-
https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/files/original/eeb06a0a5c11afc41668727f9f5d9cff.pdf
1cae76dc1997e78cab930cd5be0c7b66
PDF Text
Text
FOIA Number:
2006-0469-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:
Michael Waldman
Subseries:
OA/ID Number:
13658
FolderlD:
Folder Title:
[Reemployment Act] BRT [Business Round Table] Speech
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
S
92
2
11
1
�THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
June 21, 1994
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
TO BUSINESS ROUNDTABLE
J.W. Marriott
Washington, D.C.
12:55 P.M.
EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, John. I'm trying
to f i x t h i s lectern, i f you're wondering what I'm doing up here. I'm
proving that I don't have s u f f i c i e n t mechanical s k i l l s .
(Laughter.)
I want to thank John for h i s leadership as the chairman
of t h i s distinguished group, and welcome the incoming chair, John
Snow, with whom I j u s t shared a few words about some of our common
interests i n Europe. I'd also l i k e to say a special word of
appreciation for two of your members for working on issues that we
share a common concern about — Joe Gorman, who's chairing your
session on education; and Larry Perlman, who's chairing the work
force development section and discussing the reemployment act that
he's helping us to work on and about which I wish to talk today.
I want to thank the Business Roundtable for sharing a
belief with me and with our administration that we have to move
aggressively to embrace the challenges of the global economy. That,
after a l l , i s why we worked hard on the North American Free Trade
Agreement and why we are working together to pass the GATT agreement.
I also want to thank you for our common understanding of
a simple but powerful truth, which i s that even as we lower barriers
to trade around the world, we must work hard to l i f t our people up
here at home so that they can compete and win and carry on t h e i r work
and build t h e i r l i v e s . Investing in our people's God-given potential
i s good economics. You know that, and I do. I t pays off in higher
productivity, more incomes, a competitive edge for our companies and
our country i n the global marketplace.
We t a l k about t h i s a l l the time in the White House. I
know that — I see our — my Chief of Staff, Mr. McLarty, and our
Economic Advisor, Mr. Rubin; the Deputy Treasury Secretary, Mr.
Altman, i s here. There may be others here from the administration.
These are things that we say a l l the time in our meetings.
I appreciate the work that you did in helping us to pass
the Goals 2000 l e g i s l a t i o n , one of the most important education
reforms i n a generation i n t h i s country. When we work together we
can do things that help America prepare for the future.
I think today i s an especially appropriate day for me to
�be here, speaking with you about how we can better prepare our
country for change. F i f t y years ago tomorrow, as the A l l i e d armies
advanced from the beaches of Normandy, President Roosevelt signed a
b i l l that was called the Serviceman's Readjustment Act, better known
as the G.I B i l l of Rights. Just as D-Day was the greatest m i l i t a r y
action in history, the G.I. B i l l arguably was the greatest investment
in our people in American history. I t s legacy i s the world's largest
middle c l a s s , the world's strongest economy. I t s lesson i s , in large
measure, the mission of our administration: I f you give people a
chance to help themselves, t h e y ' l l do i t , and t h e y ' l l do
extraordinary things.
Before World War I I , our country often f a i l e d to prepare
returning veterans after wars. We gave them pensions and bonuses,
but they had nothing l e f t to build their future with. That's why
jobless and despairing veterans of World War I actually marched on
Washington in 1932; why President Roosevelt declared that the G.I.
b i l l — quote — "gave emphatic notice to the men and women of our
Armed Forces that the American people do not intend to l e t them
down."
We know why the G.I. B i l l didn't l e t them down: I t
r e l i e d on American values of work and responsibility. I t offered a
hand up, not a handout. The veterans of World War I , by contrast,
got a handout. To be sure, one they earned and one the country was
grateful for, but they got cash and a t r a i n t i c k e t home. But the
veterans of World War I I got a t i c k e t to the future instead.
Uncle Sam helped them to go to college, to get job
training, to finance homes and businesses of their own.
