Sister Susan Mika Interview, Part 2 of 2

DT: Well let's resume. You were telling us on the last tape about some of your work with Stepan [Chemical]. Could you continue with that?1:20 - 2199

SM: W-the-the outcome of all of that was that Stepan basically put in the ground cover, the top soil to-in order-for some of the grass to grow and they just kept replacing the oleanders and there's still some oleanders there today if you went to look at that. And the-they did change some of their processes and then they covered up this ditch where the xylene was coming into the community. And then now, what's happening is, whatever the byproducts of their processes are, are going into the sewer. So it makes it much harder to monitor what-what happens. So sometimes that's an outcome that-you know, you don't expect necessarily. So we don't really know everything that's going into 2:08 - 2199the sewer from all of those plants. So that's just one example.

Then you were asking me about Alcoa and, yes, we've been involved with Alcoa since 1995. And at that time, the Benedictine Sisters filed a shareholder resolution with them asking them about their wages in Mexico. And they wanted to meet with me-they wanted me to come to Pittsburgh, and I said, "Well, why don't you come to the border and let's meet with some of the workers." So we did. We had a meeting and then-the-some of the people from the corporate headquarters got to hear first hand what was going on in the factories. And the workers made a little chart from Market Basket Survey; they were receiving twenty-one to twenty-six dollars a week, at that time, for working forty-five to forty-eight hours. And they were showing that, with that money, they were able to buy about fifteen or 3:03 - 2199sixteen items. And it was basic things like onions and tomatoes and rice and beans and deodorant and toilet paper and some things like that that just were very basic. And we had three babies in the meeting and they were crying and they had to be fed. And it was just a wonderful taste of reality of what these workers face. How are you going to buy diapers? How are you going to buy formula for a child that's-you know, a small child. And so, after the meeting, I sent a letter to Paul O'Neill saying all of the concerns that the workers had. And we also sent some articles from the local newspaper because some of the workers had been intoxicated and in Spanish it means like being overcome. And so the headlines were that a number of the workers from different plants on diff-at 3:54 - 2199different days were in the hospital getting checked out because of this intoxication. And I could tell right away that the corporate secretary from Pittsburgh had no idea that that had gone on. And so, anyway, after the meeting I sent this letter to Paul O'Neill, who is the CEO of Alcoa. And I didn't hear anything back from him. So it was getting time to meet for the annual meeting in May of that year. And so I was planning on taking some of the workers to the annual meeting because we wanted to find out, well, what had happened.

So I get a call-a phone call from Paul O'Neill, and he had found out that we were coming. And, oh, he was very, very angry with me and re-really screaming at me on the phone. And those are my words because he doesn't remember that he did that. But he was 4:44 - 2199just very, very forceful on the phone. And wanting to know if I was coming. And I said, "Yes, that I was." And he wanted to know if I were bringing workers. And I said, "Well, I'm trying to get them across the border, which is no easy task to get the paperwork and to get visas and all of that." And-and so after, he was just so angry and upset; he finally calmed down because I refused to get angry with him. And I told him, I said, "We are coming as far as I know-I know I'm coming and, you know, we're trying to get the workers there." So he finally calmed down and he said, "Well, do you want to meet with me?" And he has a very strong voice, "DO YOU WANT TO MEET WITH ME?" kind of thing. I mean, it was just interesting because, you know, like on TV he doesn't always 5:29 - 2199come across like that. And so I said, "Well, I'll have to ask the workers and then see what they would want to do and then we'll get back with you." And so I-I still remember coming out from my office and I was just, like, in total shock. I was just, like, "Oh, my gosh!" And so we did talk with the workers and they did want to meet with him.

So we did go to the annual meeting. They actually, at-at the door, tried to keep us out. And this was the corporate secretary; he knew who all was coming. They had called our office the day before, even while we were traveling. And they had given them all of our names, including the workers. They wanted to only let me in and the two workers not the two other people that were part of our delegation. I said to him, "This--we're a delegation, 6:16 - 2199were all representing the Benedictine Sisters and we are going in." And he says, "Well, you're a shareholder, those two are workers, they can go in, but not these other two." These were two-Martha Ojeda from the Coalition for Justice in the Maquiladoras, and Julia Quinonas, who is a promotora for these workers with Alcoa. And so I told him, I said, "No. We're all together as a delegation." And so we literally had to move him aside and I could hear that the meeting had already started. And sometimes these-these meetings are very short. And I was really worried that this was a stalling tactic; that we might not be able to get into the meeting and have the workers actually tell their story. So 6:55 - 2199we moved him aside and we went in and we had to sit in the back because it was full and the meeting had already started. But we did have the workers tell their stories in Spanish and a translator translated their-what had happened to them and-you could have heard a pin drop in their. I mean, they were talking about their-the salaries and what they couldn't buy. The day before they left a women had gotten her leg caught in some of the machinery. They took her out to the clinic. She stayed there for a little while. Then they brought her back out to the line so there was no lost work days or work hours. Things like this and-it's really horrifying. And so after the workers stopped speaking, then I got up to the microphone and just thanked everyone for listening.

