    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1993, Book I)]
    [July 26, 1993]
    [Pages 1177-1185]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Remarks to the Conference on the Future of the American Workplace in
    Chicago, Illinois
    July 26, 1993

        The President. Thank you very much. Senator Simon, Senator Moseley-
    Braun, Mayor Daley, President Gross, and my friends and colleagues
    Secretaries Brown and Reich, and to all of you in the audience, my old
    colleague Governor Caperton and the distinguished business and

    [[Page 1178]]

    labor leaders from all across America.
        This has already been a little bit of fun for me. I never thought
    I'd see Carol Moseley-Braun blush. [Laughter] But I will say this: You
    can call me anything you want as long as you don't take out after me
    like you did Jesse Helms the other day. [Laughter]
        I want to say a special word of appreciation to Mayor Daley for
    talking about the Chicago Laboratory for Change, because it really is
    sort of symbolic of what we're trying to do all across the country, the
    kind of partnership between government and business and labor and social
    service agencies to try to put low income people into the work force,
    into independence, and away from dependence. And I'm very excited about
    that.
        I talked to President Gross before we came in about the history of
    Roosevelt University, a very appropriate place to be cosponsoring this
    event. I'd also be remiss if I didn't thank Adele Simmons, the president
    of McArthur Foundation, for that foundation's support for this
    conference and the Joyce Foundation for supporting the conference. I'd
    like to acknowledge in the audience--I believe she's here--the Reverend
    Willie Barrow, the chairwoman of Operation Push. They held a conference
    on economic empowerment this week here, and I want to talk a little more
    about that later, but until we find a way to reward the working poor and
    to move people from welfare to work and to make it attractive for people
    to invest in distressed areas of this country, our economic recovery is
    going to be limited. Finally, let me say a special word of appreciation
    to Secretaries Brown and Reich for their work on this conference.
        And there's one group of American workers I really want to
    acknowledge today. This is the third anniversary of one of our most
    important civil rights laws, the Americans with Disabilities Act. For
    more than 40 million people, this law is clearing the barriers to full
    participation in American life, making real the whole pledge that we
    often say that we don't have a person to waste. This morning in
    Washington I ran a 5K race with a group of astonishingly able disabled
    Americans: two who raced in their chairs who had raced all over the
    world; one marathon runner who happened to be blind; one woman who had
    MS and made a terrific race around the 5K track, kept the pace all the
    way; one amputee who had once run a 62-mile race in one day on a
    prosthesis and today made the 5K around on his crutches just to prove he
    could do that, too. The kinds of achievements that these people have
    demonstrated athletically are demonstrated even more profoundly in the
    work force every day. We need them, and I am proud of that law.
        I am glad to be here in Chicago to discuss this subject today--the
    city that works, the city of big shoulders, all that. You need to know
    why I'm glad to be here, because in a very real way, I would not be here
    as President if it weren't for Chicago. And the economic forces that
    bring us here to discuss this subject today help to explain that.
        I was once at a meeting here in 1988 over at the South Shore
    Development Bank, and I discovered that three city councilmen, two or
    three Democratic ward chairs, and a significant portion of the business
    community in this city came from Arkansas, and it was no accident. If
    you've ever read Al Hawkis--you ought to read John Johnson's
    autobiography here, which might be subtitled, ``How I Escaped the Abject
    Poverty of Arkansas City and Came to Chicago and Became a Big Cheese.''
    [Laughter] It is a story that has millions of replications: people in
    the South who couldn't make a living in the Great Depression leaving in
    massive numbers from the farms and small towns; coming to Chicago,
    coming to Detroit; finding a way to get into the factories or start a
    business, at the least; becoming middle class Americans; earning a
    decent wage with a rising paycheck and a good retirement and health care
    benefits and enough to buy a home and take a vacation and send your kids
    to college.
        It was the American dream. And when I began running for President I
    found myself deluged with people in Chicago who had roots in my
    hometown, in my home State. We had two delegates here, two who were born
    in the same little town in Arkansas that my Chief of Staff and I were
    born in, in the Chicago delegation. There's a whole town in Michigan
    where 90 percent of the people who live in this little town were born in
    my State. They all came looking for a different life. And that's what
    basically worked for us. Then eventually, the industrialization which
    bloomed first here spread back to the South.
        In the year I was born, my home State's per capita income was only
    56 percent of the national average. Mississippi's was only 48 percent.

