really at stake here.
        So I just want to make a couple of points. Point number one is,
    there are real differences between these two parties. And they're not
    the differences people used to believe existed. One of the things I
    promised myself when I got elected is, when I left, nobody would ever be
    able to say that the Democrats were weak on spending, weak on deficits,
    weak on taxes, weak on defense, weak on crime, weak on welfare, couldn't
    be trusted to run the country. Well, you don't hear anybody even talking
    about that in this election.
        But--so what are the real differences? And I would just like to talk
    to you about them. And I know you understand it, but I think it's worth
    focusing on. First of all, we have real differences on the budget, what
    we do with your money. We believe that we can afford a tax cut but that
    it has to be targeted and limited

    [[Page 580]]

    so that there is enough money left to keep paying down the debt, to save
    Social Security and Medicare when the baby boomers retire, and to
    continue to invest in what works in education, in science and
    technology, in health care, in the environment, and the other things we
    have to go forward with together as a people. That's what we believe.
        They believe that we should have a tax cut bigger than the one I
    vetoed last year, one which would--frankly, it speaks well of you that
    you're here, because all of you would come out better with their deal in
    the short run. But what would happen is, I mean, I think--give yourself
    a few points here for being here. You would all come out better with
    their deal in the short run. But what would happen is, we would go back
    to the bad old days of deficits, and then they would have to have big
    cuts in education, in health care, in the environment, science and
    technology, a lot of which is powering this economic boom we're in. And
    in addition to that, they would not have the funds to guarantee that
    when all the baby boomers retire, we wouldn't impose an unconscionable
    burden on our children and grandchildren, through the cost of medical
    care, Medicaid, Social Security.
        Now, this is a huge thing. And let me say, I think it's important
    because it's not like we don't have any evidence. We tried it their way
    for 12 years, and we had high interest rates, high unemployment, low
    growth. We quadrupled the debt, and we were in a terrible fix.
        Now, we have the longest economic expansion in history, 21 million
    new jobs, a 30-year low in unemployment and welfare, a 20-year low in
    poverty, a 25-year low in crime. So it's not like there's not evidence
    here, and yet, that is the issue. That is the issue in the Presidential
    race. That is the issue in the Senate race in New York. That is the
    issue. Who is right on the economy and the budget? Are they right, or
    are we right? To pretend that there are no consequences because things
    are going well would be the height of folly. It's a huge issue.
        Now, there are other issues. We have a different view about
    America's role in the world. We agree on some things, my administration
    and the Republican leaders; I'll give them credit for that. They're
    trying to help me pass the bill that would permit China to become a
    member of the World Trade Organization. I think it's important to our
    national security and real important to our economy.
        And one of the things I want all of you to understand, since you may
    not have been thinking about it is, we have to lower no tariffs; we have
    to lower no trade barriers. This entire bill involves our letting China
    into the WTO in a way that they lower tariffs; they lower trade
    barriers; they let us sell things like automobiles and automobile parts
    and have distributorships in China, they didn't used to do; and we don't
    have to agree to transfer our technology or put manufacturing plants up
    there or anything. It's a one-way street. It's 100 percent in our favor.
    The only reason they do it is that in turn, they get full membership in
    the World Trade Organization, which is good for us, because that means
    if they violate their trade obligations, we have an international body
    to take it to.
        So the Speaker of the House is trying
    to help me pass a bill that literally could save democracy in Colombia
    by increasing their capacity to fight the drug traffickers and the
    guerrillas and reducing their ability to import drugs into this country
    and helping the farmers to find something besides coca to grow.
        But on other areas, we're very different. I think we ought to
    support the U.N. and get people to share our burdens more than they do.
    I believe in the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and they don't. That's a
    big issue in the Senate race here, a big issue in the Presidential race.
    I think it would be folly for us to walk away from arms control after
    the United States has led the way, not just in my administration but in
    previous administrations, Republicans and Democrats.
        This is a departure for the Republicans. To walk away from the
    Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and say we'll just always be able to build
    bigger, more sophisticated bombs, and instead of just a few countries
    with nuclear weapons, there turn out to be a few dozen, who cares? I
    care. And I think it's a big issue. And you ought to care. You shouldn't
    assume that there will never be another nuclear weapon exploded, no
    matter what, if instead of a few countries with nuclear weapons, you
    have a few dozen. So there are big issues here.
        I think we ought to raise the minimum wage. They don't. I think we
    ought to pass a Patients' Bill of Rights for the 190 million Americans
    in a managed care system. And at least so far,

