[Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: WILLIAM J. CLINTON (2000, Book II)]
[September 29, 2000]
[Pages 1986-1992]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]



Remarks at a Democratic National Committee/Democratic Business Council 
Luncheon
September 29, 2000

    Thank you. I don't know what I feel about getting all those golf 
balls. [Laughter] Is he telling me I should quit working altogether? He 
should at least tell me that he expects me to live long enough to lose 
all of them. [Laughter]
    Thank you very much, and thank you for the warm welcome. I want to 
thank John Merrigan, who has been a wonderful 
friend to me and a wonderful friend to the Democratic Party, a generous 
and indefatigable person. And he got us a clap for everybody else, but 
he really deserves a lot of the applause today. Thank you.
    I thank Bill Berkley and the other chairs 
and the vice chairs. The only thing I don't know about that I've seen 
today is that story that John told about Paul Equale in the steam bath. [Laughter] I thought he was going to 
say that he offered to get dressed if the guy would give him $5,000. 
[Laughter]
    Anyway, I want to thank Jason and the staff 
and all the folks here from the Democratic Party--Janice 
Griffin, Carol Pensky, Andy Tobias, Loretta 
Sanchez, and Ed Rendell. And I thank Ed for his generous remarks, but he has also 
worked like a demon this year.
    It is true that in the early part of this election cycle, when the 
polls didn't look so good and everybody was in sort of a constant state 
of hand-wringing, I kept telling Ed, I 
said, ``Just send me out there. I'll tell them it's going to be all 
right,'' because I believed it. And as John said, I told him that every 
election has its rhythm, and you have to wait for it. That's true. Every 
election is almost like a different symphony being written by the 
American people, and the language is always the same, just like musical 
notes, but you have to go and listen to the people and hear them, the 
way they speak, the way they talk, the way they feel about what this is. 
But also, the American people nearly always get it right if they have 
enough time and enough information. And that's why we're all still 
around here after over 200 years.
    I always felt, as anybody here who talked to me about it, that this 
election would be all right, because I knew Al Gore and because I know what the underlying realities are. I 
know the country is in better shape than it was, that we're moving in 
the right direction, that people want to keep changing in that 
direction. And I know, and I feel even more strongly now that Joe 
Lieberman has joined the ticket, that 
these two leaders will be very good for America. And I think the 
American people will agree with that on election day, and I'm very 
grateful.
    But I know something else, too, which is that our friends on the 
other side suffered a time or two in this election process because they 
were already picking out their offices in the West Wing. You know, they 
thought it was over. They thought that they had won some kind of contest 
based on the tilt of the press for a given month or so or whatever. And 
I like all kinds of contests. I like sports--I don't know why; I'm not 
very competitive--[laughter]--I love the Olympics. I don't sleep enough 
when the Olympics are on. But one of the things I really love about the 
martial arts is that the opponents always bow to each other before the 
contest begins. And why do they do that? To remind them that you should 
always respect your adversary, never take anything for granted, and that 
anyone can be defeated.
    What do you think the odds were on the Wyoming farm boy defeating that Russian wrestler for the gold medal? He 
wasn't as svelte, and he hadn't gone 13 years without losing a match. 
But you breathe that thin air long enough, and you lift all that heavy 
farm equipment and bales of hay and do all the things you do, you 
develop an enormous aerobic capacity--[laughter]--that all the 
weightlifting in the world can't overcome. And, poof! There he was.
    I say that to say that this whole decision is ultimately in the 
hands of the American people. And make no mistake about it, they can 
make any decision they want. So it is well for us to remember to be like 
the martial artists and bow out of respect for our adversaries and for 
the process and then work like crazy and don't leave anything out there 
on the floor on election day.
    I don't think I've ever worked any harder in an election than I'm 
working this time, for the last year. It's kind of interesting because 
it's the first time in 26 years I haven't been

