Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
286240553
label
Brady Bill 8/6/98 [2]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
286240553
contentType
document
title
Brady Bill 8/6/98 [2]
citationUrl
collections
Records of the Office of Speechwriting (Clinton Administration)
Jeffrey Shesol's Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
286240553
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
7431956-20060467F-008-005-2014
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
c9b709b953e13568
ocrText
FOIA Number: 2006-0467-F
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the William J. Clinton
Presidential Library Staff.
Collection/Record Group:
Clinton Presidential Records
Subgroup/Office of Origin:
Speechwriting
Series/Staff Member:
Jeff Shesol
Subseries:
OA/ID Number:
19943
FolderID:
Folder Title:
Brady Bill 8/6/98 [2]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
S
91
6
9
3
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
SUBJECT/TITLE
DATE
RESTRICTION
AND TYPE
001. email
Christa Robinson to Jeff Shesol at 10:47am. Subject: Brady
08/04/1998
P5
Announcement. (2 pages)
COLLECTION:
Clinton Presidential Records
Speechwriting
Jeff Shesol
OA/Box Number: 19943
FOLDER TITLE:
Brady Bill 8/6/98 [2]
2006-0467-F
vz1287
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - |44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
b(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
b(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information |(a)(4) of the PRA]
b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy |(a)(6) of the PRA]
b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes |(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
of gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
b(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
2201(3).
concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]
RR. Document will be reviewed upon request.
07/27/98 MUN 18:52 FAX
The Real Story Regarding Current Brady Attacks
They're Trying to Kill the Brady Law
Despite its proven effectiveness, the gun lobby has launched a full scale effort to sabotage
the Brady Law when the FBI takes responsibility for Brady background checks in
November of this year. Two changes have been proposed which, if adopted, would
effectively kill the Brady Law.
Not Permitting The FBI To Charge A Fee Would Help Kill The Brady Law
While they lack the votes to directly repeal the Brady Law, the gun lobby has convinced
some members of Congress to deny the FBI the money it needs to conduct background
checks on gun buyers.
Starting in November, the Brady Law will require the FBI to take over from state and
local law enforcement agencies the processing of around 7 million requests for gun
purchaser background checks annually. This new responsibility will require the FBI to
deploy over 800 people conducting tens of thousands of gun purchaser background
checks each day of the year at an annual cost of around $100 million. Without the funds
to cover these costs, the FBI will be unable to conduct the checks which keep guns out of
the hand of felons, fugitives and other dangerous persons.
School districts, day care centers, charities and other organizations that seek background
checks on prospective teachers, child care workers, school bus drivers and other
employees all pay the FBI a fee to cover the costs of those checks. Background check
fees have been the primary funding source for Brady background checks conducted by
state and local law enforcement officials over the last four years. Now, just four months
before the FBI takes over responsibility for Brady background checks, the gun lobby
wants to change the rules to give gun purchasers a special exemption from background
check fees. A special exemption for background checks fee for gun purchasers would
deny the FBI the money necessary to conduct gun purchaser background checks.
Some have suggested that the Congress could provide the FBI the funds necessary to
cover its costs in this area, but no funds have been identified to meet this need. In
addition, because of the way the Brady law works, if its costs are covered by a direct
appropriation rather than a fee, the FBI will have to handle background checks which
would otherwise have been done by the states, and its personnel and other costs will
increase accordingly. There is по indication that the Congress is really going to cover
the FBI's operating costs with a direct appropriation, so if the fee is killed, Brady
background checks have effectively been killed.
taling away ability
day care providers
07/27/98 MUN 18:52 FAX
Not Permitting The FBI To Keep Certain Records Would Help Kill The Brady Law
The gun lobby also wants to sabotage the effectiveness of the computer system which
will handle Brady background checks by making it impossible to prevent fraudulent
submissions to the system from being caught.
The gun lobby wants to force the FBI to immediately destroy records of those
background checks which come back clean. Such a requirement would substantially
undercut the reliability of the background check process. If the FBI is forced to
immediately destroy records of the name the gun dealer sends in for a check, there will be
no way for the FBI to audit its records to determine if false names are being submitted by
a gun dealer. Furthermore, there will be no way to check whether gun dealers are running
background checks for legitimate or illegitimate reasons.
Forcing the FBI to destroy records necessary to the effective operation of the background
check system (and necessary to preserving the privacy of those in the system) is merely
another thinly veiled attempt to gut the Brady Law.
Christa Robinson
08/05/98 11:21:29 AM
Record Type:
Record
To:
Jeffrey A. Shesol/WHO/EOP
CC:
Subject: Re: Brady acknowledgments
He should acknowledge:
Officer Gerald Flynn and the International Brotherhood of Police Officers
Police Chief Bobby Moody, President of the International Association of Chiefs of Police
Sheriff Pat Sullivan of the National Sheriff's Association
and all the law enforcement officials here today.
The other folks in the audience are handgun control, inc.
Withdrawal/Redaction Marker
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
SUBJECT/TITLE
DATE
RESTRICTION
AND TYPE
001. email
Christa Robinson to Jeff Shesol at 10:47am. Subject: Brady
08/04/1998
P5
Announcement. (2 pages)
COLLECTION:
Clinton Presidential Records
Speechwriting
Jeff Shesol
OA/Box Number: 19943
FOLDER TITLE:
Brady Bill 8/6/98 [2]
2006-0467-F
vz1287
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - |44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
b(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
b(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute ((a)(3) of the PRAJ
an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA)
financial information |(a)(4) of the PRA]
b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors |a)(5) of the PRA]
b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy |(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes |(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
of gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
b(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
2201(3).
concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]
RR. Document will be reviewed upon request.
FAX NO. 14
AUG- 4-98 TUE 12:03 W.
HANDGUN CONTROL
ONE MILLION STRONG working to
FAX COVER SHEET
keep handguns out of the wrong hands.
TO:
Jose Cerda
ORGANIZATION:
White House
FAX NUMBER: (202) 456 - 7028
PHONE.NUMBER:
DATE:
8/04/98
TIME (EST/EDT):
PAGES TO FOLLOW:
9
From Nancy Hwa, Communications
Department, (202) 289-5785
NOTES / COMMENTS:
Bob Walker asked me to Fax you these
fact sheets on Brady how effectiveness
Handgun Control, Inc., 1225 Eye Street, NW, Suite 1100. Washington, DC 20005 . (202) 898-0792 - FAX (202)682-4462
AUG- 4-98 TUE 12:03 WFIK
FAX NO. 14
BRADY LAW IS REDUCING GUN CRIME IN AMERICA
Background
In its original form, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Brady or Brady Law) required
a five-day waiting period and background check before completion of the sale of a handgun.
Although the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 27, 1997 that background checks on handgun
purchasers are no longer mandatory under federal law, almost every state and local government
continues to perform them either voluntarily or because they are required by state law. In fact, a
national survey of law enforcement found that 94.4% of all police departments continue to do the
background checks. The Supreme Court ruling, therefore, is not expected to dramatically impact
the law's effectiveness.
The Brady Law, which took seven years to pass in Congress, was finally signed into law on
November 30, 1993, and went into effect on February 28, 1994. Thirty-two states were affected
by the law when it was first implemented. Since that time, several of these states have passed
laws requiring background checks on handgun purchasers. Twenty-three states currently fall
under the Brady Law.
The Brady Law Is Reducing Gun Trafficking in the United States
Analysis of the latest U.S. Department of Justice Data indicates that the Brady Law is reducing
the number of guns trafficked from states with lax gun laws to those with stricter gun laws.
For example, prior to the Brady Law criminals funneled guns from Ohio (with relatively lax
gun laws) to Michigan (which has much stricter laws). The number of guns bought in Ohio
and used in crimes in Michigan dropped by 66% after implementation of the Brady Law.
Michigan was not alone. The number of guns flowing out of Ohio to states as diverse as
Missiouri, New York and Maryland dropped precipitously-all as a result of the Brady Act. In
addition, fcwer guns flowed from Georgia, Kentucky and Mississippi, other states with lax
gun laws. Morcover, since the Brady Law went into effect, background checks nationwide
have stopped approximately 240,000 fclons and other prohibited persons have been
stopped from buying handguns.
More information on the Brady Law's effect on gun trafficking can be found in Traffic Stop:
How the Brady Act Disrupts Interstate Gun Trafficking, released by the Center to Prevent
Handgun Violence. A complete version is available at http://www.handguncontrol.org/.
Handgun Crime Declines After Implementation of the Brady Law
The percentage of violent crimes committed with firearms declined dramatically after the Brady
Law went into affect, according to an analysis of the FBI Uniform Crime Report. In fact, gun-
related violent crime is decreasing even faster than violent crime overall.
(morc)
Handgun Control Inc., 1225 Eye Street, NW, Suite 1100. Washington, DC 20005-3991 (202) 898-0792
111 Commany any CALIFORNIA UALA W me State UI washington.
Brady Law Spurs Dramatic Drop in Number of Gun Dealers
According to the U.S. Department of Treasury, the number of federally licensed firearms
dealers (FFLs) has fallen by 56% since 1993. Much of the credit for this decline has been
attributed to the Brady Law. One of the lesser-known provisions of the Brady Law increased
the cost of a gun dealer license to $200 for 3 years, and renewal of the license to $90 for 3
years. This fee increase, combined with several provisions of the 1994 crime bill (i.e.
requiring applicants to provide fingerprints and identification photographs for background
checks; to meet with officials from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) in
person to prove licensees have a legitimate business: and to comply with all state and local
2
AUG- 4-98 TUE 12:05
WFIK
FAX NO. 14
P. 03
laws and notify their state or local law enforcement officials of their intent to operate a
business), has greatly reduced the number of illegitimate gun dealers.
A federal firearms license allows the licensee to buy guns wholesalc and through mail order
for resale at a profit. Until the Brady Law and the 1994 crime bill went into effect, however,
these licenses were so inexpensive ($30 for 3 years) and easy to obtain that licensed gun
dealers outnumbered gas stations in the U.S. The ATF simply did not have the resources to
ensure that every FFL was running a legitimate business. As a result, FFLs became a leading
source of illegal gun sales, with some licensees selling out of the trunks of their cars and on
street corners. Thanks to these new laws, however, unscrupulous FFLs are being run out of
business and ATF is working to ensure that only legitimate business owners receive gun dealer
licenscs.
Updated 3-3-98
This document and others related to the Brady Law are available on the World Wide Web at
http://www.handguncontrol.org
3
dealers (FFLS) nas ranen by 50% since 1990. IVIGON
attributed to the Brady Law. One of the lesser-known provisions of the Brady Law increased
the cost of a gun dealer license to $200 for 3 years, and renewal of the license to $90 for 3
2
AUG- 4-98 TUE 12:05 WF
FAX NO. 14
years. This fee increase, combined with several provisions of the 1994 crime bill (i.c.
requiring applicants to provide fingerprints and identification photographs for background
checks; to meet with officials from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) in
person to prove licensees have a legitimate business; and to comply with all state and local
laws and notify their state or local law enforcement officials of their intent to operate a
business), has greatly reduced the number of illegitimate gun dcalers. A federal firearms
license allows the licensce to buy guns wholesale and through mail order for resale at a profit.
Until the Brady Law and the 1994 crime bill went into effect, however, these licenses were so
inexpensive ($30 for 3 years) and easy to obtain that licensed gun dealers outnumbered gas
stations in the U.S. The ATF simply did not have the resources to ensure that every FFL was
running a legitimate business. As a result, FFLs became a leading source of illegal gun sales,
with some licensees selling out of the trunks of their cars and on street corners. Thanks to
these new laws, however, unscrupulous FFLs are being run out of business and ATF is
working to ensure that only legitimate business owners receive gun dealer licenses.
ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN ALREADY HAVING AN IMPACT ON
CRIME
The federal assault weapons ban has been in effect for just two years, but already there is
strong evidence suggesting that the usc of assault weapons in crime is declining. Nationwide,
there were 18% fewer assault weapons traced to crime in the first eight months of 1995 than
were traced during the same period in 1994.
In addition to the national tracing data, the decline in assault weapon usage is also showing up
in the number of weapons being recovered by police. The City of Chicago, seized 127 assault
weapons in the first six months of 1995, a decline from 247 recoveries in the first six months
of 1994. That's a decline of 48.6 percent in the total number of assault weapons recovered and
a decline of 28.6 percent in the number of assault weapons recovered as a percentage of all
gun recoveries. In Maryland, which passed a ban on assault pistols last year, a study by the
Center to Prevent Handgun Violence found that the number of assault pistols recovered by
police in the first six months of 1995 is down by 48% from the first six months of 1994.
In the mid-to-late 1980's, assault weapons became the "weapons of choice" for drug
traffickers, street gangs and paramilitary extremist groups. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco
and Firearms reports that while semi-automatic assault weapons comprise less than one percent
of privately-owned guns in America, they accounted for 8.4 percent of all firearms traced to
crime during 1988-1991.
A 1991 survcy of 835 inmates in four states, by Joseph Shelcy and James D. Wright, found
that 35 percent of the inmates reported owning a "military-style automatic or semi-automatic
rifle," and 53 percent of gang-affiliated inmates reported owning a "military-style" weapon.
3
AUG- 4-98 TUE 12:06 WE
FAX NO. 14
P.05
ONE-HANDGUN-A-MONTH IS REDUCING GUN TRAFFICKING
In the early 1990's, Virginia gained a national reputation as a "source state" for guns used in
crime in northeastern cities. Virginia's lax gun laws and proximity to northeastern cities with
tough gun laws drew many gun traffickers to the state to purchase handguns in large quantities
for sale in places like New York City and Washington, DC. In July of 1993, Virginia made
the gun traffickers' work much more difficult by passing a law limiting handgun purchases to
onc-per-month-per-person.
The law has been enormously effective. An August 1995 Center to Prevent Handgun Violence
study found that after the law's effective date, there was a 66 percent reduction in the
likelihood that a gun purchased after July 1993 and traced back to the Southeast from the
Northeast corridor would have originated in Virginia. Based on this information, researchers
suggest that a national one-gun-a-month law could reduce gun trafficking tremendously all
across the country.
A TALE OF TWO CITIES
In 1988, the risk of being murdered with a handgun was almost five times greater in Seattle
than in nearby Vancouver, British Columbia. That, according to researchers at the
Universities of Washington, British Columbia and Tennessee, who chose to study the two
cities because of their similarities in population, geography, education levels and income.
