[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 89 (Wednesday, June 29, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7598-S7605]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 DOMINICAN REPUBLIC-CENTRAL AMERICA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT 
                           IMPLEMENTATION ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1307) to implement the Dominican Republic-
     Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. It is my understanding under the rule there is 10 hours on 
each side. Is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. REID. I yield 5 hours to the ranking member of the Finance 
Committee, Mr. Baucus, and 5 hours to Senator Dorgan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  Who yields time on the bill?
  The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Tonight the Senate begins its consideration of the Dominican 
Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement 
Implementation Act, more commonly known as CAFTA. I will be speaking in 
some detail on this trade agreement tomorrow, but for tonight I want to 
open the debate with some observations about the process that brought 
us here.
  CAFTA has proved itself to be the most controversial trade agreement 
to come before the Congress since the North American Free Trade 
Agreement a decade ago. It did not have to be this way. When the story 
of CAFTA is written, whether it passes or fails, the theme will be the 
politics of the last minute because even as we bring this bill to the 
floor parts of the CAFTA package are still being negotiated. In fact, 
they are being negotiated as we speak. We need to do better.
  The Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, assigned primary 
responsibility for trade policy to the legislative branch. Article I, 
section 8, clause 3 of the Constitution states:

       The Congress shall have the power . . . to regulate 
     Commerce with foreign Nations.

  It quickly became obvious, however, that Congress is a body ill-
suited by structure to negotiate trade agreements. So our predecessors 
quickly figured that the actual negotiating would have to be delegated 
to the executive branch. Still, the constitutional responsibility for 
trade remains with the Congress. That is why under U.S. law no trade 
agreement is self-executing.
  Trade agreements such as CAFTA have no force or effect on domestic 
law until Congress passes implementing legislation. A system where one 
branch of the Government negotiates trade agreements and another must 
approve them and turn them into domestic law presents many challenges. 
To work well, it requires the highest degree of coordination between 
executive and legislative priorities.
  Over the years, this system of shared responsibilities has been 
formalized into Senate procedures commonly called fast trade, or more 
recently, trade promotion authority. These procedures require the 
executive to negotiate agreements that meet a long list of 
congressional priorities, and they require very close consultation 
between the executive and Congress at every stage of the process.
  I am sure that Ambassador Portman, our current USTR, and his staff 
can document that they followed these statutory procedures to the 
letter for CAFTA. I do not disagree. Their problem is that process for 
the sake of process does not work if there is no true spirit of 
cooperation. A statute can require a meeting, but a meeting of the 
minds cannot be mandated by law. A true meeting of the minds is what we 
need to make the consultive process work the way it is intended to 
work.
  Congress and the executive need to be working closely together at 
every stage of a trade negotiation to make sure that everyone's 
priorities are being addressed, maybe not all agreed to but certainly 
all addressed. Unfortunately, that is not what happened with CAFTA.
  Early on in the CAFTA negotiations, I could see that sugar was going 
to be a difficult issue so I asked former USTR Ambassador Zoellick to 
meet with the Senate sugar caucus. That meeting was not required by 
trade promotion authority, but it made sense to try to address a 
difficult issue as soon as possible. The meeting took place and views 
were exchanged, but there was no meeting of the minds and little 
attempt to continue the dialogue. Not surprisingly, CAFTA's sugar 
provisions were unacceptable to many Members, but CAFTA sat unchanged 
for more than a year.
  Suddenly, last week, there began a series of around-the-clock sugar 
negotiations. Those negotiations were ongoing this morning when the 
Finance Committee marked up CAFTA. They are still ongoing as we speak. 
So those of us who have sugar producers in our States still do not know 
for sure what CAFTA means for our constituents.
  This would have been resolved and should have been resolved months 
ago. We should not be on the floor debating an implementation package 
that is not final. The story is similar for the labor provisions. From 
the beginning, it was clear that labor rights were going to be a 
contentious issue in CAFTA. So I, together with a number of colleagues, 
began a dialogue with Ambassador Zoellick. We sought assurances that 
CAFTA's labor provisions would be

[[Page S7599]]

