[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 90 (Thursday, June 30, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7697-S7739]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page S7697]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 Senate

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

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I ask for approximately 10 minutes.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, may I ask my colleague to yield for a 
unanimous consent request?
  Mr. OBAMA. I yield for that purpose.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
of speakers be as follows: Senator Obama, 15 minutes from the time of 
Senator Dorgan; Senator Brownback, 15 minutes from Senator Grassley's 
time; Senator Coleman, 15 minutes from Senator Grassley's time; Senator 
Corzine, 10 minutes from Senator Dorgan's time; and Senator Burr, for 
10 minutes from Senator Grassley's time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, as the previous speaker, I rise to speak on 
the Central American Free Trade Agreement.
  I have thought long and hard about this agreement, and I come to the 
floor predisposed to support free trade. In the end, I believe that 
expanding trade and breaking down barriers between countries is good 
for our economy and for our security, for American consumers and 
American workers.
  On the margins, I recognize that CAFTA, although a relatively modest 
trade agreement by the standards of the U.S. economy, would benefit 
farmers in Illinois as well as agricultural and manufacturing interests 
across the country. The language in the agreement is also optimal with 
respect to intellectual property and telecommunications, issues that 
are of particular interest when it comes to trade with other countries, 
such as China. Unfortunately, CAFTA falls short, as a matter of process 
and substance, in protecting workers' rights and interests. My 
colleague, Senator Bingaman, mentioned some of those concerns.
  I recognize that we should not kid ourselves into believing that 
voting against free-trade agreements will stop globalization, 
especially agreements like CAFTA, where the countries involved have 
combined economies one-sixth the size of the State of Illinois.
  Globalization is not someone's political agenda. It is a 
technological revolution that is fundamentally changing the world's 
economy, producing winners and losers along the way. The question is 
not whether we can stop it, but how we respond to it. It is not whether 
we should protect our workers from competition, but what can we do to 
fully enable them to compete against workers all over the world.
  That brings me to the problem. So far, America has not effectively 
answered these questions, and American workers are suffering as a 
result. I meet these workers all across Illinois--workers whose jobs 
moved to Mexico or China and are now competing with their own children 
for jobs that pay $7 an hour and offer no health or pension benefits. 
In town meetings and union halls, I have tried to tell these workers 
the truth--that the jobs they have lost are not coming back; that 
globalization is here to stay; and that they are going to have to train 
more and learn more to get the new jobs of the future.
  I don't mind delivering that message. But when these same workers ask 
me exactly how are they going to get their training and their 
education, and when they ask what will they do to pay for their health 
care bills in the interim, and how will they deal with lower wages and 
the general sense of financial insecurity that seems to be growing 
every single day, I cannot look them in the eye and tell them honestly 
that their Government is doing a single thing about these problems.
  Since I have arrived in the Senate, I haven't seen us debate--much 
less pass--legislation that would address these issues. That is the 
reason I will be voting against CAFTA when it comes up later today.
  There are real problems in the agreement itself. It fails to uphold 
the principles set out in previous trade agreements that say we must 
give equal protection to the rights of workers and the rights of 
commercial interests. But CAFTA, while encouraging the protection of 
commercial rights, does less to protect labor rights than some of the 
agreements that we have already passed. So there is a sense that we may 
be going backward instead of forward. Nor does CAFTA do much in the way 
of enforcing environmental standards in these countries.
  I recognize that no piece of legislation is perfect, and if it were 
just these provisions, perhaps I could do what my colleague from New 
Mexico has done and obtain a letter of agreement from the White House, 
indicating they will try to address some of these problems.

  But the real problem is more than CAFTA. It goes beyond the four 
corners of this piece of legislation. The real problem is what is 
missing, generally, from our prevailing policy on trade and 
globalization: meaningful assistance for those who are not reaping the 
benefits of trade, and a plan to equip American workers with the skills 
and support they need to succeed in the 21st century.
  So far, almost all of our energy and almost all of these trade 
agreements are about making life easier for the winners of 
globalization, while we do nothing for those who find their lives 
getting harder as a consequence of trade liberalization. In 2004, 
nearly 150,000 workers were certified as having lost their jobs due to 
trade and were thus eligible for trade adjustment assistance--and that 
number doesn't count the janitors and cafeteria workers who may have 
lost their jobs.
  Senator Wyden and others have tried to encourage the Administration 
to

[[Page S7698]]

modernize this assistance and expand it to displaced service workers, 
but the Administration refuses to help on this issue.
  But even beyond displaced workers, our failure to respond to 
globalization is causing a race to the bottom that means lower wages 
and stingier health and retiree benefits for all Americans. It is 
causing a squeeze on middle-class families who are working harder but 
making even less and struggling to stay afloat in this new economy.
  I recognize the soundness of the economic argument that free trade 
reduces overall prices in this country. But as one downstate worker 
told me during a recent visit back in Illinois: ``It doesn't do me much 
good if I am paying a dollar less on a t-shirt, but I don't have a 
job.''
  So now we have to choose. It is a choice that is bigger than CAFTA 
and bigger than our trade agreements. It is one that America has faced 
time and time again in our history, and we have responded. To ease our 
transition from an agricultural to an industrial economy, we set up the 
public school system, busted up monopolies, and allowed workers to 
organize. To help us emerge from the Great Depression, we regulated the 
market, created unemployment insurance, and provided all workers access 
to a secure retirement. At the end of World War II, we grew the largest 
middle class in history by providing our returning heroes with a chance 
to go to college and own their own homes.
  Now we face the same choice. We are at the same juncture today. We 
have to decide whether we are going to sit idly by and do nothing while 
American workers continue to lose out in this new world, or if we will 
act to build a community where--at the very least--everybody has a 
chance to work hard, get ahead, and reach their dreams.
  If we are to promote free and fair trade--and we should--then we have 
to make a national commitment to prepare every child in America with 
the education they need to compete; to make sure college is affordable 
for everybody who wants to go; to provide meaningful retraining and 
wage insurance so that even if you lose your job, you can train for 
another; to make sure worker retraining helps people without getting 
them caught up in a bureaucracy; that such training helps service 
workers as well as manufacturing workers; and that it encourages people 
to reenter the workforce as soon as possible.
  We also have to figure out a way to tell workers that no matter where 
you work or how many times you switch jobs, you can take your health 
care and your pension with you always, so you have the flexibility to 
move to a better job or start a new business.
  All of this is possible. It is not going to be easy, and it is not 
going to be quick. I don't expect the Administration to try to shoehorn 
all the solutions to the displacements caused by globalization into a 
single trade agreement. But what I do expect--and I said this directly 
to the President when I met with him in the White House on this 
matter--is that we at least have, on a parallel track, an effort to 
deal with the losers in globalization, our displaced communities and 
displaced workers. We must not only look after profits and 
shareholders, but also those folks who are adversely affected by trade. 
Lower prices are good and important, but we also have to make sure that 
jobs exist that provide people the opportunity to raise a family.
  Mr. President, in order to compete, every single one of us is going 
to have to work more, think more, train more. I am not afraid of global 
competition, and I don't think a single American worker is afraid of 
it. We cannot insulate ourselves from all of the dislocations brought 
about by free trade, and most of the workers don't expect Washington to 
do so. On my side of the aisle, we cannot resort to protectionist 
language over the long term if we are, in fact, going to be looking 
toward the future of America. We have the talent and the brain power to 
continue to lead the world in this challenging new century, but now we 
need the political will. Now we need a national commitment. And that, 
so far, is what appears to be lacking on Capitol Hill.
  In America, we have always furthered the idea that everybody has a 
stake in this country, that we are all in it together, and that 
everybody deserves a shot at opportunity. The imbalance in this 
Administration's policies, as reflected in the CAFTA debate, fails to 
provide American workers with their shot at opportunity. It is time we 
gave them that shot.
  I yield back my time.
  (Applause in the Gallery.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Expressions of approval or nonapproval are not 
permitted in the Senate Chamber.
  Who yields time. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota has 1 hour 32 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. DORGAN. How much time remains for the Senator from Montana and 
also on the majority side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There remains 1 hour 11 minutes for the 
Senator from Montana, 5 hours 20 minutes for the Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, it would seem to me the Senator from Iowa 
would want to use some time at this point. I suggest the absence of a 
quorum and ask that the time run against the Senator from Iowa.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. 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. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, on this beautiful day in Washington, 
DC, we are about to create some great opportunities for Kansas farmers, 
Kansas manufacturers, and opportunities of hope for people in Central 
America. That is to me what this CAFTA bill represents. I do not want 
to oversell it. I do not think it should be oversold. I do not think it 
is a panacea for democracy building or opportunity in Central America. 
I do not think it is a panacea for all my farmers and manufacturers in 
the State of Kansas. But I do think it is a little more good in the 
world, a little more good for opportunities for people in the United 
States, lowering tariffs and trade barriers in our neighborhood, in 
this region of the world, a little more good and opportunity for 
economic chances and opportunities in Central America and the Dominican 
Republic, chances that do not exist today, chances that are not doing 
well today in Central America, chances that are hurting the spread of 
democracy, free societies, even in our own hemisphere.
  I was troubled recently when I read a poll published by one of the 
major newspapers in this country. The poll was asking people in Central 
and South America would they give up their democracy if their economy 
would grow. In other words, if a dictator comes in and can produce 
economic reform and opportunity where you would have a growing economy 
instead of the stagnant situation you are in today, would you give up 
democracy?
  A surprisingly large number of people said yes. I suppose in their 
hierarchy of needs, what they were looking at is: Look, democracy is 
great, but what I need right now is a job, what I need right now is 
income for my family, what I need right now is to be able to pay my 
bills and send my kids to school. If I have to give up this other right 
to do that, I am willing to look at it.
  I was very troubled by that poll. I have relatives traveling to 
Central America talking with me in return about the troubling aspects 
of what they are seeing in the willingness to give up democracy and the 
fragility of democracy in our own hemisphere because of a lack of 
economic opportunity.
  I think as well a lot of this is because of the juggernaut China is 
today, more than we solve by CAFTA. CAFTA is a little more good. CAFTA 
is a positive step in the right direction for those democracies to 
build economies and for opportunities for us in this country. It is not 
opportunities for everybody. There will be winners and some losers, as 
there are in trade agreements, because on the basis of a trade 
agreement, each country does what they do best and then you trade goods 
back and forth. Overall, the economy is lifted. There are people who 
are dislocated and harmed in these processes.
  Overall, there is a betterment of societies, cultures, and 
opportunities. That

[[Page S7699]]

