Congressional Press Conference - Defending American Jobs Act of 2004
Federal News Service
March 3, 2004 Wednesday
HEADLINE: CONGRESSIONAL PRESS CONFERENCE
RE: DEFENDING AMERICAN JOBS ACT OF 2004
PARTICIPANTS: REPRESENTATIVE BERNARD SANDERS (I-VT); REPRESENTATIVE JERRY NADLER (D-NY); REPRESENTATIVE PETER DEFAZIO (D-OR); REPRESENTATIVE JOHN CONYERS (D-MI); REPRESENTATIVE TED STRICKLAND (D-OH); AND REPRESENTATIVE MAJOR OWENS (D-NY)
LOCATION: HOUSE RADIO/TV GALLERY, THE CAPITOL, WASHINGTON, D.C.
BODY:
REP. SANDERS: (In progress) -- the CEO of General Electric, this is what he said in a speech a year ago, quote, "When I am talking to GE managers, I talk China, China, China, China. You need to be there." And he continues, "I am a nut on China. Our sourcing from China is going to grow to $5 billion. We are building a tech center in China. Every discussion today has to center on China. The cost basis is extremely attractive."
Now, he has the right to say that. But why in God's earth would the taxpayers of this country be providing billions of dollars in corporate welfare to a company which is very open about it and saying we're off, we're going to China.
But it's not just Motorola, GE; it's Boeing, it's General Motors, it's IBM, it's Caterpillar, it's Citibank, you name the major large corporation, and by and large they are selling out American workers and they are moving abroad. And those companies should no longer continue to receive corporate welfare from the American taxpayer.
Let me now-who was here first?
REP. DEFAZIO: Well, I've got to go --
REP. SANDERS: All right. Peter DeFazio of Oregon has been very active on all kinds of issues representing American workers.
Peter?
REP. DEFAZIO: Thanks, Bernie, thanks for your leadership on this issue.
You know, I come from a state, Oregon, where I've gone against the tide for years in terms of opposing these free trade agreements. You know, they say, "What's wrong with you, Congressman? Your state's going to be a big winner. You're posed right there on the Pacific Rim, you know, you're midway between our partners in Canada and Mexico." And I said, "Yeah, it's easier for the jobs to get out of here because we're closer to those places." And in fact, that's what's happened. Oregon, despite its small size, is number 10 on the list in terms of jobs lost to these free trade agreements.
But now we're talking about adding insult to injury.
Not only are we in a situation where American workers are being forced by their bosses to get their last one or two or three months' paychecks by training their replacements in India or China or elsewhere, not only are they sometimes forced to pack up the equipment and put on it labels shipping it to Mexico, but now they're being forced to subsidize the export of their own jobs. Job exports are becoming the fastest-growing export in the United States of America.
This is a total outrage and it's got to stop. We not only need to change these policies and bring the jobs home and put a morataorium in further free trade agreements, but, you know, I mean, the number- one no-brainer-and conservatives and progressives, everyone should agree on this-is we should not be asking the American taxpayers to subsidize the export of these jobs.
Thank you for introducing this legislation.
REP. SANDERS: Thank you, Peter.
Jerry Nadler of New York has been a strong fighter for workers' rights.
REP. NADLER: Thank you very much, Bernie.
Let me begin by thanking Congressman Sanders for introducing the Defending American Jobs Act of 2004. It is appalling that when Americans are losing jobs overseas, when so-called American companies are laying off people here and shipping the jobs overseas, that the Bush administration is advocating the practice of sending jobs overseas. But this should come as no surprise since this administration has proven time and again that it is a friend to the largest corporations in America and an enemy to the millions of Americans who are out of work because of these corporations' practice of shipping jobs overseas.
Because of the deliberate decision of these American companies to ship these jobs overseas where they can pay dismal wages, where they can fire workers who try to form a union or where they can depend on the government to arrest workers who try to form a union, where they can ignore the environment, the United States has lost almost 3 million manufacturing jobs just during the last three years.
While these corporations ship these jobs overseas, the federal government continues to reward them by giving them billions of dollars in corporate welfare.
And let's, you know, look at this for a second. Bernie points out that General Motors, for instance, eliminated 260,000 workers and received more than $2-1/2 billion from one government agency and 100 million (dollars) from another. Why did General Motors get this government money? All of these government funds, all of this corporate welfare, it's for one purpose and one purpose only: to generate American jobs. That's the alleged reason for them. And there's nothing wrong with spending government money if that will in fact generate American jobs and if it's a reasonable amount, proportionate to the number of jobs generated.