Their only glaring difference -- Vancouver had strict firearm laws, Seattle's were lax.
In Seattle, gun laws were weak -- there was no waiting period and no background check
requirement passed until 1988. Moreover, a 30-day waiting period was all that was required
for a permit to carry a concealed weapon. In contrast, in Vancouver, the purchase of a
handgun required a restricted-weapons permit, and it was illegal to carry a concealed weapon.
What researchers found was that although the overall rate of assaults in Scattle was only
slightly higher than in Vancouver, assaults involving firearms (about 85 percent of them
handguns) were nearly eight times higher. In addition, Seattle's higher homicide rate was
almost entirely explained by its greater frequency of homicides involving firearms.
The scientists concluded that while more study needs to be done, the results of their work
suggest that a more restrictive approach to handgun control may decrease national
homicide rates."
Updated 7/9/98
Visit our Website at http://www.handguncontrol.org
4
AUG- 4-98 TUE 12:07 W.
FAX NO. 14
90
National "Instant Check" for Handgun Purchases:
No Substitute for Waiting Period and Manual Background
Check
Background
The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Brady or Brady Law), in its original form, required a
five-day waiting period and background check before completion of the sale of a handgun. Although
the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 27, 1997 that background checks on handgun purchasers are no
longer mandatory under federal law, the court left intact the five-day waiting period and the
requirement that a "National Instant Criminal Background Check System" replace the waiting period
in December 1998. At that time, all background checks will utilize a national, computcrized
database to screen handgun buyers.
Until the instant check system is implemented, almost every state and local government will continue
to perform background checks either voluntarily or because they are required by state law. In fact, a
national survcy of law enforcement found that 94.4% of all police departments continuc to do the
background checks, despite the Supreme Court's ruling.
Analysis
Implementation of the "instant check" will eliminate the benefits of the five-day waiting period
The waiting period serves as a valuable "cooling off" period; too many murders and suicides are
completed within hours of a handgun purchase. In addition, many criminal records are not
"instantancously" accessible the five-day waiting period gives law enforcement officials the
time needed to complete an adcquate background check.
The "instant check" system sacrifices accuracy and reliability for the convenience of gun owners.
An "instant check" system guarantees that "law abiding" gun owners can buy a gun within a few
minutes, but it does not guarantee that criminals will be stopped from buying guns.
An "instant check" is not always an "accurate check." A national "instant check" system relies on
information that is accessible by federal computers. When local law enforcement officials conduct
a background check, they generally consult local, state and federal records, using both
computerized and non-computerized data bases.
The "instant check" system is not ready. By necessity, an "instant check" system relies upon
information that is complete and instantly accessible. But many criminal records are not
complete, not computerized, or not currently accessible by a national "instant check system." The
Justice Department recently reported that in 1995 only one-third of the 52 million criminal history
records in this country have dispositions, are computerized, and are accessible for interstate use
by law enforcement.
Handgun Control Inc., 1225 Eye Street, NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005-3991 (202) 898-0792
AUG- 4-98 TUE 12:08 WFIK
FAX NO. 14
P.07
States with criminal history records that are adequately computerized can exempt themselves
from the Brady Law and the required waiting period by establishing an "instant check" system.
Several states, in fact, have already done SO. But some states -- like Maine and West Virginia --
are simply not capable of implementing such a system because their records arc not computerized.
Don't mess with success. The Brady Law is working. According to the U.S. Department of
Justice, since the Brady Law went into effect, background checks nationwide have stopped
approximately 250,000 felons and other prohibited purchasers from buying handguns; including
157 felons per day. Termination of the Brady waiting period (and local background checks) could
lead to a sharp decrease in the number of denials; many criminals would still be buying handguns
at gun stores.
The Brady Law authorized $200 million for the improvement of state criminal records. Congress
appropriated $125 million in FY 1995 and 1996. Of that amount, $112 million-already has been
awarded in direct grants to state and local governments.
8-4-97
Republicans Supported Brady Bill Passage
"I am going to say it in clear, unmistakable language: I support the Brady bill and I urge the
Congress to enact it without further delay. With the right to bear arms comes a great responsibility to use
caution and common sense on handgun purchases."
--Former President Ronald Reagan
Associated Press, 3/28/91
56 House Republicans Voted For Passage Of Brady Bill.
56 House Republicans voted for passage of the Brady Bill conference report on November 23, 1993. [CQ
Almanac, 1993, (House Vote #614)]
Republican Rep. Henry Hyde Said He Sees "A Lot Right" With Brady Bill Approach.
House Judiciary Chairman Henry Hyde (R-IL) on the Brady Bill in 1993: "I see nothing wrong
and a lot right with the Brady Bill approach." [Chicago Tribune, 6/8/93]
Republican Rep. Sherwood Boehlert Said Support For Brady Bill Is Based On A
"Common Sense Belief." Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) on the Brady Bill: "My support 'for
the Brady bill is not based on emotion or pressure but on my common sense belief that it will help
somewhat to keep handguns from criminals and mentally unstable people who want the guns for
criminal acts." [Gannett News Service, 5/7/91]
Republican Rep. James Sensenbrenner Called Brady Bill An "Important Step."
According to Representative James Sensenbrenner (R-WI); the Brady Bill "is an important step in
keeping guns out of the hands of those who cannot legally own them." [Reuters North American
Wire, 11/4/93]
16 Republican Senators Voted For Brady Bill.
16 Republican Senators voted for passage of the Brady Bill on November 20, 1993. The conference
report was passed by voice vote on November 24. [CQ Almanac, 1993, (House Vote #394)]
Republican Sen. Strom Thurmond Called Waiting Requirement In Brady Bill
"Reasonable." Senate President Pro-Tempore Strom Thurmond (R-SC) on the Brady Bill: "I've
been contacted by many law enforcement officials who have voiced strong support for this
legislation It is my belief that it will be reasonable to have a five-day waiting requirement for the
short interim period that is needed to establish a national instant check system." [States News
Service, 11/22/93]
Republican Sen. Chafee Said He Has "Never Felt" Opposing Brady Bill Is Beneficial To
Republicans. Senator John Chafee (R-RI) on Republican opposition to the Brady Bill: "I have
never felt that this was an issue that was beneficial to Republicans. I don't like headlines that say
'Republicans kill Brady Bill. [Washington Times, 11/23/93]
Republican Sen. Jeffords Said He "Can Do No Less" For Law Enforcement Than Give
Brady Bill His Vote. Senator James Jeffords (R-CT) on the Brady Bill: "Law enforcement
organizations throughout Vermont and across the nation have given their support to the Brady
bill, and I can do no less for them than to give this measure my vote." [Gannett News Service,
11/23/93]
WHCR 8/5/98
02/02/05
July 15, 1998
Contact: Jim Kessler
202-225-6616
Rep. Schumer, Sen. Durbin, Jim and Sarah Brady
Launch Bid to Save Brady Law
Historic Gun Law Waiting Period to Expire November 30
Battle Brewing in Congress Over Brady Bill Extension
New York - Rep. Charles Schumer (D-NY), the author of the Brady Law and
Assault Weapons Ban, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), and gun control advocates Jim and Sarah
Brady today launched new legislation to extend the Brady Law waiting period beyond the
November 30th expiration.
"The nation's most popular and effective law is on life support," said Schumer who
wrote the historic gun control law and passed it in 1994. "With the NRA ardently opposed
to extending Brady we will see if Congress is guided by common interests or special
interests."
Standing in front of a poster which read "242,000 stopped by the Brady Bill,"
Schumer estimated that "at least 31,000 of those stopped by current law would have gotten
guns under the weaker system that's replacing Brady."
When the Brady Bill became law in 1994 it contained two separate provisions. It
required local police to conduct a mandatory background check to deny handguns to felons
and others who are barred from owning a gun. It also included a five day cooling off
period to cut down on violent crimes of passion and to ensure that the background check
was thorough. On November 30th, the five day cooling off period will expire in favor of
an "insta-check" computer system that bypasses local police and instead relies on a national
database.
Need
"The concept is flawed," said Schumer. "There are certain crimes that will never
Vacting local
show up on a national felony database but which local police know about and would use to
deny a violent individual a handgun."
In particular, Schumer noted that crimes of domestic violence, drunk and disorderly
conduct, and non-violent drug offenses are often handled locally and rarely receive felony
convictions. Since 1994, 27,000 individuals convicted for domestic violence misdemeanors
were stopped by Brady from acquiring a handgun. 4,000 people addicted to drugs were
also stopped.
"They were stopped because local police saw the application for a gun and concluded
that the buyer was dangerous and might use it to kill his wife. Under insta-check, domestic
violence offenders and drug users will fall through the cracks. That's a huge gap to fill.
This is going to cost innocent lives."
Schumer predicted a fierce battle in Congress. "This bill will go down to the wire.
When people learn that the Brady Law is under attack they will rally to its defense, but the
NRA and its numerous allies in Congress will do everything to stop Brady," said Schumer.
Under the new Save the Brady Law Act all handgun purchases will have a minimum
three-day waiting period that will include insta-check but also a criminal background check
by local police.
DUMESTIC POLICY
K/J 003/005
"Three days isn't too long to wait to get a handgun, especially if it will save lives.
Insta-check is an untested system," said Schumer.
###
Brady Bill Sound Bites
Rep. Charles Schumer
One of the nation's most popular and effective law
is on life support.
Ask Americans in any state, in any city, in any
county, in any farm community -- do you think we
should roll back Brady? Do you think we should
have less gun control? And all across America
you'll hear a resounding no. Even gun owners
support Brady.
(Hold up letter from International Brotherhood of
Police) What do police think? "The International
Brotherhood of Police strongly endorses a
minimum three-day waiting period. Our members
have arrived at too many tragic scenes where on
an impulse a gun is purchased and tragedy
occurs."
No one wants to see Brady gutted except a shrill
but powerful gun lobby who want to put a stake
through Brady.
The point of a sunset is to see if a bill works
before you make it permanent. The one thing we
know for sure is that the Brady Bill works.
Whether the adage is "first do no harm" or "if it
ain't broke don't fix it" -- the message is clear:
Let Brady stay Brady.
Instacheck is a flawed concept. There are crimes
like domestic abuse that will never show up on a
national felony database.
In four years, Brady stopped 30,000 batterers and
drug addicts from buying a gun. They would have
fallen through the insta-check cracks. That's a
huge gap to fill. That's a gap which will cost
innocent lives.
With the NRA ardently opposed to extending
Brady we will see if Congress is guided by
common interests or special interests.
The question for Congress is do we want to save
innocent lives or political lives?
I think there are politicians in Washington
squirming in their seats. When we passed Brady
in 1994 the smart money was on the NRA.
Taking on the NRA was a risk -- no one knows
that better than me.
In New York, Senator D'Amato voted to filibuster
Brady two times. At the time that was the easy
vote because the NRA called the shot.
Today the NRA is an embarrassment. The NRA
repulses the average voter. I think you might see
some long time friends of the NRA drop the gun
lobby like a hot potato. Because for some, there
was no real conviction behind their opposition to
gun control. Just a naked political calculation.
CHARLES E. SCHUMER
COMMITTEES:
NEW YORK
JUDICIARY
2211 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
BANKING AND
WASHINGTON, DC 20515
(202) 225-6616
Congress of the United States
FINANCIAL SERVICES
DISTRICT OFFICES:
WHIP-AT-LARGE
1628 KINGS HIGHWAY
BROOKLYN, NY 11229
house of Representations
(718) 627-9700
118-21 QUEENS BLVD.
Washington, DC 20515
FOREST HILLS, NY 11375
(718) 208-8200
90-16 ROCKAWAY BEACH BLVD.
ROCKAWAY, NY 11693
(718) 945-9200
FAX FROM U.S. REP. CHARLES E. SCHUMER'S
WASHINGTON, D.C., OFFICE
DATE:
TO:
Jose
FROM:
Jim Kenle
FAX NUMBER:
456-7028
NUMBER OF PAGES (including this page):
5
Please call 202-225-6616
if fax is incomplete
Comments:
Here is our press release
and some talking points. Chuck
usually speaks off the wff on
puns.
1
J.K.
/usr/carisa/faxsheet
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
SUNTUM M @ A1
04/06/98 11:48:00 AM
Record Type:
Record
To:
See the distribution list at the bottom of this message
CC:
Subject: 1998-04-06 President's Remarks on Assault Weapons Ban
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
1
For Immediate Release
April 6, 1998
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
ON THE ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN
The Rose Garden
10:55 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, Secretary Rubin.
Thank you for your efforts. Madam Attorney General, thank you. Mr.
Vice President, thank you. And to the members of the law enforcement
community and Secretary Kelly, Mr. McGaw, Attorney General Miller,
Congressman Engel, to representatives of hand gun control and the
victims of violent crime, and to all of you who have come here today,
I thank you very much.
As the Vice President and the Attorney General and the
Secretary of Treasury have said, five years ago we made a commitment
as an administration to recover our nation's streets from crime and
violence, to provide security for our families and our children. It
required a new determination by communities and by government. It
took a new philosophy of law enforcement, based not on tough talk,
which was always in ample supply, but on tough action and smart
action, a philosophy based simply on what works community
policing, strong anti-gang efforts, targeted deterrence, smarter,
tougher penalties; a comprehensive strategy that includes all these
elements and puts community policing at its core.
We're well on our way to putting 100,000 new police
officers on the street, ahead of schedule. And as the Vice President
just told us, crime rates are dropping all across America to a
25-year low. Violent crime is down. Property crime is down. And
murder is down dramatically. From the Crime Bill to the Brady Bill,
from the assault weapons ban to the Violence Against Women Act, our
strategy is showing results. And Americans should take both pride
and comfort in this progress.
But statistics tell only part of the story. The real
measure of our progress is whether responsibility and respect for the
law are on the rise. The real test of our resolve is whether parents
can unlock their front doors with confidence and let their children
play in the front yard without fear. And the fact remains that there
are still far too many children in harm's way, too many families
behind locked doors, too many guns in the hands of too many
criminals.
No statistics can measure the pain or the brave
resilience of the families shattered by gun violence. Some of them
are here with us today, and I would like to acknowledge them --
people like Dan Gross, Tawanna Matthews, Brian Miller, Byrl
Phillips-Taylor. Byrl's 17-year-old son was killed with an AK 47.
