[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 21 (Tuesday, March 1, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H832-H836]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           OPPOSING THE CENTRAL AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dent). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) is 
recognized for 40 minutes.


                             General Leave

  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my 
special order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am joined tonight earlier by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis) and the gentlewoman from Ohio 
(Ms. Kaptur), who were here to talk in opposition to the Central 
American Free Trade Agreement. Tonight I am also joined by a freshman, 
the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Melancon), who has already shown 
himself to be a leader on the Central American Free Trade Agreement and 
other trade issues, and we will hear from him in a moment.
  Twelve years ago, Mr. Speaker, I stood on this floor in opposition to 
the North American Free Trade Agreement. In those days, we heard 
promises from supporters of NAFTA, the trade agreement that included 
Mexico, Canada and the United States, we heard story after story of how 
this was going to lift up living standards in Mexico, knock down trade 
barriers between our country and Mexico and our country and Canada and 
Canada and Mexico, that it would create prosperity for Mexicans and 
increase jobs in the United States, creating a whole new integrated 
economy that would be good for all three countries.
  I would display a couple of charts that I brought with me tonight to 
frankly prove that the 12 years of the North American Free Trade 
Agreement have not served any of our countries well.
  I would start, Mr. Speaker, with showing just the overall trade 
deficit. In 1992, the first year I ran for Congress, we had a trade 
deficit in this Congress of $38 billion. That means we actually 
imported $38 billion more than we sold outside the United States; $38 
billion.
  The last month of 2004, the last month of the year, the trade deficit 
was almost $60 billion. It was $38 billion for the year in 1992; it was 
almost twice that for a month in December.
  But you can see what has happened to our trade deficit. This is zero. 
If it were zero we would be buying and selling in equal amounts. We 
have gone from $38 billion. In 1994, the trade deficit exceeded $100 
billion trade deficit; then $200 billion in 1999. Then when President 
Bush came to the White House, it got to $400 billion. Then it exceeded 
$425 billion, then $500 billion. In this past year, the trade deficit 
is $617 billion.
  President Bush had told us in those days back when NAFTA was 
negotiated in the late 1980s and early 1990s that every $1 billion of 
trade translated into 19,000 jobs. If you had a trade deficit of $1 
billion, it would cost your country 19,000 generally good-paying 
industrial jobs.
  Now our trade deficit is $617 billion, and you can see what that 
means in job loss. If you want to break it down what happened to the 
trade deficit per country under NAFTA, you can see what happened to the 
trade deficit with Canada. Back in 1991, the trade deficit was about $7 
or $8 billion with Canada. Now the trade deficit with Canada alone is 
about $62 billion. That is with Canada.
  You can look at the trade deficit with Mexico. In fact, we had a 
trade surplus with Mexico. The numbers above zero mean we actually sold 
more to Mexico than we bought. Prior to NAFTA, we had a trade surplus 
with Mexico of a few billion dollars. Then right here is where NAFTA 
passed. Look at what happened. It is almost $20 billion for several 
years in a row. Then it went to about $25 billion. Then President Bush 
came to the White House and it was $30 billion, then almost $40 
billion, then over $40 billion, now coming up on $50 billion. So the 
trade deficit as a result of NAFTA just grew and grew and grew.
  I will show you one more, even though if is not part of the debate 
and discussion tonight, just because it is the most dramatic of all. 
This is our bilateral trade deficit as a Nation with China. A dozen 
years ago it was less than $20 billion with China. You can just see 
what happened, year after year after year after year. President Bush 
took office here, the trade deficit jumped from about $80 billion to 
over $100 billion. Then it was over $120 billion. Our trade deficit 
with China last year was over $160 billion.
  Now, would you not think, and I know that the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Melancon) understands this and other Members on our side 
of the aisle at least, would you not think when you have this kind of 
trade deficit, when it looks like this, when the overall U.S. trade 
deficit has moved this dramatically from just a few billion just a 
dozen years ago all the way to $617 billion, would you not think you 
might want to sort of change ideas and do something different, that you 
might think this trade policy we have simply is not working?
  It is not working for American workers. Whether it is the sugar 
industry in Louisiana or the steel or auto industry in Ohio or textiles 
in Georgia and North Carolina, or a whole host of other manufacturers, 
or whether it is computer programmers in the Silicone Valley, clearly 
these trade policies are not working. You do not go from a few billion 
trade deficit to $617 billion in 12 years without something being 
wrong.
  So what is our answer? President Bush's answer is let us pass the 
Central American Free Trade Agreement. What the Central American Free 
Trade Agreement does is it adds Central American countries. And then if 
Congress passes that, President Bush is negotiating something called 
Free Trade Area of the Americas, and that will add the rest of Latin 
America.
  That will double the population of NAFTA and quadruple the number of 
low-income workers under NAFTA. So if you think NAFTA has not worked, 
where we had that trade deficit with Mexico and Canada, where we had 
almost a zero trade deficit when NAFTA passed, now Canada and Mexico's 
trade deficit with us is over $100 billion, so if we pass CAFTA, the 
Central American Free Trade Agreement, then the FTAA, Free Trade Area 
of the Americas, with four times the number of low-income workers, we 
are going to see more job loss in our Nation, more problems with our 
economy, more problems in our communities, hollowed-out industrial 
towns that simply do not have good paying industrial jobs anymore.

