[Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: WILLIAM J. CLINTON (2000, Book II)]
[July 30, 2000]
[Pages 1518-1523]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]
Remarks at a Democratic National Committee Luncheon
in Chicago, Illinois
July 30, 2000
Well, thank you all for being here today. I'm delighted to be in
this beautiful new restaurant. One of the owners of this restaurant,
Phil Stefani, is a good friend of mine, and in
honor of my coming, he went to Rome. [Laughter] I don't know what it
means, but it's probably a pretty good choice. [Laughter]
I want to thank Senator Dick Durbin,
one of the finest human beings and one of the bravest people and one of
the most eloquent people who has served in the United States Congress in
my adult lifetime, since I've been covering. He is an extraordinary
human being, and I'm grateful that he is my friend, and I thank him.
Thank you, Mr. President Middleton, and thank you, Fred Baron, Leo
Boyle, Anthony Tarricone, all the other members of the ATLA, for being here
today. I want to thank all the candidates who have come here today. And
I know--Fred told me he'd already introduced them, but this is a very
interesting group of candidates. We have Ron Klink
and Debbie Stabenow running from the House
of Representatives for the United States Senate. And they can both win,
and they should win if you help them. I saw earlier Deborah Senn and Ed Bernstein. I think
Brian Schweitzer is here. We have a whole
slew of House candidates. One of them, John Kelly
from New Mexico, went to college with me, so I have a particular
interest in seeing him make good. [Laughter] But he was also a
distinguished U.S. attorney.
But we have this incredible group of people running for the House.
They can win the majority. And now we have an extraordinary new Senator
from the State of Georgia, Zell Miller, who will
be running for election in November. And believe me, we can win not only
the House but the Senate, as well, if you give them enough help.
And a number of you have helped the Senate candidate that I care the most about, in New York--
[laughter]--and I want to thank you for that. And if you haven't, I hope
you will, because it's a big old tough State. And they're trying to take
us out, and I think she's going in, with your help. So I hope you will,
and I thank you very much for that.
Let me say, normally I don't speak from any notes at these events,
but I want to do it today for a particular reason. You make a living
making arguments, persuading people, knowing what's on people's minds,
understanding the predispositions that they bring to any given
circumstance. And this is a highly unusual circumstance, so I want to
talk to you about it today, because with the conventions of the
Republicans in Philadelphia, the Democrats in Los Angeles, we're
beginning to have this election in earnest.
The first thing I want to do is to say a simple thank you. You've
been thanking me; I want to thank you. I want to thank you for being so
good to me and Hillary and Al and Tipper Gore for these 8 years. I want
to thank you
[[Page 1519]]
for supporting the civil justice system and, when it was threatened, the
Constitution of the United States. I want to thank you for supporting
ordinary citizens, the people who can't afford to come to fundraisers
like this but work in places like this, people who can't afford to hire
lobbyists in Washington to plead their case. And I want to thank you
again for supporting the candidates here and those who are not here who
can help to give us a new majority in the Congress.
The second thing I'd like to say, with some humility, I guess, is
that your support has been validated by the record of the last 8 years.
This country is in better shape than it was 8 years ago. It's stronger
than it was 8 years ago, and people are better off than they were 8
years ago.
And as Senator Durbin said, yes, part of it is economics. We have
the longest economic expansion in history and the lowest unemployment
rate in 30 years, the strongest growth in 40 years, the highest
homeownership in history, all of those statistics. But it's more than
that as well. This is a more just society. We have the lowest African-
American and Hispanic unemployment rates ever recorded, the lowest
female unemployment rates in 40 years, the lowest single-parent
household poverty rate in 46 years. We have rising scores among our
students in schools, the first time in history the African-American high
school graduation rate is equal to that of the white majority, the
highest percentage of people going on to college in our history.
We have cleaner air, cleaner water, safer food. We set aside more
land in the lower 48 States than any administration in history except
those of the two Roosevelts. And we proved that you could improve the
environment and the economy at the same time. The welfare rolls have
been cut in half. The crime rate is at a 30-year low. Gun crime has
dropped 35 percent in the last 7 years. So it's about more than money.
It's about who we are as a people and how we live together.
Many of you whom I met earlier mentioned my work in the last couple
of weeks on the Middle East peace process. I've been very honored to be
part of making a more peaceful world, from the Balkans to the Middle
East to Northern Ireland, trying to reduce the threat of terrorism and
weapons of mass destruction and trying to build a positive set of
relationships with countries throughout the world. And America is better
positioned than it was 8 years ago.
Now, here's the most important thing: Now what? What are we doing
with this prosperity? That's my answer and your answer, but how do we
get it to be America's answer? What are we going to do with this
remarkable moment of prosperity? Will we use it as a precious, once-in-
a-lifetime gift to meet the big challenges and seize the big
opportunities of this new century? Or will we do what often happens in
democracies, when things are going well, and break our concentration and
sort of wander through this election?