is what I think overall will take place with CAFTA.
  I do believe we have an extra issue that is at risk and is rewarded 
by CAFTA, and that is democracy building in our hemisphere. I do not 
think it can be put forward too lightly.
  While I do not think people in Central America will say, OK, I am 
going to rejoice with the passing of CAFTA, that this is going to solve 
all my problems, I do think it will remove a great deal of hope if this 
does not pass. It will certainly have a negative impact in Central 
America if it does not pass, and I think we have to look at that as 
well.
  Everybody has heard the numbers until I am sure they are blue in the 
face. The U.S. tariff regime is one of the lowest in the world, 3 
percent. For a State such as mine, Kansas, having open markets is vital 
for the exportation of agricultural commodities. The aircraft industry 
is also dependent upon an export market. So additional liberalization 
should benefit our producers.
  About one-third, or $3 billion in farm cash receipts out of a total 
of $9 billion of gross farm income in Kansas comes from exports. Kansas 
ranks sixth in the Nation for States with the greatest share of 
agricultural exports. Movement toward freer economies is helpful in 
doing that.
  I want to focus briefly in the time I have on a couple of specific 
products that will benefit my State. As I mentioned, we have a heavy 
agricultural export industry. Agricultural exports support some 47,000 
jobs in Kansas. I think, in this particular case, we have a decent 
chance of expanding more agricultural exports.
  Beef is our largest section of the agricultural economy of my State. 
We are the second largest beef exporter in the country. As I mentioned, 
it provides the single largest source of cash receipts in agriculture 
in my State at over $5.6 billion. We believe CAFTA will help the cattle 
industry.
  Pork producers, who add about $252 million to Kansas annually, will 
also benefit from the trade agreement.
  Current import tariffs on U.S. beef exports is as high as 30 percent 
in some of these countries. Duties on the products most important to 
the U.S. beef industry--prime and choice cuts--would be eliminated 
immediately in these Central American countries.
  I don't want to paint that again as a panacea because I don't think 
there is going to be a large initial export. There is not a large 
market of that cut initially, although there is market opportunity.
  The American Farm Bureau Federation economic analysis of CAFTA 
estimates that Kansas will increase meat exports to the six countries 
by $130 million per year on the full implementation. That full 
implementation has a very long window to it, 2024. This is some period 
to come.
  These are economic analyses which are useful to use to generally show 
trend lines. I have learned enough over the years to not rely upon 
these as money in the bank because factors come in to play--sanitary 
issues enter the picture, and we have recently been wrestling with BSE. 
Those all are major factors. Still, it points to a positive trend line.
  As the Nation's top wheat exporter and with State farm cash receipts 
of $1.3 billion, Kansas wheat producers will benefit from CAFTA. Grain 
suppliers will benefit from zero tariffs immediately on wheat in all 
six countries, as well as some processed grain products.
  Again, the American Farm Bureau economic analysis of CAFTA estimates 
that Kansas will increase wheat exports to the six countries by $8 
million per year. Again, this is after full implementation of CAFTA. 
That is some time in the future. Its economic analysis could well be 
off, but it shows a generally positive trend line--small but positive. 
That is why I say a little more good in the world for my producers.
  I conclude by saying, as we continue to fight this global war on 
terrorism, we must continue to spread democracy and hope throughout the 
world. Engaging in free trade practices and policies helps improve 
relationships with other countries and improves the standard of living 
in these developing countries. Helping to improve other countries' 
standard of living will result in a more hopeful society and a more 
peaceful world.
  Certainly we have learned over the years that democracies are far 
easier and better for us to deal with. If we can help strengthen 
democracy, particularly in our hemisphere, by this passage, minor as it 
might be as a positive point, that is a good and hopeful sign and 
something we should do.
  I support CAFTA, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of passage 
of the CAFTA trade agreement.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I rise in support of CAFTA. There are a 
lot of reasons to support this trade agreement. I came to this 
decision, by the way, in the last couple of days.
  As chairman of the Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, Peace Corps, 
and Narcotics Affairs of the Foreign Relations Committee, I understand 
how pivotal CAFTA is on U.S. foreign policy goals, not just in Central 
America but Latin America and the Caribbean. There are folks in Latin 
America looking at this agreement and what we do with it. I think they 
are going to judge us as to whether we are committed to strengthening 
this hemisphere, committed to strengthening the democracies that are 
now in Central America. There have been decades of civil war. We have 
democracies flourishing in Central America. Every President in those 
countries was democratically elected. These leaders have come to us and 
said: We want to reform, we want to grow our economies and strengthen 
democracy.
  CAFTA is important. Democracy in Central America is still fragile. 
Poverty is endemic. There is weakening enthusiasm for democracy. 
Pressures are already present in Nicaragua. That is what we have.
  We have to be realistic about CAFTA. It alone is not going to ensure 
democracy or prosperity in Central America, but it will put in place 
building blocks for economic growth in the future. It will help these 
nations compete with the face of a rising China and, perhaps most of 
all, CAFTA is a political message that the United States recognizes how 
far these nations have come and stands shoulder to shoulder with our 
democratic hemispheric neighbors. That is important.
  I try to guide myself at times by the physicians' adage, which is, 
``Do no harm.'' Up until 2 days ago as I looked at CAFTA, it did harm. 
It did harm to an industry that is very important to me in Minnesota. I 
represent probably the largest production of sugar beets in the 
country. People say: You are protectionist of an industry. It is not 
about an industry, it is a matter of 40,000 moms and dads whose 
economic livelihood is dependent on what happens with sugar. There is 
$2 billion a year injected into that economy in that region, and that 
is important.
  As my colleagues know, yesterday the Agriculture Committee chairman, 
Saxby Chambliss from Georgia, and I secured a commitment from the White 
House to address the serious concerns we had regarding CAFTA and sugar. 
Chairman Chambliss--I don't think they grow a lot of sugar beets in 
Georgia. In fact, I was expecting by the end of that negotiation that 
there would be a peach-to-ethanol program coming out of that 
arrangement, but that did not happen.
  Chairman Chambliss made it very clear that he is going to protect the 
farm bill, see the continuation of the farm bill which is set to expire 
in 2007.
  As we looked at CAFTA as we negotiated, it would have violated the 
farm bill in that it had the prospect of having sugar from CAFTA 
countries entering this country, if it reaches a certain level and goes 
over that--I will not get into the technicalities of the sugar 
program--one sees the collapse of the sugar program. One sees sugar 
forfeited to the Government, prices falling, economic disaster for 
those involved in the sugar industry.
  So Chairman Chambliss showed great leadership and great courage in 
saying he was not going to support CAFTA because it had this hole in 
the agreement that would in the end perhaps amount to a violation of 
provisions of the farm bill. He stood firm. Together, then, with a 
number of our other colleagues, both in the House and the Senate, he 
had a series of discussions with the administration, with the sugar 
industry, and got a commitment.

[[Page S7700]]

Again, I want to thank Chairman Chambliss, who stood with those of us 
who represent sugar, though that was not a personal thing. It was 
simply the right thing to do. That is the way he operates, with good 
Georgia common sense and that incredible Georgia strength.
  The commitment we have from the administration pledges to ensure that 
the maximum sugar import cap established under the 2002 farm bill will 
never be violated through the life of this farm bill. So that magic 
level of 1.532 million tons that we call short tons is not going to be 
violated. This commitment was made in the context of CAFTA, but the 
commitment is not limited to CAFTA and that is important. During the 
course of our discussions, we became aware that other things were going 
on regarding sugar, that under NAFTA we were facing a situation in 
which resolving a high fructose corn syrup issue that involves the 
ability for us to bring more of that into Mexico, the result would have 
been more Mexican sugar coming into the United States and, again, then 
going over this level and triggering the collapse of the program.
  In the end, as I stood there working for my sugar growers and those 
whose livelihoods depend on sugar, I wanted to make sure our folks were 
held harmless by CAFTA. We got that commitment from the administration. 
We wanted to make sure they were held harmless by the impact of what is 
happening with NAFTA. We got a commitment to hold them harmless during 
the course of this farm bill.
  Then we were concerned about other trade agreements that are being 
negotiated at this time. There are discussions with Panama, discussions 
with Thailand, all of which could have had the same effect of reaching 
that maximum sugar import cap and violating and causing a collapse of 
the program. We wanted to be held harmless for that, our sugar growers 
did, and we got them that commitment.
  Under this agreement any sugar imports above the current cap 
established by the farm bill, whether under CAFTA, NAFTA, or any other 
trade agreement, would be denied entry into the United States 
altogether unless an equivalent amount of U.S. sugar is converted into 
ethanol or other nonfood uses with at least 109,000 tons--and that is 
what we would have gotten from NAFTA--being converted to ethanol under 
a pilot program run by the USDA.
  In addition, we received a commitment to begin a study on the long-
term promise of the sugar-to-ethanol program. That promise is real. I 
was in Brazil not too long ago. Fifty percent of all the new cars in 
Brazil run on ethanol. Those cars are manufactured--the largest 
manufacturer is General Motors, an American manufacturer, and all the 
ethanol in Brazil is done by sugar. So we know the rest of the world 
does it. We can do it here.
  The commitment has been made. The commitment stands. It is through 
the length of the farm bill. The farm bill goes for another 3 years, 
but if it should be extended--and I think it should be--the White House 
commitment is also extended.
  The bottom line is this: Not only do we prevent CAFTA from breaking 
the farm bill limit on sugar imports, but we prevent NAFTA and all 
future trade agreements from breaking the farm bill cap as well.
  In addition, what we do--and I think this is so critically 
important--is lay the ground for the long-term future of the U.S. sugar 
industry which lies not just in production in the United States--
because we do not export sugar to other countries; it is for domestic 
consumption--but production to fuel our country through renewable fuels 
right alongside corn and soybeans. That is the future.
  This country is beginning to understand that we simply cannot deal 
with the continuing increase in imports of foreign crude. A barrel of 
oil is $60. A price of a gallon of gas is $2.30, $2.40, $2.50, $2.70. 
We have our own oilfields, and there are cornfields, soybean fields, 
and sugar fields, beet and cane. They are providing an opportunity--we 
have sugar now on the path.
  I know many of my sugar farmers and cooperatives do not agree with me 
on this commitment, do not agree with me on this solution. I respect 
that. What we have is a concern that they would much rather see a 
permanent solution. We have permanent solutions now with corn into 
ethanol and soybeans into ethanol. These are dedicated folks. They sat 
at the table the whole time.

  One of the critics of this proposal or commitment that I have, and I 
take it seriously, said, this is a Band-Aid on a gaping wound. I would 
say to my friends at American Crystal, at Minn-Dak, at Southern 
Minnesota, and other cooperatives and other places throughout the 
country that, in fact, there is a gaping wound; that the sugar industry 
is one that is right now in a fragile place. I would argue that rather 
than a Band-Aid, this is a tourniquet; that for 3 years we stop the 
bleeding; for 3 years we then will be able to begin to develop a 
nascent sugar-to-ethanol industry; that we then get ourselves to focus 
on the next farm bill and try to make sure we have a program that has 
greater permanence, that has greater long-term security so the kids in 
Fisher and Hallock and throughout, certainly. Western Minnesota can go 
to school with moms and dads not worrying about their jobs. I am 
talking not just farmers but truckers and factory workers and seed 
dealers and implement dealers. The list goes on and on. Up and down 
Main Street, sugar makes a positive mark on communities throughout my 
State. So, for me, this is worth fighting for. It is worth defending. 
That is what I believe we have done with this commitment.
  Without it, the Red River Valley has zero protection from NAFTA, zero 
protection, obviously, from CAFTA which we are talking about today, 
zero protection from future trade agreements. Again, under NAFTA alone 
there is some discussion of perhaps 900,000 tons of Mexican sugar 
pouring in over the border the next couple of years. Without this 
protection, without this commitment, prices would tank and the U.S. 
sugar policy would be placed in serious jeopardy. That keeps me up at 
night. That worries me.
  I am going to sleep a little easier knowing that my farmers are 
protected with this commitment. That is what we have then, this 3-year 
window to turn all the attention and energy we had to focus on the past 
on putting our fires toward creating a positive solution and a future 
for this industry. That is my choice. That is the future that I choose.
  That said, let me be very clear about something, and I want to lay 
this on the line, kind of talk as we look to the future. Two years ago, 
I said sugar should not be included in these bilateral regional 
agreements. We would not have these discussions, if that was the case. 
Just as domestic support for every other American farmer is not 
included in these kinds of agreements, sugar was not asking for 
anything special. The fact is, sugar should not be included in these 
agreements because the distortions in a global sugar market cannot be 
addressed fairly in any other setting other than WTO. This has to be 
addressed on a global perspective; otherwise, what we have is little 
bits and pieces come in. Ultimately, we flood this country without 
dealing with what is happening in this global environment.
  Europeans have a lot more protective interests and support they 
provide for their sugar growers than what we face right here. So every 
sugar-producing country in the world subsidizes and supports this 
industry, which is why American sugar farmers, who are among the top 
third in efficiency, need a strong U.S. sugar policy to stand with 
them.
  We did what is right in the Australian agreement, which is why it 
passed so quickly. For some reason, this common sense did not show 
through when CAFTA was negotiated. Again, the good news is in the near 
term we have a commitment from this White House to hold the U.S. sugar 
program harmless not only under CAFTA but under NAFTA and any future 
trade agreements.
  At the end of the day, let me say that I share the disappointment of 
those in the sugar industry who want something more permanent, but I do 
feel I have to grab hold of the possible when the optimal seems to be 
out of reach. I think politically it would be easy for me to just cast 
a ``no'' vote, just say to my producers the industry does not like this 
and kick the can down the road. Then, if 900,000 tons of NAFTA