[[Page H833]]

  Today marks month number 9 since President Bush signed the Central 
American Free Trade Agreement. He signed it on May 28, 2004. You wonder 
why he has not brought the trade agreement to Congress to vote on it. 
With every other trade agreement President Bush has sent to Congress, 
the Morocco Trade Agreement, he signed it, 37 days later, Congress 
passed it. The Singapore Trade Agreement, he signed it, 79 days later 
it passed. The Chile Free Trade Agreement, he signed it, 48 days later 
it passed. The Australia Trade Agreement, he signed it, 57 days later 
it passed.
  Well, President Bush signed the Central American Free Trade Agreement 
on May 28 last year. About 280 days ago have elapsed, because President 
Bush knows there is so much opposition among the American people and so 
much opposition in this Congress to these continued, failed trade 
policies. He would have brought it here if he thought he could pass it, 
but it is pretty clear that an awful lot of Members, including my 
freshman colleague from Louisiana that is here and so many others, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis) and the gentlewoman from Ohio 
(Ms. Kaptur) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) who is 
joining us in a moment, it is pretty clear these trade policies are not 
working.

                              {time}  2130

  So today marks the end of the ninth month since the President signed 
the Central American Free Trade Agreement. We are hopeful in this body, 
many of us, that it never comes to a vote because it is clearly bad 
trade policy. Instead of passing CAFTA as the President wants, we 
should instead go back and look at NAFTA, go back and look at our trade 
policy with China, go back and look at our membership and what we are 
doing in the World Trade Organization. Instead, President Bush, says, 
let us move ahead with more trade policy. Even though it may be working 
for a few investors, it is not working for our families, it is not 
working for our schools, it is not working for our communities, it is 
not working for our workers, it is not working for our country.
  These kinds of trade deficits, these trade deficits represent lost 
jobs. They represent disappointment in families. They represent 
oftentimes divorce and alcoholism, in failed schools, in all the 
factory closings and lay-offs mean to families, to communities, to our 
country. And I would hope that President Bush would just decide not to 
submit the CAFTA to Congress, would instead go back and look at these 
trade policies and go back and look at these trade agreements, and then 
make a decision to move in a different direction.
  I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Melancon), a freshman 
Member who has already done a terrific job in explaining trade issues 
to his colleagues. He brings a lot of expertise to the table in trade 
policy, on creating jobs and making our communities and our schools 
better.
  Mr. MELANCON. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here tonight. I am 
here to speak about the CAFTA issue. It is of great concern to me.
  I come from the State of Louisiana. That is one of the largest sugar-
producing States in this country. During the period of time when the 
CAFTA was being debated or discussed and negotiated, Mr. Zoellick would 
go around and tell people in this country that the sugar industry was a 
dinosaur and that it was not competitive. That was the furthest thing 
from the truth as possible.
  The U.S. sugar industry as well as the Louisiana sugar industry is 
very competitive by world standards in cost of production, and there 
are studies and numbers out there that testify to that fact. However, 
we are sitting here with an agreement that is between ourselves and a 
number of countries that really does not bring anything to this 
country.
  When you look at the gross product that would be brought by the CAFTA 
to the United States, it does not exceed the total gross product of the 
city of Memphis. Now, what is that? That is a political notch on the 
gun. That is all it is. If you look at the trade agreements that have 
occurred between the United States and other developed countries, those 
