[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 31, Number 39 (Monday, October 2, 1995)]
[Pages 1715-1721]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Remarks at a Saxophone Club Fundraiser

September 26, 1995

    Well, if I had any sense, I would quit while I'm ahead. [Laughter] I 
believe Terry's about to get the hang of this. [Laughter]
    I want to thank Terry McAuliffe for the magnificent job that he has 
done, along with Laura Hartigan and all of our staff. I want to thank 
Sean, who thought up the idea of the Saxophone Club in his office about 
3 years ago. And it, I think you could say, has sort of caught on, 
thanks to you. And I appreciate that. I thank you. I thank Matt and all 
the people who have worked hard to make the Saxophone Club a success.
    This, in some ways, is my favorite part of the campaign, the 
Saxophone Club, because a lot of you have come here and have 
contributed, and it hasn't been easy for you. But those of you who have 
joined the Saxophone Club who are basically in Sean's generation--some a 
little younger, maybe some a little older--you're the people that I ran 
for President for. I wanted so badly to see our country go into the next 
century still the strongest country in the world, the strongest force 
for peace and freedom and democracy, the American dream alive and well 
here at home, and with people coming together instead of being split 
apart. That's why I ran, and that's why I'm running for reelection.
    I think every day of what I want this country to look like 10, 20, 
30 years from now when your children are coming up and growing up and 
looking forward to their futures. I want this to be a country with great 
opportunity for entrepreneurs; a country where we can, through hard 
work, grow the middle class and shrink the under class; a country with 
good schools and a clean environment and safe streets; a country that is 
characterized by fairness, not meanness, and by unity, not division.
    We're having this great debate in Washington now which is more 
extreme in the options being discussed than has been the case in 
previous times. And part of it is because we're going through a period 
of change, and whenever we go through a period of change,

[[Page 1716]]

extreme debates tend to arise and old alliances tend to get unsettled.
    But the fundamental questions are clear: How are we going to get 
into the 21st century, rewarding the values that made America great with 
the new ideas that are always required in a time of change? How are we 
going to reward both freedom and responsibility? How are we going to 
lift up both work and family? How are we going to empower individuals to 
make the most of their own lives and families and communities to solve 
their own problems? How are we going to honor our obligations across the 
generations to our parents and our children, across our racial and 
ethnic lines, across our income lines?
    Fundamentally, we have to decide, as my friend Lawton Chiles, the 
Governor of Florida, said the other day, whether we're going to be a 
community or a crowd. You think about it. That's what the fairness and 
meanness debate is all about. It's also about whether you believe that 
you will do better in the 21st century if you live in a community or a 
crowd.
    You obviously have decided you want to live in a community, even 
though most of you could do pretty well in a crowd. A crowd is a group 
of people occupying the same space who basically have no rules and they 
can just elbow each other until the strongest prevail and the weak are 
left behind. A community is a group of people occupying the same space 
who believe that their success and meaning and richness in life depends 
upon other people's success as well, that we go up or down together and, 
therefore, we have certain obligations to one another and to our land 
and to our future.
    I want this country to be a community, not a crowd. I want it to be 
a country where huge opportunity exists for individuals but where we do 
it with fairness and not meanness. That's basically what this debate is 
all about now.
    When I look to the future, I see an economic policy that has worked. 
My friends in the other party, they all said if my economic plan passed 
it would be the end of the world; we'd have the awfullest recession you 
ever saw. I keep waiting for all those fellows who want to be President 
in the Republican primary to be just quoted back what they said about 
our economic plan in '93. [Laughter] Where are they? Sooner or later we 
should stop rewarding people for being wrong, wrong, wrong every time.
    But in spite of everything Terry said, in spite of the fact that we 
had over 7 million new jobs and 2\1/2\ million new homeowners and 2 
million new small businesses and the largest number of self-made 
millionaires than any time period in history that's comparable and a 
4,700 stock market--the median wage dropped. So if we're going to be a 
community, not a crowd, we have to find a way to give everybody a shot 
at the American dream, which means that we should invest more money in 
education and research and development and new technologies, not less. 
We should give everybody a chance to go forward.
    If we really believe in responsibility along with opportunity and 
along with freedom, then we have to believe in safe streets and a clean 
environment; we have to believe in child support enforcement; we have to 
believe in genuine welfare reform which rewards work and parenting, 
instead of punishing children. If we really believe in that.
    I am proud of the fact that, since our crime bill passed--the same 
crowd, you know, they said if the President's crime bill passes, he 
claims there will be 100,000 police in 6 years, but they'll never get to 
20,000. Well, in the first year we're over 25,000 and rising. And I keep 
hoping somebody will ask them about what they said. Maybe I'll get a 
chance to one day. But I'm proud of that. I'm proud of the fact that we 
have stiffened child support enforcement. I'm proud of the fact that we 
have cracked down on fraud in the Medicare and Medicaid and food stamp 
programs. I am proud of the fact that we have done the things we've 
done. We've had the first conviction this week under the Violence 
Against Women Act. We've begun to convict people under the ``three 
strikes and you're out'' bill. I'm proud of that.
    And I am proud of the fact that we seem to be coming back to our 
senses in many ways as a society. In every State just about, the crime 
rate's down, the murder rate's down, the welfare rolls are down, the 
food stamp rolls are down. The teen pregnancy rate is