[[Page S7701]]

sugar gets dumped in, I can maybe pretend that it is just enough to be 
angry, just enough to say why did we not do something.
  The easy thing is not always the right thing to do. Sometimes when 
one is dealing with friends, they have to be told they are wrong. 
Sometimes leadership is letting people know that we have to go to a 
certain place even if they do not yet see the righteousness of going 
there.
  The right place to be is to have this insurance policy, to have 
protection from CAFTA, from NAFTA, from future trade agreements, and 
really important, get us involved in the sugar-to-ethanol industry.
  Last comment: I listened as I sat in the Presiding Officer's chair to 
a lot of debate. I heard so many of my colleagues today saying we have 
to be doing more for Central America, except the one thing Central 
Americans say they want and need most. It reminds me of a joke we have 
in Minnesota about the Scandinavian guy who loved his wife so much he 
almost told her.
  I listened to my friends across the aisle and they tell me they care 
so much, and we have to be doing more, but they do not want to do 
anything. They want to protect the workers, those in Central America, 
give them economic opportunity. Listen to their elected leaders who say 
this is important rather than lamenting what we should have done or 
could have done but did not do.
  We have an opportunity to do something, and that is what we are 
doing. In the end, my decision was only made in the last couple of days 
because the concern about sugar has been so great. Maybe it is the dad 
on me who focuses not so much on the ones who are doing well but the 
ones who need a little help. Our friends in sugar needed a little help 
after this agreement was negotiated. We provided that help.
  Doing that, I can then stand with all the other producers in my 
State: the commodity groups, the cattlemen, the corn growers, the 
soybean growers, the pork producers, the businesses, the chambers of 
commerce, the high-tech folks, the 3Ms--all who say this is a good 
thing for jobs in Minnesota, this is a good thing for the economic 
future, and as a result I will cast my vote for CAFTA.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my time be 
charged against that of Senator Grassley, please.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I first want to say thanks to my good 
friend from Minnesota for his kind comments. I am going to have more to 
say about him in a few minutes. The one thing we all find out in this 
great institution that we have the privilege of serving in is that 
everybody in their own way represents, in a very strong manner, the 
constituents who sent them here. Nobody has represented their 
constituents better over the last several weeks relative to this issue 
of CAFTA, and particularly the sugar issue, like Norm Coleman has.
  Senator Coleman has been a true advocate for the interests of his 
State. They need to erect a big sugar beet for him and call it the 
Senator Coleman Memorial back in Minnesota.
  I rise today to support the Dominican Republic-Central America Free 
Trade Agreement or DR-CAFTA. Earlier this year, I expressed opposition 
to DR-CAFTA since a provision in the agreement violates a part of the 
2002 farm bill.
  As chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, I have a 
responsibility to the agricultural community to ensure Congress 
fulfills the commitments that we made to farmers and ranchers back in 
2002 when we negotiated the farm bill and when it was passed by the 
House, by the Senate, and signed into law by the President.
  My specific concern centered on a provision that severely impacts the 
implementation of the farm bill by increasing sugar imports into the 
United States.
  We grow very little sugar in my State. This is not a parochial 
interest to me. Senator Coleman is right, perhaps I should have 
negotiated a peach, tobacco, or cotton ethanol provision in here. My 
whole point in this matter is that we have to maintain the integrity of 
the farm bill. It could just as easily have been a corn issue, wheat 
issue, or a peanut issue, but it just happened to be sugar. This could 
potentially result in exceeding the import trigger provided for in the 
farm bill.
  Exceeding the import trigger is of utmost concern because it is 
designed to manage domestic supplies and ensure the program operates at 
a no net cost to the U.S. taxpayer. The DR-CAFTA could compromise that 
trigger when combined with existing commitments to Mexico under the 
North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA.
  In addition, the so-called compensation mechanism in the DR-CAFTA 
does not provide any additional comfort. I do not think it is a good 
idea to pay other countries not to import sugar into the United States 
when we can use those resources to promote fuel security here at home. 
I believe we all should be chastised back home if we let that happen.

  There have been several long weeks of discussions between the 
administration, which included the White House, USDA and USTR 
officials, Senators and House Members, and industry representatives. 
After much hard work, the administration has agreed to a proposal that 
addresses my concerns relative to this trade agreement.
  Secretary Johanns has sent me a letter that provides assurances that 
the sugar program will operate as we originally intended through the 
2007 crop year. Furthermore, the Secretary committed to holding the 
sugar program harmless for the next 2\1/2\ years, to the completion of 
this farm bill, from any harmful effects of CAFTA, of NAFTA, and of any 
other trade agreement that may be negotiated during the interim period.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Secretary's letter be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                                 The Secretary of Agriculture,

                                    Washington, DC, June 29, 2005.
     Hon. Saxby Chambliss,
     Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, 
         Russell Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
     Chairman, House Agriculture Committee, Longworth Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Chambliss and Chairman Goodlatte: The purpose 
     of this letter is to provide assurance that the Dominican 
     Republic-Central America-United States (CAFTA-DR) Free Trade 
     Agreement will not interfere with our ability to operate the 
     sugar program in a way that provides the full benefit to 
     domestic growers through the remainder of the Farm Security 
     and Rural Investment Act of 2002.
       The Farm Bill contains a sugar ``import trigger'' of 1,532 
     million short tons which if exceeded precludes the use of 
     domestic marketing quotas and thus could prevent the program 
     from being operated on a ``no net cost'' basis as required by 
     the law.
       Since the U.S. Government already is obligated under 
     international agreements to import annually 1.256 million 
     short tons, there is some concern that annual imports from 
     NAFTA, CAFTA, and other trade agreements in addition to this 
     amount could exceed the Farm Bill trigger and thus jeopardize 
     operation of the program. However, the Charter Act of the 
     Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) provides additional tools 
     required to preclude that eventuality.
       In the event I determine that sugar imports will exceed the 
     current Farm Bill trigger, appropriate steps will be taken to 
     ensure the program is not put at risk. As Secretary of 
     Agriculture, I have the authority to preclude the actual 
     entry of imported sugar into the domestic sweetener market by 
     making payments to exporters and direct purchase of the sugar 
     for restricted (nonfood) use, including ethanol. It would be 
     my intention to use agricultural commodities in payments or 
     to make direct purchases.
       Two possible situations could obtain:
       If I determine that the Farm Bill import trigger will be 
     exceeded and that the domestic market is adequately supplied 
     with sugar (i.e., that the imported quantities above the 
     trigger will jeopardize sugar program operation), then I will 
     direct that excess imported sugar up to an amount equivalent 
     to the CAFTA-DR imports be purchased by CCC and be made 
     available for conversion into ethanol. Excess sugar above 
     that amount could either be precluded entry by payment to 
     exporters or made available for non-food use, as I deem 
     appropriate.
       If I determine that the amount of sugar that can be 
     provided by domestic growers plus the minimum import 
     requirement is insufficient to meet the domestic market's 
     needs and that imports sufficient to do so will exceed the 
     Farm Bill import trigger, then those imports will be allowed 
     and no sugar would be diverted for conversion to ethanol.
       In addition, USDA will undertake a study of the feasibility 
     of converting sugar into

[[Page S7702]]

     ethanol. Data obtained from any conversion of sugar to 
     ethanol, as noted above, will become a part of the study 
     analysis. This study will be completed and submitted to the 
     Congress not later than July 1, 2006.
       Such actions would ensure that the Farm Bill trigger is not 
     exceeded to the disadvantage of growers and that U.S. sugar 
     procedures will still have a share of the market no less than 
     the amount provided for by the Congress through the sugar 
     program.
       I will establish a special monitoring mechanism to review 
     all U.S. Customs, Bureau of the Census, and other import data 
     through the year. This mechanism will enable me to stay 
     apprised of the pace of imports and to use the Charter Act 
     authorization in a timely manner. Also, the Office of the 
     U.S. Trade Representative has analyzed this approach and 
     concluded that it is not inconsistent with our World Trade 
     Organization obligations.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Mike Johanns.

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Specifically, if the farm bill import trigger is 
exceeded and the domestic market does not need additional quantities, 
then the excess imported sugar, up to an amount equivalent to the DR-
CAFTA imports, will be purchased by the Commodity Credit Corporation 
and made available for conversion into ethanol. Excess sugar above the 
trigger in the DR-CAFTA amount would be precluded entry by payment to 
exporters or preferably directed to other nonfood uses, such as 
additional ethanol production.
  I think this is a very important development, since it is the first 
time the Department is committing itself to a sucrose-to-ethanol 
program. The Department will also conduct a feasibility study examining 
the economics of sucrose-based ethanol. The study will be completed and 
submitted to the Congress not later than July 1, 2006. This should be 
enough time for us to use the information contained in the study to 
develop a long-term future program for the sugar industry in the next 
farm bill.
  On Tuesday of this week, we passed a very historic bill in this body. 
Our country has the greatest natural resources of any country in the 
world, but yet we have never established a long-term energy policy. For 
the first time in the history of the country we passed an Energy bill 
that will move us in the direction of becoming less dependent on 
foreign imports of oil for our petroleum and other fuel needs in this 
country. A major part of that Energy bill was a provision for 
alternative fuel resources like ethanol. In fact, there is a provision 
in there for the production of 8 billion gallons of ethanol per year in 
this country, which would be great if we could produce that amount and 
have it available all across America and not in the limited areas where 
it now is used.
  The reason it is in limited areas today is because we simply do not 
have the production of organic-based material to provide ethanol all 
across America. But with this provision that has been negotiated as a 
part of this agreement with the Secretary and USTR, we are going to 
take another crop, sugar, and we are going to convert sugar into 
ethanol in much the same way that we convert corn into ethanol, so we 
can have a greater supply of an alternative fuel, other than gasoline, 
for use by the American consumer.
  Under this agreement, the Secretary will have the ability to meet any 
changing domestic market conditions. If the amount of sugar provided by 
domestic growers, plus the minimum import requirement, is insufficient 
to meet the domestic market's needs and imports sufficient to do so 
will exceed the farm bill import trigger, then those imports will be 
allowed and no sugar would be diverted for conversion to ethanol.
  Another important aspect of this agreement will ensure that the USDA 
will review all U.S. Customs, Bureau of Census, and other import data 
to monitor imports throughout any given year. Many of us have heard 
criticism with regard to past trade agreements about lax enforcement 
and implementation of their provisions to the detriment of our 
producers. This will help address those concerns.
  In spite of the letter from Secretary Johanns and the assurances of 
the administration, the sugar industry opposes this agreement and will 
not support passage of this trade agreement. While I may disagree with 
their conclusions, that is their right. I want to say, at this time, 
that we have had a number of meetings between Members of the House, 
Members of the Senate, members of the industry--which have included 
USTR and other administration officials, including Secretary Johanns. 
We have had meetings with them and without them. At every single 
crossing, the sugar industry has negotiated in good faith and they have 
been very straightforward and above board with us. I commend those men.
  It is a great country that we live in that will allow us to dialog 
over an issue that is so important, as is this, to those farmers, to 
the Members of the House, and the Members of the Senate, as well as to 
others who have a significant interest in this, and to come out at the 
end of the day with an agreement with which some of us agree but with 
which others still have the opportunity to disagree.
  This agreement can be a real building block for sugar provisions in 
the next farm bill. Let me emphasize that my concerns have been fully 
satisfied, and I do plan to vote in favor of DR-CAFTA.
  This trade agreement is also important to many people in my home 
State of Georgia. I have heard from many workers who will reap the 
benefits of increased trade with Central America and the Dominican 
Republic. Reducing trade barriers will not only enhance American 
economic growth but will greatly benefit businesses in Georgia as well, 
by allowing more Georgia-made products to be sold into Central America.
  The DR-CAFTA region is an important trading partner with Georgia. 
Georgia's exports to the DR-CAFTA region increased $113 million from 
2000 to 2004, and collectively the countries of DR-CAFTA were Georgia's 
9th largest export destination.
  According to the Department of Commerce, the DR-CAFTA will help 
Georgia's textile manufacturers, chemical and paper manufacturers, as 
well as Georgia's farmers, because DR-CAFTA provides U.S. suppliers 
with access to these markets and levels the playing field with other 
competitors.
  Let me take a moment to praise the efforts of the Secretary Mike 
Johanns and U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman for their hard work 
and their tireless efforts. These officials addressed each and every 
issue that we discussed. Without their good-faith efforts, this 
agreement simply would not have been possible.
  Special note should also go to my good friend, Senator Norm Coleman. 
His leadership and hard work in this effort has only increased my 
enormous respect for him. We have worked very closely over the past 
couple of weeks helping lay the foundation for a long-term and 
profitable future for the U.S. sugar industry. He is a workhorse, and I 
want him on my side every time.
  Let me conclude by saying I am very pleased with what we have 
crafted. This agreement will protect the sugar industry for the next 
2\1/2\ years, through the life of this current farm bill. It deserves 
the support of the Congress. I look forward to voting for DR-CAFTA.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized for 
10 minutes.
  Mr. CORZINE. If the chair will be so kind to let me know when I have 
2 minutes left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Certainly.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, let me say from the start, I have thought 
about this long and hard. I believe in the seriousness and the 
potential for free-trade agreements. But after looking at this 
particular one, and looking at it in the context of our overall 
macroeconomic policy, I am unfortunately going to have to vote against 
this proposed Dominican Republic-Central America-Free Trade Agreement.
  I have supported other agreements: Australia, Jordan, and Morocco. I 
believe in comparative advantage. There are lots of good reasons why 
free-trade agreements that are fair are ones we ought to promote. But 
they need to preserve and protect important labor, environmental, and 
security interests as well. I do not think this one does that. As a 
matter of fact, a trade agreement between the United States and Central 
America with the proper safeguards I think is a good thing. I just do 
not believe that we have embedded those in this particular agreement.
  American workers justifiably feel insecure in today's economy, 
particularly with the outsourcing or exporting