And so, Paul O'Neill said, "I 7:41 - 2199want you to stay up here because I have questions for you." So he grilled me for about fifteen to twenty minutes in front of all the stockholders. And I just answered him, every question that he asked and gave challenges back to him because I told him-well, he was wanting to know if we wanted all of the plants that they had out of Mexico, out of Poland, out of any place they were in the world. I told him, I said, "I never said that to you. I said on the phone to you that you needed to pay sustainable wages and you needed to look at environmental conditions wherever you were having those plants. I never said to you that we were trying to get those plants to leave. We're trying to get you to be responsible, you know, wherever you had those plants." And so, and then I told him, I said, "You're an important person. You're a CEO of a major company. You talk to a lot 8:28 - 2199of CEOs everyday, I'm sure, or in meetings." I said, "But I'm an important person, too. I'm a shareholder in this company. I talk to a lot of people about all these conditions. And, you know, I-I expect something of you," you know. Anyway, he made some strange statements at the meeting; one was that the floors at those plants were so clean that you could eat off of them. And the press just had a field day, of course, with that. And so anyway, after the meeting then we did meet with him-I don't know what floor, the thirty-first floor or whatever of the-at the Alcoa Headquarters at that point and time. And he brought in a couple of other people to listen to the workers and he spent about an hour and forty-five minutes with us. He asked us for six weeks after that. And we said, 9:14 - 2199"Well, that's fine."

So he went down there himself. He's the only CEO that I know of that actually went down there to do the investigating. And he made changes, he made big changes. Even though he said at the shareholders meeting to me and to all of the two, three hundred shareholders there that he would not raise those wages; those wages were competitive. He raised the wages five dollars and thirty cents a week for each worker. We figured that that put about a million to a million and a half dollars into that economy because those are small economies. And then Alcoa has eight to ten thousand workers in Ciudada Cuna and Piedra Negras; just in those two little areas. He paid profit sharing which he-which they had not paid. Alcoa, that year, had seven hundred and ninety 10:02 - 2199million dollars profit. And Paul O'Neill said to the workers-and when they said, "Well, why didn't you pay us profit sharing?" It's an arrangement under Mexican law that is mandated. And he said, "There was no profit in your company." And so they said, "We just heard in the big meeting where there was a lot of profit in our company," because, of course, they were bragging about the-the profit. So it was really a chance for workers to speak truth to power. It was just an amazing conversation. And-and then, he also-well, the workers had said the bathrooms were locked; there was no soap or toilet paper in the bathrooms and that they had to go get permission and a key, and, you know, type of thing.

Well, the next day, after the stockholder meeting-we were still in Pittsburgh-and 10:44 - 2199those doors were unlocked and there was toilet paper and soap in those bathrooms. And then the other thing that he did, after this whole investigation, is he fired the CEO of that company, Alcoa Fujikura, who was based in Nashville. He said that this man-he had worked for the company for thirty-four years but he didn't live up to the company standards. And, I mean, it was pretty startling. But that was the-I didn't realize then how obsessed he was with safety and health and all of those issues. And, you know, those workers were in the hospital or getting checked out. There was no lost work days on any of the forms. And he showed us the forms when we were in Pittsburgh. He went and got them out of his computer and showed us how every Friday by noon, or whatever day it 11:35 - 2199was, that every plant in the whole world that they had had to have those figures in to him on his desk. And he went and checked the dates according to the newspaper articles and, of course, there was no lost work time. Even those-those workers were not at work because they were getting checked out. So, and then, he did an investigation into see what they had been exposed to.11:57 - 2199DT: Well, speaking of exposure, could you talk about, not just worker exposure, but some of the contamination health impacts that you found. I think in 1993, you issued a report on some of the-in fact it's not just at Alcoa but at other company facilities.12:17 - 2199

SM: In 1993 the-between the Coalition for Justice in the Maquiladoras and-put out a-a-a report called The Issue Is Health. And in that, we tried to document what was happening with the anencephalic babies. Anencephaly means really, basically, babies being born without brains. And we were looking at neural tube defects. And there's two types of neural tube defects; one is when the neural tube doesn't close in the head. You know, when a baby is-is first born it has a soft spot. And that's the neural tube that hasn't closed. And so, in this-in these cases the neural tube had not formed beyond the 13:05 - 2199eyebrows. So there was nothing, you know. The babies were literally being born without brains. And then the other type of neural tube defect is spina bifida, where the neural tube doesn't close in your-at the-at the back. You know, where your spinal cord is. And so, as a result of that, when the baby is born, the ganglia and nerves are actually hanging out from the spinal cord. And they have to go into surgery quickly to try and minimize the damage. Well, in the early '90s-this is documented cases-there were nineteen cases of this type of neural tube defects on the U.S. side and thirty-one cases-this was in Brownsville-and thirty-one cases in Matamoros. And the reason why I say documented, because there's many cases that don't get the documented because babies are born 13:55 - 2199through midwives and if the baby is stillborn or-it may not get reflected in, you know, in what was actually the problem with the baby. And then, also, for instance, babies under twenty-fetuses under twenty weeks are not counted if there is a termination of the pregnancy. So that's why I say documented cases. So at that time, Prime Time Live came to that area to do a twenty minute segment and really reveal it to the world.