Tragedies like theirs are a brutal reminder of the task still before
us. They are a challenge and a call to action that we as a nation
cannot ignore, and 1 thank these people for being willing to continue
the fight through their pain. Thank you very much, all of you.
(Applause.)
If we are going to move forward in building a safer,
stronger America, all of us -- police and parents, communities and
public officials -- must work together. We must remain vigilant
Last November, I asked the Treasury Department to
conduct the thorough review Secretary Rubin has just presented. That
is why our administration has concluded that the import of assault
weapons that use large-capacity military magazines should be banned.
As everyone knows, you don't need an Uzi to go deer hunting. You
don't need an AK 47 to go skeet shooting. These are military
weapons, weapons of war. They were never meant for a day in the
country, and they are certainly not meant for a night on the streets.
Today we are working to make sure they stay off our streets.
Two successive administrations have acted on this
principle. In 1989, President Bush banned the import of 43
semi-automatic assault rifles. In 1994, this administration banned
the domestic manufacture of certain assault weapons. And in
Congress, Senator Dianne Feinstein and the late Congressman Walter
Capps led the fight against foreign gun manufacturers who evade the
law. As long as those manufacturers can make minor cosmetic
modifications to weapons of war, our work is not done: And we must
act swiftly and strongly.
That is what Secretary Rubin's announcement amounts to
today. We are doing our best to say, you can read the fine print in
our law and our regulations all you want, and you can keep making
your minor changes, but we're going to do our best to keep our people
alive and stop you from making a dollar in the wrong way.
(Applause.)
It is our sworn duty to uphold the law, but it, is also
our moral obligation -- our obligation to the children and families
of law-abiding citizens, an obligation to stop the terrible scourge
of gun violence. As parents, we teach our children every day to
distinguish right from wrong. As a nation, we must also remember
where to draw the line.
Today, we draw it clearly and indelibly. If we do this,
if we follow the recommendations set forth in this report, we chart
the right course for America, toward a future more free of fear and a
new century brimming with confidence and great promise.
Again, to all of you who played any role in this
important day, I thank you on behalf of the people and the children
and the future of the United States. Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
END
11:03 A.M. EDT
Message Sent To:
Brady Bill
No menti on
event - THE WHITE HOUSE
Truss.
WASHINGTON
of Sclumer
- we are not
taling sider in
that primary
D Next week - new reg to implement BB
2) smith Amendment
caopy user-fee for insta -check
guts insta check
cool comes from FBI other budget
3) support extending BB 5 yrs.
THE WHITE HOUSE
500-600
WASHINGTON
words
tesponsibility- -
Brady big success
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
ANew reg. - all firearms; NICE
2) extend 5.day rule permanently
3) blast Smith amend.
vero Threat?
Success -part of overall comp.
Notime to payr retreat
55-day waiting - worked climes well
Junebiles - no point in
retreat
dati Bro'hood back
of price officers Brady
luti ALSOC of
Cliefer of police
today are supporting
this extension.
Tranknew from exp larrbert-
205-
THE WHITE HOUSE
7848
WASHINGTON
Bradip working need to cont.
Amend in Sen need may pass -guts Brady
Rept shows
242,000 ineligible buyers stopped
and be in poin of strengthening it,
not undermining before it's even
fully implemented
http://www.pub.whitehouse.gov/uri-./oma.eop.gov.us/1993/12/1/7.text.l
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
November 30, 1993
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT,
THE VICE PRESIDENT,
ATTORNEY GENERAL JANET RENO
SARAH BRADY,
MELANIE MUSICK,
AND
JIM BRADY
DURING SIGNING CEREMONY OF
THE BRADY BILL
The East Room
1:00 P.M. EST
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for
joining us on this happy occasion. Our apologies for the slight
delay in the program. Seven Central American presidents were here,
and the room had to be rearranged.
In addition to acknowledging the President and the First
Lady and my wife Tipper, I want to acknowledge the members of
Congress who are present -- Senator George Mitchell, the Majority
Leader; Senator Joe Biden, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee;
Senator Howard Metzenbaum, the longtime sponsor of the bill in the
Senate right here. (Applause.) From the House of Representatives,
the longtime sponsor of the bill in the House, Representative Charles
Schumer. (Applause.) Representative Don Edwards, the Chairman of
the Judiciary Committee; Representative James Sensenbrenner,
Representative Rom Mazzoli, Representative Bill Hughes,
Representative John Conyers, Representative Craig Washington,
Representative David Mann, Representative Pat Schroeder,
Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton, former Congressman Beryl
Anthony. and from the administration -- I will introduce Attorney
General Janet Reno in a moment -- Secretary Lloyd Bentsen, and
Director Lee Brown. and enforcement officials who are present, if I
may. Ron Noble, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement in the Treasury
Department; Guy Caputo, Director of the Secret Service; John Magaw,
Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms; and George
Weise, Director of Customs.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is a great moment, an
incident which started as a tragedy for Jim Brady, galvanized
Americans so we could accomplish something new in American history.
It has been a long, hard battle. So many here have been an important
part of this struggle.
It is my honor to introduce someone who helped to fight
this battle as a local law enforcement official, working with the
Bradys before she joined the administration and someone who has
worked as a vigorous advocate for law enforcement in this
administration. Attorney General Janet Reno. (Applause.)
ATTORNEY GENERAL RENO: Thank you, Mr. Vice President.
Since that grim day in 1981, the Bradys have been an inspiration to
all Americans. Since that day, the tremendous physical courage of
Jim Brady has been an example for us all. Never to give up.
1 of 7
8/3/98 5:35 PM
http://www.pub.whitehouse.gov/uri-../oma.eop.gov.us/1993/12/1/7.text.l
Together, Jim and Sarah have raised a wonderful son,
Scott, who will celebrate his 15th birthday in December. Together,
they have fought back and they have never given up. But not just
content with that, since 1987, they have tried to bring reason to
guns in America in a way that should be an example for us now and for
the future. There were bleak days. There were days when Sarah had
to go it alone -- when she would appear on courthouse steps by
herself with no entourage fighting for the Brady Bill. And together
they never gave up.
They're an example for all Americans that we can make a
difference -- that one person, that one family can make a difference
in violence in America. And this day is a culmination of just
remarkable example of American heroism. But the most important thing
on the day the Brady Bill passed, Sarah was asked, "What are you
going to do now?" And Sarah said, "I'm going to keep fighting, and
we're going to get the ban on assault weapons passed.' And then Jim
chimed in -- (applause).
Jim and Sarah and Scott are an example to all Americans
that we can end the violence that is tearing us apart; that as a
family, that as individuals, each of us can and will make a
difference.
Sarah Brady. (Applause.)
MRS. BRADY: Thank you, General Reno. She didn't tell
you that on that courthouse step alone, fighting for the Brady Bill,
there was one other woman -- the Attorney General herself. And right
along the way this year since we've been fortunate enough to have her
in Washington, she's been right along with us.
It's a special day for us all. I don't think it every
occurred to me that I would be this emotional. And I walked in and
looked at the faces here and the memories that come back over these
past seven years -- every face I look at brings back a different
memory.
And I want to thank a lot of people here, and I'm going
to try to do it as quickly as possible. Everybody here has helped.
And each of you in your own way reflects many others across the
country. First of all, I want to say to have an administration, an
Attorney General, a Vice President, and a President who we knew would
sign this bill is of the utmost importance.
I'd like to draw attention also to another President,
who we feel very close to, President Ronald Reagan, who supported it
and came out for the Brady Bill, and who made it a badge of honor for
Republicans -- (applause) -- and brought this bill into the arena
where it was not a partisan issue.
I would like to thank the men and women in blue who have
by the hundreds of thousands come to Washington to fight for this
over the years, marched for us, been in press conferences, and more
than anything else who day in and day out give their lives for all of
us. (Applause.)
To our bill sponsors, Senator Metzenbaum, Congressman
Schumer, Congressman Sensenbrenner, and our very first Ed Feighan,
and all the rest of the members of Congress who had the guts to speak
out early and support us all along the way when sometimes it wasn't
easy. And I know one of the earliest ones was a Senator from Texas -
- and in Texas that wasn't so easy in those days; and he now, of
course, sits on the President's Cabinet. So for all the Congress who
2: of 7
8/3/98 5:35 PM
http://www.pub.whitehouse.gov/uri-./oma.eop.gov.us/1993/12/1/7.text.l
have supported us, my thanks.
Our friends, Handgun Control, board and staff, are
phenomenal. Over the years, they've worked their heart out. And I
want to talk a little bit about the victims around the country who
have suffered and suffered terribly, and who've gotten involved in
this movement. And I know today for them is a very special day, and
we thank them for what they've done.
For everyone who's gotten involved, I can't -- I don't
know how to say that this is all part of everything a team, a large
team, did together.
There's one man in particular now I want to talk about,
and that is a gentleman by the name of Pete Shields, who was my
predecessor. And it was Pete Shields who made this movement what it
is. Before anyone else got involved or thought, he, after losing his
son to gunfire, quit his job, came to Washington and decided to work
for this noble cause. Pete Shields was Chairman of Handgun Control
when I joined; and he was until the year before his death, until he
passed away last winter. And we owe a great debt of -- a great debt
of gratitude to Pete and to Pete's family -- (applause).
And I only have one or two other words I want to say.
Our critics have said that the Brady Bill was only symbolic. Well, I
think there is some symbolism in the Brady Bill -- it's symbolic of
teamwork, of people from all over this nation working together to
pass something that the people wanted. I think it's symbolic that
members of Congress could stand up to a large lobby. I think it's
symbolic of a lot of things. But I don't want anyone to feel that
that's all it is. The Brady Bill is not just symbolism. It will
begin to make a difference. It will begin to save lives. We read in
The Post this morning that in four states alone, over 50,000 people
were stopped in the last four years from getting weapons illegally --
or over the counter. It will help.
And to tell you a little bit on a personal level of how
it would have helped her, I want to introduce a very special young
woman. Her name is Melanie Musick. I met her several years ago when
she came, like so many of the victims have come to Washington to help
us, she came to tell her story and to plead. And her story is one of
many in the past, and one of many in the future who we hope will be
saved by the Brady Bill.
And now I'd like to introduce to you a very special
young woman, Melanie Musick. (Applause.)
MS. MUSICK: I would like to start by thanking Jim and
Sarah Brady for the many years that they have taken out of their
lives for such a worthy cause. And they have done it because it is
something that they believe so strongly in and that they know will
save lives.
I'd also like to thank President Clinton for his
leadership role and taking a stand and urging the Congress, "if
you'll send it to me, I'll sign it." And I thank him for his
leadership in that.
I'm an ordinary citizen. I'm not an activist and I'm
not in the political arena. But I decided I had to get involved
because of something that happened in my life. On April 24th, 1990,
two police officers came to where I was working and informed me that
my husband had been shot and killed while eating lunch in a food
court in a mall in Atlanta. The man who killed my husband had just
been released from a mental institution the day before. A waiting
3 of 7
8/3/98 5:35 PM
http://www.pub.whitehouse.gov/uri-../oma.eop.gov.us/1993/12/1/7.text.l
period deterred him from buying a gun in the city of Atlanta.
However, he went to a neighboring county and bought the gun that
killed by husband. The Brady Bill could have saved my husband's life
if there had just been a waiting period and a background check.
I think the waiting period is important for two reasons.
It allows people to cool off from anger and from whatever is
disturbing them at the time and it also allows for information to get
into the system so when they do a background check, it is accurate.
The release papers on the man who killed my husband was not even
written up until after the shooting -- a day-and-a-half later after
he was released. That's why I feel a waiting period is still so
important in part of the Brady Bill.
I can't bring my husband back, but I do know that the
Brady Bill is going to save other people's lives -- the lives of
people that I love and care for, my friends, my family. It could
save their lives. I know from my own experience that the Brady Bill
will help stop people from losing members of their families to
senseless violence. It will work.
But the fight isn't over. There's people in Congress
who want to weaken the Brady Bill, to have the -- provision lowered
from five to three years regardless if there's an instant background
check or not. We need to stay involved. We need to stay active. We
need to keep the pressure on our members of Congress and let them
know how important an issue that this is.
The Brady bill is not the solution to the problem. But
it is the first step in a multiple problem-oriented society that we
have. We need rational, practical legislation to reduce the violence
in our country.
This is an important day for me and for all Americans.
Not only because the President is signing the Brady Bill, but because
it shows that the system work. It shows that average people can make
a difference.
Thank you. (Applause.)
MRS. BRADY: Thank you, Melanie. And now, someone who's
been my inspiration for 12 years -- well, a lot longer, really.
(Laughter.) Jim Brady.
MR. BRADY: This is a very important day for me and for
Sarah and for all of those that worked so hard to see the Brady bill
become law. But it is even a more important day for America and for
America's children.
Twelve years ago, my life was changed forever by a
disturbed young man with a gun. Until that time, I hadn't thoughT
much about gun control or the need for gun control. Maybe if I had,
I wouldn't be stuck with these damn wheels. (Laughter.)
But Sarah led the charge and I followed in her footsteps
because I know firsthand the damage that guns can do. It is that
knowledge that I have tried to share with lawmakers, with voters and
with children. Too many young people believe that a gun is the
answer to their problems. I can tell them it is not. I can tell
them about the pain and the frustration. I hope that they will
listen.
Today, we know that someone was listening. After nearly
seven years, the Brady Bill is about to become the Brady Law.
Thank you, President Clinton, for your commitment to
4 of 7
8/3/98 5:35 PM
http://www.pub.whitehouse.gov/uri-../oma.eop.gov.us/1993/12/1/7.text.l
seeing this day realized. What we are witnessing today is more than
a bill-signing, it is the end of unchecked madness and the
commencement of a heartfelt crusade for a safer and saner country.
(Applause.)
MRS. BRADY: You know, I think I've heard these words
said before, but I never thought I, in my entire life, would have the
opportunity to say them. But I have the distinct honor to introduce
the President of the United States. (Applause.)
And I just want to say again to him, thank you for
making this possible. (Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, Sarah and Jim, and
General Reno, Mr. Vice President, Mrs. Musick, thank you for your
wonderful remarks.
There were two members of Congress who inadvertently
were not introduced. I want to recognize them because they' played
a major role in this. One of our Democratic leaders in the House,
Steny Hoyer, and Senator Herb Kohl from Wisconsin, who also sponsored
the bill to make it illegal for minors to possess handguns, and I
thank you for that, sir.
