-
https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/files/original/1f965c9d984b87ca1836b181f3d81ace.pdf
bcdfe3a8fc7c47ac7212328fb4696212
PDF Text
Text
FOIA Number:
2006-0469-F (2)
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:
14455
OA/ID Number:
FolderlD:
Folder Title:
9/24/1997 AFL-CIO [American Federation of Labor - Congress of Industrial Organizations]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
S
92
4
4
1
�AFL- ao
�7
.
CM\
>
4°
,7)
/-
�Draft 9/22/97 12:15pm
PRESIDENT WILLIAM J. CLINTON
REMARKS AT THE AFL-CIO CONVENTION
PITTSBURGH, PA
September 24, 1997
When I spoke at your last Constitutional Convention, it was two days before you elected
the Dream Team of John, and Rich, and Linda. Haven't they done an outstanding job? With
their passionate leadership and your rejuvenated organizing efforts, you are ensuring that
America works for working Americans. Once again, American labor has a strong, clear voice.
Once again, you are making it heard.
You made it heard loud and proud in the boardrooms of the United Parcel Service. You
have made it heard in the halls of the Capitol, standing up to two of the most anti-worker
Congresses in recent history. You are making it heard in the strawberry and mushroom fields of
California, in the fiery tones of Arturo Rodriguez and with the noble echoes of Cesar Chavez.
You are making it heard in nursing homes in Minnesota, focusing especially on giving new
strength to women workers. You are making it heard right here in Pittsburgh, through the
Steelworkers' biggest organizing campaign in more than 60 years.
This is a very proud time for the working men and women of the AFL-CIO. As the
nation can clearly see ~ and hear ~ American labor is back.
Thanks in no small part to your leadership in the workplace and your involvement in the
political process, America is back too. Organized labor has helped strengthen our families, our
economy, and our future. Your strong voice has strengthened America.
Six years ago, when I announced my candidacy for President, I said that I had a vital
mission for America in the 21st Century: I wanted to keep the American Dream alive for every
person responsible enough to work for it. I wanted to keep America the world's strongest force
for peace, freedom, and prosperity. And I wanted^ring our people together across all the lines
that divide us, into one America. America's oldest and most incandescent ideals - opportunity
for all, responsibility from all, a community of all ~ had to illuminate our path as we addressed
the challenges of a new time.
We put in place a bold new economic strategy to shrink the deficit, invest in our people,
and lower unfair trade barriers to our goods. The philosophy was solid and simple: remove the
impediments that have restrained the American people and then give them the tools and training
to help them race ahead. By reducing the nation's massive deficit, we would free our people of
the deadweight that has slowed their every step. By investing in the education and health of our
people, we would help enable them to run fast and strong over the long course of their lives. By
reducing trade barriers, we would knock down the unfairly high hurdles they have had to leap
over for far too long.
The strategy has succeeded. The nation is running stronger than it has in a generation.
�Nearly 13 million new jobs - including millions of good construction, manufacturing, and
health-care jobs. America is leading the world in auto production once again. Unemployment
below 5%. The biggest drop in welfare rolls in history. Dramatic drops in crime year after year.
We know we have more to do, but together we have made progressive government work again.
Let's look the three crucial elements of our economic growth strategy -- reducing
the deficit, investing in our people, and expanding exports — one at a time. First, deficit
reduction. Back in 1993, when I introduced my deficit-reduction plan, we both knew how
important it was to get our fiscal house in order. We did it the right way. While increasing
investments in our people ~ and without a single Republican vote - we cut the deficit by 87%.
You should be very proud. After a new majority took over Congress in 1994, they tried to cut
the deficit the wrong way. When they sent me a budget that made deep cuts in Medicare,
Medicaid, education, and the environment, I vetoed it. We stood firm until we achieved a
balanced budget that honored our values ~ and you should be proud of that, too.
The second element of our economic growth strategy is investing in our people,
because in this new economy, our most precious resources are the skills and security of
working Americans. Here, too, we are succeeding. After decades of working harder and longer
for lower wages, millions of working Americans are finally getting a raise. And it's about time.
Since I took office, the yearly income of the typical family is up $1,600 and wages are rising
again. Together, we increased the minimum wage and doubled the Earned Income Tax Credit.
And this summer I signed into law a $500-per-child tax credit that will mean an immediate
increase in the standard of living for millions of families — and I did not sign that bill until we
made it work for rookie police officers, teachers and nurses, the Republicans would have left out.
From 1945 until the mid '70s, all of us grew together. From the mid '70s to the early
'905, our economy continued to grow, but we began to grow apart. Fortunately, it now looks like
our hard work is paying off and America is starting to grow together again. But we cannot rest.
We must keep working until every single American can reap the rewards of a growing economy.
And that is why investing in people, above all, means giving every American the best
education in the world. Our balanced budget includes the largest increase in aid to education
since 1965 and the biggest increase in higher education since the G.I. Bill 50 years ago. We
created a new HOPE Scholarship and tuition tax credits for college and skills training, secured
the biggest increase in Pell Grants in two decades, expanded Head Start by a billion dollars a
year. Our next great challenge must be to insist on voluntary, high national standards of
academic excellence so all our children master the basics.
Investing in people means protecting the rights of workers to demand their rights. Over
the past four years, we have defeated callous attempts to repeal prevailing wage laws, bring back
company unions, and weaken occupational safety laws. We cracked down on sweatshops. We
fought to protect your pension funds, and made pensions more portable. I have vetoed every
piece of anti-labor legislation that has crossed my desk - and I will continue to do so. And now
we are fighting to make sure every person coming off welfare will eam at least the minimum
wage and receive the protections of existing employment laws that other workers enjoy.
-2-
�Let me say a word about the UPS strike. This Administration believes deeply in the
collective bargaining process. And in that strike, collective bargaining worked. UPS and the
Teamsters reached a historic settlement that recognizes that companies must invest in their
workers in order to be competitive in the 21st Century.
And investing in people means expanding access to quality health care. The Family
Leave law ensures that millions of people don't have to choose between being good parents and
good workers. The Kennedy-Kassebaum law helps millions to keep their health care as they
move from job to job. The new balanced budget includes $24 billion for children's health care - the largest investment in health care since the creation of Medicaid in 1965 ~ and we must
make sure that every dollar goes to quality care. And now we must pass sweeping legislation to
keep tobacco out of the hands of our children.
The final component of our three-part economic strategy — one that is just as
essential for our future growth and future wages -- is our continuing work to open new
markets and give American workers a fair break. I know we don't see eye to eye on this, but
I think I owe it to you to explain in person why I feel so passionately about expanding markets.
We simply cannot create jobs and increase wages if we do not expand trade. As much as one
third of the economic growth that produced 13 million new jobs over the past 4 years came from
selling more American products overseas. We have 4% of the world's population and 20% of its
wealth. If you want to keep 20% of the wealth with 4% of the people, you must sell something
to the other 96%.
