[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 36, Number 42 (Monday, October 23, 2000)]
[Pages 2489-2498]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Remarks at a Dinner for Governor Gary Locke and Representative Jay 
Inslee in Seattle

October 14, 2000

    Thank you very much. First of all, I'm delighted to be here, and I 
think I should begin by thanking Jay Inslee for explaining why it is 
impossible for me at this moment in my life's history to root for 
Seattle in this baseball conference. [Laughter] I think it's the only 
issue I've ever been on the opposite side of Washington State in 8 
years. And I thank you for the dispensation. [Laughter]
    I want to thank Governor Locke and Mona for their friendship to 
Hillary and me. And I thank him for his extraordinary leadership. I can 
see by your presence here and the enthusiasm of the crowd we were with 
before, just a few moments ago, that he's going to be reelected, and 
it's very, very important. I want you to stay with him and help him and 
make sure. He deserves to be reelected.
    Maybe it's just because I was a Governor a dozen years, and I don't 
think I ever would have gotten tired of it. But I know that nothing that 
we do in Washington, even if we make the right decisions, fully hits 
home in the lives of the American people in education, in health care, 
in the environment,

[[Page 2490]]

in many other areas, unless there is a good, strong Governor. And he is 
a good, strong Governor, and he is a good man, and I thank you for your 
support of him.
    I want to thank Mayor Schell for being here, and Pam. I was 
laughing--you know, we're kind of enjoying being here tonight, he and I. 
The last time I was here, we had a little more trouble when we were 
here. [Laughter]
    But I want to say to you, I still think it was important for Seattle 
to host that meeting. And in the future, since there is no turning back 
from tomorrow's world, people will look back on that meeting and what 
was said there in reaffirming that our belief that it is possible to 
build a global economy with a human face, and they will say they were 
right, and Seattle will be credited with the difficult but profoundly 
important moment in the history of global relations. And so I hope you 
will always keep that in mind.
    I want to thank Rick Larson for running for Congress. I want to 
thank your State party chair, and I want to thank my good buddy Ed 
Rendell for coming all the way from Philadelphia to be with us tonight 
and for his extraordinary leadership for the Democratic National 
Committee. I thank all your State officials for being here, and Deborah 
Senn, thank you, especially, for being here, and it's good to see you.
    Oh, I'm supposed to make an important announcement. Tomorrow is the 
Lockes' sixth wedding anniversary. I can tell you, it's not as 
expensive, your 6th, as your 25th--[laughter]--but you still need to 
come up with something. [Laughter] We had a great week last--we had to 
actually schedule our 25th wedding anniversary, now that my wife's 
running for the Senate and I'm running around here trying to help other 
folks. [Laughter]
    Let me say, too, I want to say to Jay and Trudi, I thank you for the 
service that you, Jay, rendered in Congress. Then, when you lost your 
seat, I thank you for the service you rendered to the administration. I 
thank you for having the courage to run again. And I thank you, Maria 
Cantwell, for having the courage to run again.
    You know, this is a time of--a difficult time for me, personally, as 
you might imagine, because we lost those fine young sailors a couple of 
days ago on the ship in Yemen. And most of them were just good, young 
people who wanted to make their way in life by serving their country. 
And they were just doing their duty. They bore no aggressive intentions 
toward anyone, and they were killed by someone who thought he could hurt 
America or break our desire to advance peace and freedom or thought 
somehow it's morally okay to kill people who disagree with you, no 
matter how defenseless they are and how unfair the fight. We started 
bringing those kids home today, and we're going to have a big memorial 
for them Wednesday.
    So I'd like to begin by just asking you tonight when you go home to 
say a prayer for their families and those that are wounded and those 
that are back there still on that ship. They saved the ship, and they're 
pretty traumatized, too.
    But it's a humbling reminder that even in times of peace, freedom is 
not free. You will never know--I'm not even sure I know--how many 
conflicts have been prevented and how many lives have been saved, how 
many profound troubles avoided just because people like those young men 
and women that were on the U.S.S. Cole show up for duty every day. And 
I'm very grateful for them.
    And of course, several of you mentioned to me tonight, a couple of 
people here at dinner and the people I've seen earlier in Washington, 
about the Middle East. And I'm going to leave tomorrow afternoon and fly 
to Egypt and attempt to get the parties together and try to get rid of 
the violence and get back to the path of peace.
    It was ironic. When I was out at the airport earlier today, a man 
whom I had known years ago came up to me with a printed copy of a 
September 19th, 1993--of the speech I gave with Yitzhak Rabin and 
Chairman Arafat when we signed the Israeli-Palestinian accords, and he 
wanted me to sign it. I think it may have just been--it was pure 
coincidence. I think it was the only thing he had that I had given him 
that he could ask me to sign.
    But I said, ``Do you mind if I stop and read this?'' I was standing 
in the airport. And so he gave it to me, and I read it again. And I 
thought about that beautiful late summer

