[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 36, Number 39 (Monday, October 2, 2000)]
[Pages 2232-2237]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Remarks at a Reception for Representative Max Sandlin in Houston, Texas

September 27, 2000

    Well, first of all, Max, I appreciate your thanks for the great 
effort I've made to help you. It's really a great effort to come here on 
a day like this--[laughter]--to John Eddie and Sheridan's modest little 
home--[laughter]--to be with Peter and Christie, whom I normally see on 
Long Island, now that I'm hanging around New York. [Laughter] I don't 
know why I didn't get here 3 hours earlier. [Laughter]
    I am delighted to be here. I'm glad to be back in Houston. I want to 
thank Mayor Lee Brown, who I think is still here. If not, he was here 
and has got to go to an event; there he is. And I want to thank him not 
only for being an outstanding mayor but for his terrific service in the 
Clinton-Gore administration as our drug czar before he became mayor.
    I also want to thank Max's colleague from Houston, Congresswoman 
Sheila Jackson Lee, who is here, for being here to support him. Thank 
you very much. And I want to thank the State representatives and other 
officials who are here.
    But I want to say a special word; I made a passing reference to 
these two couples up here with Max and me, but let me tell you, I've 
known Peter and Christie for several years now. I remember once a couple 
of years ago, they were standing out--remember that--you were standing 
out on the street when I was driving by. Do you remember that? And I got 
out and said hello. And they wanted to become more active. They had 
gotten interested in some important environmental and health issues 
where they live on Long Island. They wanted to get more active in public 
life. And they have--I hardly know anybody that has exerted more 
consistent effort, have a positive impact for Al Gore and Joe Lieberman 
and for our Democratic candidates around the country than they have over 
the last couple years, and I just want to thank you for doing it. It's 
been great. Thank you very much.
    And I want to thank John Eddie and Sheridan for being such good 
friends of mine. This is the second time I've been in their home. I've 
been once after dark and once before dark, and I liked it both ways. 
[Laughter] But they have been so wonderful to me for 8 years now, in 
good times and bad. And I'm very, very grateful.
    I would like to thank all the people of Texas who have supported 
Hillary and me and Al and Tipper over these last 8 years. It was never a 
very easy sell here, but we actually did pretty well in both elections, 
under adverse circumstances. And I'm very grateful for the support I got 
here.
    I just want to make two or three points here tonight, and I realize 
I'm--at a deal like this, you're probably preaching to the saved, but 
everybody here has friends in congressional districts in Texas that are 
contested and friends throughout the country in States that are 
contested. I had one guy ask me the other day, he said, ``Why are you 
working so hard?'' I learned that this is--I think this is the 142d 
event I have done for the Democrats this year, in a year when, as you 
know, I'm not running for anything, for the first time in 26 years. And 
most days I'm okay about it. [Laughter] I've now adopted the official 
title of Cheerleader in Chief, since my family has a new candidate and 
my party has a new leader, and I like it very much, and I've enjoyed it.
    I am profoundly grateful for the chance that I've had to serve for 
the last 8 years. And I am very grateful if any of the ideas I had or 
the work I did, the fights I fought, and some of the bullets I took 
helped us to keep America on a progressive path and to resist the 
reaction that came after we won. But what I want to say to you is that 
sometimes it's harder for a country to make a good decision in good 
times than it is in bad times.
    I remember back in '92, when the Republicans were trying to scare 
everybody about me, and they were derisively referring to me as the 
Governor of a small southern State, and I was so naive I thought it was 
a compliment. [Laughter] And I still do. I still do. And I thought to 
myself, lord knows how many people walked into polling places saying, 
``I wonder if I really ought to vote for that guy. I mean, he doesn't 
look old enough to be President''--that's before my hair turned--``and 
he is just a Governor of a small

