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.
“TRADE DEFICITS” mentioning the U.S. Dept of Labor was published in the House of Representatives section on pages H1279-H1280 on Feb. 27, 1996.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
TRADE DEFICITS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, the Presidential campaigns, particularly the Republican primary campaign, is in the full swing right now, and there has been a lot of derogatory comments made by one candidate or another about their opponents.
I think we have a good field of Republican candidates, and I wish they would quit the terrible rhetoric about one another and really stick to the facts. I think if they do that, the American people will find them to be the kind of people they want to elect President and will elect the nominee we can all live with and be happy with and can elect in November to the Presidency of the United States.
One of the problems that I have is that there has been a lot of misinformation about one of the candidates, and I am not taking sides in this Presidential campaign at this point, but I would like to point out some of the inaccurate remarks that have been made in what I believe to be untrue statements.
First of all, they say Pat Buchanan, one of the leading candidates for President, has been one who wants to put a wall around the United States and be a protectionist, and they say the manifestation of this is because he opposed NAFTA and a lot of the jobs going to Mexico and other parts of the world, and they have said that this is the wrong approach and that we should not be worrying about that.
The fact of the matter is NAFTA has been a disaster, and Mr. Buchanan is not wrong.
Let me give you some figures: In 1995, the U.S. trade deficit with the world was about $120 billion. That included a deficit of about $671 billion with Japan, $40 billion with China, and the deficit with Mexico is now $16 billion. Two years ago, when we signed NAFTA, we had a $6 billion trade surplus with Mexico. Now we have a $16 billion trade deficit. That means we have lost $22 billion in trade with Mexico in the last 2 years, and each one of those billions of dollars costs the people of this country 19,000 jobs.
And so since NAFTA was passed, we have had a net loss of over 300,000 jobs going to Mexico. A net loss of 300,000 jobs. I think that it is not inaccurate to say it is not in the best interests of the people of this country to have businesses and industries relocate in Mexico to the detriment of American workers because of an unfair trade agreement.
Now, people say why do we have an unfair trade agreement? ``Why do you say that, Dan?'' The reason I say that is there are several problems with the NAFTA bill. Mr. Buchanan has talked about those. One of the problems is the tariffs on the Mexican side of the border come down over 15 years. On the American side of it's border, in many cases, those tariffs come down in 5 years. That gives the Mexican entrepreneur or business person a 10-year advantage, because they are still going to have tariffs on their side of the border for American products while we do not have them here.
Now, the wage rates down there in some parts of Mexico are very, very low. You can employ people in the Yucatan, including fringe benefits, for a dollar an hour, and their counterpart in the United States is being paid anywhere from $10 to $20 an hour. That labor disparity is one reason to go down there.
In addition to that, the tariffs not coming down as quickly on the Mexican side also is an inducement for American industry to leave here and go down there. Why would a small labor-intensive industry, let us say, that manufactures microwave ovens want to stay here when their competition is in Mexico at much lower wage rates, selling into the United States with no tariffs while they are paying much higher wage rates here in the United States and they cannot sell into Mexico without an import tariff? And so there is a real disadvantage for American industries staying here instead of going south of the border. Mr. Buchanan talks about that, and it is something that has cost us, as I said, over 300,000 jobs.
Let me give you some figures: Imports from Mexico have increased 51 percent; that is, products coming from there to here. United States exports going to Mexico have increased by only 8 percent. So they have got a 33 percent advantage there. The $5.7 billion trade surplus I talked about in 1992 is now a $16 billion trade deficit, costing 300,000 jobs. The companies along the border are relocating in Mexico because of these advantages. More workers, in 90 percent of the cases, let me just read this to you, at this rate, taking Japan and China, for example, excuse me, while large corporations made sweeping predictions that NAFTA would enable them to hire more workers, in 90 percent of the cases these companies who said they would be able to hire more workers because of NAFTA have made no significant steps toward fulfilling these promises. In fact, according to the Department of Labor estimates, many of these leading NAFTA promoters have laid off workers, including GE, Procter & Gamble, Mattelle, and Xerox. For example, Wrangler has closed three manufacturing plants, lost 700 jobs to Mexico. United Technologies automotive plant in St. Mathews, SC, laid off 400 workers to plants in Mexico. Cleveland Mills, owned by Fruit of the Loom, folded in December, eliminating 400 jobs. This is part of the Fruit of the Loom plans to cut 3,200 jobs, close six plants and move those operations to other parts of the world, including Mexico. Eleven El Paso apparel factories closed down in the first year alone because of NAFTA, and recently the Hershey Co., an all-American company, everybody loves those Hershey Kisses, they moved one of their major Hershey Kisses plants to Mexico, and this is just another reason why facts need to be laid out very clearly in this campaign, and we should not be denigrating any one candidate to the advantage of another, because of misinformation.
Mr. Buchanan is right on the money on this issue. We are losing jobs. There needs to be free trade, but there needs to be fair trade as well, and so I hope my colleagues that are running for President will keep this in mind.
____________________