    [[Page 1179]]

    The postwar economic boom of America by the late seventies had taken the
    entire South to about 87 percent of the national average in per capita
    income. And it was projected that the region would equal or exceed the
    national average of per capita income by the turn of the century. But
    then the economic slowdown of the last 20 years hit everywhere and hit
    those who were less well-educated, more rural, less able to compete in
    the global economy, even harder.
        And I say that's what's important to bring us here today because I
    got to this job by being a Governor for 12 years in a State where I
    focused almost exclusively on the subjects and the triumphs and the
    tribulations that will be discussed here today, on jobs and education
    and partnerships and productivity. And when I became Governor for my
    second term in 1983, my State's unemployment rate was almost 3 points
    higher than the national average. In every month but one until 1992, we
    were above the national average in unemployment. Then in 1992, we were
    first or second in job creation. And in 1993, the State enjoys an
    unemployment rate that I think is still too high but is well below the
    national average.
        The point I want to make is this: The issues we are discussing today
    in terms of the big, sweeping developments in America have been of at
    least 20 years in building. The policies we need to change have been in
    place for a good long while nationally. You know what works in the
    workplace. You know that partnership works. You know that investment in
    new technology works. You know that flexibility works. You know that
    being competitive works. You know that treating people like assets
    instead of something that is expendable is very important. We need to
    figure out how to write that large in national policy and then be better
    partners with you in what you do.
        And one of the things that I understand very clearly because I have
    been a Governor is that nothing I do as President can be fully
    successful unless it makes sense and works with what all of you are
    doing. And what I want to talk to you about today is how we can be
    better partners and what we can do to meet the challenges of this time,
    because it's much more complex than it was after the Great Depression
    and after the Second War, when people at least, even though it pained
    them to do so, could leave their little farms in Texas and Arkansas and
    Alabama and Mississippi and come to Chicago or come to Detroit or go to
    Pittsburgh or go out to California, and know they could get a job and
    hope that when they retire they could come home.
        Now the whole country is caught up in a global economy which, to be
    sure, is always affecting different States and communities in different
    ways, but essentially has some broad, sweeping characterizations that we
    have to work to reverse. And to make it more complicated, all over the
    world the wealthiest countries are having many of the same problems we
    are. I just returned from Tokyo from a meeting of the great industrial
    powers of the world. And we find that all of them are having trouble
    promoting economic growth, all of them are having trouble generating new
    jobs, and in the 1980's, all of them found an increase in inequality of
    income and greater difficulty in creating new jobs, even when their
    economies were growing. So that it is clear that we are dealing with a
    very complicated issue and that no one has all the answers.
        Still it is clear that some things have to be faced. We know that
    every nation competes in a global marketplace where money management and
    technology are increasingly mobile. We know that increased productivity
    and new technologies often mean that more output can be produced with
    fewer people and that not always now, as was in the case for the last
    four decades--when that happened before, it was always new and different
    jobs waiting for those people, so that technology was always a winner.
    Productivity was always a winner. It always was a net expansionary
    force. We've always had changes. People have always been moving in and
    out of jobs. No one can freeze-frame any form of human work and make
    sure it will always be there in just that way forever. But we know now
    that for the last 20 years we have seen a steady erosion of the security
    of average middle class people who work hard and play by the rules,
    because we have not been able to make the adjustments necessary in this
    new and different global economy.
        We know that we can only meet the challenge if we begin with a very
    basic fact, the one that you are here to celebrate today and to
    elucidate: The most precious asset any nation has is the people who live
    there and that as long as the people who live there are willing to do
    what it takes to learn more, to do better, to be smart-