[[Page 2491]]

day and how we felt then and all the good things that have happened 
since then and how sad it all is now. And I was praying that, somehow, 
we might be able to recover, in the spirit of the leaders and the 
people, what was felt then in that happy moment.
    I say that to make this point: In public life, there are issues, and 
there are issues. There are things that are important for votes, and 
then there are things that are important for life and for who we are as 
a people. Maria mentioned one earlier when she talked about Jay Inslee 
voting for the assault weapons ban and having to endure the wrath of 
people saying he was trying to take the guns away from the hunters and 
all that stuff.
    The biggest problem the world has today is basically the oldest 
problem of human society. I know I'm here in the city of the future, 
this place that's most connected to the rest of the world and maybe the 
most wired city in the country. [Laughter] But you think about it. You 
think about what I spend my time doing: Northern Ireland; the Balkans; 
the work we did to try to end the North Korean nuclear program and get 
them to deal with each other again, which has borne such great success 
and gotten President Kim his much-deserved Nobel Prize--all these 
things--the tribal wars in Africa. Nelson Mandela asked me to fly the 
other day to Tanzania to try to help to secure the Burundi peace accord 
because they killed a couple hundred thousand people in Burundi right 
before the Rwandan slaughter at the beginning of the last decade, and 
they're trying to get out of it and not repeat it again--and of course, 
the heartbreaking events of the last few days in the Middle East.
    No matter how modern we get, we're still bedeviled by this old 
problem that we are--we don't understand people who are different than 
us. And it's easy when you don't fully understand people not to trust 
them, and then when you stop trusting them, it's easy to fear them and 
to misjudge them. And then it's easy for fear to turn into animosity and 
animosity to outright hatred, and outright hatred to the legitimization 
of violence, and then, because you have to live with the violence, you 
almost dehumanize the people just because they're different from you.
    Now, not so very long ago, we had Hillary sponsoring an event at the 
White House on the role of the digital chip in the computer information 
technology revolution in the human genome project. And we had Vint Cerf 
there, and we had a guy representing the IT folks, and we had a guy 
named Eric Lander, who is a scientist from Harvard, talking about--who 
is an expert in the whole development of the human genome. And Lander 
was saying if it hadn't been for the digital chip, we never could have 
uncovered the--we could never have mapped the genome.
    And so, we started asking questions. We said, ``Well, what was the 
most surprising thing that you found?'' And he said, ``Well, we're more 
than 99.9 percent the same.'' And he said, what was even more 
interesting to him was that if you took like five different racial and 
ethnic groups--you know, 100 Irish-Americans, 100 African-Americans, 100 
Chinese-Americans and so forth--that the genetic differences among 
individuals within the group would be greater than the differences in 
the profile from group to group.
    Now, why am I saying all this, besides the fact that I've got to get 
my head in the right place for tomorrow? [Laughter] Because all of 
life--I'm old enough now to know this--all of life is like a continuing 
struggle, first of all, to understand some fundamental things about 
life, and second, what you've figured out to live by. We all have to 
organize life, you know, in a certain way. I can't not see Gary Locke as 
a Chinese-American. In fact, I think it's a good thing that I see him 
that way. It makes it more interesting. He's different from me. His 
roots are different.
    But when you organize reality into categories, you have to know 
where the validity of the categories stop. And we have to understand 
that nobody has perfect wisdom. And it's--when we get to believing that 
we're absolutely sure about those who are different from us, and our 
certainty takes on a negative turn, we can get in a world of hurt in a 
very short time.
    And so I say that to make this point. What happens in the Middle 
East ultimately depends upon what they decide to do. All I can do is try 
to find the words and the moral and the physical support to help the 
path of peace and to make sure that we stand up