[[Page 1987]]

on the ballot. [Laughter] Maybe I'm just celebrating. Who knows? 
[Laughter] But I've enjoyed working for Al 
and Joe, and I've enjoyed working for 
Hillary and a lot of other individual 
House and Senate Members and for the Democratic Party and for our Senate 
and House committees. I know we're going to be outspent. We always are. 
We were outspent $100 million in 1998. We won anyway. And the lesson of 
all this in public life is that you don't have to have as much money as 
your opponent, but you do have to have enough to make sure your message 
is out and that, if there's an incoming assault, you can answer it. Then 
if they have more, it's nice for them, but it's not the end of the world 
for you. If you have a better message, better candidates, and clarity of 
choice, you can still win.
    So I thank you for your help. And I thank you for the support you've 
given me these last 8 years and the opportunity that I have had to 
serve. I'd like to ask you to think just for a minute or two about what 
you're going to do when you leave here, between now and election day, 
because I don't think it's enough for you to contribute. I think that 
this is an election in which there is still some elasticity, in which 
people are still trying to get a handle on the issues and the 
candidates. Although it's beginning to settle down and settle down in a 
way that's good for us, we have to keep working.
    And I have always had a simple theory about this election. It's not 
very complicated. I think if people focus on where the country was 8 
years ago, where it is today, what kind of change they want, and they 
can keep thinking about not the stuff that occupies the daily headlines 
but who will make the decisions that will be best for my country, my 
community, and my family, and they clearly understand the honest 
differences--we win.
    To the extent that people forget about where we were 8 years ago, 
where we are now, what kind of change they want, who would make 
decisions that are best for the Nation, the community, and the family, 
we have more difficulty.
    Now, since I'm not running, I can say this. I get frustrated from 
time to time. Vice President Gore got a lot 
of bad press early on in the election, and then he wins all the 
primaries, and all of a sudden he's a genius again. John Kennedy once 
said, ``Victory has a thousand fathers, and defeat is an orphan.'' Then, 
after our convention, he gave a terrific speech, and basically the Vice 
President's speech at the convention showed what I think the theme of 
this election was. In 1992 it was about the economy. In 2000 it's about 
the issues. People understand that they're hiring someone to make 
decisions that will affect their lives and our future, and they want to 
know what you're going to do if you get the job. I think that's a very 
healthy thing.
    And so he had a big boost there because 
he actually said, ``If you hire me, here's what I'll do.'' And now 
you've had an interesting thing the last 3 or 4 weeks where, first of 
all, Governor Bush was just getting 
pulverized, you know, and people were saying they were the gang that 
couldn't shoot straight and all that. And then they want to argue about 
the Vice President's mother-in-law's medical bills or some--but that 
comes after the Bush people say, ``Oh, you're being too mean to us. The 
press is liberal''--which they hate, which is, by the way, manifestly 
not true. [Laughter] And I don't blame them. The press shouldn't like it 
when people level untrue charges against them. I don't like it. You 
don't like it either.
    So then Gore gets a little of the 
treatment Bush was getting. But the truth is, 
I think all this stuff is fluff on the surface. Let me tell you what I 
think. I think both these people are good Americans who love their 
families and love their country and will do their best to do what they 
believe is right, if they get elected. Now, that's what I believe. And I 
believe that, based on over 30 years of working in public life.
    Politicians, by and large, are better people than they are made out 
to be. Most of them are honest. Most of them work hard. Most of them try 
to do the very best they can. If you want to make a good decision, you 
have to know what the real consequences of your choice are, not what the 
superficial consequences are, based on whatever the sort of issue of the 
day is designed to make you think that one or the other of them is too 
craven, too dumb, too this, too that, too the other thing. That's all a 
bunch of hooey.
    Now, you might not want to hear this. You may want to think, ``Our 
guy's all good. Their guy's all bad.'' That's a bunch of bull. Most 
people in public life will do their best to do what they think is right. 
And I believe that the Vice President and 
Senator Lieberman should be elected 
because they've got more relevant

