From: Clinton for President <75300.3115@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.misc
Subject: A Debate About American Jobs Remarks by Gov. Bill Clinton
Date: 10 Oct 92 07:01:28 GMT

[AMJOBS.TXT file date 9/29/92]  Please Distribute

 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.



Distribution:
  General >internet:C-General-Distr@mail.clinton-gore.org
  All Volunteers >internet:c-all-volunteers-distr@mail.clinton-gore.org