[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 36, Number 40 (Monday, October 9, 2000)]
[Pages 2311-2317]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Remarks at a Reception for Congressional Candidate John J. Kelly 

October 4, 2000

    Let me say, first of all, I'm here for several reasons. One is, 
whatever I've been able to

[[Page 2312]]

accomplish these last 8 years would have been impossible without the 
support of the Democratic Members of Congress. And in some ways, their 
support when we were in the minority in Congress has been even more 
vital than when we were in the majority, because if they stick with me, 
we can still do most of what we want to do for America.
    As some evidence of how important this race is to them, we have one 
of the true leaders of our Democratic caucus, Representative Nancy 
Pelosi from California, is here. Thank you, and Representative Brad 
Sherman from California back there. Congressman David Minge from 
Minnesota was here; he just walked out. Is anybody else here, Tom? Is 
anybody else here? I don't want to make anybody mad. [Laughter] I'm 
getting to you.
    I also--I want to thank Tom Udall, who took me around Santa Fe a few 
days ago. We had a wonderful time, and I actually got to do something I 
rarely do. I got to shop a little. And I informed him that he took me to 
the right places, and the women who live in my house are very happy with 
the selections he helped me make. [Laughter] And I thank him for that.
    The second thing is, I feel deeply indebted to New Mexico. New 
Mexico voted for Al Gore and me twice, gave us strong support, and has 
contributed immensely to the success of this administration. And Bill 
Richardson, who was here earlier, has done a fabulous job. Ann Bingaman 
served in the Justice Department with great distinction. Of course, John 
was an outstanding United States attorney, and Jeff Bingaman has been a 
leader on technology and environmental issues, on so many issues where 
what we're trying to do in the White House can only be done because he's 
been out there for years in the Senate doing the same things, even 
better. And I'm very grateful to you, Jeff Bingaman. Thank you.
    Now, if John hadn't asked all the Georgetown people to raise their 
hand, I was going to do it, because the press, which is covering this, 
is always looking for the dark underbelly of these fundraisers. 
[Laughter] There is always some sordid, hidden motive behind everything 
we're doing. And I just wanted to know what it is. [Laughter] For the 
first time in 26 years, I am not on the ballot. And you all were about 
to have the DT's--[laughter]--and so now you've got somebody to help. 
And I appreciate, more than I can say, all of our classmates for being 
here.
    John was a year behind me at Georgetown. I met him 35 years ago. I 
liked him then. I admired him then, and I still do. You heard him talk a 
little about his career. I think we need more people in the United 
States Congress who spent big chunks of their lives helping people that 
most of the rest of us forget about, who know what life is like for 
people who will never be able to come to a fundraiser in Washington or 
even in Albuquerque. I think that's really important.
    I also think he and Suedeen are the kind of people we want to hold 
up as Representatives of the Democratic Party in the new century. They 
represent everything that I think is the best about America. And the 
other thing I want to tell you is, he can win this race. In 1998--little 
known fact--our nominee for this congressional seat in 1998 won the 
election on election day and was defeated by the advance balloting in 
New Mexico, 3 weeks in advance, because it all moved to us in the last 5 
days there. But he won; our guy won on election day. And we weren't in 
harness enough with the national mood until the last week, so that 
that's one more House seat we would have won had we been where we were 
on election day 3 weeks out. So he can win.
    Now, in a larger sense I want to say, I know I'm kind of preaching 
to the saved here, but there are a lot of people here who have friends 
not only in New Mexico, but a lot of John's friends have come here from 
other States. Some of you have come from New York, and if you did, I 
hope you'll vote for Hillary. I'll get a little plug there.
    But I would imagine most of you watched the debate last night. I 
thought the Vice President did an outstanding job. But I want you to 
know what I believe. I believe when Al Gore says, ``You ain't seen 
nothing yet,'' it's more than a campaign slogan. I believe that the best 
stuff for America is still out there.
    We spent an enormous amount of time in the last 8 years kind of 
turning around the ship of state, and that can't be done on the