    [[Page 1180]]

    er, to stay ahead of the curve, there are going to be opportunities. We
    also know that most jobs in every society now are going to be created by
    the private sector and by what people do or do not do to be more
    productive, to reach out to new markets, to develop new products and
    services. And the third thing we know is that Government policy makes a
    difference at home and abroad. It does make a difference.
        For more than two centuries our country has built prosperity by
    investing in our people and our technology and our future. We have, in
    other words, followed the policy that I have called putting people
    first. We invested in our skills through a public school system, through
    the land grant colleges, through expanding opportunities through the GI
    bill after the war, our investments in canals and in railroads and
    highway systems and mass transit, all of these things have helped to
    make us more productive. We've developed cutting-edge technologies
    through national defense; through the space program; and to a lesser
    extent in the past, but it must be more in the future, toward civilian
    partnerships for new technologies.
        But for 20 years we still have seen most Americans working harder
    for less money. And we have not developed an adequate response to the
    new global economy. For at least a dozen years, our country has pursued
    policies that are popular in the short run but very limiting in the long
    run. We have, to be popular in the short run, reduced taxes and
    increased the deficit in a way that has taken our national debt in 12
    years from $1 to $4 trillion and our annual deficit from about $73 to a
    projected $311 when I took office.
        At the same time, we have miraculously managed to reduce our
    national investment in the education skills and technology that our
    people need to grow in the future, a mathematical sleight of hand that
    is almost inconceivable when I tell people about it, but it's true. Why?
    Because we keep spending more on the same health care and more on
    interest on the debt. So that the people you think of in Washington as
    being to blame for big spending and big deficits because they're
    spending more on programs are, in fact, by and large, spending less on
    programs that would help you to do your job better. But because there
    has not been a disciplined effort to bring down the deficit, a
    disciplined effort to bring health care costs in line with inflation,
    which would bring interest rates down there and then reduce what we have
    to spend servicing the debt, we are actually spending more and getting
    less for it, the worst of all worlds.
        This has continued the downward pressure on wages and job growth.
    And every working family in America has felt its impact. Between 1972
    and 1992, while the work year got longer for Americans, average hourly
    wages actually dropped by 10 percent. The 75 percent of our workers who
    don't have 4-year college degrees felt it most profoundly. For those who
    began but didn't complete college, wages fell 10 percent from 1979
    through 1991; for those who didn't go on to college, wages fell 17
    percent; for those who left high school, wages dropped 24 percent.
        It is, of course, perhaps enough to say to explain this, that as we
    move into a global economy where what you earn depends on what you can
    learn, many of those people could not command more in a global labor
    marketplace. But that is an insufficient response if you want to keep
    the American dream alive, you want to keep the morale and the spirit of
    America moving forward, and those of you who are employers want to be in
    a workplace where people are productive because they are happy and
    constructive and an important part of a team. In other words, it is not
    enough just to say that we're in this terribly difficult period that it
    took 20 years to build and that no one knows exactly what caused it. We
    simply cannot go gently into a good night of limited economic
    expectations, slow growth, no growth in living standards, and a lesser
    future for our children. It is not the American way.
        We know that it may take us a good deal of time to work out of this,
    and we know there may be no simple answers or silver bullets, but we
    have got to do better at building a future for ourselves. Of course, we
    have a rare opportunity to do it because the cold war is over; because
    democracy and free markets are in favor and flower throughout the world;
    because a global economy creates opportunities as well as challenges and
    hazards for us because there are new things which have to be done. We
    have to find a way, for example, to make money out of the global
    environmental crisis and make jobs out of it, and I believe we can. And
    in many ways, the challenges we face today are ready-made for Americans,
    with our love of learning, our proven genius at innovation, our