In the next 15 years, the developing countries of Latin America and Asia will grow 3
times as fast as the United States, Europe, and Japan. We must participate in that growth. We
must forge fair trade deals that allow us entry into markets where we have been excluded or at a
significant disadvantage for far too long. Our markets are among the most open in the world.
We must insist on the same treatment abroad. If we don't act ~ and lead ~ no one is going to
level the playing field for us.
Last year, I had a chance to visit the Jeep Cherokee plant in Toledo. That's a UAW plant,
producing tens of thousands of right-wheel drive Jeeps for export to Japan and other markets we
fought hard to open up. Thanks to expanded exports, that one plant has added 700 new
assembly-line workers. That's 700 more UAW families supported by good wages and good
benefits. That is how to make the most of trade. And that is what we are doing.
Should we ask people to adhere to global standards so we can preserve the global
environment? Absolutely. No Administration in history has done more to preserve and protect
the environment. Should we acknowledge that global trade can, in the near term, pull the rug out
from under some of our workers? Absolutely. No Administration in history has done more to
aid displaced workers and help all workers increase their skills. But we also must recognize that
the global economy will not go away. If we do not make the global economy work for us, it will
work against us — and overwhelm us. This nation - and its workers — will get left behind.
[This debate will be tough. We both know that. But this I promise: The debate over fair
trade will be a fair debate. I assure you that I will not let it get personal or mean-spirited. We
-3 -
�share far too many values and priorities to let this disagreement damage our partnership. We
share far too much to tum this into a litmus-test issue. Likewise, I believe it is wrong to make
this a litmus test of your relationship with members of Congress. If organized labor adopts this
rigid approach, it will sever ties with members who care deeply about the working men and
women of this country. And it will not sit well with the American people. The American people
do not want to see any organized interest, no matter how admirable its aims, to operate this way.]
Finally, I want to ask for your leadership in an area where you have always been out
front: helping to preserve the bonds of community that bind us together as Americans. I
have called on this nation to join me in a great conversation about race, an effort to redress
imbalance, to root out hatred and prejudice, to bring Americans of different backgrounds together
to face one another to openly and honestly share their hopes and fears. You are in a unique
position to help. The labor movement has made it possible for generations of new and diverse
immigrants to lend their skills to the ongoing work of building America. Your members have
reached across racial, professional, and geographic lines to fight for a common future. Few
institutions in America have been so successful.
It is no coincidence that one of the members of my Race Advisory Commission is your
dynamic Executive Vice President, Linda Chavez-Thompson. Working in the Texas cotton
fields as a girl and organizing workers in the Southwest as an adult, Linda saw injustices against
women, Hispanics, and blacks first-hand. As she has said, discrimination is not a thing of the
past. When it comes to paychecks and power, it is still an everyday reality for millions of
Americans of color.
We can study the demographic trends and see what America will look like in the 21st
Century. But we must look inside to imagine what America will be like. That answer is up to all
of us. Will you help me make sure that America will harness the vast potential of our diversity?
Will you help me empower women and people of color to secure their fair share of the American
dream?
Conclusion: As TK immigrant worker wrote in his diary TK years ago...
...that is how we must prepare for the 21st Century...
God bless you and thank you.
-4-
�Aggressive:
You and I come by our differences on this issue honestly. I respect your position. I know that
you are doing what you think is right for America. But this I know is wrong: Some labor leaders
have called for punishing members of Congress ~ no matter how solid their record of support for
working men and women ~ if they dare to vote to restore the traditional trading authority granted
to every President since Gerald Ford. If organized labor adopts this approach and severs ties
with some of most stalwart allies, not only will it be cutting off its nose to spite its face. It will
engender the deep distrust of the American people. The American people do not want to see any
organized interest, no matter how admirable its aims, to operate this way.
Conciliatory:
This debate is going to be tough. We both know that. But this I promise: The debate over fair
trade will be a fair debate. I assure you that I will not let it get personal. I will not let it get
mean. Let's make sure the American people know what you know and I know: This is a debate
within the family. We share far too many values and priorities to let this disagreement damage
our fruitful and familial relationship. Will you join me in making that pledge? I think we owe it
to the working men and women of this country.
Half and Half:
This debate is going to be tough. We both know that. But this I promise: The debate over fair
trade will be a fair debate. I assure you that I will not let it get personal or mean-spririted. We
share far too many values and priorities to let this disagreement damage our partnership. We
share far too much to tum this into a litmus-test issue. Likewise, I believe it is wrong to make
this a litmus test of your relationship with members of Congress. If organized labor adopts this
rigid approach, it will sever ties with members who care deeply about the working men and
women of this country. It will engender the distrust of the American people. The American
people do not want to see any organized interest, no matter how admirable its aims, to operate
this way.
�Admini.slration of William ] . Clinton, 1993 I Oct. •/
loin: is
s ou^ht
0 comi'(.Hloral
iclp us
ns (hat
ial an:
lile we
lial wc
<) y o n .
• i" only
ivhodv
1 (Iicy
o with
connuls lo
s and
ocrson
' i i , sir.
. able
•cd to
linalc
.liking
.i n u ll can
nt to
on'rc
vliolc
;i(]ing
thev
arc
Is of
said
.' loo
nd I
ist a
cam
And
now,
ial I
ning
Ikmg
can
will
get-
ting serious about the deficit, is to have to make
sure before wc pass anything, we have to know
as precisely as we can exactly what the costs
will be. 1 personally believe, as I told you and
I said during the campaign, that it wouldn't cost
inucli, if anything, to raise the earnings limit
because the people who go to work will eam
more money and pay more taxes.
But 1 still strongly support it. I thiijk it should
be raised, and I think it will be raised. It's
just a question of how much and how quick
1 can get it passed in Congress. I am still committed to it, and I would like to urge you and
anybody else watching this program who is in
your situation to urge the Members of Congress
from this State to vote to do that.
This is one of those issues that there aren't
a lot of people against; it's just hard to raise
it on the radar screen of the Congress. And
to be fair to them—it's easy to bash Congress—
they're working 40 )crcent more this year than
last year. I'm proud of that, 40 percent more.
I've put all this stuff there, and they're working
hard now because of all the things we've put
before them. But this has not been addressed,
and you're right to bring it up. I haven't forgotten it, but I need your help in building the
kind of public support we need to change it.
Mr. Atkinson. Mr. President, unfortunately we
have to give way, I think, for a dolphin and
"SeaQuest" here in a moment, but we wanted
to save a little time for you. I think you have
about a minute.
The President. Well, I wish I could take another question or two. Let me first of all thank
all of you for coming. And thank you for your
interest. Thank you for the ver)' good questions
you asked; I wish wc could have done more.
And let me urge you to keep up this level of
involvement. We can get these changes made
if the American people demand them. And you
don't have to agree with every detail of my
health care program, just demand that we pass
one that has security and savings and simplicity,
that preserves the kind of choice and quality
these doctors talked about tonight, and that asks
all of us to be more responsible.