And in the meantime, also, because of the North American Free Trade Agreement being debated in Congress, the Center for Disease Control came to that area to do a study. Because it was-people were very alarmed because, I mean, that wasn't the only area of the border 14:53 - 2199that was having it, but that was so many. The normal-normal-statistics say that you should three per ten thousand live births. So any way you look at this, this was probably four, five, six times the normal. And that's why I say, those were just the ones that were documented. So the Center for Disease Control came in and because of boundary limitations, did not look on the Mexican side for any answers. So this points out a problem that we-we face in these border areas because we don't have jurisdiction in a binational manner in-in-in many of these, you know, investigations. So basically at the end of their study, what they said, is it was inconclusive. They spent eighteen months studying the situation; it was inconclusive. And they had Lederle Labs give all of the 15:50 - 2199clinics vitamins so that people would get more folic acid. Now granted, if you are lacking in folic acid, you are prone to neural tube defects. However, the studies that were done on these women, as part of this Center for Disease Control group, showed that the women did not have low blood foliate levels. Because they eat a lot of beans and beans are high in foliate. So the premise didn't even hold up. But because of that all of us are getting more folic acid. So if you're drinking orange juice or you're drinking milk or you're drinking-or eating cereal or you're looking at your rice or your spaghetti or whatever, 16:37 - 2199look at it and see if it's been enriched with folic acid; because we're all getting more folic acid because that happened in Brownsville and Matamoros in 1993.

Now, in 19-fast forward-1998, in the McAllen Monitor, they were-they had already documented through the registry-Birth Defects Registry-that was set up-19.98 births of neural tube defects in, you know, January to August in 1998. Why is there not another study? Why is there not another investigation? We weren't talking about a North American Free Trade Agreement. We weren't talking about any other things that really stimulated enough interest to have people demand that you come back and do another study. So if 17:33 - 2199you look up and down the border, and, you know, like we do in the Coalition for Justice in the Maquiladoras; meetings and hear people and see what they're doing. Some colonias have even gone door to door to try to documents the birth defects or to document problems that they're having with breathing or whatever it is because no one else seems to care. So they're just trying to do it on their own.DT: You've talked about the shareholder resolution process (inaudible) for corporate reform, generally. And you've given us some examples of what's going on in the maquiladoras and the particular problems there. I was wondering if you could expand that to talk about what's been going on, on sort of a more global basis. It seems like there's been a recent trend through GAT and the World Trade Council to increase, sort of, the free trade zones that NAFTA set up and that the maquiladoras were part of. And I was wondering if you could comment on what you're sort of seeing there and...18:37 - 2199

SM: Many groups coined a term, "their trade not free trade" way back when the North American Free Trade agreement was being negotiated; and that still stands for today. I mean when we talk about what trade needs to include, it needs to include human rights, environmental concerns; it needs to look at wages and-and all of the concerns that we feel have to be brought to the table in order to have sustainability for all of us for the long term in the world. If we are constantly looking at going to the lowest common denominator for salaries, for environmental laws or any of these types of things that we've been talking about, it can't work for all of us. Because it-it, you now, it just ther-there's unrest, there's pollution and it affects all of us across borders. I mean, in the 19:32 - 2199case of the anencephalic babies, women on the Brownsville side of the border or in McAllen or in any of the other small towns there, were having sonograms at the earliest possible stages to see if from the air or the water or what is it? Why are so many birth defects happening? And as I mentioned earlier, if those fetuses are terminated in any way under twenty weeks, they're not counted in any statistics. So you don't really always get a full picture because people are embarrassed or they don't want you to know or, you know, you go on and on.

I mean, when we look at some of these things around pollution; pollution knows no boundaries. You know, and-and so I think that as companies search around the world for lower wages or lower standards, I mean, this is what we're seeing. 20:24 - 2199Many companies have gone to China. We don't have good information about China right now. We don't know what they're paying. We don't know if it's prison labor. We don't know what kind of environmental dumping is being done. So hopefully in the next years that can happen were there'll be more interchange between us and China. We know this border so well because we live so close. DT: I think one of your roles in this whole global trade discussion, is with the Global Corporate Accountability Steering Committee-ICCR. Could you maybe give us some examples of what you're working on there?21:02 - 2199

SM: The Global Corporate Accountability Program in-at ICCR is one of several programs that-that the Interfaith Center has. And that particular program focuses on the various questions that we ask the companies around codes of conduct. For instance, there's many codes out there. Some companies have written their own code. We, through the Interfaith Center, through the group in England that works on corporate responsibility and through the Canadian group, we three groups collectively wrote our own code for sustainable development. And so we hold that against all of the other codes. We say, "Well, does your code have, let's say, freedom of association for workers. Does it, you know, include some of these other things that we feel are important; sustainable wages." 21:53 - 2199So we kind of analyze all of the other codes. Whether it's Leon Sullivan's global code or any of these others that the companies but forth based on what we have in ours. And we're constantly updating ours, too. I think we're on the third printing of it now and we're working with groups. In 1999, we went to London and there we had a conference with twenty-one-people from twenty-one countries about that code to try and see what works; what works for you, what doesn't work for you. And we've translated it into a number of languages. And everybody's out there using it. And then at some time in the future, we hope to have another conference were we get together again and then rewrite the portions that we feel still need to be strengthened. Our code of conduct starts with community as the center. All the companies start with themselves as the center. So it's a 22:44 - 2199very different starting point when you look at starting for-with a code of conduct. In-in that accountability group, we also look at the whole area of the maquiladoras. We look at wages, just-just, you know, generally across the countries.