deals usually are finalized when both parties either walk away unhappy 
or both parties walk away happy. And what is happening in these trade 
agreements such as the NAFTA and the CAFTA, the United States is 
walking away unhappy and the Mexicans and the Central Americans and the 
Dominican Republic people are walking away happy. Why? Because we are 
exporting our biggest and cherished thing and that is jobs. We are 
giving them away. We are turning to a service economy every day.
  As the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) pointed out, if you look at 
the trade deficit that has occurred, those are American jobs going out 
of this country.
  Last year I was in Vancouver, Canada, traveling back into the State 
of Washington, going to Seattle; and it was amazing to sit at the 
border and watch the traffic come through the check points. Loaded 18-
wheelers, full up coming into the United States. Yet the trailers that 
were coming back on the 18-wheelers were empty. They were lined up 
going in. They were few and far between coming out.
  What does that tell us? That tells us not only our money is leaving 
but that our jobs are leaving. We are bringing products in. These 
products were supposed to be brought to us at cheaper prices. If you 
really look, and we have had this discussion in the sugar arena, these 
are manufacturers of products that use sugar as an import.
  They do not care if there is an American job one as long as they can 
get their product at a cheaper price somewhere out of this country. 
That is part of what is going on in these trade agreements as these 
large multinational corporations are the beneficiaries. We continue to 
give them tax breaks. We continue to give them favoritism, and they 
continue to export our jobs and move the economy away from a 
manufacturing economy to a service economy. We have already given away 
steel. We have already given away the textile industry. The shrimping 
industry is about gone with the trade deals that this administration 
and others have imposed on our fishermen.
  Sugar is on the chopping block if the CAFTA is passed, and not just 
Louisiana sugar, the entire United States sugar industry, some 450,000 
people across this great land that will lose their jobs.
  In Louisiana and primarily in my district, 27,000 jobs will be lost 
if the sugar industry goes the way of steel and the textile industry; 
$2 billion a year in economic impact in the State of Louisiana with 
gross revenues of approximately $700 million a year. That in Louisiana 
is a large, large loss should we lose it.
  Louisiana cannot stand it. The United States cannot continue to have 
this drain on the economy. We talk about a good economy. As I ran in my 
election, in this last election, I cannot tell you that there is a good 
economy in Louisiana, especially in the Third District of Louisiana. It 
does not exist. The sugar people are struggling. The shrimpers are 
going out of business. The boat people have boats tied up. There is 
something awfully wrong that is going wrong, gone astray; and I think a 
lot of it has to do with the trade agreements.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) who has been on this House floor night after 
night over the years in fighting not just for economic justice but 
against bad trade agreements and jobs and all that she cares so much 
about.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership 
and expertise on this issue. I tried to get his book at a book store 
near my home, and I could not find it there. So I hope the gentleman 
will help me find a copy of his book on trade.
  The real question is, what is the goal of our recent trade agreement? 
If it is to export jobs, to increase the trade deficit, to lower the 
wages of American workers, to fuel the race to the bottom for workers 
everywhere, to damage the global environment and to benefit 
multinational corporations that have really no loyalty to the United 
States, our economy or our workers, then you would rank our trade 
agreements as a huge success. And if you like NAFTA, then you will love 
CAFTA.
  But what I want to talk about a little bit tonight is the moral 
dimension of this question. On June 23 and 24, a delegation of six 
bishops representing the

[[Page H834]]

