[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 67 (Thursday, May 19, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H3685-H3688]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  2145
                            VOTE NO ON CAFTA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Marchant). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Waters) for her eloquence in opposition to the Central 
American Free Trade Agreement. She obviously understands this much 
better than some of my other colleagues who have not been so eloquent 
and thoughtful in their comments about this agreement.
  I rise tonight to address the House about the Central American Free 
Trade Agreement. Last year President Bush signed the Central American 
Free Trade Agreement, a one-sided plan, as the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Waters) said, that will lead to more outsourcing. That 
is what this plan is all about, and not a plan to export American 
products or help American industry. It is a one-sided plan to benefit 
multinational corporations at the expense of the United States and 
Central American workers, small businesses and farmers.
  Every trade agreement negotiated by this administration has been 
ratified by Congress within 65 days of its signing. In other words, 
when President Bush's United States trade representative negotiated the 
Moroccan trade agreement, when the President signed the Australia trade 
agreement, the Singapore trade agreement and the Chilean trade 
agreement, all four of those trade agreements, upon signature of the 
President, were voted on by this Congress and passed within 60 days.
  The Central American Free Trade Agreement, which we will discuss for 
a few moments tonight, has languished in Congress for nearly 1 year 
without a vote because this wrong-headed trade

[[Page H3686]]

agreement offends large numbers of Republicans and Democrats in this 
House, and a significantly higher percentage in the United States of 
America.
  Look at what has happened with our trade policy in the past decade. I 
was elected to Congress in 1992, 13 years ago. The year I was elected, 
the United States had a trade deficit of $38 billion. That means our 
country imported $38 billion more goods than we exported. Today, or 
last year in 2004, our country's trade deficit was $618 billion. So it 
went from $38 billion to $618 billion.
  So what is the President's response to that and what is the 
Republican leadership's response? Let us do more trade agreements. As 
if they are working. It does not make sense. Opponents to the Central 
American Free Trade Agreement understand these numbers. We know what 
has happened. We can look at the numbers in 1992 when it was $38 
billion. The next year Congress passed the North American Free Trade 
Agreement, and the deficit began to grow. It exceeded $100 billion in 
1995. A few years later, it exceeded $200 billion. Around this time 
Congress passed the China trade agreement, the China PNTR, Permanent 
Normal Trade Relations with China. Then our trade deficit passed $300 
billion, approaching $400 billion. In 2003 it exceed $500 billion; 2004 
it exceeded $600 billion. And we are on a path in 2005 to see our trade 
deficit continue to explode to over $700 billion.
  It is the same old story. Every time there is a trade agreement, the 
President of the United States promises more jobs for Americans, 
promises more manufacturing done in our country, promises a higher 
standard of living for Americans, promises better wages for workers in 
developing countries, and promises a higher standard of living in poor 
countries.
  Yet with every trade deficit, every single time, NAFTA, China, and 
every other trade agreement, with every trade agreement the promises 
fall by the wayside in favor of large business interests, not small 
manufacturing, machine shop owners, but big business interests. They 
fall by the wayside in favor of big businesses interests that send U.S. 
jobs overseas and exploit cheap labor abroad.
  This chart, this is the last 6-or-so years and what has happened to 
manufacturing in our country. The States in red are States that have 
lost a particularly high percentage, more than 20 percent of their 
manufacturing. All of these States have lost more than 20 percent of 
their manufacturing jobs as these trade agreements have kicked in and 
taken effect. Michigan, 210,000; Illinois, 224,000; Ohio, 216,000; 
Pennsylvania, 199,600; New York, 220,000; North Carolina, 228,000. 
Smaller States, Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, West Virginia, 
Maine, and Massachusetts, have lost somewhere in the vicinity of 50,000 
to 150,000 manufacturing jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, these are just numbers. These numbers may say, okay, 
trade policy is not working, that is pretty clear, but put a human face 
with these numbers. Every time a community, Elyria, Ohio, in my 
district, when York manufacturing shut down and moved some jobs to 
other States, most of those jobs to Mexico, 700 families lost their 
major source of income. Those families were hurt. Those children in 
those families were hurt. The school district in Elyria was hurt. 
Police and fire protection in those communities are cut back.
  These numbers, whether it is 100,000; 200,000 in Washington State; or 
35,000 in Oklahoma; 200,000 in Texas; 72,000 in Florida, these are 
numbers; but there are human faces with these numbers. Every time a 
manufacturing plant closes and moves overseas, children are hurt, 
families are hurt, schools are hurt, communities are hurt. It does not 
make sense.
  In the face of growing bipartisan opposition, the administration and 
Republican leadership have tried every trick in the book to pass the 
Central American Free Trade Agreement. First of all, the 
administration, when they saw the merits of the argument were simply 
not working with Congress, the American people and this Congress 
rejected out of hand for the last 12 months, that is why we have not 
voted on the Central American Free Trade Agreement for a whole year, it 
is clear they rejected out of hand those arguments that the 
administration and the largest corporations in our country were making 
about the Central American Free Trade Agreement.
  So what did the administration do? They linked the Central American 
Free Trade Agreement to fighting the war on terror. They said that if 
we do not pass the Central American Free Trade Agreement, it would 
cause problems in fighting the war on terror. Well, that argument, 
nobody really bought that argument. Republicans and Democrats did not 
buy it, in part because 10 years of the North American Free Trade 
Agreement has done nothing to improve border security between the 
United States and Mexico. That argument simply does not sell.
  So the administration tried something else. First their arguments 
were not working. Then they tried to play the terrorism card, that we 
need this trade agreement with these six countries in order to fight 
the war on terror. The next thing they tried was 2 weeks ago the United 
States Chamber of Commerce, allies of the President on passing this 
agreement, representing the largest companies in America, the U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce put together a junket for those presidents to 
travel to the United States.
  Those six presidents, five Central American presidents and the 
Dominican Republic president flew around the United States hoping to 
sell CAFTA. Large businesses in the U.S. had not changed the American 
people's minds. The President's arguments were not working, so these 
six presidents traveled to Albuquerque, New York, Los Angeles, Miami, 
Cincinnati, Ohio in my State. And, finally, they returned to 
Washington. But again they failed.

