ADDRESS TO UNITED WE STAND ISSUES CONFERENCE
August 12, 1995
Good morning, my friends. Thank you for that simply beautiful
welcome. And to the independent minded, irrepressible,
indefatigable Ross Perot, thank you. Today, this daughter of a
blue-collar family from Toledo, Ohio, the Jeep capital and the
Cheerio capital of the world, is indeed privileged to address a
national gathering dedicated to America's future in the 2!st
century. Let me first say to Ross Perot, THANK YOU: in 1992, you
helped usher in an earthquake in our political system that is still
being felt. The national media pilloried you. But you had the
audacity to refuse to go away. Glowingly, you danced with your
wife! You kept your sense of humor and sense of purpose. And Ross,
you made the special interests in Washington and Wall Street uneasy
with all your pointed questions -- about NAFTA, about balancing the
budget, about who benefits from insider trade deals, about which
hired guns were meddling in our politics. Ross, we appreciate your
perseverance and your patriotism.
A speaker yesterday said he hoped the next century for America
would be known as the century of "the individual." Let me say my
hope for the 21st century is that we as Americans regain our sense
of nationhood and advance the cause of freedom globally. That
speaker also said it was timely to invite God back into America.
Well, let me respectfully quote my Pastor from church last Sunday,
"you may be the only face of God your neighbor ever sees." Let us
today recommit to a higher purpose than individual gain and make
our cause not "I the person," but "we" the people of the United
States.'
I am especially pleased to be here with this warm and
enthusiastic assembly of citizens who in 1992 began a movement to
transform our political system. Last night Ross Perot talked about
a second Contract With America - beginning with real campaign
finance reform -- to be delivered to the American people by
Christmas of this year. I will be the first member of Congress to
sign on to that contract.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Northwest Ohio Office: 234 N. Summit Room 719 Toledo, OH 43604
(419) 259-7500
Washington Office: 2104 Rayburn Building Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-4146
- 1 -
Those here today, and millions of others who are watching and
listening to these proceedings on television and radio, employed
the sacred right to vote last November as a powerful weapon for
change. Their vote for change was not a vote for an ideology, not
even for a party. They want a nation that preserves their freedom,
defends their interests, and protects their future. Our people have
had their fill of political doublespeak and the corrosive impact of
special interest money on the governance of our nation. Wouldn't
it be historic to usher in the 21st century by reforming campaigns
in America through tight spending limits. Wouldn't it be historic
to require, as a condition, of any license to broadcast in America
free and equal time from the media for all candidates?
Yesterday we also heard a lot about what is wrong with the
government. I remember the old-cartoon Pogo saying, "We have met
the enemy, and he is us." As a member of Congress who voted for
three balanced budget amendments, let me say there is no doubt that
the government is important and needs reform. But the government
constitutes 20% -- or one fifth -- of our economy (gross domestic
product). What happens in the other 80%, the private sector, is
where we also must focus our attention. This is what I want to talk
about today. When the government and the private sector work
together in the national interest, all things are possible. We want
our nation made whole again before the 21st century dawns.
What happened to Linda LaChance of Biddeford, Maine, describes
part of our current quandary. In 1979, linda earned $10 an hour
making shoes in NlKE's last shoe plant in America. In 1985, six
years later, NIKE moved her job and thousands of others overseas.
Since then, Linda has been unemployed three times. Today, she's
making $5.50 an hour. As Linda says, "NlKE's motto is 'Just Do It.'
Well they did it to me." NIKE now manufactures 100 percent of its
shoes overseas, using 30,000 contract laborers in China and Asia,
paying them 30 cents an hour. It costs NIKE $8 to make a pair of
shoes, which they then ship back to us and charge us $69.99 to
$150.00 a pair. Then, NIKE paid Michael Jordon $20 million for
advertising campaigns to make us "feel good" about NIKE, while NIKE
pocketed $3.8 billion in revenues in 1994 and Philip Knight, its
Chief Executive Officer, smiled all the way to the bank with his
3/4 million dollar salary, plus $718,000 in bonuses and stock
options. Is this what we want for America?
As far as I'm concerned, if any company with a charter to
conduct business in the U.S. moves our jobs to another country to
get low wage labor and then U-turns their wares back here for sale,
I say we charge them a "Pledge of Allegiance" market entry fee.
Further, any foreign firm that wishes to advantage itself in our
marketplace should have to demonstrate that the workers who
produced those goods earned living wages under decent conditions.
