pd07au00 Remarks at a Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Reception in Palm...

	Web GovRecords.org

State. I was so naive when I heard him say that, I thought it was a 
compliment. [Laughter] And I still do. [Laughter]
    So we set about making changes. And what Dick Gephardt said is 
right. I do feel somewhat personally responsible for the fact that we 
lost the Congress in '94. Why? Because everybody could talk about 
getting the country out of the economic ditch, but it's one thing to 
talk about it and quite another thing to do once you get in as deep a 
hole as we were in. We had a $300 billion deficit. We had quadrupled the 
debt in 12 years. And the Republicans had made taxes toxic, and we 
already cut a lot of spending--it's hard to cut more. And yet, we had to 
do both.
    And so without a single vote to spare, we basically changed the 
economic and political history of America in August of 1993 by adopting 
an aggressive program to get rid of the deficit. We carried it by one 
vote in the House, and then we carried it by one vote in the Senate--Al 
Gore. As he always says, whenever he votes, we win. [Laughter] So we 
carried it by a vote in the House and a vote in the Senate. I signed it. 
And the Republicans, who now want you to give them the White House back 
and leave them in control of the House and Senate, said it would be the 
end of civilization as we know it.
    And you ought to go back and read the stuff they said about our 
economic plan. ``Oh, it would have another recession. It would lead to 
high interest rates. It would be horrible. Everything would be awful.'' 
It's unbelievable what they said. The same crowd that wants you to give 
it back to them now. And not a one of them voted for it.
    And then in '94, we adopted a crime bill that banned assault 
weapons, on top of the Brady bill, which had been vetoed in the previous 
administration and I signed. And then the same crowd went out into the 
country, where all the hunters are, and told them that we were fixing to 
come get their guns. And we adopted the bill late in '94. And then we 
tried to do something on health care, and they decided, after promising 
me we would work together, that they didn't want anything to happen 
because they wanted an issue in the election. And those three things 
were enough to cost the Democrats the House in '94, and the Senate. And 
I feel personally responsible, because I drove them relentlessly to do 
as much as we could to turn this country around.
    And then, since '95, we've actually had quite a lot of success 
working together to try to continue to do good things for our country. 
And one of the reasons that I think Dick Gephardt ought to be the 
Speaker is that he never thought about quitting. He never thought about 
giving up. He never walked away from his responsibilities to his people 
or to our country. And because he has done what he has done, we were 
able to stay together and work together, and we gained again in '96. And 
in '98, we picked up seats, the first time since 1822 the party of the 
President had gained seats in the House election in the sixth year of a 
Presidency.
    So we're just like the ``Little Engine That Could'' now; we're only 
five seats, six seats away from being in the majority. But I don't want 
it for them, in spite of everything. I owe it to them, but I want it for 
you and for the rest of this country. And that's why, believe it or not, 
we actually have a chance to win the Senate, too. And I believe that, 
notwithstanding the present polls, I expect Vice President Gore to be 
the next President.
    But what I want to say to you is, we can win them all or lose them 
all, and it is hanging in the balance. I'm really grateful for 
everything Swanee said, but right now I don't care too much about my 
legacy. Somebody will take care of that down the road. And then it will 
be written four to five times, over and over again through the 
generations. I finally read a biography the other day claiming Ulysses 
Grant was a good President, and I think the guy was right. He said he 
was a pretty good President and a brilliant general and a greatly 
underrated person, and I'm persuaded by the historical evidence it was 
right and took 100 years to get it right, if that's true.
    So you can't worry about that. The press thinks I worry about it, 
but--you know what I have on my desk in the Oval Office? A Moon rock 
that Neil Armstrong took off the Moon in 1969. You know how old it is?