[[Page 2313]]

dime like that. It's like a big ocean liner. You know, the Titanic hit 
the iceberg in spite of the fact that the crew saw it way before they 
did it. They just didn't see it in time to avoid the iceberg. It takes 
time to turn around. And we've done that. And now, virtually every 
indicator is going in the right direction: Not just the lowest 
unemployment in 30 years, but welfare has been cut in half. We've got 
the lowest crime rate in 27 years. We had, last year, for the first time 
in a dozen years, we had a decline in the number of people without 
health insurance in America, a huge turnaround. And things are going in 
the right direction. So the question is, what do we do with all this?
    You heard John tell you what he thinks we ought to do about it. What 
I want to say to you is, I've been here 8 years, and I'm not running for 
anything, but in America, our public life is always about tomorrow. 
That's why we're still around here after over 200 years. And we may 
never get a chance in our lifetime like we have now, to seize all the 
big opportunities, to meet all the big challenges, to build the future 
of our dreams for our kids.
    And I believe I know better than any single American that in that 
endeavor, every last Senate seat and every last House seat matters--
every single one. And I hope--I believe after last night, the American 
people have more of an idea of what the genuine differences are. But let 
me tell you, I spent a lot of time not only living this job but studying 
the respective positions of the candidates. And there's a huge 
difference in where not only our nominees for President but our whole 
party is on economic policy, on health care policy, on education policy, 
on environmental policy, on arms control and national defense policy, on 
what it will take to build one America that brings us together across 
all the racial and religious and other lines that divide us--massive 
differences.
    And the only reason I'm taking this time to talk to you is that 
every one of you will see hundreds of people between now and election 
day. And most of you have most of your friends among people who will 
never come to an event like this, but they will vote, because they love 
their country, they want to be good citizens. They will show up and 
vote. But they will never have an encounter like this. They do other 
things with their lives. You need to be sure that every day you take 
every opportunity to tell everybody you really have a chance to talk 
with about what the choice is. What is the nature of the choice?
    Last night you heard in the debate the discussion about tax policy. 
And the Republican nominee said to the Vice President, ``Well, your tax 
cut leaves some people out.'' Well, our Democratic tax cut is only about 
a third of the size of theirs. But there's a reason for that. We think 
we have to save some money to invest in education, health care, the 
environment, and we think we've got to keep paying the debt off.
    Now, keep in mind, if you pay the debt off, as opposed to 
continuing--or returning to deficit spending and getting into the Social 
Security surplus, which their plan inevitably will do--when you add up 
their tax cut, the trillion dollars it costs to partially privatize 
Social Security without bankrupting it for the people who will be 
guaranteed their benefits, and all their spending promises, they go back 
to deficit spending.
    Interest rates will be a point lower over the next decade under the 
plan John Kelly will vote for. Do you know what that's worth? Three 
hundred ninety billion dollars in home mortgage savings, $30 billion in 
car payment savings, $15 billion in college loan savings, God only knows 
how much in credit card savings. Lower business loans means more 
businesses started, more jobs added, more incomes raised, and a higher 
stock market.
    And it also means you get rid of the third biggest item in the 
budget. Interest on the debt is the third biggest item in the budget--
Social Security, defense, interest on the debt, Medicare--and we'll get 
rid of it.
    When I took office, they told me the deficit would be $455 billion 
this year, and we'd be spending almost 15 cents a dollar on the debt. We 
got it down to 12 cents. And we will have paid $360 billion of the debt 
off when I leave office. But this is something that the progressive 
party ought to be for, even though it sounds conservative. Why? Because 
we live in a global economy where we're competing for dollars. We need 
to free up money for the private sector to invest and