Otherwise, all we are doing is cashing out our jobs, our standard
of living, our liberty, to the lowest wage environments where
workers are locked in the dark ages of serfdom.
- 2 -
When I think about linda, I am reminded of a conversation I
had with the CEO of Boeing Corporation, the airplane giant that for
decades has advantaged itself as a major U.S. defense contractor.
Last year, while Congress was debating why China should be granted
favored trade status to send its goods into our market, I happened
to sit across a table from this gentleman. Recall, Boeing is
laying off another 7,000 more workers this year -- skilled workers
America can't afford to lose - our national defense and industrial
might rest on their shoulders. He said to me, "Congresswoman
Kaptur, why are you questioning Most Favored Nation trade
privileges for China^" I replied, "I'm against MFN for China
because their people don't have basic political rights. And, I
don't think you can have true free enterprise if you don't have
political freedom first." He said, "You really don't get it. I had
dinner with the Premier of China a few weeks ago. I want to tell
you something, Congresswoman. He plays the violin. A man with
music in his heart can't be all bad." I said, "Adolph Hitler loved
Wagner. What did you think of him?"
If Boeing makes a deal to outsource airframe production to
China, who benefits? Does the productive wealth of America
increase? Do jobs here at home increase? Or do a handful of
executives and unaccountable shareholders merely pocket millions
for themselves? There is a difference between "money for a few"
and the "wealth of a nation." Further, does the edge of freedom
advance -- or do Chinese men and women workers, denied basic
freedoms, work for "hunger wages" in a society that does not value
liberty nor their inalienable rights as human beings?
For 20 years, America's middle-class families have not had an
increase in their real wages. You know that. Our checks don't buy
as much. Today a high school graduate with five years work
experience makes 27% less in real wages than his counterpart did in
1979. In the 1950's, one working person could provide for a family
of four. In the 90's it takes two family members working full-time
just to keep the family afloat. isn't there something wrong when
worker productivity in America has steadily risen, but workers'
wages and benefits continue to decline?
Our international trade agreements have been a net destroyer
of millions of jobs in our country over the last two decades.
Wouldn't you think someone in charge would notice? Since 1980, the
U.S. has accumulated a net loss of wealth of over $1.5 trillion in
traded goods. One result is the U.S. has lost more than 2 million
well-paying manufacturing jobs: 300,000 jobs have been lost in
textiles, 287,000 jobs in steel, 128,000 jobs in construction
equipment, and 60,000 in computers and office equipment. The list
goes on. This past year alone, in spite of the gentle recovery,
permanent layoffs in just the textile, apparel, and chemical
industries together amounted to over 103,000 more lost jobs.
America's never had a recovery where we've lost so many
manufacturing jobs!
- 3 -
Why doesn't our media ever cover these casualties? Could it
be even our media has become beholden to the corporate advertisers
that fill their coffers? It is, after all, corporate advertizing
that pays for the rubbish we are subjected to over the public
airwaves. Our mass media is becoming increasingly owned by a few
corporate giants. For example, General Electric, which has
terminated thousands of U.S. workers, owns NBC; billionaire
Lawrence Tisch owned CBS until he agreed to sell it to
Westinghouse; and Capital Cities, which owned ABC, is being
swallowed by Disney. Behind these financial empires lies an even
more tangled web of interownership. Wells Fargo International
Trust, for instance, is the biggest shareholder in General
Electric. It is also the 5th largest shareholder in Capital Cities,
the 7th largest shareholder in CBS, the 4th largest shareholder in
Time-Warner. And, just to round out the circle, Wells Fargo is
also the 3rd largest shareholder in Disney. Wells Fargo is not
unique. Other major institutional investors such as Bankers Trust,
Capital Research & Management and Fidelity Management & Research
all own substantial holdings in each of these media giants. Sound
familiar? These are the same barbarians at the gate we met back in
the 1980's as merger mania hollowed out America's productive
wealth. Is it not a fact that the one who pays the piper, generally
calls the tune?