stronger than those in other recent free-trade agreements, but little 
progress was made. Suddenly, within the past few weeks, there began a 
series of around-the-clock meetings between Ambassador Portman and 
several Democratic Senators and Members of the House.
  Just this morning, as the Finance Committee came together to vote on 
CAFTA, brandnew labor and capacity-building provisions were revealed.
  We should not be on the floor debating CAFTA when the ink is not yet 
dry on these provisions and nobody really knows what they mean. I know 
that there is another way. I have seen it work.
  In the fall of 2003, I put out a series of proposals for 
strengthening CAFTA's environmental chapter. Ambassador Zoellick and I 
had a productive yearlong dialogue on these issues. It was very 
constructive, very rewarding. He was engaged; I was engaged. With 
commitment on both sides, we agreed on key improvements that are 
included in the text of this agreement. This is the model I want to 
follow in the future, not the last minute dealmaking but the long, 
thoughtful dialogue working to find accommodation, find agreement, 
which builds a greater consensus for trade, let alone the agreement in 
question.
  Trade promotion authority expires in 2007. At that time, Congress 
will consider whether there are ways to improve the process. The truth 
is, the process is only as good as the goodwill of the people using it.
  I do not say this to lay blame. We are all responsible. Members of 
the Senate are caught up in the press of business and do not always 
focus on their priorities early enough in the trade negotiation 
process. The executive hears but does not always follow the advice or 
pay attention to the advice it receives from Members of the Senate. The 
same would be the case for House Members.
  Still, in the end our trade policy is only successful when it 
reflects the priorities of both the Congress and the executive.
  In the coming months and years, let us rededicate ourselves to the 
purpose behind the process. Let us work together and truly mean it. 
That is the way we get things done. Again, under the Constitution, 
Congress has primacy in trade, but because we are not a parliamentary 
form of government but a constitutional form of government with 
separate branches we, by necessity, have to delegate the negotiating of 
trade agreements to the executive. But to make this work and to 
continue to have a consensus and to build a consensus on trade 
agreements, the administration must consider the wishes of Congress 
much more seriously in the future. Otherwise, it runs the real risk of 
losing, perhaps, trade promotion authority for other similar 
agreements.
  I say this also because we stand at a moment in history, at a time 
when the United States has to work much more aggressively, much more 
cooperatively among ourselves, different sectors of the country, to 
meet the competitive challenges that we face overseas. Whether it is 
China, Japan, Europe, the flattening of the Earth, or changes in 
telecommunications technologies, we have to work a lot harder, invest 
more in education, address the high health care costs that put our 
American companies at competitive disadvantage, and be much more 
aggressive in enforcing our trade laws. There are many more actions we 
must take. When that happens, the more the President and the Congress 
in good faith can totally put politics aside because this is an 
American issue. This is not a partisan issue. This is an issue for 
America. If they were to do so, and we were to do so, we will fulfill 
the responsibilities we have, and it will help our people at the same 
time.
  At the appropriate time, I will later yield time to the senior 
Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, before I begin my remarks I want to 
thank the Senator from Montana, the ranking Democrat on the committee, 
and the former chairman of the committee for his cooperation and good-
faith effort to have the Senate and our committee work to get its job 
done. Even though he has a different view on this legislation than I 
do, he has been very cooperative in helping things happen, even though 
he disagreed. I think it is that spirit that gets things done in the 
Senate. It is kind of the tradition of our committee, but I think it is 
particularly true of his and my working relationship. So I thank him 
very much.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I must respond to that gracious statement 
by my good friend from Iowa. No member of this body can be more blessed 
to have a partner to work with in such cooperation and good spirit than 
I. I am lucky--more importantly the Senate is lucky--to have the 
chairman of the Finance Committee. He is a wonderful person to work 
with. We work very closely together. We are a real team and we think 
that our States are better for it. We also think that the country is 
better served as well.
  For whatever reason, whether it is true or not, I want to very much 
give my utmost thanks and compliments to the senior Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I thank the Senator. Following on the spirit of the 
statement that he made and probably not directly germane to this 
discussion, though, is also the fact that too often the public draws 
conclusions that all we do is have partisan fights, Republican and 
Democrat, and that we are always at each other's throats. I think 
people, including my constituents in Iowa, get that view because 
conflict makes news. They never hear of the cooperative efforts that we 
have made.

  In fact, the very week this bill was voted out of committee, we had 
some differences that were not entirely partisan. There were some 
Republicans who agreed with Senator Baucus and some Democrats who 
agreed with me on this bill. It was a very narrow margin in our 
committee. But that very same week we voted out a bipartisan Energy 
bill on a 20-to-0 vote, which shows one gets a lot of attention and the 
other one doesn't. But I think it shows you can have differences and 
still make the system work.
  As you would expect, I have talked about this legislation over a long 
period of time. I am glad we are to the point of the Senate 
consideration of it, so it is no surprise to you or anybody else that I 
support what is referred to as the Dominican Republic-Central America-
United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. I am just going 
to shortly call that the Central American Free Trade Agreement or CAFTA 
for short.
  The bill before us, then, implements the trade agreement that was 
negotiated between our executive branch and the leaders of these five 
countries over the past several months. Our President gets the 
authority to negotiate through what we call the trade promotion 
authority legislation, where Congress has the constitutional control 
over international trade; it is our constitutional responsibility. But 
since it is impossible for 535 Members of Congress to negotiate 
legislation, we delegate, under strict procedures, the President making 
those negotiations. These negotiations went on for several months, 
maybe even over a period longer than a year, and was signed a year ago.
  Congress then has the responsibility of considering it. In most 
cases, we end up agreeing to it, but we pass these free-trade 
agreements--whether they are bilateral, multilateral or regional--in 
the form of legislation, so Congress has control over the final product 
and implements our constitutional responsibility through the agreements 
being passed by Congress in the form of legislation.
  That is where we are now: The Senate's final consideration of 
adopting a law that includes the contents of the negotiated agreement 
between the United States and these five countries of Central America.
  This agreement strengthens the ties of friendship, cooperation, and 
economic growth between our Nation and the growing economies of Central 
America and the Dominican Republic. It is also an agreement that is 
fundamentally in our national economic and security interests. If it 
were not in our national economic and security interests, obviously we 
would have no business having our President negotiate it. Or if it were 
not in our interests and he did negotiate it, the Congress should not 
be passing it as law.
  Today, when it comes to the economic interests that we have with this

[[Page S7600]]

legislation, most imports from the region enter our market duty free. 
They come from those countries into our market duty free. In contrast, 
exports from the United States to those countries face a myriad of 
tariffs and nontariff barriers in the region. That is where we are now. 
That is the status quo.
  I have a chart here that obviously is not going to contain every 
product. I am not going to have on the chart every product that goes 
back and forth between our countries. But this chart illustrates, on 
this side where you see various products--let's say just on grains. I 
will just go to the first line. We pay now a 10.6-percent tariff to get 
our products into these countries. If those countries were shipping the 
same product to us, they would be paying zero tariffs.