  The Costa Rican president announced that his country would not ratify 
CAFTA unless an independent commission could determine that the 
agreement would not hurt working people in Costa Rica. As these six 
presidents flew around the country, they did not convince the 
newspapers, the American public, or Congress. And one of their own said 
I am not so sure we should ratify this agreement either.
  Now the next step is the most powerful Republican in the House, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the House majority leader, joined by 
the Committee on Ways and Means chairman, the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Thomas), said there would be a vote on CAFTA by Memorial Day, 
which is the 1-year anniversary of the President signing the Central 
American Free Trade Agreement.
  We are barely 1 week away from that 1-year anniversary, and still no 
vote in sight. I would add that this agreement, unlike every other 
trade agreement, has been languishing in this Congress. Every other 
trade agreement sent by President Bush was passed within 60 days. This 
trade agreement has been 11 months and 20-some days still without a 
vote because the people of this country, in this Congress, the people's 
representatives, simply do not buy that our trade policy is working.
  Mr. Speaker, look at these numbers. How can you make the argument 
that trade policy in America is working when we have gone from a $38 
billion to a $618 billion trade deficit in only 12 years when we have 
pursued these kinds of NAFTA-like trade policies. Understand, CAFTA 
rhymes with NAFTA for a reason. CAFTA is very similar to NAFTA. It is 
the same kind of trade agreement; we will see the same kind of results. 
It is simply not working.
  Last month two dozen Democrats and Republicans in Congress joined 
more than 150 business groups and labor organizations on the steps of 
one of the House office buildings saying vote ``no'' on the Central 
American Free Trade Agreement. Last week more than 400 workers and 
Members of Congress gathered again in front of the Capitol saying vote 
``no'' on CAFTA.
  Why? It is simple. Because Republicans and Democrats, business and 
labor groups know what the administration refuses to admit. What the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) said, CAFTA is about one thing 
and one thing only: CAFTA is about access to cheap labor. We know that 
CAFTA is about access to cheap labor simply because Central American 
countries cannot afford to buy American goods. Let me explain what that 
means.
  About 5 years ago, Mr. Speaker, I flew at my own expense to McAllen,

[[Page H3687]]