[[Page 1735]]

Three-point-six billion years. Somehow, I have the idea that 3.6 billion 
years from now, even George Washington may not be known to too many 
people. [Laughter] It's just all a matter of perspective.
    And I keep it there to make me feel humble and uplifted at the same 
time, because what it means is that every second of time today is worth 
just as much as it was then, in fact, more, because they have a more 
interconnected, more well-developed society, but we're all just passing 
through here. And what really matters is what we do and what's in our 
hearts and whether we act on it.
    So I will say again, what I care about is not the legacy. The 
country is in great shape. We've got the strongest economy we've ever 
had. All the social indicators are moving in the right direction. We 
have no crisis at home or threat abroad that is paralyzing us. We have 
lots of national self-confidence.
    But the only thing that matters is, what do we intend to do with 
this? That's all that matters. Nothing else matters. And here we have 
this millennial election, when the most disturbing thing to me is not 
today's or yesterday's or last week's or next week's polls or this or 
that race. The most disturbing thing to me is the repeated articles 
which say that the voters are not sure there's any significant 
difference in these candidates, and ``they all seem pretty moderate and 
nice-sounding to me. And what difference does it make? Maybe I won't 
vote. Maybe I'll vote for the other guy. Maybe I'll vote for this one. 
Who knows?''
    And what I wish to tell you is, this is the product of a deliberate 
strategy that you must not allow to succeed. There are three things--I 
say this over and over again--the people have heard me give this speech 
are getting sick of me saying it--there are only three things you need 
to remember about this election. It is a huge election. What a country 
does with unique prosperity is as big a test of its vision, its values, 
and its common sense as what a country does in adversity.
    Number two, there are big, big differences, honestly held between 
good people running for President and Vice President, running for 
Senate, running for the Congress--big differences.
    Number three, for reasons that you have to figure out, only the 
Democrats want you to know what those differences are. [Laughter] Now, 
you laugh, but it's true. Remember the Republican Presidential primary? 
Al Gore is still giving the same speech now as he was giving in the 
Democratic primary. They performed reverse plastic surgery on poor John 
McCain in that Republican primary. You don't ever hear them talking 
about that, do you? Oh, it's all sweetness and light now. [Laughter]
    Now, I'm having a little fun tonight--[laughter]--but I'm dead 
serious. I am dead serious. There are real differences, and they matter 
to your life. It is very important that voters, when they have a chance 
to vote, understand that they are making decisions. Elections are about 
decisions. Decisions have consequences. I'll just give you one or two 
examples. I made a list of eight or nine here. Maybe I'll give one or 
two. I have fun doing this.
    Let's take the economy. There was a huge article in USA Today not 
very long ago saying, voters see very little difference between Bush and 
Gore on the economy. And I thought, ``Oh my God, what am I going to do? 
Very little difference?'' Every one of them opposed everything we ever 
did on the economy--until we were doing so well we then were able in '97 
to get a bipartisan balanced budget signed because we had plenty of 
money, so we could satisfy the Republicans and the Democrats.
    But let's look ahead: the economy. Here's their policy. Their policy 
is to revert to their old policy on the backs of our new prosperity. 
They say, ``Look at this huge surplus that the Government has. That's 
not the Government's money. It's your money. Vote for us. We'll give it 
back to you.'' Sounds pretty good, doesn't it? I can give their speech 
as well as they can. [Laughter] ``It's not the Government's money. 
They'd mess up a two-car parade. You pay. You earned it. Go vote for us. 
We'll give it back to you.'' [Laughter] I can sing that song.
    We say over $2 trillion in tax cuts over a decade is too much. It's 
the entire projected surplus, and then some. And frankly, too much of it 
goes to folks who can afford to come to events like this. Our plan costs

[[Page 1736]]