But i t was
up to them to seize the opportunities. They did, and a l l of us are
the better.
The G.I. B i l l helped eight million returning veterans
begin that journey. They flooded colleges and trade school —
450,000 veterans became engineers; 360,000 became school teachers;
240,000 became accountants; 180,000 became doctors and nurses;
150,000 became s c i e n t i s t s . Millions more bought homes or b u i l t
businesses. Maybe some of them are among you who invited me here to
be with you today.
We r e a l l y can't even begin to calculate how much our
nation was enriched by the G.I. B i l l — how many communities sprung
up, how many companies prospered, how many families earned t h e i r
share of the American Dream. This much we do know: Together a l l
those people b u i l t the American middle c l a s s that has been the
bulwark of our prosperity since World War I I .
F i f t y years after the signing of the G.I. B i l l , the
world's changed a l o t . Our economy has c l e a r l y changed. But what i t
takes for our people to meet the challenges of today and tomorrow has
not changed. Now as then, we stand at a pivot point in history. In
the five decades between, our country mustered another great
international commitment — the commitment to stand strong in the
Cold War.
That succeeded. Now we see a world economy taking shape
where investment and information flow rapidly across national
borders. Competition for jobs and incomes i s international and
highly intense. And once again, we are being called upon to decide
our future.
�I have a vision, a mission, a strategy for how I believe
a l l t h i s should take place; how we can move forward in the 21st
century; what the partnership between government ought to be; what
the whole atmospherics in t h i s country, the feeling about our mission
ought to be. I must say, i t doesn't s i t very well into the
established categories of l e f t and right and l i b e r a l and conservative
and Democratic and Republican. And I f e e l frustrated sometimes at my
a b i l i t y to pierce the atmosphere that prevails here.
But i t i s clear to me that i f we are going to make a
future that i s consistent with our values, we're going to have to do
i t with a different approach. S t i l l , i t has to be b u i l t on the
s p i r i t that animated the GI B i l l — give Americans the chance to make
their own l i v e s in t h i s fast-changing world so the change can be
their friends and not t h e i r enemies.
To do i t we have to move on many fronts. We have to
create an environment where business can create new jobs and new
growth. We have to open markets for our goods and services, for our
companies and our workers. We have to invest in our people's work
and security.
When I assumed t h i s office, the d e f i c i t had been
increasing exponentially for 12 years, trade agreements were s t a l l e d ,
job growth was agonizingly slow, consumer confidence was shaky. We
were actually facing the prospect that, for the f i r s t time, a
generation of Americans would grow up to a future that was more
limited than that which their parents enjoyed.
I adopted a strategy to, f i r s t , work on expanding the
economy and getting our own economic house in order; second, to make
government work for ordinary c i t i z e n s and end gridlock; third, to
empower people and strengthen communities; and fourth, to secure our
role in the world, defending our fundamental security interests,
expanding our economic interests, promoting democracy, human rights,
and limiting the spread of destructive chaos arising out of ethnic
and other hatreds.
The atmosphere, frankly, here has been more h o s t i l e to
change than I had imagined i t would be. The American people
desperately wanted change, but were often unwilling to l i s t e n to the
complex debates and make the d i f f i c u l t decisions that are inherent in
i t . And t h i s town s t i l l i s , i n my judgment, too partisan, too
n gative, too obsessed with process and c o n f l i c t instead of r e s u l t s
and progress, too interested in blame and too l i t t l e interested in
respons i b i 1 i t y .
Nonetheless, we have been able to put together an
economic strategy for putting our house in order, making hard
decisions that w i l l make i t possible next year, for the f i r s t time
since Truman was President, to have three years in a row of d e f i c i t
reduction; eliminating over 100 government programs outright; cutting
200 others; eliminating — cutting domestic discretionary spending. - that's everything besides Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid,
the other entitlements — cutting discretionary spending on the
dc s s t i c side, not j u s t defense, for the f i r s t time in 25 years.
