AMERICAN JOBS: Speech - Louisville, KY - 9/29/92 A Debate About American Jobs Remarks by Governor Bill Clinton Louisville, KT September 29, 1992 Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for being here in such wonderful numbers. Thank you for your enthusiasm. I love the sign--there's a sign out here which says, single mother Republican woman for Clinton and Gore. There's another sign out there that says: Debate: Bill, 2, George, 0. I'm glad to be here with all of you, with Judge Armstrong, who happens to be from the same little town in Arkansas that I'm from; with your wonderful mayor, Jerry Abramson; with Governor Jones; and with so many others who are here. I want to point out, too, one person who's here and one who's not, but I need them both if we're going to change this country: Congressman Mazzoli, and Senator Wendell Ford. I want you to support them. You know, last week when we were supposed to debate in East Lansing, I showed up there too. And that day Mr. Bush flew all around Arkansas to all the states around there to tell them what a bad governor I'd been. But he wouldn't show up in East Lansing so I could answer those charges. Then late in the night he flew back to Washington and did something that really symbolizes what this election is all about. After the television newscast, and after the presses were shut down, so there would be no publicity the next morning, George Bush vetoed for the second time the Family and Medical Leave Act. Now, Senator Ford voted for it. Congressman Massoli voted for it. Most Democrats voted for it, and a huge number of Republicans voted for it, and 72 other nations have it. But this guy said we can't do that. Well, I want to say here in Kentucky, a state that stood with me early, where most of your officials came out for me in February, and I'll never forget that, Kentucky, a state which has been aggressively moving toward the 21st century with reforms in education and in economic development, facing the challenges and the problems you have, I thought this was a can- do country, not a can't-do country. And on November 3rd, we're going to show them that can-do is back in control in America. In just five weeks, we'll be choosing a president--not just a choice between two people, but between two very different philosophies. A great decision like this deserves a great debate. Now, eight years ago in Louisville, another Republican president had the courage to come here and debate, even though he was leading in the polls. By most accounts, Ronald Reagan lost the debate but he went on to win the election. And the American people won the opportunity that George Bush has denied them here today: to hear the candidates for the presidency really discuss the honest issues. Just one week ago when I was in East Lansing, I said what I said here today. I want a debate. I want a honest discussion. I don't want to spend all of my time avoiding the issues; that's why I came here to talk about them today. Mr. Bush has spent the entire campaign skipping around the truth of his record and his policies. Instead of being in Louisville here today, after so many people went to so much trouble to make this a good debate, to discuss how we can create jobs and increase incomes and offer opportunity and challenge all of you to change and be more responsible, Mr. Bush is in Tennessee, once again, grossly misrepresenting my record and position, in a forum in which I have no opportunity to respond. Well, let me tell you something, here in Louisville, it occurs to me that you can't be a Louisville slugger if you don't stand up to the plate. I want you to understand that what's going on here is not that Mr. Bush is a bad debater. In fact, he's a good combative debater. Especially in a format that allows little opportunity for real discussion and rejoinder. His mastery of the soundbite putdown is well known. But how can he explain, after 12 years of trickle-down economics, the fact that most Americans are working harder for lower wages than they were making 10 years ago. How can he explain that during his presidency our nation as a whole has actually lost nearly 40,000 private sector jobs. You created more jobs in Kentucky, we created more jobs in Arkansas, than the nation as a whole has in the private sector under George Bush. How can he explain that during his presidency more than two people went bankrupt for every man or woman who found a new job? How can he explain that during his presidency almost 100,000 Americans per month lost their health insurance? How can he explain that even the conservative Heritage Foundation says that he increased bureaucracy and paperwork more than any president in the last 20 years, for all of his railing against government? And how can he explain that for all of his attack on government spending, the fastest growing part of the executive branch was the White House staff. It's bad enough that Mr. Bush isn't here to face up to his challenger, but worse that he won't face up to the challenges facing America. We need a president who will lead us to compete and win in the global economy. But this past weekend, I don't know how many of you saw it, but we found out yet again that Mr. Bush has not the vision or the sense of mission to fight for American jobs, American businesses, and American workers. On Sunday night, I don't know how many of you saw it, but the television show, ``60 Minutes'', documented--documented-- that the Bush administration spent hundreds of millions of dollars on programs to finance the movement of American businesses overseas, especially in the garment and the electronics industry. Listen to this, ``60 Minutes'' documented, interviewed government employees admitting that a division of the United States State Department, the Agency for International Development, has been paying for advertising in American trade journals to urge companies to move offshore and take advantage of workers who make only 57 cents an hour or less. Now, listen, your tax dollars paid for the following advertisements: Rosa Martinez produces apparel for U.S. markets on her sewing machine in El Salvador. You can hire her for 57 cents an hour. Your tax money paid for it. A sportswear factory in Decaturville, Tennessee, owned by a company which also closed a plant in Kentucky, was