Senator Metzenbaum, Congressman Schumer, Senator
Mitchell and others who gave birth to this great effort. To all the
law enforcement representatives, the governors, the mayors, the folks
from Handgun Control who are here. To the families whose lives would
have been changed for the better if the Brady Bill had been law.
Mrs. Musick, and my friend, Cathy Gould and her children, Lindsey and
Christopher who lost a husband and father who would be here today if
the Brady Bill had been law. I am honored to have all of you here in
the White House.
I also want to say a special word of thanks to the
members of Congress who were out there early on this, when there was
some considerable political risk either attached to it, or thought to
be attached. The Brady Bill was first introduced almost seven years
ago by Congressman Ed Feighan of Ohio on February the 4th, 1987.
I can't resist saying a special word of thanks to the
members who come from difficult districts who voted for this bill.
My good friend, and Congressman Beryl Anthony from Arkansas lost a
tough race in 1992, and part of the reason was that he voted for the
Brady Bill. And the NRA came after him in an unusual election. He
said to me on the way in here, he said if it cost my seat, it was
worth it. (Applause.)
Everything that has been -- that should be said about
this has already been said by people whose lives are more profoundly
imbued with this issue than mine. But there are some things I think
we need to think about that we learned from this endeavor as we look
ahead to what still needs to be done.
Since Jim and Sarah began this crusade, more than
150,000 Americans men, women, teenagers, children, even infants
have been killed with handguns. And many more have been wounded.
One hundred and fifty thousand people from all walks of life who
should have been here to share Christmas with us. This couple saw
through a fight that really never should have had to occur; because
still, when people are confronted with issues of clear common sense
and overwhelming evidence, too often we are prevented from doing what
we know we ought to do by our collective fears, whatever they may be.
The Brady Bill has finally become law, in a fundamental
5 of 7
8/3/98 5:35 PM
http://www.pub.whitehouse.gov/uri-../oma.eop.gov.us/1993/12/1/7.text.1
sense not because of any of us, but because grass roots America
changed its mind and demanded that this Congress not leave here
without doing something about this. And all the rest of us, even Jim
and Sarah, did was to somehow light that spark that swept across the
people of this country and proved once again that democracy can work.
America won this battle. Americans are finally fed up with violence
that cuts down another citizen with gunfire every 20 minutes.
And we know that this bill will make a difference. As
Sarah said, The Washington Post pointed out that about 50,000 people
have been denied the right to buy a handgun in just four states since
1989. Don't let anybody tell you that this won't work. I got a
friend back home who sold a gun years ago to a guy who had escaped
from a mental hospital that he hadn't seen in 10 years. And he
pulled out that old form from the 1968 act, and said, have you ever
been convicted of a crime? Have you ever been in a mental hospital?
The guy said, no, no -- and put the form back in the drawer. And 12
hours later six people were dead and my friend is not over it to this
day. Don't tell me this bill will not make a difference. That is
not true. (Applause.) It is not true.
But we all know there is more to be done. The crime
bill not only has 100,000 new police officers who, properly trained
overall
and deployed, will lower the crime rate by preventing crime, not just
crime
by catching criminals. It also has a ban on several assault weapons,
long overdue -- (applause); a ban on handgun ownership and
Hg.
restrictions on possession of handguns by minors; the beginning of
reform of our federal firearms licensing systems; and an effort to
make our schools safer. This is a good beginning. And there will be
more to be done after that.
But I ask you to think about what this means and what we
can all do to keep this going. We cannot stop here. I'm so proud of
what others are doing; I'm proud of the work that Reverend Jesse
Jackson has been doing, going back now to the streets and talking to
the kids and telling them to stop shooting each other and cutting
each up, and to turn away from violence. I'm proud of people like
David Plaza, not so well-known, a former gang member who has turned
his life around and now coordinates a program called Gang Alternative
Programs in Norwalk, California, telling gang members they have to
take personal responsibility for their actions and turn away from
violence. Reverend William Moore, who organized parents and
educators and other clergy in North Philadelphia to provide safety
corridors for kids going to and from school. One hundred and sixty
thousand children stay home every day because they're scared to go to
school in this country. And all the police officers on the street
who have restored confidence in their neighborhoods, becoming
involved in ways that often are way beyond the call of duty; people
like Officer Anthony Fuedo of Boston, who took a tough section of
East Boston and transformed it from a neighborhood full of fear to
one which elderly people now feel safe sitting on benches again.
We can do this, but only if we do it together. And I
ask you to think about this: I come from a state where half the
folks have hunting and fishing licenses. I can still remember the
first day when I was a little boy out in the country putting a can on
top of a fencepost and shooting a .22 at it. I can still remember
the first time I pulled a trigger on a .410 shotgun because I was too
little to hold a 12 gauge. I can remember these things.
This is part of the culture of a big part of America.
But people have taken that culture. We just started deer season -- I
live in a place where we still close schools and plants on the first
day of deer season -- nobody is going to show up anyway. (Laughter.)
We just started deer season at home and a lot of other places. We
6 ( of 7
8/3/98 5:35 PM
http://www.pub.whitehouse.gov/uri-../oma.eop.gov.us/1993/12/1/7.text.l
have taken this important part of the life of millions of Americans
and turned it into an instrument of maintaining madness. It is
crazy.
Would I let anybody change that life in America? Not on
your life. Has that got anything to do with the Brady Bill or
assault weapons, or whether the police have to go out on the street
confronting teenagers who are better armed than they are? Of course,
not.
This is the beginning of something truly wonderful in
this country if we have learned to separate out all this stuff we've
been hearing all these years; trying to make the American people
afraid that somehow their quality of life is going to be undermined
by doing stuff that people of common sense and goodwill would clearly
want to do. And every law enforcement official in American telling
us to do it.
So, I plead with all of you today, when you leave here
to be reinvigorated by this; to be exhilarated by the triumph of Jim
and Sarah Brady and all these other folks who didn't let their
personal losses defeat them but instead used it to come out here and
push us to do better.
And each of you in turn, take your opportunity not to
let people ever again in this country use a legitimate part of our
American heritage in ways that blinds us to our obligation to the
present and the future. If we have broken that, then there is
nothing we cannot do. And when I go and sign this bill in a minute,
it will be step one in taking our streets back, taking our children
back, reclaiming our families and our future. Thank you.
(Applause.)
(The bill is signed.) (Applause.)
END1: 32 P.M. EST
7 of 7
8/3/98 5:35 PM
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(Snowmass, Colorado)
For Immediate Release
July 26, 1998
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
AT RECEPTION FOR
DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CAMPAIGN SUPPORTERS
Private Residence
Aspen, Colorado
10:58 P.M. MDT
THE PRESIDENT: That was better than I can do, Michael. Thank you very much.
Thank you and thank you, Ana, for welcoming all of us into your home. And I want to thank my
long longtime friend, Roy Romer, for being willing to keep his day job and take on another job
as well for our party.
Since you mentioned the Brady Bill, I think what I'd like to do is maybe just talk just for
a few minutes and then, probably to the chagrin of all the people who came here with me, take a
few minutes, if any of you have any questions or comments or you want to give a speech to me,
I'll listen to that. But you think about it, if you've got any questions you want to ask.
But you heard the example Michael gave you of the Brady Bill, and if you ask me about
what I have tried to do through and with our Democratic Party and as President that makes it
worthy of the support of thoughtful Americans, many of whom might have been Republicans
before, I would say two things.
First of all, I've tried to move our party and to move our country and, hardest of all, to
move Washington, D.C. away from sort of yesterday's categorical, partisan name-calling toward
a genuine debate over new ideas, because we are living in a new and different time that,
coincidentally, is at the turn of the century and the turn of the millennium, but is indisputably
different. It is different because the way we work and live and relate to each other and the rest of
the world is different; it is different because the nature of the challenges we face, among other
things, in relating to the natural environment are profoundly different than any previous
generation. So that's the first thing; it is different.
The second thing I would say is that I have tried to redefine what it means for Americans
to be engaged in what our Founding Fathers said would be our permanent mission, forming a
1
more perfect union. And the Brady Bill is about as good an example as any I can think of for
what the difference is today in Washington at least not so much out in the country maybe, but
certainly in Washington between the two parties.
If you go back to the beginning of the Republic, the people who got us started were very
smart people, they understood that they weren't perfect. Thomas Jefferson said when he thought
of slavery, he trembled to think that God was just and might judge him justly. So they knew they
weren't perfect even then. And then they knew there would be new and unchartered challenges
in the future. But they essentially if you go back and read the Declaration of Independence and
the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, it all comes down to the fact that they believe that God
gave everybody the inherent right to life, liberty, and the pursuit not the guarantee, but the
pursuit of happiness, and that in those shared rights, we were created equal not with equal
abilities, not with equal pace, not all the same, but equal in a fundamental human sense.
And then the second thing that distinguishes the Democrats from the Republicans even
today, I think even more today than in the last 50 years, the Founding Fathers said, look, we
can't pursue these objectives completely by ourselves, we can't protect or enhance the right to
life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness unless we band together and form a government. But
governments ought to be limited, they ought to be limited in scope, limited in power, limited in
reach, but they should do those things that we cannot do alone. And sometimes, in order to
advance our collective life, liberty, and happiness, individually we have to make a few sacrifices.
That's really what the Brady Bill is all about.
You know, in a country with 200 million guns, where last year, with our zero tolerance
for guns, we sent home - 6,100 kids got sent home from school because they brought guns to
school, and you've seen in the series of murders in the schools the consequences of failure when
that policy either doesn't work or isn't enough, the Brady Bill, by requiring a background check
and making people wait five days between the time they order and get a handgun has kept a
quarter of a million people with criminal records, stalking records, or records of mental health
instability from getting handguns. That's one of the reasons that crime is at a 25-year low and
murder has dropped even more.
Now, did it inconvenience some people to wait five days? Doubtless so. Maybe some
people that were mad at other people would cool down after they waited five days. Is it an
unconstitutional abridgement of the right to keep and bear arms? Not on your life.
In 1996, one of the most moving encounters I had in the campaign was when I went back
to New Hampshire - the state that basically allowed me to go on when the first, we now know,
Republican-inspired assault was waged against me in 1991 and '92 in New Hampshire. And they
gave me a good vote and I got to go on, so I went back there. Then they voted for me in 1992 for
President. And in 1996, they voted for me again, which is unheard of because it's an
overwhelmingly Republican state in elections.
2
But I went into an area of people who are big sportsmen, and they had defeated a
congressman who supported our crime bill with the ban on assault weapons and the Brady Bill.
And I had all these hunters there, and I'd been going to see them a long time. And I said, I'll tell
you what, remember back in '94 when you beat that congressman because the NRA told you that
the President was trying to take your guns away with the assault weapons ban, and the NRA? I
said, well, you beat him last time; I said, now, every one of you who lost your hunting rifle I
expect you to vote against me this time.
But I said, if you didn't, they lied to you and you ought to get even. And you could have
heard a pin drop there, because they realized all of a sudden that this sort of radical
individualism, meaning you have no responsibilities to collective citizenship, was wrong. And
they could perfectly well pursue their heritage that's deeply a part of New Hampshire where
people could hunt and fish and do whatever they want, and still have sufficient restraints to try to
keep our children alive. And that's just one example. And I could give you countless others.
But as you look ahead in a world where we have done our best to promote global
markets, to promote efficient enterprise, we still have to recognize that there are some obligations
we have to each other we have to fulfill together. And'as you look ahead, let me just mention
two or three -- and I won't mention them all, but two or three.
One is, as presently structured, both the Social Security system and the Medicare system
are unsustainable once all the baby boomers retire. And I look at all these young people who are
working here, and young enough, most of them, to be for most of us, to be our children. Not
very long ago I went home to Arkansas because we had a terrible tornado and after I toured the
damaged area, I got a bunch of people I went to high school with to come out and have dinner
with me we ate barbecue from a place we've been eating at 40 years -- and sat around and
talked.
Now, most of my high school classmates had never been to Aspen. Most of my high
school classmates are just middle class people, with modest incomes, doing the best they can to
raise their kids. But everyone of them said to me, you've got to do something to modify the
Social Security system, make it as strong for us as you can, do the best you can, but we are
obsessed with not bankrupting our children and their ability to raise our grandchildren because
the baby boom generation is so big that by the time we're all in it, there will be only two people
working for every one person drawing.
Now, I personally believe since the Democratic Party created Social Security and
Medicare and since they, I believe, they've been great for America, that we should take the
responsibility of constructively reforming them rather than going into denial and pretending that
it doesn't have to be done. That's one example.
Example number two: We've got the best system of college education in the world, but
nobody thinks we have the best elementary and secondary education system in the world. Ninety
3
percent of the kids in this country are in public schools. We have got to modernize these schools,
raise the standards, and do a thousand things that are necessary that Governor Romer and I have
been working on for 20 years now if we expect America to grow together in the 21st century.
Example number three -- and then I'll quit after this, although there are more, but I think
it's important here in Colorado, especially in Aspen -- we've got to prove that we can grow the
economy and improve the environment -- not just preserve it the way it is, but actually make it
better.
We have to make energy use like electricity and other things in the next 50 years the way
electronics has been in the last 50, where everything gets smaller and smaller and smaller, with
more and more power.
I mentioned this at the previous dinner, but I'll say it again -- the main reason we have a
year 2000 problem with all these computers, you know, where everybody is afraid that we'll flip
into -- at the stroke of midnight, December 31st, January 1st, 1999, 2000, we'll all go back to
1900 and everything will stop, is because we computerized early in America. And when we
computerized, these chips that hold memory were rudimentary by today's standards. And SO they
had all the numbers they did on dates, they just had the last two years, they didn't have four
years. So they're not capable of making this transition.
Today, it's a no-brainer. If you were building something today, the power of these chips
is SO great, nobody would even think about making it possible to have four digits on there and
you could go right on until the year 9999. So we've got to deal with this education challenge.
And we've got to prove that we can do it. And then the second thing we have to do on this is to
prove that we can do with energy what we have done with electronics and the computer chip.
The best example of that that all of you will be able to access within three or four years is
a fuel-injection engine, where today about 70 percent of the heat value of gasoline is lost as it
works its way through a regular engine, when the fuel can be directly injected into the process of
turning the engine over you will cut greenhouse gas emissions by 75 to 80 percent and triple
mileage. And that's just one example.
I was in a low-income housing development in California a couple weeks ago where the
windows let in twice as much light and kept out twice as much heat and cold. All of this is
designed to do in energy what we have already done in electronics and so many other things.