Texas, rented a car and went across the border to Reynosa, Mexico. I 
wanted to see the face of globalization. I wanted to see what the North 
American Free Trade Agreement after 5 or 6 years in effect, what it 
really meant for our country, what it meant to Mexico, what it meant to 
our relations, and on the border.
  I went to Reynosa, Mexico. I visited a couple who worked at General 
Electric Mexico, 3 miles from the United States. Their home was a small 
shack, maybe 20 feet by 15 feet. They lived in a home with no 
electricity, no running water, with dirt floors. When it rained hard, 
the dirt floors turned to mud. As I walked around their neighborhood, I 
saw other shacks that looked a lot like theirs. Amazingly enough, I 
could tell where the workers worked because their shacks were built, 
their homes were built out of packing material from the companies for 
which they worked. Cardboard boxes, crates, wooden platforms, that is 
how they constructed their roof and walls and their homes.
  As I walked around their neighborhood, I saw a ditch behind their 
home that was maybe 4 feet wide. Who knows what human waste and 
industrial waste was running through this ditch. Children were playing 
nearby. The American Medical Association said the area around the U.S-
Mexican border is the most toxic place in the western hemisphere.
  We then went to a General Motors plant not far from these workers' 
homes. The General Motors plant looked just like a General Motors plant 
in Ohio. It looks just like the Lordstown plant in northeast Ohio. It 
looked just like a Chrysler plant in Twinsburg. It looked just like a 
Ford plant in Avon Lake or Lorain, Ohio.
  As you walked through this plant, it was modern; the technology was 
up to date. The floors were clean; the workers were working hard. There 
was one difference between the plant in Mexico and the plant in Lorain, 
Ohio. The difference was there was no parking lot at the plant in 
Mexico. Why? Because Mexican workers were not making enough, 3 miles 
from the United States, were not making enough to buy the cars that 
they make, 3 miles from the United States.
  You could go halfway around the world to a Motorola plant in 
Malaysia, the workers were not earning enough to buy the cell phones 
that they make. You could come halfway back around the world to Costa 
Rica to a Disney plant, the workers were not earning enough to buy the 
toys for their children that they were making. You could fly halfway 
around the world again to the People's Republic of China, to Communist 
China to a Nike plant, and the workers were not making enough to buy 
the shoes that they make.

