[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 81 (Friday, June 17, 2005)]
[House]
[Page H4710]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1530
       CENTRAL AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT NOT GOOD FOR AMERICA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Marchant). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, 13 months ago, President Bush signed 
the Central American Free Trade Agreement, a trade agreement among six 
Latin American countries with the United States. The gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. DeLay), the most powerful Republican Member of the House, 
said last year when the agreement was signed in May of 2004 that 
Congress would soon vote on it. We did not. Then the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. DeLay) said we would vote on it before Memorial Day. We did 
not. Now the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) says we are going to vote 
on it before July 4. I think he means it this time.
  But the reason we have not voted on the Central American Free Trade 
Agreement is pretty simple: A majority of Members of this House, 
Republicans and Democrats, large numbers of Members of this House 
simply do not think our trade policy is working.
  Every single trade agreement that has come before this Congress that 
President Bush has signed has been voted on within 60 days: Morocco, 
Chile, Australia and Singapore. The Central American Free Trade 
Agreement has not been voted on in almost 13 months because Americans, 
represented by their Members of Congress, have said we do not like the 
way our trade policy is working.
  Just take a look. In 1992, the year I was elected to Congress for the 
first time, our trade deficit, imports versus exports, was $38 billion. 
Last year, 2004, our trade deficit was $618 billion. From $38 billion 
to $618 billion in a dozen years.
  Now, that is just numbers, that is just economics maybe. But look 
what that means. What that really means is a huge loss in manufacturing 
jobs. In the last 6 years, for example, the States in red are States 
which have lost 20 percent, at least one out of five, of their 
manufacturing jobs: New York, 222,000; Pennsylvania, 200,000; Ohio, my 
State, 217,000; Michigan, 210,000 lost manufacturing jobs alone; 
Illinois, 224,000; Mississippi and Alabama together, 132,000; North 
Carolina, 228,000. The States in blue have lost 15 to 20 percent, 
between one out of six and one out of five, of their manufacturing 
jobs. Texas, 201,000; California, 354,000 manufacturing jobs.
  Our trade policy, Mr. Speaker, simply is not working. The Central 
American Free Trade Agreement is going to be more of the same. It is a 
dysfunctional cousin of the North American Free Trade Agreement, which 
helped to begin this trend of a huge burgeoning trade deficit and the 
continuing loss of more manufacturing jobs.
  The President has said he wants us to pass the Central American Free 
Trade Agreement and he makes some promises. The President said the 
Central American Free Trade Agreement will mean more jobs for 
Americans, it will mean more manufacturing in the U.S. and more exports 
to the developing world, and it will mean an increase in the standard 
of living for all seven countries, not just us, but the six countries 
in the Central American Free Trade Agreement.
  Unfortunately, that is the same promise that presidents have made for 
a decade and a half. They promise more jobs for Americans, they promise 
more manufacturing exports, they promise a higher standard of living in 
the developing world. And we end up with this: We end up with wages 
stagnant in the developing world, continued poverty in Mexico or China 
or wherever these trade agreements are, whichever countries these trade 
agreements affect, and more lost jobs in the U.S.
  The people that have supported CAFTA like to tell us we will start 
selling more products to Guatemala, Honduras, Costa Rica, El Salvador 
and Nicaragua. What they do not tell us is that people in those 
countries simply cannot afford to buy American products.
  The average wage in the United States is $38,000. The average wage in 
El Salvador is $4,800. The average wage in Honduras is $2,600. The 
average wage in Nicaragua is $2,300. People in El Salvador cannot buy 
cars made in Ohio. People in the Dominican Republic cannot buy software 
from Seattle. People in Nicaragua cannot buy textiles and apparel from 
North Carolina. People in Honduras cannot buy steel from West Virginia 
or Pennsylvania.
  The fact is, these trade agreements are about one thing: These trade 
agreements are about exporting more U.S. jobs, outsourcing more U.S. 
work. That is why the largest companies in this country support CAFTA, 
because they want to move more production to these countries and 
continue to pay these very low wages instead of these higher wages.
  When you see who lines up for this agreement, the people who support 
CAFTA are the largest companies in the United States. The people who 
oppose CAFTA are religious leaders in Central America, religious 
leaders in the United States. The people who support CAFTA, again, are 
the largest banks and the largest financial institutions in the United 
States. The people who oppose CAFTA are people representing workers, 
the environment, people who advocate for food safety. The people who 
support CAFTA are the most powerful people in our country. The people 
who oppose CAFTA are Central American trade unions and people who 
represent the poorest of the poor in Latin America.
  This trade agreement simply will not work for Americans. It will mean 
more lost jobs for the United States. It will mean more manufacturing 
going offshore. It will mean a higher trade deficit with the United 
States, already going from $38 billion to $618 billion in just a dozen 
years. It will mean more stagnant wages in Central America. It will 
mean a pulling down of wages in the United States.
  The fact is, we can pass a different CAFTA. We should defeat the 
Central American Free Trade Agreement and we should negotiate a CAFTA 
with labor standards, with protections for the environment, with 
protections for food safety.
  Why do we have protections for the drug companies, and not workers in 
CAFTA? Why do we have protections for Hollywood films, but not for the 
environment or food safety?
  Mr. Speaker, when workers in the developing world can buy American 
products, not just make them, then we will know finally that our trade 
policy is working.

                          ____________________