This is a huge challenge.
I was pleased to wake up just the other morning and look at CNN; the first story was on
climate change because of all the scorching heat in the South and the fires in Florida, pointing
out that the nine hottest years ever recorded have occurred in the last 11 years, the five hottest
years ever recorded have all occurred in the 1990s, 1997 was the hottest year ever recorded, and
each and every month of 1998 has broken that month's record for 1997.
4
This is not a game. We cannot afford to go into denial about this. We have to find a way
to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and still keep growing the
economy -- not just for America, but for China, for India, for all the people that are looking for
their future. These are just three examples.
The last point: 50 years ago tomorrow I had this on my mind because I dedicated the
aircraft carrier, the Harry Truman, today; some of you may have seen it on TV tonight -- 50 years
ago tomorrow Harry Truman signed the executive order ending segregation in the United States
military. And 50 years later -- there are a lot of people who whined and squalled about it and
said it was the end of the world and how awful it would be -- 50 years later we have the finest
military in the world, in no small measure because it is the most racially diverse military in the
world, where everybody meets uniform standards of excellence.
Today we have one school district in Washington -- across the river from Washington,
D.C., with children from 180 different national and ethnic groups, speaking over 100 different
native languages -- one school district.
So that's the last point I will make. It is particularly important that we figure out how to
live together and work together, to relish our differences, but understand that what binds us
together is more important. When you look at Kosovo and Bosnia; when you look at Northern
Ireland and the Middle East; when you look at the tribal warfare in Rwanda and elsewhere; you
look at the way the whole world is bedeviled by not being able to get along because of their
racial, ethnic and religious differences, if you want America to do a good job in the rest of the
world we have to be good at home.
Those are some of the things I think we should be thinking about. And I believe politics
should be about this. So if when you turn on the television at night and you hear reports about
what's being discussed in Washington, the tone in which it's being discussed and the alternatives
that are being presented, you hardly ever hear this, do you? You ought to ask yourself, why. I
can tell you this: You help more of our guys get in, what you're doing by your presence here,
you'll have more of this kind of discussion, and I think America will be better in the 21st century.
Thank you very much.
Q
As you know I'm a Houstonian, but I have a house down the street from my friends,
the Goldbergs. I want to say that in your last trimester of your stewardship, I remember sitting
on a bus with Senator John Breaux, my boyhood friend, and you talked about your plans for
America. And I haven't seen this in the paper lately, but I guess I want to tell you that we
recognize low interest rates, we recognize low inflation and I think a booming economy. And I
think with that track record that I should be reading that in the paper more. But I want to tell
you that I thank you, and I think all these people here thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. If I could just say one thing about it -- as you well
5
know, because you work all over the world, the economy is a constantly moving target. And 1
am very grateful that we have the lowest unemployment rate in 28 years, and the lowest
percentage of people on welfare in 29 years, and the lowest inflation in 32 years, and the highest
home ownership ever. That's the good news.
About a third of our economic growth has come from exports. About a third to 40
percent of our export growth -- 40 percent -- has gone in Asia. If Asia goes down, our export
growth goes down, our economic growth goes down. That is already happening. So one of the
things that I think is very important to do is that we impress upon the members of Congress --
both Republican and Democratic -- that we have to do those things which are designed to keep
the rest of the world growing; otherwise we can't grow.
We are four percent of the world's population, we have 20 percent of the world's income.
It does not require much mathematical computation to realize that if we want to sustain our
income, we have to sell more to the other 96 percent of the people in the world.
And that's why I've been in such a big fight in Washington to fund America's dues to the
International Monetary Fund to modernize and strengthen and restore growth in these
economies; why I want to see us continue to be engaged with Japan; why I went to China
because a strong economy will cure a lot of social problems. And very few social problems can
be cured in a democracy in the absence of a strong economy because the middle class becomes
preoccupied with its own problems.
But in this day and age, we can't sustain a strong economy without a strong foreign policy
that commits us to be constructively involved with the rest of the world. And one of the things
that I worry most about in Washington is in various ways, there are elements that are still -- some
in our party, but more in the other party -- still pulling away from our constructive engagement in
the rest of the world. We cannot become what we ought to become unless we continue to get
more deeply involved, not less involved, with the rest of the world. But I thank you for what you
said. Go ahead.
Q
You mentioned Harry Truman, and I still remember those headlines, "Dewey wins,"
right? And in fact it was Harry that won. And my question is, I believe -- I am not smart enough
to know exactly why, but I believe that one of the reasons he won is he said, that do-nothing 80th
Congress -- is that the right number, 80 I hope -- and we're going to really show them. When
are we going to -- when do your advisors say it's time to start talking in the parts of matter
instead of more that sort of global thing where we are all going to be together and be all a happy
family?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I have been hitting them pretty hard over the way they killed
the tobacco bill; the way they are so far killing the patients' bill of rights; the way they killed
campaign finance reform; the way they are endangering our future economic prosperity by
walking away from our dues to the International Monetary Fund.
6
You know I haven't attacked them personally in the way they have attacked me, but I've
tried to make it clear that I think there are serious risks being played with America's future there.
But I, frankly, believe that we have to wait until see what happens in the first two weeks after
the August recess. They're about to go out; then they'll come back and they'll have to make a
final decision whether they are going to work with us to get something done for America, or
whether they're just going to play politics. And I believe the American people will have an
extremely negative reaction if they walk away as a do-nothing Congress.
So far -- one of the major papers called them a "done-nothing" Congress. They said so
far, they're a done- nothing Congress. They're not yet a do-nothing Congress because they still
have a few days left. But they're not meeting very much this year and SO far I just think that
they believe that conventional wisdom is that when times are good, incumbents all win, so what
they really have to do is to keep their base happy -- and in this case, the base is the most
ideologically conservative people in the country. And I think they think they can keep them
happy just by banging on me and doing a few other things.
And I basically disagree with that, because I do not think, as good as times are, I don't
think this is an inherently stable time -- I mean, stable is wrong. I think it's stable, but not status
quo. I think all you have to look -- five years ago, Japan thought they had a permanent formula
for prosperity. Now they've had five years of no growth and their stock market has lost half its
value.
But one of the reasons that our country is working SO well is that the private sector, the
entrepreneurs in this country, can stay in constant motion. There are opportunities out there.
They can see things that are changing and they can move and everything. And we've got to
equip more people to do that.
But I guess I'm having a vigorous agreement with you, but I think the Republican
political analysis is that they can get by this election by doing nothing because times are so good
that all incumbents will benefit, even if the President is more benefitted than others.
My belief is that the good times impose on us a special responsibility to bear down and
take on these long-term challenges because good times never last forever and because things
inherently change more rapidly now than they ever have before. So I think they're making
probably a political miscalculation, and certainly a miscalculation in terms of what's best for our
country. And I think you'll hear more of it in the last six weeks before the election.
Yes?
Q
The Republican Party has clearly been captured by the conservative idealogue. The
Christian right, the religious right, knows what they're doing, they know what they believe,
they're well organized, and I think they are probably the most -- (inaudible) that we have. On
the other hand, Democrats, we have a -- all of us have a tradition of understanding and of
tolerance for the discrepancies and the differences in opinions across the party, we're not so well
7
organized. How do we face this --
THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all --
Q -- election against people we are as determined, as well organized, and as well
funded as the conservative right is?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we are working hard to get better organized. And I think we
are going to be better organized than we ever have been. We were quite well organized in '96,
and we did well. We would have won the House in '96, but for the fact that in the last 10 days of
the election, in the 20 closest races they out-spent us 4.5 to 1 -- in the last 10 days. Over and
above that, you had all these third party groups like the Christian Coalition groups, doing mass
mailings into these districts, basically talking about what heathens our candidates were.
And I think the Democrats are just going to have to decide whether they're going to be
tough enough to handle that. I mean, we don't -- but I think we will be better organized. I think
we will be better funded this time. They did their best to bankrupt us the last two years and it
didn't work.
So I think if we're better organized and better funded, and we train our candidates better.
then what we have to do is be ready for that last 10-day onslaught where the Christian Coalition
and the other far right groups do these heavy, heavy mailings basically trying to convince the
people they're mailing to that we're cultural aliens and that we don't have good values and we
don't support families, and the country will come apart at the seams if we become the majority
again. And if we're tough enough to handle that I think we've got a chance to do pretty well.
We were doing fine in '96, we just didn't have enough ammunition at the end. We were
so far down in '95 that we had to spend a lot of our party money to get back up, and then the last
10 days they just blew us away. But you've helped a lot by being here and I think we know now
that you don't have to descend to the level of personal meanness that your attackers do, but you
do have to show a similar level of vigor, with a strategy that will work.
My own view is that we've got a strategy that will work, we've got a message that will
play. And you asked about the partisanship thing -- the most effective partisan attack, and a
truthful one, is to say that they are being partisan in preventing us from making progress. It's not
just to say Democrats are better than Republicans, it's to say they're being partisan, they're
preventing us from making progress; here are our ideas, now, what are their ideas; measure them
up. Two-thirds of the American people will pick ours.
So if they'd don't stampede us with fear and money, we'll do fine. And that's the ultimate
answer to the question you asked.
Q
Mr. President, first of all, I think it's really wonderful you've had a long day and
you're answering our questions. That's really the American way. Thank you.
8
THE PRESIDENT: It's 1:15 a.m. our time.
Q -- incredible things worldwide. I read the newspapers where you even got those two
suspected terrorists and they may end up getting tried in The Hague. And that's wonderful. And
NAFTA was the greatest thing. I know you have to give and take, Mr. President, but during
NAFTA I know one of the things you had to kind of give on a bit was to let the Mexican
fishermen take up to 10,000 dolphins and kill them. Is there any way in the last year and a half
we could take a couple of these ecological issues and maybe re-address them again to help make
the world a better place to live?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we've got a lot of -- one of the reasons we did that is that we
finally got the Mexicans to agree to at least end some of the unsanitary conditions under which
people were living along the border. And we tried to build up a border commission that would
allow us to invest in the environment and elevate the public health of the people in the
Maquilladora areas along the border.
I think that you will see, I predict, a number of areas where there will be advances in
wildlife protection and the environment in the last two years. We're doing our best to get a much
broader agreement, for example, on all kinds of efforts to restore the oceans generally. There's
been a significant and alarming deterioration in the oceans, not unrelated to climate change and
global warming, but caused by forces in addition to that. There is a dead spot the size of the state
of New Jersey in the Gulf of Mexico outside the mouth of the Mississippi, for example. And
we're trying to address all those.
I believe the American people -- I think within a decade you'll see an overwhelming
majority of the American people for operational environmentalism. Today we have 70 percent of
our people, our environmentalists and almost all little children are -- it's something they have to
be taught to abandon their instincts are to preserve the planet. But I think that people still
believe something I don't anymore, which is that you have to give up all this if you want to grow
the economy. I just don't believe that. And I think that you will see a steady movement toward
more aggressive environmental policies which will come to dominate both parties, I believe, in
the next 10 years. And I hope before I leave office I can do more.
I even had somebody from Utah come up to me tonight and thank me for saving the Red
Rocks, the Grand Staircase Escalante, you know -- who said they didn't think it was right when I
did it before.
Q
Mr. President, I know your schedule. Would you mind taking just a couple more?
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead.
Q
Mr. President, I've got a question about foreign policy. Do you have any concern
about India and Pakistan, South Asia, what's happening over there? And what kind of leadership
9
role you can take to bring peace over there, or even float the idea of creating an independent
country of Kashmir, because that's the biggest problem there what can you do about it?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, one of the problems we've had -- I thought -- I actually feel
bad about this because I had a trip set up for the fall to India and Pakistan. And in 1993, when I
took office, I got all of our people -- actually, before I took office -- and I said, let's look at the
major foreign policy challenges this country faces and figure out how we're going to deal with
them and in what order. And as you might imagine, we went through the Middle East and
Bosnia, and then we had Haiti on the list. We went through the idea that we had to build a trade
alliance with Latin America; that we needed a systematic outreach to Africa; that the big issues
were how were Russia and China going to define their future greatness and could we avoid a
destructive future. And we worked hard on that.
But I told everybody at the time, I said, one of the things that never gets in the
newspapers in America is the relationship between India and Pakistan and what happens on the
Indian subcontinent, where they already India already has a population of over 900 million, in
30 years it will be more populous than China, it already has the world's biggesti middle class.
And Pakistan has well over 100 million people and so does Bangladesh. So it's an amazing
place.
So I had planned to go there with plans to try to help resolve the conflicts between the
two countries. One big problem is India steadfastly resists having any third party -- whether it's
the United States or the United Nations or anybody else -- try to mediate on Kashmir. It's not
surprising. India is bigger than Pakistan, but there are more Muslims than Hindus in Kashmir. I
mean, it's not -- the same reason that Pakistan, on the flip side, is dying to have international
mediation because of the way the numbers work.
What I think we have to do is to go back to find a series of confidence-building measures
which will enable these two nations to work together and trust each other more and to move back
from the brink of military confrontation and from nuclear confrontation. And we have to find a
way to involve the Russians and the Chinese because the Indians always say they're building
nuclear power because of China being a nuclear power and the border disputes they've had with
China. And, oh, by the way, we happen to have this Pakistani problem.
So I have spent a lot of time on that, even though it hasn't achieved a lot of notoriety in
the press. And I'm still hopeful that before the year is over, we'll be able to put them back on the
right path toward more constructive relations. I mean, India, interestingly enough, is a
democracy just as diverse, if not more diverse, than America. Almost no one knows this. But
most -- most, but not all -- the various minorities groups in India live along the borders of India
in the north. And it's just -- it would be, I think, a terrible tragedy if Hindu nationalism led to
both estrangement with the Muslim countries on the border and the minorities -- Muslim and
otherwise -- within the borders of India, when Ghandi basically set the country up as a model of
what we would all like to be, and when India's democracy has survived for 50 years under the
10
most adverse circumstances conceivable and is now, I believe, in a position to really build a level
of prosperity that has not been possible before.
I feel the same thing with the Pakistanis. I think if they could somehow -- they're much
more vulnerable to these economic sanctions than the Indians are. If they could somehow ease
their concerns which are leading to such enormous military expenditures and put it into people
expenditures, we could build a different future there. I don't know if I can do any good with it,
but I certainly intend to try because I think, whether we like it or not, I think that the one good
thing that the nuclear tests have done is that they have awakened the West -- and Americans, in
particular -- to the idea that a lot of our children's future will depend on what happens in the
Indian subcontinent.