[[Page 2314]]

create jobs. And keeping interest rates low is a broadbased, middle-
class tax cut that benefits everybody.
    How do I know? We've had the lowest African-American and Hispanic 
unemployment ever recorded in America, the lowest poverty rates among 
those minority groups ever recorded in America. Are they too high? Yes, 
but we're moving them in the right direction. Last year we had the 
biggest drop in child poverty since 1966, because we have a stable and 
growing economy. And now we've got to spread it to everybody.
    The point is, people have a choice to make here. To pretend that 
there's no choice is dead wrong. There is a clear choice. And you have 
to decide, since a lot of you here, since you could afford to be here, 
would get more out of their tax cut than ours in the first year, you 
have to ask yourself, ``Why am I here?'' ``I went to Georgetown. I have 
to be, right?'' [Laughter] No, I mean besides that.
    And the answer is, you and everybody else in America will be better 
off if we focus tax relief where it's most needed, to help people deal 
with child care and long-term care and college education and saving for 
retirement and if we keep those interest rates down and keep the economy 
going strong, where everybody will make more money.
    It's not as if we haven't had a test run. We tried it their way for 
12 years. We tried it our way for 8 years. The evidence is there. People 
need to understand the difference.
    We have a very different health care policy. We're for the Patients' 
Bill of Rights that really is a bill of rights, not suggestions, and 
they're not. And to be fair to them, they say, ``Well, this may cost too 
much on the health insurance premiums for small-business employers, and 
it may cost the HMO's too much. And they may raise health care premiums, 
and they're too high already.'' That's their argument.
    So the problem is, we have evidence. I put in a Patients' Bill of 
Rights for everybody insured under the Federal Government--Medicare, 
Medicaid, military, Federal employees, and the retirees who get their 
health care under the Federal Government. Do you know how much it costs 
us? One dollar a month per premium. And their office, the Republican 
Congressional Budget Office, estimates that the cost for the general 
population would be less than $2 a month.
    Now, I would pay $1.80 a month to know that if one of you goes out 
of this fundraiser--God forbid--and gets hit by a car, you can be taken 
to the nearest emergency room; you won't have to pass three on the way 
to get to the one that is covered by your health plan. And I think you 
would, too. This is a big issue, and it's a difference.
    But there's a choice here. This Medicare drug deal--I can't do a 
better job than the Vice President did last night. I thought he made a 
great show of it, because he said what our position is. But you need to 
know what's going on here. We've got the money to provide prescription 
drugs under Medicare. If we were starting Medicare today, would we do it 
without a drug plan? Of course not. But in 1960--Medicare was enacted 
when we were beginning our Georgetown careers, and medicine was about 
doctors and hospitals. Now, medicine may be about staying out of the 
hospital by taking medicine that makes you live longer and live better. 
And every day there are older people in this country choosing between 
medicine and food.
    Now, we say, ``Since Medicare is an efficient, popular, effective 
Government program, let people buy into Medicare and get drug coverage. 
It also has, by the way, an administrative cost of about 1\1/2\ percent, 
as opposed to 10 to 14 percent for most HMO's, so it's the most 
efficient way to do it. And let everybody who needs it have a chance to 
buy it. We'll give poor people--we'll pay their premiums. And then if 
people have catastrophic bills, over a certain amount, we'll pay that, 
and everybody else will pay a co-pay and a monthly fee.''
    They say, ``Let's don't do that. Let's phase it in over 5 years, 
cover people up to 150 percent of the poverty line, and then cover 
everybody else by letting them buy an insurance policy.'' The problem 
is--and I have to give it to the health insurance companies. As many 
fights as I've had with them, I have to take my hat off to them. They've 
been scrupulously honest in this debate. They have been terrific. They 
have said, ``Look, this is nuts. You can't design a health insurance 
policy that anybody can afford to pay for that

