The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT” mentioning the U.S. Dept of Labor was published in the Extensions of Remarks section on pages E2212-E2213 on Nov. 17, 1995.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
______
HON. PATSY T. MINK
of hawaii
in the house of representatives
Friday, November 17, 1995
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, today on the 2-year anniversary of the North American Free Trade Agreement, I rise to draw attention to NAFTA's failed promises. Two years ago I objected to the passage of NAFTA because of the thousands of American workers that would be displaced from their jobs and the lack of opportunities they would face in an uncertain market as a result of the trade agreement.
Due to the present political and economical instability of Canada and Mexico, I am even more concerned today about the adverse repercussions of agreeing to NAFTA. In 1994, the Department of Labor reported that 17,000 jobs were lost due to plant relocations to, or increased imports from Mexico or Canada. Last year, 152 companies filed petitions under NAFTA's Trade Adjustment Assistance [TAA], the program designed to assist U.S. workers who have lost their jobs as a result of the relocation of workers and plant facilities. These thousands of jobs may not sound to some as a significant number, however, one displaced American worker, I believe, is one unemployed person too many.
Prior to its passage, proponents estimated that NAFTA would result in 27,000 to 550,000 new jobs. Earlier this year the Department of Commerce estimated that 340,000 jobs would be created because of NAFTA. However, the Department of Commerce has yet to provide documented evidence that new jobs have been created because of NAFTA. Instead, the Department refers to the increase of United States exports to Mexico and Canada as evidence that American workers are employed in new jobs. As expected, overall trade between the United States and Mexico has expanded significantly, but contrary to the predictions of NAFTA supporters; imports increased at a faster rate than exports. Two years ago we had a $2 billion trade surplus with Mexico. Today, thanks to NAFTA, we have a $15 to $18 billion trade deficit with Mexico. What happened to the jobs that NAFTA proponents promised? I'll tell you where the jobs went, they went along with the businesses that moved to Mexico so corporations could take advantage of cheaper labor and generate more profits. All this, at the expense of the American worker.
The humane treatment of all citizens was and still is another concern I have about the North American Free Trade Agreement. Since the passage of NAFTA, numerous companies have been guilty of manufacturing goods produced by child labor. One report estimated that 10 million children under the age of 14 work illegally in Mexico's maquiladoras to supplement their families' incomes.
Unlike our labor laws that ensure worker protection and comparable wages, foreign workers do not have the power to form unions to protest against labor abuses. Consequently, this enables companies to terminate employees at will or without recourse. Unless these workers are guaranteed the right to organize, they will continue be taken advantage of.
According to the November 13, 1995 issue of Business Week, nearly a million people in Mexico have lost their jobs and they do not have any form of unemployment insurance. Adding to their misery is the inability of Mexico's bank to lend money to consumers and companies due to the astronomical interest rates brought on by the devaluation of the peso and the burden of bad loans. Facing this type of financial crisis, how can Mexico's standard of living rise as NAFTA supporters contend?
Just last month, Canada narrowly defeated an attempt by Quebec to become an independent country. Given the political and economical situations facing our trading partners, I believe we should re-evaluate the significance of the North American Free Trade Agreement.
As global warming increases, I believe the issue of the environment needs to be addressed in future trade agreements. Nevertheless, our existing trading partners need to understand that the quest for economic growth should not come at the expense of the environment. We must not allow low environmental standards and lax enforcement as an incentive for foreign countries to entice companies to move, consequently, stealing jobs from American workers.
As I have stated in previous years, I am not against a fair trade agreement with Canada and Mexico. However, I do believe that Mexico's workers should be given the right to organize and to bargain for better wages and if NAFTA is renegotiated to guarantee that U.S. workers have retraining and education so that they can get one of these high-tech jobs as NAFTA proponents have promised, then I would be willing to support it.
Trade parity cannot be obtained at the cost of our domestic industries and jobs, our environment, and the health and safety of American and Mexican workers. The existing NAFTA fails to secure justice for American and Mexican workers; it fails to make a commitment to democratic ideals; and it fails to cast off the chains of poverty for those most in need of help. If NAFTA's proponents truly believe freer and open trade will lead to more jobs and economic prosperity, then it is only right and proper that we work to improve the vast differences of workers' wages and standard of living among NAFTA's participants.
____________________