Now, a bill just swept through Congress that actually
sanctions even bigger media monopoly control. In your town, a
single multinational company soon will be allowed to own the
newspaper, two television stations, all the radio stations, and the
cable company... Which brings me to Westinghouse - a company that
terminated about 15,000 workers over the last year, laid off over
25,000 in the Pittsburgh area over the past decade, and is now
buying CBS. Do you think that under Westinghouse's ownership CBS
news shows will tell the truth about our economy, about unemployed
Westinghouse workers, or about the kind of price-fixing problems
the company has had? Or, will America be subjected to brain-
washing? Will NBC's broadcasts be free of General Electric's
influence? Will ABC's Sunday morning news shows be insulated from
its sponsors' dictates? And will Rupert Murdoch's Fox channel
reveal his political sidewinding in our nation's Capitol as his
network subjects our children to the lowest common denominator
trash - like Models, Inc. and Melrose Place? I say, let the
President veto the telecommunication's bill. Then, start from
scratch. Take the money out of politics by getting free time
donated by the media for candidates across our land before any bill
granting broadcasters the privilege to use our airwaves moves
through the Congress again.
Now, think about this. Not a single U.S. owned television
manufacturer exists within our shores. In 1965, every color
television set produced in the U.S. was made by an American owned
domestic plant. In that year, Americans purchased 2.6 million sets
manufactured by companies like Sylvania, Motorola, Admiral, Philco,
- 4 -
Sunbeam, RCA, Quasar, Magnavox, and Wizard. By 1991, sales of
televisions to U.S. consumers skyrocketed to 21 million. But, by
1995, there were no U.S. producers left, as Zenith bit the dust.
America has sustained a loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs,
income, and productive wealth in just this one sector.
Some say these trade policies provide bargains for consumers.
But please tell me where prices have gone down -- in shoes, in
cereals, in cars, in homes, in anything while the purchasing power
of American households has fallen, prices keep going up at a
steady pace.
Look on the shelves . . . shoes from China, canned fruit from
Thailand, VCR's from Japan, fuel from the Mideast, televisions from
Mexico. Every year the deluge of imports gets larger. When a retail
clerk at Walmart, who works part-time for minimum wage with no
benefits, rings up a $100 pair of tennis shoes made in China, does
she analyze who benefits from that transaction? Not the U.S.
workers who lost their jobs. Not the communities and small
businesses that once thrived from strong employers and well paid
workers. Not our nation's productive wealth. And certainly not she.
Who benefitted? The importer and globetrotting manufacturer who
kept prices high, drove wages and benefits down, and siphoned off
exorbitant profits by paying Chinese workers a pitiful 30 cents an
hour. My friends, there is a difference between "money for the few"
and "the wealth of a nation." Shouldn't we remember what Henry Ford
knew -- consumers must have decent jobs before they can buy a
company's goods, or, ultimately, the nation gets "cashed out."
Fortune 500 companies haven't increased their manufacturing
work force in the U.S. for a decade. Virtually all their investment
in production has been overseas. We are seeing unilateral
disinvestment of huge segments of our economy. America's workers
are being asked to compete against three forces: (1) capital that
can move anywhere; 12) foreign cartels in nations like Japan that
block entry of U.S. products; (3) millions of low wage workers of
the world who live under under democratic regimes. Is it any wonder
that the downward pull on U.S. wages never abates? Is it any wonder
that American workers are restless? They know that their future
economic security rests on companies with no allegiance to
America's freedoms, just their own.
Our national political leaders have also become a party to an
insidious shift in our perception of how to achieve national
prosperity. They have shifted our national emphasis from selling to
customers at home to selling to customers abroad, while ceding our
home markets to imports. And they have painted a false picture of
the difficulty in selling to customers abroad - - whether that be
in cartel-controlled markets like Japan, or in developing nations
like Mexico.
Which, of course, brings us to NAFTA -- Let us measure the
promises made to pass NAFTA against the promises already broken:
- 5 -
NAFTA to date has been an emergency room case. NAFTA has
ushered in an era of Alice in Wonderland trade policy where failure
is called success, truth is turned upside down, and billions are
spent to prove that those who were wrong were actually right. Since
NAFTA went into effect, more than one company a day has left the
U.S. for Mexico. Nearly 390 more companies are projected to build
on the Mexican side of the border in the next five years. Ross, if
it's not a giant sucking sound, it sure is a loud swoosh!
A Congressional Joint Economic Committee report found in the
first nine months of NAFTA, Mexican imports to our country cost the
U.S. 137,000 more jobs. Major economic analysts now predict
NAFTA-related job losses in the U.S. at 350,000 over two years,
growing to over half a million by the year 2000. Who speaks for
these Americans who are rendered voiceless in our political system?