[[Page 1717]]

down in America 2 years in a row now. Even the divorce rate is down. We 
seem to be coming back together.
    But it's just like on the economic side. The drug use rate is down 
for people over 18, but among young children, between 12 and 17, the 
rate of random violence and random drug use is up again. So we have to 
keep doing what works, but we have to also have an agenda for those 
young people, which means we shouldn't abandon a crime bill that is 
working with both prevention and preventive policing. It means we 
shouldn't cut out things like summer jobs and other programs designed to 
give these kids something to say yes to, instead of just something to 
say no to. It means we shouldn't walk away from our commitment to safe 
and drug-free schools and giving these children access to role models 
that give them a chance to make something positive of their lives. 
Because a lot of them are just out there kind of raising themselves, and 
they've been kind of cut loose. And we can't walk away from them.
    If you look at what we have tried to do in the way we run our 
Government--our adversaries, they always talked about big Government and 
how they wanted to do something about it. But there are 163,000 fewer 
people working for the National Government today than there were the day 
I took office. We have downsized the Government. We took 16,000 pages of 
regulation away. We reduced SBA regulations, for example, by 50 percent, 
and the budget by 40 percent, and doubled the loan volume including an 
85-percent increase in loans to women and a 75-percent increase in loans 
to minorities, without making one single loan below our normal 
standards. We did those things.
    So I'm all for that. But there's still work to be done. We still 
have to say there are some things as a community we do through our 
Nation that we don't want to just leave alone. In the world, I'm proud 
of the foreign policy accomplishments that Terry mentioned. I'm glad for 
what happened here in Bosnia today with the new agreement. And I am glad 
that on Thursday we will have a second signing between Israel and the 
Palestinians, moving forward on peace in the Middle East.
    But we are still vulnerable in our country to the forces of 
organized destruction, from terrorism and religious and ethnic and 
racial hatred and fanaticism. So there's more to do. We've got an 
antiterrorism bill to pass. I was told that bill would pass by Memorial 
Day, and I am still waiting for it. We still have things to do to make 
the world a better place.
    I want a comprehensive nuclear test ban. I want the chemical weapons 
treaty to pass. I want the START II treaty to pass. I want us to have 
ultimate real peace in Bosnia and in Northern Ireland. I want the world 
to be moving in the right direction so that you will have less chaos and 
madness to deal with. And I want the United Nations and NATO to work. 
That means the United States has to lead.
    All those things are issues. But they're all rooted in whether we 
want to be a community or a crowd, whether we want to reward 
responsibility as well as freedom, whether we want to reward opportunity 
for individuals and strength for families and communities. And that's 
really what this debate about the budget is. It's really not much about 
money, it's about what kind of people we're going to be.
    We have proved--I have given the Congress a budget that the Chairman 
of the Federal Reserve says is credible, based on economic estimates 
that have been more accurate than those of Congress in the previous 2 
years. It is a good, solid budget. But this is not about balancing the 
budget. Both parties agreed now we should balance the budget, and we 
should. The Democrats should never be in the position of being for a 
permanent deficit. We never had one until the 12 years before I showed 
up here.
    But let balanced budgeting be a goal in and of itself, done 
consistent with our values. Don't use the balanced budget as an excuse 
to destroy programs that you don't like that will make us more uneven, 
less healthy, undermine our environment and weaken our community. Let's 
do it in the right way.
    When I learned, for example, that among the proposals in this budget 
is a gimmick to make the cost of college loans more expensive to 
students and to take away options that students have to repay those 
loans so that bankers and other middle men can get more