We look at vendor standards because, again, some companies don't have factories. Look at Wal-Mart, look at, you know, some of these other companies that-they-what standards do they have for their vendors; do they just take anything. And we've met with Wal-Mart a number of times trying to see about independent monitoring of some of the factories that are producing for Wal-Mart. So there's many levels of-and-and, you know, you'd have to take almost each company to say what are you raising with that company. Like, for instance, we mentioned earlier the Sustainability Report for R. R. Donnelly and for Cooper Industries. So that was just one example of how we went to that company with a particular focus.23:40 - 2199DT: Tell me what happens when you present you ideas to a company and they say, "Well, if you protect the environment too stringently it's going to cost too much and it won't be the jobs or the jobs that exist there will not have the wages and you'll be crippling the economies of these developing or undeveloped nations by trying to protect the environment or to provide better worker safety." What's your response to claims like that?24:21 - 2199

SM: Why should workers have to live next door to polluted streams or polluted ponds or just polluted areas? I mean, what-does the head of the company want to live there? Many of these, you know-ones that are running those factories, go back to the United States to live across in the border city. So why should workers have to put up with those kinds of things that those managers wouldn't put up with next to their house and, you know, wherever they might live. That's not in anyway fair. And the long terms effects on the earth. I mean some of these things leach into the soil and then, you know, they can go into water tables and, you know, have problems with the water of an area or any of those types of-of things. How do you clean up some of this stuff? And-and look at it for the 25:12 - 2199long term. I have the long term view because I've been in this of work for, you know like-this particular part of the work-for twenty years. So, you have to look twenty to fifty years out. I mean you can't just be saying, "What is it going to be tomorrow."

And when you talk about wages; yes, in a recession, it's the hardest thing, now, to bring up the wages. But we've been bringing up wages for ten years, before the recession, when times were good. So we have to be consistent in whatever it is that we're raising. And when a person is-when we're looking at those sustainable wages-and we have a new study, now, for 2000. And the-the study for 2000, Sister Ruth Rosenbaum, went-and her crew, went to fifteen cities, fifteen sites in Mexico; not just at the border but also, like, 26:00 - 2199Monterrey and others that have big maquiladora there. Basically her study shows that, for very minimal survivability; okay, for two adults and two children, and the adults would each have three sets of clothing, the children would have seven sets of clothing. They would have water, they would have electricity, they would housing-some type of housing. I mean, you know, just the-the basics. At-the cost of-of the items, in two-in the year 2000, workers need between eighteen dollars and twenty three dollars a day, depending on which area of the border they-they work. And-and also Monterrey. I mean, I shouldn't just say the border. So that's, that's factual. That's new information now in the 2000s for what is actually needed. We have been asking the companies to do that type of a study since 1990. General Motors prevented some of the other companies 27:01 - 2199from even considering doing it. We had two companies do it but then, of course, they owned the results. So finally, three years ago, we raised the money to do the study ourselves so we own the study. And that's what it shows.DW: I just have a question related to the previous comment. Have you ever found your organizations to be the victim of corporate green washing; that they will, "Yes, we'll assure you that we'll take action." They'll trumpet it in the annual-you know, they install a recycling bin and it makes the second page of their annual report that they are now a "green" company. And how often have you found them-what's the word-backsliding on their promises and had to expose that? And do you follow up a year later and make sure that they're not touting something that they're really not living up to?27:48 - 2199

SM: With any of the companies I think it's an ongoing monitoring process and, I think I've mentioned that, like for instance, we've been involved with Alcoa since 1995. We've certainly been talking to GM since 1990. You know, you can kind of go down the line. It is a back and forth kind of thing. For instance, we were raising these questions with General Motors about a sustainable wage. Instead-I want to say around 1998, maybe, or 1999-they decided instead, of raising their seventy-five thousand workers salaries to a sustainable level, to build houses for six to seven thousand of their workers. And Jack Smith, the CEO at that time of General Motors, could not understand why I was speaking 28:35 - 2199out against that. He said, "Well, doesn't everyone need a home? Doesn't everyone need a house? I mean, why are you so angry with us?" You have to understand-that, I mean, the millions of dollars you're pouring into that, could have been spread over all your employees. So what they-now they get, like a-you call it-a town, I mean, a country-I mean a company house or something. So what happens to them if they don't work for General Motors anymore; and there's a large turnover in any factories in the border. I mean, they're happy with two or three percent turnover a month. So, I mean, you know, it's all those kinds of long term questions. But he didn't see it that way. And at one of the meetings that we had with him one time before the annual meeting, he sat as 29:20 - 2199close as we are together here, and just, you know, lambasted me again in person; because he sent me a very strong letter about all of this. But it just-you come from a different viewpoint. And when you start from the point of view of trying to look at what's going to benefit all of the workers versus a few of the workers, you know, especially like in wages-to me that makes a big difference. So we have to keep at it.