NAFTA also promised help to Mexico's workers. They said their
wages would increase and provide a market for U.S. goods. In fact,
their workers' pitiful wages have been cut in half. [The truth is
NAFTA proponents cared not a wit about the Mexican worker. What a
disgrace that two Administrations passed on the change to give
workers a guaranteed stake in any enhanced future prosperity
arising from the trade pact. The peso devaluation has thrown a
million Mexicans out of work, significantly lowered the wages of
those who remain employed, and inflicted high-power inflation on
every working family. Companies are rushing to the border to sop
up low-cost labor. Prior to NAFTA, 7 Mexican workers could be
hired for the price of one U.S. worker. Today, it's 11 Mexican
workers. With inflation at 50% , there's hardship in every hamlet
in Mexico. Wouldn't you think the plight of 100 million people
just south of our border would get some attention in our media in
spite of O.J? No, the media distracts America with the tragic,
real-life soap opera of one family while the plight of millions is
ignored.] Mexico needS its own misery index. My friends, there's
a new Mason-Dixon plantation line scribed on our continent and it
is called the U.S./Mexico border.
Before NAFTA, our country held trade surpluses with Mexico.
NAFTA proponents predicted a rising U.S. trade surplus with Mexico,
reaching $12 billion by the end of the decade. But, this year we
will run the highest trade deficit with Mexico in the history of
our commercial relations, estimated at $20 billion dollars. And our
deficit with Canada has more than doubled for a projected 1995
trade deficit of $17 billion. Remember, for every billion dollars
of deficit we sustain with each of those countries, 20,000 more
jobs in this country are at risk.
We were promised that NAFTA would reduce illegal immigration
and drug trafficking across our Mexican border. In reality, the
Border Patrol reports a 30% increase in detained illegals, and the
New York Times reports that Mexico is replacing Columbia as the
- 6 -
drug capital of the Western Hemisphere. Increased heroin shipments
are spreading death across our land. [When our own government
refused to make drug interdiction a part of NAFTA -- the flow of
illegal drugs from Mexico became a flood.] FBI official James
Moody reports that many companies privatized by former Mexican
President Salinas were bought by drug lords. Frankly, the
only nations with which the U.S. should sign free trade agreements
are those which block the flow of illegal narcotics to our nation.
Then there is the Mexican peso bailout. We were told by our
Treasury Department that NAFTA would strengthen the peso when they
knew all along Mexico was leaking reserves like a sieve. Now,
twenty billion of our tax dollars are out the window, without a
vote of Congress. Shouldn't those who bet their hot money in Mexico
and earned 66% returns be expected to eat their losses? The
speculators got the profits; we taxpayers got the losses.
Of course, there are some winners from NAFTA. Former Canadian
Prime Minister Brian Mulroney -- remember him? -- one of the three
signatories of NAFTA. Well, before the ink was even dry on the
agreement, he was appointed to the board of one of NAFTA's biggest
beneficiaries -- Archer-Daniels-Midland & Company. He's being
compensated at the rate of $100,000 a year. You might recall
that's the multinational that's being investigated by the U.S.
Justice Department for international price fixing in agriculture.
And then, of course, we have former Mexican President, Carlos
Salnas another signatory of NAFTA. He was appointed to a lucrative
Board seat of Dow Jones which owns the Wall Street Journal. Prior
to NAFTA's passage, do you think paid corporate advertisers had
anything to do with news stories being slanted 10-1 against NAFTA's
critics?
Now there's a proposal on a fast-track in Washington to expand
NAFTA to include other Latin American countries, starting with
Chile. I ask: Why not cancel NAFTA instead of expand it? Let's
renegotiate trade agreements in the interest of our nation that are
fair to ail sides concerned.
I will shortly introduce a bill to that effect. [Importantly,
my bill will require real representational democracy and the rule
of law as criteria for inclusion in any free trade agreement. My
bill will assure that a new agreement encourages enforceable worker
rights and environmental standards so Mexico can't undercut U.S.
jobs by exploiting and poisoning its own people. My bill will
endorse free trade only with those nations that stop the flow of
illegal drugs to our country.]
[But. the new Congressional leaders who blocked our efforts to
debate the Mexican bailout are now scheming to railroad through
their own bill to expand NAFTA sometime this fall. Just call it
the "stealth" bill of 1995. Like GATT and the peso bailout, you
- 7 -
won't see it, you won't hear it. It will magically be maneuvered
through Washington's closed corridors and committee rooms, probably
brought up late at night. So much for change in Washington.] NAFTA
isn't the only instance where political manipulation has been used
to absolve Congress from a real debate about America's economic
future. Last November, a lame duck Congress -- people who wouldn't
be coming back -- voted to pass GATT. A 22,000 page bill that took
7 years to negotiate. It weighed 10 pounds. It cost our Treasury
$40 billion in lost tariff revenue. And it fails to address the
non-tariff barriers to free trade that are at the heart of the
gigantic trade imbalances in the world. Yet, it got only a few
hours of debate time with no amendments allowed. Under GATT, the
U.S. cedes power to a supra-national organization located in
Geneva, Switzerland, dominated by nations which vote against us 80%
of the time in the United Nations, and we have no veto power. Is
anyone in Washington paying attention?