[[Page 2492]]

for the right values and reaffirm our historic ties to Israel.
    But over the long run, if we want to do good things around the 
world, we first have to be good at home. That's why I think the most 
important issues, even more important than the economic issues, are the 
issues that strengthen the ties that bind us, even as we respect our 
increasing diversity.
    I was telling the other crowd--I gave more of a political speech at 
the early two events, but you know, it's 11 a.m. on my body clock--maybe 
I'm just too old to do it now. [Laughter] But what I was trying to say 
at these earlier meetings, I want to reiterate today.
    I don't--I never liked all this personal attack business very much, 
but I love a good debate, because where there are honest differences, 
they ought to be stated clearly and argued out. And in this election 
season, whether we're talking about the Presidency or the governorship 
or this profoundly important Senate seat or the House seats that you 
have at stake here, there are these huge differences.
    Basically, we Democrats believe in a unifying vision of our public 
life. We believe, first of all, that everybody who is a responsible 
citizen ought to be part of our public life. So we're for hate crimes 
legislation and the ``Employment Nondiscrimination Act,'' and their side 
isn't. Basically, we believe in stronger enforcement of the equal pay 
laws for women. We believe in things that bring us together.
    Secondly, we believe that everybody that works hard ought to have a 
shot at the American dream. We think the people that served this dinner 
tonight ought to have the same chance to send their kids to college that 
those of us who could pay to eat here do. That's basically what we 
believe.
    And thirdly, we don't mind fighting, but we don't think that we 
ought to be fighting over false choices. We think you can be pro-
business and pro-labor, pro-growth and pro-environment. And we think 
that we've got to get this business about our racial, religious, gender, 
disability, sexual orientation, all these differences--we've got to 
figure out what they mean, respect our differences, and reaffirm the 
primacy of our common humanity. Now, that's what we believe.
    I think--you know, the evidence is that it's worked out pretty well 
for America in the last 8 years. And so--and I feel a special debt to 
Maria Cantwell and to Jay Inslee, because they literally risked their 
whole political careers to do the right thing for America on turning the 
economy around and getting the crime rate down. They did.
    I understand that Maria has now been attacked by a highly selective 
description of her vote for our economic plan. The truth is, almost all 
the tax increases in the economic plan were paid by 1.5 percent of the 
American people, and it was impossible to put together a package that 
would satisfy everybody. We also cut hundreds and hundreds of programs, 
and we cut taxes for 15 million Americans who were lower income working 
people with children.
    But the main thing we had to do was to get a hold of the thing. We 
had to get the deficit down. When I took office, the deficit was $290 
billion; interest rates were high; growth was low. Do you know what the 
projected deficit for this year was? When I took office, $455 billion. 
The debt of the country had quadrupled in the previous 12 years.
    So we had to do something about it. And we didn't have a vote to 
spare--not one--because the other side wouldn't give us a vote--not one. 
So Maria's opponent was giving speeches like all the others, said, 
``This is the end of the world. This will end civilization as we know it 
if Bill Clinton's economic plan passes.'' [Laughter] ``It will lead to a 
recession. It will deepen the deficits. It will cost American jobs.'' 
Time has not been kind to their predictions. [Laughter] And I don't--so 
now, they have a $230 billion surplus, and they want you to believe it 
just happened. [Laughter]
    I thought the best line in Al Gore's first debate was when his 
opponent said, ``I think the economy's done a lot more for Clinton-Gore 
than Clinton-Gore did for the economy.'' That's what I think. And that 
was a good line, you know. It was a pretty good line. [Laughter] I mean, 
you know, you've got to appreciate it when they hit you a good lick. 
[Laughter] So I said--and Al Gore said,

