REMARKS BY GOVERNOR BILL CLINTON NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS WASHINGTON, D.C. JUNE 26, 1992 Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, President Jazanowski. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for that warm welcome. Thank you for the critique of my economic plan. And I will seek to respond to each of the things that you've said as we go along. Let me begin by saying that this has been an amazing election already, nothing quite like it. The candidates have taken to the talk show circuits to relate directly to the American people. And even there, have to endure a fair share of humbling experiences. I thought I had finally made it as a first rated musician when I got to play saxophone on Arsenio Hall, only to hear him say he was certainly glad to see a Democrat blow something besides an election. I intended to go all across the country publicizing my humble roots only to find Vice-President Quayle saying that I was a member of the cultural elite. Since I may be the last person ever to seek the presidency who once lived in a home without indoor plumbing, I could not fathom how in the world I may be culturally elite, but I do think it may have something to do with the fact that I can spell "potato". I have been bewildered by the reports of recent days where apparently Mr. Perot has been about the business of investigating Mr. Bush and his family and children. Mr. Bush has complained about that even though we know that the Republican National Committee has investigated apparatus that rivals the KGB at its height. And I have the unenviable position of being just a guy who spent all of his time trying to investigate the problems of America and what we might do about them. This is partly because of the way I have lived the last decade or more, as a Governor of a state, always one of the poorest states of America, struggling to be more competitive in the global economy. The state with a falling agricultural income that was completely beyond my control because of global forces and national policy. The state with a manufacturing base that when I became Governor was strong, but fragile, very vulnerable to lost lives because so many of the jobs were relatively low-skilled, low-waged jobs in an increasingly competitive global economy. I set about as Governor of my state to do something I think our nation ought to do, to develop a national economic strategy except we did it on a state basis. And we decided we would root that strategy in manufacturing in trying to keep our manufacturing base and enhance it. We were, I believe, the first state to offer a significant investment tax credit to existing manufacturers who had spent $5 million or more reinvesting in our state. Over the last ten years, we've grown manufacturing jobs at ten times the national average, 22% of our work force is in manufacturing as compared with about 16% for the nation as a whole. We have enjoyed a remarkable amount of cooperation between business and government. And in 1991, in an unprecedented move, the Association of Industries and the State Chamber of Commerce Executive Board voted to ask us to raise by one-half percent the corporate income tax if we would put the funds into a trust designed solely for the education of the work force in our state. It has been an interesting and rewarding experience. I have watched, meanwhile, while our country has continued to lose ground in overall productivity growth, notwithstanding, as your President said, the very impressive productivity range(?) in manufacturing in the 1980s. While we have quadrupled the federal deficit and at the same time unbelievably reduced national investment in those things which will make us a wealthier country. All of these things played some role in my decision to run for President. I frankly got angry when year in and year out, both parties in Washington produced a gridlock that never seemed to create any decisions except those which operated for the short term benefit of people who were very well organized and had narrow interests rather than for the long term benefit of the American economy as a whole. I believe that we are in trouble because we've been gripped by a simple idea that is dead wrong. Our idea has been -- in the last two administrations -- supported in funny ways that almost made it worse by Congress members who sometimes agreed and sometimes disagreed. The idea was that if we just got taxes low enough on the wealthiest individuals and on corporate America and got out of the way, if we shifted the burden to the middle class and off onto the deficit, that investment would occur and we would get growth. We were asked to take a bargain for the last 12 years: greater inequality for greater growth. The first part of the bargain came true. We now know from widely publicized reports just in the last few weeks that 70% of the gains in the 1980s went to the top 1% of the American population. We now know that for the first time since the roaring '20s, the top 1% of our population controls more wealth than the bottom 90%. We now know that the savings and loan bailout is the greatest single transfer of wealth from middle class taxpayers to upper income insured people in the history of the United States of America. But we also know that in the bargain, we didn't get high growth. We got low growth. We know now that based on census data, two- thirds of the American people are working harder for lower wages than they had ten years ago in real dollar terms. We know that most middle class people are paying higher taxes, paying more for health care, for housing, for education, even though they have lower incomes. A recent study showed that the average American family is spending 158 hours per year longer on the job and less time with their children than they were spending twenty years ago. Not surprisingly, voters in this country are angry and they're disappointed. I can understand their frustration. It's also true that the government alone is not to blame. In the last 10 years, according to the business magazines, not some political production, executive