    [[Page 1181]]

    far greater flexibility than any of our competitors, and our capacity
    for communicating with people among different cultures. After all, we
    have at least one county in this country with people from 150 different
    racial and ethnic groups. It need not be a weakness; it can be an
    enormous asset for us as we move into a global society.
        But we know we have to stop doing some things and to start doing
    some other things. Put simply, we have to stop borrowing so much from
    our future and start investing more to build it again. We need
    fundamental changes, and we have to do a lot of things at once. And
    therefore, our administration is trying to do a number of things in a
    short time: to reduce the deficit, to improve education through our
    schools, through opening the doors of college, through reforming the
    system by which we support those of you who want to train your own
    workers. We need to reward work and reform welfare. We cannot continue
    to spend 30 percent more than any other country in the world of our
    income on health care.
        Many of you today here work in companies or represent workers who do
    not have jobs who would have jobs if we simply had been able for the
    last 12 years to keep health care costs in line with inflation plus
    population growth. Many of you do. So all these things are related. When
    people say to me, well, you know, why don't you just reduce the deficit
    and forget about the rest of it? I'll tell you why. Because 5 years from
    now, no matter who does what with the deficit, it goes up again if you
    don't bring health costs in line with inflation plus population growth.
    They say, well, why don't you just not spend a nickel on anything? I'll
    tell you why. Because look at California if you want to see the
    consequences of 6 long years of cutting the defense budget and letting
    the people who won the cold war go out in the cold and giving no thought
    to what we're going to do with the scientific and technological base and
    the workers there and whether there is not some new partnership that
    would give them something to do.
        So we have to do things in order, and we have to begin by bringing
    the deficit down and putting our financial house in order. But we also
    have to think anew. All these partnerships you've got going in your
    businesses, if somebody came to work one day and said, ``OK, we're going
    to forget about these 12 things and just do this one,'' a lot of you
    would go broke if you did that. You do not have the luxury of ignoring
    some problems if you have the means at all to deal with them. And I
    would argue that we don't either. But there needs to be one overriding
    purpose for this country, and that is returning us to a path in which we
    can build a high-skill, high-wage, high-growth society in which people
    who work hard and play by the rules will be rewarded with decent work
    and an opportunity to raise a strong family in a safe neighborhood.
        Let me say very briefly that the essentials of the economic plan
    that the Congress is wrestling with--and I mean that literally,
    ``wrestling with.'' I feel since I'm here in Chicago I have to say this.
    Chairman Rostenkowski and Senator Moynihan from New York are obviously
    the lead conferees on our budget, and they're working through some very
    difficult and complex issues today, and I compliment them for their
    enormous labors and for what they're doing. But the elements of the plan
    are clear: We want to bring the deficit down by $500 billion over 5
    years. We want to make at least as many cuts as we raise taxes, if not
    more. There are 200 cuts with more than $250 billion in them if the
    Congress will adopt them. We want to restore some fairness to hard-
    working middle class families, and we want to reward work over welfare.
        For every $10 in the plan I presented to the Congress, and this is
    true in both the House and Senate version, $5 comes from spending cuts,
    $4 from new revenues from people in the upper 6 percent of earning
    brackets, $1 from the middle class. Families with incomes under $30,000
    are held harmless. The working poor for the first time are lifted out of
    poverty by not taxing them into poverty if they work hard. This is a
    very big deal in America. Eighteen percent of the people who work full-
    time in this country are living below the Federal poverty line. It is
    hard to lecture people, to say, ``Well, don't be on welfare; go to
    work,'' if you don't reward work. That is something the Government can
    do that I think all Americans should support.
        Now, I want to say something else today, because we're celebrating
    partnerships here. The tax part of this program does not impose 70
    percent of its burden on people with incomes above $200,000 to soak the
    rich or promote class warfare. I want to reward success. The