[[Page 1988]]

experience; they've got a record of greater success; their ideas are 
right, and the things they want to do will have better consequences for 
the American people than their adversaries. That's what I believe. And 
we ought to argue that case, because that's something that means 
something to the American people, to every business person and working 
family and--[applause].
    Let somebody else spend all their time sort of psychoanalyzing them 
or trying to find some bad thing or another thing to say or making 
jokes, or something like that. We don't have time for that. Let's talk 
about how this is going to affect our future.
    Now, today, I have the great pleasure, as Ed Rendell said earlier--
I've had three announcements this week that have made me very happy. 
First, we announced that this year the budget surplus would be $230 
billion. It was projected to be a $455 billion deficit when I took 
office. And that was good. And over the last 3 years, we will have paid 
down $360 billion on the national debt.
    Then the next day we announced the poverty figures, which show that 
poverty is at a 20-year low. It's under 10 percent for seniors for the 
first time in our history. Median income in America is above $40,000 for 
the first time in our history; and after inflation, income has increased 
by $6,300, more than 15 percent, since 1993. And the gains in the last 
couple of years for the lowest income Americans and for minority 
Americans have been greater than the average gains in percentage terms.
    Then, today I announced that in 1999, for the first time in a dozen 
years, we had a reduction in the number of uninsured Americans, almost 2 
million fewer uninsured Americans, largely because in the 1997 Balanced 
Budget Act, we passed the Children's Health Insurance Program for kids 
of lower income working parents who were not poor enough to be on 
Medicaid but whose parents could not afford health insurance. And we had 
one of those parents there today, she and her husband and their two 
kids--they had a little 6-year-old boy, a darling little boy with 
asthma, that they could never have properly cared for and kept their 
jobs. Because they're in the Children's Health Insurance Program, both 
parents are still working; both kids are doing fine. The little boy and 
his sister have health insurance. And there are 2.5 million of those 
kids out there now, in 2 years.
    So the last social indicator that wasn't going in the right 
direction, is now. Now, there is a dramatic difference from State to 
State in how many kids have been enrolled, but as one of the major 
papers pointed out in an analysis a couple days ago, it's almost 
exclusively due to whether the States are making the appropriate effort 
or not.
    So the big question is, now what? What do we do with the surplus? 
How do we keep the economy going? Can we continue this expansion? Can we 
spread its benefits to the people and places that have been left behind? 
Can we now take on some of the big, long-term challenges of the country? 
The aging of America: When all us baby boomers retire, two people 
working for every one drawing Social Security and Medicare. The children 
of America: The largest and most racially and ethnically and religiously 
diverse group we've ever had, can we give them all a world-class 
education? The families of America: Can we actually find the ways to 
balance work and childrearing for all working families?
    There are a lot of other questions. Can we meet the challenge of 
global warming, which the oil companies admit is real now, and still 
grow the economy, something we're very sensitive to now because the 
price of oil has gone up? How much can we do in conservation? How much 
can we do with alternative energy development? Are fuel cells a 
realistic alternative, and when will they be in cars, and how much 
mileage will they get? What kind of new energy sources do we need, and 
how do we do it without messing up the environment? These are the things 
that are going to affect your life.
    How are we going to continue to increase trade in the rest of the 
world in a way that gets the support of ordinary citizens, so we don't 
have a riot every time in every city we have a meeting of the World 
Trade Organization or somebody else, some other international group? 
These are the huge questions that will shape the 21st century. Will the 
discoveries of the human genome, which will soon lead to a life 
expectancy, I believe, at birth of 90 years in America--will we be able 
to spread those benefits to all people and still protect the privacy 
rights of Americans who will have all their medical and financial 
records on computers?

[[Page 1989]]

