[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.