A l l of that w i l l enable us to reduce the d e f i c i t three
years in a row for the f i r s t time since the Truman presidency. I t
means we've had to slash the federal govern ant, to bring more
�responsibility into the budgeting process. We completed the budget
by the May 15 deadline for two years i n a row for the f i r s t time i n
17 years.
We are making progress. We've adopted a very aggressive
attitude on trade, which you've been a part of, as a l l of you know:
NAFTA, GATT, the APEC meetings — I'm going to second one i n
Indonesia t h i s f a l l — a hemispheric summit at the end of the year
with a l l the leaders of the Latin American democracies. And 33 of
the 35 countries i n Latin America, along with the United States, are
now headed by elected governmental o f f i c i a l s .
We've now got the f i r s t investment-led, low-inflationbased economic recovery since the early 1960s. I n addition to that,
we have worked hard to make government work. With the reinventing
government program that the Vice President has spearheaded, at the
end of five years, we w i l l have a federal bureaucracy that has
250,000 fewer federal employees and i s under two million i n c i v i l i a n
workers for the f i r s t time since the Kennedy presidency.
We have federal agencies that are working again i n
fundamental ways to engage the business community i n the growth of
the economy a l l around the world. The Export-Import Bank — I see
Mr. Brody over there. I don't know how many businessmen have come up
to me and said, for the f i r s t time in my l i f e — I travel overseas
and I see the State Department and the Commerce Department actually
working together trying to promote American business interests. And
I appreciate i t .
The Small Business Administration has been v i r t u a l l y
revolutionized i n the way i t works with small businesses. You can
now apply for a loan on a one-page form. People talk to me
everywhere I go i n America about the emergency management agency,
FEMA, of the federal government, saying i t f i n a l l y has become the
shining light of what a government ought to be when people are i n
trouble instead of j u s t i n pain i n the neck that has to be dealt
with. We are trying to make government work.
The Congress has before i t major campaign finance reform
and lobby reform l e g i s l a t i o n that has passed both Houses of the
Congress, awaiting now a conference that w i l l iron out the
differences and send that to me for signature.
Maybe most important of a l l , i n spite of everything,
gridlock i s being dealt with. Last year, the Congress passed the
Brady B i l l and the Family Leave B i l l after seven years of gridlock.
We got agreement among the great nations on GATT after seven years of
debate.
This year the Congress i s going to pass a crime b i l l
after s i x years of gridlock — one that w i l l be the most sweeping
anticrime l e g i s l a t i o n ever adopted by the Congress — 100,000 more
police o f f i c e r s on our streets, tougher punishment, innovative
prevention programs, a ban on assault weapons that people said could
never be passed over the opposition of the NRA.
And at the end of l a s t year, according to nonpartisan
sources, we had the best f i r s t year in working with Congress of any
presidency since the end of World War I I , except the Eisenhower f i r s t
year and President Johnson's f i r s t year, which were about the same.
�And i f I may be forgiven a l i t t l e b i t of bragging rights, I think the
things we t r i e d to do i n the atmosphere in which we t r i e d to do them
w re far more d i f f i c u l t .
So we are trying to make government work. I say that to
say that, yes, there have been some good r e s u l t s . And a l o t of them
are because you did a l o t of work i n the 1980s and the early '90s to
become more productive and to be more competitive. And i n the f i r s t
16 months of t h i s administration, over three million new jobs i n the
private sector came into t h i s economy — two-and-a-half time as many
than i n the previous four years alone. We had the f i r s t quarter of
this year, the f i r s t time i n well over a decade, when there was no
bank f a i l u r e i n a quarter. There were more incorporations of new
businesses than at any time since World War I I i n 1993.
But I w i l l say again, we can do these things, and unless
we also empower our people to deal with the challenges of the global
economy, as we did with the G.I. B i l l , we're going to have a tough
t i e.
With your help and support, a l o t of things have already
been done. A bigger and better Head Start program w i l l improve the
quality of the program and serve 40,000 more children t h i s year and
90,000 more children next year than were being served previously.