closed down, and 304 men and women lost their jobs, after the company expanded their operation in El Salvador. Now, the company has a right to move to El Salvador, it's their money. But listen to this: the company got help opening the new operation from the United States government, but could get no help from the U.S. government to stay in the U.S. with more modern equipment and better training for their workers. Investigators who went down there and who said they were from an American company were actually encouraged by federal employees in Honduras who worked for United States taxpayers to move their factory out of the U.S. and into Honduras. They were told by people who work for your government that the workers there would be more reliable than the workers in the state these people said they were from. At a time when companies are having a hard time getting loans to expand factories in middle America, Mr. Bush's administration is offering loans at low cost in Central America. One manufacturer who stayed in America told ``60 Minutes'' that the government would do nothing to help him keep his workers working in America, but would loan him money to move out of the United States at such low interest rates that it was like getting the money for free. George Bush promised us 30 million jobs in eight years. He just didn't tell us where the jobs were going to be. We thought he was going to create jobs in San Antonio and San Francisco and San Bernadino; not in San Salvador. He has actually overseen the creation of more private sector jobs in Central America than in the United States of America in the last four years. If that's not enough to send him packing, I don't know what is. When George Bush is in Tennessee today, I hope the press will ask him, I hope the people will ask him, why he took jobs away from the people in Decaturville, Tennessee, by using their own tax dollars to shut them down and move their plant overseas. He ought to answer that question, even if he didn't come here to debate. He ought to have to answer why, at a time when he is trying to reduce dollars for job training for people who lose their jobs to overseas competition, why he would be trying to increase the money available for job training for workers that are in other countries who took jobs away from Americans. At a time when we do not have enough incentives for Americans jobs and American workers, he is offering tax incentives to shut plants down here and move them overseas. At a time when companies are fighting to survive in a global economy, he puts companies that stay in the United States at a terrible disadvantage against companies that pack up and run. Since 1990, the same United States companies that have been operating in Central America have been involved in 65 plant closings and 13 mass layoffs, almost 15,000 workers, many of them single mothers struggling to support their children have lost their jobs. And here's what burns me up. Mr. Bush has used these workers' own tax dollars to pay for policies to take their jobs away. If a company wants to move a plant offshore, make no mistake about it: that's their decision. We should have free movement of capital in this world. But the American taxpayers shouldn't subsidize people moving their jobs away and taking them overseas. Let me say, I, like many Americans my age, was inspired by John Kennedy's summons to citizenship; inspired by his call for an alliance for progress with the nations of Central and South America. I do believe we should promote economic development in that part of the world, but not at the cost of our own standard of living; and more importantly, at the cost of our own standards of democracy. I want America to promote progress, not poverty. And it doesn't serve the interests of the workers in the United States or Central America when employers close their factories down here that provide workers with a decent standard of living and open up sweatshops to pay starvation wages in another country. ``60 Minutes'', listen to this, the ``60 Minutes'' program actually showed film of a United States government employee promising what he thought was a business prospect that there would be no union activity in the Central American country because -- listen to this--listen to this--because the prospective troublemakers could be fired and blacklisted so they would never be hired. That is a violation of all of our trade agreements, and this administration has supported it. On Sunday we learned that when Mr. Bush says he wants America to be an export superpower, he means exporting factories and jobs, not products and services. Let me say something else: we also learned on Sunday that when Mr. Bush believes that foreign-owned companies should pay lower taxes in America than American companies making the same money. Campaigning in Marysville, Ohio, Mr. Bush charged, quote, that I want to impose new taxes on foreign-owned multinational corporations operating in this country. Now, you'd think if there is any phrase that George Bush would never utter again, it'd be anything to do with new taxes. But the fact is, I do not want foreign companies to pay new taxes; I just want them to live within our present law like American companies, and pay their fair share of existing taxes. Every person, every person who has studied the American tax system, has noted that in the last 10 years, the income of foreign corporations have gone up, and their tax burdens have gone down. If your income went up, could you cut your taxes? No. If an American business' income goes up, can it cut its taxes? No. All I want is for people who operate here to play by the same rules as our companies and our people. Listen, the ways and means committee of the United States Congress, including members of both parties, has reported that foreign-owned multinational corporations have found ways to evade the taxes they owe in this country. They manipulate their records, and move their profits to countries with lower tax rates. That's how 76 percent of 46,000 foreign firms that operate here pay no taxes at all; that's over a 10-year period. Listen to this. One company sold more than $3.5 billion in merchandise, made profits of $600 million, and paid $500 in federal taxes. That's how 17 foreign companies quadrupled their income from '85 to '89, from $16 billion to $63 billion, but paid $600 million less in taxes. Now, 28 percent of the foreign auto distributors, and 40 percent of the foreign electronics manufacturers, with combined sales of, listen to this, $57 billion, paid no taxes on their American sales last year. That's why a Republican congressman, Duncan Hunter of California, has told the American people: these companies are underpaying their tax bills by $30 billion a year. I do not believe a foreign company should pay one penny more in taxes than American companies on the same income. But I don't believe they should pay less, either. Make no mistake about it, when George Bush says that foreign companies should pay less than their fair share, he means that you should pay more. After four years of his presidency, foreign corporations are earning more and paying less; middle class workers are earning less and paying more. I say it's time for a change. This administration believe it or not, this president actually told the IRS they should stop going after foreign corporations and spend more time cracking down on middle-class taxpayers. Even though the House ways and means committee said the Internal Revenue Service was outgunned by foreign companies, his new budget doesn't provide for even one new agent to look into the billions of dollars of tax evasion. And in fact, they have actually put pressure on their existing agents to stop trying to collect the money that these people owe. So there is a fundamental difference between me and Mr. Bush. I don't think those of you who work hard and play by the rules should be played for suckers. I don't think you ought to have to pay the bills that other people won't pay. I think everybody should pay their fair share in this country, and it's time we had a president who believed that. Let me say, this is not fear-mongering, and this is not unfair criticism of foreign companies. Like Kentucky, I have aggressively sought foreign investment in my state. We've tripled the number of companies in Arkansas with foreign investment since I've been governor, and I'm proud of the progress that has come from my foreign trade missions in that regard. I think Mr. Bush is selling America short when he says foreign companies will abandon us if we ask them to live within our laws and pay their fair share of taxes. He wants America to be a tax haven for these companies. I want America to be a haven for companies who want to hire better educated, better trained, and better motivated workers, so we can compete and win. And that's a fundamental difference between Mr. Bush and me. The other difference is, Mr. Bush is literally spending your tax money to give companies an incentive to move American jobs. He wants to export jobs. I want to give companies incentive to export American products again, to keep American jobs here. Instead of giving companies tax breaks to shut their plants down and move them overseas and low interest loans and other assistance, why shouldn't we instead do what our competitors do? I want to create more incentives than ever for American businesses, American products, American services, and American jobs. A permanent investment tax credit to encourage people to keep buying the best plant and equipment. Incentives for people who start new businesses. Incentives for people who spend on research and development. Incentives for people to retrain their workers. Why don't we take our hard-working people and our scientific and technological base, why don't we take every dollar by which we reduce defense, and invest it in creating an economy for the 21st century and high-wage jobs here at home? I think it's time we put the people of this country first again. We can expand trade; we can open our barriers. We don't need to be protectionist. But we are crazy to be subsidizing with your money the export of our jobs when we need to be investing in our people so they can keep good jobs. We need to be controlling health care costs, and providing basic health care to our people. We need to be providing education to all people, apprenticeships to every high school graduate who doesn't go to college, and opening the doors and opening the doors of college education to all Americans. I would like to spend the money that my opponent would spend financing the movement of jobs overseas to establish a national trust fund out of which any American can borrow the money to go to college. And pay it back in one of two ways, either as a small percentage of their income, after they go to work, at tax time, so you can't beat the bill; or even better, by working for two years here at home in a domestic Peace Corps to rebuild America. You think about it. Kentucky and Arkansas need more college graduates. Consider this. If every young person from Kentucky could get the money to go to college with no questions asked, no burden on their family, and give it back with a year or two of work here at home, working as teachers or police officers, or in rural health clinics, or in housing programs, or with the elderly or people with disabilities, or working with children to keep them out of trouble and off drugs, to give our people people-power, to solve our problems not with a government bureaucracy but from the grassroots up, we could solve the problems of our country and educate a whole generation of Americans. My fellow Americans, in 1960, with just about five weeks left in that historic presidential election, John F. Kennedy came to Louisville, Kentucky, and here is what he said: We believe this is a great country, but we believe this country can be greater. We believe it is a powerful country, but this country can be more powerful. The choice that faces the United States is as old as the country. The country has faced it in other years and on other occasions. This election is a choice between fear and hope, between those who say we can do worse, and those who say we can do better; between the politics of division and diversion and denial, and the spirit of courage and commitment and community and change that has been the hallmark of this great nation from its beginning. Together I say to you can do better if we have the courage to change. We can make the country we love the country it was meant to be. Thank you, and God bless you all. Thank you.