[[Page 2493]]

``Yes, you know, the American people deserve most of the credit. But you 
know something? I think they were working pretty hard before we came in, 
too, and the results were very different.''
    So here's the first thing I want to tell you. This country has a 
chance that comes along once every 50 years or so to build the future of 
our dreams for our kids and our grandchildren. In my lifetime, we've 
never had, at the same time, so much economic prosperity, social 
progress, national self-confidence, with the absence of paralyzing 
domestic crisis or external threat.
    Do we have problems? You bet we do. Could they get out of hand? 
There's no such thing as a life without danger. There's--none of it is 
totally predictable, but this is the best shape we've been in, in 50 
years. And those of us that are--that know better will never forgive 
ourselves if we don't use this opportunity and make the most of it.
    So what I would like to say to you is, there are huge differences 
between our candidates for President, Vice President, Senate, Congress, 
Governor, the whole 9 yards. If the people understand clearly what the 
differences are and what the consequences to them and their families and 
communities are, we win. Which is why, if you watch these debates, you 
will see that only one side wants you to know what the differences are. 
[Laughter] The other side wants to blur the differences. They tried 
clarity in the early Gingrich years and it didn't work out too well. 
[Laughter]
    But I say that with all respect, actually, because their policies 
haven't changed all that much. So let me just mention two or three 
things, because here's what I'm asking you to do. Thank you for your 
money for these candidates. Thank you very much. They need it. They've 
got to be able to answer the other guy's attacks. They've got to be able 
to put their positive message on. Thank you.
    But there are a lot of undecided voters that basically don't know 
how to make heads or tails of these ads that are running and will never 
come to an event like this, that are your friends. Every one of you have 
got a lot of friends that have never been to an event like this, never 
will come to an event like this, can't imagine why you paid the money to 
come to an event like this. [Laughter] Is that right? Can't imagine why 
you paid the money to come to an event like this, but they will show up 
and vote. They will be there on election day, sure as the world, because 
they're good citizens and they want to be patriots.
    And if they ask you why you came and why they ought to vote for Al 
Gore and Joe Lieberman or Maria Cantwell or Gary Locke or Jay Inslee, 
what are you going to say? That goes to this very point. You've got the 
chance to build the future of your dreams for your children.
    Here's what I hope you will say, very briefly. Number one, on the 
economy, you want to keep the prosperity going by building on the 
direction of the last 8 years, or would you prefer to go back to the 
policy that was in place before?
    Now, here's my argument. Al Gore says, ``Vote for me, and I'll get 
us out of debt in 12 years, and we'll still have enough money to invest 
in education, health care, and the environment and defense. And I'll 
give you the tax cut I can afford, not the one that sounds the best, but 
the one we can afford that the most people need the most for educating 
their kids, for long-term care, for child care, for retirement savings. 
But I won't give you so much that we can't pay the debt down, because 
you all benefit from that. Because when we pay the debt down, it keeps 
interest rates lower, and that's the best tax cut we can give you. Low 
interest rates means lower home mortgages, lower business loans, lower 
car payments, lower college loan payments, and a better stock market.'' 
Now, that's our shtick.
    Their guys say, ``This is your money, and the Democrats think 
Government knows best. We're going to give you 3 times as much back, and 
we're going to partially privatize Social Security so you can make some 
more money. And, oh by the way, yes, it does cost a trillion dollars to 
do that.''
    Now, you need to know, why does it cost a trillion dollars to do it? 
Because Social Security--Gore's program takes Social Security to 2054. 
The Republican program, it goes broke right now. In 2037--the Republican 
program makes it go broke sooner unless