[[Page 2233]]

southern State. I don't know if I know where it is or not. And 
everybody, the Republicans have got all these people saying terrible 
things about him. Oh, well, I'll take a chance.''
    I mean, come on, it wasn't much of a chance. The country was in a 
ditch. We had to do something different. [Laughter] And it's worked out, 
and I'm grateful. But what I want to say to you is that we actually 
changed the way things were done in Washington, and we've changed what 
was being done in the White House and, insofar as we could, what was 
being done through the executive branch of Government and with the 
Congress. We had a different economic policy, a different education 
policy, a different health care policy, a different environmental 
policy. We had a different crime policy, a different welfare policy, a 
different foreign policy. And we had a different policy toward trying to 
unify America, as opposed to trying to divide it, based on a simple 
philosophy that everyone counts, everyone ought to have a chance, and we 
all do better when we help each other. That's what I believe.
    And I just tried to modernize those ideas to fit it with this new 
information global society we're living in. But when you strip it all 
away, it has a lot of simple meanings. For example, I believe, and I 
think all of you believe, that these people that served us tonight ought 
to have the same chance to send their kids to college that those of us 
who could afford a ticket have to send ours to college.
    So it worked. Max told you a little bit about it. Just in the last 2 
days--we were able to announce yesterday that poverty was at a 20-year 
low, and that minority--African-American and Hispanic poverty dropped 
more than ever before from one year to the next, last year, and more 
than in 34 years for children, that median income was above $40,000 for 
the first time in the history of America.
    And today we announced that the surplus this year would be $230 
billion. Now, let me tell you, when we were doing it their way, when I 
took office, the deficit was $290 billion, and the projected deficit for 
this year, when I took office, was $455 billion. So instead of a $455 
billion deficit, we've got a $230 billion surplus. And when I leave 
office, we will have paid off $360 billion of the Nation's debt.
    So in education, we changed the policies. Reading scores are up. 
Math scores are up. The dropout rate is down. College-going is at an 
all-time high. Are they as good as they ought to be? No where near. But 
I keep pushing for more accountability, more results, more rigor in 
identifying schools that aren't working and turning them around or 
putting them under new management. We can do a lot better.
    But what I want you to know is, we know something we didn't know 
when Hillary and I started on this over 20 years ago. We actually know 
that you can turn around any failing school, and we know that there are 
people who know how to do it. I'll just give you one example. I was in 
Harlem the other day in a school that just 2 years ago--an elementary 
school--2 years ago--where 80 percent of the children were doing math 
and reading below grade level--2 years ago. Today, 74 percent of the 
kids, same kids, are doing reading and math at or above grade level.
    You can turn these schools around. But you have to have high 
standards, rigorous accountability, well-trained teachers, small enough 
classes, a disciplined environment, and for the kids that come from 
tough neighborhoods and circumstances, they need preschool and after-
school programs and mentoring. If you've got it, you can turn them 
around. So we can do that. So things are going well. Now, that's point 
one.
    Point two is, what are you going to do with the good times? The 
point I want to make to you is, there are a lot of big challenges out 
there and a lot of fabulous opportunities. When Al Gore says, ``You 
ain't seen nothing yet,'' that's not just a campaign slogan. I'm not 
running, and I believe that. I believe the best times for this country 
are still out there, if you make the right decisions.
    Max talked about a couple of issues. Let me just tell you, there's 
another thing--I'm sort of frustrated with the coverage of the 
Presidential campaign in the last few weeks. The press takes about a 
week, and they tell you everything that's wrong with Governor Bush, and 
they say, ``Oh, my goodness, we may be too tough on him. Let's load up 
on Gore for a week.'' And then we'll have a week