The outcome of the election, who wins, depends on what people think
the election is really about. Now, on our side, we've got people led by
Vice President Gore who have brought
America back and who have great ideas for keeping this positive change
going. On their side, they have people led by their Presidential and Vice Presidential
nominees who are speaking in very soothing, reassuring ways about
compassion and harmony and inclusion. Gone are these harsh personal
attacks that dominated their politics from '92 to '98.
You watch their convention. I bet butter wouldn't melt in their
mouth for the next few days. [Laughter] It is appealing as a package and
a terrific marketing strategy. But that obscures the differences between
the candidates
for President, the candidates for Senate and Congress, and,
fundamentally, the different approaches between the two parties. And it
is just what they mean to do, because on issue after issue, this ticket
is to the right of the one that Al Gore and I opposed in 1996.
So this election--you just need to know three things about it. It is
a big election; there are big differences; and only the Democrats want
you to know what the differences are. What does that tell you about who
you ought to vote for? [Laughter]
It is a big election, but a lot of people don't think so. Story
after story after story that our friends in the press write indicate
that people aren't sure what the differences are between the candidates
for President. ``Do they have different approaches to crime and gun
safety? Do they have different approaches to the economy? Do they really
have different approaches to health care? They both seem like
compassionate people. Who could mess this economy up, anyway? I mean,
it's so strong. And maybe there
[[Page 1520]]
aren't any real consequences, and so maybe we should give the other side
a chance. We had it for 8 years.''
Now, how many times in your own life--if you're over 30 years old,
every person in this room over 30 at some point in your life has made a
mistake, not because your life was so full of difficulty but because
things were going along so well you thought there was no penalty to the
failure to concentrate. A lot of you are nodding your head. That's true.
You know that's true. If you live long enough, you'll make one of those
mistakes.
And countries are no different than people. Things are going along
well; they kind of relax, feeling good. I'm glad everybody is feeling
good. But wouldn't it be ironic if, as a consequence of the good feeling
of America now and our yearning to sort of have everything come out all
right, that the people that made the decisions and paid the price were
punished for the error they helped to bring about? Now, that's basically
the issue in this election.
And so I say to you, I don't blame our friends in the Republican
Party. If I were them, I would be trying to obscure the differences
between us, too, because it's the only way they can win. [Laughter] I
mean, it's a good strategy, and they're doing it very well. And they've
got a great package, and they just hope nobody ever unwraps the package
to look and see what's inside.
Now, this is America, and people should do whatever they think they
can do to get elected. But if that happens and if the electorate goes
into the polling place in November without knowing what the real
differences are, that's our fault, not theirs. You can't blame them for
trying to get elected. They want back in in the world's worst way. And
all those interest groups that are behind them want back in in the
world's worst way. And you know some of the things they want to do if
they could get the White House and the Congress, don't you? And you
can't blame them. They're just doing what they're supposed to do;
they're trying to win.
And the American people almost always get it right, almost always--
for over 220 years now, if they have enough time and enough information
to make a good choice. That's our job. And that's your job, because you
make arguments for a living, so you are uniquely positioned to influence
the outcome of this election, not so much by your money as by your
insight and your persuasiveness and understanding. And you have to take
it on.
Let me just give you an example. What you've got to convince people
of is, ``Look, an election is a decision. It's a choice, and choices
have consequences. If you like the consequences of your choice, you
should vote for that person. But let's just look at some of them. Number
one, on economic policy, the goal ought to be to keep this recovery
going and spread its benefits to more people, right? Okay. What's our
policy? Our policy is: Stay with what works; keep investing in America's
future, in education, in science and technology and health care; keep
paying down the debt; get us out of debt, so the interest rates will
stay low; save Social Security and Medicare for the baby boom generation
and add a drug benefit to Medicare, and give the people a tax cut we can
afford and still do that stuff--for college education, for long-term
care, for child care, for people with a lot of kids to save for
retirement; have a tax cut but don't let it interfere with our
obligation to invest in our children's education, to save Medicare and
Social Security and get us out of debt.''
What's their side? They can say it better. Their side is, ``Hey,
it's your money. We've got it. It's a surplus. We want to give it back
to you. That's the problem with the Democrats. They never saw a program
they didn't like. It's your money. We're going to give it back to you.''
And they propose to spend, at least from the taxes they passed in the
last 12 months to the one that their candidate for President is
advocating and is in the Republican platform, over $2 trillion in tax
cuts over the next 10 years. And they say, ``Well, so what? We're
supposed to have a surplus of $2 trillion.'' Now, never mind the fact
that that, number one, gives them no money for their own spending
promises.