  Now, with this agreement before the Senate that we are considering, 
when it is fully implemented--because some of these are phased in--you 
will see that we will not have any tariffs that we now pay for getting 
our products into the countries. And of course it has not changed 
anything for them.
  But this chart shows, if we do not do anything, what the status quo 
is. The status quo is on that side of the chart. It is kind of a one-
way street. All the advantages are from products coming from Central 
America into America. All of the impediments are against products going 
from the United States down to those countries. So on this side of the 
chart, after the legislation is passed, you see a two-way street. You 
see the status quo has ended.
  Let's be clear. A vote against this agreement is a vote for the 
status quo. It is a vote to maintain unilateral trade and to keep 
tariff barriers to our exports very high. I could say this another way 
by saying that the ``F'' in Central American Free Trade Agreement, the 
``F'' in CAFTA, once we pass it, is really going to make it a Central 
American Fair Trade Agreement.
  You can see what is unfair to American producers now. What is very 
unfair to American producers now, shipping to those countries down 
there, becomes a level playing field. It becomes a fair agreement, a 
fair, level playing field.
  A vote against this agreement is a vote that denies logic. Make no 
mistake, these tariff barriers to our exports are real. They affect 
everyday Americans, maybe not in a way that they know, but when you 
study it, you see how it impacts them.
  Under the status quo, an off-road loader manufactured by Caterpillar 
in Peoria and exported to Costa Rica must pay a 14-percent tariff. This 
is equal to a $140,000 tax on our export. With CAFTA, the tariff goes 
to zero--not tomorrow, but immediately. This is good news then for 
those UAW workers at Caterpillar, in Peoria, who make this vehicle 
within the United States.
  On another example under the status quo is microchips produced in New 
Mexico and/or Oregon face a 10-percent tariff today. With this Central 
American Free Trade Agreement this tariff barrier is eliminated.
  Under the status quo, manufactured auto parts cannot even sell in the 
Central American market. You don't get them in. It isn't a question of 
how high is the tariff; you can't get them into the market. Under 
CAFTA, we will be able to export these manufactured goods to the 
Central American market. So this means new opportunities for companies 
such as CARDONE Industries and their workers in Philadelphia, PA.
  Under the status quo--in other words, if we didn't pass this 
agreement--DVDs produced across the country would be subject to tariffs 
of up to 20 percent before they can be sold to consumers in Central 
America. But with this agreement becoming law, those DVDs become tariff 
free, leveling the playing field, being fair to workers in America.
  The story is very similar for products that I am very much involved 
in, in my State of Iowa, products from U.S. farms. Today, over 99 
percent of the food and agricultural products that we import from the 
region of Central America come into the United States duty free, as 
evidenced by the zeroes there on the second column. Meanwhile, our food 
and agricultural exports to Central America are hit with an average 11-
percent tariff, with some tariffs ranging as high as 150 percent.
  CAFTA levels the playing field for U.S. farmers. It takes one-way 
trade and makes that one-way trade into a two-way street. It tears down 
unfair barriers to our agricultural exports. It gives our farmers a 
chance to compete in a growing and vibrant market of 40 million 
consumers.
  If anybody thinks that globalization is bad, do you know what they 
are saying? They are saying that the United States ought to concentrate 
on selling to Americans. We make up 5 percent of the world's 
population; 95 percent of the world's population is outside the United 
States. That is a market that we need to be competing in. We are an 
exporting nation--agriculture, manufacturing, services. If we are an 
exporting Nation and our market is 95 percent of the people in the rest 
of the world, we have to be playing on that field. This gives us an 
opportunity to play on that field, not with all the other 95 percent of 
the people in the world, but at least with 40 million of those 
consumers who live in these five countries.
  These barriers I have just referred to are real for our U.S. farmers. 
Pork producers in my home State of Iowa face import tariffs from 15 
percent to 40 percent. When we have full implementation of this 
agreement, Iowa producers will be able to export pork products duty and 
quota free.
  Today, rice producers from across the South must overcome in-quota 
tariff rates of from 15 percent to 60 percent. These tariffs are phased 
out and eventually eliminated under this agreement.
  Prohibitive tariffs of up to 40 percent lock our beef exports out of 
the Central American market. This agreement provides immediate duty-
free, quota-free access for high-quality U.S. beef, with eventual 
elimination of all tariffs on U.S. beef. And value-added agricultural 
products, such as breakfast cereal, will see tariffs reduced from 32 
percent to zero immediately, providing new opportunities for U.S. 
workers.
  The fact is, virtually every major agricultural producer in the 
country, in the United States, will benefit from the passage of this 
agreement, including dairy, Vermont; poultry, Arkansas; apples, Oregon 
and New York; barley, Montana; frozen french fries, Maine; nuts, New 
Mexico; dried beans, Wyoming. All in all, the total given to us by 
economists at the American Farm Bureau Federation is an estimated net 
gain to U.S. agriculture of nearly $1.5 billion each year upon full 
implementation.

  The agreement also opens the services market to U.S. service exports. 
Key sector opportunities include telecommunications, banking, insurance 
distribution, audiovisual and entertainment, energy, transport and 
construction.
  Our high-tech sector stands to benefit; the Dominican Republic, 
Guatemala, Honduras, Costa Rica, and El Salvador will join the 
agreement and eliminate tariffs on imports of high-technology products, 
thereby saving United States exporters more than $7 million annually on 
import duties that would be paid today.
  The agreement goes far beyond reducing important tariffs, putting 
into place strong investment protections, anticorruption provisions, 
intellectual property protections, strong provisions on labor in the 
environment. This agreement is a solid win for the U.S. economy. It is 
a solid win also for the neighbors of these Central American countries.
  For a third time, I say, let's be very clear. The alternative to this 
agreement is nothing but the continuation of the status quo. It is 
unilateral access to our markets and nothing in return for American 
exports. I don't think the status quo is good enough for our farmers 
and our workers. I don't think Congress should vote to keep barriers to 
our exports to these countries high when they can be eliminated. This 
is what this vote on the Central American Fair Trade Agreement is all 
about. It all boils down to a vote for unilateral trade and the status 
quo or a vote to reduce barriers for our farmers and workers. To me it 
is a very simple answer. Get this agreement passed as fast as we can 
and bring this level playing field for our farmers, our service 
industries, our manufacturers.
  Too often, we talk in economic terms about trade. There are other 
compelling reasons to support this agreement.