[[Page 2315]]

will cover an acceptable amount of medicine. The insurance market won't 
do it.''
    Nevada has adopted the Republican plan. That's what they adopted. Do 
you know how many health insurance companies have offered drug coverage 
in Nevada since they adopted it? Zero. None. Not one. Why? Because it 
won't work. I've got to give it to our adversaries; evidence never 
phases them. [Laughter] You've got to kind of admire that.
    But what's this whole deal really about? Do you know what it's 
about? It's about the drug companies, and they're not for this. And you 
may say to yourself, ``That doesn't make any sense. I'm in a business 
where the more customers I have, the better I do. How could you be in 
the business of making drugs and not want to sell more of them?'' It's a 
good question, and here's the answer. Now, let me say, you don't have to 
demonize the pharmaceuticals to do this. I am proud of the fact that 
those companies are part of America. They have--every single week they 
come up with some new breathtaking discovery. They provide tens of 
thousands of wonderful jobs to Americans, and I thank God they're in our 
country. You do not have to demonize them. But they're wrong on this, 
and let me explain why.
    Here's their problem. It costs a fortune to develop these drugs, and 
then they spend a whole lot of money advertising the drugs. And they 
want to sell the drugs worldwide, but because Europe and Canada and 
everybody else is under price controls, they have to recover 100 percent 
of their development and their advertising costs from us. That's fine 
for me; I can pay it. And what they're worried about is if Medicare, all 
of a sudden, is representing millions of American seniors--it's not 
price controls--they're just worried that Medicare will become such a 
big buyer, they'll have so much power in the market, that senior 
citizens in America will be able to buy drugs made in America almost as 
cheap as they can buy them in Canada. And they're worried, therefore, 
that since they can't recover their costs anywhere else, that their 
profits will be drastically reduced, thereby undermining their ability 
to continue to develop new drugs and do all that. It's a legitimate 
problem. But surely to goodness, the answer to the problem is not to 
tell old people they can't have medicine they need.
    Now, what's our position? Our position is, ``We've got the money. 
Take care of the people who need the drugs. Keep them well. Let them 
live longer. And then we'll help the drug companies figure out how to 
solve their problem. They're big. They're strong. They've got a lot of 
influence around here. We'll figure out how to solve this.'' [Laughter] 
But surely, the answer to the problem is not to deprive people of the 
medicine they need. This is crazy. We're right on this, and they're 
wrong. It's a big reason to be for John Kelly.
    I could go through the same drill on energy and the environment. And 
Jeff Bingaman could give a speech better than me.
    I could go through the same drill on education. Both sides are now 
for accountability. That's good. I would like to point out that when we 
took office there were only 14 States with core academic standards, and 
we required it as a condition of Federal aid. There are now 49. We tried 
to have a voluntary national test that could then be administered and 
judged and used as a basis of giving out Federal aid, and the other side 
said no. So we required all the States to identify their failing schools 
and take steps to turn them around.
    And what Al Gore wants to do is say, ``Turn them around; shut them 
down; or put them under new management.'' They say the answer to the 
need for more choice is to go to vouchers. We say the answer to the need 
for more choice is, since we don't have enough money in the school 
system as it is, since we only give 7 percent of the total budget--it 
was 9 in the sixties. When we came to Georgetown, the Federal Government 
was giving 9 percent. It got down to nearly 5 when I took office. We got 
it back to 7. We've got the biggest bunch of kids in school ever, and we 
know how to turn these schools around. So we say, ``Create charter 
schools and other forms of public school choice, and let the kids go 
wherever they want to. But don't take the money--that money--out of the 
school system, because we don't have enough money as it is. You need 
competition.''

[[Page 2316]]

