[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 166 (Wednesday, October 25, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H10811]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    SUPPORT AN ENLARGED NAFTA TO ENSURE COMPETITIVENESS OF AMERICAN 
                               EXPORTERS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, today I want to continue the discussion 
which began in a joint subcommittee hearing of the House International 
Relations Committee on trade issues regarding Chile and other Latin 
American countries in light of the North American Free Trade Act 
[NAFTA] experience.
  No doubt, we will continue to hear a plethora of statistics and 
anecdotes about the benefits and costs of NAFTA as well as increasing 
information about the benefits and costs of Chile's possible accession 
to that agreement. As a Member, I strongly supported NAFTA. Now, I 
strongly support Chile's accession to NAFTA. In fact, this Member said 
at the time, and will repeat it here today, that in a straightforward 
economic decision, it would have been more appropriate to accept Chile 
into a free-trade agreement with the United States even before Mexico 
because of Chile's dramatic economic progress and liberalization.
  It is very easy to get lost in all the statistics about the benefits 
of NAFTA or Chile's accession. But those statistics don't reveal one 
thing. One should ask: ``What would have happened if we had not passed 
NAFTA?''
  There can be no doubt that many American companies have relocated to 
Mexico recently. Undoubtedly, many Americans have lost their jobs to 
cheaper Mexican labor. But that does not mean that many Americans would 
have kept their jobs if we had not adopted NAFTA. No, instead, 
Americans would have lost many low-wage jobs to Southeast Asia, South 
Asia, and other parts of Central and South America. This situation has 
been greatly exacerbated by the peso crisis in Mexico which itself, 
this Member emphasizes, was in no way caused by the NAFTA agreement.
  Mr. Speaker, when this body courageously adopted the Uruguay Round 
implementing legislation, this Member said that many opponents of that 
historic trade legislation were in essence saying, ``Stop the world, I 
want to get off.'' Well, this Member stands by that comment and 
believes it still applies here today.
  The simple truth is that the United States, and the American people, 
have no good economic choice but to push for expansion of NAFTA 
gradually and appropriately to the entire Western Hemisphere or risk 
being excluded from a rapidly liberalizing world economy. Economic 
integration and trade liberalization is occurring in nearly every part 
of the world including Europe, Asia, and South America.
  For example, the European Union [EU] has already created the world's 
largest free-trade zone and has recently expanded this block by adding 
three members of the European Free Trade Association (Austria, Finland, 
and Sweden). The EU's single market includes 369 million consumers and 
a gross domestic product [GDP] of about $6.3 trillion (1993). This 
``Fortress Europe,'' as some call it, is seeking to add the low-wage 
Eastern European economies of Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and 
Slovakia by the year 2000 and the North African and Middle Eastern 
countries of Morocco, Algeria, Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, 
Lebanon and Israel by the year 2010. Together, this free-trade zone of 
low-wage labor Eastern European and Mediterranean countries and such 
high-tech, high-wage economies of the EU as the countries of Germany, 
France, and the United Kingdom represent a very formidable competitor 
to U.S. businesses and service industries which are attempting to 
compete in the new world economy.
  Similarly, East Asian countries have begun the process of integrating 
their economies through such regional free-trade groups as the Asia 
Pacific Economic Cooperation [APEC], which recently agreed to establish 
free trade in the region by 2020 for all of its 18 members, and the 
Association of Southeast Asian Nations [ASEAN], which currently has 
seven members but is seeking to incorporate other countries such as 
Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and Burma. ASEAN has rapidly become the world's 
largest regional trade area (with over 400 million people) and its 
members recently announced they would lower their tariffs from 0-5 
percent shortly after the year 2000.
  If the United States fails to continue to insist on its inclusion in 
these regional groups, supporters of the East Asia Economic Caucus 
(ASEAN plus China, Japan, and South Korea), which has been proposed by 
the outspoken Malaysian Prime Minister Mr. Mahathir, may be successful 
in excluding the United States from Asia and the Pacific region--the 
fastest growing market in the world.
  Not to be left out of trade liberalization, South and Central America 
and the Caribbean have recently fragmented into several regional free-
trade groups including:
  Andean Pact: Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela.
  Mercosur or Southern Common Market: Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, 
Uruguay.
  Central American Common Market: El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, 
Nicaragua, Costa Rica.
  Caricom: Antigua, Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, 
Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, Montserrat, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint 
Lucia, Saint Vincent, the Grenadines, Trinidad, Tobago.
  Clearly, the United States will suffer economically, politically, and 
strategically if it chooses to isolate itself from global and regional 
trade liberalization efforts. History is replete with examples of 
countries, like China, who turned inward instead of facing the 
difficult but necessary challenges of adapting to new circumstances, 
and therefore greatly suffered.
  With only 250 million people, the United States cannot afford to 
refuse to trade with emerging markets in the world's developing 
countries. Through the year 2025, developing countries are expected to 
account for 95 percent of the world's population growth. More 
staggering is the fact that only 10 markets--those of Mexico, Brazil, 
Argentina, Poland, Turkey, China, South Korea, Indonesia, India, and 
South Africa will produce one-half of the world's goods and services by 
the year 2010, but will account for $1 trillion in incremental U.S. 
exports during that same period.
  Mr. Speaker, this Member strongly believes Americans can compete to 
sell their innovative products and services anywhere in the world 
provided they are given a fair and equal opportunity without excessive 
Government interference. Consequently, I vigorously oppose unilaterally 
surrendering these future markets to our industrialized competitors in 
the Asia and Pacific region and in Western Europe by isolating 
ourselves from regional and global economic liberalization. 
Accordingly, this Member urges his colleagues to support free-trade 
agreements, such as an enlarged NAFTA, which help ensure that American 
exporters will be able to compete on a level playing field.

                          ____________________