And we-we're still keeping at that. You know, if-if a company says that they're going to consider something then we have to go back and say, "Did you really do it?" We've had the example of Wal-Mart. We had met with them a couple of times. We actually went to 30:00 - 2199Bentonville twice because we could meet with more people there. They would only send one or two people to a meeting in New York; whereas in Bentonville we met with a number of their people, going in and out of the room all day. And then they had agreed to consider an independent monitoring of some of their factories; like a project, a pilot project. And then they reneged on that. And then, almost at the very same time, the business-Business Week Magazine had a whole exposé of one of their factories. And what was actually going on-not, I mean-I'm sorry-not one of their factories, but one of their vendors, you know, that was making things for Wal-Mart because they don't own 30:39 - 2199the factory. That's why we were asking them about vendor standards. And so then, there were consequences to all of that. We broke off, you know, with them. And then, probably about three to four hundred people wrote them, e-mailed them, tried to talk to them. You know, say, like, "These things are really important." The Domini Social Inde-Domini Social Equity Index dropped them after ten years of being in that fund. So there's consequences, I think, you know, as you start to look at some of these things. Some are more obvious, some are less obvious.31:12 - 2199DT: Do you feel that as companies become more global, that the only accountability that they have is to their shareholders because they're supranational? I mean, the individual countries where they operate may not have the jurisdiction to address the things that need to be dealt with. 31:37 - 2199

SM: I think that's exactly-a-a-a good point because as we cross more boundary lines; some countries have different laws, some countries have stronger laws, some countries have more enforcement, some countries have less enforcement. And it's-it's hard to know exactly what to say because some people want, like, a global authority. Other people don't want that. The problem has been that some of these more global types of treaties undo laws that countries have that are strong. And that's really very concerning. And so I think, not too long ago, Bill Moyers had a whole-an-an-an 32:31 - 2199hour's program called Trading Democracy on PBS. Where he was talking about a loophole, Chapter Eleven, in the NAFTA agreement where companies are now using that to sue the government for lost business or lost revenue. And then they're exacting millions of dollars from government because of what happened-if something tried to be enforced. That is very, very concerning to all of us. Because it was hidden in there, written in by lawyers and now those lawyers are the ones helping the companies try to take those countries to task over this.

So, those types of things are very concerning for the future because we're looking at-word about, you know, a free trade area of the 33:19 - 2199Americas. We're looking at this Puebla to Panama plan that Mexico is looking at along with other investors. And so, yes, there are many, many concerns about how this will be played out and whether standards will even go down lower than they are now. DT: In doing this work, it seems like you've gotten together quite a network of partners and friends and allies. Could you talk about some of your support outside of the community of faith and maybe talk about partners in the union world or in the environmental arena?33:59 - 2199

SM: In 1989, when we called together the different sectors of-of-of unions, churches, environmental groups, workers, women's groups; anyone, basically, that wanted to work on these issues. That was a ground breaking step. In the battle over trade agreements and all, there were many other groups that came together across sectors. But we were really-through the Coalition for Justice in the Maquiladoras-one of the first multi-sector groups. I would never go back to just working in my own sector on these issues because there's just too much out there that the other groups have to offer. Whether it's the research or the testing or being able to tell us-you know, health and 34:44 - 2199safety people being able to tell us, "Well, why is toluene bad? Or why is benzene bad?" Or, you know, these types of things and I-I don't-that's not my training. And so, I was enriched by having so much shared by so many groups and so many other people coming into this work with us all. And I think we enriched them, too. So it's a two-way street in that sense-that we have a lot to give; whether it's saying this from a faith-based perspective, saying it from a moral imperative or saying it from scriptures. Whatever that motivation is, I think, that comes out of the religious sector. I mean we stand firm. We take the long term view. We're looking at it as our sacred Earth. What are we-what are we doing for the future? Whereas, you know, sometimes, other groups have to be involved in campaigns, or they need to, you know-it's maybe-it's a more short term. 35:40 - 2199But somehow we meld together in these actions that we take and try to move-whether it's a company or whether it's a campaign-and-and-and that's worked. I mean, I think we all benefit from that. And just personally, I don't see myself going back. I-I see it as almost like a regression, well, to say, "I would just work in my own sector on this." Because we don't have those other ways of doing some of that; environmental testing or some of the health and safety, or even some of the language that unions use that are in contracts and some of that type of thing. They have more fam-familiarity with all of that than we do, sometimes. So, you know, I think that the point is that we can all benefit from one another's expertise and learnings and knowledge.36:25 - 2199DT: On the other side, apart from all you partnerships, could you focus a little bit on the faith-based commitment to these concerns? Both yourself, personally, and also maybe the Benedictine Order and the Catholic Church in general.36:47 - 2199

SM: Well, the Catholic Church has the social teachings of the church that really look at all of these areas through so many popes doing writing and bishops doing writing; putting forth basic justice principals. And looking at, what do people need, you know, for basic living? I mean, way back-even like Pope John XXIII. I mean, he wrote so many things; Pacem in Terris (Peace on Earth). I mean that was back, in like, 1963, where he was talking about some of these things that we're talking about today as far as, like, wages and, you know, really looking at living conditions and, you know, some kind of social security or medical or whatever. I mean, I'm just always amazed when I reread some of 37:31 - 2199that; that he had such insight way before, you know, a lot of this globalization and globalizing of, you know, looking at different nations and certainly companies looking across boundaries. The Church has always been very strong on looking at the poor; working with the poor.