[[Page S7703]]

of American jobs that comes from so much of our trade policy. People 
are concerned whether those American jobs are going to stay at home. 
The increasing trade deficit puts an exclamation point on ``there is 
something afoul'' with our trade policy.
  All I have to do is point to this chart. Since 1993, when we started 
with NAFTA to where we are today, we have seen nothing but red ink flow 
from the trade agreements and trade arrangements that we have. 
Something is not working.
  I would like to understand how this agreement is not just another 
piece, another one in a long line of bad trade agreements. Before we 
rush forward with this, I would like to understand what is happening 
that has brought about this kind of problem. We have a $617 billion 
trade deficit on an annualized basis this year. I believe we have a lot 
of evaluation that needs to be taken before we step forward on this. We 
are clearly on the wrong track, based on the policies that we have.
  On a parochial level, since NAFTA was implemented back in 1994, New 
Jersey has lost 130,000 manufacturing jobs. We used to have about 25 
percent of our workforce in the mid-1980s in the manufacturing 
industry. Today it is below 9 percent.
  We have seen the textile industry in New Jersey absolutely decimated. 
From the economic calculations that I have seen, 46,000 of those 
130,000 manufacturing jobs lost were due to NAFTA.
  We had great companies--Allied Signal, American Standard. All of 
Patterson's textile industry left our State. We have had enough of it. 
I think we need to understand what we are doing and what the 
implications are for working men and women of this country of another 
free-trade agreement.
  If you put this into a context that the gross metropolitan product of 
the city of Newark is $103 billion, and this is only $85 billion for 
all these countries--I don't understand why this is such a priority, 
particularly given all the other issues that we have in this country 
and particularly while we are thinking about it in the context of a 
$617 billion trade deficit.
  I don't think we have our priorities ordered right here. I 
particularly think we do not have them ordered right when you compare 
this issue with our trade deficit with China, which is $162 billion. 
This, I am told, is the No. 1 priority of the administration with 
regard to trade policy. Where does that come from, when we have all of 
these difficulties in our trade arrangements?
  China has had a fixed currency pegging versus the dollar since the 
late 1990s, not working to protect intellectual property rights between 
our two countries, and there are all kinds of enforcement issues with 
the WTO. I don't get it. Where are our priorities? We have a $617 
billion trade deficit. We are talking about something that will be a 
minuscule piece of that. And we are doing it with a blind eye to major 
problems in our trade policy.
  That is the major reason I am voting against it. There are a whole 
host of other issues that need to be considered. What happens to labor 
rights and what happens to environmental rights not only with regard to 
our workers but in those countries themselves? Where are we going to 
go, when we look at the lack of enforcement with regard to labor 
principles in those individual countries? The same thing goes for 
environmental issues. I don't understand why we are ceding the ground 
on these issues. Believe me, we have enforcement standards with regard 
to commercial rights and investment rights, but when it comes to 
working men and women, when it comes to our environmental protection--
which, by the way, is a global issue--we just say it is up to them with 
regard to their own standards.
  That is not the way to do business, in my view, and I think this is a 
failed piece of legislation. It is a step back from what we did with 
Morocco and Jordan and other trade agreements that had positive 
enforcement responsibilities with regard to labor and environmental 
rights. This harms workers in those countries, not only harming workers 
in the United States.
  There is a very clear example. I want to talk a little bit about it. 
NAFTA's liberalization, so-called, was supposed to promote job growth 
in Mexico. It lost 1.7 million rural farmers their access into the 
agricultural sector in Mexico, with the only increase, of about 800,000 
new jobs, in the industrial sector. Some of those are now leaving 
because they are losing out to other parts of the world that have even 
lower labor standards and environmental standards and lower costs of 
labor. There is something wrong with this vicious cycle of eroding jobs 
here at home, even in some of the places that we think we are promoting 
them, through these free-trade agreements, and we have to get this 
settled out.
  I do not understand why we continue to stay on the same track--and I 
am an old, washed-up businessman. I believe in making sure the 
comparative advantage follows in the proper way. If it turns out you go 
from a balanced trade arrangement to a $617 billion trade imbalance in 
a given year, and you have seen almost nothing but a straight line fall 
off in our ability to export our goods on a relative basis to the rest 
of the world, we are making a big mistake, and we have a lot to 
reevaluate.
  It is time for a change with regard to our trade policies because 
they are not working economically and we are losing our ability to 
control our own destiny in our foreign reserves in other countries. It 
is not working because we are losing jobs at home and undermining 
working men and women's ability to have a high-quality standard of 
living, and we are not particularly helping others overseas. It is not 
a net boom for the countries we think we are trying to support.
  If we are not going to have strong labor, strong environmental 
rights, if we are not going to get some kind of benefit, a major 
macroeconomic benefit, I don't understand why we are approving all of 
these trade agreements. That is why I will be voting no on this CAFTA 
legislation before the Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes from the time of 
Senator Grassley.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I shall not object, but I wonder if I 
might add to the unanimous consent request. Senator DeWine has asked 
for 10 minutes of Senator Grassley's time; we ask that Senator Byrd be 
recognized for 20 minutes from my time following the presentation by 
Senator DeWine; following that, Senator Burr be recognized for 10 
minutes from Senator Grassley's time; following that, Senator Reid will 
be recognized for 10 minutes from Senator Baucus's time. I ask that by 
unanimous consent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Would the Senator specify which Senator Reid?
  Mr. DORGAN. Senator Reid from Nevada.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Thank you. I apologize for interrupting my colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized for 10 
minutes.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, DR-CAFTA is good for my home State of 
Ohio, and it is good for our country.
  I was in the House of Representatives in the 1980s when significant 
strides were made toward democracy in Central America. We all remember 
that struggle. We all remember the resources that were put into Central 
America by the United States. It is time for us to refocus on Central 
America. If Central America is going to flourish, if democracy is going 
to continue in Central America and the economy is going to develop 
there, this is an essential component of that, an essential piece of 
that. While it is true that DR-CAFTA is only one piece of the puzzle, 
it is an important piece in determining the economic health of our 
neighbors to the south. Also, it is important to our own Nation as 
well.
  DR-CAFTA is about fairness. It is about reciprocity. It would provide 
U.S. exporters with the same market access to Central America that 
Central American exporters unilaterally received through the past 20 
years through various trade agreements. These trade agreements led to a 
one-sided lowering of tariffs. Currently, approximately 80 percent of 
Central America's exports enter the United States duty free. This 
unilateral tariff reduction helped Central American countries export to 
the United States but left U.S. producers facing steep and often 
prohibitive tariffs when they

[[Page S7704]]

tried to export their own goods into Central America.
  With DR-CAFTA, more than 80 percent of U.S. manufacturing exports to 
the region will be duty free immediately, and the remaining tariffs 
will be phased out over 10 years, including the up to 15 percent 
tariffs on some of Ohio's top exports to the region such as chemicals, 
electrical equipment and appliances, machinery, plastics, rubber, 
paper, processed foods, and transportation equipment. For Ohio's 
agricultural producers, DR-CAFTA would eliminate tariffs on 50 percent 
of U.S. exports immediately and most remaining duties within 15 years.

  A perfect example of the benefits of DR-CAFTA is a situation faced by 
Heinz. Heinz has a catsup production facility in Fremont, OH, where 
they produce 80 percent of the catsup consumed in the entire United 
States. Heinz also produces numerous other condiments throughout the 
United States. Yet Heinz faces 15 to 47 percent tariffs on their 
products when they try to export to Central America. DR-CAFTA will 
change that. CAFTA will help ensure that the up to three generations of 
workers in Fremont, OH, in that factory will have jobs for themselves, 
jobs for their children when they grow up. This is just one example of 
why Ohio needs DR-CAFTA and why this entire country needs DR-CAFTA.
  Another good example is Polychem, located in Mentor, OH. They have 
been in business for over 30 years. They have grown to more than 200 
employees. They manufacture industrial strapping but cannot export into 
the Central American market competitively now because of high tariffs. 
DR-CAFTA would level the playing field for Polychem, allowing them to 
expand their exports and grow jobs in Ohio.
  By requiring Central American countries to lower their tariffs on 
U.S. products, the United States would be able to sell into a consumer 
base 45 million strong that already today buys American. The 45 million 
citizens represented by the DR-CAFTA agreement purchase today more U.S. 
goods than the 1.53 billion citizens of India, Indonesia, and Russia 
combined. DR-CAFTA will simply increase that.
  Not only do these consumers already buy America but, significantly 
for my State, they buy Ohio. In the past 5 years, Ohio exports to the 
DR-CAFTA region have grown by 90 percent, far outpacing their demands 
for exports from any other State in America. In 2004 alone, Ohio 
exported $197 million in manufactured goods to the region, including 
chemical and manufacturing goods, plastics, rubber products, fabric 
milled goods, electrical equipment, and appliances. These are just the 
largest categories. Each and every Senator could easily come to the 
Senate today and add a list similar to this.
  The list of DR-CAFTA support is long in my home State of Ohio. In 
Ohio, the Ohio Pork Producers Council, the Ohio Soybean Association, 
the Ohio Poultry Association, the Ohio Dairy Producers, the Ohio 
Cattlemen's Association, the Ohio Farm Bureau, the Ohio Farm Growers, 
and the Ohio Wheat Growers Association all support DR-CAFTA. Those are 
just the supporters in the Ohio agricultural sector.
  While many are helped by free trade, we understand whenever we have 
free trade legislation or free trade there are some individuals in 
society who are hurt. We need to make sure we always are concerned 
about them, that we pass legislation that assists them, and we must 
continue in this Congress to do that. Yet if we turn our backs on free 
trade, we would ultimately have far more unemployed Americans, and our 
economy would be a fraction of what it is today.
  For example, in the first year after the enactment of the United 
States-Chile Free Trade Agreement, Ohio's exports to Chile grew 20 
percent; and since NAFTA was enacted in 1993, Ohio's combined exports 
to Canada and Mexico have increased by more than 106 percent. More 
exports means more jobs for Ohio and more jobs for our country as a 
whole.

