Bill Clinton: “Thank you. I'll just give you some examples. I knew that when we passed the Brady bill and the ban on assault weapons…”

“Thank you. I'll just give you some examples. I knew that when we passed the Brady bill and the ban on assault weapons that the NRA would be able to terrify a lot of good, God-fearing, hard- working American gun owners into thinking we were trying to take their guns away. And I knew it would hurt a lot of people who stood up for what was right. And don't kid yourself, it's one of the big reasons the Democrats lost the House. But you know, last year 40,000 criminals who would have been able to get guns didn't because of the Brady bill, 40,000. And not a single American hunter or sportsman has lost a gun, not a single one. And there will not be one. But there are some mean streets and some schools where some thug can't show up with an Uzi and gun down a bunch of innocent kids. And that's worth a little political heat, I think. It's the right thing to do. When the Food and Drug Administration came to me and they said, ``Oh, Mr. President, we have completed our 14-year study of children smoking''--14-month study--``and we know, we know, based on the records, that the big tobacco companies know this is hazardous to the health of young people, that they continue to advertise to young people, that 3,000 young people a day start smoking, and 1,000 of them will die sooner because of it,'' the conventional political advice was, ``For goodness sakes, you have made enough people mad, Mr. President, don't fool with this because they will take all those good, hard-working, God- fearing tobacco farmers and convince them that you want to put them in the poorhouse, that you're trying to have the Government take over everybody's private decisions, and everybody who's against you on that will be against you, and the people that are for you will find some other reason to be against you.'' That was the conventional politics. But folks, 1,000 kids a day taking up a habit that will end their lives early, what is that worth? That's worth a lot of political heat. Think about 10, 20, 30 years from now. I want those kids to be alive in a great America of the 21st century, and I think it was the right thing to do. When the First Lady went to Beijing to stand up for the rights of women and children everywhere--[applause]--thank you--the conventional wisdom was, notwithstanding your ovation, that that was a bad idea. People said, ``Well now, look, if she goes, just the act of her going will legitimize human rights practices we don't agree with.'' People on the other side said, ``Oh, oh, if she goes and says what's true, it might offend the Chinese and we'll mess up our trade relations and will it cost a few jobs.'' But let me tell you something, folks. We're going to live in a world with all of these other countries. In South Asia alone, there are 77 million more--listen to this--77 million more young boys than young girls. Why? These little girls are being killed. They're not valued as people. Boys are still thought of as more important economically and therefore as human beings than girls. We can't live in a world at peace and harmony, consistent with our values, until we live in a world where women everywhere, including women here, subject to domestic violence and abuse on the street, can live in dignity and freedom and equality. We cannot do that. And I just want to say one more thing. When I went to the University of Texas Monday morning, some people said, ``This is a very dangerous thing for you to embrace the people that are showing up in Washington and stand up for racial reconciliation. You don't know what's going to happen there.'' But I know one thing. I didn't know what was going to happen there--I thought I did--I knew that march was about the people that were showing up, not about the leaders. I knew it was about what was in people's heart on that day, not what some people had said in political speeches. I knew that the same thread that's running through America that's driving down the teen pregnancy rate and the crime rate and all of these other things was running through the spirit of those people there. And it seems to me that as President I have a responsibility to speak to that. You look around this room, you've got a fair amount of diversity. You look up in that crowd of young people, you'll see a lot more. Generationally, there will be more and more and more. In a global village, old-fashioned American values, the power of American free enterprise and technology, the power of America's example, combined with the fact that we are so diverse across racial and ethnic groups, is our meal ticket to the future. It is not only morally the right thing to do, it is a gold mine for us if we will turn away from those who would divide us. That's why I said to the American people last week, every American needs to make a personal commitment that they're going to establish some sort of a personal relationship with someone of a different racial or ethnic group. And if you work with a lot of people from different groups, ask yourself if you've ever really had an honest conversation, have you ever really told anybody what you thought? The most stunning thing to most Americans in the aftermath of the Simpson trial was all that public research saying that people from different races saw the same set of facts in a completely different light. But most of us share the same values. That's what the march proved. People showed up saying, ``We do have to take more responsibility for ourselves, our families, and our communities, and we are going to do it. And we want to reach out to you.'' So we have to do that. All of you do. We have to set an example. We have to be honest with one another. We have to listen to one another. And we have got to find a way to come together. Because, I'm telling you, if you solve this diversity problem, America, there is no stopping this country in the 21st century; it is ours to lead and to enjoy and to profit from. So that is the background. This country is on a roll. We're moving in the right direction. We have problems. We'll always have problems. We know what to do. We need to have a good economic policy, a Government that works and doesn't get in our way too much but protects our fundamental interests. We need to make sure we maintain our leadership in the world. And we need to have a set of policies as a people consistent with our values. Now, that is really what is going on in Washington. That's what we're debating up there today. We are not debating the balanced budget. That is not the issue. I have presented a balanced budget that Mr. Greenspan, who was appointed by my predecessors and is a Republican, and many others--and all the market analysts say it is a perfectly credible balanced budget. I have given them a balanced budget. This is not about balancing the budget. What is at stake here is what kind of people we are going to be in the 21st century, what kind of future are we going to