And I think that, like for myself, the Benedictine Sisters-Saint Benedict always talked about being involved in the local. So for us the local is South Central Texas. It's certainly the Rio Grande the U.S./Mexico border. I see it broader than that in a lot of the work that I do, but nevertheless, I mean, that's where we need to make an impact. So that's where we try to focus the efforts of our corporate responsibility and 38:19 - 2199looking at the companies that we own to raise those questions.

Personally, once I got into this and I saw all the injustices, it just made me madder and madder and I used that, you know, anger-getting in touch with some of that anger, then, to try to go forth and put forth efforts that are going to change-change the world. Change whatever part of the world we're in. Whether it's just like one little step or whether it's a baby step or a big step or whatever it is. I mean, I think we all each have to do whatever it is we can do wherever we are.DT: I'm sorry, but a quick question to follow up on that. A lot of activists seem to have a problem with that anger. When does it become all consuming? When does it lead to the feeling that in a Sisyphian way you're pushing the boulder up the hill, only to have it role back down on yourself again and how to balance the fine line between wanting the fire to drive you put not being consumed by it at the same time?39:15 - 2199

SM: Many people could get discouraged by their anger, or depressed, or stay in that state because they think that maybe nothing will ever change; maybe nothing will ever happen in their lifetime. I don't feel that way. If I stayed in that state, I couldn't do my work. I need other people to give me support or to say, you know, "Let's keep on working in this struggle together because we are making a difference." When I think back over-just even some of the examples of things that I've shared with you today, I know that I and we, collectively, have made a difference. You know, when you take any of 39:56 - 2199those stories about either those factories or those workers, I would say-if they were sitting here with me today-they would say, "That is a step in a very long process towards change." We're trying to change systems. We can hardly even change our own behavior, sometimes, much less how can we change the systems that we're involved in. That is so crucial and it takes a long time and it takes a long term commitment. And I think that's what we have to see. How is it that this one small change, for instance, in Alcoa, when they fired that CEO-how did that change their corporate culture? How did 40:39 - 2199that change with-in the work with us? I mean, that is just, like, one example and it's a big example because you don't have that happening every day. But a lot of change happened because of that one action. And if we hadn't been there to raise that question; if we hadn't been there to take those workers to that meeting; if we hadn't been there to have the CEO go and try to actually find out if anything we said was true, that wouldn't have happened.41:03 - 2199DT: Speaking of Alcoa, can you look at it from these international corporations' point of view and tell us maybe why it is that conditions are so bad in some of these international areas? Whether it's the maquiladoras along the border or it's China, as you mentioned before? Do you think that these corporate managers are myopic, negligent, ignorant, evil? What is it that drives them to do things that you see as being morally wrong [unitelligible]?41:57 - 2199

SM: The world is being driven by consumerism and greed at this moment in our history. When you look at each-every three months that the companies have to declare their profit for their stockholders, and oftentimes even when they declare what the dividend is, Wall Street still punishes them even if they meet their expectations of whatever Wall Street is. It's a very difficult environment to be in, in that sense. But we're trying to change that perception. We're trying to ask people, "Do we need everything that we have?" I mean, what are we looking at for the future? And how greedy can we be in a sense because, mainly, we have much more than any of the workers that, you know, I see in Mexico. So you know, what-what is happening here? You know, we have to look at 42:50 - 2199all of those things within ourselves, within our culture. We're trying to change our culture. You know, some of the things that we have in our culture, I don't think, are that healthy. But we just keep going without necessarily thinking about it or without examining that. And with the companies, I think they are driven by each quarterly dividend that has to be met.

And so, you know, when you have Wal-Mart now being the largest company in the world. And then they say, you know, "We try to squeeze every penny from, you know, whatever the area is that-that we're working on." Whether it's the lower level or the middle level management or, you know, whoever they're dealing with. They keep saying in their advertisements, you know, "We're cutting prices. We're 43:36 - 2199cutting prices." And so, in order to do that, what is the effect underneath that, you know. Me as the consumer, I want to go there because maybe it's cheaper than Target or some other place. So what does that say? It asks that question of all of us. And people are trying to figure out-okay, like, I mean you know if someone is making my jacket and we could pay them one cent more, five cents more, you know, for buying it. What would that look like on the other side for the workers' pay? I mean, those are questions that I think we have to look at.