  Mr. President, as I said already, DR-CAFTA is good for Ohio, it is 
good for the United States. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of 
this important free-trade agreement. But let me say one additional 
thing. As much as I support DR-CAFTA, there is something else that 
needs to be done, and that is this Congress needs to pass trade 
legislation that will assist the country of Haiti.
  Last year, the Senate passed an important trade bill for Haiti, only 
to see that trade agreement die in the House of Representatives. I have 
raised this issue with the administration and with my colleagues in 
both the House and the Senate. Haiti, the poorest country by far in our 
hemisphere, arguably needs our attention the most. To leave them out 
and to not pass trade legislation to assist them is shortsighted, it is 
wrong, and it is not helpful. We make a mistake by leaving them out.
  If nothing is done by this Congress soon to pass a trade agreement 
that will be of assistance to Haiti, it will really be a deathblow to 
what remains of Haiti's economy, and we will be seeing boats swollen 
with Haitians heading back to our shores again.
  Mr. President, I simply implore my colleagues, as well as the Bush 
administration, that after CAFTA is passed, we look again to 
legislation that I have proposed with many of my colleagues to be of 
assistance to Haiti. It is the right thing to do from a humanitarian 
point of view, but it is also the right thing to do from a foreign 
policy point of view as well.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burr). Under the previous order, the 
Senator from West Virginia is recognized for 20 minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, on April 6 of this year, Senator Dorgan and I 
introduced S. Res. 100, a resolution to prevent a 2-year extension of 
the so-called fast track or trade promotion authority, which the 
Congress granted the administration in the Trade Act of 2002. If our 
resolution were approved, existing fast-track negotiating authority 
would expire this year. If only it would. If only it would. Wouldn't it 
be ideal if it would expire? I think so. But, instead, it will be 
extended through 2007. That is a crying shame.
  Senator Dorgan and I introduced that resolution of disapproval to 
fast track because we oppose giving any executive--any chief executive, 
Democrat or Republican--the unfettered authority to negotiate trade 
agreements such as CAFTA which cannot be amended by the Congress. It 
cannot be amended. All of this praise I hear of CAFTA--we have too 
little time here to consider and no time to amend. We cannot amend. Too 
little time. Too much praise. Too much short shrift. Too much short 
shrift is given to this, the Constitution of the United States, which I 
hold in my hand. Yes, too much praise, too little time, too much short 
shrift.
  I opposed fast track when it was used to negotiate the NAFTA; I 
opposed fast track when it was used to negotiate the Uruguay Round; and 
I oppose fast track today.
  Let me restate what I have said so many times--so many times--in the 
past, something that I think people may be finally beginning to 
comprehend. Article I, section 8 of this Constitution, which I hold in 
my hand, states that the Congress--hear me--that the Congress, not the 
executive, shall have the power to ``regulate Commerce with foreign 
Nations.'' And under Article I, section 7, the Senate is permitted to 
``propose or concur with'' amendments to all revenue bills.
  But under fast track--this shabby, shabby piece of trash--under fast 
track--this trumped-up power grab called fast track which is now 
disingenuously called trade promotion authority--listen to that: trade 
promotion authority--the Congress is left with no ability to modify the 
text of these trade agreements. And we did it to ourselves. Congress 
did it to itself. As a result, they are negotiated by a small band of 
bureaucratic gnomes--bureaucratic gnomes--accountable to whom? 
Accountable to no one, bureaucratic gnomes accountable to no one. But 
we should not blame them. We should blame ourselves. The Congress of 
the United States cut its own throat.
  Under fast track, the Congress cannot modify, the Congress cannot 
amend, the Congress cannot delete any section of trade agreements 
negotiated by the USTR. Congress is excluded from the process, just 
like we did to ourselves when we shifted the power to declare war to a 
President, one man. We did it to ourselves. We shifted power under this 
Constitution--lodged

[[Page S7705]]

in the Congress, which shall declare war under this Constitution--we 
shifted that power to one man, and in so doing we relegated ourselves 
to the sideline.
  So today what can we say? We cannot say anything. We did it to 
ourselves. We said: Here, Mr. President, take it. It is yours, lock, 
stock, and barrel. That is what we did when it came to declaring war. 
And we are paying for it in Iraq.
  But let's get back on this matter. We did it to ourselves again. We 
excluded ourselves from the process. We cut ourselves out of the loop. 
We cast ourselves aside, like excess baggage, shunned, shunned like the 
woman who wore the scarlet letter.
  But unlike Nathaniel Hawthorne's Hester Prynne, who had to sport only 
one letter as a symbol of her wrongdoing, the shamed in this story 
should be forced to wear three letters to highlight their humiliation. 
And those letters are ``TPA,'' which stands for ``trade promotion 
authority.'' What a misnomer. How disingenuous can we become? Fast-
track negotiating authority is an abomination--an abomination.
  Is this what we think the Founding Fathers had in mind when they 
created our three separate branches of Government? We don't pay too 
much attention to that these days. Is this what they had in mind when 
they created our three separate branches of Government? First, in this 
Constitution, the legislative branch, then the executive branch, then 
the judicial branch. But that first branch, the people's branch, is 
this what they had in mind when they created that first branch? Blind 
adherence to agreements negotiated behind closed doors, dictated word 
for word by only one branch of the Government, the executive branch? Is 
that what they had in mind? That is not what the Constitution says. It 
says that the Congress shall regulate foreign commerce.
  But the Congress, like blind mice or hyperactive lemmings, time and 
time and time again just keeps on making the same mistake. It approves 
fast track. Each agreement negotiated under fast track destroys more 
American jobs and leads our Nation into deeper and deeper deficits.
  The overall U.S. trade deficit in 1993, when NAFTA was enacted, was 
$75.7 billion. Today what is it? Not $75.7 billion. It is nearly $700 
billion. Back in 1993--that hasn't been too long ago, back in 1993--the 
United States had a trade surplus with Mexico of $2.4 billion. Not too 
long ago, 1993. Look backward, O time, in thy flight. We had a trade 
surplus with Mexico of $2.4 billion in 1993, $2.4 billion. Last year we 
ran a trade deficit of $45 billion with Mexico. There you have it. The 
facts speak for themselves. Were these some of the promised benefits of 
NAFTA? It is too easy to forget. Were these some of the promised 
benefits of NAFTA? Sky high, yes, way up in the stratosphere, sky-high 
trade deficits? Since NAFTA and the Uruguay Round were negotiated under 
fast track, the United States has lost thousands--thousands, I say--of 
manufacturing and service jobs, a substantial portion of which have 
been outsourced--we hear much of that word these days, ``outsourced''--
to India or to China, leaving American workers' jobs without health 
care and with diminished pensions.
  I have seen it over and over again in West Virginia. I have seen it 
happen time and time and time and time again, firsthand, in West 
Virginia. It has happened in our steel industry in West Virginia. It 
has happened in the aluminum industry. It has happened in the glass 
industry. It has happened in the communications industry. It has 
happened in the special metals industry. It has happened in the 
furniture industry. It has happened in textiles. It has happened in 
handtools. Were these the promised benefits of NAFTA? Were these the 
promised benefits of the Uruguay Round? Who could have foreseen that 
these agreements would cause such massive dislocation, such grief? Who? 
Who?
  I will tell you who: Those of us who wisely voted against them. I 
did, and so did about a third of the U.S. Senate. But the majority back 
then refused to see what was coming. The majority refused to look. The 
majority blindfolded itself and refused to see what was coming. I hope 
they recognize what they see today.
  Administrations like to allege that because they sometimes deign to 
``consult'' with the Congress on fast track trade agreements, their 
consultations satisfy the need of Congress to be involved in drafting 
the text of these agreements. We all know what a sham that is. Yes, 
they condescend to consult with Congress, the people's elected 
representatives. The President is indirectly elected by the electors, 
the representatives of the people. We are elected by the people, 
directly by the people. I come here, as it were, directly from the 
voting booth of the people. Despite all the assurances we heard during 
the 2002 trade debate, I have been told that even members of the 
Finance Committee, the Senate Committee that is charged with 
jurisdiction over trade matters, have been shut out. Can you believe 
it? Let me say that again. I can hardly believe what I am saying.
  Despite all the assurances we heard during the 2002 trade debate, I 
have been told that even members of the Senate Finance Committee, the 
Senate committee that is charged with jurisdiction over trade matters, 
have been shut out of substantive consultations on CAFTA. My, how the 
mighty have fallen. Since only certain members of the Finance Committee 
are part of the congressional oversight group which was supposedly 
created in 2002 to ``consult'' with the White House, other Senators on 
the Finance Committee who are not a part of that group have rarely been 
consulted on CAFTA at all. What kind of consultation is that? What 
kind?
  Similarly, the majority-controlled Senate Finance Committee refused 
to hold a hearing on the TPA resolution of disapproval that Senator 
Dorgan and I introduced in April. The committee also refused--maybe I 
should say ``declined''--to discharge the resolution so it could 
receive an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor.
  You hear that a lot around here, this demand for an up-or-down vote. 
I hear it said that nominees deserve an up-or-down vote. Who said that? 
The President and others say the nominees deserve an up-or-down vote. 
The Constitution doesn't say that. Here is the Constitution. It doesn't 
say that. What do the American people deserve? That is what counts.
  Well, the Senate leadership refused to give our resolution an up-or-
down vote. Instead, they killed it in committee. It died a natural 
death. They killed it in committee, despite a written request asking 
for its discharge that was sent by Senators Dorgan, Graham, 
Rockefeller, Johnson, Levin, Inouye, Dayton, and myself.
  The proponents of fast track, TPA, and CAFTA argue that by expanding 
free trade in Central America we will help the workers in those 
countries--I have heard some of that today--become more stable and less 
of a national security threat. That is what we were told about NAFTA. 
What happened? Did NAFTA stabilize immigration? No. Since NAFTA was 
implemented, the number of those migrating illegally into the United 
States to seek work has doubled. Perhaps this is because the wages of 
Mexican workers have declined and the number of people in poverty there 
has grown.
  Yet the administration wants us to enact now another NAFTA, this time 
called CAFTA--NAFTA, CAFTA; NAFTA CAFTA. Poetic, isn't it? It has a 
rhyming sound. NAFTA, CAFTA. Yesterday NAFTA, today CAFTA, what the 
AFL-CIO tells us will not require its members to maintain or improve 
their labor laws or to protect the core labor rights of their workers.
  So the administration continues to negotiate these failed free-trade 
agreements, when it should be focusing on the real trade crises that 
face our Nation.
  For example, while the administration has been spending its resources 
on these agreements, it is doing nothing to address our Nation's 
enormous trade deficit, which soon will surpass $700 billion. What a 
deficit--$700 billion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. BYRD. I am so sorry about that, Mr. President. I ask unanimous 
consent that I may be given 5 more minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair for his courtesy. May I say that the 
chairman

[[Page S7706]]

of the Finance Committee is a man whom I like. He is always friendly, 
always courteous to me, and in Shakespeare's words, ``He's a man after 
my own kidney.''
  The administration also refuses to bring WTO cases against other 
countries that violate international law. Yet it acquiesces when the 
WTO unfairly and deliberately twists international rules to strike down 
our own laws. In fact, the current administration has taken on only 12 
cases to the WTO in over 4 years, compared with its predecessor, which 
filed an average of 11 WTO cases per year.
  The U.S. Trade Representative sits idly by while the WTO tries to 
undermine and/or eliminate our most critical trade laws, including the 
Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act, also known as the Byrd 
amendment. A strong majority of the Senate supports the Byrd amendment, 
and this law will not be repealed or modified in response to the WTO. 
In fact, in the fiscal year 2004 and 2005 Consolidated Appropriations 
Acts both Houses of Congress directed the administration to start 
negotiating a solution to this WTO dispute. In response to this 
congressional mandate, the administration, in early 2004, submitted a 
proposal to a negotiating group in Geneva to reverse this WTO ruling 
against our law. But the administration has done nothing to advance 
those negotiations since April 2004. The administration needs to stop 
stalling and start solving this problem.
  History shows that it is a big mistake for the Congress to cede its 
authority to negotiate trade agreements to the Executive--and I am not 
just talking about this administration. I have been in Congress 53 
years, and it is the same in every administration, Democratic and 
Republican. They follow the State Department line all the time--because 
the outcome of those agreements can have disastrous consequences for 
American industry.
  How much more negative history, how many more flawed consequences 
must our Nation suffer before we wake up and realize that fast track 
has been a disaster? Instead of negotiating more unfair, at any rate, 
agreements such as CAFTA, we should be fighting aggressively to 
preserve our Nation's trade laws and to protect the American workers 
and their families, and also protect the Constitution of the United 
States.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from North 
Carolina.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I probably won't be as eloquent as the 
senior Senator from West Virginia, but rest assured that I am just as 
passionate about the issue before this body.
  I rise today, after months of countless discussions with interested 
parties, farmers, manufacturers, textile workers, and small businesses, 
to voice my support for the Central American Free Trade Agreement. It 
is not a decision that I have reached lightly.
  While some in my State continue to raise concerns with this agreement 
and trade in general, I believe this agreement is in the long-term best 
interests of North Carolina and our Nation. When I wake up in the 
morning, I look forward, I don't look back; I look to the future. 
Simply put, Mr. President, voting no on this agreement would be the 
easy thing to do. However, I believe voting yes is, in fact, the right 
choice for the State of North Carolina and its economic future.
  It is only through agreements with our friends, neighbors, and allies 
that we will be able to compete with Asia. Many will argue that this 
agreement is a jobs loser, and I certainly understand that feeling and 
respect those opinions. After all, my home State of North Carolina is 
undergoing a significant economic transition which is changing the 
nature of our job market. However, I believe CAFTA will provide 
opportunities for economic growth in my State down the road.
  CAFTA will provide garment makers in the region with a critical 
advantage in competing with Asia--particularly Chinese--garment 
manufacturers. This is crucial for one very important reason: those 
regional garment makers buy their yarn, their fabric, from American 
companies. Many of those companies are based in North Carolina. Those 
American companies buy their cotton from American farmers. This is not 
the case in Asia.
  I am persuaded by the impressive level of trade between North 
Carolina and Central America today. North Carolina exported almost $2 
billion worth of merchandise to Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El 
Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua in 2004 alone. Only 
Florida and Texas exported more. My State's exports to the region last 
year accounted for almost 10 percent of our total exports. These 
exports translate into real jobs in North Carolina.
  I am also persuaded by the side agreements that I know the President 
is well aware of--side agreements intended to address shortcomings in 
the underlying agreement. Our new Trade Representative, my friend, Rob 
Portman, has committed he will utilize the CAFTA amendment mechanism to 
pursue a rule-of-origin change for pockets and linings, helping ensure 
that $100 million in U.S. pocketing and lining exports to the region 
are not lost. The administration has also reaffirmed its commitment to 
negotiate an aggressive customs enforcement agreement with Mexico 
before the cumulation provisions of CAFTA can be used. Finally, 
Nicaragua has committed to allocate its trade preference levels, or 
TPLs, to its current nonqualifying U.S. trade, ensuring that existing 
U.S. business is not impacted by this provision.

