[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 104 (Tuesday, September 7, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8842-S8843]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    THE RIGHT COURSE FOR THE ECONOMY

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I always find it of interest when a 
prominent member of corporate America steps forward to offer a 
refreshing perspective on the economic challenges our country faces 
today.
  To that end, I would like to call the Senate's attention to two 
pieces of commentary written by Leo Hindery, Jr. and published over the 
summer recess.
  Mr. Hindery, as many of my colleagues are aware, has served as the 
CEO of TCI and AT&T Broadband, and more recently as the chairman of the 
YES Network. He has a keen understanding that corporations have 
obligations both to their shareholders, but also to the communities in 
which they operate, and the American economy they fuel.
  Mr. Hindery's first piece is on the subject of outsourcing, and he 
argues that offshoring of jobs is not inevitable, nor is it often the 
best long-term strategy for American companies.
  His second talks about the need to see through the sky-is-falling 
claims of some interest groups and weigh both policy and electoral 
decisions on a simple standard--what is the best thing to do, not just 
for a few who are well-off and well-connected, but for the economy as a 
whole?
  Again, I think these pieces of insight and analysis would be of 
interest to those of us who are entrusted to make decisions about the 
policies America adopts, and I ask unanimous consent that they be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page S8843]]

             [From the San Jose Mercury News, Aug. 5, 2004]

          When Outsourcing Takes Your Job, Then It Will Matter

                         (By Leo Hindery, Jr.)

       A recession is when someone else loses his or her job; a 
     depression is when you lose your job. I was reminded of this 
     adage when a recent report by three Bay Area groups said we 
     shouldn't worry about outsourcing of good jobs to other 
     countries. Those losing their jobs would beg to differ.
       Throwing in the towel, one of the report's sponsors asid, 
     ``Offshoring is here to stay.'' That's particularly troubling 
     when a UC-Berkeley analysis found that one-in-six jobs are at 
     risk of being exported from Silicon Valley.
       But voters aren't buying the lines coming from think tanks 
     and Washington. First, they were told that he few jobs lost 
     would be quickly replaced. They weren't. Then President 
     Bush's economic adviser said outsourcing jobs was actually 
     good in the long run. Displaced workers know better. And now, 
     it seems, the new line is that nothing should be done. Voters 
     don't buy inaction, either.
       Offshoring of jobs is not inevitable. There's much 
     government can do, and it should act before more good jobs 
     disappear and the middle class shrinks even more.
       First, we must ensure that free trade is also fair trade. 
     How can we keep manufacturing jobs in America when foreign 
     competitors often employ children, pay pennies, provide 
     little or no benefits and ignore environmental standards? 
     Likewise, how can we keep high-quality customer and 
     technical-service jobs here when employees in Bangalore, 
     India, earn $200 to $300 a month for jobs that pay Americans 
     $2,000-$3,000?
       America has a responsibility to the rest of the world, 
     especially developing countries, to foster responsible free 
     trade. But we can no longer condone--or support--practices 
     that pay subsistence wages, violate child labor standards and 
     degrade the environment.
       Second, we must responsibly use our nation's corporate tax 
     laws to provide incentives for American businesses to keep 
     high-quality jobs here. Today, corporations take advantage of 
     tax benefits by shipping operations overseas, shielding 
     profits earned there. Sen. John Kerry has rightly proposed 
     eliminating that loophole, which is a glaring incentive to 
     move operations overseas and keep them abroad by reinvesting 
     profits there.
       We should also adopt a levy on corporations that use 
     loopholes to escape taxation. That would help redress the 
     imbalance between job retention and untaxed overseas profits, 
     and aid workers who lose jobs in part because of skewed tax 
     policies.
       Part of the bargain that was supposed to accompany ``free 
     trade'' was help for workers who lose their livelihood 
     through no fault of their own. Workers need retraining for 
     new careers when industries disappear. They need unemployment 
     benefits and medical benefits.
       Action on outsourcing would be far less urgent if enough 
     jobs were being created here at home. But today's lukewarm 
     economic recovery provides no place for laid-off workers to 
     go.
       None of this is ``protectionism,'' except that it will 
     protect foreign workers and nations from exploitation, the 
     U.S. tax code from encouraging companies to offshore jobs, 
     and American workers from the unchecked whims of 
     globalization.
       Corporate leaders need to work smarter. Having served as a 
     CEO, I know the pressures to outsource can be intense. But 
     business executives must look beyond the short-term, cost-
     cutting gains that outsourcing sometimes provides and focus 
     instead on the long-term costs and devastation to employees 
     and our national economy.
       And political candidates will have to show they understand 
     the voters' call for action. Because this election should be 
     about getting the economy moving and about who will best 
     protect the middle class and those striving to join it.
                                  ____