[[Page 2494]]

they put money into it. Why? Because if you're under 45, they're going 
to give you 2 percent of your payroll back, but if you're 55 or over--
that includes me next year, though I hate it--[laughter]--they guarantee 
what you're going to get anyway.
    So if you young people take money out and I get guaranteed what I'm 
supposed to get anyway, where is the money going to come from to give me 
what I've been guaranteed? This is their program. And they admitted in 
the first debate--to me, that was the story of the first debate, and I 
looked in vain for somebody to say this was significant--finally, they 
admitted, the nominee of the Republican Party admitted, ``Yes, we'll 
take a trillion dollars out of the surplus.'' So if you take $1.5 
trillion for a tax cut and $1 trillion to privatize Social Security and 
hundreds of billions of dollars of spending they promise, you're back in 
the deficit.
    Now, most of you in this room would get a better deal under them, 
but a lot of you wouldn't. It's not true that Al Gore's plan doesn't 
help 50 million people. The basic math is that 32 million people 
wouldn't get a break under his plan, and 27 million wouldn't get a break 
under the Bush plan.
    But it also is true that people in upper income groups, and some 
others--very few--would get more under the Bush plan. Most people get 
more under the Gore plan. But the main thing is, everybody gets more if 
their interest rates are lower. One plan pays off the debt, and the 
other one continues the debt. Now, this is a big choice.
    People ask me all the time, now that I'm almost a has-been, they 
come to me and say--they say--[laughter]--``You know, you had such a 
brilliant economic team. You know, Bob Rubin and Lloyd Bentsen and all 
those people, they're so brilliant. What great new idea did you bring to 
Washington?'' And I always say, ``Arithmetic''--[laughter]--``arithmetic 
to Washington. And lo and behold, it worked as well there as it did in 
my first grade class.'' [Laughter]
    Now, look, there's a lot of fancy--we decided to bail out Mexico. We 
were for the right telecommunications law, and it was pro-competition, 
and a lot of you were benefited from that because we did the right thing 
for America. But we started with arithmetic.
    Now, so you've got one crowd that says, ``Okay, let's stick with 
arithmetic, but keep changing.'' That's Gore, Lieberman, Maria, Jay, 
Gary. Then you've got the other crowd that says, ``They've built up such 
a big surplus. Let us try it our way again and see if it works better 
the second time.'' [Laughter]
    And I kind of admire them, you know, because evidence never fazes 
them. [Laughter] You've got to kind of admire that, you know. I mean, 
they know what they believe, and they just go right with it. [Laughter] 
But we're all having a good time here, but I don't think everybody in 
Washington State understands this difference. Do you? But this is clear. 
If you can come to this dinner tonight, you can sure explain to people 
how lower interest rates are good for them and paying off the debt's 
good for them and not giving away tax money before it's there is good 
for them.
    There's something else. When you read all these skeptical press 
analyses saying, ``Well, maybe Gore's plan's too much, just like Bush's. 
Maybe there are pox on both their houses.'' Let me tell you something. 
People that write that have never practiced politics. What do I mean by 
that?
    You can say, ``I would like to spend this amount of money on 
education over the next 10 years. But if the money doesn't come in, I 
won't spend it.'' But if you cut taxes today, it's gone. That's the 
difference. And if you privatize the Social Security system, you've got 
to spend the trillion to make the guarantees to the people that you 
promised are going to get their benefits. That's a breathtaking, 
practical difference.
    So you need to tell people this. If you like where you are now 
compared to where you were 8 years ago and you want to keep it going in 
the same direction, you've got to vote for Al Gore, Joe Lieberman, Maria 
Cantwell, Jay Inslee, and Gary Locke, period. That's the economic deal. 
That's clear.
    Now, the same thing is true in health care. We're for a real 
Patients' Bill of Rights, and they're not. And they're not because the 
health insurers don't want it, because they don't want to ever be sued 
and they think it will raise the cost of health care. Well, that's a 
serious concern. It's a legitimate concern.