We can do this and we can also turn the
California economy around if we'll take it one
day at a time, one project at a time, and keep
at these things until they're done. We can do
it. Thank you ver)' much.
N O T E ; The town meeting began at 6:33 p.m. at
the KCftA television studio.
Remarks to the AFL-CIO Convention in San Francisco, California
October 4, 1993
Thank you very much. President Kirkland,
distinguished platform guests, and to the men
and women of the American labor movement,
let me tell you first I am glad to be here.
I feel like I'm home, and I hope you feel like
you have a home in Washington.
For most of the 20th century the union movement in America has represented the effort to
make sure that people who worked hard and
played by the rules were treated fairly, had a
chance to become middle class citizens, raise
middle class kids, and give their children a
chance to have a better life than they did. You
have worked for that. You have done that.
For too long, in the face of deep and profound problems engulfing all the world's advanced nations, you have been subjected to a
politic-ill climate in which you were asked to
bear the blame for forces you did not create,
many times when you were trying to make the
situation better. I became President in part because I waiited a newjiarinershinJbr^the-lLibQr.
movement in America.
BeforeT get into the remarks that I came
here to make about all of our challenges at
home and the economic challenges facing us,
I have to make a few remarks this morning
about developments in the world in the last
48 hours.
The labor movement has been active, particularly in the last few years with the end of the
cold war, in the effort to promote democracy
abroad, to guarantee the right of people freely
to join their own unions, and to work for freedom within their own countries. In that context
most of you, I know, have strongly supported
1667
�Oct. 4 I Administration
of William J Clinton.
1993
and looked with great favor on the niovement
toward deniocracv in Russia.
The United States continues to stand f m n
in its support of President Yeltsin because he
is Russia's democratically elected leader. W'e
very much regret the loss o( lift' in Moscow,
but it is clear that the opposition forces started
the conflict and that President Yeltsin had no
other alternative than to t n ' to restore order.
It appears as of this moment that that lias been
done. I have as of this moment ahsolutelv no
reason to doubt the personal commitment that
Boris Yeltsin made to let the Hussian people
decide their own future, to secure a new Constitution with democratic values and democratic
processes, to have a new legislative branch elected with democratic elections, and to subject
himself, vet again, to a democratic vote of the
people. That is all that we can ask
1 think also, most of vou know that in a militarv action yesterday, the United States sustained the loss of some young American soldiers
in Somalia. I deeply regret the loss of their
lives. They are working to ensure that anarchy
and starvation do not return lo a nation in which
over 300,000 people have lost their lives, many
of them children, before the United States led
the U.N. mission there, starting late last year.
1 want to offer my profound condolences lo
the families of the United States Army personnel who died there. Thev were acting in the
best spirit ol America.
As you know, the United States has long had
plans to withdraw from Somalia and leave it
to others in the United Nations to pursue the
common objectives. I urged the United Nations
and the Secretary-General in my speed) at the
United Nations a few days ago to start a political
process so that the country could be turned
back over to Somalis who would not permit
the kind of horrible bloodshed and devastation
to reoccur. And 1 hope and pray that that will
happen. In the meanwhile, you may be sure
that we will do whatever is necessary to protect
our own forces in Somalia and to complete our
mission there.
From the struggle against communism in
Eastern Europe to the struggle against apartheid
in South Africa, the union movement in America
has always answered the challenges of onr time.
It must be a source of great pride to you to
see these elections unfold, to see the remarkable
movement toward a genuine multiracial society
within a democratic framework in South Africa.
1668
It must, likewise, be a source ol continuing frustration to vou to see that even as the ideas
and the values that vou have espoused now for
decades are being embraced around the world,
here in our countrv and in virtuallv every other
wealthy country in the world, middle class workers are under assault from global economic
forces that seem bevond the reach of virtually
any government policv.
We now know that cvcrv wcalthv country in
the world is having trouble creating jobs. We
now know that in the lasl several vears. inequality of income got worse in even major country'.
We know that we had more growing inequality
in America than anyplace else because we actually embraced it. I mean, the whole idea of
trickle-down economics was lo cut taves on the
wealthiest Americans, raise taxes on the middle
class, let the deficit balloon, and hope that the
investment from the wealthy would somehow
expand opportunity to evcrvbodv else
We know that didn't work, and it made the
situation worse. It left us with a S-l trillion debt.
It left us with a deficit of over $300 billion
a year. It left us with a legacy of weakened
opportunities for workers in the workplace, too
little investment, a paralvzed budget, and no
strategy' to compete and win in the global economy, and more inequalilv in America than any
of the other wealthy countries. But we also know
that the same problems we have are now being
found in Germany, in Japan, in all of Europe,
in the other advanced nations.
So we have to face the honest fact that we
are facing unprecedented challenges in our own
midst to the very way of life that the labor
movement has fought so haul to guarantee for
others around the world for decades. And therefore, it is important that we think through these
issues, that we take positions on them, that we
agree and that we disagree in the spirit of honest searching for what the real nature of this
world is we're living in and where we are going.
The most important thing to me today is that
you know that this administration shares your
values and youf~hopes and your dreams and
the mterest ol your clnlOren and that together—lapplausc]—and that I believe together
we can work our way through this very difficult
and challenging time, recognizing that no one
fully understands the dimensions of the age in
which we live and exactly how we are going
to recreate opportunity for all Aniericans who
are willing to do what it takes to be worthy
�Administration of William ]. Clinton, 1993 I Oct 4
of it.
The labor inovcment. historically, has always
been on the cntline etlge of change and the
drive to empower workers anZI givfl them more
dignity on the job and in their lives. Almost
a half a century a m at the end of World War
II, labor helped to change America and the
world. At home and abroad, labor helped to
create a generation of prospenty and to create
the broad middle class that we all clierish so
A ,
... much today __
muchjdd^TII
Z
' / t j i S r - ^ * Now, we have to do it apin We're at a time
/ J v ^ A l of ehanpejhat 1 am coiiNnmed is as dramatic
as tlig^dawning of the Industrial Age. We can
no longer tell our sons and daughters—we know
this now—that thev will enter a job at the age
of 18 or 21, enjoy secure paychecks and health
benefits and retirement benefits for the rest of
their working lives and retire from the same
job with the same companv at the age of 65
or 62.
Our changing economy tells us now that the
average 18-year-old will change work seven
times in a lifetime even if they stay with the
same company and certainly if they change; that
when people lose their jobs now, they really
aren't on unemployment, thev're looking for reemployment; that most unemplovment today is
not like it used to be: When people got unemployed for decades, it was because there was
a temporary downturn in the economy, and
when the economy turned up again, most people
who were unemployed were hired back by their
old employer. Today, most people who are unemployed eventually get hired back usually by
a different employer for a different job and unless we are very good at what we do for them,
often at lower wages and less benefits. So it
is clear that what we need is not an unemployment system but a reemployment system in recognition of the way the world works today.
i
vour
and
toiher
icult
one
e in
oing
who
irthy
We know, too. that most American working
people are working harder than they ever have
in their lives; that the average work week is
longer today than it was 20 years ago; that real
hourly wages adjusted for inflation peaked in
1973, and so most people are working harder
for the same or lower real wages than they
were making 20 years ago.