salaries have gone up by four times the percentage that workers' salaries have gone up, three times the percentage that profits have gone up. According to the report in the Philadelphia Enquirer by two Pulitzer Prize winning journalists entitled "America, what went wrong?" in the 1950s, we were spending $3 billion in new plant and equipment for every billion dollars in interest payment. In the 1990s, we're spending half of that. In the 1950s, corporations paid $2.3 billion in taxes for every $1 billion in executive compensation. Now those numbers have been reversed. What has been the result of all of this? Just a couple of days ago, USA Today carried an interesting analysis by 18,000 business executives around the world rating the nations of the world in terms of their economic performance. In this rating system, the United States had fallen from second last year behind Japan to fifth behind Japan, Germany, Switzerland, and Denmark. The business executives themselves rated America fifth because they said we were inferior to these other countries in the education and training of our work force, in our ability to move ideas into production in jobs in our own economy, because we are falling behind every year in infrastructure investment, investing in communications, in transportation, into things that public investment does to generate private economic growth, and because our productivity lags behind many other nations. In the last ten years, we've gone from first to tenth in the world in wages. It is clearly time to reassess our present position and to change our policies. This has not very much to do with Republicans and Democrats, and everything to do with whether we're prepared to face reality, identify the problems, meet the competition, and restore America's long-term economic health and well-being. I certainly believe that manufacturing has to be a key to that strategy. I had an interesting argument in the course of this campaign with a man who has some plants in my own state who said to me, absolutely seriously, that he thought America would do fine if all of our manufacturing base moved offshore and we had to generate jobs out of a service economy. Now, when I was a boy growing up in Arkansas, we were all dominated by the lure of the Great Depression. And my granddaddy used to tell me that in the depression, people were so poor, they had to take in one another's washing for a living. That's where we'll be if we stop producing things in America. So we may have differences of opinion, you and I, over my economic programs, and I welcome those and I want to respond to them. But I want you to know that I believe that this country has to produce in order to be great. This country has to produce in order to get its growth rates back. If the rest of the economy had the same productivity growth rate that manufacturing had in the 1980s, we wouldn't be in half of the trouble we're in today. We have got to rebuild our manufacturing strength, maintain it, and do it while increasing our exports, but maintaining a strong manufacturing base here at home. Now, what is the reality we face? Yes, we have a $400 billion deficit, a deficit that you can lay at the feet of both parties since we know if all of the budgets presented by the last two Presidents had been adopted by Congress exactly as they were presented, the deficit would be even bigger than it is, but that the Congress did adopt budget compromises which also led to the position we now find ourselves in. As I said, this budget deficit masks another deficit, and it's very important to focus on this so that I can answer one of the points that your President made about the trade-offs between public investment and reducing the debt. While we quadrupled the debt in the last 12 years, we also reduced investment. Every company here represented, I would bet, has taken on some debt at some time. Most of you in your private lives have taken on some debt at some time. Families borrow money to finance a car, a house, a college education for a child. The anticipation is that the investment will produce a greater return than the cost of the borrowing. Businesses borrow money to build new plant and equipment, to start new businesses, to expand, to train the work force sometimes. But we don't like to borrow the money to meet the payroll or to pay for dinner for the kids, or, as farmers say where I come from, you don't like to get to the point where you're eating your seed corn. That is the tragic dimension of the American deficit we must focus on. We have not only increased our debt, we have reduced our investment. So more and more of our debt, if you will, is eating our seed corn, taking our kids to dinner, and making payroll. Less and less of it is for investing in the future that will produce more wealth, greater growth, and a greater return than the cost of borrowing. And that is a critical, critical element. In my analysis of this -- you have to decide whether you agree -- but the facts are inescapable. We increased the debt and reduced the investment at the same time. And that made a major contribution to the drag on our economic growth for the last 12 years. We also have taxes going up while incomes go down on middle class people, because even though the Tax Reform Act of '86 reduced rates on most people, there were six increases in Social Security taxes which capped out at about $51,000 a year, which meant that the vast majority of Americans had their incomes going down and their taxes going up, caught in a double bind in the 1980s. Now, I have offered a plan which I think responds to these problems and which I believe will make us more competitive in the global economy. It may be to respond to the second criticism that there was not enough language in the plan I presented about that, but every recommendation I made was with the thought, "What are our competitors doing? What will it take to generate a high- wage, high-growth economy in America instead of a hard-work, low- wage economy? How can we have more job growth and income growth?" And here is what the plan does. It