Goals 2000 w i l l link grass-roots reform with world-class standards
for our public schools — the f i r s t time we have ever had any
national standards for achievement.
The School-to-Work Opportunities Act w i l l help high
school students learn r e a l s k i l l s and provide America with better
trained, higher-skilled workers. Student loan reforms, which the
Secretary of Education, who's here, has done so much to administer,
w i l l make i t possible for 20 million American students to repay their
loans — some $50 b i l l i o n of them — on more favorable terms and make
i t possible for students i n the future to borrow money to go to
college at lower interest rates and better repayment terms. But i t
w i l l make i t harder for them to avoid paying their b i l l s .
These things are very hopeful signs. The National
Service Program, Americorps, w i l l make i t possible for 20,000 young
people to serve t h e i r country at the grass-roots level and earn money
to go to college t h i s year; the year after next, 100,000 young
Americans doing that. The Peace Corps i n i t ' s largest year had
16,000 Americans serving. This National Service Program l i t e r a l l y
has the potential to change the way our young people think about
themselves, their country and their role as c i t i z e n s .
So many of you have helped us on a l l these issues. And
t h i s summer, we're going to have two or three more things I want to
ask you to help us on. F i r s t of a l l , as I go to the G-7 conference,
there w i l l be a l o t of discussion about GATT. Everybody that I know
sort of treats GATT as i f i t ' s already done. But as you know, the
Congress has not yet passed the enabling l e g i s l a t i o n . I w i l l submit
that l e g i s l a t i o n implementing the agreement t h i s summer. We have
worked very, very hard on meeting the s t r i c t budget rules to find a
way to pay for GATT. You and I know GATT w i l l make the government
money, but under our budget rules, we have to pretend that i t ' s going
to cost us money because we're getting r i d of t a r i f f s .
I want to urge you i n the strongest possible terms, do
�everything you can to persuade the Congress to give t h i s high
priority, to pass i t with as l i t t l e controversy and as l i t t l e delay
as possible and to move on i t t h i s year. Only the United States of
a l l our trading partners has to go through the budget hoops we do to
pass GATT. A l l of our trading partners look at me and say, you're
the person that got us a l l together and made us do t h i s l a s t year;
how can you not r a t i f y i t ? We need your help, and we must do i t t h i s
year, not next year.
Secondly, I ask for your help to pass the reemployment
act which w i l l change the whole way our unemployment system works.
I t w i l l turn a bewildering array of training programs into a system
where workers who lose their jobs can present themselves at a onestop service center, and get the guidance, the training opportunities
and the information they need for r e a l jobs in the private sector.
The boards that supervise these programs w i l l be controlled by people
who know most about the opportunities, the private sector. And I
want Congress to enact that t h i s year. This i s very, very important.
The average person does not go back to the job from
which he or she i s l a i d off, but the unemployment system i s s t i l l
built on the premise that they do. The consequence of that i s that
employers pay too much in unemployment for people to j u s t hang around
on the system instead of prepared to take new jobs and employees
spend too much time doing j u s t that instead of moving more quickly
into a new economy. We can change t h i s , but we need to do i t t h i s
year.
Let me f i n a l l y say that, on t h i s issue, a l o t of you
have expressed support to me personally for the welfare reform
efforts, whether that can pass t h i s year or not depends upon how much
f i r e i t catches in Congress and how much controversy we can avoid i n
how to fund i t . But we have to change the culture of welfare. And
t h i s program that I have presented to Congress, along with the others
that have been presented, go right at the heart of parents who don't
pay child support they owe, to the heart of the teen pregnancy
problem, to the heart of requiring people to work once they have the
s k i l l s to do so. And I hope you w i l l continue to support that.
Now, despite a l l these efforts, I have to t e l l you that
I do not believe that the American people, as individuals, w i l l be
able to embrace the changes of the global economy, and successful
workers, unless and u n t i l we address the health care c r i s i s .