[[Page 2495]]

    The problem is, if you're stuck in an HMO and your doctor wants you 
to see a specialist and you don't have a lot of time to fool around with 
it, you need to be able to do it. If you work for some company and your 
company changes providers and you're in the middle of a chemotherapy 
treatment or you're 6 months pregnant, you don't want to have to change 
your doctor before you have your baby or you finish your treatment. If 
you get hit in the middle of a big city by a car, you don't want to have 
to pass three hospitals before you find an emergency room that's covered 
by your plan. You want to go to the nearest emergency room.
    Now, I did all this for people under Federal insurance. You know 
what it cost us? A buck a premium a month. Do you know what the 
Republicans say it would cost to do it nationally? Even them--and keep 
in mind, they're going with the other crowd--even they admit it's less 
than $2 a month.
    Now, I'd spend $23 a year to know that you could go to the nearest 
emergency room if you get hit coming out here. And I think most 
Americans would. It's a big difference. We're for a Medicare 
prescription drug plan that covers all seniors that need it. They say 
that we're trying to force--have you seen these ads saying they're 
trying to force people into a Government HMO? That's the biggest load of 
hooey I ever heard in my life. [Laughter] Medicare is not an HMO. 
Medicare is a fee-for-service plan with a 1.5 percent administrative 
overhead, less than any HMO in the world. And if you want to go into an 
HMO because they give you more benefits, you can do it, but you don't 
have to. It's totally your choice.
    Now, did you ever wonder what the real deal is on this prescription 
drug fight we're having in Washington? I mean, don't you think it's 
funny that the drug companies who--the Republicans can't be for our 
plan, because the drug companies won't let them. But don't you think 
it's funny that they won't let them? Did you ever meet any business that 
didn't want more customers? Did you ever meet a politician that didn't 
want more votes? [Laughter]
    This is a serious issue. I just want to tell you. But it shows you 
what our values are. This is very important. The drug companies have a 
legitimate issue, but they're going about it in the wrong way. We're 
fortunate to have these pharmaceutical companies in our country. They 
develop lifesaving drugs. They lengthen life. They improve the quality 
of life. And parenthetically, they give employment to tens of thousands 
of people, and they're darn good jobs. And it's good they're here.
    But it costs a lot of money to develop the drugs, and they spend a 
lot of money advertising it. And they want to sell the drugs worldwide, 
and every other country they want to sell them in has price controls, so 
they've got to get 100 percent of the money for their worldwide sales 
for developing the drugs and advertising them from Americans. Then, once 
they get the money from us, they can sell the drugs everywhere else 
under price controls and do just fine, because it's just the extra cost 
to make another pill or something.
    Now, what they're worried about is, if we let all the seniors in the 
country that need medicine they can't afford buy into our plan, they're 
afraid that Medicare will have such market power--not price controls, 
market power--we can get Americans drugs made in America almost as cheap 
as they can buy them made in Canada--I mean, if they were in Canada, 
made in America. That's what they're worried about.
    Now look, you never hear this in the debate. Everybody always acts 
like black and white, and they use slogans, and they don't explain to 
you. This is a legitimate problem. If their profit margins get squeezed 
too much, then they won't have the money to develop the drugs and 
advertise them that they want. It's a legitimate problem.
    But their answer to the problem is to leave half the seniors who 
can't afford medicine without the medicine. That's not America. Look, 
this is a big industry. They've got lots of money. They've got a lot of 
influence in Washington. I say, the Democrats say, ``Let's take care of 
the people who need the medicine. Then we'll find a way to take care of 
their problem.'' We won't run off and leave them. We're not going to let 
the drug companies go broke. We're glad they're here. We love what they 
do. But the answer to their problem, surely to goodness, is not saying 
to

[[Page 2496]]