But when these companies are shipping the jobs overseas and laying off people in the United States, why should they be getting money whose purpose is-taxpayer money whose purpose is to generate jobs here, when they're not generating jobs over here? If-nobody would say that it was okay to give money for building schools or day care centers or hospitals, and pay no attention at all to whether day care centers or schools or hospitals got built. Yet no government agency collects the information on how many net jobs are created, how many jobs are outsourced. And so we have the ridiculous situation of giving billions of dollars to the companies that are shipping jobs abroad.
All Congressman Sanders and the rest of us are saying in this bill is, let's pay attention, let's ask for the normal accountability that we expect from government. If we're giving a company money to create jobs in the United States, let's make sure they're creating jobs in the United States. And if they're laying off more people here proportionately than they are abroad, we know they're shipping jobs abroad, then they shouldn't be getting money for the purpose of creating jobs here, because they're not doing it. The government should get something. The American people should get a return on its money. We shouldn't simply be handing large American corporations a gift of taxpayer money so that they can destroy American jobs, American livelihoods and American lives.
So again, I thank Congressman Sanders for having the initiative to bring up this bill. And I trust-I may be disappointed-but I trust that the Bush administration, which claims to be in favor of accountability and a good stewardship over taxpayer funds, will, of course, support this legislation so we know where the money is going and it does the thing it's supposed to do; namely, it generates, not destroys, American jobs.
Thank you.
REP. SANDERS: Thank you, Jerry.
Ted Strickland is from Ohio and is a fighter for workers' rights.
REP. STRICKLAND: I will be very brief, because there are others who want to speak and you've heard much of what I think each of us want to say to you.
But the question that I have is, I think, a question that a lot of people across this country are asking. When is our government going to recognize our plight and do something about it? There is no question, if you've watched the primaries within the Democratic Party, if you look at the polls, if you just listen to the man and woman on the street, you know that they are terribly concerned about the fact that we are bleeding jobs in this country, and they wonder does this government have the ability to respond in a way that's going to protect American jobs, American communities, American workers, the American citizen. And this is an example of what we can, in fact, do that is responsible, reasonable, defensible.
And so I'm just happy to be here. You've heard the statistics. We have them. I've got lists of companies that have received this corporate welfare and have taken jobs overseas. I won't go through all of those. But the fact is that this is a gathering crisis in this country, and unless we take action, we will continue to see American jobs lost, communities decimated. And the American people have a right to become cynical and angry and embittered unless this government takes action.
And I congratulate my good friend Bernie Sanders for this reasonable, common-sense legislation. And I hope that all of us within the House, Democrat and Republican, can join together to support this common-sense legislation.
REP. SANDERS: Thank you, Ted.
John Conyers represents Detroit, Michigan, a community which has been hard hit by the loss of decent-paying jobs.
John?
REP. CONYERS: Well, I have two points to make. One, our statistics about how Michigan is fairing, ranked third in the nation in the number of jobs lost-over 170,000 manufacturing jobs in the last four years-and then more coming fast.
The reason that we're doing this is-and we want to give the president proper credit-is that he announced that jobs going overseas was good for the economy. I think we all remember that statement, that was followed almost the next day by his economist, Dr. Gregory Mankiw, who revealed that the administration believes that the flow of American jobs and services to lower-wage countries is a by- product of free trade and is both inevitable and good for the economy. A view not shared by the 3 million people who have already lost their jobs, and the millions more who go to work every day hoping that they're not reading in the financial pages of their company contemplating doing the same thing in a few months.
So that's why we have the anti-outsourcing legislation to cut off this hemorrhaging that's going on in our system because of government policies. And I am proud of all of our colleagues that will be joining us in this endeavor.
REP. SANDERS: John, thanks very much.
Major Owens is from Brooklyn, another community that has lost a lot of good-paying jobs.
Major?
REP. OWENS: I think it's significant to point out-and The New York Times had a write-up on the story on last Saturday, February 28th, that a study done by some pretty authoritative sources say that 50 percent of the black men, 50 percent of the African American males in New York City are unemployed.