recommends that we increase investment in America by $50 billion a year over the next four years through government incentives, either private investment, investment in education and training, or investment in public infrastructure, in communication and transportation, in building an economy in the 21st century. It recommends that we invest -- excuse me. I'm having trouble with my voice. It recommends that we invest in reducing our deficit, and that we reduce the deficit by more than 50% over the next four years with very modest growth projections. And if you take the projections that Mr. Darman has made for rosy growth over at the Office of Management and Budget with nowhere near this level of investment, if his projections are right, we will reduce the deficit by over 75% between now and the end of the next four year presidency. It pays for these investments in this deficit reduction, one-half from raising money from those whose incomes went up while their taxes went down in the 1980s, and one-half from a vigorous program to cut government spending in inessential areas. Let me come back and go through each item, if I might. One, investment. As the President said, I recommend that we increase private investment by adopting a permanent and broad-based investment tax credit, a credit for new business investment, a research and development tax credit, a low-income housing tax credit. I also recommended something that I think may be somewhat controversial, that we restrict tax deductions for the cost of shutting operations down in America and putting them overseas. I have done my best to put that recommendation on a parity with a tax code for most of our European competitors. I recommend that we increase cooperation between government and the private sector, in commercial technologies much as we have done in defense technologies with the Defense Advance Research Products Agency. I recommend that we consolidate our efforts in product research and development in a new civilian agency and increase our investment dramatically to help identify the new technologies in the 21st century and help to move them from the developmental stage into the product stage in the United States. Everybody who looks at this problem says that we still do a pretty good job of doing basic research although we're losing ground in the patent war in America every year because we're underinvesting in research. The Japanese, with one-half our population, spend twice as much real dollars, not per capita, real dollars as we do in commercial R and D. The government has to do a better job of increasing partnership. I'm not talking about picking winners and losers. I'm talking about the technologies that we know will shape the future of the 21st century in making sure that we have our fair share of those jobs. One of the saddest things that many people who were down at the Rio Earth Summit talked to me about when they came back is that other countries were down there doing a better job of promoting products they manufactured in their country for environmental technologies and environmental cleanup that are good investments that create jobs. 70% of major American markets now are dominated by foreign firms, partly because we do not have a good enough system of cooperation to take ideas and turn them into manufacturing jobs here at home. So I feel very strongly that this needs to be done. It needs to be coupled with an aggressive trade policy to open new markets and to expand markets. I have generated some controversy in my own party, as you might imagine, because I said I would have voted, had I been a member of Congress, to authorize the fast track negotiations with Mexico, but that I want a trade agreement with Mexico that will increase prosperity on both sides of the Rio Grande River by raising labor standards and environmental standards there in return for greater trade and investment. A rich country can only grow richer by expanding its exports and its trade. And we have to do that, but we have to do it on terms that are generally fair to the United States of America, something we have not always done in the past. This plan also increases public investment in two big categories; one, public investment to build an economy for the 21st century, $20 billion a year for roads, for streets, for rehabilitation of basic facilities, for a high speed rail network, for a national fiber optics network, for the technologies for short-haul aircraft and other things that will permit us to build the kind of infrastructure we need. We are way, way, way below any other major country in the percentage of our income we invest in these kinds of things. We have to meet the competition, and there is a direct return of jobs and income in the private sector. This money is going to be put out to contractors in the private sector, and that kind of investment will generate even more private sector jobs. Everybody says this part of the program alone will generate at a minimum a million jobs a year in the private sector for each of the next four years. Number two, we want to invest that much or more in the education and training of our work force, full funding of Head Start, more emphasis on programs for children from disadvantaged homes and in disadvantaged schools, smaller classes in the early grades, implementation of real national standards in our schools, and a national examination system that means something that will measure whether our young people are learning what they need to know by international benchmarks. And next, and perhaps most important, a new partnership between government, education, and business to provide a guarantee of two years of further training to every young American who finishes high school but does not want to go on to college. We are alone among our competitors in not having a system for the forgotten half of Americans who don't go to college. We've got to train everybody to do a better job in the work force. That's why the manufacturers in my state said, "We'll pay for two years of further training if you'll dedicate it all to training the workers in our plants