Replies

He certainly didn't disagree with a free trade deal with Austrailia. Perhaps Hunter's bone of contention is with countries that tend to be hostile with American interests (i.e. Mexico and the flood of illegals it intentionally sends over, China and their military spending, etcetera).

Exactly!

HUNTER STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO "FAST TRACK" TRADE AUTHORITY (H.R. 2621)

Fast track authority would allow the Administration to negotiate international trade agreements -- without the consultation of the House or Senate -- and only permit a vote of approval or disapproval by the Congress once the pact is concluded. The bill was defeated today by a vote of 180-243.

Following is Rep. Hunter's statements given on the House floor during the debate:

One of the first rules in business is one does not give financial power to bad businessmen. The negotiators on the Clinton trade team are bad businessmen. That is, they have a bad record.

NAFTA took us from a $3 billion surplus in trade with Mexico to an annual $15 billion loss.

The Clinton trade negotiators have given us a $40 billion annual trade loss with China.

The trade agreement with Japan under the Clinton administration has broken down. The Clinton team consists of trade losers. We should not give power to trade losers.

I have a graph here that shows the G7, that is the big nations of the world, the big western democracies and their net exports to Mexico before and after NAFTA. That includes the United States.

We call this chart `Find the dummies,' because it is apparent that, after NAFTA, every one of the big nations, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, UK and Japan, all continue to do well with Mexico with respect to trade, except the United States. The United States immediately fell into an enduring $15 billion trade deficit.

We do not need to give new trade negotiating powers to President Clinton. Not this President, not this time.

http://www.house.gov/hunter/news_prior_2006/fast-track.htm

Perhaps Hunter's bone of contention is with countries that tend to be hostile with American interests

Trade occurs between individuals who mutually benefit. From his words quoted in the article, it would seem he wants to restrict this process, and not just for matters of national security.

In a speech before Congress on March 12, 1996, Hunter claimed that between one and five million jobs had been lost to corporate downsizing over the past three years. "We seem to be giving our own country away" through NAFTA, GATT, the World Bank, and foreign adventurism, he said: "billions and billions to other countries while our own people head for the unemployment office or have to settle for jobs in fast-food restaurants."

This is the language of a protectionist who is interested in restricting trade with more countries than just China. We're not giving our country away nor are millions losing their jobs because of this. Creative destruction has been going on for a long time and there is no way any amount of protection is going to stop that process without hurting our economy. To believe that we're becoming a nation of hamburger flippers is the kind of hyperbole and ignorance I would expect from Lou Dobbs and Pat Buchanan, not from a real conservative in the mold of Ronald Reagan.