I think that's very important. It's probably the same, too, in every large city, except that 50 percent in New York is a great number of people, because there are almost 2 million African Americans in New York, and the number of men is great. Fifty percent of the imprisoned, people who are in prison, are also African American, or Hispanic. The largest-fastest-growing religion in America is Islam, and the largest number of converts to Islam are young American-black American males.
All those factors ought to be taken into consideration. We may make major miscalculations, the leadership of this country, in terms of how much oppression people will be able to bear. We need a short- term program to relieve the job crisis, and a long-term program. And I'm certain, I hope that every candidate, the two candidates now, John Kerry and President Bush, will make that their number one priority. If you have jobs, you can solve many of the other problems.
With jobs, in many cases, comes some health care. But with jobs comes the stability that helps to keep families together. With jobs comes the stability which helps to allow children to exist in an atmosphere which nurtures education. Jobs are number one. And we may in our greed allow our greedy capitalist executives to go where the cheap labor is-to China-and they'll destroy not only the fabric, social fabric of our society, they're going to destroy the great American consumer market. There'll be nobody to buy these products from China or anywhere else if they continue.
So, this is a practical piece of legislation. It pushes the issue forward on the front burner. It keeps it high on the radar screen. And I want to congratulate Bernie and other people who have similar legislation also, because that's our job: to find ways to use the mechanism of the Congress to hold up to the American people what the real problems are.
This is the number-one problem in America-jobs.
REP. SANDERS: Thank you.
Any questions? Yes, sir?
Q As a practical matter -- (off mike) -- how many cosponsors do you have? How-what plans would you have for getting this thing through this year?
REP. SANDERS: Well, we're doing very well. We just introduced the concept last week. We already have 50 cosponsors, and I haven't done any of my usual arm-twisting. So I think that number is going to go much higher than that.
And the other point that I would make is, many of us have been talking about issues like this for a number of years. And frankly, not a whole lot of people in the Congress have been listening. But you know what? I think there is a groundswell of change in Congress and all over the American people.
REP. : Right.
REP. SANDERS: Many members who a couple of years ago were saying, "Well, you know, free trade, it's really wonderful, and it's really great; we've got to support these corporations," they are looking at the reality in their own communities, and they're saying, "Wait a second. We are losing millions of decent-paying jobs. The new jobs that are being created are low-wage service-industry jobs."
So we are clearly winning the debate, and I think we have a reasonable chance to get legislation like this through.
Yes, ma'am?
Q Congressman, when you talk about the number of tax breaks, can you quantify those? How much in a year do these corporations get --
REP. SANDERS: There are estimates-and you can appreciate that different people will come up with different numbers. Some conservative institutions, like the Cato Institute, have come up with a figure of $87 billion a year in corporate welfare -- 87 billion (dollars).
REP. NADLER: Can I add one thing here? It's not just a trade issue, and I think the-frankly, the brilliance of the bill that Bernie has come up with is that he has crafted a bill that simply says that we want some accountability.
REP. SANDERS: Right.
REP. NADLER: The purpose of this corporate welfare-we're not inveighing just against corporate welfare in general, but the purpose of these different programs is to give incentives to American corporations to create jobs in America. And what this bill says is, let's see if they're doing that.
REP. SANDERS: Right.
REP. NADLER: If they're not doing that, why should we be giving them this money? We're not punishing them. We're just not getting anything for the taxpayers' money.
And it measures it. It says if you're laying off a greater percentage of people in the United States than you are abroad, you're obviously not creating jobs here, and you shouldn't be getting the money that is designed to incentivize your creating jobs here.
REP. SANDERS: Now Jerry is absolutely right. Just think for a moment. If an American worker loses his or her job, and they have to go on unemployment-think about all the forms that you have to fill out to prove to the government that you really are unemployed.
The point here is, if we are going to give a corporation funding to create jobs, well, you know what? We've got to ask them what kind of success are they having. And if the result shows, as it clearly does, that many of the major recipients are, in fact, laying off and putting out on the street huge numbers of American workers, then you conclude this program is not working. And we're going to develop programs which, in fact, create jobs rather than support companies which are discarding ours. And when somebody, like Jeff Immelt, is so bold as to say, "We are going to China, but thank you, please give us more money," this is pathological on the part of the government to continue to do that, and an insult to the taxpayers of this country.
Yes, sir?
Q I'm wondering if you might not be going about this in the wrong way. What a lot of these companies would argue is that money coming from the Export-Import Bank is supporting U.S. exports; these jobs are going abroad anyway; that in fact this is government money that helps keep some of those jobs in the U.S.