We know that in the eighties there was a
dramatic restructuring of manufacturing; that
being followed in the nineties with a dramatic
restnicturing of the service industries. We know
that for the last 12 years, in every single year,
the Fortune 500 companies lowered employment in the United States in six figures, and
that in the years where we have gained jobs,
they've come pnmarilv from starting new businesses and from companies with between, say.
500 and 1,000 workers expanding, as the whole
nature of this economy changes.
We know that the cost of health care has
increased so much that millions of American
workers who kepi their jobs never got a pay
raise because, all the increased money went to
pay more for the same health care. We know
that some of our most powerful industrial engines, especially in industries like autos and steel
have shown breathtaking increases in productivity with deep changes in the work force supported by the labor movement, and still are
having trouble competing in the world, in part,
because their health costs may be as much as
a dime on the dollar more than all of their
competitors.
We know, as I said at the beginning, that
all the wealthy countries in the world are now
having trouble creating jobs. If you look at
France, for example, in the late 1980's, they
actually had an economv that grew more rapidly
than Germany's, and yet their unemployment
rate never went below 9.5 percent.
So what are we to do? It seems to me that
we clearly have to make some changes in the
way we look at the world and the way we approach the world. And in order to make those
changes, we have to ask ourselves, what do we
have to do to make the American people secure
enough to make the changes? One of the things
that has really bothered me in the late, latter
stages of this era that we're moving out of is
that so few people have been so little concerned
about ram jant insecurity among ordinary American midde class citizens. It is impossible for
people in their personal lives to make necessary'
changes if they are wildly insecure.
You think about that in your own life. You
think about a personal challenge you faced, a
challenge your family has faced. The same thing
is true in the workplace. The same thing is
true of a community. The same thing is true
of a team. The same thing is true of our country. We have to stniggle to redefine a new balance between security and change in this country because if we're not secure, we won't
change, and if we don't change, we'll get more
insecure, because the circumstances of the world
will continue to grind us down.
1669
�Oct. 4 I Administralitm of Willinin ]. Clinton, 1993
And that's what inakcs this such a difilcnlt ment-funded contracting and one-sided informatime, because we have to rethink so many things tion given to workers in the workplace. And
at once. 1 ran lor President because I was tired this week I will sign the Hatch Act Reform
of 20 years of declining living standards, of 12 Act to give Govemment employees political
years of trickle-down economics and antiworker rights they have been denied for too long.
One week ago yesterday, on a Sunday mornpolicies, and rhetoric that blamed people who
are working harder for the problems that others ing, I came in from my early morning run, and
I turned to my right as I walked into the White
did not respond to, and because? 1 believe that
we needed a new partnership in America, a House, antl I saw a family standing there, a
new sense of community, not just business and father, a mother, and three daughters, one of
labor and govemment but also people without whom was in a wheelchair. And the person who
regard to their color or their region o r anything was with them who worked for me said, "Mr.
else. I thought we didn't have anybody to waste, President, this little girl has got terminal cancer,
and it looks to me like we were wasting a lot and she was asked by the Make-A-Wish Foundaof people and that we needed to put together. tion what she wanted to do, and she said she
1 thought the country w s going in the wrong wanted to come to the White House and visit
direction, and we should turn it around. But you. So we're giving her a special tour."
So I went over, and I shook hands with them
I was then and am now under no illusions that
we could do it overnight or that 1 could do and apologized for my condition and told them
I'd get cleaned up and come back and we'd
it, unless we did it together.
The beginning of the security necessary to take a picture. And a few minutes later I showed
change, 1 think, is in having a Government that up looking more like my job, and 1 visited with
is plainly on the side of working Americans. ^this wonderful child, desperately ill, for a while.
1 believe that any of your leaders who work And then 1 talked to her sisters, and then I
with this administration will lell you that we talked to her mother, antl I talked to her father.
are replacing a Government that for vears And as 1 turned around to go off, the father
worked labor over, with a__Goveriiinent that grabbed me by the arm and he said, he said,
works with labor. We have a~Secrelary ol Labor "Let me tell you something. If you ever get
in Bob Reich who understands that, at a time to wondering whether it makes a difference
when money and management can travel across who's the President," he said, "look at my child.
(lie globe in a microsecond, our prosperity de- She's probably not going to make it, and the
pends more than anything else on the skills and weeks I've spent with her have been the most
the strengths of our working people. No one precious time of my life. And if you hadn't been
can take that away from us. And our people elected, we svouldn't have had a family and
are still our most important asset, even more medical leave law that made it possible for me
to be with my child in this time."
than they were 20 years ago.
Now, I believe, in short, that it ought to be
We have nominated a Chair of the National
Labor Relations Board in Bill Could, and a new possible to be a good parent and a good worker.
member, Peggy Browning, who believe in collec- 1 believe that it ought to be possible for icople
tive bargaining. We have a Director of the Oc- to make their own judgments about w icther
cupational Safety and Health Administration in they want to be organized at work or not and
Joseph Dear who comes from the labor move- how they're going to—[inaudible]. And I believe
ment and believes that workers should be pro- if we're really going to preserve the American
tected in the workplace. We have two people workplace as a model of global productivity, we
in executive positions in the Labor Department have to let people who know how to do their
in Joyce Miller and Jack Otero who were on jobs better than other people do have more
your executive council. We have two people in empowerment to do those jobs and to make
the SEIU in executive positions in Karen Nuss- those changes in the workplace.
baum and Jerry Polas who are leading us to
That's why, as we work on the Vice Presimake progress.
dent's reinventing Govemment initiative, we've
This aoministration rescinded President Rea- worked so closely with Federal employees and
gan's order banning all reemployment of their unions. Wlien the Vice President spoke
PATCO workers forever. And we rescinded with business leaders and workers who had
President Bush's orders with regard to Govem- changed their companies, they all said the same
1670
thing: You'vto let them
you how to
live.
Now, that
tive order—<
nership Cou
the leaders «
ing John Stu
ican Federal i
is here toda\
administratio
effective, co
make the jol
ployees moi
more custon
they have In
to do but tl
them to do
the other p'
Federal emp
This is an
think will bei.
We want t
labor-manage
this country,
room. We've
of labor and
from labor, I
by former L
I've asked S
<
sion to study
eminent worl
and county
Federal level.
I believe tl
Bob Reich is
the kind of th
because we
have to try to
and their bn
country.
For the las
pointing and
stirring exan
trying to rep
doing, takin)
workplace in
we're going
Now, on
tion some ol
leave act, tl
a landslide
well be the
�Administration
thing. You've got to have the workers; you have
to let then) do it. tell you how to do it, tell
you how to make the companies more productive.