    [[Page 1182]]

    tax burden is the way it is because we seek to reverse what happened in
    the 1980's, where taxes went up on the middle class and down on the
    wealthiest Americans. Payroll taxes went up, and the Government shoved
    more and more off on the State and local government, and almost all the
    revenues they adopted hit the middle class disproportionately. This has
    nothing to do with class warfare. It has to do with opportunity and
    fairness. And I think it will rebuild a sense of teamwork and a spirit
    of partnership and cooperation.
        I also want to point out that if we can continue to bring this
    deficit down, you will see the continuation of the last 5 months of a
    big drop in long-term interest rates, which is causing millions of
    people to refinance their home loans or their business loans or take out
    other forms of credit in ways that will save them far more money than
    they will pay in new revenues. If we can keep interest rates down for
    over a year at this level, it is estimated from a low side of $50 to a
    high side of $100 billion will be released to be reinvested back into
    this economy to jumpstart the economy again. I think it is terribly
    important.
        The second element of this plan, in addition to deficit reduction,
    is incentives for people and companies to invest more. That is, nothing
    would please me more than if people who would be pushed in the higher
    income brackets by this plan would lower their tax burden by turning
    around and reinvesting the money in creating jobs here at home. And this
    plan gives the opportunity to do that. We double the small business
    expensing provision. We have a new business capital gains that anybody
    that invests in a company capitalized at $50 million or less and holds
    the investment for 5 years or more will cut their tax burden in half. We
    extend the research and development tax credit. We do some other things
    to revitalize the home building industry and the real estate sectors of
    our economy. All these things will give opportunities for people who
    have funds to invest and to create jobs as they do. I think that is very
    important.
        I want to say I'm very grateful for the fact that at least 50 of the
    100 biggest companies in the country have endorsed this program, partly
    because the changes in the alternative minimum tax lets them invest in
    new plant and equipment, to mitigate the impact of the taxes, and to
    create more jobs and productivity. I'm grateful for the support we've
    received from the high-tech community, and I'm grateful that finally
    we're getting out the facts that 90 percent plus, that's right, over 90
    percent of the small businesses in America actually get a tax cut under
    this plan if they simply invest more money in their business because the
    expensing provision has been doubled, and their income taxes don't go
    up, something that you haven't been reading a lot about in the press.
    But it is true, and I am glad to see it coming out. And it's very
    important, because most of our jobs are created by smaller firms, and
    that needs to be emphasized.
        The third element of this plan is investments to empower people to
    compete and win. Every child born in this country should be able to grow
    up to be successful. But you and I know that we have a far higher
    percentage of people living in unhealthy, disadvantageous environments
    than most of our wealthy competitors. We have proof; we have evidence.
    No one disputes it that if you invest in child nutrition, immunization,
    and preschool education, and they're good programs, the programs pay for
    themselves many times over: The taxpayers win, productivity goes up, and
    you have people who can learn when they get into school. So yes, we do
    spend some more money on that. We also have a program of modest cost but
    enormous impact called Goals 2000 coming out of the Department of
    Education, designed to set national standards by which all schools and
    students can be evaluated. And that is important in a global economy.
    And we have, as has already been said by Senator Simon and others, a
    really ambitious and I think quite wonderful program to open the doors
    of college education to all Americans by lowering the costs of loans,
    making their terms of repayments better, and giving thousands of them
    the opportunity to pay back their college loans through service to their
    communities, rebuilding them. And I might say some of those young people
    in our experimental program for the summer have helped people to try to
    deal with the aftermath of this terrible flood in the Midwest. That is
    just one example of what we can do if we have the right kind of
    incentives.
        Finally, we very much want to create a program of training for
    people who don't get 4-year college degrees, that merge the partnership
    and efforts of the private sector, the education system, and the
    Government. Everybody in this

    [[Page 1183]]