[[Page S7601]]

Over 20 years ago, Congress first opened our markets to products from 
Central America and the Caribbean. Why did we do that? That part of the 
world was in turmoil. Central America was a region in great political 
and economic upheaval. Civil strife, civil war, and political violence 
were part of daily life. As a result, too many innocent people lost 
their lives and many more lost their livelihood.
  I have a chart of headlines accurately reflecting that gruesome and 
chaotic violence that was going on at that time. Whether it was 
Nicaragua, Honduras, or El Salvador, it was constant conflict. The 
headlines accurately reflect that violence.
  So where are we 20 years later? We see a very different Central 
America. Through sustained political and economic engagement with the 
region, including the continuation of the unilateral trade preferences 
for over 20 years, the United States of America has helped this part of 
the world develop a very different story today. Today, that story is 
that with progressive leadership of these democratic governments, the 
people of Central America are enjoying the fruits of freedom, the 
fruits of democracy that we would describe as elected governments, 
participatory democracy, choice for the voters, and, as a result, 
generally stable civil societies.
  Now we have this situation in Central America. These leaders, who 
many of us have had an opportunity to meet with, have given us 
confidence that this sort of leadership will continue in the future, 
but these leaders want more for their country. They want to cement the 
gains of the last 20 years since the civil wars have ended. They want 
to build a better foundation for that future. Part of that better 
foundation is the progressive ideas that are articulated in the CAFTA 
agreement. These ideas came not from the United States but from the 
leaders of Central America who first approached us with the idea of 
strengthening our trade relations at the Quebec Summit of the Americas 
in April 2001.
  The fact is that passage of CAFTA is good both for our geopolitical 
and economic interests. We have very little to lose. We have much to 
gain with its passage. In contrast, we have much to lose and we have 
little to gain if this agreement is defeated.
  I have a letter displayed from President Carter. He makes the point I 
just made very well. In that letter he recently wrote, saying through 
CAFTA:

       Our own national security and hemispheric influence will be 
     improved with enhanced, improved stability, democracy and 
     development in our poor fragile neighbors in Central America 
     and the Caribbean.

  Continuing from President Carter:

       There are now democratically elected governments in each of 
     the countries covered by CAFTA. In negotiating this 
     agreement, the Presidents of the six nations had to contend 
     with their own companies that fear competition with United 
     States firms. They have put their credibility on the line, 
     not only with this trade agreement but more broadly by 
     promoting market reforms that have been urged for decades by 
     United States presidents of both parties. If the U.S. 
     Congress were to turn its back on CAFTA, it would undercut 
     these fragile democracies, compel them to retreat to 
     protectionism, and make it harder for them to cooperate with 
     the United States.

  The stakes are high. President Carter, being a President with a 
global view, saying the stakes are high, lends a great deal of 
credibility in a bipartisan way--he is a Democrat, I am a Republican--
to the reasons and rationale behind this. That going beyond the 
economics of trade to the good that comes from trade.
  I often say during debates on trade in this body we as political 
leaders, as Senators, our President of the United States, the Cabinet, 
our diplomatic corps, we always think we are negotiating all these 
things, we are making decisions that are going to bring about world 
peace.
  Obviously, we set a standard or at least create an environment for 
either a peaceful society or a less peaceful society to exist. Our 
efforts are a spit in the ocean compared to what business men and women 
in America and other countries do in millions of transactions and the 
dialog they have in the process, breaking down, misunderstanding, 
creating friendship through what they do at their level, their citizen 
level of participating much more so than we can.
  The things that are evidenced by our trade agreements over the last 
50 years--and this is a little part of this 50-year effort to promote 
international commerce--have set a stage where business and commerce is 
doing more to bring about world peace than we as political leaders can 
do.
  The United States, I suppose, has about 300 million people now; 40 
million people down there. It is a small part of the world.
  How do you make progress in peace? You make progress in peace by 
inches, not by miles. This may be a couple inches of helping us down 
the path to world peace, but we need to take every opportunity we can 
to encourage commerce. Yes, it creates jobs. It creates prosperity. It 
is also going to help bring about greater world understanding.
  This is a very good agreement. I hope it receives very broad support 
in the Senate. I hope through my views I have helped colleagues 
understand the importance of it. I hope those colleagues will join me 
to ensure that we do not undermine the significant progress that has 
been made in this region of Central America over the last 20 years and 
to ensure our American exporters can enjoy the benefits of this 
agreement.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may be able 
to use such time as I consume from the time under the control of 
Senator Baucus.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, first of all, I commend our colleague from 
Iowa, the chairman of the Finance Committee, and Senator Baucus, the 
ranking member from Montana, and the other members of the Finance 
Committee for their efforts on behalf of the Central America-Dominican 
Republic Free Trade Agreement, or CAFTA, as it is known by most who 
follow this debate and discussion.
  I voted for the motion to proceed. I would have preferred we had a 
little more time. I realize we are moving rather quickly on this 
legislation. I hoped we would have a few more days to work on this 
legislation, but obviously that is not the case. We are moving ahead 
with the 20 hours of debate under the procedures as established by the 
Congress to have a fast-track procedure when dealing with trade 
agreements. So we are given the time we have to debate and discuss 
these matters.
  I am going to take advantage of this time and lay out for my 
colleagues and others my interests and my concerns about this matter.
  First of all, let me say, as someone who has spent almost a quarter 
of a century in this body, I have dedicated a great deal of my service 
to my interest in Latin America, my interest in Central America, and 
the Caribbean. That interest arose almost 40 years ago when, as a 
recent graduate from college, I joined John Kennedy's Peace Corps and 
traveled to the Dominican Republic, where I spent the next 2 years as a 
young man in the mountains of what is called the Cordillera Central of 
the Dominican Republic not far from the Haitian border as a Peace Corps 
volunteer. I have a deep, deep affection for the people of the 
Dominican Republic, the people of Haiti, and the people of the 
Caribbean and Central America.
  My oldest brother Tom was a professor at Georgetown University for 27 
years and taught Latin American diplomatic history and also was our 
Ambassador to the nation of Uruguay and the nation of Costa Rica. Two 
others of my brothers studied in Mexico. My sisters speak Spanish. My 
mother did as well. There has been a strong interest in my family in 
Latin America for many years.
  My strong hope and desire, as I rise this evening to talk about this 
agreement, is to be able to be supportive when the vote occurs at the 
end of the 20 hours of debate. I think it is important we try to do 
everything we can to improve the quality of the lives of the

