[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 155 (Friday, November 7, 1997)]
[House]
[Page H10321]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     NAFTA IS NOT GOOD FOR AMERICA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Brady). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kucinich] is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, for those who have been following the 
debate over fast track, I would just like to review a few facts. First 
of all, fast track is legislation which provides for expedited 
congressional consideration. It is called fast track because it is a 
way to force through Congress an up-or-down vote on a major trade 
package. Those who are interested in the history of this should 
remember that fast-track authority was first granted by the Congress in 
1974. It gave the President the ability to move along trade agreements.
  In 1994, fast track expired, after the approval of NAFTA and the 
Uruguay round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, also known 
as GATT.
  What is happening now is that the President is asking for renewed 
fast-track authority and wants to expand NAFTA and the free trade zone 
to Chile and the other South American countries, and he wants trade 
agreements with even more countries as well, using the fast-track 
legislation.
  We must keep in mind that fast track does not provide for any 
amendments, so that this Congress has no ability to change the terms of 
the fast-track agreement and, therefore, to have an impact on American 
trade policy. The reason why so many of us in Congress are concerned 
about this issue is this: I would like to look at the effect that NAFTA 
has had, because we are really talking about expanding NAFTA here, at 
northeastern Ohio.
  Now, I am from the State of Ohio, I am in the 10th Congressional 
District in Ohio, and I represent an area that includes the city of 
Cleveland and surrounding suburbs. My constituents include auto 
workers, steel workers, and their families. They are very dependent on 
the auto industry and the steel industry for jobs. These are people who 
have fought for this country, who believe in this country, who have 
given much to this country, who helped to build this country through 
building the major industries with their labor. Americans secured its 
freedom through our strategic industrial base of steel, automotive and 
aerospace, and the people in Cleveland have been an important part of 
that.
  But when a report came out a few months ago on NAFTA, it was learned 
once and for all how the people of Cleveland and how communities like 
ours across the United States have been adversely affected by NAFTA. We 
found out that U.S. exports to Mexico have been inconsequential, a 
little over $1 billion in the 3 years covered by the study, that Mexico 
was not the consumer market that everyone said it would be. We were 
promised that there was going to be expanded trade with Mexico.
  Well, the fact of the matter is, workers in Mexico who are making 90 
cents an hour cannot buy cars made in the United States that cost 
$16,000. The truth is that Mexico has become increasingly an export 
platform for vehicles sold in the United States. U.S. auto imports from 
Mexico are more than 10 times the value of U.S. exports to Mexico. And 
most importantly, the U.S. auto trade deficit has grown since NAFTA by 
about 400 percent to $14.6 billion, from $3.6 billion.
  Mr. Speaker, the business of politics is a very complex business, as 
those of us who have been in politics for a while understand, and even 
those who have the best of intentions often are not able to get to 
their goals that they have stated in promises in order to achieve 
support for their proposals.
  There were many promises made to secure support for NAFTA years ago, 
a few short years ago, and those promises moved votes in this House. 
Those promises caused people to have hope that somehow NAFTA that we 
are voting on in the next 2 days, an agreement that would expand NAFTA, 
that NAFTA would benefit the constituencies which we represent. People 
were promised that NAFTA would create 200,000 new U.S. jobs. All of us 
remember that promise.
  The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that the United States has lost more than 
430,000 jobs due to NAFTA. For example, Kodak will cut 14,000 jobs and 
shift production to Mexico. The U.S. people were promised that the 
United States would inspect imported food for pesticides. Well, we 
know, the truth is that inspections of illegal pesticides on imported 
food have actually decreased, and we have seen the consequences with 
the great strawberry scare of a few months ago where school children in 
a few States were adversely affected by the pesticides which were put 
on strawberries.
  Mr. Speaker, NAFTA has not produced benefits for the American people. 
It has increased the trade deficit; it puts downward pressure on wages, 
and I am hopeful that within 4 hours NAFTA will be soundly defeated 
through us defeating fast track and coming back with a plan to make our 
trade agreements in this country fairer to the American workers and to 
their families.

                          ____________________