[[Page 2234]]

or 10 days of that. And then they say, ``Oh, well, maybe we'll do that. 
We'll load up on Bush a little.'' Have you watched this? And it's all 
about personal stuff or what they remember or how they said this, that, 
or the other thing.
    Let me tell you something. I think it's a bunch of bull in terms of 
how it affects you. Here's what I believe. I believe you have two 
honorable people who love their country, love their families, and are 
going to do their best to do what they believe if they get elected. And 
I do not think America is very well served by all this rigmarole, trying 
to confuse people into thinking that, if you can just find which one has 
the worst quirks, you'll know to vote for the other one. That's a bunch 
of hooey. That's not true.
    Now, what I want to tell you is that there are real, significant 
differences between the two parties, and every House seat, every Senate 
seat, and the White House matters. And to pretend otherwise is naive and 
wrong and risks squandering the best moment in my lifetime to shape the 
future of our dreams for our children.
    Look, they've got different economic policies, the Democrats and the 
Republicans. The Democrats believe we ought to give a tax cut of more 
modest proportion that will be focused on child care, long-term care, 
helping people send their kids to college and deduct the tuition, and 
helping people save for retirement. They believe that we should save 
enough money to make sure that we can invest an appropriate amount in 
education, health care, the environment, national defense, and--big 
time--keep paying this debt down until we get out of debt, in 12 years, 
for the first time since 1835, so we can keep interest rates down and 
the economy expanding. That's what we believe.
    They believe that we should give roughly 75 percent of the non-
Social Security surplus, which they've already said we should set aside, 
right? When you hear them saying, ``We just want to give away one in 
four dollars in taxes,'' it's not quite right. They believe we should 
give most of the non-Social Security surplus, which they say we 
shouldn't touch, in a tax cut. And most of you would make more money in 
the short run under their program than ours.
    Why are you here? I'll tell you why I believe you're here: because 
you've been there. And if you spend 1.6 trillion on a tax cut, and $1 
trillion to partially privatize Social Security, which is what it costs 
if we give the young people here 2 percent of your payroll taxes, and 
all these people that are 55 and over--and I'll be one of them next 
year--you guarantee them the existing benefits, you've got to fill up 
the hole of people taking the money away. It costs a trillion dollars.
    By the time you pay for that and the Social Security privatization, 
and you add inflation plus population growth to Government spending, and 
you take into account either party's promises--just the Republican 
promises--you are way back in deficit.
    What does that mean? Higher interest rates. The Council of Economic 
Advisers thinks the Gore Democratic congressional plan would keep 
interest rates a percent lower a year for a decade. Do you know what one 
percent lower interest rates means? It's worth about $390 billion in 
home mortgages, lower home mortgages; $30 billion in lower car payments; 
$15 billion in lower college loan payments; and a much higher stock 
market, a much higher rate of business investment, more jobs, and higher 
incomes. It's a big difference. If you want the money now, you should be 
for them. If you want to keep building America, you should be for us.
    But let's not pretend that there's no difference here. It is big and 
profound and deeply held by both sides. They really believe that the 
more you cut taxes, the more the economy grows. The last time we tried 
it, we wound up $4 trillion in debt.
    People ask me all the time, they say, ``You had all these geniuses 
like Bob Rubin and Lloyd Bentsen in your economic team. What great new 
innovation did you bring to Washington when you became President in 
economic policy?'' And my answer is always the same: ``Arithmetic.'' 
[Laughter] We brought arithmetic back to Washington. DC.
    Now, I'm telling you, we're just six seats away from the majority. 
His seat matters, not just in Texas, not just in his district; every 
American has a stake in seeing this economic policy go forward.

[[Page 2235]]