    So I ask you to think about that. To me, this election ought to be a 
feast for the American people. We have worked for 8 years to turn this 
country around and get it going in the right direction. So now you've 
got the longest economic expansion ever and the lowest unemployment rate 
in 30 years and the lowest minority unemployment rate ever recorded and 
the highest homeownership in history, highest small business rate of 
creation in history--every year we break records--lowest crime rate in a 
quarter century, lowest welfare rolls in 32 years.
    So what are we going to do with all this? This election should be an 
exuberant experience for the American people, including those that are 
still in distress, because they know there is something we can do about 
it now.
    And what I want to ask you to do is to think about anything you can 
do between now and November to talk to the people that you know and live 
and work with, who will never come to an event like this but who have 
every intention of voting. They're good citizens. They know they ought 
to show up and vote. They want to make the right decision. They'll watch 
at least one of the debates. They'll follow this on the evening news and 
in the newspapers. But what is the choice here?
    And we have very different views, and we ought to talk about it. We 
have a very different economic policy here. The Vice President wants a tax cut of about $500 billion over 10 
years. Governor Bush wants one of $1.6 
trillion over 10 years. Most of you would make more money out of the 
Republican tax cut. Why are you here? [Laughter] You've got to be able 
to answer that. You get more money up front out of their tax cut.
    What's our argument? Our argument is, number one, we have 
responsibilities to our children and education and health care and the 
environment. We're going to have to spend more money on national 
defense. We've already put another $100 billion back in defense, and 
Vice President Gore has promised to put, so 
far, twice as much as Governor Bush has. Why 
is that? Because we got a big benefit from the end of the cold war, but 
because we had to deploy our forces in a lot of places, we cut the 
procurement of new weapons and old equipment back to keep up training, 
to raise pay, to provide for quality of life, to keep recruitment up 
because it's harder to recruit people into the service when they can 
make more money doing other things.
    We want to have a tax cut the American people need and can afford, 
but he knows we have to invest in other things, and we should do it in 
the context of keeping this debt coming down, running a surplus every 
year until we get this country out of debt over the next 12 years, for 
the first time since 1835. Now, that's why you're here. That's your 
answer to the business people. Why? Because if you do that, as opposed 
to--now keep in mind, the projected non-Social Security surplus, the 
most liberal number is $2.2 trillion. That's the Congress. We think it's 
much smaller, at 1.8. If you do a $1.6 trillion tax cut, that leaves you 
$600 billion, right, for 10 years, if all the rosy scenarios are right.
    Now that, however, scenario assumes that Government spending does 
not grow at inflation plus population, which it has done for 50 years. 
If that happens, that takes away another $300 billion. That leaves you 
$300 billion. Then it assumes that we will not extend the tax credits 
that are in the law now, like the research and development tax credit. 
Since the high-tech industry has accounted for one-third of our growth, 
with only 9 percent of the employment, don't you think we ought to 
extend it? Of course we should. So we will.
    And it assumes, furthermore, that as incomes grow, we won't bump up 
the level at which the alternative minimum tax takes effect. You really 
think we're going to let middle-class people start paying the 
alternative minimum tax, so they don't get the basic tax deductions? Of 
course we're not. That's another $200 billion. That leaves you with $100 
billion left.
    Then he's proposed a partial privatization of Social Security, which 
means all of you under X age, let's say 40, can take 2 percent of your 
payroll and go invest it in the market and try to earn more money than 
you could from Social Security. The problem is, Social Security runs out 
in 37 years. So as you take yours out, I'll be retiring, and he's going 
to promise me that I can keep all that I'm guaranteed under the present 
law.
    So what do you have to do? You have to fill up the hole of everybody 
taking their payroll tax out. That costs at least $900 billion. So 
you're $800 million in the hole before you spend

[[Page 1990]]