less than 25 percent as much, gives more benefits to 80 percent of the 
people, and leaves us some money left over to invest in the education of 
our children and the health care of our seniors and lengthening the life 
of Social Security and Medicare and dealing with science and technology 
and the biotechnology revolution and our environmental responsibilities 
and our health care responsibilities and in getting this country out of 
debt by 2012, which will keep interest rates at least a percent lower 
than their plan for a decade, which is another $250 billion effective 
tax cut and lower home mortgages, $30 billion in lower car payments, $15 
billion dollars in lower student loan payments.
    Now, it takes longer to say our position than theirs. But the 
difference is pretty great. And I always tell--and the most important 
thing--what they want to do is to spend next year, if they have the 
White House and the Congress, the projected surplus. And as I said 
yesterday and I'll say this again: Did you ever get one of those 
sweepstakes letters in the mail from Ed McMahon or somebody, saying, 
``You may have won $10 million''? Did you ever get one of those? Well, 
if you went out the next day and spent the $10 million, you really 
should support them in this election. But if you didn't, you better 
stick with us so we can keep this economy going.
    Now, this is--I'm dead serious. Who in the wide world--if I asked 
you to estimate your projected income over the next 10 years, how much 
money are you going to make over the next 10 years? Just think. Now, if 
I made you a very attractive deal to come in and sign it all away 
tomorrow morning, would you do it? Would you legally obligate yourself 
to all your projected income for a decade to do it? That's what they 
want us to do. That's what this tax cut deal is. It will mean higher 
interest rates. It will mean neglecting our responsibilities to the 
future. It will undermine the economy.
    We have enough money in our tax cut to give you big incentives to 
invest in poor areas in America that haven't been developed yet, big 
incentives to have more money invested in school construction and school 
repairs all across America, and big incentives to help people send their 
kids to college, pay for child care, have retirement savings, pay for 
long-term care for the elderly and disabled. We can do this. We can have 
a tax cut. But this is crazy to give away all this projected income just 
because it sounds good at election time. ``You made it. It's your money. 
I'll give it back to you.''
    And let me just say one other thing. It isn't like we haven't had a 
test run here. You just had a test run of 8 years, right? And you got a 
30-year low in unemployment and 22 million jobs, and it's pretty good. 
Now, they had 12 years before. And they had a nice little economic runup 
there for a while when they were running all those bills up.
    I used to have a Senator named Dale Bumpers from Arkansas, who said, 
``If you let me write $200 billion worth of hot checks every year, I'd 
show you a good time, too.'' [Laughter] So, for a while--but what 
happened? It got to where we were so in debt that we got no economic 
stimulus out of that deficit spending; we got higher interest rates; we 
had to keep cutting back on the things we wanted to invest in; and the 
economy was in the ditch by the time we took office.
    Now, I am telling you, this is huge. We want to keep the prosperity 
going, and we want to extend it to neighborhoods and people in Indian 
reservations and poor rural towns where it hasn't reached yet. So it's 
huge. I'll give you just one or two other examples.
    In education, they say they want to spend as much money as we do, 
but they don't want to spend it on what works. They don't want to have 
standards. They don't want to require people to turn around failing 
schools or shut them down. Dick Gephardt gave a passionate defense of 
education. I just want to give you--I'll just give you one example. I 
could keep you here all night with it.
    I was in Spanish Harlem about 2 weeks ago in a grade school that 2 
years ago had 80 percent of the children reading below grade level, 
doing math below grade level--2 years later, new principal, school 
uniform policy, high standards, accountability. In 2 years, there are 74 
percent of the kids reading and doing math at or above grade level. 
Listen, these kids can learn; they can do fine. And you can turn these 
schools around, but you can't give them speeches and then not give them 
any money.

[[Page 1737]]