  I am not the only one persuaded by these side agreements. On June 27, 
10 organizations, representing textile and apparel businesses, wrote 
Members of the House and Senate in support of CAFTA. Those 
organizations wrote:

       This agreement is vitally important for the United States 
     textile and apparel industry and the more than 600,000 
     workers who are still employed in the United States in this 
     industry.

  I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that this letter be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                    June 27, 2005.
       Dear Senator/Representative: We are writing to express our 
     strong support for and urge passage of the implementing 
     legislation (HR 3045/S 1307) for the U.S.-Central America-
     Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR).
       This agreement is vitally important for the U.S. textile 
     and apparel industry and the more than 600,000 workers who 
     are still employed in the United States in this industry.
       Last year, we exported more than $4 billion of textile and 
     apparel products to Central America and the Dominican 
     Republic. More than 25 percent of all U.S. fabric exports and 
     40 percent of all U.S. yarn exports go to this region. As a 
     result, garments imported from the region contain on average 
     more than 70 percent U.S. content. In contrast, garments 
     imported from Asia contain less than 1 percent U.S. content.
       Recent changes in the international trade regime--through 
     the elimination of quotas have eroded the competitiveness of 
     the partnership we now have with Central American region. 
     Moreover, the existing program--because of burdensome 
     documentation requirements and because it will expire soon--
     no longer provides as strong an incentive to make clothing in 
     the region using U.S. inputs.
       CAFTA-DR will solidify and stabilize this partnership by 
     making the current program broader, easier to use, more 
     flexible, permanent, and reciprocal. It will create new sales 
     opportunities for U.S. textile and apparel products by 
     providing permanent incentives for the use of U.S. yarns and 
     fabrics in textile articles made in the region. And because 
     it will promote duty free access for U.S. textile and apparel 
     exports to local markets in the region--which currently does 
     not exist--it will give us new advantages over our 
     competitors.
       For all these reasons, textile and apparel companies from 
     across the supply chain have come together to express support 
     for CAFTA-DR and to urge its swift approval.
       On behalf of the U.S. companies we represent and the 
     workers they employ, we urge you to support the agreement and 
     vote YES on the CAFTA-DR.
           Sincerely,
       American Apparel & Footwear Association (AAFA),
       American Cotton Shippers Association (ACSA),
       American Fiber Manufacturers Association (AFMA),
       American Textile Machinery Association (ATMA),
       Association of the Non Woven Fabrics Industry (INDA),
       National Cotton Council (NCC),
       National Council of Textile Organizations (NCTO),
       Sewn Products Equipment & Suppliers of the Americas 
     (SPESA),
       Textile Distributors Association (TDA),
       United States Hosiery Manufacturers Coalition (USHMC).

  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, North Carolina textile and apparel firms are

[[Page S7707]]

by no means unanimous in their support of CAFTA. I clearly understand 
that. But when companies as diverse as Sara Lee, Russell, Glen Raven, 
National Textiles, and Parkdale, companies that have not agreed before, 
agree on this, we should take notice, and I have.
  Without CAFTA, more and more garment manufacturing will simply find 
its way to China to be manufactured. As Central American manufacturers 
are forced out by Chinese manufacturers, more American jobs will be put 
at risk for the simple fact that Chinese manufacturers do not use 
American yarn, they do not use American fabric, and they do not use 
American cotton.
  I am persuaded by agriculture's support for this agreement, and in a 
letter to me recently, North Carolina's Farm Bureau president Larry 
Wooten said:

       On balance, the CAFTA-DR is a positive trade deal for North 
     Carolina agriculture. It will boost our State's number one 
     industry by helping North Carolina's farm families develop 
     new markets for their products. North Carolina Farm Bureau 
     strongly supports CAFTA-DR.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                        North Carolina Farm Bureau


                                                   Federation,

                                       Raleigh, NC, June 30, 2005.
     Hon. Richard Burr,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Burr: As the U.S. Senate prepares to vote 
     today on the Central America--Dominican Republic Free Trade 
     Agreement (CAFTA-DR), I am writing you to express North 
     Carolina Farm Bureau's support for this important agreement. 
     Thank you for your vote last night to invoke cloture on S. 
     1307, and we hope you will vote for this measure again on 
     final passage today.
       Currently, U.S. agriculture faces a $700 million trade 
     deficit with the six countries included in the CAFTA-DR. This 
     is largely the result of the General System of Preferences 
     (GSP) trade provisions and the Caribbean Basin Initiative 
     (CBI), which together allow 99 percent of Central American 
     and Dominican Republic agricultural products to enter U.S. 
     markets duty free. Conversely, U.S. exports to the region are 
     subject to applied tariffs that range from 15 to 43 percent. 
     Indeed, North Carolina's farm families have already paid for 
     this agreement.
       CAFTA-DR will eliminate these trade barriers, and provide 
     North Carolina farmers and agribusinesses with the same duty-
     free access that CAFTA-DR countries already enjoy in our 
     markets. In fact, many U.S. competitors in the region, like 
     Chile, already receive preferential access from the CAFTA-DR 
     countries.
       A News & Observer article published earlier this year 
     reported that, according to the U.S. Department of Commerce, 
     North Carolina exports to the CAFTA-DR countries grew by $678 
     million from 2001 to 2004, the largest increase in the 
     nation. The article went on to say that North Carolina is the 
     CAFTA-DR region's third largest trading partner behind Texas 
     and Florida. Clearly, North Carolina agriculture has much to 
     gain from CAFTA-DR's enactment.
       According to a recent study conducted by the American Farm 
     Bureau Federation (AFBF), II CAFTA-DR is a good deal for 
     North Carolina agriculture. In 2003, North Carolina's farm 
     cash receipts equaled $6.9 billion. Of that figure, $1.3 
     billion, or about 19 percent, came from agricultural exports. 
     If CAFTA-DR is enacted, AFBF estimates that North Carolina 
     will increase agriculture trade to this region by nearly $70 
     million per year by 2024.
       As you know, North Carolina is a major producer of pork, 
     poultry, and cotton, as well as a significant producer of 
     soybeans. Under CAFTA-DR, North Carolina could expect to 
     increase meat exports to CAFTA-DR nations by $24 million per 
     year once the agreement is fully implemented. Poultry, our 
     third largest agricultural export, would experience export 
     increases of $42 million per year. Exports of cotton would 
     increase approximately $1 million per year, while soybeans 
     and soybean product exports would grow by $770,000 per year.
       It is important to remember that the global community is 
     closely monitoring congressional deliberations regarding 
     CAFTA-DR. Rejecting this agreement will damage U.S. 
     credibility in the World Trade Organization (WTO) and deter 
     other nations from negotiating future trade agreements with 
     us. Further, failing to approve CAFTA-DR and any subsequent 
     trade agreements will exert more pressure on Congress to 
     increase Farm Bill spending.
       On balance, the CAFTA-DR is a positive trade deal for North 
     Carolina agriculture. It will boost our state's number one 
     industry by helping North Carolina's farm families develop 
     new markets for their products. North Carolina Farm Bureau 
     strongly supports CAFTA-DR, and we urge you to support on the 
     Senate Floor today.
       As a friend of North Carolina Farm Bureau, you have always 
     been accessible and I appreciate your support for North 
     Carolina's farm families. As you consider how you will vote 
     on this critical matter, please know that I stand ready to 
     assist you in any way. I look forward to hearing from you 
     soon.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Larry B. Wooten,
                                                        President.

  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, current agricultural trade between the 
United States and the region can be a one-way street. That street is 
often closed to our farmers by regional barriers. CAFTA will remove 
those barriers, increasing access for U.S. farmers. With exports 
accounting for 20 percent of North Carolina's farm cash receipts, 
almost $1.5 billion, my State's farmers stand to make tremendous gains 
in Central American markets.
  The key to making this trade agreement an economic success for North 
Carolina, though, is enforcement. I am a proponent of free trade, but I 
am an even bigger proponent of fair trade. The rules must be enforced. 
I intend to make sure that neither this Nation nor our partner 
countries turn a blind eye to the provisions set out and the assurances 
made in CAFTA.
  Several of my colleagues have come down to the Senate floor to 
express their concerns with China. Let me be specific. I have concerns 
about China, too. I voted against normal trade relations status for 
China eight times as a Member of the other body. Hindering our Nation's 
trade with other nations to get back at China is not the answer. 
Enforcing our laws and enforcing the provisions of the trade agreement 
with China is the answer to China.
  If I held up a chart today and suggested that chart listed every time 
China had voluntarily broken our trade agreements, it would be blank. 
If we want trade to work, we as a country have to enforce the 
agreements we have with our partners.
  This is not the China free-trade agreement. It is the Central 
American Free Trade Agreement. We need to stop holding our friends in 
Central America and elsewhere accountable for China's unlawful 
practices. We should not let China get away with unfair trade 
practices, and we must strengthen our trade enforcement efforts. If 
China is going to break the rules, let's call them on it. Let's make 
them pay for it. But we should not make other countries the scapegoat 
for China.
  In the 2 years since CAFTA was signed, I have worked to better 
understand the agreement and the impacts it will have on my State. 
Today I am convinced there is no choice--no choice--but to look to the 
future and approve this agreement. The new and emerging sectors of 
North Carolina's economy, from computer manufacturing to biotechnology 
and established sectors such as financial services and agriculture, 
depend on agreements such as this.
  What makes CAFTA fairly unique is the recognition by many in the 
textile and apparel industry that CAFTA represents one of their last, 
best chances to compete with Asia. We cannot afford to wall ourselves 
off from the rest of the world if we hope to compete in a global 
marketplace and to create jobs in the United States.
  I urge my colleagues to look at the long-term benefits of prosperous, 
successful, established democracies to our south and the economic 
opportunities it provides for our own citizens here. If we fail to look 
to our friends in the south, we will only be strengthening our 
competitors to the west.
  I urge my colleagues at the end of this debate to vote in favor of 
the CAFTA agreement, and I urge my colleagues to stay vigilant, whether 
it is CAFTA or China, as it relates to enforcement mechanisms with our 
trade partners.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
allowed to speak for up to 15 minutes and that the time be charged 
under the control of Senator Grassley.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from California may proceed.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I have been listening to the debate 
upstairs on television. I thought I might come down and indicate the 
reasons I am going to vote for this Central American Free Trade 
Agreement.
  This agreement has sparked a great deal of debate about our trade 
agenda,

