[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 65 (Tuesday, May 17, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H3335-H3336]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  CENTRAL AMERICA FREE TRADE AGREEMENT

  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, 1 year ago, in late May, 2004 
President Bush signed the Central American Free Trade Agreement, a 
trade agreement that extends the North American Free Trade Agreement, 
NAFTA, to 5 Central American countries and the Caribbean country of the 
Dominican Republic. That trade agreement, coupled with the President's 
next trade agreement, the Free Trade Area of the Americas, will double 
the population of the North American Free Trade Agreement, double the 
size of NAFTA, and quadruple the number of low income workers, poverty 
wage workers that now live in NAFTA countries.
  Normally, when a trade agreement is signed by President Bush, that 
trade agreement comes in front of Congress almost immediately. Since 
President Bush has taken office there have been 4, Morocco, Australia, 
Chile and Singapore. Each of those agreements has been voted on within 
about 2 months of the President's signature.
  However, the Central American Free Trade Agreement, some call it the 
Central American Free Labor Agreement, because it really is all about 
low income workers, not about selling American products to Central 
America. The Central American Free Trade Agreement has not been sent to 
Congress; has not been voted on, even though President Bush signed it 
11 and a half months ago, even longer ago than that actually, 11 months 
and 20 some days. And the reason is simple that it has not come in 
front of the Congress, because of the immense opposition to the Central 
American Free Trade Agreement.
  As my colleagues will notice, our trade policy in this country simply 
is not working. If you look at what has happened to our trade deficit, 
that is the amount of exports that we sell to other countries versus 
the amount of imports we buy from other nations, you can see we had a 
negative flow in 1992, the year that I happened to run for Congress, of 
$38 billion. That was the year before NAFTA.
  NAFTA was passed in 1993. Then Congress passed a trade agreement with 
Chile, several other trade agreements. And you can see what has 
happened with this wrong-headed trade policy. This trade deficit, our 
trade deficit with the rest of the world was $38 billion in 1992. Last 
year, 2004, our trade deficit was $620 billion, $618 billion, 
precisely, from $38 billion to $618 billion.
  By any stretch of the imagination, it is hard to argue that our trade 
policy is working. And that is why the opposition has been bipartisan 
to CAFTA, to the Central American Free Labor, the Central American Free 
Trade Agreement. That is why the opposition has been bipartisan. That 
is why the opposition has been overwhelming.
  Last month 2 dozen Democrats and Republicans in Congress joined more 
than 150 business groups and labor organizations, sending the message, 
vote no on this Central American Free Trade Agreement. Last week more 
than 400 union workers and Members of Congress gathered in front of the 
U.S. Capitol again delivering that message, vote no on the Central 
American Free Trade Agreement.
  Now, those of us opposed to CAFTA, which clearly is a majority in 
this Congress, or we already would have voted on it. Those of us 
opposed to CAFTA say we are not opposed to trade. We want to see fair 
trade agreements instead of free trade agreements, because we know what 
free trade agreements do. We know what this trade deficit does to our 
country. It means, according to the first President Bush, according to 
his economists, it means literally 12,000 lost jobs per $1 billion of 
trade deficit. That means a million lost jobs. It means more than that. 
A million lost manufacturing jobs in this country.
  In my State alone we have lost 200,000 manufacturing jobs, not 
entirely because of trade agreements, but that is a big component of 
it. So we know what these trade agreements do to individuals when they 
lose their jobs, what it does to family members when they lose their 
jobs, what it does to communities when a community has a plant closing, 
what it does to the school districts and the schools as they

[[Page H3336]]

lose funding because these workers have lost their jobs and because 
this plant has closed, what it does to our country as a whole when we 
have this kind of trade deficit. We understand that. That is why those 
of us opposed to the Central American Free Trade Agreement want to 
throw out this dysfunctional cousin of NAFTA and want to negotiate a 
trade agreement that will lift workers up in Central America, while 
promoting prosperity here at home.
  There is no reason that our trade agreements need to look like this, 
need to have a result like this. Instead, Congress can move forward in 
passing a fair trade agreement.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the Majority 
Leader, the most powerful Republican in the U.S. Congress, and the 
Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Thomas) both promised to vote on the Central American Free Trade 
Agreement by the end of May.
  Now, if you will look at this chart you will see that the end of May 
happens to be the 1-year anniversary of when CAFTA was sent to 
Congress. So, Mr. Speaker, we should vote no on the Central American 
Free Trade Agreement; bury this trade agreement, and pass a trade 
agreement that is good for American workers and American communities.

                          ____________________