I say baloney on that claim.
You have some evidence to support it?
Yes, I believe it was from the Dept of Labor. I think you are mixing up job exports, with buying foreign, and logistical/global competitiveness.
Global competetiveness: Long ago, Budweiser would ship its beer oversees. However, it got to the point that it could not compete with foreign local brews, so it built a plant in Wales. As a result, it did not need the US capacity previously utilized for its exports - and jobs were reduced. I assume you would say those jobs were exported, but in reality they wold have been lost regardless.
As far as buying foreign goods versus made in the USA - that has resulted in job reductions here, and increases in jobs abroad. That is not the same as companies "exporting" jobs. They simply lost market share.
Additionally, think of all the foreign companies that make their goods here. Take the car industry, for example. Saturn? Honda? Toyota? Don't they all have plants down south, using USA labor? Many of the labor problems we experienced over the years were due to not changing with the times. Unions for factory workers have outlived their usefull lives, but in the meantime, competition made companies paying $35-40/hour to turn bolts obsolete.
Lastly, automation has taken its toll on human jobs. ATMs vs bank tellers; Self-checkouts at stores vs cashiers; robotics vs autoworkers, bottlers, and a whole host of other manufacturing jobs. There is no bigger example than farming. In 1900, 38% of the work force were agricultural. Today, we produce far more food today, yet only 1% of the work force is in agriculture.
There are so many more examples of improvements causing the loss of jobs here; far more than companies simply exporting jobs such as technical support and customer service phone operators.