[[Page 1718]]

money back--that's not about cutting the budget; that's about our 
values. If we want to grow the economy by cutting the budget, why would 
we undermine economic growth by taking college out of the reach of more 
and more Americans? It doesn't make sense. It's not consistent with our 
values.
    Why would we make it harder for little poor children to get off to a 
good start in school or for districts that don't have so much money to 
have smaller classes and more computers and higher standards? Those 
children may not be your children, but they'll be a big part of your 
future, because when those of you who are young or my age, they will be 
who you'll be looking at to care for you, to strengthen your country, to 
drive us forward. We have to be thinking about 20 years, 30 years down 
the road. This is not a smart thing to do. And it violates our values as 
well as our interests.
    If you look at the environment, my idea of balancing the budget does 
not include gutting the EPA so they can't enforce the Clean Air Act. 
This administration--not the previous Republican administration, this 
administration--has gone to big industries and said, ``Look, if you can 
meet the standards of the Clean Air Act and you're willing to be tested 
for it, you can throw the rule book away. We're tired of over-regulating 
America. We just want a clean environment, and we'll look for ways to 
get it.'' Our administration has gone in partnership to Detroit and 
other automotive interests and said, we will work with you to develop a 
clean car, but we have to triple the auto mileage that we're going to 
get out of our automobiles. And we have to do it soon, otherwise the 
greenhouse gas emissions from all this automobile driving around the 
world is going to choke the future.
    We have to do it. But we did it in a partnership. I could give you 
example after example after example. But to jump in the tank and claim 
that the environment doesn't matter anymore? You see, just last week, we 
had a new scientific report that said now there is virtually unanimity 
among all the established scientists in the world that the globe is 
heating up, that the hole in the ozone layer is bigger than we thought, 
that if we could--we could see the temperature of the Earth grow up to 8 
degrees in the next hundred years. If you do that, you'll have the polar 
ice caps breaking up; you'll have the water level rising; you'll have 
temperature extremes going wacky. And the world will be a very different 
world for your great-grandchildren.
    We cannot let that happen. We don't have to let that happen. We owe 
it to our country to preserve our heritage. And we sure don't need a 
commission on closing the national parks, which is another part of their 
budget. It's wrong.
    I grew up in one of those little national parks they say they want 
to close. And I can tell you we had a lot of elderly people coming down 
and retiring in our hometown from the Middle West, living in little 
rooming houses, barely had enough money to live on. They came there 
because of the national park, because of what it offered, because they 
could for no money be in 5 minutes from downtown in peaceful, beautiful 
surroundings. And they can have access to the sulphur springs and all 
the other things that were there. And that story is replicated all over 
America.
    When our family went to Yellowstone and Grand Teton this summer, and 
we drove through there for 10 bucks--for 10 bucks, our family could go 
through there and visit the national park, just like any other family. 
For $25 you can get a year pass, and your car can get into any national 
park in America. [Laughter] Now, listen, we're laughing, but there are a 
lot of Americans who haven't had a pay raise in 15 years; they can still 
have the dignity and the rest and the exhilaration of seeing the most 
beautiful places on God's Earth at an affordable price because your 
country has the national parks.
    My idea of balancing the budget does not include a Medicare program 
where, as they told us in both Houses in the last week, we want to 
double the deductibles, double the premiums, not give anybody Medicare 
until they're 67, and, oh, by the way, in Medicaid we're going to 
abolish all the national standards for nursing homes--signed into law by 
Ronald Reagan, hardly a liberal Democrat--[Laughter]--we're going to get 
rid of all them, and we're going to adopt a rule that says before an 
elderly person can get any help, if they're married, the State has the