    I could go through--I'll just do one more. We have hugely different 
health care policies. We believe in a strong Patients' Bill of Rights, 
and they don't. And there's a reason. It's not that they enjoy seeing 
the 18 million people a year--18 million people a year--who are either 
denied health care or have the proper health care delayed because 
someone--not a physician--is not sure that what they need is covered by 
or should be permitted by their HMO.
    Now, I can say this because I have not been opposed to managed care. 
When I took office as President--let's get the whole truth out here--
inflation in health care was 3 times the rate of inflation in the 
society. We were about to be swallowed up by health care costs. We had 
to get in there and manage the system better. But the problem with all 
management systems is, if you lose sight of what the primary goal is, 
you get in trouble in a hurry. The primary goal is not to maximize 
profit; it's to maximize profit consistent with the first goal, which is 
the quality of health care given to every single person in one of those 
health care systems.
    There is 18 million people that are delayed or denied health care. 
So we say--Max and all the Democrats and our crowd--we say, you ought to 
have a right to see a specialist if you need it. You ought to have a 
right to go to the nearest emergency room. If I hear one more person 
tell me a story about somebody hit by a car and driving by three 
emergency rooms in a city before they get to one that's covered, I think 
I'll scream. You ought to have a right to keep the same doctor during a 
course of treatment, even if you change jobs. And if you get hurt by a 
delay or denial of service, you ought to have the right to sue. And 
everybody ought to be covered.
    They've got this sort of Rube Goldberg scheme which says, well--
theirs is not a Patients' Bill of Rights; theirs is a patients' bill of 
suggestions. [Laughter] They say, ``If you don't get it, it's too bad, 
but we won't let you sue.'' Although they may be willing to get us into 
Federal court now--the Republicans--but they don't want to cover 
everybody. Their initial plan left 100 million Americans out. Now, why 
is that? Because the health insurance companies don't want it, and they 
don't want to do anything they don't want to do.
    Now, you just have to decide whether you think their management 
imperatives are more important or whether you think these 18 million 
people's health care is more important. Now, they will tell you that our 
plan will cost too much money. But their own Congressional Budget Office 
says, if our bill passes, it will cost under $2 a month in health 
insurance costs. And I think it's worth about $1.80 a month. I'd gladly 
pay it to know that if you got hit by a car, you could go to the nearest 
hospital, and you could keep your specialist. But you've got to decide.
    It's the same thing on this Medicare drug thing. The fastest growing 
group of people in the country are over 80. If you live to be 65 in 
America today, your life expectancy is 82. The young women in this 
audience, because of the human genome project, are going to come home 
with babies in the next 10 years that have little gene cards with them 
that tell them how to maximize their life, and life expectancy will 
rapidly rise to about 90 years in this country.
    Now, we know, with the miracles of pharmaceuticals, we can stay 
alive longer and live better. We also know that over half the seniors in 
this country have medical bills they cannot really afford. So we say, 
``We've got the money now. Medicare is a very efficient program with 
very low administrative costs. We'll run a voluntary prescription drug 
program through here, and we'll let everybody who needs it buy into it, 
with subsidies for very poor people.'' That's our position.
    Their position is, ``We'll help people up to 150 percent of the 
poverty level. Everybody else can buy insurance, and maybe we'll give 
them a little help.'' Now, all the fights I've had with the health 
insurance companies--let me say something nice about them--the health 
insurance companies have been completely honest in this debate. They 
have said to their friends in the Republican Party, ``Your plan won't 
work. We can't offer insurance for people to buy drugs at a price they 
can afford to pay that's worth having. It can't be done. It won't 
work.''
    Nevada passed a bill like the one the Republicans--from the nominee 
for President all through the Congress--are advocating.

[[Page 2236]]