                              {time}  2200

  The Central American Free Trade Agreement represents that kind of 
trade policy. Nicaraguans, Guatemalans, Hondurans make about one-tenth 
what Americans make. An American makes about $38,000 average a year. In 
many cases, middle-class Americans make enough to buy a car, to buy a 
home, to send their kids to college, to purchase washing machines and 
to purchase appliances and to purchase carpet and all the things that 
they buy. Unfortunately, Guatemalans and Hondurans and Nicaraguans, 
because their wages are so low, because the global economy is not 
working for them, they simply cannot afford to make these purchases. So 
this Central American Free Trade Agreement, it is about sending 
American jobs to Nicaragua, Guatemala, Honduras, Costa Rica and the 
Dominican Republic. It is about sending these jobs there where these 
workers simply are not going to make enough money to buy American 
products. It is not about those people in those countries purchasing 
goods made in the United States. We are losing manufacturing jobs. Our 
overall trade deficit continues to increase. You can bet that 
Guatemalan workers cannot afford to buy cars made in Ohio. Nicaraguan 
workers cannot afford to buy steel made in West Virginia. Honduran 
workers cannot afford to buy software made in Seattle or prime beef 
cuts from Nebraska or apparel from Georgia or textiles from North 
Carolina, simply because in these trade agreements we are doing nothing 
to lift up wages in these six countries. No enforceable labor 
standards, no enforceable environmental standards, no efforts by the 
Central American Free Trade Agreement to lift up worker standards so 
those workers can join the middle class and they can begin to buy 
American products. These trade agreements are all about shipping jobs 
overseas, are all about outsourcing labor, are all about American 
companies and Taiwanese companies and South Korean companies and other 
countries' companies going to Central America to exploit cheap labor 
and to exploit those workers. There is a falling minimum wage, the 
ongoing nightmare of abject poverty for these workers despite 
backbreaking work and deplorable working conditions.
  CAFTA's nations are not only among the poorest countries, they are 
among the smallest economies. The entire economic output of these six 
CAFTA countries, five in Central America and the Dominican Republic, 
the entire combined economic output is $62 billion. That is equivalent 
to the economic output of Columbus, Ohio; equivalent to the economic 
output of Memphis, Tennessee; or equivalent to the economic output of 
Orlando, Florida.
  CAFTA, as I said, it is not about exporting American production or 
goods, it is not about Americans making things and selling them to 
Central America, it is about access to cheap labor and exporting 
American jobs much more than it ever is exporting U.S. goods. As I 
said, the average worker in Nicaragua earns $3,800 a year. That is 
simply not enough to buy American products and it is not enough to mean 
any kind of exports from the United States to those countries.
  Frankly, the Central American Free Trade Agreement should be called 
the Central American Free Labor Agreement. That is what it is all 
about. It is not about trade. It is about outsourcing cheap labor.
  I mentioned a minute ago that these presidents from these five 
Central American countries and the Dominican Republic traveled to the 
United States on a tour to Albuquerque and Cincinnati and to Los 
Angeles and to Washington and Miami. With all due respect to the 
Central American leaders who toured our Nation 2 weeks ago, and we 
should welcome them, what they did not say and what millions of us know 
already as they campaigned for this agreement is that millions of their 
workers in addition to tens of millions of American workers simply do 
not like this trade agreement. What they did not tell reporters is that 
more than 8,000 Guatemalan workers protested against CAFTA in March. 
Two of them were killed by government security forces. They did not 
tell us that tens of thousands of El Salvadorans protested CAFTA 2 
years ago. They did not tell us about 18,000 letters sent last year to 
the Honduran congress by Honduran workers that decried this 
dysfunctional cousin of the North American Free Trade Agreement. They 
did not tell us about the 10,000 people in Nicaragua who protested 
CAFTA in 2003. They did not tell us about the 30,000 CAFTA protesters 
this past fall in Costa Rica. They did not tell us that literally 
hundreds of thousands of workers have protested the Central American 
Free Trade Agreement, workers in Central America, in more than 45 
demonstrations in the last 3 years.
  Trade pacts like NAFTA and CAFTA enable companies to exploit cheap 
labor, then import those products back to the United States. I repeat, 
that is what these trade agreements are about. They are about shutting 
down American factories, moving these factories to Central America as 
they did to Mexico, exploiting workers, paying them barely a livable 
wage let alone a living wage, paying them barely a livable wage, then 
sending products back into the United States. As a result, America is 
bleeding manufacturing jobs and running unprecedented trade deficits.
  Again, look at the trade deficit, from $38 billion to $618 billion in 
a dozen years. President Bush, Sr., back in 1992 when we had a trade 
deficit of $38 billion, he said, $1 billion in trade deficit translates 
into 12,000 lost jobs. So if you have a trade surplus of $1 billion, 
you increase 12,000 jobs. If you have a deficit of $1 billion, you lose 
12,000 jobs. Multiply that by $618 billion and you see the kind of job 
loss, perhaps as much as 7 million jobs lost because of

[[Page H3688]]

our manufacturing and trade policy in this country.
  What we are seeing, Mr. Speaker, is America is bleeding with our 
trade deficit, and bleeding manufacturing jobs from our country. Again, 
all these States in red in the last 5 years have lost more than 20 
percent of their manufacturing jobs. All the States in blue have lost 
at least 15 percent of their manufacturing jobs. Basically every large 
State, every single large State in this country: California, Texas, 
Florida, North Carolina, Georgia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, 
Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota. Every single large State has 
lost at least 15 percent, one out of six manufacturing jobs in this 
country in the last 5 years. Again, those manufacturing jobs, losing 
those jobs, they are not just numbers. They are about families, they 
are about children, they are about schools and they are about 
communities and police and fire and making our communities prosperous. 
Gregory Mankiw, the President's former Chief Economist, portrayed the 
exporting of jobs as inevitable and desirable. He said, ``When a good 
or service is produced more cheaply abroad, it makes more sense to 
import it than to provide it domestically.''
  Unfortunately, that is the attitude of the administration. That is 
the attitude of people who have written this trade policy that have led 
to these kinds of manufacturing job losses and have led to these kinds 
of trade deficits and that is the attitude of people who are pushing 
the Central American Free Trade Agreement.
  What really instead, Mr. Speaker, makes sense is a trade policy that 
lifts workers up in rich countries like ours, in poor countries like 
Costa Rica and Honduras and Guatemala and the Dominican Republic and 
Nicaragua, while respecting human rights and democratic principles. The 
United States with its unrivaled purchasing power, the greatest in 
history, and its enormous economic clout, again the greatest in 
history, we as a Nation are in a unique position to help empower poor 
workers in developing countries while promoting prosperity at home.
  When the world's poorest people can buy American products rather than 
just make them, then we will know, Mr. Speaker, finally that our trade 
policies are working.

                          ____________________