for tomorrow." That's one of the things that we could all agree on, I hope, that America has to do. We have got to have a comprehensive apprenticeship program to meet the competition and to lift the earnings of our younger workers. The census data shows that workers under 30 are earning 17% less in real dollar terms than they were 15 years ago. They are not worth more in the global economy. We have to invest them with that worth because we live in a world where what you earn depends on what you can learn. And we have got to do this for the non-college bound young people. Next there is a program which I think is the most exciting new idea in the package which would replace the existing student loan program and make it possible for any American to borrow the money to go to college by combining two of the best ideas this country ever had, the GI Bill and the Peace Corps. Today the student loan program costs you about $4 billion a year as taxpayers, $3 billion in loan defaults which are unconscionable mostly, and a billion dollars in bank transfer fees. What I propose is the government establish a domestic GI Bill, a national service trust fund out of which any American can borrow the money to finance a college education, and then pay it back in one of two ways: either as a small percentage of income every year at tax time so you can't beat the bill, or, better, with two years of service to our country here at home paid for at a reduced salary, dramatically reduced salary for two years by the national government. Come home and be a police officer, be a teacher, work in a program to keep kids off drugs and out of gangs, do things to help solve the problems of your community. We can make a major dent in many of our social problems and educate a whole generation of Americans. At the end of World War II, we had to rebuild Europe and Japan. We're now at the end of the Cold War and need to focus on rebuilding America. This would be the best money we ever spent. I cannot tell you how enthusiastic the young people of the country are who I've talked to about this, how eager they are. I can't tell you how important it is to many people with whom I talk to around the country who are trying to solve the problems of their communities. The third thing I want to say is that we need to do something about adult education. Here one of my recommendations may be quite controversial in this group, and so I want to put it out on the table and invite your response now or later. I recommend that we invest more federal money in trying to make sure that every adult with a job can read in the next five years. In my state, we have drastically increased the number of people in adult education programs and the amount of money we're spending on it. I believe in that very strongly. I'm trying to make sure everybody with a job gets a chance to learn to read and then get a high school diploma, and when the work force is of any size at all, we bring the people to the work force to teach the courses there. But I also know we have to do a better job of retraining the work force. And so one of the controversial things in this program from your point of view is my recommendation that we require all major American corporations over a certain size to devote one and a half percent of payroll to worker retraining every year. Now, that's the average that is spent in America right now. So that's not the problem. The problem is that in America, again, as opposed to our high- wage competitors, we spend more money on people at the top and less money on people on the front line. 70% of the training dollars in this country are spent on the top 10% of the employees in the corporate hierarchy. In our competitors, more of the training dollars are spent on the front line. This is my recommendation to meet the competition. If you don't like it, I welcome your response and tell me why, but I know this. We've got to do a better job of drastically increasing the productivity of our front-line workers. We ought to reward businesses who do it. And those who don't, we need to have them contribute into a fund so that the government can pay for it because we're going to have more and more people who aren't trained, aren't employed structurally for longer periods of time, and we have to find a way to make them competitive in this economy so we can push them back into it in ways that will make them worthy employees for you. Next area is the family investment component of this. As your President said, I did scale back, but not eliminate all tax relief from middle class people for two reasons. One is there's the essence of fairness. This is a group of people whose taxes went up while their incomes went down, just the reverse of what happened to upper income people. That's very important. These are the people who are paying for the S and L bailouts. These are the people who are paying for the interest cost on the debt. These are the people who are paying for a government that has lost its way while their own incomes are not going up. The more important thing is, we are also taking a much higher percentage of most families' incomes away from them and away from their children than we were 30 years ago. The children's tax deduction a generation ago really left a much higher percentage of people's income to raise their kids. So what I have left in this program is an election for most middle class taxpayers. You can take a children's tax credit or a modest income relief in the next few years so that we can build into this system reward for work in family. We talk about family values all of the time in America, but the truth is, we make it harder to raise kids than just about any country. We talk about family values, but the truth is, we're about the only country without a family policy. That's why I favor the family leave bill. Even though it is unpopular among some employers, our competitors manage to do it. The Germans, the Europeans, others manage to do it. And I think we have to -- we have to revere the rearing of children as still the most important work of any society. The second thing this