[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 158 (Monday, November 10, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12461-S12462]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Hollings, 
        Mr. Inouye, Mr. Wellstone, and Ms. Snowe):
  S. 1514. A bill to assess the impact of NAFTA, require the 
renegotiation of certain provisions of NAFTA, and provide for the 
withdrawal from NAFTA unless certain conditions are met; to the 
Committee on Finance.


                        nafta accountability act

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, if the North American Free-Trade Agreement 
is an example of trade agreements established under fast-track 
procedures, then it should be no surprise that the vast majority of 
American citizens oppose renewing fast-track authority to the 
President.
  An editorial published earlier this year in the Bismarck, ND Tribune 
stated that before Congress grants fast-track authority to the 
President, ``The American people deserve a much better accounting than 
we have received so far of the impact of the first three years of the 
NAFTA.''
  The question of accountability and the performance of our Nation's 
current trade policies is the underlying issue in the debate whether 
this Congress should provide renewed fast-track authority.
  In a few weeks we will mark the fourth anniversary of the passage of 
NAFTA by Congress. It is not surprising that the proponents of fast 
track do not want to associate fast track with NAFTA. The simple fact 
is that NAFTA has been an unmitigated failure.
  At a time when we have been hearing new promises being made to 
advance the cause of fast track, we need to remember the promises that 
were made to gain the passage of NAFTA.
  We were promised increased exports, a greater number of jobs, and 
that these jobs would be higher paying jobs. We were promised improved 
living standards, reduced trade distortions, and improved 
competitiveness for the United States in North America and global 
markets. At the same time, the American public was promised that the 
environment would be protected, that drugs would be interdicted, that 
public welfare would be safeguarded, and basic human rights would be 
enhanced.
  Yet, the facts show that NAFTA just doesn't measure up to its 
promises. The very first measure of failure is demonstrated in our 
trade balances with our NAFTA trading partners. The United States has 
gone from having a $2 billion trade surplus prior to NAFTA with Mexico 
to a $16 billion deficit this past year. At the same time, our trade 
deficit with Canada has more than doubled, escalating from $11 billion 
to $23 billion.
  In its editorial review of NAFTA, the Bismarck Tribune concluded, 
``There has been enough pain associated with NAFTA and other trade 
agreements for Americans to insist on a scorecard we can read and 
understand before we go further.''
  I agree that we need a scorecard. It is for this reason that I am 
introducing the NAFTA Accountability Act today, together with Senators 
Byrd, Campbell, Hollings, Inouye, Wellstone, and Snowe.
  We need accountability. Promises that are made should be fulfilled. 
If they aren't, we need to go back to the drawing board and make the 
changes that are necessary to achieve the goals and promises that were 
originally set forth in NAFTA's preamble and statement of objectives.
  This bill would establish benchmarks by which we could score NAFTA, 
including expanded markets, currency stability, jobs wages and living 
standards, U.S. manufacturing competitiveness, health and environment, 
illegal drugs, protection of rights, fair agricultural trade, and 
highway safety.
  If NAFTA does not meet these benchmarks as promised, then the United 
States would provide notice and withdraw from NAFTA. In addition, the 
bill authorizes and directs the President to renegotiate provisions of 
NAFTA to correct trade deficits and currency distortions, to correct 
job loss, to protect public health and the environment, to interdict 
drug traffic, to correct agricultural provisions, and to ensure 
compliance with U.S. transportation standards.

[[Page S12462]]

  We have watched our trade deficits with our NAFTA partners grow by 
433 percent since this trade agreement took effect. The growth in these 
trade deficits mean that this Nation has suffered job losses. A recent 
analysis by the Economic Policy Institute concludes that there has been 
a net loss of 395,000 U.S. jobs as a result of NAFTA. In fact, the 
study demonstrates that every State has suffered net job losses as a 
result of the increased trade deficits under NAFTA.
  These job losses range from 633 job losses in my home State of North 
Dakota to 38,406 job losses in California. Now 633 jobs may not sound 
like much, but that is twice the size of my hometown of Regent. ND. If 
a new employer provided that many jobs in an economic development 
program, it would be considered a major accomplishment in my State.
  States which had significant production in automobiles, computers, 
electrical appliances, textiles, and apparel had jobs losses 
disproportionate to their share of overall U.S. job losses.
  It should be noted that 228,000 of these job losses were attributed 
to the trade deficits with Mexico, while 167,000 of these job losses 
resulted from deficits with Canada. If we remember the promises of 
NAFTA, the promises were that this trade agreement would result in at 
least 220,000 high-paying jobs.

  I am always intrigued by those that only look at one side of the 
trade ledger, and never account for the net trade balance. 
Unfortunately, we cannot get a good picture of this because the 
Commerce Department only makes estimates of exports on a State-by-State 
basis. There is no data compiled on a State-by-State basis of foreign 
imports. As a result, there is not even a statistical basis on which to 
look at the full ledger on trade balances on a State-by-State basis.
  However, we can make some general comparisons that can be helpful. 
For example, one widely distributed study indicates that North Dakota 
ranked third among the States in increased exports to Mexico. While 
that sounds pretty fantastic, it also needs to be put into context. The 
320-percent increase in annual exports from North Dakota to Mexico is 
from the base of $3.0 million which has now grown to $9.7 million in 
exports. While the increases are substantial as a percentage, they are 
not very significant in dollars terms in the State's overall economy. 
In fact, another economic analysis indicates that North Dakota had a 
trade deficit with Mexico in the neighborhood of $3.4 million.
  Similarly, the export study reports that North Dakota had an increase 
of 35 percent in exports to Canada from $298 million to $402 million. 
Before we conclude that North Dakota is doing well as a result of 
NAFTA, we need to look at other pieces of my State's economy.
  While North Dakota experienced an annual increase of $114 million in 
export sales to our NAFTA partners, at the same time North Dakota is 
losing $222 million annually in income from the unfair export of 
Canadian durum wheat and barley into the United States. In other words, 
the loss of annual agricultural income in a couple of farm commodities 
alone has cost North Dakota almost twice as it has gained in increased 
export sales.
  I want to note that one of the provisions of the NAFTA Accountability 
Act would require the President to renegotiate the terms of NAFTA to 
prevent Canadian grain exports from unfairly displacing United States 
production. This is just one of many provisions within this legislation 
that would require that the promises made to secure the passage of 
NAFTA be kept.
  Unfortunately, the American public did not get a warranty on the 
promises when NAFTA was passed. That is why they are rightfully 
skeptical of further fast-track trade procedures and the expansion of 
NAFTA. As indicated in the Bismarck Tribune editorial, Americans need a 
scorecard before we continue to go down on our current trade policy 
track. I would urge my colleagues to join me as sponsors of the NAFTA 
Accountability Act so that Americans would have that scorecard, as well 
as the means by which to make necessary corrections to NAFTA.
                                 ______