    [[Page 581]]

    they don't. I believe that we ought to pass commonsense gun safety
    legislation to protect more kids from violence. And I believe we can do
    it without, in any way, interfering with the rights of sports people and
    hunters.
        But I got asked in my press conference what I thought about all the
    mean things Charlton Heston's saying about
    me. [Laughter] And I said I still liked his movies. [Laughter] I still
    liked his movies, and I liked him. You know, he came to the White House
    a couple of years go, and I thought he was a delightful man.
        I don't care what they say about me. That's part of the cost of
    doing business and being President, this being attacked by people who
    disagree with you. This is not about me and the NRA; this is about
    whether people stay alive or not. This is a big issue--huge issue in the
    Presidential race.
        Their position, the Republican position in Washington is that guns
    are the only thing in our national life where there should be no
    prevention; it should all be punishment. Now, if you raised your
    children on the theory that there should never be any prevention, there
    should only be punishment, your kids wouldn't turn out so good, even if
    they had welts across their back from being punished.
        Or as I never tire of saying--they always say, ``Just enforce the
    laws on the books. Just punish people when they violate them.'' Well, we
    have increased gun law enforcement over what the previous
    administrations have done. And in my budget, I've asked for a lot more
    people to help us enforce the gun laws more strongly. And there's
    something to be said for that. You would be amazed what a small number
    of gun dealers are responsible for selling guns to such a large number
    of criminals. So there's something to be said for enforcement.
        But one of the reasons that gun crime is at a 30-year low is that
    the Brady bill has kept a half a million felons, fugitives, and stalkers
    from getting handguns. And they were against that as a party. We only
    had a handful of Republicans supporting us in Washington. And Governor
    Bush and the Republican congressional
    leadership, they've been against closing the gun show loophole, against
    banning the importation of large-scale ammunition clips, which makes a
    mockery of our law against assault weapons, because you just bring them
    in, those clips, and then modify the guns. And this has a lot to do with
    whether your kids are safe.
        And again, it's the difference in the way they think than we think.
    Suppose I said that I agree with the Republican philosophy we should
    abandon all prevention and only do punishment. For example, I've been in
    a lot of airports in my life, and nearly everybody I've ever met is
    honest in an airport--99.9 percent of the people in airports are
    perfectly honest. They bear me no ill will. And they're overcrowded
    anyway, and people are frustrated, and they're often late. And if you
    walk through one of those metal detectors and you've got a big, heavy
    money clip or an elaborate belt or something, you're liable to set it
    off three or four times, and you're angry and frustrated. And I'm just
    sick of it, and so I just think we ought to take those metal detectors
    out of the airport. And the next time somebody blows up an airplane, we
    ought to throw the book at them. [Laughter] That's the philosophy.
        This is a big deal here. It's a different way of thinking. I do not
    believe it is necessary to demonize them the way some of us have been
    demonized in the past and still are. I don't want us to have our
    counterpart of Richard Viguerie, who
    represents the hard-core far right and does Mayor Giuliani's fundraising letters--you know, thinks my
    wife is basically up there with a
    Communist brigade or something. [Laughter]
        We don't have to do that. We can talk about the honest differences.
    But I'm telling you, there are big differences here. And it's not like
    we don't have any evidence. What they're saying is, ``Don't bother me
    with the evidence. We know where the money is. We know where the votes
    are. We know where the intensity is. Don't bother me with the
    evidence.'' And to be fair, they just disagree. I'm not willing to let
    another child die for their theory. I think we ought to have a safer
    country.
        And so--and I think it would be a disaster for us to give up the
    fiscal responsibility that has brought us this far when we can take this
    country out of debt in a dozen years for the first time since 1835 and
    guarantee all the young people another generation of prosperity. And I
    could give you lots of other examples.
        But the point I want to make is: There are big differences, and the
    record is clear. The evidence is in. And I hope you will share that with
    people. And I just want to make one other point, which I try to say at
    every turn. In February, we had this big celebration of beating the
    longest economic expansion in history. Now,

    [[Page 582]]

    we've got the longest economic expansion in history, and there was not a
    war in it, which I'm especially proud of.