half the seniors in the country, ``You can't have the medicine that you 
need.''
    Now, look, it's like we could go through this--the same thing is 
true on education. Both candidates for President say they're for 
accountability and standards, and that's true. You know, I've worked on 
this for over 20 years. I think our accountability system is better than 
theirs. We could argue that out, but I won't. Let's just posit they're 
both for accountability, and that's good. They say they're for 
accountability, block grants, and vouchers, and we're trying to 
micromanage education. That's what they say.
    Here's my answer. We're for accountability-plus--plus at least 
100,000 teachers that are well-trained to make classes smaller in the 
early grades, plus the funds to help districts build or modernize 6,000 
schools and repair another 5,000 a year for 5 years. So you've got a 
massive, massive school facilities crisis in America.
    We're for preschool and after-school and summer school for all the 
kids who need it, and we think people ought to get a tax deduction for 
the cost of college tuition. We think, in other words, we should give 
people the tools they need to succeed in an accountability environment. 
And our major accountability is, identify failing schools, turn them 
around, shut them down, or put them under new management. That's what 
works best. I can tell you; I've been fooling with this for 20 years. 
That's what works best.
    Now, they say we're trying to micromanage the schools. ``Why not 
trust the States? Don't you trust Gary Locke?'' they say. And I say, 
``Yeah, I do. But there is now indisputable research about what works. 
And the teachers and the educators have been telling us about this for 
years.''
    We only have 7 percent of the total school budget coming from the 
Federal Government. We have got to put this money where it will have the 
biggest impact. And when they tell you we're micromanaging the schools, 
that's just not true. Under this administration, we have cut regulations 
on States and school districts by two-thirds below what they were under 
the previous Republican administration. All we're doing is sending the 
money where it will do the most good. So if you want accountability-
plus, instead of accountability-minus, you've got to be for us.
    So let's go over it. So if somebody asks you tomorrow why were you 
here, can you give them the economic answer? Can you give them the 
health care answer? Can you give them the education answer? Can you say 
the Democrats are for hate crimes; they're for employment 
nondiscrimination; they're for stronger enforcement of the equal pay 
laws for women? Gore is for the right to choose, and his opponent's not, 
and that could have a big impact. Can you tell them that?
    The environment: This is one area where, by the way, there has been 
surprising clarity, just not publicity. Somehow, the people writing 
about it don't think it's important. I think it's real important. The 
Vice President has pledged to build on the environmental record of this 
administration. They say that if you vote for them, they will repeal my 
order setting aside 43 million roadless acres in the national forest. 
That was on the debate last time. I can't believe nobody--apparently, 
people didn't think it was very important. I keep reading for something 
meaningful, somebody to say something about that.
    The Audubon Society said that was the most important conservation 
move in the last 40 years, and they're going to undo it. They're going 
to undo it. They say they want to reexamine all the national monuments 
I've set aside. They said that the air pollution standards we've set are 
too tough; they're hurting business.
    I'll tell you what. If I tried to hurt business with my 
environmental policy, I did a poor job. [Laughter] I did a poor job.
    But this is a huge difference. And of course, there are massive 
differences on crime. And it's not just on guns. Let's talk about the 
non-gun issues. In the crime bill of '94 that we were talking about, 
that did ban assault weapons--a ban, by the way, that will be 
reauthorized or not in the next President's term--we put 100,000 police 
on the street. We got more than 100,000 under-budget, ahead of time, so 
we're now getting funding for another 50,000. And they're keeping crimes 
from happening. It's not just catching criminals quicker. They're 
keeping

[[Page 2497]]