REP. SANDERS: (Chuckles.) Right.
Q I mean, isn't part of the Democratic platform in this election to be to use incentives of various sorts to keep jobs in this country?
REP. SANDERS: Sure. Absolutely. But you see --
Q Aren't you defeating that?
REP. SANDERS: No. (Laughs.) No, I don't think we're defeating it.
Look, here's the story. The General Electrics of the world will say, "Well, yes, we have thrown several hundred thousand American workers out on the street, but ignore all of that; we have a project right here in Nebraska which is creating 50 jobs; we want you to look at that job." Well, that's absurd. You look at the totality of what the company is doing.
I was a mayor for eight years, so I know a little bit about this. What you do when people come in-and all these business people always want something from the government-you say, "Well, what are you going to do for the people?" And if somebody comes in and says, "Look, if you help us this way, we're going to create 500 jobs," somebody else says, "We're going to create 300 jobs," you analyze it, you look, and you say, "Okay, we're going to go with that person."
But as Jerry just said, not to even have the information as part of government records about what the corporation as a whole is doing is insane. Can you tell me for one moment that anybody in America would support giving money to a company which openly says, "We're going to China"? That is crazy.
So the answer is, in my view-others may disagree with me-I don't think there's anything wrong with taxpayer money being used to create jobs, but you give that money to people who are proud to create jobs in America, who want to create jobs in America.
And you know what? There are many, many hundreds of companies out there, there are worker-owned enterprises that could use that help in getting established.
REP. OWENS: This bill is a very conservative and almost bureaucratic approach to solving an extreme problem. You can't be more practical than this, or more conservative in your approach.
REP. SANDERS: And we don't think this is going to solve all of it, but this deals with the insult, the immediate insult of billions of dollars going to companies who are throwing American workers out on the street.
Yes, ma'am?
Q Yes, you said you haven't started your arm-twisting yet. (Laughter.) I don't know if you've talked to any Republicans or whether it was all Democrats.
REP. SANDERS: We have two Republicans on board, but we will get more, we will get more. Let me tell you something, I mean one of the great, I think, worries that the president has is a lot of Republicans are going back to their districts and they're finding the same exact thing as progressives are. You know, for years they were spouting the religious line of unfettered, free trade. And they believed-I'm sure that they were sincere-that this approach would create jobs. They're going back and seeing decimation in their communities. We will get them on board this legislation, in other words.
REP. CONYERS: But to get in --
Q And what Republicans --
REP. SANDERS: Virgil Goode and Ron Paul.
Okay.
REP. CONYERS: Yeah. And to get in another plug for the president, which may be my job today --
REP. SANDERS: We didn't know this! (Laughter.)
REP. CONYERS: -- he's the one that says that the economy is doing great, remember, through tax cuts for the wealthy, so great that the first objective economically of the president is to permanize (sic) those tax cuts. Now, that's how the debate is going to begin to roll out.
REP. NADLER: Could I just add one other thing, just to expand a bit on what I said a little while ago. The government has many programs to do many worthwhile things, some programs to do not-so- worthwhile things. But if you want to apply for an Earned Income Tax Credit because you're a low-income worker; if you want to apply for funds to subsidize a housing development, a low-income housing development, or to build a hospital, or to build a day-care center, the government asks for a lot of information in order to make sure that in fact you built a hospital, you built the low-income housing development, you didn't charge too much rent.
The IRS is especially auditing people with Earned Income Tax Credits to make sure that they're not earning $5 too much.
All this says is if you're giving billions of dollars to a-or hundreds of millions to a company, do the same function. Is that money being spent for what it was supposed to do and is it resulting in what it was supposed to do, namely the creation-not the destruction-of American jobs? Exactly the same as other government things, except when we do individual welfare or public service.
If the state Department of Transportation of the state of New York gets $10 million from the federal government to build a highway, they check if you built the highway, that you employed people. They don't say here's $10 million and good luck and we're never going to talk to you again. That's what the federal government does with all this corporate welfare.
We're simply saying do the same checks, and if they're creating the jobs, fine; and if they're not creating the jobs, don't give them the money. It's simply a question of accountability. It's the least we can do.
REP. SANDERS: Other questions? Okay. Well, thank you all very much.
REP. NADLER: Thank you, Bernie.