Catholic Church in Central America came to the United States and met 
with the bishop secretariat, the chairman of the Domestic and 
International Policy Committees of the United States Conference of 
Catholic Bishops and came up with a statement on CAFTA, and I just want 
to read a couple of things from that.
  Number one, I think it puts it in a context that sometimes we do not 
think about. Number one, it says according to our pastoral vision, 
which is inspired by the gospel and the church's social teaching, the 
human person must be at the center of all economic activity. Free trade 
agreements, such as CAFTA, should be a way of achieving authentic human 
development that upholds basic values such as human dignity, 
solidarity, and subsidiarity. Whether such treatments are ethical or 
not depends on how these values are pursued.
  A second point they made: If trade agreements are shaped by a proper 
moral perspective, they can promote human development while respecting 
the environment by fostering closer economic cooperation among and 
within countries and by raising standards of living especially for the 
poorest and most abandoned. Human solidarity must accompany economic 
integration so as to preserve community life, protect families and 
livelihoods, and defend local cultures.
  Then they say, in light of the values and principles that we have 
outlined, and there were more, as well as the situation of the people, 
we express some of our specific concerns about the potential impact of 
CAFTA on our countries, especially in Central America. If I could just 
for a minute say a couple of those.
  One, there has not been sufficient information and debate in our 
countries, they are talking about the Central American countries, about 
the various aspects of CAFTA and its impact on our societies. This 
troubles us deeply given the obvious imbalance in power and influence 
that exists between the United States and the Central American 
countries and the impact the agreement will have on our peoples, 
especially in Central America. This lack of dialoguing consensus 
regarding the treaty is also leading to growing discontent. In Central 
America this could lead to violence and other civic unrest which could 
further hinder true democratic reforms and respect for the rule of law.
  They are suggesting that CAFTA, among other things, could lead to 
violence and other civic unrest.
  Number two, they talk about in the area of agriculture that there is 
insufficient attention given to such sensitive issues as the potential 
impact of U.S. farm supports on Central American farm producers.
  And they talk about, number three, while certain labor and 
environmental provisions are included in the agreement, it is not clear 
that the enforcement mechanism within CAFTA will lead to stronger 
protection of fundamental worker rights and the environment.
  We are talking about leaders of the Catholic Church in Central 
America and in the United States who beg us to think about the impact 
on ordinary people in their countries, in our country, and the moral 
dimension that has to be considered when we look at important U.S. 
policy decisions like this. And I think that they have raised very, 
very important questions that deserve our great attention.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for letting me read some of this.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Illinois 
(Ms. Schakowsky). The gentlewoman talks about the moral values behind, 
or the lack of moral values behind, our trade policy, or the wrong kind 
of moral values. I think about that we have this trade policy in this 
country now that it is sort of every man, and I say man, every-man-for-
himself trade policy, what can the wealthiest corporations get out of 
these trade deals, forgetting the workers, forgetting our communities.
  Instead of this every-man-for-himself trade policy, we need to 
understand we are all in this together, and when we have this kind of 
job loss as those bishops in Central America understand what it means 
to their communities and where they are the losers, these trade 
agreements also have obviously caused great hardship in our country. 
When a factory closes in North Carolina, a textile plant or a steel 
mill closes in Ohio, or a chemical plant closes in New Jersey, what 
does that mean to those families and what does that mean to those 
schools and what does it mean to those children putting pressures on 
those families because their parents are unemployed and cannot find 
work and their schools are underfunded and all of that?
  When the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) talks about the 
moral values underpinning our trade policy, what it does to Mexican or 
Guatemalan workers who have no real labor standards for fair play in 
the workplace, what it does to our workers, what it does to sugar 
workers in Louisiana, it is pretty clear this policy really lacks the 
traditional moral values that I think built our country and still make 
us the great country that we are.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) 
and thank him for his outstanding work on job creation and trade.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) 
for all that he does on this trade issue and is constantly being out 
there pointing out the shortcomings of all these free trade agreements 
that this administration, the Bush administration, continues to put 
before the Congress.
  I have to say, I just do not get it. I do not understand how this 
administration, the Bush administration, continues to push these free 
trade agreements when there is absolutely no question in my mind and I 
think most Americans minds that they have been a failure.
  Our economy continues to be stagnant. We continue to have plants 
close. I use in my own district the Frigidaire plant in Edison, the 
Ford plant in Edison. I could go on and on with the plants that 
continue to close. We see the continual loss of jobs. We see 
unemployment at levels that are unacceptable. And there is absolutely 
no indication that this administration's policy with these continual 
free trade agreements is accomplishing anything for the people of this 
country.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) puts up the chart with the 
overall U.S. trade deficit which continues to grow worse and every day 
we see the trade deficit getting worse; and yet at the same time we see 
the administration coming forward with more of these free trade 
agreements, in this case for Central America.