Now, that's why yesterday I signed an Executive order—on Friday—creating a National Partnership Council. For the next several months
the leaders of Federal employee unions, including John Sturdivant, the president of the American Federation of Government Employees, who
is here today, will work with the leaders o f our
administration to make our Govemment more
effective, cost less, and more importantly, to
make the jobs of the rank and file Federal employees more interesting, more stimulating,
more customer-oriented, by doing things that
they have been telling us they should be able
to do but that tlie system has not permitted
them to do in the past. I applaud John and
the other people in the unions representing
Federal employees for what they have done.
This is an unprecedented partnership that I
think will benefit ever)' Amencan.
W'e want lo make worker empowerment and
labor-management cooperation a way o f life in
this countu', from the factory floor to the board
room. We've created a commission on the future
of labor and management relations, with leaders
from labor, business, and the academy, chaired
by former Labor Secretary John Dunlap. And
I've asked Secretary Reich to create a commission to study and improve relationships in government workplaces at every level, at the State
and county ami local level, as well as at the
Federal level
1 believe this is something that a person like
Bob Reich is imi(|iicly situated to do. And it's
the kind of thing that we ought to be promoting
because we have to use this opportunity we
have to try to take what has worked for workers
and their businesses and spread it around the
country.
For the last 12 years we've had a lot of fingerpointing and blame-placing, and we've got these
stirring examples of success that we could be
trying to replicate. That's what we ought to be
doing, taking what works. And it always is a
workplace in which workers have more say. And
we're going to do what we can to get that done.
Now, on the security issue, let me just mention some other things. In addition to the family
leave act, the budget bill which passed by such
a landslide in the Congress contained what may
well be the most important piece of economic
of William ]. Clinton, 1993 I Oct. 4
reform for working people in 20 vears, bv expanding the eamed-ineome tax credit so that
you can say to people, if you work 40 hours
a week and you have children in your home,
you will not he poor. We are bringing new hope
and new dignity into the lives of 15 million
working families that make $27,000 a vear or
less. They'll no longer he taxed into |xjvcrty
There won't be a Govemment program to try
to lift them out of poverty. Their own efforts
will lift them out of poverty because the tax
system will be changed to reward them And
there will never again be an incentive for people
to be on welfare instead of work because the
tax system will sa\, if you're willing to go to
work and work 40 hours a week, no matter
how tough it is, we will lift you out of poverty.
That is the kind of pro-work, pro-family policy
this countr)' ought to have.
Something else that was in that bill that most
Americans don't even know about yet that will
benefit many, manv of you in this room and
the people yon represent is a dramatic retorm
of the student loan system that will eliminate
waste, lower the interest rales aw student loans,
make the repayment terms easier so that voung
people can repay their loans no matter how
muc h the)' borrow as a percentage of their income, limited so they can repay it. Even though
we'll have tougher repayment terms, they'll be
able to do it. We'll collect the money, but people will be able to borrow money and pay it
back at lower interest rates, at better repayment
terms. And therefore, no one will ever be denied access to a college education because of
the cost.
When you put that with our Goals 2000 program, the education reform program for the
public schools, and the work that the Education
Secretary Dick Riley is doing with SecretaryReich to redo the worker training programs in
the country, you have a commitment to raise
standards in education and open opportunities
lo our young people.
We need higher standards in our public
schools. Al Shanker has long been a voice for
that. He now has allies in the NEA and other
places in the country who are saying. "Lets
have national standards and evaluate what our
kids are learning and how our schools are
doing."
I believe we need to give our young people
more choices within the public school system,
and I have advocated letting States try a lot
1671
�Oct. I I Administrntion
of William J Clinton. 1993
of tilings witliin districts. Let kids choose which
schools thev attend. Let schcx)l districts decide
how thev want to set up and organize schools.
1 think that a lot of changes need to he made
in a lot of sch<x>l districts. But let me sav that
we don't want to throw out the baby with the
bath water. There are also a lot of school districts that are doing a great job under difficult
circumstances. Then; are a lot of schools within
school districts that are performing well under
dilTicult circumstances.
And if we've learned anything, we've learned
that the best way to increase the ( uality of education is to find better principa s, get better
leaders among the teachers, let them have more
say over how school is run, and evaluate them
based on their results rather than telling them
how to do every last jot and tittle of their job
every day.
W'e have learned these things—and if 1 might,
since we're in California, sav a special word—
therefore, I believe that having worked lor 12
years for higher standards, more choices and
greater changes in public education, I'm in a
little bit of a position to say that if 1 were
a citizen of the State of California. I would
not vote for Proposition 174, the private voucher
initiative.
Now, and let me tell yon why. Let me tell
yon why. First of all, keep in mind a lot of
the schools out here are doing a good job. I
can say this, you know, I never was part of
the California education system. I have studied
this system out here for more than a decade.
They have undertaken a lot of very impressive
reforms and many .of their schools are doing
a good job. 1 was interviewed last night by two
people from a newspaper in Sacramento, and
one of them just volunteered that he hat! two
children in the public schools there, and they
were getting a terrific education.
This bill would start by taking $1.3 billion
right o f f the top to send a check to people
who already have their kids in private schools,
and who didn't need any Government money
to do it, and taking it right ofT the top away
from a school system that doesn't have enough
money to educate the kids it's got in it in the
first place.
Second thing it would do is to impose no
real standards on the quality of the programs
which could be funded: who could set up a
school; what standards they'd have to meet; what
tests the kids would have to pass. Just take your
1672
voucher, and who cares whether a private sch<x)I
is a legitimate school or nol. That is a significant
issue. And all you have to do is to work in
this field for a few years to understand that
that is a significant issue.
Wouldn't it be ironic that at the very moment
we're finally trying to find a wav to measure
the performance and raise the standards of the
public schools, we turn around and start sending
t;L\ money to private schools that didn't have
lo meet any standards at all. When we're trying
lo get one part of our business, we're going
to make the other part worse.
And finally, let me just say, 1 have always
supported the notion that American schools
ought to have com )etition and the fact that we
have a vibrant tradition of pluralistic education
and private schools and religious private schools
was a good thing, not a bad thing for America.
But all (he years when I grew up. and all the
limes 1 saw that, and for a couple years of
my life when I was a little hoy. when 1 went
to a Catholic school, when mv folks moved from
one place to another, and we lived way out
in the country and didn't know much about
the schools in the new area where we were,
no one ever thought that the church would want
any money from the taxpayers to run their
schools. In fact, they said just the opposite, "We
don't want to be involved in that." That's what
the First Amendment is all about.
So I think we have to really think through—
I have spent 12 years before I became President
overwhelmingly obsessed with reform of the
public school system, wanting more choices in
the system, wanting more accountability, wanting more flexibility about how schools were organized and established and operated. But I can
tell you that this is not the way to get it done,
and the people will regret this if they pass it.
I hope the people of California don't do thai.
