[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 183 (Friday, November 17, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2212-E2213]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  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 

[[Page E 2213]]
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.

                          ____________________