Congressional Record, Volume 151 Issue 89 (Wednesday, June 29, 2005)

[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.

____________________