Q
How about if you called their prime ministers here?
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, I can't force a settlement on them, but I can -- that's why
I say because of their relationships with India and China, we need their help as well. And so far -
- excuse me -- with Russia and China. And so far, the Russians and the Chinese have been very
helpful to me in trying to work out a policy that we can pursue. But I'm working on it. Believe
me, if I thought it would work, I would do it tomorrow, and I will continue to explore every
conceivable option.
Q
That's great. Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: Thanks. One last question. Go ahead.
Q
I'm an intellectual property owner. I represent a lot of entrepreneurial and
independent interests against a lot of the large multinational companies. I know what it's like to
be on the nose cone of a missile pretty much. And these interests can tell us that basically that
black is white in Congress and try to weaken the patent system and protection of intellectual
property.
Governor Romer's son is one of the most vocal spokesmen for -- the thing that
differentiates us from the rest of the world is intellectual property.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it's interesting that you'd say that. First of all, I don't think we
should weaken the system. And secondly, I think we should continue to aggressively pursue
those protections in our trade relations. I have spent an enormous amount of time with the
Chinese, for example, trying to protect against pirated CDs of all kinds, and other technology.
And the consequences are far greater than they used to be. And we always had a lot of
this in Asia -- we had Gucci handbags and the Rolex watches and then when I first went to
Taiwan 20 years ago, you could buy all the latest hardcover books for $1.50 -- that was
something that was done. But the volume and level of trade and the interconnections, and the
11
sophistication of what was being copied were no where near what they are today -- where you're
talking about billions and billions and billions of dollars that can literally undermine the creative
enterprise of whole sectors of our economy.
So I think it's important, first, to keep the legal protections there, but secondly, it's
important that the United States make this a big part of our foreign policy and all of our trade
policy. And we try to do it. I spent a huge amount of time on it myself.
Q. Mr. President, recently Massachusetts had some ugly test scores from its teachers,
they couldn't pass 10th grade equivalency. And there's a problem, I guess, in other states, as
well. Is there any way that the education of the kids -- it will take another generation to upgrade
the teaching in the public schools?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, yes, I think advocate -- I think what
Massachusetts did was a good thing, not a bad thing. Most people, every time they read bad
news think this is a bad thing. Sometimes when you read bad news, it's a good thing, because
otherwise how are you going to make it better if you don't know what the facts are? So the first
thing I'd like to say is we ought to give Massachusetts a pat on the back for having the guts to
have the teacher testing, get the facts out, and deal with them.
Now, what I think should happen is, I think every state should do this for first-time
teachers just the way they do it for lawyers and doctors. Then I believe there should be a much
more vigorous system for trying to support and improve teaching as we go along, trying to bring
like retired people with degrees in science and mathematics and other things into the teacher
corps, which is very uneven across the country.
And there's also something called the National Board for Professional Teacher Standards,
which certifies master teachers every year, people who have great academic knowledge, could
knock the socks off that test, and people who have proven ability in the classroom. And one of
the things that I've got in my budget is enough money to fund 100,000 of those master teachers,
which would be enough to put one master teacher in every school building in the country. And if
you look at -- I don't want to embarrass him, but Tony Robbins standing here -- if you ever listen
to his tapes or look at him on television, you know he a teacher. He's teaching people to change
how they behave.
Well, it just stands to reason that if you could get one really great teacher in every class --
in every school building in America, you would change the culture of that school building -- if
they had mentoring as part of their responsibility. So I think this is huge deal.
But let me say, there's a lot more to do. You have to recognize, too, that we have to do
more to get young people into teaching, even if they only stay a few years -- really bright young
people. One of the proposals I've got before the Congress today would fund several thousand
young people going into inner-city schools and other under-served areas to teach just for a couple
12
of years and they would, in turn, get a lot of their college costs knocked off for doing it.
Congress hasn't adopted it yet, but I think that's another important avenue to consider. You've
got to -- the quality of teaching matters.
Now, I won't go through my whole education agenda with you, but the other thing that
you have to remember whether you're in Colorado or anyplace else, is that when most of us who
are my age at least were children, the smartest women were teaching because they couldn't do
anything else for a living. And they weren't making much for doing it, but it was all they could
do.
And now, a smart woman can run a big company, can create a company and then take it
public and be worth several hundred million dollars, can be elected to the United States Senate
and, before you know it, will be President of the United States. So that means if you want good
young people to be teachers, we're going to have to pay them more. And that's -- everybody
nods their head and then nobody wants to come up with the bread to do it, but you've got to do it.
I mean, there's no question about it. If you really want to maintain quality over a long period of
time, you have to do -- you have to pay people, you have to improve the pay-scales.
The best short-run fix is to get really smart people who did other things and now have
good retirement income to come in because they don't need the salary as much; or to get really
smart young people to do it for a few years as soon as they get out of college by helping them
cover their college costs.
Q Mr. President, Michael Goldberg promised me he would show me some re-runs of
his brother, the wrestler, on winning his championship after you were done speaking.
THE PRESIDENT: I'm really impressed by that.
Q
You're running me out of my time on watching that wrestling.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much.
END
11:33 P.M. MDT
13
see page 3
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(St. Louis, Missouri)
For Immediate Release
November 17, 1997
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
DSCC DINNER
Fox Theater
St. Louis, Missouri
9:00 P.M. CST
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Thank you, Jay. Thank you for running.
Thank you for being a good attorney general. Thanks for inviting me to dinner. Maybe I will
come back next Monday. I'd also like to thank the owners of this magnificent theater for
allowing us to be here tonight and for doing such a wonderful job of restoring it.
I think that when we come here and you see all this beauty and sort of your eyes
normally just sort of go up, don't they, and you feel elevated, that's the way you ought to feel
about your country; that's the way you ought to feel about your political system. That's the way
you ought to feel about your choices as citizens to support people in campaigns.
So the first thing I want to do is just to thank you for being here tonight and for being
proud to have the freedom to come here to contribute to this man's campaign and to what he's
trying to do for our country -- to take a stand and to be a part. I hope that when you think about
it over the next year you will be constant in trying to help him get elected and that you will go
beyond financial support to talking to your friends and neighbors and doing whatever you can to
help prevail. And I hope you will always try to remember how you felt when you walked into
this theater tonight. If you can create that kind of spirit among the people of Missouri I think
you'll win the election. And I think you can do it.
Let me say that -- all of you know just from reading the press, this is a rather
challenging time for our country and I don't have anything else to add about what I'm trying to
deal with in Iraq to what I've already said. But it has made me a little more reflective even than
normal, and I'd like to try to put this race for the Senate in some sort of larger context for you so
you can see how I see it and why I came here.
When I ran for president, when I decided to run for president about six years ago and I
was the governor of your neighboring state to the south, I was really concerned about the country
-- not because I was worried about Americans or I didn't think that we could deal with any
problem, but because we were going through this period of sweeping change with no unifying
vision about how we were going to go into the 21st century together; and because we had been
dealing with the impacts of the global economy and increasing technology and changes in the
way we work and live for 20 years. Even by the time I ran for president, it had been nearly 20
years since it had become apparent to everyone that there were big changes going on. The
average wages of Americans had been stagnant for 20 years. Unemployment was going up and
we were beginning to see tensions -- racial tension rekindled in America. The economic
anxieties, I'm convinced, were the primary driving force in the movements ??that I faced -- that
we all faced as Americans to try to restrict opportunity to minorities and to immigrants.
And it seemed to me that Washington was making it worse by having the same old
debates over and over and over again. And what I wanted to do was to take the values that I was
raised with, which I think are the values of the Democratic Party and I hope are the values of
America, and tie them to new ideas and new policies for new times, so that we could not just
reclaim the White House, but reclaim the future for our children; so that we could challenge
every American to be responsible and give opportunity to every responsible American; so that
we could bring this country together across all the lines that divide us into one community; and
so that we could continue to lead the world for peace and freedom and prosperity.
Now, when I went to Washington, thanks to the votes of the people in Missouri and a
number of other places, I encountered an atmosphere very different than any I had ever seen as a
governor. I had always had opposition and we had fought hard and I welcomed my opposition to
the debate. We fought hard over issues. I had never been to a place where they said no before
they heard what you were for, a place so dominated by partisanship and old categories and old
thoughts and old behavior that I could see that breaking the paralysis was not going to be easy.
But I ask you to consider the decisions that we have made in the last five years and the
consequences of those decisions and the decisions that still have to be made, and think about how
it's going to affect you and your children and your grandchildren, and then you can decide how
hard you want to work on this Senate race.
The first thing we had to do was to scrap trickle-down economics. It was a failure. It
quadrupled the debt of the country in 12 years. The country was drifting apart. And we put in a
new economic policy that I called invest-and-grow. I said, give me a shot. I believe I can reduce
the deficit and still have more money to invest in education and technology and our future. And
we got our shot by one vote in both Houses. It was the Vice President's incentive as Al Gore
never tires of saying whenever he votes, I win.
By the narrowest of margins -- why? Not because the Democrats didn't support me. I
received more support from my party than my previous Democratic predecessors. Because every
2
single member of the other party voted against my economic program, and railed to high heaven
and talked about how it was going to bring a recession, how it was going to be a total failure, told
all the American people we were putting these huge tax burdens on them, when they knew that
98.5 percent of the American people were not going to have an increase in their income tax.
They knew that we were cutting taxes for more people than we were raising taxes for mostly
hard-working people now, a family of four with an income of under $30,000 is paying $1,000
less income tax than they would have paid under the system that existed before our economic
plan passed.
They knew all that, but they hoped that the people couldn't figure it out by 1994's
election and that they wouldn't feel a better economic climate. And they were right about that
and they won a lot of seats in Congress over it.
But now it's five years later and we're in a position to make a judgment. Every single
one of them including Mr. Nixon's opponent voted no on our '93 economic plan. What did it do?
Well, before one dollar kicks in from this balanced budget amendment, we reduced the deficit by
92 percent, produced 13.5 million jobs a record for this period of time and we now have the
lowest unemployment rate in 24 years.So you have a clear choice there and you should bring that
choice to bear on this race.
On the area of crime, Jay Nixon, as Attorney General, supported our efforts to put
100,000 police on the street, to have gun-free school zones, to ban assault weapons. Now,
consider what happened. In 1994, I brought the crime bill up. I was an attorney general; I have
been working on criminal justice matters for 20 years now. That crime bill was not written by
me or by bureaucrats in Washington; it was written by police officers and prosecutors and
community workers who work with young people in trouble all across this country. And all I did
was reflect what was already working in many communities to bring the crime rate down.
So I said, you know, violent crime has tripled, but we only have 10 percent more police
officers. Let's put 100,000 police on the street. Our friends on the other side said, oh, if you do
that, it won't make a lick of difference; it's just a waste of federal money. I suggested that it was
time to pass the Brady Bill and not let people who had criminal histories buy hand guns. They
said, oh, it's unenforceable and it won't do any good. I said, you know, I come from a big
hunting state, but I just don't think the NRA is right on these assault weapons. I never saw a
single deer killed with an assault weapon. And they said when we passed that we were going to
go out and take everybody's guns away. We had this bitter fight over this crime bill -- pure
politics law enforcement community in the country was on our side. But they were good
politicians and they did everything they could do in the Senate to beat it, everything they could
do. A bitter, bitter, bitter filibuster - the awfulest things said you ever heard.
And we broke the filibuster finally because there were five brave Republicans who stood
up and said, enough is enough, we're going to go out and vote with the Democrats and try
to give our kids a better, safer life. And SO we put 100,000 police on the street. That's what
we're doing. We're three years ahead we're three years into it, we're two-thirds of the way
done, we're ahead of schedule and under budget.
3
And we banned the assault weapons and we kept over a quarter of a million people with
criminal histories or mental health histories or people who were stalkers from buying handguns,
who shouldn't have done it. And the crime rate is the lowest it's been in 24 years.
Now, he took one position; his opponent took another position. You have evidence; you
know. Make a judgment and tell the people who live in Missouri to make a judgment. But don't
pretend that there are no consequences to this vote. There are consequences. And we could have
used another vote or two in 1994 when we were trying to save the lives of the children in this
country. This is a safer, better country today because we won that fight and they lost it. And I'd
like to have some more help when we deal with the issues that are still ahead of us.
Juvenile crime hasn't dropped as much as crime among adults. Most juveniles commit
crime between 3:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. in the afternoon. We have to do some creative things to
keep those kids out of trouble in the first place, and we don't need any more speeches on the floor
of the Congress about how its a waste of money to try to keep kids out of trouble in the first
place. I'd rather keep a kid out of trouble than send another kid to jail, if we can do that. And I
think we ought to do it. So we were right and they were wrong.
In 1994, they picked up a lot of seats in the Congress. They went out there and told
people in rural areas and all over America, you know, President Clinton and the Democrats are
coming to get your guns. I told the group earlier, I said, I went back to New Hampshire where I
won in '92 unusual for a Democrat -- and I went to this crowd of people and every one of them
had a hunting license. And they were looking at me kind of funny. And I said, you know, in
1994 you people beat a congressman up here because he voted to ban assault weapons. And they
told you that you were going to lose your gun. And now it's 1996 -- if you lost your gun 1 want
you to vote against me, too. But if you didn't lose your gun, they didn't tell you the truth and you
need to get even.
My vote in New Hampshire in 1996 was 12 percent higher than it was in 1992. And
they got even. I say that not for personal reasons but because there are consequences to this.
There are a lot of voters out there that think, oh, it's all politics; it doesn't make any difference.
That's bull. It does it make a difference and it makes a huge difference.
If we had lost that economic fight in 1993, the deficit would not have gone down by over
90 percent and the economy wouldn't have produced 13.5 million jobs and interest rates wouldn't
have gone down. If we had lost that crime bill in 1994 we would not have as much success with
crime as we've had today the lowest crime rate in 24 years.
Or look at an area where we've worked together on. We got a big bipartisan majority for
welfare reform finally, and I'm grateful for that and I appreciate the fact that the members of the
other party worked with us on it. I tried every time I could to get a bipartisan resolution. But I
had to veto two bills first because they said, if you want to require people on welfare to work, we
also want you to take away from their children the guarantee that you want to leave them with of
nutrition and health care. And we don't want to give you a lot more money for child care even
though these women are going to get minimum wage jobs and they can't afford child care. And
we're not going to give you very much money to help people in big cities where there aren't any
private sector jobs find jobs.