We've been raising questions about-okay, can we look at CEO pay? Can we look at, you know, the profit that the company has? Can we look at bonuses? What-what can we look at to try and have a more equitable distribution even of pay, when you look at what a CEO is being paid today. A few years back, I was raising 44:34 - 2199that question at Cooper Industries. And I had just done a little analysis just from what was in the proxy material at that time. I think this was probably about 1995 or '96 and the CEO was receiving nineteen thousand five hundred dollars a week. And the workers, in Mexico, were receiving thirty-five to forty dollars a week. And I was just making that point, you know. The-the contrast of what the CEO was making. And he was a lower paid CEO verses some of the other CEOs that are out there, you know, even at that time. So just that contrast of nineteen thousand five hundred dollars a week to your worker, 45:12 - 2199who is actually making the things that you sell to keep your company in business, making thirty-five to forty dollars a week. So, I try to use that anger and that movement that I have, to remember, okay, well who is out there doing the work and how is it that I'm a bridge? How am I linking people together? Because as an owner of that company I have a responsibility to. It's very obvious to me.45:40 - 2199DT: Can you tell us-when you consider all of the experiences that you've had, all of the meetings that you've had and some of the lessons that you've learned; when you look into the future, what do you think some of the big environmental challenges might be?45:58 - 2199

SM: I think the biggest environmental challenges are around water and air. Because when we look at the pollution levels-I mean, if we don't have air and we don't have clean water, what do we have? Those-you can only live so long without air and you can only live so long without water. I don't know the exact number of days, but it's very short compared to how long we can live without food. So if-if we are abusing our water and our air, it affects all of us. I mean, air knows no boundaries in that sense. I was mentioning that in the earlier example of the anencephalic babies. What is causing that on 46:41 - 2199either side of the U.S./Mexico border? And, you know, we're not sure. We don't have the exact answers. But that air flows from on side to the other. And, I mean, without air, I'm dead in a very few seconds. So that, to me, is very crucial. The water issues, I think, are crucial throughout Texas but also just our region and our world. You're hearing more and more about privatization of water. You're looking at water rights. You're looking at so many issues around water. We've had a number of issues; in April of 2002, in San Antonio, around our aquifer and whether or not it will be polluted. I mean, so it's a constant question, especially because our area also has so much drought. And so water 47:30 - 2199becomes so precious and we begin to look for it in anywhere-any way we can find it. And so, I think, that in the future, those issues are so crucial. All the issues I talk about are crucial. And I think those two kind of sum it up in a way that it-it-if we're not sustainable with our water and our air, we don't have a place to live. And to, you know-to drink the water or to take in the water that we need. And we have to have that every day. We can't get along without that. So to me that's bottom line. 48:01 - 2199DT: You've discussed some of the things that our children, grandchildren, you know generations that come after us may face, perhaps us as well. Can you explain what you might say to somebody who's young, who's coming up and who has an open mind; is looking at things he or she might be able to do and how you might appeal to them to be involved in issues like the environment and public health?48:35 - 2199

SM: The earth is all of ours. None of us has, I don't think, has a corner on-on it. And so it's going to take all of us together to preserve it and keep it sacred. And for me, young people need to be involved in all of these issues. I am a teacher. I was a principal. We had recycling programs. We had the students go and plant gardens. We had them look at how things grew. We had science fairs. We were always looking at different ways that-that-that the students could then take that home to the parents. Because if you have a child that is getting into recycling, they go home and they, "Oh, Mom! You're not going to throw that away, are you? Oh, Dad! We have to put that in recycle!" So we're teaching 49:25 - 2199through children; often times we're teaching the parents what they need to be doing if they don't already have the message. So for young people I think it's just crucial that they're involved in all of these kinds of very-you know, whatever their level is be involved at that level. High schoolers, junior high-go to the border. Find out what's going on. We've had students going down there during spring break or Christmas break or over a weekend to try to understand what those realities are. And they are touched. Their minds are open. Their hearts are open. Their eyes see in a different way. And then they come back and then they evaluate, "Well, gosh. I have twenty stuffed animals on my bed. You know, do I need all of those?" You know, "I saw kids that didn't have any 50:09 - 2199Christmas presents or any-or anything in their house." So I mean, you know, it's a way of saying come on and be involved; come and see what is happening; come and see what we're doing. Be involved at whatever level you can.

Because we know everybody can't do everything but I think everybody can do something. And that's, to me, a very fundamental premise that I start out with, with, you know, whatever level you are. Whether, you know, you're a child or you're a young person or whether you're old. I mean, you need to be involved in whatever way you can be, because only when we all do it together is it going to make a difference. I know for myself, when I started recycling and putting things in all the different bins or sorting out things, I hardly had anything left 50:54 - 2199in my trashcan. And I was like, "This is neat!" But you don't get to that point just like that. You have to learn it. Well, what can be recycled, what can't be. And then I'm always thinking like, "Well, how can we not-you know, what could we do with this that could still have a little more use in it." And you see this at the border all the time. I mean, my mom and dad taught me that. And I see it at the border all the time. People use every little scrap of everything to build a house, to have a curtain, to have any level of privacy or-I mean, you see people using the insides of like a-a-the cardboard-a-a-you know, like a Christmas wrap; the cardboard that's inside that. That's their fence. They take-they dig out and put that in. Here's a little fence of these cardboard-insides of a 51:39 - 2199tube of-of wrapping paper. I mean, you know-and me, I have a fence or whatever. So it's trying to make those connections of how I have so much and other people don't. And so, how we're going to meet each other somewhere along the line because the preservation of the planet does depend on all of us working together and moving forward and if-with such inequality it's oftentimes very different-difficult; different and difficult.52:10 - 2199DT: In all of this work of teaching advocacy you must get tired and distracted and at times need to be recharged. Where do you go? How do you find some solace and serenity? 52:26 - 2199

SM: Well, God has blessed me with a lot of energy and a lot of get up and go. And I've always been that way. And I do like to take pictures-photography. I like to be out with nature. I think that, you know, I have a number of albums of just beautiful pictures. I think that it's kind of way of also having to always document the things that aren't so beautiful and some of the pollution. So I sort of, you know, kind of do both.