program does, which I hope you will all support, is to say that anybody who is out there working 40 hours a week, raising children, should have a benefit of a tax system which lifts them above the poverty line. We could increase the earned income tax credit by a couple of billion dollars a year, and, far more efficiently than raising the minimum wage, lift the working poor out of poverty. The great explosion of poverty in the 1980s was among working people. When Los Angeles broke out in riots, the great unsung heroes in Los Angeles were the working poor whose children stayed home, who did not loot, who did not burn, who did not steal, who did not riot. There are millions of people in this country everyday who are living on unsafe streets, in difficult housing, doing difficult jobs, working like crazy, obeying the law, playing by the rules, who literally do not make a poverty level wage or a wage above poverty. The earned income tax credit, made refundable and increased, can lift these people above the poverty line. They will invest that money by spending it in our society. We will get it back. It's one way of America saying, "Hey, we're going to reward you. If you work hard, play by the rules, you work 40 hours a week, you've got a kid in your house, the tax system ought not to leave you in poverty." I think it's a good idea, and I hope you will support it. This program also calls for changing the welfare system as we know it. It would require us to invest some more money in people on welfare in education, training, child care, medical coverage for their children. We'd say, then after we do that, when you can get a job you must take it. You cannot stay on welfare if there is a job available -- once we have supported your children and empowered you to go to work. If no private sector job is available after two years, then you must do community service work. We have to end welfare as we know it. It should be a second chance, not a way of life. I would also say that this program would call for a very tough national system of child support enforcement, to reinforce these family values. It is a national scandal that we have billions and billions and billions of dollars in uncollected child support every year, up and down the income lines. Because people know they can cross state lines and get away with it. And we are going to toughen it up. Well, that's the investment side. We also cut the deficit by more than fifty percent. And as I said, if we take Mr. Darman's recommendations on growth -- by more than 75 percent. Why would we do both, and how are we going to pay for it? Let me deal with why we'll do both one more time. A country's level of investment determines growth rate. If we didn't invest any of this money and we put it all against the debt, so that you had tax increases and spending cuts funding only deficit reduction, in my opinion you still have low growth and the deficit would be greater than you think it's going to be. Why? Because you'll have fewer people paying taxes into the government, and more people drawing taxes out. So, we have to increase our level of investment and reduce our debt at the same time. Why will we pay for it with a combination of tax increases and spending cuts, and will the tax increases retard economic growth? I don't believe they will. Why? Because we asked people to pay taxes whose incomes went up and taxes went down in the 1980's. Principally, a rate increase on people with incomes above $200,000 a year and a surcharge on incomes above one million dollars a year. Roughly the same program that Senator Bentsen got the Congress to adopt, but the President vetoed. Most of that money, today, is being used for consumption. When that money is given in taxes to the government, it will all be used for deficit reduction or for investment -- every last dollar of it. We also ask for a strengthening of collections of taxes on foreign corporations doing business in America. Why? Because in the eighties, incomes for foreign corporations went up sixty- five percent -- tax receipts went down fifteen percent. More tax avoidance. So we seek to collect about ten billion dollars there. I remind you that $150 billion over four years seems like a big figure. Let me give it to you in another way, that's less then forty billion dollars a year in a government that this year will spend 1.4 trillion dollars. So, as a percentage of overall public spending this is a very small percent. I also propose to have real meaningful spending cuts -- three percent a year reduction in the administrative budget of every federal department. The elimination of 100,000 federal jobs by attrition. The United States, even though we have big state and local governments, still has more federal employees per capita than Germany, Japan and Great Britain. We have more federal employees per capita. We regulate more and create fewer productive environments. What I want to do is to require all these federal bureaucracies to go through the same sort of restructuring process that many major American companies have already been through. The kind of quality management rebuilding that will reduce middle layers of management, push decisions down to front line workers, do less with regulation and more with environmental--changing the environment, I don't mean environmental policy--I mean changing the environment in which people work. Although I'm for that too. But you have to change the environment in which people work. That would save, alone, billions of dollars. I want to set an example, I'll cut the White House staff by twenty-five percent, and send a budget to cut congressional staffs by the same. We have grown the government by way too much in the last twelve years, as we got into more and more paper pushing, and less and less changing of the conditions in which we live. We can reform procurement practices and inventory practices, there are 1.2 million containers of nasal spray in the Pentagon's inventory storage today. Clothing, going back to the fifties, unbelievable opportunities to save money. Every recommendation I have made for spending