[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 161 (Monday, December 15, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2417-E2418]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                        OPPOSITION TO H.R. 2621

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA

                           of american samoa

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, November 13, 1997

  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to 
H.R. 2621, the Reciprocal Trade Agreement Authorities Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I am generally supportive of the concept of giving the 
Executive broad authority in negotiating treaties and other 
international agreements. Unfortunately, from my perspective, the 
granting of this authority by Congress to the Executive has not served 
the Nation well recently, and I am now reluctant to grant that same 
authority again.
  Those who feel otherwise will say that Congress still retains its 
complete authority to approve trade agreements because Congress has the 
final say in passage. Unfortunately, this argument has not proved to be 
true in recent years.
  The North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, is the prime 
example of this. I am absolutely certain that if Congress had the 
option to amend the NAFTA agreement when it was presented to it, the 
agreement would not have been adopted in its current form. Many of the 
proponents of the legislation we are considering today say that NAFTA 
has been an unqualified success. To them I say success is not 
determined by the profit margins of a few successful companies and an 
increase in the number of low-wage jobs in the United States. I suggest 
that our trade agreements should do more than line the pockets of the 
rich, for that does not serve our country well. If we are going to 
enter into new trade agreements, they should help our Nation as a 
whole--if not, it is not in our national interest to do so.
  Conceptually, Mr. Speaker, I support free trade. No one argues 
economies are improved or consumers benefit from supporting less 
efficient producers of any given product. If all countries were equal, 
free trade would and should be the norm. But, unfortunately, not all 
nations have equal economies. In general, the more-developed counties 
are able to pay higher wages, provide more benefits to their workers, 
prohibit child labor, and place greater restraints on business 
activities which pollute the environment at a higher rate.
  As a result of our economic development and the changes in business 
activity which we in the United States and the other developed 
countries value, in purely economic terms, the less-developed countries 
are able to produce many goods at a lower cost than we can produce them 
in the United States.
  With NAFTA in place, businesses have taken advantage of the disparity 
between the United States and Mexico, and have moved their 
manufacturing operations from the United States to Mexico. To keep the 
costs down of products going to be sold in the United States, these 
businesses construct new plants along, but on the Mexican side of, our 
southern border. The net result of this has been the loss of good, 
well-paying jobs held by Americans.
  In return, consumers in the United States can purchase products at a 
lower price. Economists say this is good: everyone in the United 
States, except those few who lost their jobs--and their families and 
the other businesses which supported the now-closed industry--are 
better off, they say. In a limited economic sense, those people who 
purchase that product at a lower cost are better off. Except, even 
those still employed are now paying higher taxes to cover the increased 
cost of unemployment insurance, food stamps, and other programs 
available to assist those in need.
  In addition to those costs, we have increased pollution in our 
atmosphere, more chemicals dumped into our earth, and more people 
working in sub-standard conditions for below poverty-level wages. In 
the case of Mexico, we also have increased motor traffic from vehicles 
which do not meet our safety or air pollution standards, and more 
recently, an increased amount of illegal drugs entering our country 
with the increased commerce.
  The end result of this shift in location is instead of obtaining a 
product made by someone in the United States making a fair wage

[[Page E2418]]

and with reasonable medical benefits, that U.S. employee has lost his 
or her job and we are offered a product made by a foreigner who is paid 
a sub-standard wage and who is provided no medical benefits. As an 
extra benefit, we residents of earth are subjected to increased 
pollutants added to the planet.
  Before NAFTA was adopted, we were told that a secondary benefit of 
the agreement would be an easing of the immigration problem along our 
southern border. Have you noticed how no one makes that argument 
anymore? That's because there has not been an easing of the immigration 
problem. The theory was that the people entering the United States 
through Mexico came to the United States solely to seek employment, and 
that if they could get that employment in Mexico, they would not need 
to cross our border. Well, what happened? The theory did not prove 
true. Why not? I submit that the unemployment problem in Mexico is of 
such a magnitude that the number of jobs added as a result of NAFTA 
didn't put a dent in the number of people who want to come to the 
United States. The result has been we lost all those jobs and we still 
have an immigration problem.

  Mr. Speaker, I do not make these statements to be critical of Mexico. 
Over the decades, in many ways Mexico has been a better neighbor to the 
United States than the United States has been to Mexico. The root of 
our immigration problem stems from the different speeds at which our 
economies have developed. The time will come in the not to distant 
future, when the Mexican national economy will be as strong and vibrant 
as ours, and we will be in balance. At that point, free trade will be 
mutually beneficial for both nations, as it currently is for the United 
States and Canada.
  Mr. Speaker, I also want to take a few moments to talk about my 
congressional district, American Samoa, and what is happening to us, 
and the other U.S. territories, in the name of free trade.
  I represent the people of the U.S. Territory of American Samoa. We 
are removed from all major surface and air transportation routes and 
our annual per capita income is $3,000.
  In American Samoa, the largest industry is the processing of canned 
tuna, most of which is sold in the United States. This has been a 
staple of the American Samoan economy for the past 30 years. In recent 
years, however, I have witnessed the repeal of the possessions tax 
credit--IRC Sec. 936--the implementation of NAFTA, the implementation 
of tariff reductions under GATT, and the weakening of the dolphin safe 
label. Each of these actions will make American Samoa less competitive 
than foreign nations, and there has been nothing on the other side of 
the ledger to assist American Samoa or the other U.S. territories.
  Mr. Speaker, we talk about first- and second-class citizens residing 
in the 50 States. I am increasingly concerned that we will soon have 
third-class citizens residing in our territories. There are nearly 4 
million of us, and it is past the time for this growing problem to be 
addressed. This is a major concern to me, and if the past is any 
indication of what we can expect from future trade agreements, H.R. 
2621 will hurt, not help the United States as a whole, and American 
Samoa in particular.
  Mr. Speaker, unlike you, I do not have the privilege of voting on 
this legislation, even though if it is enacted into law it will more 
than likely have a direct impact on my congressional district. I wish I 
had this privilege, for I would certainly vote no, and I urge my 
colleagues to do the same.

                          ____________________