Did you ever get one of those letters in the mail from Publishers
Clearing House, Ed McMahon? ``You may have won $10 million.'' Did you go
out and spend the $10 million the next day? If you did, you should
support the Republicans this year. [Laughter] If not, you'd better stick
with us. You better stick with us.
Folks, that money is not there yet. That money is not there yet. If
we invest this year in education and we say we want to spend this much
next year and the money doesn't come in, we don't have to spend it. But
once you
[[Page 1521]]
cut taxes, it's gone, and it's pretty hard to get a bunch of politicians
to come back in and raise them again because the money didn't
materialize. So you've got to tell people that.
Look at your friends and say, ``Listen, if I ask you to sign a
contract right now, committing to spend every penny of your projected
income over the next 10 years, would you do it? If you would, you should
support them. If not, you'd better stick with us. Keep this economy
going.''
I got an economic analysis last week from a professional economist
that said that Vice President Gore's
economic plan would keep interest rates at least one percent lower--at
least one percent lower--than his opponent's plan over the next decade.
Do you know what that's worth?--$250 billion in home mortgage savings,
$30 billion in car payment savings, $15 billion in student loan
payments. That's a pretty good size tax cut, and besides, you get a
healthy economy, and you get America out of debt. It's a huge
difference. People don't know it. It's up to you to make sure they do.
Let me just take one or two others. In health care, we want to
lengthen the life of Medicare and Social Security. We want to add a
Medicare drug benefit that all of our seniors can afford, We want a
Patients' Bill of Rights. On those three issues they say, ``No, no, no.
No lengthening the life of Medicare and Social Security.'' Indeed, one
of the tax cuts they passed this week would take 5 years off the life of
Medicare. ``No Patients' Bill of Rights with the right to be vindicated
if you get hurt. No Medicare drug benefit that all of our seniors can
afford who need it.''
On crime, we say, ``Put more police out there, and do more to take
guns out of the hands of criminals and kids. Specifically, close the gun
show loophole; mandate child trigger locks; don't import large capacity
ammunition clips to get around the assault weapons ban.'' And the Vice
President says--and I agree with him--``Make people who buy handguns get
a photo ID license like people who buy cars, showing that they passed a
background check and they know how to use the gun safely.''
They say ``No, no, no, no. Instead, have more people carrying
concealed weapons--in church, if necessary.'' [Laughter] That's their
record and their position. Now, that's a clear choice. People don't know
that. Did you see that survey last week of suburban women voters who
care a lot about this issue? And they had no idea what the differences
were.
Now, the chief political argument is that the head of the NRA said
they'd have an office in the White House if the Republicans win. But
what I want to tell you is something more profound. They won't need an
office in the White House, because they'll do what they want to anyway,
because that's what they believe.
Look, I think we have got a chance here to get away from this
politics of personal destruction. We should say that our opponents are
honorable, good, decent, patriotic people, and we have honest
disagreements with them. The only thing we disagree with is, they're
trying to hide the disagreements. So let's tell the American people what
the differences are and let them decide. And whatever they decide, we
can all go on about our business and be happy with our lives because
democracy is working. But we can't if they don't know.
Let's look at the environment. We say we should have higher
standards for the environment and deal with the problems of climate
change, and we can improve the environment and the economy at the same
time. And they don't believe that, basically. And one of the specific
commitments made by their candidate in the primary--something they hope
all you forget; they hope you have selective amnesia about the
Republican primary--but one of the specific commitments made was to
reverse my order establishing 43 million acres that are roadless in our
national forests, something the Audobon Society said was the most
significant conservation move in the last 40 years. Now, they're on
record committing to repeal that.
So there's a difference there. People need to know what the
differences are, and if they agree with them, they should vote for them.
If they agree with us, they can vote for us. But they ought to know.
I'll give you a couple other examples. Hate crimes legislation:
We're for it; their leadership is opposed to it because it also protects
gays. Employment nondiscrimination legislation: We're for it; they're
against it. Raising the minimum wage: We're for it; they're against it.
More vigorous civil rights enforcement and involvement: We're for it;
they're against it.
Now, all the big publicity is about, in the last few days, an
amazing vote cast by their nominee for Vice
President when he was in Congress against letting Nelson Mandela out of
[[Page 1522]]
jail. And that takes your breath away. But Mr. Mandela got out of jail
in spite of that congressional vote. Most of the Congressmen voted to
let him out. He became President of South Africa, and the rest is
history.
I'm worried about the people now whom I've tried to put on the Court
of Appeals who are African-American and Hispanic, who are being held in
political jail because they can't get a hearing from this Republican
Senate, and their nominee won't say a word about it--never.
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in the southeastern part of the
United States has never had an African-American, but it has more
African-American citizens than any other one. I've been trying for 7
long years to fix it, and they've blocked every one. They are so
determined to keep an African-American off the court that they have
allowed a 25 percent vacancy rate on the fourth circuit--just to keep an
African-American off the court.