        So when this happened, being kind of obsessive about American
    history, I asked my Council of Economic Advisers--we were in there
    talking about it, and I said, ``When was the last longest economic
    expansion in history?'' And they said 1961 to 1969, which many of you in
    this room remember well and participated in.

        Now, I want to tell you something about that, why this election is
    so important. I graduated from high school in 1964 at the high water
    mark of that economic expansion. President Kennedy had just been killed,
    and the country was heartbroken, but we united behind President Johnson.
    He was wildly popular, won an historic victory in 1964. Inflation was
    low. Unemployment was low. Growth was high. Optimism was rampant about
    the ability of Congress and the courts to resolve the civil rights
    challenge of the country in a peaceful manner. Everybody thought we were
    going to win the cold war as a result of the superiority of our system,
    and nobody would have believed that Vietnam would tear the heart out of
    the country--1964. And so, we all just went merrily along our way.

        Now, within a year, there was the terrible incident in Selma,
    Alabama, at Bloody Sunday, which I just celebrated the 35th anniversary
    of. Within 2 years, there were riots in our cities and the country began
    to split apart over Vietnam. Four years later, in 1968, I graduated from
    college, 2 days after Robert Kennedy was killed, 2 months after Martin
    Luther King was killed, 9 weeks after Lyndon Johnson couldn't run for
    President anymore because the country was split right down the middle
    over Vietnam.

        Then President Nixon won the election on one of those divisive
    campaigns. He said he represented the Silent Majority, which, by
    definition, meant that the rest of us were in the loud minority. And so
    it was one of those things of ``us'' versus ``them.'' And that's
    something the Republican Party was very good at. They demonized us real
    well and quite effectively all during the eighties, and they still make
    a lot of votes making people think that we somehow don't share their
    values because I'm for things like the hate crimes bill and ``Employment
    Non-Discrimination Act,'' and I don't think gay people ought to be
    bashed if they're good citizens.

        But that happened. And then, shortly after that election in early
    1969, the longest economic expansion in American history vanished. And
    we went on to the oil price shocks, the inflation of the seventies, the
    stagflation of the late eighties, and everything that's happened ever
    since. What's the point of all this? The point is that I've lived long
    enough to know nothing lasts forever; nothing can be taken for granted.
    And I have waited for 35 years for my country to be in a position to
    build the future of our dreams for our children.

        This is a big election. And you cannot let people believe that this
    is something that they can approach casually, just because times are
    good. When times are good, you have to look to the next generation. We
    can take this country out of debt. We can save Social Security and
    Medicare for the baby boom generation. We can dramatically reform our
    schools. We can provide opportunities in areas that haven't participated
    in this recovery. We can lead the world toward greater peace and
    freedom. But we cannot do it unless we have leadership who understands
    the future, has the knowledge and experience to take us there, and is
    committed to it. We dare not risk, by our inaction or our cavalier
    attitudes, blowing what is, I know, the chance of a lifetime.

        I've worked as hard as I could as President to turn this country
    around. I am grateful for the chance I've had to serve. But I really
    think as a country we should view this as the beginning, not the end,
    that we've sort of turned this thing around. And now, we have a chance
    to paint on a canvas our dreams for tomorrow. That's what this whole
    deal is about.

        So if somebody asks you tomorrow why you were here tonight, say,
    ``There's a difference between the parties. I think the last 7 years
    were right, and the stakes could hardly be higher.'' And those of you
    that are about my age, you just think about it. We've waited for 35
    years, and we need to seize the chance.

        Thank you, and God bless you.

    Note: The President spoke at 7:42 p.m. at a private residence. In his
    remarks, he referred to Michael Sherman, president, M.J. Sherman Group;
    dinner guest George Beirne; dinner hosts John and Margo Catsimatidis and
    their son, Yianni;

    [[Page 583]]

    Brian Snyder, investor, Biocraft Laboratories; Edward G. Rendell,
    general chair, Democratic National Committee; Charlton Heston,
    president, National Rifle Association; Gov. George W. Bush of Texas;
    Richard A. Viguerie, chairman, president, and chief executive officer,
    ConservativeHQ.com; and Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani of New York City.