This goes to the heart of our debate on a l l of the other
things in the strategy I outlined. I t goes to the heart of whether
we can get our own economic house in order, i t goes to the heart of
whether we can make government work from ordinary people, i t goes to
the heart of whether we can empower people to view change as a friend
instead of an enemy. Unless we can provide coverage for every
American in a reform system which focuses on both quality and control
of costs, the d e f i c i t w i l l grow, your costs w i l l continue to grow and
undermine productivity, and more and more Americans w i l l lose their
coverage or be at r i s k .
Let me b r i e f l y discuss t h i s whole thing from my point of
view, from your point of view, and from the American c i t i z e n ' s point
of view — from a worker's point of view.
From my point of view, as the President in charge of the
�budget, I've worked hard to get t h i s d e f i c i t down for three years in
a row for the f i r s t time since Truman was President. I have done
things that people who say they're more conservative than me t a l k
about but don't do. We're eliminating over 100 government programs.
We're cutting 200 others. We're reducing discretionary spending for
the f i r s t time i n 25 years, and s t i l l with the d i s c i p l i n e to increase
investment i n education and new technologies and training. We have
reduced defense a l l we can reduce i t . And I think we are right at
the margin, and we should not reduce i t any more, given the
challenges we face in t h i s economy.
A l o t of you w i l l probably be called to t e s t i f y or to
support the work of Senator Kerrey, Senator Danforth and others in
t h i s entitlements commission, because you know that the only thing
that i s increasing our d e f i c i t now i s entitlements. Keep in mind,
when you s t r i p a l l that away, some of the entitlements are going
down; Social Security i s going up only with the rate of i n f l a t i o n ,
and i s roughly the same percentage of our GDP i t was 20 years ago.
The only part of the entitlements going up much more rapidly than
inflation are Medicare and Medicaid — the government's programs for
the elderly and the poor.
And I can t e l l you that unless we can bring them in line
with inflation, we w i l l be forced to either l e t the d e f i c i t go up
again, r a i s e taxes more than we should, or cut our investment i n
public investment — in things you support — to a dangerously low
level in a global economy. So that's what i t looks l i k e from my
point of view j u s t from a budget perspective.
From your point of view, you know already that the
government does not reimburse Medicare and Medicaid providers at 100
percent of cost, so the costs are being shifted to you. The other
people who are s h i f t i n g costs to you are businesses and employers who
do not have health insurance but who get health care. They are
shifting the cost to you.
Now, i f our d e f i c i t goes up, and we have to bring the
d e f i c i t down, and we cut Medicare and Medicaid without fundamental
reform, we're going to s h i f t more cost to you. And you w i l l be put
in the position of paying more or covering l e s s . Keep in mind — i n
the l a s t three years, three million American workers have lost t h e i r
health insurance. There are three million more Americans without
health coverage today than there were three years ago. You are also
paying for them i n cost shifting.
So unless we have comprehensive reform, you w i l l be put
in the position of some day coming to the end of how much you can do
managing your health care costs on your own, which you've done a very
good job of, almost a l l of you. And you w i l l be facing the cost
s h i f t coming at you from the federal government and from the
increasing numbers of employers who don't provide any coverage.
Now, the third and most important thing of a l l — what
does t h i s look l i k e i f you're out there working in t h i s country and
you hadn't had much of a pay increase in the l a s t 10 years; but you
know that your country's becoming more competitive; and you're
excited about the 21st century; and you know that you're r a i s i n g
children who w i l l have to change jobs eight times in a lifetime?
What are you going to do?
�I f you're a man and you have a premature heart attack,
or your wife gets breast cancer, your kid develops some strange
disease, and you have a preexisting condition? And you're being told
i t ' s a brave new world out there — don't worry i f you have to change
jobs, just get some new retraining; you'll do fine. And then i t
turns out nobody wants to hire you because you've got a preexisting
condition.