You know how many insurance companies have offered to cover the medical, 
the pharmaceutical bills of the people of Nevada since they passed the 
bill? Zero. Not one.
    Why do they keep doing it? One thing I admire about them is, they're 
always undeterred by evidence. [Laughter] We've got a lot of lawyers in 
the crowd. You know other people like that. [Laughter] The evidence has 
no impact, whatever. They know what they believe, and ``don't bother me 
with the facts.'' Now, why would they do that? They say, ``Well, let's 
just help the poor folks first.'' Over half the people who need this 
help are above 150 percent of the poverty line. That's about 16 grand 
for a couple in America, most places, retired couple.
    Why do they do that? Because the pharmaceutical companies are 
against our position. Why would the pharmaceutical companies be against 
selling more drugs and making a profit on it? Because they think--you 
need to know the whole story; I'll tell you the whole story--because 
they believe if Medicare is the purchaser of drugs for all these folks 
that buy into the program, it will become the biggest drug purchaser in 
America, and we'll have enough market power to get a better price.
    Right now, American seniors pay much higher prices for drugs than 
people do in other countries, even if the drugs are made here. Now, like 
all things in life, it's not entirely--there's not all right and wrong 
on one side. All these other countries have price controls, and one of 
the reasons we've got the best pharmaceutical industry in the world is 
that we've invested huge amounts of your money in medical research, but 
they've invested a lot of theirs. And it costs a lot of money to bring 
new drugs to market, and they recover both the cost of the development 
plus the cost of manufacture, sale, and distribution from you because 
they can't recover any developmental costs overseas. But once they get 
it all out of you, then they can sell that medicine a lot cheaper in 
Canada or Mexico or anyplace else.
    Well, we're not going to solve all that overnight, but all I know 
is, that is a very poor excuse for denying needy senior citizens in 
America their right to medicine that they've got to have to stay alive 
and have a healthy life.
    But you can decide--but let's not pretend there's no difference 
here. We're for the hate crimes legislation. They're not. The 
appointments on the Supreme Court will be dramatically different because 
these people have different views and convictions. And you have to 
assume that honorable people will act on their convictions if they're in 
a position to do it.
    Study after study after study shows that, notwithstanding the 
relentless efforts of both parties to paint the politicians of the other 
party as less than honest and the happy complicity of the press in 
dumping on both sides, that overwhelming, Presidents do pretty much what 
they say they're going to do when they run. You can look at throughout 
the whole 20th century, and it's the truth. Sometimes you just have to 
admit you're wrong; sometimes circumstances change. By and large, people 
do what they say they're going to do.
    So there are big differences here. And I just want to ask you, if 
you know anybody in Max's district or where another member of my 
administration--a former member--Regina Montoya Coggins, is running in 
Dallas or any of the other really contested districts here or you know 
people in other States that you know are close and are battleground 
States, you need to tell them, ``Look, we've had big successes. There 
are big differences. People cannot be lulled into complacency, because 
times are good, to thinking this election doesn't matter.''
    I'm telling you, it's exciting out there. I think you are going to 
find out in the next 10 years you're going to have babies born with a 
life expectancy of 90 years. I think we're going to find out what's in 
the black holes in outer space. I think we'll find out what's in the 
ocean depths and things that we never dreamed before. I think that we 
will find a cure for Parkinson's. I think we may be able to actually 
reverse the onset of Alzheimer's. The kind of things that are going to 
happen here are unbelievable. And I think we will find ways to bring 
prosperity to people in places and neighborhoods that have been totally 
left out of this recovery, if we make the right decision.

[[Page 2237]]

    But that's why I'm going all over the country. I worked as hard as I 
could to turn this country around and get it going in the right 
direction. But all the best stuff is still out there if we make the 
right decision. Every House Member, every Senate Member, the race for 
the Presidency--it's not about who's good and who's bad; it's not about 
who said this little thing or that little thing in the newspaper 
yesterday. It's about what they're going to do that affects your lives, 
your children's lives, your grandchildren's future, and what this 
country looks like.
    And if you believe that we've had a good economy and you'd like to 
keep changing in this direction, if you believe that all children can 
learn but we ought to help them with more teachers and modern schools as 
well as accountability, if you believe that we ought to get rid of child 
poverty and that old folks ought to be able to get the medicine they 
need, if you believe that we can grow the economy and improve the 
environment at the same time--and I didn't even talk about that tonight; 
I can keep you here to midnight on that--if you believe that in the 
world we ought to be doing things like reaching out to our trading 
partners and building partnerships with Latin America and Africa and 
being responsible partners in the world, and if you really believe that 
we ought to be one America across all the lines that divide us, that we 
all do better when we help each other, you ought to stick with our side, 
and the best is yet to be.
    Thank you, and God bless you.

Note: The President spoke at 6 p.m. at a private residence. In his 
remarks, he referred to reception hosts John Eddie Williams, Jr., and 
his wife, Sheridan; reception cochairs Peter Cook and his wife, Christie 
Brinkley; Mayor Lee P. Brown of Houston; and former Secretaries of the 
Treasury Lloyd Bentsen and Robert E. Rubin. Representative Sandlin is a 
candidate for reelection in Texas' First Congressional District.