cuts, is a recommendation made by the General Accounting Office of the government, by Congressman Dorgan's government waste commission or by something that I know from my own experience as the longest serving Governor can be done in the federal government and done immediately. We need to reduce the amount of government spending by the government. I'm just as against trickle down government as I am trickle down economics. I want to give that money back to people at the grass roots level to invest in America. Now, I favor, to get this done, a pretty tough system of political reforms -- some of which you may be for, some of which you may be opposed. But I want you to know what I think has to be done to open this system up so it will work for all of the people. I think the influence of political action committees should be reduced. I don't think a PAC should be able to give more than a person, no more than a thousand dollars. I think the general election costs to Congress should be limited. I think that television stations and radio stations that have access to government monopolies should have to open the airwaves to honest debate, so that TV can become an instrument of education, not a weapon of assassination again. Not 30 second ads but real debates and discussions over issues. I think there should be limits on the revolving door from government to lobbyist. I think that we should make it much more difficult for people to walk out of a government job and start lobbying the agencies they used to work. I think that when people go to testify before congressional committees, it out to be a matter of public record how much those members of Congress got from the people that are testifying before them. I think people ought to have to work five years before they can go to work for someone they used to regulate. I don't think lobbying expenses should be deductible. I think we've got to open this system and free Congress from its own dependence on a special interest system that has paralyzed our ability to get to the public interest. And the last point I want to make is this; it's going to be very difficult to make any of this stuff work unless we reform the health care system in America. If you want entitlements control in federal spending, if you're worried about the budget deficit, believe me, if you look at the hard numbers, defense is coming down. We're going to reinvest all that money in an economy for the 21st century. The real problem is health care costs going up at two and three times the rate of inflation. Same problem it is for the private sector. The reason is clear: it's meeting the competition. You live in the only advanced nation where the government has taken no action to bring health costs in line with inflation, and provide a basic package of affordable health care for all. I complement the National Association of Manufacturers on recommending that course for America. I can tell you, if you don't want somebody who will stay up late and get up early, to try to figure out a way to make insurance costs in America in bureaucracy and administrative costs competitive with our people in Europe and Asia, don't vote for me. Because I don't believe you can solve the rest of these problems unless you bring health costs in line with inflation and find a way to have a basic package of affordable health care for everybody, and then get more primary and preventive care out there so we don't have so much being done at emergency rooms and passed on to the rest of us. And finally, we have got to get away from the fee-for-service system that encourages overutilization, put people in health care networks and have a system of managed competition. The reason productivity went up in the manufacturing sector by 4% a year in the 80s -- an astonishing thing -- is global competition. And we have to have some managed competition in health care. Not a system that automatically pays more for doing more whether it needs to be done or not, but a system in which people still have some freedom to choose their providers, but in networks where you can make annual payments instead of fee-for-service systems, and you have genuine managed competition. I want to have less micromanagement of health care by government, and more systematic changes to keep this system in line with inflation. That would do more to help our manufacturing be competitive. It would do more to help our automobiles be competitive. We have a $600 per car differential today and health care costs between American cars and European and Japanese cars. We can not continue this. So that is the thing I close with. The thing that makes all of this work is a determination to bring down the relative cost of the entitlements of America by controlling health care costs. Now, this is a plan I think that will put America back to work. I don't agree that the taxes are prohibitive, or will retard growth. I do agree with your second comment, that all of this has to be done in the context of the global economy. And finally, even though I went to law school, if you can give me any recommendations to reduce legal costs that don't do damage to the environment or worker safety, I would love to have them. I want to challenge each and every one of you. If you don't agree with my program, write me and tell me what's wrong with it. Tell George Bush and Ross Perot you want to know what they'd do if they got elected President, too. You know, this program is the boldest, most specific, most comprehensive plan ever offered by a major candidate for President. I am doing it because I don't want the job to live in the White House and go to Camp David on the weekends. I think this country is in trouble. I want to turn it around. I want you to be a part of it. We're all going to have to change to do that. I have challenged labor unions to change, the AARP to change, teachers' organizations to change. I have challenged people to reach across racial and ethnic lines. I want you to be a part of this. This is not a partisan election; it's an election about whether we can rebuild and reunite America. Thank you very much.