crimes from happening. They're doing all this community policing.
    Now, their nominee has a commitment, public commitment, to abolish 
that program on the theory that the Federal Government has got no 
business working on safe streets. The first time I met Ed Rendell in 
Philadelphia, he took me into a neighborhood where he used some Federal 
money that the Democratic Congress and the previous Republican 
administration had given him to clean up the streets.
    Now, they're to the right of that. They said they're going to get 
rid of the COPS program. So you've got a choice here. We've got the 
lowest crime rate in 26 years, the lowest murder rate in 33 years. You 
can say, ``I don't think this policy had anything to do with that'' if 
you want to gamble with that and vote for them.
    You heard them say in the debate--the debate made clear that our 
side is for the 3-day waiting period, including at gun shows, to do 
background checks, and their side's not.
    Now, I listened to all this in '94. It broke my heart. I don't know 
how many House Members that the NRA beat in '94, but a bunch of them 
here in Washington. We took the awfulest licking here we did than any 
State in the country, and the NRA had a lot to do with it. I take my hat 
off to them. They succeeded in scaring the living daylights out of a 
bunch of voters. They told them all we were coming after their guns.
    They did that in New Hampshire, too. I went back in New Hampshire, 
and I got 200 hunters together, and I said, ``I want to tell you 
something. You beat a Congressman here 2 years ago because he voted with 
me for the Brady bill and the assault weapons ban, and if any of you 
missed a day or an hour in the deer woods, I want you to vote against me 
this time. But if you didn't, they didn't tell you the truth, and you 
ought to get even.'' And I say that again here.
    Nobody, none of these Washington hunters or sportsmen have missed a 
minute in any hunting season or a minute in any sport shooting contest. 
They have been terrified and scared and misled. All we ever tried to do 
was to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and children and take 
basic, precautionary measures.
    Now, this is a big deal. This is a big deal. So--now, look--
[applause]. Wait a minute. Thank you. Wait a minute. I'm done. You don't 
have to sit down. I'm done. [Laughter] When you go home tonight, you 
give yourself a test. [Laughter] How much of this can you say? And 
promise yourself that every friend you see between now and election that 
you know good and well would never come to a deal like this, you will 
share some of this with them. I promise you, if people understand what 
the differences are and what the consequences are, our crowd will do 
fine, because the American people nearly always get it right.
    And the last thing I want to say is this. Al Gore often says in his 
speeches, ``You ain't seen nothin' yet.'' And I guess maybe it sounds 
like a political statement. But as you know, I'm not running for 
anything, and I believe that. [Laughter] I believe that. It takes a long 
time to turn a country around. And we've been working on turning this 
country around, pulling it together, moving it forward. But you just 
think of that. You think about babies being born sometime the next 10 
years with the life expectancy of 90 years.
    Most of you are going to live to see what's in the black holes in 
outer space and what's in the deepest depths of the ocean. We're just 
that close to cracking the chemical barriers to converting biomass into 
fuel in an efficient way. Right now, to make ethanol or any biofuel, it 
takes 7 gallons of gasoline to make 8 gallons of fuel. If we get just a 
little more chemical progress, we'll be able to take 1 gallon of 
gasoline and make 8 gallons of biofuel, and when that happens, we'll all 
be getting 500 miles to the gallon. You can forget about worrying about 
that. [Laughter]
    Look, all of this stuff is out there, which is why, by the way, 
these racial and ethnic and other fights and religious fights are so 
maddening, because it will make it possible for children in the poorest 
places in the world to participate in a common future. It's all out 
there. But we've got to make the right decision. And these elections are 
going to be close. We're going to be outspent. But if we have clarity, 
if the people know--understand what the differences are and what the 
consequences are, we will do fine.

[[Page 2498]]

    So I'm putting it on you. You've been real nice to me tonight, and I 
shouldn't do this, but I'm putting it on you. Every day between now and 
the election, you will see somebody that will never come to one of these 
deals, and you can turn them. You can get them to come. And I promise 
you, you will never have another election where it will matter more. So 
do what you can, and we'll have a great celebration.
    Thank you, and God bless you.

Note: The President spoke at 8:05 p.m. in the Cascade Room at the Westin 
Hotel. In his remarks, he referred to Gov. Locke's wife, Mona Lee Locke; 
Mayor Paul Schell of Seattle and his wife, Pam; Deborah Senn, candidate 
for U.S. Senate from Washington; Rick Larson, candidate for Washington's 
Second Congressional District; Paul Berendt, chair, Washington State 
Democratic Party; Edward G. Rendell, general chair, Democratic National 
Committee; Representative Inslee's wife, Trudi; Maria Cantwell, 
candidate for U.S. Senate from Washington; Chairman Yasser Arafat of the 
Palestinian Authority; President Kim Dae-jung of South Korea; former 
President Nelson Mandela of South Africa; Vinton G. Cerf, senior vice 
president of Internet architecture and technology, MCI WorldCom; Eric 
Lander, director, Whitehead/MIT Center for Genome Research; Republican 
Presidential nominee Gov. George W. Bush; and former Secretaries of the 
Treasury Robert E. Rubin and Lloyd Bentsen. Representative Inslee is a 
candidate for reelection in Washington's First Congressional District. A 
tape was not available for verification of the content of these remarks.