[[Page S7602]]

people who live in these countries. They have been through an awful lot 
just during my tenure here in this body.
  For those who were Members of this body back 25 years ago, 24 years 
ago, we had some long and extensive debates about the political events 
in Central America. Civil wars raged. In Guatemala, the civil war raged 
for decades, as a matter of fact, long before I arrived in the Senate. 
You had civil wars raging in El Salvador, the civil war that went on in 
Nicaragua. The economic difficulties in Honduras were tremendous.
  There has been political turmoil in the Dominican Republic. In fact, 
the year before I arrived in the Dominican Republic as a Peace Corps 
volunteer, there had been a minirevolution there, which caused Lyndon 
Johnson to send the USS Boxer off to the coast of the Dominican 
Republic. The Marines went down in 1965 and, in fact, were still there 
in 1966, when I arrived there as a Peace Corps volunteer, as a young 
man, to work in the mountains of that country.
  Also, natural disasters have struck. I cannot recount the number of 
times they have hit the Dominican Republic and Haiti over the last 
number of years. Hardly a year goes by that some tragedy does not occur 
in these countries. Certainly, hurricanes have swept across the Island 
of Hispaniola, which is home to both Haiti and the Dominican Republic. 
I know my colleagues will recall the mud slides in Haiti, where 
literally thousands have lost their lives.
  And then there are the repeated hurricanes that have hit Central 
America. I recall going down, in early 1993, after one of those 
hurricanes hit Nicaragua, to work with then-Vice President Gore's wife, 
Tipper Gore, trying to clear mud out of schools and impoverished 
communities. Bridges were wiped out. Crops were lost. The country was 
devastated.
  To put it in brief, without going into long detail, these five 
countries of Central America and the Dominican Republic--Haiti is not 
included in this agreement. I regret that. I wish we were doing 
something more about Haiti. This body, a year ago, unanimously adopted 
a concessionary agreement with Haiti. Unfortunately, the other body 
refused to take up the matter. It could have made a difference, in my 
view, to provide some real assistance to people who are so desperately 
in need of help, the island nation of Haiti. It is one of the great 
tragic cases in the world, let alone in this hemisphere, the conditions 
under which people live there.

  I had hoped we might bring up that concessionary agreement again, 
either as a part of or in conjunction with this CAFTA agreement. The 
irony, in a way, if this agreement is adopted, is that we will be 
providing some meaningful assistance to the Dominican Republic, which 
inhabits two-thirds of the Island of Hispaniola, and doing virtually 
nothing for one-third of the island where the most desperate conditions 
prevail--in Haiti. But hope springs eternal, and I hope, before this 
Congress adjourns, we will be able to convince the other body that 
there is a reason to try to do what we can for Haiti.
  But back to the matter at hand, and that is this agreement affecting 
the Central American nations and the Dominican Republic. The people of 
these nations deserve our help, deserve something that will improve the 
quality of their lives. If that does not happen, quite candidly, what 
you are going to see is what people have done historically. They will 
express their feelings with their feet. They will walk. They will move. 
They will migrate. In many instances, I presume they will come to this 
country however they can make it here. We welcome, obviously, 
immigration. But a flood of immigration, which can occur as a result of 
economic conditions, in this country is something we ought to be 
mindful of as we consider the implications of this proposal.
  So again, my hope is to be able to be supportive.
  Let me outline, if I may, briefly, what my interests are. I had a 
very good meeting today with Ambassador Portman. I did not know him 
terribly well before, but I was very impressed with him and the team. 
We spent about an hour in my office discussing this matter. We had a 
very good meeting at the White House not too many days ago. President 
Bush, very graciously, invited a group of us down--I gather he has done 
that on several occasions now--along with people who are not committed 
to this agreement, to listen to various ideas. I commend him for that. 
I think there is a true desire to try to build strong support for this 
agreement in this body and in the other, if we can.
  So if I can, Mr. President, very briefly, I would like to lay out my 
concerns, what I am doing, what I have done today, what I am doing this 
evening, and what I will do tomorrow morning in anticipation of a vote 
occurring either tomorrow or on Friday, with my strong, fervent hope 
that I will be able to support this agreement. But let me lay out my 
concerns. As you know, I have long been concerned, as I mentioned, and 
involved in all aspects of our policies with respect to the countries 
of Central America and the Dominican Republic. For those of us who were 
serving in this Chamber in the 1980s, we all remember the dark days and 
bitter debates about events in the region at that time and the U.S. 
response to them. Happily, those dark days are now behind us. Today, 
the situation, if you will, in Central America is a far more positive 
and fruitful one. The debate is, of course, how to enhance our economic 
relations with the region in a manner that benefits the United States 
and our neighbors.
  I believe there are real possibilities for the CAFTA-Dominican 
Republic agreement being a vehicle for enhancing those relations and 
strengthening democratic institutions throughout the region. But I also 
believe that, even at this late date, there need to be certain 
understandings and clarifications if, in fact, we are going to achieve 
the very goals the CAFTA-Dominican Republic agreement lays out. Those 
clarifications relate to certain aspects of the agreement, if it is 
truly going to live up to the expectations the parties have set forth 
in it.
  Those of us who want to advance respect and adherence to core 
internationally recognized labor standards were somewhat disappointed 
that the agreement is a weak instrument for doing so. In fact, it is 
weaker than current provisions under the Caribbean Basin Trade 
Partnership Act, which currently links unilateral trade benefits from 
the United States to the Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act-eligible 
countries to international workers' rights.
  I welcome the efforts of Senator Bingaman, our colleague from New 
Mexico, to strengthen the capacity of these countries to effectively 
enforce and uphold internationally recognized labor rights. I believe 
the provision agreed to by the administration, to provide an additional 
$3 million to fund the International Labor Organization programs in 
CAFTA-DR countries, is a step in the right direction.
  Ambassador Rob Portman has committed, on behalf of the Bush 
administration, to provide these moneys to the International Labor 
Organization so the organization can monitor and verify progress in the 
Central American and Dominican Republic Governments' efforts to improve 
labor law enforcement and working conditions.
  To strengthen the effectiveness of the ILO in carrying out its work 
in the region, I believe there needs to be a clear understanding, 
before we vote on the CAFTA-DR agreement, of exactly what would be 
entailed in those ILO programs if they are going to be effective. That 
is why I met today with Ambassador Portman and have contacted the 
CAFTA-DR Ambassadors from these countries to describe what I believe is 
needed to make the ILO initiative meaningful.
  Let me spell it out, if I can, very briefly. And it is not 
unreasonable and does not require renegotiation in any way.
  I have requested answers in writing from the affected CAFTA-DR 
Governments as to whether jointly or severally they would each welcome 
and support ILO efforts to improve labor enforcement and working 
conditions in their countries in relationship to the implementation of 
the CAFTA-DR agreement. We would support and welcome an active role for 
the ILO representatives and their countries, including acceptance of 
the principle that ILO representatives would be granted unfettered 
access to workplaces, be permitted to establish mechanisms for 
receiving and investigating