have. And I just want to ask you a few questions. You heard Senator Harkin talk about the Medicare cuts and how they want to save money, but they've actually made it harder for us to prosecute waste, fraud, and abuse in Medicare. We have set records in our administration for collections of waste, fraud, and abuse, and we haven't scratched the surface. And now they want to stop us. They don't think that's important. Well, my idea of the future of America is not a Medicare program where it's easier to commit waste, fraud, and abuse, but harder for a senior citizen to live from month to month because their Medicare premiums have been doubled when they can't afford to pay for it. That's not my idea of the future I think we ought to have in America. The Medicaid program has not gotten as much coverage, but my idea of the future of America is not living in a country where we cut Medicaid so much we're closing more rural hospitals, we're closing inner city hospitals, we're putting unbearable burdens on our teaching hospitals and our children's hospitals, we're making it harder for poor little kids to get care. And I'll tell you something else that's in this bill. They want to take away the money that we presently give under the Medicaid program to help the poor elderly pay their copays and their deductibles, people living on $300 and $400 a month, so the people under this plan that are going to get hit the hardest are not the wealthiest seniors but the poorest seniors. And a study has been put out that said as many as 1 million seniors might drop out of the Medicare system. I don't know about you, folks, but I don't want somebody to give me a tax cut and put a million old people out of the Medicare system. That's not the America that I want to live in. I don't think it is right, and I do not support it. Let me tell you--I want to reiterate--I do support the goal of balancing the budget. I agree with them we have to save the Medicare Trust Fund. To do it, we have to slow the rate of growth in medical inflation in Medicare and Medicaid. We don't have to take 450 billion bucks out of the health care system to do it. Do you know what else is in one of those plans? They want to repeal the prohibition against spousal impoverishment. Now, that's a Government phrase. Let me tell you what that means. That means if a married couple are lucky enough to be 78 or 80 years old, they've been together 50 years, and they've saved their money and been frugal, one of them gets real sick and has to go to a nursing home--which is heartbreaking enough as it is--they want to go back to the dark old days when the State can tell the spouse that doesn't have to go to the nursing home, ``We'll give you help, but only after you sell your car, your house, and clean out your bank account. Now, then, we'll take your spouse in the nursing home. I don't know what you're going to do. That's not our problem.'' I don't know about you, folks, that is not the America that I want to live in the 21st century. I don't believe in that. I don't believe in that. Look at those young--how many college students do we have up there? How many of you get student aid? The only thing that has grown faster than the cost of health care in the last 15 years is the cost of higher education. And yet we know we need more and more and more young people to be able to go to college and be able to finish college. I pledged if elected President I would provide a more efficient, more cost-effective student loan program that would get the money out quicker, that would lower the cost to students, and that would provide for easier repayment terms. I also promised to crack down on people that didn't repay their loans. We have cut the loan default rate in half by cracking down. But you know what else we've done? We're getting those young people their money quicker at lower cost with better repayment terms, so that young people who get out of college and don't get jobs making a lot of money can pay the loan off as a percentage of their income. And there will never, never, never, never be an incentive not to borrow the money to go to college because you're afraid you can't pay it back. Now, that's what we did. And it's a good, good thing to do. Their budget limits or totally destroys, depending on which House you look at, this direct loan program. It goes back to the old way where we just shove money to the private sector, total Government guarantees, no performance standards, no costs, nothing, raises the cost to the taxpayers and cuts out good loans to them and, for good measure, eliminates somewhere between 150,000 and 380,000 college scholarships, depending on whether the Senate or the House version passes. I don't know about you, but the 21st century I want to live in does not include kicking middle class kids out of college, taking scholarships away from poor kids, and doing things that will not help us to build the great American dream for all Americans. I don't want that kind of 21st century. That is not my idea of how we ought to be living. I don't believe we ought to go into the 21st century gutting our budgets to protect clean air, clean water, pure food, to preserve our natural heritage, and letting the lobbyists for the biggest polluters in the country write the clean water laws. That's not my idea of the 21st century that I want. I don't believe we should walk away from our crime bill, which is lowering the crime rate, and stop people from putting these police on the street and stop communities from having prevention programs to give our children something to say yes to. I don't believe we should refuse to raise the minimum wage. That's their position. Next year it will get to a 40-year low in purchasing power if we do that. I don't believe that's right, either. I don't believe, notwithstanding what one of your Senators believes, that we should abolish AmeriCorps. It would be a terrible mistake to get rid of the national service program. The national service program involves young people and working with other people to solve community problems. It has no bureaucracy. It ought to be a Republican's dream. But because it involves the National Government bringing people together to do something positive and good and decent to move people forward, they say, no, no, no. That's not my idea of the 21st century. My idea of the 21st century has all young people serving their communities, working together, building this country from the grassroots up, earning their way to college and moving forward. There is a provision in this budget that would allow companies who have been in deep trouble to withdraw money from their pension funds, even if it puts the retirement of their workers in trouble. Now, last December, I signed a piece of legislation that saved 8\1/2\ million Americans' pensions and stabilized 40 million more Americans' pensions. Do you really want me to sign a budget that would permit pension funds to be looted and have people's pensions and retirements put at risk? Audience members. No-o-o!”