[[Page S7708]]

the effects of trade agreements on labor rights and the environment, 
and the impact of increased imports on sensitive domestic industries. I 
understand the concerns of my colleagues, including members of my own 
party, who do not support this agreement.
  For me, I have always approached these agreements on a case-by-case 
basis. I have supported some, and I have opposed others. For example, I 
opposed the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Singapore-Chile 
Free Trade Agreement. I opposed NAFTA because of the concerns about the 
impact of jobs and the environment, and I opposed the Chile-Singapore 
Free Trade Agreement because of the inclusion of immigration 
provisions.
  But in my view, this is an important opportunity for this Congress to 
go on record in support of economic growth and political stability in 
these countries and new markets and opportunities for our manufacturers 
and farmers.
  Bottom line, this agreement provides immediate benefits for American 
exports. It balances an uneven trading relationship. Some have said 
this, but I do not think it has sunk in: approximately 80 percent of 
goods manufactured in these countries and 99 percent of their 
agricultural products already enter the United States duty free. But 
America's exports into these countries face stiff tariffs on a number 
of key products. Let me give some examples.
  Wood products have an average tariff of 10 percent; motor vehicles 
and parts, an average of 11.1 percent; vegetables, fruits, and nuts, an 
average of 16.7 percent--that is today--dairy products, an average of 
19.5 percent and up to 60 percent in some cases. In some cases, to send 
dairy products into these countries, they face a tariff of 60 percent; 
grains, an average tariff of 10.6 percent; beef, up to 30 percent; 
rice, up to 60 percent; and wine is as high as 35 percent.
  Upon enactment of this agreement, 80 percent of U.S. industrial 
exports will enter the CAFTA countries duty free, with the remaining 
tariffs eliminated over 10 years. That is good for us. That is good for 
our workers because in these industries it will produce more jobs. 
Fifty percent of agricultural exports become duty free immediately, 
with remaining tariffs eliminated over 15 and 20 years.
  A World Bank and University of Michigan study estimates that with the 
agreement, U.S. income will rise by $17 billion and the income of CAFTA 
countries by $5 billion. I think that is substantial. According to the 
American Farm Bureau, CAFTA would increase U.S. agricultural exports by 
$1.5 billion annually.
  Now let me just talk about my own State of California. It has often 
been said we are the fifth largest economic engine on Earth. We have a 
$1.4 trillion economy. We are a leader in U.S. and global markets, with 
products ranging from high tech to agriculture. Our workers, our 
farmers, and our businesses need access to new and expanding markets to 
sustain that leadership position.
  In 2004, my State exports to the CAFTA countries totaled $660 
million. That was the sixth largest of the 50 States. Manufactured 
goods accounted for 89 percent of the total, including computers and 
electronic equipment, fabric mill products, and coal products.
  CAFTA will provide significant opportunities for several California 
export industries. Let me go over them. Let us take dairy, for example. 
California's producers represent a $4 billion dairy industry. We know 
it is the largest in the Nation. Their exports face duties as high as 
60 percent today. Each country in this agreement establishes tariff 
rate quotas for certain dairy products totaling 10,000 metric tons 
across the six CAFTA countries. Access will increase by 5 percent a 
year for the Central American countries and 10 percent a year for the 
Dominican Republic, and all duties will be eliminated over 20 years.
  Beef: Current duties on beef are as high as 30 percent. Duties on 
prime and choice cuts will be eliminated immediately in the Central 
American countries. Duties on other beef products will be phased out 
over 5 to 10 years.
  Wine: Current duties on American wine are as high as 35 percent. 
Duties on standard size U.S. bottled wine will be eliminated 
immediately. All others will be phased out over 15 years.
  Rice: Currently, U.S. rice exports face tariffs of up to 60 percent. 
Under the agreement, each country will establish a tariff rate quota 
for milled rice and rough rice, except for the Dominican Republic, 
which will have a tariff rate quota for brown rice. In the first year, 
400,000 metric tons will be imported duty free, growing as the tariff 
is eventually eliminated.
  Fruits: Duties of up to 20 percent on U.S. grapes, raisins, fresh and 
canned peaches, and fresh and canned pears will be eliminated 
immediately upon enactment of the agreement.
  Tree nuts: Duties of up to 20 percent on U.S. walnuts, almonds, and 
pistachios will be eliminated immediately upon enactment of the 
agreement.
  Services: The agreement provides broad market access and regulatory 
transparency for telecommunications, insurance, financial services, 
distribution services, computer and business technology services, and 
tourism, among others. U.S. financial service suppliers will have full 
rights to establish subsidiaries, joint ventures or branches for banks 
and insurance companies.
  High tech: The agreement eliminates distribution barriers for 
information technology products. It requires countries to eliminate 
information technology tariffs by signing the World Trade Organization 
Information Technology Agreement, and it opens up information 
technology services. All exports of products covered by the Information 
Technology Agreement, including computer equipment and communications 
equipment, will receive immediate duty-free treatment.

  Entertainment: California is a big entertainment State, and this is 
very important. The agreement provides for increased market access for 
U.S. films and television programs through cable, satellite, and the 
Internet. Currently, movies face tariffs ranging from 5 to 20 percent. 
Compact discs and DVDs face tariffs of up to 10 percent. The agreement 
provides for zero tariffs on movies, music, consumer products, 
software, books and magazines, and nondiscriminatory treatment for 
digital products such as U.S. software, music, text, and videos. It 
also includes protections for U.S. trademarks, copyrighted works, 
patents, trade secrets, and penalties for piracy and counterfeiting. As 
a matter of fact, Peter Chernin, the CEO and president of the Fox 
Group, said this: This agreement sets a template for what agreements 
should look like.
  Textiles: Apparel from garment factories in Central America 
supporting 400,000 jobs will be duty free and quota free in the United 
States if they contain U.S. fabric and yarn, thus benefiting U.S. 
fabric and yarn exports. The CAFTA countries are the largest market for 
U.S. apparel and yarn exports. That is $2.2 billion in 2003. Tariffs on 
U.S. textile exports are currently 18 percent, and they will be 
eliminated immediately upon enactment of the agreement.
  Now, these are all win-win-win for my State and I believe for the 
United States. Perhaps because of the NAFTA agreement, which was a very 
different agreement, people look at this agreement as they looked at 
NAFTA. In fact, CAFTA countries now export most of their products into 
the United States at no tariff, and most of our products face tariffs 
which would either be eliminated immediately or eliminated over a 
period of time under CAFTA.
  So I do not think it should come as any surprise that there is very 
wide support among California businesses, farmers, and agricultural 
organizations: the Farm Bureau, the Wine Institute, the United 
Dairymen, the Rice Commission, the Cattlemen's Association, the Pork 
Producers, the Table Grape Commission. In high tech, virtually every 
company: Cisco, Intel, National Semiconductor, Apple, Oracle, Hewlett-
Packard, Qualcomm, IBM, Kodak, and the Telecommunications Industry of 
America. This is opening markets for our products. Entertainment: the 
Motion Picture Association of America, the Recording Industry of 
America, the Independent Film and Television Alliance, and the 
Entertainment Software Association.
  As the New York Times stated in an editorial:

       Denying poor people in Central America the benefits of 
     better access to the American market is certainly not the way 
     to lift them out of poverty.


[[Page S7709]]


  That is the flip side of this, that by creating an agreement that 
reduces these tariffs on American products, a more competitive and 
higher quality marketplace is produced for citizens of these countries, 
and that is not bad.
  Denying these countries access to the U.S. market is certainly not 
the way to reward them for advances made in the area of democracy, 
human rights, and the rule of law. Twenty years ago, these countries 
were marred by constant warfare, human rights abuses, poverty, and 
political instability. Since then, they have all made enormous strides, 
and passage of CAFTA will not only promote economic development and 
rising standards of living by allowing their products to compete in the 
U.S. market, it will also lock in economic reforms, respect for the 
rule of law, and solidify democratic institutions. Each country now has 
a democratically elected leader, and I think we should reward those 
allies and not turn our backs on them.
  I ask unanimous consent to have a letter from former President Jimmy 
Carter printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                     June 8, 2005.
     Hon. Charles E. Grassley,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       To Senator Charles Grassley: As you prepare for your 
     initial consideration of the Central American Free Trade 
     Agreement (CAFTA) with the nations of Central America and the 
     Dominican Republic, I want to express my strong support for 
     this progressive move. From a trade perspective, this will 
     he1p both the United States and Central America.
       Some 80 percent of Central America's exports to the U.S. 
     are already duty free, so they will be opening their markets 
     to U.S. exports more than we will for their remaining 
     products. Independent studies indicate that U.S. incomes will 
     rise by over $15 billion and those in Central America by some 
     $5 billion. New jobs will be created in Central America, and 
     labor standards are likely to improve as a result of CAFTA.
       Some improvements could be made in the trade bill, 
     particularly on the labor protection side, but, more 
     importantly, our own national security and hemispheric 
     influence will be enhanced with improved stability, 
     democracy, and development in our poor, fragile neighbors in 
     Central America and the Caribbean. During my presidency and 
     now at The Carter Center, I have been dedicated to the 
     promotion of democracy and stability in the region. From the 
     negotiation of the Panama Canal Treaties and the championing 
     of human rights at a time when the region suffered under 
     military dictatorships to the monitoring of a number of free 
     elections in the region, Central America has been a major 
     focus of my attention.
       There now are democratically elected governments in each of 
     the countries covered by CAFTA. In negotiating this 
     agreement, the presidents of each of the six nations had to 
     contend with their own companies that fear competition with 
     U.S. 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 U.S. 
     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 U.S.
       For the first time ever, we have a chance to reinforce 
     democracies in the region. This is the moment to move forward 
     and to help those leaders that want to modernize and humanize 
     their countries. Moreover, strong economies in the region are 
     the best antidote to illegal immigration from the region.
       I appreciate your consideration of my views and hope they 
     will be helpful in your important deliberations.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Jimmy Carter.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Former President Jimmy Carter states:

       If the United States 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.

  I do not think there has been any American President that has reached 
out more fully to the rest of the world with more humanitarian work and 
more concern about human rights and labor rights than Jimmy Carter.
  I understand several of my colleagues believe labor and environmental 
provisions of the agreement fall short of what is needed to protect 
workers' rights and the natural resources of the CAFTA countries. I 
think free-trade advocates often make the mistake of arguing that these 
agreements are a panacea for the ills of the developing world, 
including lax labor and environmental standards. I certainly do not 
believe that.
  The passage of the CAFTA alone will not bring labor and environmental 
standards and the capacity to enforce those standards up to United 
States levels. We have to admit that. But--and I say ``but''--combined 
with a robust assistance package to help the CAFTA countries identify 
shortcomings and improve the enforcement of their laws, this agreement 
will mark an important step in the right direction. This is not about 
sacrificing the rights of workers and the protection of the environment 
for open markets and increased trade. We can provide new opportunities 
for American and Central American goods and services and establish 
programs to help those countries raise their labor standards.
  What Senator Bingaman said when he came to the floor is very 
constructive. I give him a great deal of credit and credit to the 
administration. This is the first trade treaty I can remember when they 
have been open to change.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent just 5 additional minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burr). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. This is the first trade agreement where the 
administration, perhaps because they have had to struggle for the 
votes, has been welcoming of suggestions; not only welcoming of 
suggestions, they made some changes. That is appreciated.
  One of the changes was $40 million earmarked for labor and 
environment capacity building for the CAFTA countries, from 2006 
through 2009, and $3 million annually through 2009 for the 
International Labor Organization to monitor and verify progress in 
CAFTA countries in improving labor law enforcement and working 
conditions, with periodic reports that are transparent, every 6 months, 
on such projects.
  That is a first and I think it is important and I do believe it can 
make a difference. I do believe the comments of those who are concerned 
about impact on Central America's labor laws are right to be concerned. 
I join them in that concern. This $3 million can go a long way to 
seeing the kind of enforcement that is necessary to begin to bring 
those countries up to where it is an approximately level playing field. 
This is a significant commitment, and I thank Ambassador Portman for 
his willingness to engage with the Congress on this issue.
  I also look forward to providing assistance to workers in this 
country through the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program for those who 
have lost their jobs because of increased trade.
  This is where I think the rub really is. It is always hard to see 
whether the benefits of free trade do in fact outweigh the negatives. 
But we must recognize that some workers lose their jobs and they have 
to be helped to learn new skills. We have to find ways to keep 
manufacturing in this country. We have to find ways to limit research 
and development tax credits to the production of jobs in this country.
  Some of us were struck a mortal blow when we repatriated tax funds 
and there was an amendment on the floor of the Senate that said ``as 
long as those funds will be used for production of jobs in this 
country,'' and that amendment failed. That, for me, was a dark day 
because I believe that American corporations do have an obligation to 
this country, not only to the bottom line but an obligation to their 
workers. American workers are the best in productivity and the best in 
the world. We have to find ways to see that this country is competitive 
in education, in standards, to be attractive for manufacturing once 
again.
  Today, the Democrats in the Democratic Policy Committee heard a very 
interesting presentation which pointed out how necessary manufacturing 
jobs, production line jobs--not high-skilled jobs--were going to be to 
the future of this great country. I remember when I was mayor of San 
Francisco, Akio Morita, the chairman of Sony, at that time he was the 
head of The Keidanren, saying to me that when America loses its 
manufacturing edge, it is the first step to America becoming a second 
rate power. I believe that is correct. Yet a trade agreement which 
reduces tariffs on our exports is not bad; it is good. I think that is 
the benefit of that, and of this agreement.
  With that in mind, and because I believe virtually every industry in 
my