               [From the Financial Times, Aug. 10, 2004]

                  Bush's Economy Is for the Elite Few

                            (By Leo Hindery)

       Within an hour of John Kerry's selection of John Edwards as 
     his running mate, the US Chamber of Commerce said it was 
     forced to abandon its position of ``neutrality'' because Mr 
     Edwards was ``hostile to business'' I could almost hear the 
     laughter in corporate boardrooms across the country. To argue 
     that the Chamber intended to be, or has ever been, 
     politically ``neutral'' reminds me of the film Casablanca 
     when Claude Rains expresses shock that gambling was taking 
     place in Rick's Cafe.
       The line revealed the dirty little secret of the US Chamber 
     of Commerce. It is run by the wealthy chief executives of the 
     nation's biggest companies.
       It is easy to see why enormously rich businessmen believe 
     more personal income and lower taxes are good for them. But 
     what is good for an individual chief executive's wallet does 
     not translate into being ``good for business'' or for the 
     nation's economy.
       What businesses and the economy need are full employment, 
     or as full as possible, and strong consumer demand, generated 
     by a combination of consumer confidence and fair 
     compensation. The Bush-Cheney ticket is failing that test. 
     They adopt ``anything-goes-for-big-business'' policies, 
     continue to push for ever-lower tax rates for the wealthiest 
     Americans, defend self-serving executive compensation 
     packages and condone benign regulation of corrupt practices.
       The latest sign of how what is really good for ordinary 
     citizens and the economy is being flipped on its head is 
     George W. Bush's spin on sluggish job-growth numbers. Now, he 
     contends, that bad is good. In response to the far lower than 
     expected employment numbers for June, he said: ``Steady 
     growth. That's important. We don't need boom-or-bust-type 
     growth.''
       But when the number of new jobs created this year fails to 
     keep up with the growth in the adult population--a trend 
     confirmed by last Friday's job numbers for July--a little 
     more boom and a little less steady stagnation would certainly 
     be helpful.
       Certainly the unemployed and businesses that need to sell 
     products and services to people with incomes are getting 
     weary of the disappointing growth. For the first time in more 
     than seven decades, there are fewer jobs at this point in an 
     election year than there were when the current president 
     was inaugurated. A net 2.6m manufacturing jobs have been 
     lost since 2001.
       And anyone whose job has been outsourced to other countries 
     should appreciate Mr. Kerry's call to end tax loopholes and 
     benefits that provide an incentive for shipping jobs overseas 
     and keeping the profits there.
       Compounding the problem, far too many of the jobs being 
     created are low-wage positions with few benefits. Overall, 
     wages for non-supervisory workers have failed to keep up with 
     inflation over the past year.
       But jobs and wages are not all that matters. Instead of Mr. 
     Bush's big tax cuts for the top 2 percent of Americans, the 
     Kerry-Edwards ticket would reform healthcare. That would make 
     health insurance more available and affordable for millions 
     of Americans and cheaper for businesses. The other 98 percent 
     of Americans and the businesses whose healthcare costs would 
     be lower should welcome the choice between better healthcare 
     and tax cuts for the wealthy.
       The business community has also traditionally, and rightly, 
     been concerned about massive government borrowing. But under 
     the Bush administration, we have seen huge budget surpluses 
     turned quickly into crushing deficits. That, too, takes a 
     toll on consumer and business confidence.
       Make no mistake about it. There is a big distinction 
     between the US Chamber and local Chambers. The local Chambers 
     honestly focus on what is good for their communities. They 
     understand that jobs and wages are essential for their 
     business members to have customers and for their cities and 
     regions to thrive.
       Yes, the US Chamber would like to distract attention from 
     the economy and scare Americans about the Democratic ticket. 
     But in this election year, voters must make a distinction 
     between policies that will create jobs and value for 
     shareholders and organizations that speak and act at the whim 
     of entrenched management and the economic elite.
       Today, the Bush administration and the US Chamber are 
     trying to twist even the questionable adage of Calvin 
     Coolidge that ``the business of America is business'' into 
     something far worse, namely that ``the business of America is 
     about super-rich CEOs and executives''. Instead, we need a 
     team who will, as Franklin Delano Roosevelt did, ``save 
     capitalism from the capitalists''.
       Americans have a fundamental choice to make in November, 
     and the economy will be an important issue. The US Chamber 
     hopes voters will--ignoring the facts, history and the 
     candidates' records--assume that Republicans are better for 
     the economy than Democrats. But the voters should avoid this 
     knee-jerk reaction, and make the distinction between what is 
     good for the elite few and what is good for the economy as a 
     whole. Then it will be clear who will really do the best job 
     of looking out for them and who will get our economy moving 
     again.

                          ____________________