Introduction
The North American Free Trade Act was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on December 8. 1993. After the signing of the Act, America joined Mexico and Canada into signing the Northern American Free Trade Agreement on January 1, 1994. The basic purpose of this agreement was to reduce trade barriers between the involved nations, therefore, making it easier for the nations to export and import each other’s products. The agreement proposed to reduce tariffs and other barriers that hindered free flowing trade between the United States of America and her neighbors. Some of the fields covered by this trilateral investment and trade agreement included security, migration, health, and the environment. This agreement was the first of its kind in the Northern America and was indeed unique as it was the first agreement to incorporate environmental policies, as well as labor adjustment issues.
The bill had passed the majority votes in both the Senate as well the House of Congressional representatives. The US House of Representatives voted in favor of the Act’s implementation on November 17, 1993 while the US Senate did likewise on November 19, 1993. In the House of Representatives, 243 Congress representatives voted in favor of the Act while 200 opposed it (H.R. 3450 (103rd): North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act -- House Vote, n.p). In the senate, 61 Senators voted in the Act’s favor while 38 opposed it. One Senator from Dakota did not vote (H.R. 3450 (103rd): North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act -- Senate Vote, n.p).
Six of the Congress representatives in Texas voted against the Act. All these representatives who voted against the Act were Democrats. The other 24 representatives voted in favor of the Act. At this time, the state of Texas had two Republican senators in representing the state in the Senate. These were Phil Gramm and Kay Hutchison who both voted in favor of the North American Free Trade Act.
Senator Gramm was in fact one of the fiercest supporters of the North American Free Trade Act is quoted by the Los Angeles Times in 1993 countering a suggestion by Donald Reigle , a Democrat senator from Michigan who argued that NAFTA would have a disastrous effect on the United States. Gramm responded by saying the “Tradeis an ultimate vote of confidence in the American worker, (Gerstenzang, LA Times, n.p). He was very vocal in urging his fellow senators across party divides that the North American Free Trade Act would act in the favor of America and enhance the cooperation with its neighbors.
Simply put, the majority of Texas representatives were in favor of the North American Free Trade Agreement. There are several reasons why a state would choose to support a federal bill. In many instances, the position taken by a state on a federal bill is dependent on the perceived benefits that a state is likely to accrue if the bill is signed into law (Boadu and Thompson, 2). A bill with a perceived threat to a state or whose benefits are not clear is ultimately not supported. Benefits from and Act are assessed from various angles with most of them being related to the sectors of the economy, for instance, the manufacturing sector. Some of factors that influence the voting patterns of a state include the export-related employment in that state, the attitude of the legislators towards a liberal trading environment and other on-economic factors such as party affiliation, , political action committee amongst others (Boadu and Thompson, 2).
An analysis of Texas reveals that it mainly abides by the Heckscher –Ohlin model of trade. This model stipulates that nations and states tend to produce and subsequently export the products that require those production resources that relatively abundant in the state and at the same time tend to import the goods whose production resources are in short supply in the state. This model and its relationship to the voting patterns in the two representative houses can be analyzed from several perspectives.
Looking at Texas, the state has one of the highest export-related employment in the nation (Boadu and Thompson, 2). This was indeed the case when the bill was being shuffled between the two houses. This factor could have played a part in influencing the voting patterns of its representatives. It was understood that the signing of the Bill would inadvertently mean increased freedom and ease of exportation and seeing that the export-related employment rates in the state were high, the act would significantly favor the state. Rates of employment would increase and given that some of the representatives had used pledge to facilitate increased employment in their political campaign manifestos, it was only natural that they voted in favor of the bill.
The manufacturing industry in Texas is another factor that could have played a part in influencing the observed voting patterns of the state in regard to the North American trade bill. Texas has a very robust manufacturing sector that produces a great variety of products. The manufacturing industry is indeed one of the most vital to the state’s economy (United States Census Bureau, n.p). However, there had not been enough market for the state’s top notch manufactured products and goods. The Northern American Free Trade Agreement was a blessing in disguise. It meant that the surplus of the manufactures products in the state could be exported to Mexico or Canada with relative ease. Mexico was of particular interest to the state as it shares a border with it. Goods and products from the state’s manufacturing sector could be exported to Mexico to augment the nation’s relatively underdeveloped manufacturing sector.
Texas, in fact, has an economic model that is quite different from other states, and its support of the Northern American Trade Agreement is not a big surprise (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, n.p). The state’s oil and natural gas forms the backbone of the nation’s economy (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, n.p). Cheap and vast labor is required in this industry and, unfortunately, most of the nation’s native population do not prefer to work in such “handy work”. Once again the issue of the border comes into play. Through the Northern American Free Trade Agreement, immigration of cheap workers who could for example work on minimum wage would be guaranteed, and this would have a positive impact on the state’s overall economy. This could once again have been one of the reasoning used by the state’s House of Congress Representatives as well as its Senators in voting in favor of the through the Northern American Free Trade Agreement.
In conclusion, it is fairly safe to state that the voting behavior of Congressional Representatives and Senators on various bills and acts brought before them is dependent on a couple of factors. However, the deciding factor is the implied benefits that will be accrued to the state once the bill has been passed into law. In the case of Texas, a majority of its Congressional Representatives and both its senator supported the Northern American Free Trade Act because the perceived benefits to the state were high and the state’s overall economic model was deemed to be congruent with the Act.
Works Cited
Boadu, Frederick Owusu, and Marla R. Thompson. The political economy of the US-Mexico free trade agreement: analysis of the Congressional fast track vote. [Texas Agricultural Market Research Center], Department of Agricultural Economics, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Texas Agricultural Extension Service, Texas A & M University, 1992.
Gerstenzang, James. "Senate Approves NAFTA on 61-38 Vote: Trade: Passage in upper house had been expected. Pact still faces action in Mexico and Canada.” Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 21 Nov. 1993. Web. 20 Oct. 2014. <http://articles.latimes.com/1993-11-21/news/mn-59485_1_trade-pact>.
"H.R. 3450 (103rd): North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act -- House Vote #575 -- Nov 17, 1993."GovTrack.us. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Oct. 2014. <https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/103-1993/h575>.
"H.R. 3450 (103rd): North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act -- Senate Vote #395 -- Nov 20, 1993."GovTrack.us. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Oct. 2014. <https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/103-1993/s395>.
"The Texas Economic Model: Hard for Other States to Follow and Not All It Seems — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities." N.p., Web. <http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3739>.
"United States Census Bureau." 2002 Economic Census: Manufacturing. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Oct. 2014. < https://www.census.gov//econ/census02/data/tx/TX000_31.HTM>