a penny for education, health care, the environment, or whatever else. 
That's why most economic advisers believe that interest rates will be a 
percent lower under the Gore plan than 
under the Republican plan. One percent lower interest rates will have a 
huge impact on business loans, business investment, job growth, income 
growth, the stock market, not to mention $390 billion in lower home 
mortgages, $30 billion in lower car payments, and $15 billion in lower 
college loan payments.
    I think our economic plan is better. I hope you can argue it. It's 
clear to me that this is the right thing to do.
    We have a different education program. Both sides are for 
accountability. We're for accountability-plus. We think we should hold 
people accountable, but we ought to give them the tools to succeed--
after-school and preschool for all the kids who need it, modernize 
schools, 100,000 teachers for smaller classes in the early grades. 
People can make up their mind which one they think is better, but they 
need to know what the real differences are.
    There are vast differences in health care policy. Look, here's what 
the Patients' Bill of Rights is about--and I can say this because I've 
actually supported managed care. When I became President--everybody has 
forgotten this now--inflation and health care costs were going up at 3 
times the rate of inflation. It was about to bankrupt this country. We 
had to manage our resources better. But as someone who has supported it, 
I know that with any institution in society, if you're not careful, you 
forget about what your primary mission is. The primary mission is to 
save as much money as possible, consistent with the care of the 
patients.
    So we say we ought to have a Patients' Bill of Rights, and it ought 
to cover everybody. They say we ought to have suggestions that don't 
cover everybody. And to be fair to them, they say, ``We don't want to do 
anything else to add to the cost that business bears and that people 
bear in health insurance.'' So a lot of you are interested in that. Now, 
their Congressional Budget Office says--not me, they say--that it would 
cost less than $2 a month a policy to fully implement the guarantees of 
the Patients' Bill of Rights. That's what they say. I would pay a $1.80 
a month to know that when you leave this hotel room, if, God forbid, you 
get hit by a speeding car, you could go to the nearest emergency room 
and not have to pass three to get to one covered by your plan. I would 
pay that, and I think we should.
    So that's a real difference. And we don't have to hide around--we 
can argue it both ways, and you should hear them. Let them say what they 
think. But let's not hide the differences.
    This Medicare drug issue is a very interesting issue. If you live to 
be 65 in this country, you've got a life expectancy of 82. We know that 
pharmaceuticals can keep people alive longer and improve the quality of 
their lives. We know there are lots of people choosing between food and 
medicine every day. We know this.
    Now, so we say, ``Look, we've got the money now under Medicare.'' 
When I was elected President, Medicare was supposed to go broke last 
year. We've added 27 years to the life of Medicare already. We have a 
plan to add more. We'll have to reform it some. But we say we ought to 
have a voluntary prescription drug benefit under Medicare, which has 2 
percent or less administrative cost, totally voluntary, but everybody 
that needs it ought to buy it.
    They say, ``Well, it might cost more than the Democrats say.'' I'll 
make the best case for their argument. They say, ``It might cost more 
than the Democrats say. So let's cover up to 150 percent of poverty, and 
then everybody else can buy insurance, and we'll give them a little 
help.'' Their side sounds pretty good. And why would you deny poor 
people, the poorest people the right to have health insurance?
    Here's the debate. Over half the people who can't afford their 
medicine are above 150 percent of the poverty level. That's only about 
$16,000 for a couple. Over half the people who need the help are above 
there, number one. Number two, after all the fights I've had with the 
health insurance companies, I've got to hand it to them. They have been 
scrupulously honest in this debate. They have told us over and over and 
over again, you cannot design an insurance policy that is affordable to 
people that won't bankrupt us on medicine.
    The State of Nevada has already adopted the present Republican plan. 
Do you know how many insurance companies have offered drug insurance 
under it? Zero, not one. But I've got to give it to them. Evidence never 
phases them. They just go right on. I kind of admire that. [Laughter] 
You know, I kind of admire that. ``Don't tell me about paying down the 
debt and 22 million jobs and all this.'' Say, ``Here's the right thing 
to do. Don't bother me with the

[[Page 1991]]