    Now, and we say, ``And by the way, we ought to help them. So we 
ought to finance more teachers for small classes in the early grades. We 
ought to finance after-school and summer school and preschool programs 
for everybody that needs it. And we ought to help them build schools or 
repair schools. And we've got a plan to build 6,000 schools and repair 
5,000 a year for 5 years.''
    Why? Because they need help. You've got more kids than ever before, 
but a smaller percentage of their parents are property owners. And 
therefore, it's not like at the end of World War II, when even in 
Hillary's hometown in Park Ridge, Illinois, which voted 4 to 1 for 
Goldwater, they had high school millages, because they wanted to make 
their schools good. And they could do it. It's different now.
    So we say, accountability-plus. Big difference. Anyway, I could go 
through all these issues. If you--on arms control, we're for the 
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and they're not. I think that's a big 
difference.
    So here's the deal. If somebody comes up to you on the street and 
they say, ``Why should I vote for Al Gore,'' if you live in New York, 
``Why should I vote for Hillary,'' if you live in New Mexico, ``Why 
should I vote for John Kelly--that incumbent Congresswoman seems a 
perfectly intelligent, nice person to me,'' you need to be able to say, 
``Look, we're not into personal criticism. We're not into personal 
attacks. We just want the American people to understand what the choice 
is.''
    I'm telling you, if the people understand what the choice is and 
what the possibilities are, we're going to be fine. John will win if 
they understand what the choices are.
    Now, the money is important. Why? Last year, in '98, when we won 
seats in the sixth year of a Presidency for the first time since 1822, 
we got outspent by $100 million. So you don't have to have as much money 
as they do. And we have too many positions that are against the money to 
have as much money as they do. [Laughter] Just on the Patients' Bill of 
Rights and the medicine alone, we can't get there. But that doesn't 
matter. That doesn't matter. What matters is that you have enough to get 
your message out, and you have enough to answer the incoming fire. If 
you do and they have more, well, that's nice for them, but it's not 
fatal for you. So that's important.
    But I am telling you, you have got to be able to say, not just with 
your checkbooks but with your voice, why are you for these people? What 
difference would it make if John wins, or not? You need to be able to 
say, ``There are economic consequences, health care consequences, 
education consequences, environmental consequences, public safety 
consequences, and national security consequences.''
    And finally, there's a lot of one-America consequences. One of the 
reasons I'd like to see him in the Congress is that I know how much he 
cares about Native Americans and about righting our relationship with 
the Native American tribes, not just in New Mexico but around the 
country. We're for the hate crimes legislation, and they're not. We're 
for stronger equal pay laws for women in the workplace, and they're not.
    But having somebody who knows and cares about what's happening to 
people on these reservations and in the vicinity is profoundly 
important. I went to Shiprock the other day with Tom, and we were 
talking about this at the Navajo reservation. And it's magnificent. God, 
it is so beautiful. It's magnificent. And the people are so impressive. 
But I was introduced by a 13-year-old girl that won a contest in her 
school and won a computer. And she couldn't log onto the Internet 
because her family didn't have a telephone. Over half the families don't 
have telephones. Over half the families don't have jobs.
    And here we are with 4 percent unemployment, and they're stuck there 
because they made a deal with America over 100 years ago that said 
they'd give up their land and their mineral rights and everything else 
in return for the Federal Government meeting certain responsibilities in 
a nation-to-nation relationship. And frankly, we took the money and ran. 
And ever since then, even though there have been a lot of well-meaning 
people involved, they've been kept in a kind of semi-dependency that has 
never, never been fair. It has never worked, and it's all the problems 
of the old welfare system times 50.

[[Page 2317]]

    And if you believe, as I do, that intelligence and enterprise are 
equally distributed among all people, this is an unconscionable 
situation. I have done everything I could to turn it around. This new 
markets legislation that I think we will pass this time will help. But 
whether you live in New Mexico or not, whether you ever know a Native 
American or not, I'm telling you, as an American citizen this ought to 
be important to you. We need somebody who cares, who knows, who has 
worked among and understood these issues. This is profoundly important.
    It is an important part of redeeming the promise of America that we 
keep working on this until we get it right. So you give people those 
answers, and we'll win.
    Thank you very much.

Note: The President spoke at 7:32 p.m. at the Washington Court Hotel. In 
his remarks, he referred to former Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust 
Division, Ann K. Bingaman, wife of Representative Jeff Bingaman; Mr. 
Kelly's wife, Suedeen; and Republican Presidential candidate Gov. George 
W. Bush. Mr. Kelly is a candidate for New Mexico's First Congressional 
District.