Note: This was a Special Order 5 Minute Speech By Representative Dan Burton, Republican
from Indiana, stating that Pat Buchanan was right on target with NAFTA.
Mr. Speaker, the Presidential campaigns, particularly the Republican
primary campaign, is in 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 it is not
inaccurate
to say it is not in the best interests 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
33percent 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 Company, and 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.