                              {time}  2145

  I just have to say I just do not get it. I remember when NAFTA was 
first proposed going back a few years. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Brown) and I were both here at the time, and we at the time said over 
and over again that NAFTA was not acceptable, it was not going to do 
anything to improve the job situation and the economy of the United 
States, and it was not likely to do anything to improve the wages or 
the job conditions of Mexican workers, and that is still true.
  Anyone who goes to Mexico knows that it has not improved the standard 
of living for Mexican workers, and at the same time, it has simply 
drained away valuable jobs from the United States.
  This continues to be the case with every one of these agreements. 
They are not protective of labor and environmental standards. I do not 
know how many times the administration has come forth and said, well, 
there is not a problem here because we are going to protect workers in 
the countries that we would have the free trade agreements with; that 
we are going to have adequate environmental enforcement. It is simply 
not true.
  I just have some information here that was put out relative to the 
International Labor Organization. It says, without exception, the 
national labor systems of the Central American countries fail to meet 
international standards on freedom of association and the right to 
organize and bargain collectively.
  The ILO, the International Labor Organization, the State Department 
and independent human rights observers have documented the following 
examples of the systematic failure to enforce labor laws throughout the 
Central American region.
  Four points. First, delays and obstructions are common in Central

[[Page H835]]

American labor ministries. Second, labor ministries not only ignore 
violations, but are, themselves, complicit in violations of the law in 
most of these Central American countries. Collusion between labor 
ministry officials and employers to deny workers their right to 
organize is a problem. Finally, the judicial branch, the courts, are 
guilty of systematic enforcement failures in Central America.
  We know that there is not going to be adequate protection with regard 
to labor in these countries. There is not going to be adequate 
protection in terms of environmental law and environmental standards, 
and yet we continue to move forward, and it makes absolutely no sense 
because the economy is stagnant, the trade deficit gets higher and the 
labor and environmental laws are not being enforced.
  So, for the life of me, I do not understand how we continue with 
these. Again, I have never said that increasing free trade between the 
United States and other countries is, per se, a bad thing, but this 
administration has never negotiated, or I should say, rarely has 
negotiated any trade agreement that is helpful to the United States, 
and that is what we face here once again.
  I do not support it. I hope we can get as many people as possible to 
understand that we cannot continue this downhill trend. I thank the 
gentleman from Ohio for all that he does on this subject.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Pallone) for joining us tonight.
  When we look at the trade deficit, as the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Pallone) mentioned, and the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. 
Schakowsky) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Melancon) mentioned, 
from $38 billion, at least the first year I ran for Congress a dozen 
years or so ago, up to $617 billion and growing, it was only $500 in 
2003. Last year it was over $600, $617 billion.
  When you look at that and you couple it with this profligate 
spending, tax cuts all that has happened to bring about a $400 billion 
budget deficit, our trade deficit and our budget deficit, $600-plus 
billion, $400-plus billion add up to over $1 trillion a year, and most 
of that money is borrowed from other Nations, whether it is South 
Korean banks or whether it is the government/Communist Party/interest 
groups in China or whether it is Japan, banks in Japan or corporations 
or individuals are borrowing so much, they are buying a piece of the 
United States every time.
  When we run up a trade deficit of $617 billion, we run up a budget 
deficit of $400 billion, we are selling off our country piece by piece. 
At the same time, the workers in these other countries are not 
benefiting, only investors are.
  When we come to the House floor and we criticize, if we come 
criticize CAFTA and NAFTA, we also need to offer something affirmative 
and positive, and this Congress 5 years ago passed something called the 
Jordan Free Trade Agreement, not a very large country in terms of 
distance in miles from here, and not a major economic player in the 
world, but it was a trade agreement that really lifted up standards. It 
lifted up workers and environmental standards and was a prototype for 
what we should be doing.