Now, you can educate people all you want—
and I wanted to say a little more about that.
The Labor Secretary and 1 are working on trying
to take all these 150 different Govemment training programs and give local communities and
States the power to consolidate them, working
with you, and just fund the things that work
on a State-by-State basis, and to set up a system
of lifetime education and training.
1 don't know how many of you saw the television program I did last night in California,
but one man, looked to be in his early fifties,
saying, "We need a training program that gives
up ou
defens
didate
when
all ov,
gress ;
Congr
They •
solute
convci
econo
we're
on dc
jobs i
very ii
We
count:
to ma
dollar
hundi
pie a i
new j*
I v
v
and I
local
with i
new i
factur
with •
parts
target
impoi
can i
we sl
�Atlminixtration
ol
nt
in
at
nt
re
ie
'R
v-e
•g
•R
\-s
.Is
ve
in
.Is
a.
H'
of
nt
in
nt
•it
'c.
Ilt
•ir
Ve
•at
•it
lie
in
it-
>r.111
if.
it.
at.
at.
"g
in-
nd
"g
Tk
leia,
es,
es
mv companv some incentives to retrain me. not
just peo lie who are 25, hut people who arc
55." Am we are trying to do that. We're trying
to set up a lifetime edueation and training program that starts when young people are in high
school, so if thev want to work and learn in
high school they can work and learn in high
school, so that we can have the kind of schoollo-work transition that many of our competitors
have for all those kids that won't go to college
and won't get 4-year educations. We've got lo
do that.
Hut if vou do all that, you still have to have
someplace for people lo work. We can educate
and train people all we want, hut we have to
he able lo create more jobs. How are we going
to do thai at a time: when the Government is
not directlv funding the defense jobs that have
kept America's job base up for so long?
Well, the first thing we've got to do is make
up our mind we re going to be serious about
defense conversion. Last year when I was a candidate
for President—[applause]—last
year
when 1 was a candidate for President, 1 went
all over (he country—and I wasn't in the Congress and didn't have a vote—pleading with the
Congress to pass the defense conversion bill.
They did it, and the previous administration absolutely refused to spend $500 million to help
convert from a defense to a high-tech domestic
economy. So we have released the money. And
we're going to try to get u i to $20 billion spent
on defense conversion an< reinvestment in the
jobs of tomorrow over the next 5 years. It is
very important.
We have got over 2,800 proposals in this
countr)' for technology-reinvestment initiatives,
to match with what will soon be about a billion
dollars in Government money that can create
hundreds of thousands of jobs in America. People are brimming with ideas out there to create
new jobs.
I was at McClellan Air Force Base yesterday,
and the airbase is working with people in the
local community and the local universities and
with the Federal defense labs. They have made
new electric cars. They have made new manufacturing component parts to try to come up
with economical ways to do it and allow those
parts to be made in America. And they are
targeting things that are now made overseas and
imported here. That's the sort of thing lhat we
can use our high-tech defense base to do, and
we should be doing it. It's going to make for
of William J. Clinton.
1993 I Oct. 4
more jobs for America
They have developed a prototype car thai gets
80 miles per gallon at 55 miles per hour on
the highway, goes to 60 miles ler hour in 12
seconds, has a maximum spee< of 100 miles
an hour. That's not bad. I f we can just figure
out how people cau afford it, we can put people
to work making them. But it's a good beginning.
We announced last week that ground-breaking
project with the UAW and Ford. Chrvsler, and
General Motors are working with the defense
labs and all the Government labs on a project
to triple the average mileage of American autos
within the next 10 years. I f they do that, that
will create untold numbers of new jobs here,
and we'll be selling cars to people overseas who
want that instead of the reverse.
And by the way, I want to compliment the
UAW. You know, this vear we have regained
a lot of our market share in America. People
are buying more American cars in America, and
we should compliment them for it.
So we have to find ways to create these new
jobs. Now, I want to talk a little about health
care, but before I do, I want to mention something we disagree on in the context of the trade
issue. And listen to this. Since 1986, a significant
portion of America's net new jobs have come
from trade growth. That's something we can all
find from the figures. In California, where we
now are, a lot of that has come from Asia,
which is the fastest growing part of the world.
Asia's growing faster than any other part of the
world; Latin America the second fastest growing
part of the world. Everybody knows that is true.
Now, that's why, when I went to Tokyo and
met with the leaders of the G-7, the seven
big industrial countries, we made an agreement
that we should dramatically reduce tariffs on
manufactured products around the world in
ways that all analysts agree would generate a
lot of new manufacturing jobs here in America.
There was virtually no dispute about that, because we were largely in competition with other
countries that were paying the same or higher
wages with the same or better benefits, with
high-tech and other manufacturing products that
we wanted to sell everywhere. And we're working like crazy to get that done between now
and the end of the year.
What is the difference between that and the
trade agreement with Mexico? And let's talk
about that just a minute, because it's very important, not so you'll agree with me but so you
1673
�Oct. 4 I Administration
of William J. Clinton. 1993
will know whal I want you to know, which is
that 1 would never knowingly do anything to
cost an Aineriean a job That's not the business
I'm in.
1 was a Governor during the last 12 years,
when the maquilladora system was in place.
What did it do? It created a border zone on
the other side of the border in Mexico in which
people were free to set up plants, operate them
bv the standards that were enforced there—or
not enforced, as the case may be—on labor and
environmental issues, and then send their products back into this countr)', produced at much
lower labor costs witli no tariffs. That was the
svstem set up lo I n ' to foster growlh there.
But in the i9S()'s. because of all the economic
problems we had. and because of the climate
that was promoted in this countrv that the most
important thing vou could do was slash vour
labor costs and who cared about your working
people anyway, vou had the movement of hundreds of plants down there. And you didn't like
it worth a flip. And vou were right to be upset
about whal happened.
Now, 1 was a Governor of a Slate that lost
plants to Mexico. And mv State was so small
that when people lost their jobs I was likely
to know who thev were. This was a big deal
to me. I'm also proud of the fact we got one
of them to come back before 1 left office. I'm
proud of that, too. But I understand this.
Now, that is the system we have. You also
saw this system, ironically, accelerating illegal
immigration. Why? For the same reason that
a lot of the Chinese boat people were coming
over here after thev moved to the coastal towns
in China, got a job where they made a little
more money than they did before, but didn't
much like their life, but they got enough money
to try to come here. That's what was happening
along the nuiquilladora area. A lot of people
would come up there, work for a while, then
come on up here.
So I understand what the American working
people don't like about the present system. The
real issue: Will the trade agreement make it
worse or better? You think it will make it worse.