[[Page S7603]]

matters related to core ILO labor standards, make private 
recommendations to worker and employer organizations and appropriate 
officials within each Government, as well as issue periodic public 
reports of its findings on matters of concern related to the 
enforcement of core ILO international labor standards as specified in 
the International Labor Organization's Declaration on Fundamental 
Principles and Rights at Work and its followup adopted by the 
International Labor Conference in 1998.
  I am not breaking new ground here at all. In fact, what I have just 
described is included in other labor and other trade agreements, most 
specifically the trade agreement with Cambodia which was renewed by the 
Bush administration only recently, adhering to the very principles that 
were negotiated under the Clinton administration. So this is something 
that has already been accepted.
  Let me tell you why these provisions are important and why I think 
they help what we are trying to achieve with this trade agreement. I am 
hopeful the administration and the agreement governments will find this 
clarification useful and acceptable. If so, I believe the CAFTA-DR 
agreement will have made an important contribution to strengthening 
democracy in the region and improving the daily lives of their 
citizens. I await word from them in the coming hours.
  As I said, I very much want to be able too support this agreement. 
But I also want to have some confidence that I will be helping to raise 
the living standards of American and CAFTA-Dominican Republic workers 
and not be an accomplice to a rush to the bottom in weakening working 
conditions in either the United States or elsewhere in the region. Let 
me be clear that we aren't somehow raising the bar on the issue of 
respect for core labor rights. Existing trade preference programs for 
the region provide that the President should at least take into account 
the extent to which beneficiary countries provide internationally 
recognized workers rights.
  As currently written, the CAFTA-DR agreement would weaken standards 
these countries have been living under through the Caribbean Basin 
Initiative and Generalized System of Preferences. Instead of asking 
them to do more with the CAFTA-DR agreement, we are asking them to do 
less. Moreover, currently the trade benefits can be withdrawn in these 
other countries if a country lowers its labor laws below international 
standards or simply fails to meet those standards. And they can be 
withdrawn if a government directly violates internationally accepted 
workers rights that might not be protected under their laws. But this 
will not be the case under CAFTA and the Dominican Republic.
  Let me reemphasize that. Under the Caribbean Basin Initiative 
agreements, we established very well for all involved that 
International Labor Organizations labor standards, which are not 
terribly high standards, ought to be enforced collectively. The irony 
would be that we are now moving away from the very agreement that has 
been beneficial to the Caribbean Basin Initiative countries. In fact, 
some of these countries are obviously under that agreement now, and 
these standards would be lowered, not enhanced, at a time we have been 
trying to improve conditions.
  This is also important to us from an economic standpoint. It has 
always been our goal with trade agreements with less developed 
countries to try to create wealth, to be wealth producing in our trade 
agreements. Obviously, this is critically important in the long term 
because our higher value goods and our higher value services need to 
have markets in these underdeveloped countries. If there is not wealth 
creation in these nations, then how will they ever afford to buy the 
products and the services that are higher cost? We have always tried 
to, as part of our trade agreements, improve those standards with a 
long-term vision that we would be a beneficiary as a result of wealth 
creation. And also it helps to improve tremendously living standards in 
the countries with whom we are trading.
  Moreover, the lack of an objective standard is troubling because it 
could create a race-to-the-bottom mentality where investors and 
companies play governments against each other seeking lower labor 
standards in a quest for increased profits. That type of situation 
would wreak havoc on civil society in these countries. At a time when 
we are trying to promote more civil societies, to strengthen democratic 
institutions, it could have the opposite effect. It could cost also 
American workers their jobs. By having one standard that applies to 
all, you avoid the race to the bottom which could occur.