Oh, I know there are those who say we can j u s t l e g i s l a t e
these things. We'll j u s t l e g i s l a t e the insurance reforms, say you
can't discriminate against anybody, and i t w i l l be fixed. Look at
the study that many of my adversaries in the Congress on t h i s issue
keep c i t i n g — the Lewin VHI study. They say that a l l you can get
out of insurance reforms i s coverage i n the short run for 2.2 million
more people. They say that i f you — you look at the experience of
New York that t r i e d to mandate insurance reforms alone. What
happens, a l o t of people's insurance goes up, and a l o t more people
opt out of the system.
I say, i f you look at the rest of the world and you look
at us, we have 81 million Americans out of a population of only 255
million, 81 million of us l i v e i n families with people who have
preexisting conditions. But they a l l s t i l l need to be able to change
work seven times i n a lifetime.
Thirty-nine million of us do not have health insurance.
There i s no compelling evidence that we can both have quality and
cost control and stop cost-shifting in the absence of covering
everyone. There i s no compelling evidence. The Lewin VHI study, so
often cited by those who say, well, we could get 91 percent coverage
in America, up from 83 percent, covering 97 percent of the cost of
health care i f only we did t h i s stuff, which doesn't require employer
mandates or of some other universal coverage. That's being talked
about. But i f you notice, there's not been a b i l l r e a l l y pushing
that.
Why? Because when you s t r i p i t away, you see that i t
costs l i t e r a l l y hundreds of b i l l i o n s of dollars over the next f i v e or
six years to finance that i n massive subsidies which b a s i c a l l y
benefit poor people, most of whom are not working, some of whom are
working, and does nothing for middle-class workers. Which means to
do that, instead of an employer mandate, we would have to go back and
raise the heck out of everybody's taxes, which we are not about to
do. At that l e v e l i t would not be f a i r .
Now, how i s i t that every other advanced country i n the
world and a l l of our competitors — we're only too happy to learn
from our competitors i n every other way, and we're very proud when we
beat our competitors. And I don't know how many of you have told me
personally, we're better now than anybody else i n the world at what
we do. We went through a l l kinds of agonies in the '80s and we faced
a l l these challenges, and now we're better than our competitors.
Well, our competitors, not a single, s o l i t a r y one of
them, spends more than 10 percent of GDP on health care; we spend 14
percent, and we're the only people that can't figure out how to cover
everybody. Now, I refuse to declare defeat. Why should we jump i n
the tank?
I heard the messages about what people didn't l i k e about
�our original proposal. Don't put r e s t r i c t i o n s on experimental drugs;
don't make businesses go into a l l i a n c e s i f they don't want to; l e t i t
be voluntary. People know their own interests. Let multistate
businesses have an approach which makes sense for a l l their
employers. We're making the changes that we heard people complain
about. Those changes are being made. We know we needed to make some
changes.
But i f you remember, when I offered my health care plan,
I said, t h i s i s not the end a l l and be a l l ; i t ' s the beginning of a
debate. But what we need to decide i s whether we're going to walk
away from t h i s session of Congress without the debate. Harry Truman
said 50 years ago, Americans w i l l never be secure unless we did
something about health care. Everybody thinks of Harry Truman now as
the fount of a l l wisdom. I come from a family that liked him when he
was unpopular. (Laughter.) But most Americans didn't l i k e him too
much at the time. He kept t e l l i n g them uncomfortable truths. He was
right 50 years ago, and i t ' s s t i l l true.So, yes, we need to make some
changes in the original proposal I made. We put them out there.
But what we need i s a quick, honest, forthright debate.
We need to deal with t h i s issue t h i s year because, u n t i l we do, we
w i l l continue to spend a higher percentage on health care than our
competitors; you w i l l continue to have costs shifted to you; your
government w i l l continue to face the agonizing choice of continuing
to spend more and more of your tax money on entitlements, l e s s on
investment, and s t i l l increasing the d e f i c i t and s t i l l s h i f t i n g costs
to you.
So, I ask you, enter the debate and j u s t t e l l people
what you have to do every day in your own businesses. You get a r e a l
hard decision. I f you don't want the thing to collapse, you can't
walk away. And almost always, you make a decision that i s l e s s than
perfect but i s better than making no decision.