    I will give you another example: crime. Everybody is against crime. 
The Republicans say we stole their issue when we started talking about 
crime. I didn't realize that you had to--I've never seen either a rap 
sheet or a report on a victim that had a box for party registration. 
[Laughter] This is our issue. Where I came from, it was a human issue.
    Their deal about crime was, talk real tough and lock everybody up. 
You heard Dick talking about it. I thought we needed a more balanced 
approach, which included stopping people from committing crime whenever 
possible. And that's why we went for the Brady bill, the assault weapons 
ban, the 100,000 police on the street. And by and large, they opposed 
everything we tried to do. They said it was no good, terrible, you know, 
the whole 9 yards.
    Now, here in this election, the head of the NRA says if their 
candidate for President wins, they will have an office in the White 
House. I didn't say that. That's not a negative campaign. I'm simply 
repeating what he said. They won't need an office in the White House, 
because they'll do what they want anyway. They won't have to go that 
trouble, because they believe that way.
    Now, we've had a test run. The previous administration vetoed the 
Brady bill, and the group that wants to win now in the House and in the 
White House and in the Senate, they don't want to close the gun show 
loophole. They don't want to require mandatory child trigger locks. They 
don't want to ban large scale ammunition clips from being imported. And 
they certainly don't want to do what the Vice President does, which is 
to say if you want to buy a handgun in America from now on, you ought to 
at least do what you have to do when you get a car. You ought to have a 
photo ID. You ought to have a criminal background check, and you ought 
to prove you can use the equipment you're about to buy.
    Now, they just don't believe that. But it's not like we haven't had 
a test run. Gun crime has dropped by 35 percent in America since we 
passed the Brady bill and the assault weapons ban--35 percent. And 
that's with this gaping loophole. Half a million felons, fugitives, and 
stalkers haven't been able to get handguns, and nobody has missed a day 
in the woods hunting. [Laughter] Now you laugh about it. They beat a 
dozen of our Members, didn't they, Dick? At least a dozen. They took 
them out. So you have to choose. The point I'm making is, this is a 
choice.
    One other issue, both the candidate for President and Vice 
President--this affects the Senate, too, more than the House--say that 
they don't like  Roe  v.  Wade,  and they want to repeal it. And Vice 
President Gore said he likes it and thinks we ought to keep it. And you 
don't have to believe that anybody is a bad person. I think they just 
have an honest difference here. But there is going to be between two and 
four judges of the Supreme Court appointed next time, that the Senate 
will have to vote on. You have to decide how much that means to you. But 
don't listen to all this sort of let's, you know, pretend that there are 
no differences here. There are honest differences.
    In foreign policy there are honest differences. We believe we ought 
to do more to relieve the debt of the poorest countries in the world. We 
believe we ought to invest more in AIDS and malaria and TB. And we're 
struggling to build bipartisan consensus for this. We believe we were 
right in Kosovo, and most of them didn't. And I still think we were 
right in Kosovo and Bosnia, and I'm glad we did it. We believe we ought 
to have a comprehensive test ban treaty, and they don't. There are big 
differences. Now these are honest differences.
    But I'm telling you folks, I know you may not want to have a serious 
seminar at this hour of the night on Friday night, but I am telling you 
this is a huge election. There are gaping differences. You cannot, in 
good conscience, permit anyone you know to vote without being aware of 
the differences and the consequences to the children of this country 
based on the choices that will be made.
    What I believe is, if everybody knows what the deal is, then we 
ought to all be happy with the results. When Hillary asked me if I 
thought she ought to run for the Senate, I said, ``It depends on whether 
you're willing

[[Page 1738]]

to risk losing and whether you've got something to say that's bigger 
than you.'' The answer to both of those was yes, so off she went. And 
I'm really proud of her.
    But when she calls in from the road or I call her, I say, 
``Remember, your objective in an election is to make sure everyone who 
votes against you knows what they're doing.'' You think about that. If 
everyone who votes against you, every vote you lose, knows what he or 
she is doing, then democracy has worked. And none of us have any 
complaints.
    Now, you know and I know and they know that if the American people 
know what they're doing in this election, that is, if they understand 
what the real choices are, they will vote for the Democrats. They will 
make Dick Gephardt the Speaker. They'll make Tom Daschle the majority 
leader. They'll make Al Gore the President, because they know what I 
have told you is true. And that's why you have this attempt in the other 
party to create a collective amnesia about their primary and to blur all 
over these differences. I don't blame them. If I were them, I would do 
the same thing. It's their only shot.
    But we ought to get a whoopin' if we let them get away with it, if 
you'll allow me to use a colloquialism from my small southern State. 
[Laughter] This is a big deal. I'm not even going to be here, but I have 
done all this work in the hope that if we could turn America around, we 
would be in a position to build the future of our dreams for our kids.

Other Popular 2000 Presidential Documents Documents:

Other Documents:

2000 Presidential Documents Records and Documents