  Let me make the point. Under this agreement each country would set 
its own labor standard, whatever they decided. They are required to 
enforce that labor standard. But there is no requirement of what that 
labor standard ought to be. For those who have followed events at all 
in these countries and have great affection for them, you don't need to 
have a PhD to understand there is a lot of difficulty when it comes to 
labor standards. That is why we have insisted on the ILO standards 
across the board generally, to try to maintain a more decent level. 
When you leave it up to each one of these countries to set their own 
standards and then only require that they meet them, you are obviously 
inviting the kind of race to the bottom I have just described.
  For the most part, CAFTA and DR nations have laws on their books, but 
they face a lack of resources and domestic political opposition from 
influential people which prevents them from enforcing these laws. This 
statement was expressed by U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman at a 
June 9, 2005 speech, only a few days ago, that he gave before the 
Hispanic Alliance for Free Trade. I commend him for his speech. Let me 
quote it, if I may. In that speech Ambassador Portman said:

       The ILO study demonstrated that the laws on the books are 
     not the main issue. The major problem is that enforcement of 
     those laws clearly needs improvement.

  Ambassador Portman went on to say:

       You can read the State Department's annual human rights 
     report and quickly conclude that enforcement needs to be 
     improved. You can read a recent White Paper published by the 
     Labor Ministers of Central America, who themselves 
     acknowledge that enforcement needs to be improved.

  These are good statements. They are strong statements, and I agree 
with our ambassador when he makes them. That is all I am suggesting 
with the language that I have submitted to Ambassador Portman and to 
the Central American countries earlier this evening. In my opinion, 
enforcement problems are not a result of malice on the part of these 
leaders. I believe that these leaders and these countries want to do 
the right thing. But I would remind my colleagues that our neighbors to 
the South are democratic countries. As in all democracies, they have to 
deal with powerful opposition interests.
  The administration seems to hold the view that the support for 
expanded trade and economic growth is incompatible with advocating core 
labor standards in developing countries. I believe the opposite is the 
case. In fact, when we have insisted upon better labor standards, we 
end up with a far better trading environment. In case after case after 
case, when we have insisted on stronger ILO standards, we have had a 
better trading relationship. When we have not, it has gone in the 
opposite direction. In fact, experts for the well-respected Institute 
for International Economics have concluded that ``core labor standards 
support sustainable and broadly shared political, social, and economic 
development.''
  The operative word here is ``shared,'' shared among citizens, not 
simply a handful of people who have the resources and the political 
influence to effect them.
  So if this agreement is fixable--and I believe it is--it could be a 
win-win proposition. I believe it can be, and I hope the administration 
and the CAFTA-DR governments will welcome this fleshing out of the ILO 
role.
  Again, I commend Senator Bingaman and Rob Portman and the 
administration for being willing to sit down at a late hour and to 
welcome ideas about how we might make this a stronger agreement. I 
think the votes are probably here to pass an agreement even without 
these suggestions, but I think it is a better trade agreement if we 
have the kind of ILO standards I have talked about.
  Again, I emphasize, I very much want to support this agreement. I 
think it

[[Page S7604]]

would make a difference in the long run, not only for our own country 
but also for these struggling democracies in Central America and the 
Dominican Republic. These are good friends. They have been through an 
awful lot. I mentioned earlier the political turmoil and strife, the 
loss of life through civil wars, the natural disasters that have 
crippled them. They deserve better. They are not going to get it 
through foreign aid. I know that. But they could get it through an 
improved trading relationship, by lowering barriers and working 
cooperatively. My hope is we will do it. There is only a small amount 
of trade between ourselves and these countries. It amounts to very 
little in terms of overall trade dollars. But I think we set a standard 
that could be used throughout the region in the coming years.
  My hope--even at this late hour, without in any way requiring that we 
reopen the process for negotiation--is that by just requiring that the 
ILO would be allowed to actually visit sites in these countries, not 
just the labor ministries, which is what the agreement does right now--
under the agreement, the ILO would go to the labor ministry and say: 
Are you complying or not complying. Obviously, we know what the answer 
will be. You are asking the very people to discipline themselves. 
Obviously, they are not likely to conclude that they are not complying. 
By doing what we did in the Cambodian Free Trade Agreement, in 
permitting the ILO inspectors to actually have site visits to determine 
whether the laws are being enforced and then, of course, to be able to 
work with employers as well as employees to try to fix the problem that 
exists there, we do a lot to strengthen this agreement.

  Again, I don't think it is asking too much. It goes a long way to 
making this a better and stronger agreement. It will do many good 
things for the people of these countries. I urge the administration and 
these CAFTA countries with whom we have been communicating today to 
consider this language offered. I have had a rather positive response 
so far from several of them, not all of them. My hope is that 
Ambassador Portman, on behalf of the administration, would be willing 
to accept this additional language to be included in correspondence 
along the lines that was provided to Senator Bingaman.
  I have drafted a letter to Ambassador Portman that outlines what I 
have described here this evening. I am not going to include that letter 
in the Record. I would rather Ambassador Portman have a chance to see 
it before it becomes a public document for him to take a measure of it 
and to let me know whether something might be done along the lines we 
described here. I look forward tomorrow to addressing this issue again 
during further debate. My strong hope would be to be able to stand 
before this body and to offer my unconditional support for this 
agreement. I believe what we have offered here is a reasonable 
proposal, one that could be included in this agreement and one that 
will allow us to have a strong vote.
  My hope is it would convince some of our colleagues in the other 
Chamber who have expressed strong reservations about this agreement to 
come onboard. Most of the reservations have been focused on the labor 
standard issue. Again, I think we can strengthen that and convince many 
of our colleagues to support this agreement. The people of these little 
countries, desperately poor people, deserve better. If democracy is 
going to work here, if economic opportunity is to occur, then we ought 
to be doing more.
  We have trade agreements with big powerful countries. Too often we 
allow too much to slip by and to allow these countries to take 
advantage of us. These small countries deserve some help and support. 
We spent $5 billion in the 1980s financing and underwriting a part of 
the civil war that occurred there. Thousands lost their lives. A great 
deal of our treasury was expended in Central America. It is time we 
expended some effort to see these people have a chance for a better 
life.
  I think this agreement can do it. A few changes that we have 
suggested could help us achieve that goal. I look forward to that 
opportunity occurring with a decision by the administration and the 
CAFTA countries.
  Mr. President, I would like to address the Senate on another matter. 
I want to be careful to make sure no one else wants to be heard on this 
matter.
  Let me inquire of the Chair, would it be appropriate for this Member 
to ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That would be appropriate.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              A Free Press