1 think it will make it better. And I ' l l tell you,
I think you're entitled lo know why I think
that. Because there is no question that, no matter what you think about the adequacy of the
side agreements, they will raise the cost of labor
and environmental investments above the point
where they are now. There is no question that
1674
the agreement lowers domestic content requirements in Mexico, so that we'll go from selling
sav 1,000 to 50,000 or 60,000 American cars
down there next year. There's no question that
their tariffs are 2'/2 times higher than ours. And
there's no question that we have a trade surplus
there, as compared with a $49 billion trade deficit with Japan, an $18 billion trade deficit with
China, a $9 billion trade deficit with Taiwan.
We've got a trade problem, all right. It is
(hat the Asian economies are not as open to
ns as we are to them. That's onr huge trade
problem. And we're going to have to do better
there, because that's where a lot of the money
is. So mv reasoning is that if their tariffs are
higher than ours and their costs go up faster
than they're otherwise going to go up. and
they're already buying $350-a-person worth of
American goods, second only to Canada—replaced Japan as the number two purchaser of
manufacturing products this year—and we got
a $5.8 billion trade suq>lus, it will get better,
not worse.
Is it a perfect agreement? No. But I don't
want to make the perfect the enemy of the
belter. I think it is better than the present.
There are two other points I want to make.
If the deal is not made with the United States,
and instead it's made with Germany or Japan,
we could lose access to an 80-million person
market and cost ourselves more jobs. And i f
the deal is made, it could lead to further similar
agreements with the emerging market economies of Uit in America. And no one believes
that anybody's going to invest in Argentina, for
exam iie, to export back to the American market.
So ;il barrier dropping the further you get away
from here because of transportation costs will
lead to more jobs in America through greater
trade.
So that's why I think it makes it better, not
worse. You're entitled to know that. I don't ask
you to agree, but I ask you to make the same
arguments inside your own mind, because I
would never knowingly do anything to cost
America jobs. I'm trying to create jobs in this
country.
Now, I ' l l tell you what I really think. Whal
I really believe is that this is become the symbol
of the legitimate grievances of the American
working people about the way they've been
worked over the last 12 years. That's what I
think. And 1 think those grievances are legitimate. And I think that people are so insecure
�Administration
•ireling
eans
that
\nd
ilus
iefi«lh
van.
I is
• to
ade
iter
•ne)'
are
ster
and
. of
-rer of
got
iter,
im't
Ihe
ent.
ake.
ites,
pan,
rson
.1 i f
lilar
>no•.•\'es
for
ket.
.wav
will
ater
not
ask
ame
* I
cost
this
Vhat
nbol
ican
leen
at I
giticure
in their jobs, they're so uncertain that the people they work for really care about them, they're
so uncertain about what their kids are looking
at in the future, that people are reluctant to
take any risks for change.
And so let me close with what 1 started with.
I have got to lay a foundation of personal security for the working people of this country and
their families in order to succeed as your President, and you have to help me do it. We have
got to reform the job Training system of this
country, to make it a reemployment system, not
an unemployment system, and to give it to kids
starting when they're in high school.
We have got to have an investment strategy'
that will create jobs here. And that's why we
removed all those export controls that were cold
war relics on computers and supercomputers
and telecommiiiiicatioiis eijuipment, opening
just this month S37 billion worth of American
products to exports. That is important.
That's why I want to pass a crime bill to
put 50,000 more police officers on the street,
pass the Brady bill and take those automatic
weapons out of the hands of the teenagers that
are vandalizing and brutalizing our children in
this countr)'. And, mv fellow Americans, that
is why we have got to pass a comprehensive
health care bill to provide security to all Americans. And we've got to do it now.
How many Americans do you know who lost
their health insurance because they lost their
jobs? Who never got a pay increase because
of the rising cost of their health care? Who
can never change jobs because they have a sick
child? Millions of them. How many companies
are represented in this room who could be selling more everywhere across the board, more
abroad and more at home, if their health care
costs were no greater than their competitors
around the world?
Let's face it folks, we're spending over 14
percent of our income on health care. Canada's
at 10. Germany and Japan are under nine. The
Germans went up toward 9 percent of their
income on health care, they had a national outbreak of hysteria about how they were losing
control of their health care system. And yet they
all cover everybody and no one loses their health
insurance. And when I say we can do that and
we can do it without a broad-based tax increase,
People look at me like 1 have slipped a gear.
Laughter)
But
1 have spent over 3 years studying this
of William J Clinton, 1993 I Oct. 4
system. And the first I^uly and her task force
have mobilized thousands of experts in the most
intense effort lo examine social reform in my
lifetime. And thev have recommended that we
adopt a system which, first of all, builds on
the system that vou enjoy: an employer-based
system where the employer contributes and, in
some cases, the employee does and some not;
a system that is focused on keeping what is
good about American health care—doctors, and
nurses, and medical research and technology—
and fixing what is wrong—not covering everybod), kicking them off after they have a serious
illness, not letting people move their jobs, having some people in such tiny groups of insurance that 40 percent of their premium goes
to irofit and administrative costs, and spending
a t ime on the dollar, a dime on ever)' dollar
in a S90 billion system goes to paperwork thai
wouldn't go in anv other system in the world—
$90 billion a vear on that alone. Never mind
the fraud and the abuse, and the incentives in
this system to churn it, to perform unnecessary
procedures just because the more you do the
more you earn.
We can do better than that. So I want to
just say, this svstem will be a good one. Everybody will get a health care security card like
this. 1 feel like that guy in the ad; I'm supposed
to say, "Don't leave home without it," when
I pull it out \Uiiightcr] But I want everybody
to have a health care security card like this.
Just like a Social Security card. And I want
people to have their health care access whether
they're working or unemployed, whether they
work for a little business or a big one.
Under the system we have proposed, if you've
got a better deal now, vou can keep it. I f your
employer pays 100 percent of benefits now, you
can keep it. And we don't propose to tax any
benefits that are above the minimum package.
We told those who wanted that to give us 10
years before we put that provision in because
witliin 10 years we'll have the minimum benefit
package we start with, plus full dental benefits
and full mental-health benefits and full preventive-care benefits, so it will be as good or better
than any package now offered by any employer
in America. Then, if somebody wants to buy
something over and above that, we can talk
about it. But we are not going to take anything
away from you, you have.
What we are going to do is two things for
you i f you have a good policy. We're going to
1675
�Aggressive:
You and I come by our differences on this issue honestly. I respect your position. I know that
you are doing what you think is right for America. But this I know is wrong: Some labor leaders
have called for punishing members of Congress ~ no matter how solid their record of support for
working men and women ~ if they dare to vote to restore the traditional trading authority granted
to every President since Gerald Ford. If organized labor adopts this approach and severgties
with some of most stalwart allies, not only will it be cutting off its nose to spite its fac^r It will
engender the deep distrust of the American people. The American people do not want to see any/
organized interest ^a^wdbl fK ff|«V CrftL^.
Conciliatory:
This debate is going to be tough. We both know that. But this I promise: The debate over fair
trade will be a fair debate. I assure you that I will not let it get personal. I will not let it get
mean. Let's make sure the American people know what you know and I know: This is a debate
within the family. We share far too many values and priorities to let this disagreement damage
our fruitful and familial relationship. Will you join me in making that pledge? I think we owe it
to the working men and women of this country.