So I ask you, help me pass the reemployment b i l l . Help
us pass GATT. Help us pass welfare reform. But don't walk away from
health care. The numbers are big; they're enormous. And we can't
t e l l an average American, can't t e l l a mother on welfare, get off of
welfare and take a job so you can lose your children's health
insurance and s t a r t paying taxes for people to pay for t h e i r kids'
health care who stayed on welfare.
We can't t e l l a worker, give up your job security and
find a new security in your mind, in you a b i l i t y to learn and change,
i f your i l l n e s s or the i l l n e s s of someone in your family w i l l put you
out of the job market. We must not ask people to choose between
being good parents and good workers. We cannot ask people to r i s k
their children's health to participate in the global economy.
And most importantly, we can't j u s t keep working with a
system that i s fundamentally flawed that we can f i x . We can look
around the world; we know there are a l l kinds of fixes here. We may
have to do more for small business; I'm w i l l i n g to do that. We may
have to do more, and we should, to make the thing less regulatory;
I've already made a l o t of those changes. But l e t us not walk away.
When I spoke at Normandy a couple of weeks ago, in the
greatest honor of Presidency, to represent our country in
commemorating the 50th anniversary of D-Day, the thing that
�overwhelmed me about that was that people did what they had to do
because there was no option; and they measured up and l i t e r a l l y saved
the world. And that, in that moment, there was no option to be
cynical. There was no luxury available for people to avoid the
decisions before them, and they did not have the option to be
cynical.
\$'
r
•
Today, I t e l l you, we have fundamental decisions to make
about what kind of people are going to be into the future. Walking
away i s an option that's not r e a l l y there. Being cynical or negative
i s always an option that's there, but i t ' s something we pay a
t e r r i b l e price for. This country can do what we have to do. We have
to be what the people that led the D-Day invasion were; they were
called pathfinders — the people that went f i r s t . That's what we're
being asked to do.
You l i v e i n an age which
and international trade more than any
anybody in t h i s room. Therefore, you
And you have to l i g h t the path to the
B i l l did 50 years ago. We can do i t .
right choices. Thank you very much.
END
g l o r i f i e s commerce and success
other i n the lifetime of
have enormous r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s .
future i n the way that the GI
We can do i t — i f we make the
(Applause.)
1:28 P.M.
EDT
,4
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Michael Waldman
Description
An account of the resource
<p>Michael Waldman was Assistant to the President and Director of Speechwriting from 1995-1999. His responsibilities were writing and editing nearly 2,000 speeches, which included four State of the Union speeches and two Inaugural Addresses. From 1993 -1995 he served as Special Assistant to the President for Policy Coordination.</p>
<p>The collection generally consists of copies of speeches and speech drafts, talking points, memoranda, background material, correspondence, reports, handwritten notes, articles, clippings, and presidential schedules. A large volume of this collection was for the State of the Union speeches. Many of the speech drafts are heavily annotated with additions or deletions. There are a lot of articles and clippings in this collection.</p>
<p>Due to the size of this collection it has been divided into two segments. Use links below for access to the individual segments:<br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=43&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=2006-0469-F+Segment+1">Segment One</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=43&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=2006-0469-F+Segment+2">Segment Two</a></p>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Michael Waldman
Office of Speechwriting
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1993-1999
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2006-0469-F
Extent
The size or duration of the resource.
Segment One contains 1071 folders in 72 boxes.
Segment Two contains 868 folders in 66 boxes.
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
William J. Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Adobe Acrobat Document
Still Image
A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
paper
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
[Reemployment Act] BRT [Business Round Table] Speech
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Office of Speechwriting
Michael Waldman
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Box 32
<a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/36403"> Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7763296">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2006-0469-F Segment 1
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
White House Staff and Office Files
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
William J. Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Adobe Acrobat Document
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Preservation-Reproduction-Reference
Date Created
Date of creation of the resource.
6/3/2015
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
7763296
42-t-7763296-20060469F-Seg1-032-014-2015