So I vetoed the bill twice. Finally, we got it. But it would have been a tragedy if we
hadn't passed the right kind of welfare reform. We've now seen the welfare rolls drop by 3.8
million in America, the biggest drop in American history.
But I think our side was right on that. The Democratic position was, yes, require able-
bodied people to work, but do not require them to abandon their children. The most important
job anybody ever has is being a good parent. And if everybody did a better job of that we
wouldn't have half the problems we've got in this country. You can't ask people to go to work
and forget about their responsibilities at home; the trick is to allow people to fulfill both those
responsibilities. And the parties had different positions on that.
There are huge differences in our attitude toward the environment. Look, we have gotten
rid of more regulations than the two previous Republican presidents have. We have given more
authority to the states and local governments. We've even privatized more government
operations. I do not like federal bureaucracies. The federal government is 300,000 people
smaller than it was the day I took the oath of office. It's the size it was when John Kennedy was
president.
But the air is cleaner, the water is purer, the food is safer, there are fewer toxic waste
dumps. And I think we have established the fact that on the environment our philosophy is right
and theirs is wrong. Their philosophy is, we hope somebody will clean up the environment, but
nothing should be allowed to get in the way of short-term economic gain. My philosophy is, we.
owe it to our children and our grandchildren to keep the environment and improve it. And we
have proved that you can grow the economy faster with new technologies if you're committed to
cleaning up the environment. It's a clear choice, and let's not pretend that there is no choice
there. There is a choice there.
So I've enjoyed these fights enormously. I like to debate, I like to argue. But I am
impatient with those who think it doesn't make a difference. It makes a difference. And when I
think about how far this country has come in the last five years and what we still have to do to
build our bridge to the 21 st century, when I think about the honest differences I don't want to
get into condemnation here I'm talking about the honest differences in the parties. I know that
a person like Jay Nixon could make a positive contribution to the people of Missouri and the
people of this country. And I know that it would help in the fights we've still got ahead of us.
We finally finally succeeded against intense opposition in convincing a bipartisan
majority of the Congress to embrace the elemental notions that it's high time in America we had
some national standards of academic excellence and we quit putting kids out of school that can't
read, write, and count. And instead, we give the schools of our country the trained teachers, the
technology, the support they need, but there has to be, first, high expectations, high standards,
and high measurements to see if they're being met. Every child in this country is capable of
learning, but I'll guarantee you, a child in difficult circumstances with low expectations won't.
And it's to the poorest children that we have the highest obligation to give a world-class
education.
Now, I'm not trying to have the federal government take over education. Their argument
was that the federal government should keep its mouth shut about education maybe write a
check. My argument is, we put more money into education in this last budget than any
presidency and any administration in 35 years. But it's not a question of money. It's money plus
standards. It's a big issue. And I could give you -- if we had all night, I could talk to you all
night about the differences between our parties. It makes a difference. A senator's vote makes a
difference.
Last year they held all these judges hostage, in election year, hoping against hope I'd get
beat and they wouldn't have to appoint them at all. This year, I had a four-year term, they still
only confirmed 35 judges -- slow walk and everything. It's like pulling teeth.
One of the finest people you ever met, this man Bill Lee that I've nominated to head the
Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department. A Chinese immigrant raised in Harlem, devoted
his entire life to the civil rights of people of all colors in this country. The Senate Judiciary
Committee says they don't really think they should confirm it, even though he has sworn to
uphold the letter of the law, even though he is unquestionably qualified intellectually, in terms
of experience and moral character because he agrees with me that we shouldn't just throw out
all affirmative action.
This is an unusual position they're taking: the President must appoint someone to the
Civil Rights Division who is not committed to civil rights in the way the President is. Now, if
the Democrats had felt that way you wouldn't have half the people on the Supreme Court that are
on there today. If the Democratic majority in the Senate had done a Republican President that
way you wouldn't have that.
There are differences in terms of what we do and how we do it. That's why I'm here
tonight. I'm telling you, the next 50 years can be the best years this country ever had. If I told
you five years ago, come back in five years and we'll have the lowest unemployment rate in 24
years, the lowest crime rate in 24 years, the biggest drop in welfare in history and the
environment will be improving even though the economy is growing, you would have said, I'll
take that bet. And you'd be darn proud of it. And if I said, oh, and by the way, we'll have passed
the Family and Medical Leave law, we'll give families tax cuts for their children and for their
children's education, and if they'll adopt other children that need a home, we'll cut their taxes
you would like that.
All that has happened because of choices that have been made. And I believe the
direction that our party has taken has led the way toward building an American future where we
can go forward together.
That's the last thing I'll say. Just look around the theatre on your way out. How do you
want to feel about America? How do you want to feel about American politics? Do you want to
make it lift your eyes and you feel big and you want to take a deep breath? Or do you want it to
be a mean-spirited, divisive, demeaning, diminishing experience? I have tried to give this
country a unifying vision. I have tried to heal the divisions of the country. I. have tried minimize
the sharpness of the partisan debate. But I am prouder tonight to be a Democrat than I was five
years ago. And I am prouder tonight because I know things I could never have known before I
became President about the importance of every single solitary vote in the United States Senate.
He is a good man, and if you will work for a year, you'll make him a senator. Thank
you.
END
9:20 P.M. CST
See pages 1:2
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
June 27, 1997
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
IN SIGNING THE DRUG FREE COMMUNITIES BILL
The Roosevelt Room
12:32 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Let me, first of all, say to you, Congressman Portman, and to
Congressman Levin and Congressman Hastert, and in his absence, Congressman Rangel, and the
senators who worked on this, this is a very important day for this legislation because it does
reflect our commitment in Washington to behave in the way that people in communities behave
when they do what works in fighting the drug problem. And I cannot thank you enough.
This is -- the fact that we did this in a bipartisan fashion, and we did it, to use
Congressman Portman's words, based on trying to legislate nationally a system not only to
empower people to do what we know works in some communities today already, but to give
them the incentive to do more of it is I think a great thing. So I thank the congressmen for being
here; I thank the members of the Cabinet for their support. I thank Jim Kopple, the President of
the Community Antidrug Coalitions of America; Dick Bonnette, the Partnership for a Drug-Free
America; and all the rest of you who are here.
Now, before I sign this bill, I have to make a couple of comments about this has been a
very interesting week of momentous decisions by the Supreme Court. Today the Supreme Court
issued a ruling on the Brady Bill. And since I have been so heavily identified with that for
several years now, I'd like to make a few comments.
The decision struck down the requirement that local police officers conduct background
checks, but left intact the Brady Bill's five-day waiting period. Since the Brady Bill passed,
250,000 felons, fugitives and mentally-unstable persons have been stopped from purchasing
handguns. I don't think anyone can seriously question that it has made a major contribution to
increasing the safety of the American people. And I'm going to do everything I can to make sure
that we continue to keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have them.
These criminal background checks make good sense; they save lives. Now, 27 states,
nine more than when the Brady Bill first passed, have state laws requiring them, and they will
trind way
continue to do the background checks. Even in other states, criminal background checks will
continue. The Brady law was drafted by our law enforcement community; they wanted it.
Again, it was a community-based resolution of a difficult problem. So I know that these state
and local law enforcement officials who asked us to pass the law will continue to do the
background checks.
I've asked Attorney General Reno and Secretary Rubin to contact police departments
across our country to make sure they know that the background checks can and should continue
to be done by local police on a voluntary basis. And then the Attorney General and Secretary
Rubin will immediately convene a meeting of law enforcement officers to review and develop
recommendations, including appropriate legislation, to ensure that we can continue to perform
these background checks. It's my understanding that the Supreme Court actually made some
suggestions about how we might proceed from here.
My goal is clear: No criminal background check, no handgun anywhere in America. No
state should become a safe haven for criminals who want to buy handguns.
We know that again, I say, tremendous progress has been made. The idea that 250,000
of these sales and transfers have been stopped is a very impressive thing in just a few years, and I
think it clearly contributed to the largest drop in violent crime in over 35 years last year
murders dropping a stunning 11 percent in 1996.
So we've got to keep going on this. And even though I wish we didn't have to do this
extra work, I think the framework of the Court decision makes it clear that we have done the
right thing, that the five-day waiting period is legal. And let me remind you, as the Attorney
General said, by November of 1998, which is not all that far away, we expect to have in place the
technology and the capacity to do instantaneous background checks. Is that the date? So what
we've got to do is figure out how to keep this system alive between now and November of '98.
We are committed to doing it.
Let me just say another couple of words, if I might, about this legislation today and what
it means to us. I think the congressmen said it's only a small part of our overall drug budget,
but it clearly sends a signal that we are shifting emphasis not to diminish what we're doing on
interdiction and the other work that we have to do about drugs beyond our borders, but to
recognize that we will never get ahold of this problem unless we deal with the demand
side here in America.
And we know that while casual drug use has plummeted over the last 15 years among
adults, it has doubled among young people in just the last five years, and among 8th graders it
has tripled. The fact that the percentage -- the total of people trying drugs at that age level is
small is cold comfort when you look at the trends. And you ask yourself, how could these trends
be running in direct contradiction to the fact that drug use is going down among people between
the ages of 18 and 35. That is the real threat to our future. That is the problem we face today.
2
And the quicker we face up to it the better off we're going to be.
A study by Columbia's Center for Addiction and Substance Abuse has shown, for
example, that a young person who tries marijuana is 85 times more likely to try cocaine than
peers who don't try marijuana in the first place. So a middle schooler or a high schooler who
mistakenly decides that it's safe to try cocaine or heroine or LSD or methamphetamine or any of
the so-called designer drugs, along with marijuana, is playing a dangerous game and we have to
try somehow to do more than we have done in the past to stop this. And we know that the
broadly-based community antidrug coalitions have been successful at driving down casual drug
use. We know that they've been more successful than anyone else and than any other approach
has been.
So what we're trying to do here is to find a way to support them, to encourage them to do
more and to increase the number of such coalitions throughout our country. We know that this
has got to be done person by person, family by family, community by community. That's what
this legislation does. More than 4,300 communities in every state in America and our territories
have organized themselves to deal with this to help parents, to help the teachers, the coaches,
the principals, all the others who are fighting for drug-free schools and communities and a
drug-free future for our children.
So this is the sort of partnership we need more of. Again, let me say I am immensely
gratified by the bipartisan nature of this. I also would say if you focus on the problem, which is
why juvenile drug abuse is going up while young adult drug use is going down, and the whole
impact of the culture on that, I think it justifies the policy that General McCaffrey adopted that I
have supported him on of having an unprecedented advertising campaign to try to get the
message out to these young people. And I certainly believe it supports our juvenile crime
strategy of having 1,000 after-school programs to give our young people positive things to do,
because we know that a lot of the most difficult hours are those right after school closes for
criminal activity and for casual drug use.
So the Drug-Free Communities Act of 1997 is not only a good thing, but I hope it is an
indication of things to come.
The last point I'd like to make, just to echo what the Vice President said about the
smoking issue, is I think that this settlement was a terrific achievement. It is the result of all the
work that was done before then in the public health community, and the work that our
administration had done. But we have to take a quick look I mean, a careful look at it, and we
will take a careful look at it. Secretary Shalala and my Domestic Policy Adviser Bruce Reed are
heading a group that will consult with the public health community, will look at it carefully, and
we will offer our judgments on it.
My preliminary take is that we do not want to paralyze the capacity of the FDA to
protect the American people. That, to me, is the critical thing. And that in no way minimizes the
3
enormous achievement of the Attorneys General and the others who are involved in this in the
public health community. And I have no final judgment on it. I just want to say that Secretary
Shalala is going to take a serious look at it. We're going to work hard here in the White
House. But if we can do more and more of these things together in a bipartisan way as we're
doing today, I think this country is going to be much better off.
Thank you very much. (Applause.)
(The bill is signed.) (Applause.)
Q
Mr. President, with the Supreme Court ruling today, will your administration, and
can it legally, speed up the process of getting this instant background check system in place?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that's one of the things the Attorney General and Secretary
Rubin are going to tell me in the next day or two. We're going to look at what our options are.
Obviously, we've been thinking about this. I think the important thing to point out is, the
Supreme Court said it was constitutional for us to have a five-day waiting period; that we can
have background checks, but that five of them did not believe we could require local officials to
do it. They said we could have done what we've done in the past by tying federal funds of some
kind to the willingness to do it, sort of a contractual arrangement.
We're going to look at what our options are and see where to go from here. But in the
short run, I would just implore the officials in the 23 states that don't have their own state laws
requiring this to keep on doing it, because there is no longer any serious debate here; no one who
needs to get any kind of weapon has been seriously inconvenienced, and a quarter of a million
people who had no business with them don't have them. It's a huge public policy success for the
United States. It's a part of driving the crime rate down. And we'll come up with our options as
quick as we can.
Q
It sounds like you like the tobacco agreement.
THE PRESIDENT: No, I don't think you should draw any conclusion one way or the
other. I like the fact that they achieved it and that it has and the broad dimensions of it are
quite staggering. I mean, even in Washington $368 billion is a lot of money: (Laughter.) And I
think that it's a real testament to all to the work the Attorneys General and the other parties did.
But I would say that we have an obligation to look at it very carefully from the public health
point of view.
Keep in mind, whenever -- in any settlement in any lawsuit, both sides think they're
better off settling than not, or they're wouldn't be any settlement. I mean, by definition. So what
we have to make -- we have to be sure that the things that made the tobaçco companies believe
that they did the right thing to settle don't compromise the long-term interests of the public
health, and especially our attempts to stop children from smoking in the first place. That's all.
4
And we're looking at it.
But I don't think -- you know, even if I were to render a negative judgment on it after
Secretary Shalala and Bruce Reed finish their review, I would still be immensely impressed with
the work that the Attorneys General and the others have done. It's quite a staggering thing. It's a
long way from where we were just a couple of years ago when no one thought that any progress
would ever be made on this issue.
Q
Mr. President, what are your specific concerns about the FDA provisions in this
agreement?