    country who doesn't go on to a 4-year college needs to finish high
    school and get at least 2 years of further training, either in a school,
    on the workplace, or in the service. Everybody. All the demographic
    figures are clear now from the '90 census. All the people in this
    country who have high school plus 2 years, if it's good, are highly
    likely to get jobs with growing incomes. Those who have less are highly
    likely to get jobs with shrinking incomes. You know, you don't have to
    be Einstein to figure out we should do what is likely to give people
    jobs with growing incomes and that, in the aggregate, it's better for
    you in the workplace and better for the country as a whole. So we're
    trying to do that.
        And lastly, let me say, we've got to provide markets for all these
    people's labor in products or services. We simply have to continue to
    expand the frontiers of the global economy. A wealthy country cannot
    grow richer unless there is a higher rate of global growth. We cannot do
    it by simply drawing within. And perhaps the most important thing that
    happened at the G-7 meeting in Tokyo was that the seven industrial
    powers agreed among themselves to a dramatic reduction, in many cases,
    to outright elimination of tariffs, that every analyst says will
    dramatically increase the number of manufacturing jobs in the United
    States of America between now and the end of the decade if we, the
    larger countries, can get the other countries to agree to it by the end
    of the year in a world trade agreement. No analyst has disputed this. It
    has the potential of being the most important thing we've done in a long
    time to revitalize manufacturing in America. And of course, when you
    rebuild manufacturing, you get more service jobs, you get a lot of other
    support jobs. It is very, very important.
        Let me also say that I think it's important that we not forget about
    the Americans who are working hard and are struggling along. I mentioned
    this earlier. The most revolutionary social aspect of this economic plan
    is that instead of spending a lot of money to hire people to work for
    the Government to go out and help people who are in trouble, we invest a
    lot of money in this program in lowering the taxes of people who work 40
    hours a week and are still in poverty. What better thing could we do to
    reward work and family than to be able to say for the first time that in
    this country if you work 40 hours a week and you've got a child in your
    house, you're going to be lifted out of poverty, not by something the
    Government does but by your own labor. We'll just change the tax system
    to take you out of poverty. It is a profoundly significant thing, and it
    should not be watered down in this conference. We ought to do enough to
    be able to say that to all Americans.
        Let me just say that the one thing that's happened in the last 4\1/
    2\, 5 months is that interest rates have started coming down as it
    became serious that we were trying to bring the deficit down. And there
    has been a beginning of reinvestment. A lot of that is coming out of the
    private sector. Last year, in the last quarter, we had the biggest
    increase in productivity in 20 years in America, thanks to a lot of you
    in this room. Those two things together mean that in this economy we
    have seen in the first part of the year about 150,000 new private sector
    jobs a month being created--that is as compared with 20,000 a month in
    the previous 4 years--so that we are moving in the right direction. But
    that's all we're doing, is moving in the right direction. That is
    nowhere near enough, and there is still a great cloud of uncertainty out
    there.
        So I think today we need to have three challenges. One is, the
    Government needs to pass this budget and get on with the rest of the
    business. Hanging out there, debating it, dragging it out for weeks and
    weeks, will only make it worse. There comes a time when delay to get a
    slightly better decision is worse than action to get a pretty good
    decision. We have reached that time. We don't need to do that. We've got
    other things to do. And you need to know what the rules are going to be,
    what the deal is, and we need to go on with our lives.
        The second challenge is to you in business. If we can get the cost
    of capital low, if we are doing our part, then the savings must be used
    to put more people first, to create jobs, to train employees, not just
    the executives but the workers as well, to have other companies in this
    country learn from those of you in this room that you can grow and
    prosper by treating workers like indispensable partners. Companies like
    Motorola outside Chicago, which Secretary Brown visited recently, and L.
    S. Electro Galvanizing in Cleveland, which Secretary Reich visited
    recently, and all the many that I have had the privilege to visit over
    the last several years can show that.

    [[Page 1184]]