And then our monastery is in Boerne and we have a lovely setting there. We have a retreat center. And 53:01 - 2199so, we have some acreage there where people can come and be themselves; walk, jog, whatever. So that also helps me. I try to walk whenever I can. You know, just be outside; just taking in nature. Because, somehow, that just replenishes my spirit. And so, I-I just try to, you know, do some of those kinds of things because I think it's important that we do keep ourselves, you know, balanced and in balance. And all of that is very Benedictine, too, because Benedict talks about a life of balance.53:33 - 2199DT: Well, I'm glad that you've found that and I hope you continue to have success in what you're doing. Is there anything that you'd like to add?53:42 - 2199SM: Gosh. I don't know. Is there anything that you can think of that...DW: I just have a question. How does the groups that you're involved with deal with issue of nuclear waste? Well, we don't want it where it is because of the impacted community. We don't want to send it to Yucca Mountain anyway. We know we can't launch it into space. Do have actually a policy on that? That's a tough (inaudible).54:06 - 2199

SM: I know. The issue of nuclear waste is-is something, really, I feel like we need to put more energy into figuring out what we can do for the long term. Because I, too, don't think that storing it in Yucca Mountain is going to work for the next ten thousand years. I mean, we have to really be thinking about the long term. Secretly in my heart I'm always hoping that someone is going to find a way to reverse some of that. You know, we-we challenge people to do so many things and why can't we challenge them to do something with nuclear waste that's going to be able to break it down in some other way that it 54:46 - 2199doesn't last for all of those ten thousand years or so. So, I, you know, I-I try to do my part in, you know, raising the questions and-and in keeping in touch with, you know, what's going on. And I don't know that right now there is a good answer on that long term storage. I think we have to work at it and see what other alternatives are actually out there for-for that. Right now I know most of that nuclear waste is still at each plant. And some of those plants are really getting to the point of not being able to store it 55:22 - 2199anymore. So, it will become more urgent. When it becomes a more urgent priority then maybe more people will work on it; or more scientists, or more minds. That's my challenge out there to anybody that is a scientist; couldn't you help us think in terms of some other way of breaking that down? And-and that's my hope.DT: I have one other question that David's thought brought up. When he was mentioning the processing of nuclear waste. I know that you've been involved in a lot of peace work. And I was wondering if you could talk about any links you see between man's violence among themselves and the violence against the earth. Do you see a connection there or are they two different issues?56:16 - 2199

SM: It seems like there's so much violence in our society and we need to look at the roots of it. One of the programs that the Benedictine Sisters have helped to start was called Peace Initiatives and it's a program that works on domestic violence. And part of the-the things that we see in that program is that if you are in a violent situation then you tend to be violent maybe at work or you tend to be violent towards your dog. Or, I mean, all these different ways taking out that violence. And so, it's like how can we work towards a less violent society on all levels; you know, starting from our homes, starting 56:55 - 2199from our schools, starting from our work, starting from our government. I mean, you know, whatever all those levels are out there. And I think it does start with each person because one violent person in the family can then trigger so much with the rest of the family or abuse or that type of thing. So I think we have to keep working on it, you know, within society but within families, within ourselves because to me that's one way of trying to have a less violent world because, you know, each of us has to do our part. 57:29 - 2199DT: So it's not just nuclear weapons it may be how you treat your spouse or your child.57:35 - 2199

SM: Oh, definitely. I mean, there's just-I think that there is just so much violence perpetrated on television and, I mean, there's a lot of studies now that show how kids that watch incessant hours of TV are more aggressive. I mean whether it's at daycare or whatever. So, I mean, there's some kind of a-a-a-a residual effect. I mean, how many killings can you see? How many shooting can you see? How many car chases can you see without somehow being involved in that? In-in San Antonio, after this one car racing movie was released, we had four accidents that involved killings with people racing cars up and down a street-a near by street here. I mean, you know, they saw the 58:19 - 2199movie and then they were motivated to try to do the drag racing themselves on a-on a crowded street. So, I mean, we're affected by what we see. We're affected by what we hear. We're affected by what we eat. You know, I mean, all of that. It's all the environment in which we live. And so, how can we be part of a less violent environment so that we ourselves can have that balance and can, you know, put forth less violence on our own part. I mean, I think all of us have some degree of violence inside ourselves. And we just keep working on that to try to lessen it. I mean, it-I mean, that's how I feel. I mean, other people can say, "Oh well, no, that's not true." But you do, whether it's in an argument or in some other form or fashion. So how do we try and, you know, have a less 59:06 - 2199violent world. I think by be-being less violent ourselves. And sometimes it's in our language. You know, we use very violent language. Like, you know, well-it's too much to go into, but just, you know, how we speak about things.DT: It's helpful. Well, I think that we're drawing close on the end of the tape. But thank you very much for talking about all of these related issues about corporate behavior and reform, not just within large companies, but also within how we interact as individuals.59:50 - 2199

SM: Well, thanks for having me.[End of reel 2199][End of interview with Susan Mika]