FOIA on Martin Luther King

Read from the scan by GLM-OCR; expect the odd misread word.

Let's look at just one major concern: about 1.3 million new American families are formed every year. Approximately eight million people change their jobs every year. About 3.7 million people join the labor force and 2.1 million leave it. By 1980 full employment in the United States will require jobs for 100 million people, 18 million more than were employed at the end of 1972. These, quite clearly, are the priority considerations in the minds of millions who do not clearly understand how the enterprise system meets their needs.

If they and the representatives of large numbers of voters do not understand, how can we expect their support?

I would like to review the arguments for their support in as familiar terms as I can muster.

## The Days of U.S. Preeminence are Gone

First, let's examine one portion of the real economic world we inhabit.

Of primary importance is the fact that the days of almost total U.S. preeminence since the close of World War II are gone.

We must learn to live and work in a world where forevermore we will be dependent on other portions of the globe for some of our more basic needs and some portions will be dependent on us. The U.S. is not self-sufficient in materials, nor does it have a corner on the world's technology, the world's innovative ability, the world's marketing savvy, the world's production know-how. What we have is a little corner of the world, and we must find a way to live in it harmoniously with our neighbors, many of whom are every bit as good as we are at almost everything we do.

## The Energy Crisis

I hesitate, somewhat, to use the energy crisis as an example of this dependency, because I recognize that there are those who question whether the crisis really exists, or who maintain that new technology will solve the problem before it reaches crisis stage. I can say at this point that there is an energy shortage, if not a crisis; for example, the fuel oil allotment for our Minneapolis operations has been cut by 25 per cent for January and February, and similar cutbacks have been imposed on other companies, our schools, our common carriers.

Let's look at the dependency which is developing in the oil industry. In the past, the repatriated earnings of oil companies have exceeded the value of imported oil and were a favorable factor in our international balance of payments. By 1985, however, our needs for oil and natural gas could create for us a trade deficit approaching twenty billion dollars a year.

As no doubt you know, we currently import 10 to 15 per cent of both crude oil and copper, 30 per cent of our iron ore, and more than 80 per cent of our bauxite needs. We must import all or most of our tin, natural rubber, nickel and chrome.

## Trade with the World

We cannot go it alone. We must trade with the world and to trade, you give something to get something, with the hope that both traders get what they want and need. Unfortunately, we have not yet been able to fully realize this goal, and much of

the controversy over this nation's foreign-trade policies revolves around the best way to achieve it.

There is a strong and vocal body of opinion which believes that protectionist measures will achieve what is best for American workers and companies in the arena of world trade. One of their principal targets are companies like Honeywell - multinational companies with substantial investments, employees and sales outside the United States.

## "Exporting Jobs"?

It is claimed that U.S. multinational corporations are "exporting jobs" overseas; that U.S. companies invest overseas to take advantage of lower wages; that imports from the overseas subsidiaries of U.S. companies cause unemployment here at home; that if U.S. companies were prevented from investing and manufacturing abroad these companies would be forced to expand their operations in the United States, creating more jobs here; that multinational companies invest abroad in order to avoid paying taxes; that American corporations are exporting U.S. technology and therefore are helping non-U.S. companies compete in our own and other countries.

The Burke-Hartke bill has been proposed as the solution to these problems; and protectionist sentiment also underlies other proposals which may emerge for the consideration of Congress.

At this point, there may be those who will accuse me of making a tactical blunder by even mentioning the allegations of our critics. But I'll go one step further. If someone could prove to me that these allegations are factual, I'd be one of the major supporters of moves to inhibit the growth of multinational companies.

## The Opposite is True: Making Jobs

Thanks to various companies, government agencies and trade associations who have accumulated the facts and published them, I know otherwise.

I am convinced, thanks to these studies, and my experience with Honeywell, that multinational companies do not export jobs, but create jobs in the United States faster than other U.S. companies. I am convinced that U.S. companies invest abroad to gain participation in markets in other countries, not to take advantage of lower wages or so-called tax loopholes. I am convinced by these studies that imports from the overseas subsidiaries of U.S. companies have not been a major factor in U.S. unemployment.

To be more specific, I'd like to give you some information taken from a survey conducted by the Emergency Committee on American Trade, of which I am a member. This committee researched the domestic and international operations of 74 U.S. corporations representing a broad group of large multinational corporations. This survey reveals that in the years between 1960 and 1970, when these companies were increasing their overseas operations, they also provided 900,000 new jobs in the United States. They also increased their sales from American facilities work performed in this country from $58 billion to $113 billion nearly doubled, in fact. Their exports from the United States nearly tripled in this period, rising from $4.3 billion to $12.2 billion. In the all-important balance of payments category, they increased their net surplus of exports over imports from $3.2 billion to $6.6 billion more than doubled.