From the misguided policy of Most Favored Nation trade status
for dictatorships, to the promotion of sweat shop zones in the
Caribbean, to GATT, NAFTA, and the failed U.S.-Japan auto talks,
our nation's trade policies over the last two decades have
diminished the livelihoods of millions of our citizens. Just with
Japan, our trade failures have cost America over 1 million jobs.
Further, our long-term interests with the majority of the world's
people in the developing nations have been jeopardized by our
failure to translate internationally our highest ideals of liberty,
justice, and the rule of law. Hence, our policies pretend ignorance
of slave labor in Asia. We turn a cold shoulder to teenage girls in
the Caribbean and Latin America who labor for us 80 hours a week
for fifty-six cents an hour. Meanwhile, our highest elected
officials cozy up to regimes that have a standing policy of
entrenching powerful economic oligarchies at the expense of their
own people. During the Cold War, America stood for the concept of
freedom over repression. Today, America is aligning itself with the
most unsavory of regimes for a goal no loftier than a few business
deals. Shouldn't America's foreign policy champion political
liberty first?
In closing, let me ask: Where do we wish America to be ten
years from now -- fifty years from now? The answer is clear.
We want a free and economically secure nation here at home,
with a stronger middle class whose standard of living rises with
rising productivity. We want to protect and spread the spirit of
liberty among our people, as well as the forgotten millions across
this globe. [We want our sense of nationhood renewed. rooted in our
inalienable rights, devoted to the rule of law, determined to
advance freedom and dignity for all people so that we remain the
world's beacon of hope.] We want the best educated people, the
most sustainable agriculture, the most sophisticated defense, and
the finest health care. We want the hearts of our cities and towns
to again bloom with high-wage jobs through investment in both human
- 8 -
and physical capital. Let's close tax loopholes -- including
capital gains tax loopholes -- that encourage footloose companies
to ship our jobs overseas. Let's reform our tax system to encourage
saving and reward work rather than speculative investments. And
then, let's fully fund our private and public retirement systems,
reinvesting their assets to yield the highest return for
beneficiaries.
On the trade front, let's clear out the trade dinosaurs in
Washington and replace them with a Professional Trade Corps whose
loyalty to the U.S. is unquestioned and whose negotiating skills
are world class. Then, let's prohibit our negotiators from going
to work on behalf of foreign interests once they leave government.
Stand united with us for an America that exports more than she
imports. Let's create real wealth here at home, not just money for
a few, and use the power of our marketplace to pry open the closed
markets of the world.'
Concurrently, America should only sign free trade agreements
with free people. Let's use our economic power to jump start
democracy and rising living standards elsewhere. [Why should we
ratchet down our wages here due to lopsided trade agreements that
favor goods produced by low-wage workers living under undemocratic
regimes?]
And, how about balancing America's budgets with no foreign
borrowing? Let's reinvigorate the quality of self-reliance and
reduce our debt level so it does not outstrip our ability to pay it
back. Why can't our U.S. Treasury embark upon a "Save the U.S.A"
campaign in which our U.S. Treasury bonds are offered for sale at
post offices, denominated at prices affordable to everyone, so
America is again owned by Americans. And while we're at it, let's
wean America from our dangerous dependence on foreign sources of
energy and move to an energy self-sufficient nation with new fuels
and sources of power to sustain life in the 21st century.
Our generation must advance the edge of freedom and
representative democracy to the world's people given expression by
our Statue of Liberty. For our earth, which will grow by 85 million
people a year, we aspire to more advanced and civilized peoples,
cleaner water, purer air, sustainable forests, the restoration of
our oceans, and an end to nuclear proliferation.
So let's infuse the spirit of America with renewed optimism
Carl Sandberg captured when he eloquently penned "I see America,
not in the setting sun of a black night . . . I see America in the
crimson light of a rising sun, fresh from the burning, creative
hand of God. I see great days ahead."
- 9 -
(
geocities.com/athens/Acropolis) (
geocities.com/athens)