[[Page 1719]]

right to make their spouse sell the car, the house, and clean out the 
savings account and live in abject poverty.
    That is not the America I want you to live in in the 21st century. 
It is wrong. I don't want you to live in that America. I don't want you 
to be living in Maryland making a living and have your parents in 
Indiana or some other place out there in the country and worried to 
death because there are no national quality standards for nursing homes 
if your parents have to be there. I don't want you to have to work that 
way. That's not right, and it's not necessary. I don't want that.
    And I'll tell you something else: Look at what happened to working 
families this week in this budget. They proposed to cut my taxes but to 
just erode the working family tax credit that we put in, so that they're 
going to raise taxes on families with incomes of less than $25,000 a 
year to lower mine. No, thank you. That's not right. That's not pro-
work. It's not pro-family. It's not good for America. It is not right. 
It is not right. How can you do that?
    I'm telling you, there are a huge number of American families out 
there where there's one or two parents, where people are working full-
time, where they have children in the home and they're living on 
$11,000, $12,000, $13,000, $15,000, $16,000 a year. It is all they can 
do to educate their children and put clothes on their back and make sure 
they get to the doctor if they're sick. It is all they can do.
    And in 1993, when we passed our economic plan, we lowered taxes on 
14 million of those families--with 50 million Americans in them--because 
we wanted always to encourage work over welfare and because we wanted to 
have an elemental principle in our country: If you're a parent and 
you're trying to be a good parent, and you're willing to work 40 hours a 
week, you should not be in poverty. That is right, and we should say 
this.
    And let me tell you something else that you may not know about their 
budget. They voted this week to say that a company keeping a retirement 
plan can deposit money into workers' retirement funds and then take it 
out and spend it for whatever they want, for whatever they want. As long 
as they leave a minor and inadequate cushion there, you can put money 
into your workers' retirement and then take it out and spend it on 
whatever you want.
    Is there no memory? Just last December, just last December I signed 
a bill to strengthen our national pension benefit guaranty system. It 
saved the pensions of 8.5 million Americans. It secured the pensions of 
40 million other Americans. Have we no memory? We just saw people losing 
their whole retirement. Now they propose to let people loot their 
workers' pension plans for whatever reason? Take it out of the pension 
and give it in dividends. Take it out of the pension and give it to 
managers in extra pay, for a third home or something.
    Let me say this: I want people to do well in this country. I am 
proud of the fact that under our administration, we've had record 
numbers of new businesses and record numbers of self-made millionaires. 
And I want every one of you who wants to be a millionaire or a 
successful entrepreneur to do it. But we don't have to hurt the rest of 
America. This is a middle class country with middle class values, 
committed to families and children and their parents and doing right by 
everybody. We don't have to hurt people to do that. We don't have to.
    So I say to you, it is about values. And it's also about leadership, 
and leadership includes making policies like this based on principle, 
not mere politics--based on principle, not mere politics--and being 
willing to do certain things that are unpopular. You heard Terry reel 
off a few of them. The conventional wisdom was that we shouldn't take on 
the NRA over the Brady bill and the assault weapons ban. You all clapped 
and cheered, but the Democrats lost the House because of it, don't you 
ever forget it. There were a lot of people who laid down their careers 
so that last year, 40,000 people with criminal records would not be able 
to get handguns. And they did because there were actually people out 
there who were willing to frighten good, God-fearing Americans who owned 
guns and engage in sporting contests; and actually convinced them that 
that threatened their weapons. It didn't, and they knew it, but they did 
it anyway. And yes, they won a short-term political battle, but there 
are