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, two days ago the U.S. Supreme Court refused 
to consider overturning contempt citations against two journalists, 
Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper. This decision by the Court 
effectively paves the way for these two reporters to be sent, possibly, 
to jail. Yesterday the District of Columbia Circuit Court upheld the 
convictions of four additional journalists for contempt. They may 
appeal to the Supreme Court, but they are justifiably concerned that 
the Supreme Court will decline to consider their case, just as the 
Court declined to consider the Miller and Cooper cases the other day.
  What did those journalists do to deserve criminal contempt 
convictions? Nothing more than their jobs, in my view. That is, they 
did nothing more than refuse to reveal to law enforcement officials the 
identity of sources to whom they had pledged confidentiality.
  Thomas Jefferson once said that were he to have to choose between a 
free country and a free press, he would select the latter.
  He understood--as did the other Founding Fathers--that nothing was 
more important to a free people than the free flow of information. An 
informed citizenry is the first requirement of a free, self-governing 
people.
  Armed with knowledge, our people can govern themselves and hold 
accountable their elected leaders and other high public and private 
officials.
  Today, that principle of a well-informed electorate holding their 
leaders accountable is at risk.
  Along with the 6 journalists I have just mentioned, there are 20 or 
more others who have been convicted or face conviction for protecting 
the confidentiality of their sources. This is an unusually high number 
by historical standards.
  Senator Lugar and I have introduced legislation, S. 340, the Free 
Flow of Information Act. We are joined in the other body by 
Representatives Spence and Boucher. The purpose of this legislation is 
to protect the free flow of information that is so essential to 
maintaining our free society.
  This legislation is not about conferring special rights and 
privileges on members of the Fourth Estate. It is, rather, intended to 
protect the right of all citizens to inform and be informed--including 
by speaking with journalists in confidence.
  The bill is hardly radical in concept. It is based on Justice 
Department guidelines and on statutes that currently exist in 31 States 
and the District of Columbia. While those State and DC statutes would 
not be preempted, the bill would establish a uniform Federal standard 
for Federal cases involving journalists and their sources. It would 
balance the legitimate and often compelling interest in law enforcement 
with the critical need in a free society to protect the free flow of 
information.
  It would achieve this balance by protecting the confidentiality of 
sources--while at the same time allowing courts to compel journalists 
to produce information about wrongdoing if that information is 
essential to an investigation and cannot be obtained from other 
sources.
  Imagine for a moment what would happen if citizens with knowledge of 
wrongdoing could not come forward and speak confidentially with members 
of the press. Serious journalism would virtually cease to exist. 
Wrongdoing would not be uncovered. We would never have learned about 
the crimes known as ``Watergate'' but for the willingness of sources to 
speak in confidence with reporters.
  My colleagues, when journalists are hauled into court by prosecutors, 
when they are threatened with fines and imprisonment if they do not 
divulge the

[[Page S7605]]

sources of their information, then we are entering dangerous territory 
for a democracy, because that is when citizens will fear persecution 
simply for stepping out of the shadows to expose wrongdoing. When that 
happens, the information our citizens need to govern will be degraded--
making it more and more difficult to hold accountable those in power.
  And when the public's right to know is threatened, then all of the 
other liberties that we hold dear are threatened.
  We are under no illusions as to the difficulty of our task in 
advancing this legislation.
  We know that there are those who have a pavlovian response to words 
like ``reporter'' and may react negatively to this legislation. We also 
understand that it is critically important that we balance our Nation's 
compelling interest in preserving the free flow of information with its 
no less compelling interest in pursuing wrongdoing by criminals and 
others that would jeopardize the freedoms that we cherish as Americans.
  Mr. President, again, I am joined by Senator Lugar and my colleagues 
in the House, Congressmen Spence and Boucher. We would like to see some 
legislation at least be debated on the floor of the Senate and possibly 
passed by both Houses, if we have a chance to debate this.
  The fact that reporters are going to jail because of their refusal to 
identify confidential sources ought to raise the concerns of everyone, 
regardless of their ideology or politics. We all understand there is a 
danger in this if we lose what has been critical as part of our self-
governance. This evening, with two reporters we know facing very 
serious jail sentences, with others who may face similar sentences, 
with some 20 other people who have either been convicted or presently 
are in the process, we think it is very important that we act in this 
matter. We know it is not necessarily popular. This is not about 
reporters, it is not about the press, it is about whether the citizenry 
is going to have access to information they deserve to get. It is not 
about protecting journalists or sources if that is the only way we can 
get information we need to pursue criminal prosecutions. It ought not 
to be the first arrow drawn out of the prosecutor's quiver trying to 
deal with these matters. Too often that happens. They need to work 
harder to get to the bottom of these cases, without dragging the 
reporters in front of these courts.
  I hope our colleagues on both sides of the aisle--conservatives, 
liberals, independents, moderates, or whatever--would be able to come 
together around this idea that in a free society of the 21st century 
the confidentiality of sources is something we ought to be willing to 
stand up and support. I urge my colleagues to consider this legislation 
and the leadership to put it on the calendar.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________