There are two now I've got up there. They could prove me wrong. Give
them a hearing, and confirm them. In Texas, I nominated a man named
Enrique Moreno from El Paso that the Texas
State trial judges said was one of the best lawyers in west Texas, a guy
that graduated at the top of his class at Harvard, came out of El Paso
and did that. He got the highest rating from the ABA. And the Texas
Republican Senators said he wasn't qualified. And by their likes, he's
not qualified because he's not a guaranteed ideological purist vote.
And the leader of the Republican Party in Texas, now the leader of the American Republican Party, all he
had to do was say, ``Give this man a hearing. This is wrong.'' But not a
peep. So let's worry more about Moreno--
Mandela took care of himself just fine--and the people in the fourth
circuit and the other people. This is a big issue.
Now, I'm sure they have principled reasons. They really want
somebody on the Court of Appeals. They think it would be a better
country if people toed the ideological line. I have appointed the most
diverse and the highest rated group of judges in the last 40 years, and
I didn't ask them what their party lines were.
Now, that leads me to the last point. I think the last place where
there is a clear choice is, choice and civil rights enforcement and the
civil justice system. The next President will make two to four
appointments to the Supreme Court, almost certainly. The Vice President
has said where he stands on this. Their
nominees are both avowed opponents of Roe v.
Wade, and their nominee for President said the people he admired most
in the Supreme Court were Justices Thomas and Scalia, those that are the
most conservative.
Now, I'll bet you anything nobody gets up and gives a speech about
this in Philadelphia. But it's a relevant thing. It will change the
shape of America far beyond the lifetime of the next Presidency.
So I say to you--and I'm not attacking them personally. These are
differences. And I don't even blame them for trying to hide the
differences because they know if the folks find out, they're toast.
[Laughter] I don't blame them. But I have worked so hard to turn this
country around. I have done all I could do. And I don't want my country
to squander the opportunity of a lifetime, the opportunity of a
generation to build the future of our dreams for our children. That's
what I want.
And I think what's best for America is Al Gore. That's what I really believe. That's what I believe. He's
done more good in the office of Vice President than anybody who ever
held it. We've had some great Presidents who were Vice President. None
of them did remotely as much for America as Vice President as he has,
from casting the tie-breaking vote on the budget to casting the tie-
breaking vote for gun safety in this year; from managing our downsizing
of the Government to the smallest size in 40 years to making sure that
we pass an E-rate in the Telecommunications Act that can make sure all
the poor schools in this country could hook up to the Internet; from
managing a lot of our environmental programs to managing a lot of our
foreign policy with Russia, Egypt, and other countries.
There has never been anybody who has had remotely as much influence
as Vice President as he has. And therefore,
he is, by definition then, the best qualified person in our lifetime to
be President.
The second thing you need to know is, there is a big difference in
economic policy. I've already said that, but if you want this thing to
go on--everybody who wants to live like a Republican needs to vote
Democrat this year. [Laughter] Now, if you want it to go on, you've got
to do it.
And the third thing that you need to know about him is he understands the future. He
[[Page 1523]]
understood the potential of the Internet to carry the Library of
Congress when it was the private province of Defense Department
physicists. Don't you want somebody like that in the White House when we
have to decide who gets a hold of your medical and financial records
that are on the Internet?
He understands the potential of the
human genome project and this whole biomedical revolution. Don't you
want someone like that in the White House when we have to decide whether
someone can deny you a job or a promotion or health insurance based on
your gene map?
He understands climate change. People
made fun of him 12 years ago. When we ran together in '92, they made fun
of him. Now the oil companies acknowledge that climate change and global
warming are real, and it's going to change the whole way our children
live unless we deal with it. Wouldn't you like someone in the White
House that really understands that? You need somebody that understands
the future. It's going to be here before you know it.
And the last thing I'll say--it's what you already know or you
wouldn't be here--this is the most diverse, interesting country we've
ever had. We're going out into a world that's more and more
interdependent, where we have obligations to people around the world
that we must fulfill if we want to do well ourselves. And I want someone
in the White House that will take us all along for the ride, and
he will.
Thank you, and God bless you.
Note: The President spoke at 2:30 p.m. at the 437 Rush Restaurant. In
his remarks, he referred to Richard H. Middleton, Jr., president, Fred
Baron, president-elect, Leo Boyle, vice president, and Anthony
Tarricone, member, board of governors, Association of Trial Lawyers of
America (ATLA); U.S. senatorial candidates Deborah Senn of Washington,
Ed Bernstein of Nevada, and Brian Schweitzer of Montana; Republican
Presidential candidate Gov. George W. Bush of Texas and Vice
Presidential candidate Dick Cheney; Ed McMahon, Publishers Clearing
House Sweepstakes spokesperson; and Wayne LaPierre, executive vice
president, National Rifle Association.