HalfandHalf:
This debate is going to be tough. We both know that. But this I promise: The debate over fair
trade will be a fair debate. I assure you that I will not let it get personal or mean-spririted. We^
share far too many values and priorities to let this disagreement damage our partnership,
share far too much to turn this into a litmus-test issue. Likewise, I believe it is wrong to
this a litmus test of your relationship with members of Congress. If organized labor adopts this
rigid approach, it will sever ties with members who care deeply about the working men and
len of this country. It will engender the distrust of the American people...
�Speech: AFL-CIO Convention
Wednesday, September 23, 1997
(5) 9:30 a.m.
Audience:
About 1500 union leaders, some rank-and-file workers, but mostly International
Presidents, Vice-Presidents, Presidents of locals and Presidents of State Federations.
The last convention was quite active given the challenge election between Tom
Donahue and John Sweeney. This year the Sweeney ticket-Rich Trumka and Linda
Chavez Thompson-face no opposition. Attached is the At-A-Glance schedule.
Timing:
The President will be speaking on Day 3 of the Convention. Prior to his
appearance, Secretary Alexis Herman will be addressing the Convention. The Vice
President will have been in Pittsburgh on Saturday but would have addressed the
Executive Council and the Organizing Committee not the convention of delegates.
Preparation:
The DPC, NEC, and DOL are preparing issue briefs for a background
memorandum on the following: the general economy, project labor agreements, comp
time, Team Act, deregulation, privatization, balanced budget, welfare reform, etc.
Issues:
At the previous meeting in February, the Vice President announced an Executive
Order concerning Procurement. Congress held up Secretary Herman's nomination to
get the President to pull back on the order. Today there is a meeting to discuss the
status and next steps. This matter needs to be addressed.
Fast Track: We need to decide how this issue should be addressed by both the
President and Vice-President.
Accomplishments: DOL is updating it's list of labor accomplishments. The short
list: Davis-Bacon, Service Contract Act, FLSA, Minimum Wage, the Team Act
*although there is a Bingaman Amendment which we have not yet stated a position.
On the day the President is speaking, the theme for the convention is "A New
Voice for Workers in a Changing Global Economy".
�"•'3 ' ">
Frtday, SGptembor 19
9 am-4 pm
JL
Workers Investing in America
Conference for Union Pension Trustees
a
NOON-6 pm
CD
Noo>j-6pm
1 -5 pm
Ballroom I, Pittsburgh
Hilton
Convention Center
Convention Center
Convention Registration
Road to Union City Exhibit
Building a Political Voice for American Workers
Conference for Union Political Activists
tn
u
Allegheny Ballroom,
Doubletree Hotel
o
-I Saturday, Septombor 30
8:30 3m-6 pm
Convention Registration
Convention Center
8:30 am-6 pm
RoadtoUnion Gty Exhibit
Convention Center
Building a Movement of American Workers
Organizing Conference
Allegheny Ballroom,
Doubletree Hotel
1-5 pm
Sunday. September Sl
9 am
8:30 am-8 pm
10anv8:30pm
Interfaith Service
Convention Registration
W Don't miss the"
Welcome to Steel Town
Block Party tonight!
St. Nicholas Croatian Church,
Millvale
Convention Center
Road to Union Gty Exhibit
Convention Center
10 am-4 pm
Building a Voice for Workers in Our Communities
Conference for State Federations and Central Labor Councils
Ballroom I, Pittsburgh Hilton
NOON-5 pm
labor Teach-In
Lawrence Hall, University of
Pittsburgh, Oakland
Block Party: Welcome to Steel Town
Penn Avenue, outside
Convention Center
4:30-730 pm
M o n d a y , S e p t e m b e r SS Building a Movement of America's Workers
8-10 am
0
TJ'.-O
Hi
Road to Union Gty Exhibit
930 arrv-NooN
Convention in Session
Lunch Recess
NOON
Convention Center
Convention Registration
8 3m-5:30pm
2-430 pm • Convention in Session
i
C
O
•J
T-^T
•
Greet —
100 newly
" ofganizotl union
<
'
members and hear
from President
Sweeney!
Convention Center
Convention Center
Convention Center
3
�'lAJGSGlay. b'GptGinbGCr S 3 Making Government Work for Working Families
7:30 am COPE Breakfast with the Officers
7:30-8:30 am
8:30 am-5:30 pm
9:30 am
NOON
12:30 pm
2-4 pm
6:30 pm
Placement of Histoncal Marker,
Commemorating Railroad Strike
of 1877
Road to Union City Exhibit
r
We^ll hear from
, Labor Secretary
Alexis Herman
Convention in Session
Allegheny Ballroom
Doubletree Hotel
28th Street crossing
off Liberty Avenue,
downtown Pittsburgh
Convention Center
Convention Center
Lunch Recess
Concert and Rally for Civil, Economic and Education Rights
Allegheny Center, Martin Luther
King Jr. E ementaiy School
Convention in Session
Convention Center
Union Privilege Reception
Westin William Penn
W G d n G S d a y , S G p t O H i b e r S 4 A New Voice for Workers In a Changing Global Economy
Pfeose plan to arrive at the Convention Ctorter early
K-ffi*-•^^m •••^ -• p t ' | i > . • « " ^ ' i
dueito securitymeasures br PresidentCSnton's
K i P ^ - ^ ^ ^ v S ^ S S ^
' - 1
appearance.'Detaikom^cedKe^
t W ^ W ^ ^ B ^ r ^ ^ *
I
!
:
r
7:30-8 am
8 3m-530 pm
9:30am-12:15pm
9:30 am
12:15 pm
2 pm
430 pm
8 pm
Thursday,
1
1
Placement of Historical Marker Commemorating Founding
of Federation of Organized Trade and Labor Unions
Mellon Square, downtown
Pittsburgh
Road to Union Oty Exhibit
Convention Center
Convention in Session
Convention Center
President Bill Clinton
Lunch Recess
Convention in Session
Convention Center
Labor Rock Concert: You Have a Voice. Make It Heard
Benedum Center
S o p t G i n b G r £ 5 A New Voice for Workers in Our Communities
7:30-8 am
8:30 am-130 pm
930 3m
Rally and Seivice: Steel Organizing;
Baffle of Homestead (1892) Site
Road to Union City Exhibit
Convention in Session
»
tn
Nominations for Office . .
.Rev. Jesse Jackson
leads us In a closing
march and rally.
Closing March and Solidarity Rally for Good Jobs and Fair
Pumphouse, Homestead
Steelworks, near 8th Ave. 3nd
Rankin Bridge
Convention Center
u
C
D
D
n
ra
Convention Center
County Courthouse, Grant Street,
u
\
�
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
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
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
9/24/1997 AFL-CIO [American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations]
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 31
<a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/36404"> 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 2
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-Seg2-031-008-2015