  If the Central American Free Trade Agreement had been written the way 
the Jordan Free Trade Agreement had, we would be on the floor 
supporting it, as we all supported the Jordan Free Trade Agreement, but 
instead, after the Clinton administration negotiated the Jordan Free 
Trade Agreement, we have gone back to this failed NAFTA model. It is 
all about investment. It is all about every man for himself trade 
policy where workers are hurt, communities are hurt, schools are hurt, 
families are hurt. Investors may make money, but they are the only ones 
that do, and if any of us who have gone to the border and seen the way 
that the trade works for families on both sides of the border, how it 
has worked in a way that environmentally has been a disaster.
  The American Medical Association said the most toxic place in the 
Western hemisphere is along the Mexican-U.S. border on both sides where 
babies are born with all kinds of defects, where children get sick, 
where old people cannot breathe well, if they have any kind of 
bronchial problems. These trade agreements, they are hurting our 
communities and our jobs and our companies. They are simply the wrong 
direction and simply no reason we could not pass something like the 
Jordan trade agreement instead of going in this direction.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. 
Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman was talking about how 
there are winners and losers, actually a very narrow band of winners 
with our trade policy, mostly the investors and the multinational 
corporations, but I notice that because of an inquiry that the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) had made, that it was found that public 
dollars from the Agency for International Development, the USAID office 
were used to promote the President's trade policy, as I understand it, 
in violation of Federal and USAID lobbying restrictions, that a 
$700,000 taxpayer funded grant was actually given to business groups to 
promote CAFTA in violation of the regulations.
  I think that when there is a policy debate for the administration to 
unfairly use these taxpayer dollars to propagandize, to fund outside 
organizations, business organizations who stand to gain from the 
outcome, is really improper, if not illegal activities, and I really 
want to congratulate the gentleman for looking into this, because the 
taxpayers deserve a right to know.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I thank the gentlewoman for her work on education 
and health care.
  This has become a pattern in the administration where they paid 
Armstrong Williams, a commentator, I think a couple of hundred thousand 
dollars to use his position as a media commentator, never disclosed it, 
but used his position as a media commentator to lobby on the 
President's behalf on education issues.
  They have done the same on health care issues. They set up all kinds 
of Social Security using taxpayer dollars lobbying for the President's 
radical privatization of Social Security, and now they actually gave a 
$700,000 grant, USAID, to business groups in Central America to lobby 
the government. Imagine that.
  If our friends want to come to the House floor to debate this tonight 
and any other time, we are very willing. We are in front of the 
American public. There are cameras if people want to watch this at home 
to have this debate in public, but to use taxpayer dollars to lobby 
foreign governments or our own government or to convince the American 
people to do something is just immoral,
  I think when we look at sort of the values of all of this and the 
moral questions involved in trade where the elite, the wealthiest 
people in the world do very well and nobody else much does, and how 
that is such a betrayal of our moral values as a Nation and then you 
use taxpayer dollars to undercut that even further, it is just 
reprehensible, and I would hope President Bush would speak out and say 
never again will this happen, anybody that ever does anything like this 
loses his job or her job, no questions asked. I hope the President 
would speak his own moral values and say this is the wrong thing to do. 
He has remained silent and continued to do this.
  We caught them again, if you will. Who knows how many more times they 
are going to try to use tax dollars to push this very unpopular 
agreement through this Congress.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to ask a question, maybe 
my colleague does not know the answer to this, but when the Office of 
the Inspector General finds this kind of breach of the regulations and 
the rules, what happens? I mean is this, you were wrong to do this, 
does nothing happen?
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, they said do not 
do this anymore; we will quit doing it. Nobody paid a fine. Nobody was 
penalized. Nobody lost a job. That is just amazing. It is like you 
break the law and do something untoward and just do not do it again, 
please, even though 700,000 American taxpayer dollars were flushed down 
the toilet. It is pretty amazing. It is not exactly law, and I yield to 
my friend from Louisiana.

  Mr. MELANCON. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman speaks of moral issues. If 
you have ever been to Central America

[[Page H836]]