evidence.'' [Laughter] But the truth is, we tried their plan, and it 
doesn't work.
    Now, here is what is really going on. What is really going on is 
that the pharmaceutical companies badly don't want our plan, but they 
don't want to act like they don't want older people who need medicine 
not to have it. And they've got a real problem. They do have a real 
problem. Here's what their real problem is. Their real problem is, 
they're afraid if we have a Medicare drug program and we enroll a lot of 
people in it, we will acquire so much power in the market that we'll be 
able to get drugs made in America almost as cheaply as the Canadians 
pay. [Laughter]
    Now, to be fair to them, it is--here's their real problem. Look, I'm 
not demonizing them. I'm glad we've got these pharmaceutical companies 
in our country. I'm glad they find all these lifesaving drugs. I'm glad 
they provide good jobs to people. I'm glad they're here. They do have a 
problem. You know what their problem is? It costs a fortune to develop 
these drugs, and they can't sell them in other countries, except under 
very rigorous price control regimes, in Europe and other places. So the 
reason that Americans have to pay too much is, they have to recover 100 
percent of their research and development costs from American consumers, 
because of the price controls in other countries. However, once they do 
that, they can still make good money selling those drugs in other 
countries.
    So I'm sympathetic with their problem. But there's got to be another 
way to solve their problem than keeping American seniors without the 
drugs they need. So that's the difference in our two positions. You're 
not going to read this in the paper very often. They all argue about 
this other stuff. If you strip it all away, that's the truth.
    And you don't have to demonize anybody. They have a problem, and 
they're worried about losing the ability to recover high profit margins 
from American sales of drugs made in America, because they can't recover 
them overseas, even though once they do recover them from us, they can 
make a lot of money selling the drugs at discounts overseas. That's the 
real issue. Nobody's explained this to most Americans.
    I think the Vice President is right. I 
think the most important thing is, take care of our people. We have tax 
benefits. We do a lot of medical research on our own that helps the 
pharmaceutical companies. So we'll find a way to solve their problem, 
but let's don't keep old people without the medicine they need. Provide 
the medicine. We can afford it. Do that, then focus on this other 
problem. Let's get our priorities in order. There's a big difference 
between the two parties, and I think we're right, and I think they're 
not.
    But how are the American people going to know, unless somebody 
clarifies this? And there are lots of other examples, on the 
environment, on arms control. We're for the Comprehensive Test Ban 
Treaty, and they're not. You talk about something that could affect your 
kids future. This is big. This is not some sort of casual walk in the 
park deal here.
    So here's the main point. You're leaving here. I hope you feel good 
about what you've done. I hope you will continue to feel good about it. 
I am profoundly grateful for the support you've given me and the 
reception you've given me today and the kind things that have been said. 
But in America's public life, the subject is always tomorrow, not 
yesterday. That's why we're still around here, after all this time. The 
subject is always tomorrow.
    I worked as hard as I could to turn this country around and pull 
this country together and get us pointing together, toward tomorrow. In 
fact, I think the biggest difference between our parties is that even 
though they have dramatically modified their rhetoric, and to some 
extent their substance--and I'm grateful for this--we're still far more 
committed to one America than they are. That's why we're for the hate 
crimes bill, the employment nondiscrimination legislation, equal pay for 
women, stronger enforcement of civil rights, because we think we've got 
to go forward together.
    But the point I want to make to you is, every one of you will come 
in contact, probably, with hundreds of people before the election, that 
will never come to an event like this. And you need to promise yourself 
when you walk out of here today that you are going to do something every 
single day to make sure not that people think ill of our opponents but 
that they clearly understand the choice before them. And I am telling 
you, if everybody understands that the Democratic Party believes every 
American counts, everybody deserves a chance, we all do better when we 
help each other, we're committed to change, and here are the changes, 
and here

[[Page 1992]]

are the differences--if they understand that, then the election will 
take care of itself.
    Trust the people, but give them clarity of choice and the 
information they need. You can do that with more than your money. Every 
one of you has lots of friends. You're going to touch a lot of people 
between now and the election. If you do that, we'll have a great 
celebration November 7.
    Thank you, and God bless you.

Note: The President spoke at 12:46 p.m. at the Mayflower Hotel. In his 
remarks, he referred to John Merrigan, chair, Jason Bovis, director, and 
Paul Equale, vice chair, Democratic Business Council; Bill Berkeley, 
chief executive officer, W.R. Berkeley Corp.; Janice Griffin, chair, 
Women's Leadership Forum; Carol Pensky, finance chair, Andrew Tobias, 
treasurer, Loretta Sanchez, general cochair, and Edward G. Rendell, 
general chair, Democratic National Committee; Rulon Gardner, U.S. 
Olympic gold medalist, super heavyweight Greco-Roman wrestling; and 
Republican Presidential candidate Gov. George W. Bush of Texas.