[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3090-3091]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               POLL SHOWS ENTHUSIASM FOR FREE TRADE FADES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kline). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I wish to place in the Record this evening a 
poll done by the University of Maryland that shows that even high-
income Americans, those earning over $100,000 a year, now have lost 
their enthusiasm for free trade and the loss of jobs in this country as 
they perceive their jobs are now threatened by white collar workers in 
China, in India and other countries, and rising anxiety exists across 
all income bands in our country relative to free trade.
  So it is as much of a curiosity as anything that the chairman of the 
President's Council of Economic Advisers, Mr. Greg Mankiw, caused an 
uproar recently when he said the practice of shipping out our jobs, 
outsourcing U.S. jobs, is good for our country.
  How can shipping out our jobs be a good thing? Not surprisingly, Mr. 
Mankiw was forced to backtrack and profess his sympathy for anyone who 
had lost a job. My goodness, that is the least he could have done. 
Predictably, Mr. Mankiw was defended by free trade fundamentalists like 
The Washington Post and some of his fellow economists. But something 
has changed profoundly in America over the past 10 years, and I would 
say it is reality. Reality has set in coast to coast.
  NAFTA is celebrating its 10th anniversary, and we are seeing the 
impact of failed NAFTA-style trade policy throughout our country and 
continent.
  It is no longer just in Ohio and Michigan, although the Great Lakes 
States are undoubtedly the epicenter of the job-loss earthquake. It is 
not just the Carolinas or Massachusetts, where the job losses have been 
so staggering. And it is not just vehicles, cars and trucks and the 
massive auto parts industry. It is not just machining businesses, and 
it is not just machinery in general.
  In fact, the damage to our economy from outsourcing and the doctrine 
of free trade is no longer confined to just the manufacturing sector.
  Something has changed in America, and it will undermine and 
eventually destroy public support for NAFTA-style trade agreements. 
Suddenly, it is not only manufacturing jobs that are being outsourced 
to Mexico, to China and other low-wage platforms. Now outsourcing is 
beginning to bite into whole new sectors of our economy, where the 
promise of future job growth once lay. Indeed, the loss of jobs in 
manufacturing has been dramatic over the past several years.
  Look at these sectors: apparel, 37 percent of the jobs lost; textile 
mills, 34 percent; primary metals, down 25 percent; machinery, down 22 
percent.

[[Page 3091]]

  But the decline in what has been called knowledge-based industries 
has been dramatic too: computer and peripheral equipment, down 28 
percent; communications equipment, down 39 percent; semiconductors and 
electronic components, down 37 percent; electrical equipment and 
appliances, down 23 percent; telecommunications, down 19 percent; data 
processing, down 23 percent.
  During the NAFTA debate, the free trade fundamentalists promised that 
high-wage, high-benefit jobs would be replaced by high-wage jobs in the 
computer sector. In other words, automotive industry jobs would be 
replaced by computer jobs.
  Wrong. As economist Paul Craig Roberts wrote recently in the 
Washington Times, ``For years, as U.S. multinationals moved 
manufacturing offshore, Americans were told their future was in 
`knowledge jobs.' Today, knowledge jobs are being moved offshore more 
rapidly than even manufacturing jobs were moved away.''
  The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers said last week 
that in 2003, the U.S. jobless rate for computer scientists and systems 
analysts has reached an all-time high of 5.3 percent. That is roughly 
in line with the national unemployment rate of 5.6 percent. In Ohio, 
the unemployment rate is 6.2 percent, in my region of Ohio, over 8.4 
percent, and in some counties of Ohio as high as 18.5 percent.
  But the burden of proof is now in the proponents of NAFTA-style trade 
agreements. If outsourcing is sending the jobs of highly trained 
computer scientists, computer programmers and medical diagnosticians 
overseas, then where are the new jobs supposed to come from?
  It is hard to believe, but Vice President Cheney said, ``If the 
Democratic policies had been pursued over the last 2 or 3 years, the 
kind of tax increases that both Messrs. Kerry and Edwards have talked 
about, we would not have had the kind of job growth we have had.''
  I would just ask the Vice President, where is the job growth? I do 
not see any job growth. And that is what the average real American is 
asking too, where are the good new jobs going to come from? Where?
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the poll I referred to earlier.

                    [From USA Today, Feb. 24, 2004]

Poll: Enthusiasm for Free Trade Fades; Dip Sharpest for $100K Set; Loss 
                             of Jobs Cited

                        (By Peronet Despeignes)

       High-income Americans have lost much of their enthusiasm 
     for free trade as they perceive their own jobs threatened by 
     white-collar workers in China, India and other countries, 
     according to data from a survey of views on trade.
       The survey by the University of Maryland's Program on 
     International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) is one of the most 
     comprehensive U.S. polls on trade issues. It found that 
     support for free trade fell in most income groups from 1999 
     to 2004 but dropped most rapidly among high-income 
     respondents--the group that has registered the strongest 
     support for free trade. ``Free trade'' means the removal of 
     barriers such as tariffs that restrict international trade.
       The poll shows that among Americans making more than 
     $100,000 a year, support for actively promoting more free 
     trade collapsed from 57 percent to less than half that, 28 
     percent. There were smaller drops, averaging less than 7 
     percentage points, in income brackets below $70,000, where 
     support for free trade was already weaker.
       The same poll found that the share of Americans making more 
     than $100,000 who want the push toward free trade slowed or 
     stopped altogether nearly doubled from 17 percent to 33 
     percent.
       Rising anxiety about free trade and shipping out of U.S. 
     jobs could intensify an already fierce political battle this 
     election year.
       In the fight for the Democratic presidential nomination, 
     Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., has gained ground on front-runner 
     Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., by hitting Kerry's support for 
     free-trade agreements that critics say have cost American 
     jobs. The two have bitterly accused each other of supporting 
     past agreements.
       Whoever the Democratic nominee, he is expected to use the 
     trade issue against President Bush, whose administration has 
     generally been supportive of free trade.
       The poll was released last month, but breakdowns by income 
     level were performed at the request of USA TODAY. The results 
     are based on responses from more than 1,800 U.S. residents. 
     The margin of error is 2.3 to 4 percentage 
     points.
       The findings suggest that anxieties about free trade long 
     held by lower-income Americans and blue-collar workers--who 
     have been losing jobs to cheaper labor markets abroad--have 
     spread up the income ladder.
       The findings come as the U.S. job market remains sluggish 
     and accounting, computer programming, radiology and other 
     high-end service jobs are being lost to workers abroad.
       ``This is huge,'' said Steven Kull, director of the 
     Maryland polling unit. He said the PIPA poll shows most 
     Americans remain supportive, or at least tolerant, of free 
     trade, but with big caveats. ``They're not saying, `put on 
     the brakes,''' he said. ``But they are saying, `Don't step on 
     the gas. Don't rush. We need to make adjustments. We need 
     more time to adapt to these changes.'''

     

                          ____________________