and if you have ever been in a sugar cane field where a 4- and a 5- and 
a 6-year-old kid is covered with soot and has a cane knife in his hand 
that is as big as him, but he needs to be there because it is income 
for the family, where the average family 4 years ago was earning $275 a 
year, and look, that is not right. That is morally wrong, but there is 
a need in that country. We ought to be helping that country, but we 
should not be giving them every job in America.
  The gentleman spoke earlier about fast track, trade promotion 
authority. In the previous administration, the Congress did not want to 
give that authority, but it has given it in recent administrations, but 
it is not fast track as it was purported to be. It is actually slow 
track.
  As the gentleman indicated, there were several agreements, there were 
the Jordan agreement and others that were negotiated, signed, brought 
to the public for public display and comment and then brought for a 
vote in the Congress. If, in fact, we are going to do something, let us 
be consistent and let us be consistent all the way across the board.
  What has happened with the CAFTA is that the multinational 
corporations and this administration know right now they do not have 
the votes, and I have been in this city when it gins up over an issue, 
and it scares me to death to think that we are going to be selling 
America down the road if we pass this CAFTA.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from 
Louisiana's (Mr. Melancon) comments, especially what happens when these 
trade agreements get real close to the date of the vote.
  I remember during the China trade agreement that when that came to 
this Congress, a friend told me there were more corporate jets at 
National Airport than any other time they would have ever seen. There 
were corporate leaders that were walking the halls of this Congress 
telling people they wanted access, telling the Members of Congress they 
wanted access to 1 billion Chinese customers when, in fact, they really 
wanted access to 1 billion Chinese workers of all ages, of both 
genders, of all kinds of people that were going to work at a few cents 
an hour, in some cases, almost slave labor, too often child laborers, 
and always underpaid workers, and this is really what these trade 
agreements are all about. It is pretty clear.
  He talks about the immoral value of children in the sugar cane 
fields, and I have seen the same in coffee fields in Nicaragua, and I 
have seen the same on the Mexican border where workers are badly 
treated, underpaid, and as a result, we are not getting what the whole 
point of trade agreements is which is to lift workers up in other 
countries so they can then buy American products. We create a middle 
class in Mexico, we create a middle class in Honduras, and then they 
buy from our workers and our companies back and forth, and that simply 
does not happen in these trade agreements because it is all about low 
income workers.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to read one of the 
statements of the bishops that I think sums up what the gentleman has 
been saying.
  The moral measure of any trade agreement should be how it affects the 
lives and dignities of poor families and vulnerable workers whose 
voices should receive special attention in this discussion.

                              {time}  2200

  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for that. I 
will close with those very appropriate comments. Thank the gentlewoman 
from Illinois. Thank our new freshman colleague, the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Melancon), thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Pallone), and also the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis) and the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for their leadership in opposition 
to the Central American Free Trade Agreement, and for everyone here in 
pointing out what has happened to our trade policy and how clearly when 
you go from a $38 billion trade deficit to $617 billion in a dozen 
years that this is not working. We need to strike out in a new 
direction.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I join with many of my colleagues today in 
expressing my opposition to the Central American Free Trade Agreement 
(CAFTA).
  United States trade policy must put American workers first. I voted 
against and have been a vigorous critic of NAFTA, and I am concerned 
about efforts to further expand this bad policy through CAFTA or other 
harmful free trade agreements. NAFTA has been terrible for American 
workers, because it encourages corporations to abandon the United 
States to exploit weak labor and environmental standards in other 
countries. CAFTA will only further this destructive behavior.
  Of vital importance for stopping CAFTA is ensuring that the domestic 
sugar industry is not being severely damaged or destroyed. Stopping 
CAFTA could help prevent the loss of hundreds of thousands of U.S. jobs 
and family farms in sugar producing states across the country. My home 
state of Michigan is the 4th largest producer of sugar beets in the 
nation. We have roughly 2,100 sugar beet farmers producing more than 3 
million tons of sugar beets. The Michigan sugar industry supports 5,000 
jobs and generates an estimated $500 million of economic activity. 
Michigan's Saginaw Valley and Thumb area produce more than 90 percent 
of the sugar beets grown east of the Mississippi River. The Michigan 
Sugar Company plant located in Caro in my Congressional District, has 
roughly 350 year-around and 1,000 seasonal employees.
  CAFTA will flood U.S. markets with foreign sugar and we should not be 
using this industry as a bargaining chip during trade negotiations. Our 
sugar program provides the only effective way of dealing with the 
unfair predatory trade practices in the world dump market for sugar. 
Without it, the U.S. sugar program cannot be sustained and the domestic 
industry will certainly collapse. CAFTA unfortunately undermines this 
important program.
  The United States is a world leader, and we must enter into trade 
agreements that encourage positive standards and quality of life for 
both the United States and foreign nations. Otherwise, corporations 
will be allowed to exploit foreign workers while abandoning American 
workers, who are the most productive in the world. I will not support 
any trade agreement life CAFTA that continues the United States down 
this misguided path.

                          ____________________