THE PRESIDENT: I want to wait until I get my review. I just want to make sure that
they will still be able to do what is necessary to protect the public health and children's health
based on the evidence that comes before them in the intervening period. Now, there is a period
of years in which they cannot actually ban nicotine. But there are a lot of other options and
issues which could come before them during that period, and that's what we're looking at, to
make sure their jurisdiction has not been under any
Q
Sir, how do you resolve the rhetorical battle between Republicans and Democrats
with the tax bill? There seems to be a stand-off going into yesterday over the income tax --
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, I think a lot of that is -- I think the best way to resolve it is, one,
for everyone to say, we want a tax bill, we want a tax cut bill. We want a tax cut bill that does
not explode in the out-years, does not bring the bad old days of the deficits back to us. We want
one that is faithful to the agreement that was made. And I want one that, particularly within the
confines of the agreement, that helps families to raise their children and that helps to fund greater
education.
But you should expect a little of this skirmishing. We're going to do more and we're
going to offer our thoughts on Monday about what should be in the tax bill, and then we're going
to keep working. But I'm, frankly, quite optimistic. I wouldn't -- you would expect that all the
parties would advance their views in the most vigorous way possible. But I think the issue is, are
we likely to have a bill that meets those criteria, and I think the answer is, yes, we are quite likely
to have one.
Q
You feel stronger with a line-item veto, don't you?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think it's the right thing to do. I was pleased that the
Supreme Court didn't strike it down, although they invited the first person who gets made enough
to do so. (Laughter.) So I guess we'll be back in court on that one. But let me I had a when I
was governor most governors do -- I think it should be used with great care and discipline.
You have to respect the congressional process. And my experience was after having used it a
few times, that the great value of it was that it was a low -- it was just another part of the
5
framework of fiscal discipline we're trying to effect. That is, when I was a governor, after a year
or two, the most important thing about it was not when it was used, but that it existed in the first
place, because it helped to keep us within a framework of fiscal responsibility. That's basically
what I'm interested in.
Q
Mr. President, what do you think of the Supreme Court's record on sending power
back to the states, now that the term is almost over?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I need to have time to evaluate all the things. Basically, you
know, we sent a lot of power back to the states since I've been President. Since I used to be there
I can hardly say it's a bad idea. I think the question is, what are the terms under which the power
goes back; what is the framework; can the national interests still be protected? And that's how
you have to evaluate all this.
But, in general, it's just like this bill here. This bill basically empowers communities
within the framework of an agreed-upon national objective. Why? Because this is not a problem
we can solve in Washington. And every Republican and every Democrat who has ever looked at
it says the same thing. So what these members have done is to embody what seems to me to be a
common-sense principle.
So I have no problem with that. I think that a lot of the operational work of life is better
done where people live, at the grass-roots level. The only question I would have on any of these
things is can we still pursue the national interests. If we had no capacity coming on line in '98 --
let's take the Brady Bill, for example -- if we have no capacity coming on line in '98 to do
instantaneous background checks, then I would take the -- certainly would want to take the
Supreme Court up on their offer to tie the receipt of some kind of federal money at least to the
willingness to continue these background checks because I think that's a national
interest issue.
But, on balance, I think the operations, doing more operationally at the state and local
level is a good thing.
Q
Would you use the first line-item veto on the tax bill?
THE PRESIDENT: You go back and read that legislation, that was a battle over
legislation -- they were very artful, the Congress was, in kind of limiting the extent to which the
President can use it on a tax bill. It's different. The options on spending are broader than the
options on the tax bill. So I'll have to look at that.
I hope I don't have to use it at all. I hope we just make a good agreement; that's my goal.
Thank you. (Applause.) 1250
6
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
February 25, 1997
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
IN ANNOUNCEMENT OF DRUG STRATEGY
Room 450, Old Executive Office Building
11:37 A.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. First of all, thank you, Nathan, for your
introduction and your commitment, and I thank all the young people who are here from the Boys
and Girls Club, from the DARE programs.
I want to thank the members of the President's Drug Policy Council who are standing
here behind me and those out in the audience who have been introduced by the Vice President
and by General McCaffrey; and I thank the members of Congress for being here and their
support, and all the rest of you who are involved in this battle.
Let me say a special word of appreciation to General McCaffrey. He has literally been
tireless in developing a national strategy to reduce illegal drug use and more importantly, to
implement it in a way that makes a difference in the lives of all Americans. I knew that he was
well-suited for the job. I had had a lot of exposure to General McCaffrey before I asked him to
do this job, but even so, I have been surprised by the increased intensity of his tenacity and focus;
and for that I am grateful. I think it gives us a chance to turn this situation among our young
people around, with all of your help.
Let me say at the outset, one of the things that I have tried to do, and one of the reasons I
like this drug policy so much is that it is focused on children and, therefore, it is a part of
what I think ought to be our overall mission, which is to give our children a safe, wholesome,
constructive upbringing that begins with a drug-free life, appropriate health care, safe streets and
a decent education.
I want to thank the Attorney General -- today, the Justice Department has announced
something else that I think is important. I'd just like to begin, because I think we need to look
at this in terms of the safety of our children. Today, the Justice Department announced that in
the first 28 months since the Brady Bill went into effect, another law directed to the safety of our
children, more than 186,000 felons, fugitives, and stalkers were blocked from buying guns over
the counter -- more than 186,000, from March of 1994 to the end of June of 1996. And more
than 70 percent were rejected because the applicant was an indicted or convicted felon.
Now, it seems to me that, for all those who are still out there campaigning against the
Brady Bill, those of us who support it can now rest our case. It's the right thing to do for
America. It's making us safer. It's giving these children a chance to grow up drug free. And I
ask all of you in law enforcement to redouble your efforts to support it and to do what we can to
defend it.
Our five-part drug strategy is another part of making America safer for our children. In
10 years, a young person, a young man or woman Nathan's age, will be in his or her early
twenties, a time when a person should be well on the road to becoming a contributing member of
society, an adult with responsible duties. Those 10 years, they're a pivotal 10 years. We're
learning all the time about how formative the young years are in a person's life when intelligence
is formed, but we also need to concentrate on the formative years when not only intelligence but
good judgment is formed, and decisions are made about whether people will be good citizens,
good workers, good parents and, among other things, drug free.
What happens to people in those 10 years should be an integral part of every drug
strategy. This is an urgent issue. You know, there is hardly a day that passes when we don't read
in the newspaper about yet another child becoming a victim of violence. Every American should
be angry that a nine-year-old child cannot make her way safely to her grandmother's door in a
Chicago housing project -- angry that she was brutally attacked and left for dead. That child will
suffer with great physical and emotional pain for the rest of her life. A portion of her childhood
was taken from her. And whenever an attack like that happens, a portion of our humanity is
taken from all of us.
Last week in Chicago, Hillary asked that anyone who has information about that attack,
contact the local law enforcement officials. I want to extend that call today and ask that all of us
do more to keep watch over our children. We have to become angry whenever any child - one
single child - becomes prey for drugs or violence or abuse, and we should use our anger to take
action.
Last week I unveiled our Youth Violence Strategy to keep gangs, guns and drugs off our
street and called for new protections for our children, including safety locks on guns and
extending the Brady Bill to violent youthful offenders. But, fundamentally, this course will only
change if all of us can teach our children right from wrong, and if all of us can help them to steer
away to a more productive, positive life.
That is what we have to focus on in this Drug Strategy. We know what works. We
know what works. There are people here who have been working in this vineyard for years and
years and years. We know that bipartisan cooperation works. We know persistence and
community action works. All were factors in reducing illegal drug use by half in the last 15
years. But we also know that during this time, drug use by adolescents, almost unbelievably,
went up. And I might add, until last year so was the crime rate by young people going up while
the overall crime rate was dropping. And the two things were clearly related.
This is not a problem confined only to the poor or to those in inner-cities. It cuts across
from rich to middle class to poor, from urban to suburban to rural. In each of these places, there
are children who are getting in trouble when they ought to be choosing a better life. Among 8th
graders, in the last few years, drug use is up 150 percent. An 8th grader, typically, is 13 or 14
years old. That's why prevention is important at that age, and indeed considerably younger. If
we teach our children well, more of them will live well away from harm's way.
Our drug strategy must be more than a year-to-year approach, but a guide to action for
the next decade, for those critical 10 years of these young people's lives -- to reduce drug use
and its consequences, and to keep our young people out of the kind of harm that the invasion of
drugs into their bodies will cause.
We should first begin by giving our children the straight facts. We know that the more
children are aware of the dangers of drugs and believe the facts, the more likely they are to avoid
them. We propose to add up to $175 million to seed a far-reaching media campaign to get out
the facts and shape the attitudes of these young people. We'll be seeking matching funds from
the private sector for a total of $350 million, because this must be a shared responsibility. If a
child does watch television and what child doesn't -- he or she should not be able to escape
these messages.
And again, let me say I want to thank General McCaffrey for bring this idea to me and
pointing out how much we had permitted public advertising aimed at young people about the
dangers of drugs to decline over the last few years. That is one of the seminal contributions that
he has made to my understanding of this issue, and I appreciate it, and I ask the Congress to help
us to get this job done.
Second, we must reduce drug-related crime and violence. Drug-trafficking supports
gangs and sets off gang warfare. A million Americans are arrested every year for violating the
drug laws. Let me say that again: a million Americans are arrested every year for violating drug
laws. Three-quarters of the growth in the number of federal prison inmates is due to drug
offenses. We will enforce the law vigorously, but we have to do more than make more jail space.
I saw yesterday that two of our largest states, Florida and California, now have prison
budgets bigger than their higher education budgets, that prison construction is growing all over
America much faster than constructions in our colleges and universities, even though enrollment
is going up and older people are trying to go back to college. We have to do more to prevent
these things from occurring in the first place. More to take the guns out of hands of criminals
and juveniles, more to use the criminal justice system to reduce drug demand and break the cycle
of drugs and violence. Drug courts and mandatory drug testing and treatment are effective.
I'm pleased to announce that the Justice Department is providing $16 million in grants to
more than 125 communities across our nation for planning, implementing or improving drug
courts. I have seen them work. I know they will make a difference.
Third, we have to work to eliminate the social consequences of illegal drug use. A third
of all AIDS and HIV cases are drug-related -- a third. More than 3.6 million Americans, as the
General said, are addicted to drugs, and drugs kill 14,000 of our fellow citizens every year.
Often, people who use illegal drugs are people who go to class or hold jobs or have families.
They drain our productivity. We can begin to reduce these consequences if we can further
decrease the number of casual drug users and if we can help chronic users to overcome their
dependency. It is important that we try to do both.
Fourth, we have to do more to shield our frontiers against drug-trafficking. We all know
that this is a very difficult task. Hundreds of millions of people enter our nation every year.
Hundreds of millions of tons of cargo are shipped here every year. Just one-millionth of all that
cargo is illegal drugs. One-millionth of all that cargo is illegal drugs. But that is still far too
much, and an awful lot of cargo.
Our job is to stop it without hurting the legal commerce and movement that makes us the
trade leader of the world. Along our border to the south with Mexico, crime and violence linked
to drugs must be brought under control. Our 1998 budget will bring considerable reinforcement
to that border.
Fifth, we have to reduce drug cultivation, production and trafficking abroad and at home.
We've made a start by supporting alternatives to drug crops. In Peru, coca cultivation dropped by
18 percent. In the next decade, we want to completely eliminate the cultivation of coca for illicit
consumption. If we help with alternative crops that is a viable, viable policy in many cases.
We've also had some successes against trafficking. The Coast Guard's Operation
Frontier Shield in the Eastern Caribbean between October 1st and December 1st of last year
seized 14,000 pounds of illicit drugs, compared to 5,400 pounds for the entire previous year. It
seized seven smuggling vessels and achieved an 80 percent interdiction rate, versus 20 percent in
the previous year. We can do better with interdiction, and we're learning to do it.
Throughout the Caribbean and in South America we've captured more than 100 tons of
cocaine a year. With the cooperation of other nations and with regional organizations, we're
committed to building on our record of success. And when Secretary Albright returns from her
trip this afternoon, we'll be looking at certification on counternarcotics operations.
We are committed to cooperating with our friends in Latin America. That's one of the
reasons why I asked Mack McLarty to be my special envoy to the Americas. We want to
cooperate with them, but we want them to cooperate with us as well. We want to reduce our
demand for drugs, but we are determined to reduce the supply as well.
Finally, let me say we have to do more to work together here at home. On May 21st, I
will host the first White House Mayors Conference on Drug Control to bring together not only
mayors, but police officers and prosecutors, too, to make sure that in every community we are
doing the very best job we can.
I want parents, teachers, law enforcement and other community leaders to help us. I
want our young people to help us, most of all. We did not create this problem overnight, and it
will not be solved overnight, but over that critical decade of these young people's lives who are
here, we can lift a whole generation away from the grip of a terrible menace.
Thanks to the efforts of many people, we now have a rational, coherent and long-term
strategy. Its ultimate success will depend upon the support it receives from every American.
And, ultimately, it will depend upon the willingness of our young people to listen, to learn, to be
strong and to find support. The rest of us have to be that support.
There is no more urgent priority. Thank you very much. (Applause.)
Q
Mr. President, in a short time, we in the media will have access to documents which
reportedly contain your feelings that overnight stays at the White House could be used as a
motivation to get --
AUDIENCE: Booo --
THE PRESIDENT: This is about a national priority.
Q
-- could be used as a motivation for getting people to contribute more to the
Democratic National Committee.
THE PRESIDENT: That's not what they contain.
Q
Well, I'm -- we have not seen these documents yet.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I'll tell you what. I'll be glad to answer the questions, but you
should see it first. What the document says there's a document in there that points out that in
early 1995 a lot of the people that helped me get elected President in '92 thought that they had
gotten estranged, in effect, from me, that we had not kept in touch with them. And Terry
McAuliffe sent me a memo suggesting things we ought to do to reestablish contact, which
I thought was a good memo. And I told him to proceed. And I'm told Nancy Hernreich, in
addition to that, that I wanted to ask some of my friends who had helped me when I got elected
President that I hadn't been in touch with to come to the White House and spend the night with
me -- that is the reference to that.
And later, by the way, today, sometime we're going to release the people -- the numbers
of people who stayed at the White House in the last four years and you will see that the people
that worked for me and helped to raise funds for me were a small percentage of the total number
of people who stayed at the White House.
But they were my friends and I was proud to have them here. And I do not believe
people who lawfully raise money for people running for office are bad people. I think they're
good people. They make the system work that we have now. I'm proud that they helped me and
I was proud to have them here. I did not have any strangers here. The Lincoln Bedroom was
never sold. That was one more false story we have had to endure. And the facts will show what
the truth is.
Thank you very much. (Applause.)
END
11:59 A.M. EST