        And the challenge to labor is clearly the same thing. This is an
    opportunity we have to seize. There is no way we can ever see wages grow
    and jobs increase in this country again unless there is an emphasis on
    education and training, flexibility in the workplace, partnership and
    responsibility by everybody for improving quality. But if the labor
    people do it, then Government ought to do right by them and by business,
    and business should do right by their workers. There is no easy answer
    here, but we all know, I think, that if we treat each other better we're
    going to come out ahead, and that insofar as we drive up unemployment
    and run people off, we also diminish the number of customers with money
    in their pockets to make the American economy go. We are truly in this
    together.
        Now, let me just say one more word about this. I don't think the
    fight in Washington should be about Republicans and Democrats. I think
    most of the arguments we have to have are about issues that don't have
    an easy partisan tent. The world is a very different place than it was
    when most of the party lines were drawn 10 and 20 and 30 years ago. This
    really is about growth against gridlock, decision against delay, change
    against the status quo. And you have got to demand that we do something.
        I mean, you know, this gridlock thing is amazing. Let me just give
    you an example of how bad it gets sometimes with Congress. I had my
    nominee for Surgeon General up there in the Congress--Senator Braun was
    sitting with her; I appreciated that--a woman that grew up in a cotton
    field in Arkansas. Her brothers and sisters put her through medical
    school. And maybe there were people who don't agree with her and didn't
    want to vote for her, but through some parliamentary maneuver, they
    tried to put off the whole hearing. The country needs a Surgeon General.
    Thanks to Senator Kennedy, the chairman of the committee, they went back
    and had the hearing. He told them they were going to stay there 'til
    kingdom come, 'til they finished. But if somebody wants to vote against
    her, let them vote. But let's get on with it.
        Let me give you another example. There is now a filibuster in the
    Senate against the national service plan. We have worked our hearts out
    with the Republicans and the Democrats. We have lots of Republican
    cosponsors in the House and a few in the Senate. They just want to delay
    it. Why? Why shouldn't we send a signal to America's young people that
    we want you to work in your community to make it a better place? Why
    shouldn't we say we want to open the doors of college education to
    everybody? Look at the figures from the '90 census.
        Last week there was even a filibuster or a delay in the House
    against flood assistance to Illinois and to Iowa and to Kansas and South
    Dakota and North Dakota and Minnesota and Missouri. Why? Got me. There
    is ample precedent for emergency action here. We do not need to raise a
    tax to pay for flood relief; because interest rates have come down, the
    deficit is already going to be much lower this year than anybody thought
    it was. And here are these people out here up to their ears in tragedy,
    wondering when Congress is going to get around to passing the flood
    relief. There is a point at which we need to learn what we're talking to
    you about. We need to work together and make decisions.
        How many of you could stay in business if either management or labor
    said when you started a new path, ``Well, I think I'm going to call a
    filibuster and wait 3 or 4 weeks to make up my mind whether to do
    this?'' Your bills still come in. You still have to pay the payroll.
    Let's vote. I don't have to win them all, but let's make decisions. This
    institutionalized delay and gridlock is bad for America.
        In just a couple of weeks----
        Q. How can you talk about a Democratically controlled Congress? The
    Democrats have controlled Congress--talk about gridlock. Why don't you
    take leadership?
        The President. Now, wait a minute. Whoa!
        Q. You're the one that talks about----
        The President. Do you want me to answer the question?
        Q. Yes. You're the one----
        The President. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Most people, sir--no,
    wait a minute. Are you going to let me answer the question?
        Q. [Inaudible]--Congress and you won't----
        Audience members. Quiet!
        The President. Are you going to let me answer the question? This is
    not your meeting, sir. And most people have better manners than to
    interrupt somebody giving a speech. I might say that's another thing
    that's wrong with this country, there's not enough civility in how we
    treat one another.
        But the answer to your question, which is good Civics 101, is that
    the Democrats do not control the Congress when 41 Republicans want

    [[Page 1185]]

    to vote to keep anything from being voted on in the Senate. That is the
    answer. They do not. The filibuster rule means you have to have 60 votes
    to bring anything to a vote except for this budget. Everything else
    requires 60 votes. But it's not a party deal, it's a question of whether
    we should make decisions. I say, if they want to vote against me, fine;
    let's make a decision and go on to something else. Let's just move. I
    think that's the issue.
        Let me just say one last thing. I believe that this works. I came
    here basically to highlight what you're doing and to support it and to
    ask you to tell me what I can do to help it be better at the national
    level. But in the end, if this kind of attitude that you are here to
    celebrate, this whole new idea of a partnership for productivity and
    leaving behind all the sort of labeling that has shackled us for too
    long, if this doesn't take over the private sector, nothing the
    President can do can revitalize America. You have to carry it. And I
    believe you will.
        Thank you, and God bless you all.

    Note: The President spoke at 1:15 p.m. at the Sheraton Chicago Hotel.