[[Page 1720]]

more people alive today because of that. There are more people alive 
today because we're going to take those assault weapons out of the 
schools and off the streets. And nobody's going to lose the right to 
have a hunting weapon or a sporting weapon.
    And everybody says that this tobacco thing is going to be chapter 
two of the same thing. They'll terrifying all those good, God-fearing 
tobacco farmers into thinking that we're going to put them in the 
street. They'll try to convince people that Big Brother, the 
Government's going to take over these decisions. And maybe it's bad 
politics, but let me tell you something, folks. You know what the 14-
month study by the FDA showed? It showed that, number one, there were 
some people in the industry who had known for decades about the dangers 
of tobacco and how addictive it was; number two, that there was 
advertising still having a heavy attraction for children. And since they 
lose a certain number of customers every year, they've got to get a few 
more. [Laughter] And number three--you're laughing, but it's true. 
Number three showed that of the 3,000 young people a day who begin to 
smoke 1,000 will have their lives shortened. Now, if we can give 1,000 
kids a day, for the next however many months I've got to be President--
you know, whether it's 64 or some less--a thousand people a day--it's 
worth the political consequences. For the long run it is the right thing 
to do.
    But there are lots of other examples where I have to do what I think 
is right. I knew the Haiti thing was unpopular, but it was right. And 
we're in better shape in Latin America and the world, and democracy's in 
better shape because we restored democracy to Haiti, and because of the 
way we did it without having to kill a bunch of them or our people as 
well. It was the right thing to do, even if it wasn't popular in the 
moment.
    I can see it now building up. In Bosnia, you know every--people say, 
well, we like the fact that now our allies decided to go along with our 
strategy, and we did the strong and right thing in Bosnia, and now we 
have a chance to make peace. But if we make peace, because we're the 
world's leader and because we're the leader of NATO, we'll have the same 
obligation here we had when Egypt and Israel made peace in the late 
seventies. We have to help enforce that.
    We never lost a person in the Sinai as a result of the Middle East 
peace. And if we have a good peace agreement here, in all probability 
none of our soldiers will be put in harm's way. But there will be people 
who try to stir folks up and say it's a bad thing to do. But if you want 
your country to be a leader for peace and freedom, we cannot say, 
``We're the leader; here's what you should do; now, you go do it.'' 
We've got to--we have to show up for work in the morning. We have to.
    I could give you lots of other examples. I knew, when I gave my 
affirmative action speech, I know what the politics of that is. But I'm 
nearly 50 years old. I have lived through the worst of racial 
segregation in this country. I was raised by a working grandmother and a 
working mother, and I have seen women's opportunities expand and 
discrimination continue. I know in my own mind that we are not yet able 
to fully make decisions, all of us, totally disregarding the gender and 
race of the people with whom we deal. Now, that doesn't mean that we 
don't have to fix affirmative action, there weren't a bunch of things 
wrong with it that we need to clean up and deal with. And I'm trying to 
do that.
    The popular thing is just say get rid of it. But it's not the right 
thing. The right thing is for us to band together and to grow together. 
Our ethnic diversity, and the fact that we are willing to give all of 
our people, regardless of their gender, a chance to live up to the 
fullest of their God-given abilities, is our meal ticket in the global 
society of the 21st century, if we can live together instead of using 
cheap politics to drive each other apart. It is our meal ticket.
    So I say to you, when people ask you why you're involved in this 
campaign and why you're fighting for my reelection, say, ``I'm not 
fighting for the President; I'm fighting for myself and my children and 
my future and my country. That's what I'm interested in.''
    When people ask you why they should support this campaign, you can 
tell them what Terry did about our record. And I hope you will become 
familiar with it. And I hope you

[[Page 1721]]

will be able to say that. But the real thing is, what are we going to do 
tomorrow to make it better? We've got to have a strong economy. We've 
got to have strong families. We've got to have good individual 
opportunity. We have to have a Government that is leaner and makes more 
sense. We have to be leaders in the world.
    But most important, if we want the 21st century to look right, we've 
got to stand up for responsibility as well as freedom, for family and 
for work, and for the elemental proposition that the reason we're around 
here after more than 200 years is that at all critical junctures we have 
deepened our understanding and our willingness to act on what it means 
to be a community instead of a crowd.
    Thank you, and God bless you all.

Note: The President spoke at 10:05 p.m. at the Omni Shoreham Hotel. In 
his remarks, he referred to Terry McAuliffe, national finance chairman, 
and Laura Hartigan, national finance director, Clinton/Gore '96; and 
Sean Foley, chairman, and Matt Gobush, director, Saxophone Club.