[[Page S7710]]

State is in support of this agreement, I intend to vote aye.
  I thank the Chair for the extension of time, and I yield the floor.
  I appreciated the recent efforts the administration made to engage 
the sugar industry to work out an agreement. However, I am concerned 
that the two sides only recently came to the table to address this 
divisive issue. The trade agreement has been signed for nearly a year, 
but talks only began about 3 weeks ago. The problem should have been 
recognized and truly addressed earlier in the process. I am convinced 
that an agreement could have been reached. As it was, the sugar 
industry chose not to accept a short-term offer by the administration. 
The offer would have provided a remedy for the length of the farm bill, 
this year and next year's sugar beet crop. As I stated before, sugar 
beet farmers in Wyoming have made long-term investments in their 
processing facilities. They need a long-term solution, not a short-term 
fix.
  This problem will not go away. As the administration continues to 
seek additional free-trade agreements with countries that desire to 
send their sugar to our markets, this issue will resurface. I recommend 
that the administration and the sugar industry continue creative 
discussions to identify a long-term solution beyond the next farm bill 
to ensure the viability of the sugar industry and the small family 
farmers that the industry supports in the United States.
  Beyond Wyoming sugar, Wyoming cattle producers have made it clear to 
me that they want mandatory country of origin labeling implemented 
before new trade agreements are signed that could bring in additional 
beef and meat products. I agree that consumers should have the 
opportunity to make an informed purchase regarding their meat's country 
of origin at their grocery store. U.S. beef is competitive, but it does 
not receive a chance to compete when it is not labeled as U.S. beef for 
consumers.
  With my vote against this bill, it would be easy for my opponents to 
cast me as a free-trade obstructionist. I remind them that until today, 
I have never voted against a free-trade agreement on the floor of the 
Senate. The principles of fair trade, which I support, generally bring 
about increased democracy, more transparency in Government and 
increased productivity. Along these lines, there are industries in 
Wyoming that communicated their support of CAFTA to me. I am pleased 
the agreement will improve market access for important industries, such 
as soda ash and oil and gas. I recognize the benefits this agreement 
will bring to many and applaud the administration for their hard work 
in bringing this agreement to fruition. Unfortunately, I cannot vote 
for the agreement today because the costs outweigh the benefits for my 
State as a whole.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to express my opposition to the 
Dominican Republic-Central American-United States free trade agreement, 
known as CAFTA. I am opposing the implementing legislation before the 
Senate today due to the negative impact that passage of the agreement 
will have on the domestic sugar industry. I also believe mandatory 
country of origin labeling should be implemented before we sign trade 
agreements that will bring in additional meat products.
  The production of sugar is vitally important in Wyoming. Behind hay, 
which is fed to our livestock, sugar beets is the No. 1 cash crop in 
Wyoming. So small sugar beet farms in Wyoming have a big impact on my 
State's economy. For example, my office received calls from bankers and 
local economic development agencies in towns that depend upon the 
viability of the sugar beet industry. They were concerned about the 
impact of CAFTA on the health of their local economies--the economies 
of my home State.
  In addition, the sugar industry is vertically integrated. Sugar beet 
farmers are invested in their land and specialized farming equipment. 
However, across the Nation, sugar beet farmers have also banded 
together to purchase the processing plants that add value to their 
crop. So their investment in sugar is higher than the investments of 
other farmers in their crops. Many of these plants have been purchased 
in recent years with a long-term debt load. Wyoming sugar beet farmers 
have a special interest in ensuring that their industry has long-term 
viability. The sugar that would be imported from CAFTA countries under 
this agreement, in addition to the sugar expected to be imported from 
Mexico under NAFTA, would have a detrimental impact on the sugar beet 
industry in the near and distant future.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to 
speak for up to 30 minutes from the time under the control of Senator 
Dorgan, to be followed by Senator Martinez for up to 10 minutes from 
the time under the control of Senator Grassley.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Connecticut is recognized for 30 minutes.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me begin by commending, again, the 
chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley, and Senator 
Baucus, the ranking Democrat, and members of that committee. It is a 
very important committee of the Senate, obviously. They are charged 
with the responsibility of dealing with trade agreements. The 
implications of these trade agreements obviously go beyond just the 
jurisdiction of the Finance Committee. It can be argued, I think very 
correctly, that these agreements have huge foreign policy implications, 
national security implications as well as, obviously, labor 
implications. So the Finance Committee is asked to grapple with very 
compelling issues that touch on a lot of other subject matters when 
they deal with it.
  I rise today to speak about this Central America-Dominican Republic 
Free Trade Agreement, known as the CAFTA-DR agreement. Yesterday 
evening, I came to the floor to express my hopes that this agreement 
could be strengthened in the waning hours before a vote on its 
implementing legislation. I did so because I very much want to support 
this agreement.
  Let me explain why again. Many of my colleagues, I suppose, know the 
reason. As long as I have been a Member of this body I have served on 
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I have, for most of those 
years, been either the chairman or the ranking Democrat of the 
subcommittee dealing with Latin America.
  My colleagues, many of them, know as well that some 39 years ago, as 
I finished my college education, I joined the Peace Corps and traveled 
to the Dominican Republic where, for about 2 years I served as a Peace 
Corps volunteer in the wonderful mountain village of Bonito Moncion, 
not very far from the Haitian border. I have a special affection for 
the Dominican Republic. The people of that small mountain village 
embraced me as one of their own. In fact, only a few weeks ago I 
traveled back to that mountain village of Moncion after a 24-year 
absence and spent a remarkable day with people I had known, who had 
such a wonderful impact on my life as a young Peace Corps volunteer.
  When I came to this body and went to the Congress in 1974, along with 
Paul Tsongas of Massachusetts, we were the first two former Peace Corps 
volunteers to be elected to the U.S. Congress.
  Paul Tsongas came to the Senate 2 years before I did. When I arrived 
here, we became the only Peace Corps volunteers to have served in this 
Senate. Today, I believe I am the only one to have had that privilege 
of being a volunteer in the Dominican Republic and to serve in this 
Senate. The countries of Central America I know well. I have traveled 
to all of them extensively over the years. I know the heads of states 
of each of these countries and have known virtually all of the heads of 
state over the last 24 years. It is with a great deal of personal 
interest, in addition to the subject matter interest, that draws me to 
this debate and to the Senate this afternoon. I have worked closely 
with many of these countries. As much as any Member of this Senate, I 
understand what a great boom a well-crafted agreement on trade can be 
to the people of Central America and for the Dominican Republic, as 
well as for we Americans.
  I don't expect CAFTA-DR agreement to be perfect. No trade agreement 
ever is. There are always matters either left unaddressed or under-
addressed when

[[Page S7711]]

we have these agreements. The question should be whether trade 
agreements, on balance, serve to protect American interests and lift up 
the countries that we are negotiating with, or whether they will lead 
us all in the opposite direction.
  That is why I welcome the efforts of my colleague from New Mexico, 
Senator Bingaman, to strengthen the capacity of these nations of 
Central America and the Dominican Republic to effectively enforce and 
uphold internationally recognized labor rights. I believe the 
commitment by the administration to provide funds for the International 
Labor Organization, the ILO as it is called, in these CAFTA-DR 
countries is a step in the right direction. I commend my colleague from 
New Mexico, Senator Bingaman, for pursuing this provision. I commend 
Ambassador Portman for accepting the idea.
  But to strengthen the effectiveness of the International Labor 
Organization in carrying out its work in Central America, I believe 
there also needs to be a clear understanding, before we vote on the 
CAFTA-DR agreement, of the freedom activity that the International 
Labor Organization must have if its efforts are going to be effective. 
After all, the problem is not just about capacity building, as 
important as that is, which was the focus of the agreement with our 
colleague from New Mexico, it must also, out of necessity, be about 
enforcement of those rights.
  That is why I met yesterday, at some length, with Ambassador Portman 
and his staff and contacted the ambassadors of the five Central 
American countries and the Dominican Republic to describe what I 
believe is needed to make the International Labor Organization 
initiative of this agreement a meaningful one.
  As my colleagues know, over the years, I have generally been a 
supporter of free-trade agreements. If properly constructed, I believe 
trade agreements are in the best long-term interests of the United 
States. That is because, in today's highly interconnected world, we 
must keep up and adjust to the changes around us if we are going to 
compete effectively.
  This great surge toward a globalized world economy has brought gains 
and losses here in our own country. Some industries have benefitted 
greatly; others have struggled to compete. On balance, I believe free 
trade has benefitted our country. But we have not done enough, 
especially during the past few years, to help ease the transition for 
those many Americans who are struggling.
  Globalization has affected other nations around the globe. From Latin 
America to India, Africa to China, no country has escaped the impact of 
this process. The difference is that while globalization has helped 
lift many nations, it has also left many others behind.
  In this hemisphere, the results have been mixed. Countries such as 
Brazil and Chile are doing quite well.
  Others have stagnated or, worse, even regressed. I put this in 
context for my colleagues when it comes to Central America and the 
Dominican Republic. When considering this debate and the conclusion of 
it, consider that one-third of the entire population of Latin America 
currently lives in poverty. In the nations south of the Rio Grande 
River, 128 million people survive on less than $2 a day; 50 million on 
less than $1 a day. That is more than a third of the entire population 
of these nations. In Central America alone, three out of every five 
citizens live in conditions of poverty. Two out of every five are 
indigent or in conditions of extreme poverty.
  In Nicaragua, for instance, there is widespread malnutrition and 
unemployment rates are way over 40 percent. Nicaragua is the second 
poorest nation in this hemisphere, with nearly half its population 
living on less than $1 a day.
  In Guatemala, the situation is also dire. Malnutrition rates are 
among the highest in the world. Life expectancy as well as infant and 
infant mortality rates are among the worst in this hemisphere. 
Illiteracy exceeds 30 percent and most people have less than 5 years of 
a formal education.
  But there is not only tremendous poverty in these nations, income and 
equality in Latin America is also one of the highest in the world. 
Consider that the richest 10 percent of all Latin Americans earn 
roughly 50 percent of the total national income in these nations; 
whereas the bottom 10 percent earn only 1.6 percent of income.
  Despite economic growth throughout the 1990s, unemployment in Latin 
America has actually increased. The Central American region has 
suffered greatly as a result of natural disasters. Hardly a year goes 
by that some natural tragedy does not occur in these nations. My 
colleagues will recall the mud slides in Haiti which last year cost 
thousands of people their lives and homes. There are repeated 
hurricanes that have hit Central America over the last decade and a 
half.

  In early 1993, after one of those hurricanes hit Nicaragua, I went 
down to work with the people of those nations to clear mud out of 
schools and impoverished communities. Bridges were wiped out, crops 
were lost, the country was devastated.
  In 1998, Hurricane Mitch, a category 5 storm, hit Honduras, 
Nicaragua, Guatemala, and El Salvador, killing 9,000 people and leaving 
more than 700,000 people in those four countries homeless.
  We are also talking about nations, many of which were almost ripped 
apart by brutal civil wars and political violence. Guatemala's troubled 
history dates back to 1954, when a military coup overthrew Guatemala's 
popularly elected president, Jacobo Arbenz Guzman, triggering a bloody 
civil conflict that lasted more than 30 years. Guatemala's conflict was 
largely a struggle for land rights and resulted in the murder or 
disappearance of more than 200,000 people, many of them indigenous 
Mayans living in the highlands of Guatemala. Fortunately, this armed 
conflict ended in 1996, with the signing of the peace accords between 
the Guatemalan Government and the armed opposition, grouped together as 
the Guatemalan National Revolutionary Unit.
  In El Salvador, it was discontent over social inequalities, a poor 
economy and a repressive dictatorship that in 1980 finally ignited a 
civil war between a repressive military government and leftist guerilla 
groups who united under the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front. 
During 12 years of that civil war, 75,000 Salvadorans, mostly 
civilians, were killed and thousands more fled to refugee camps in 
Honduras and many more made their way north to the United States as 
immigrants. The United States provided more than $5 billion in economic 
and military assistance to the Salvadoran Government over the course of 
that conflict. But it took the U.N. to broker a peace accord to end a 
conflict that military force failed to resolve.
  Nicaragua's story is almost somewhat similar. In 1979, the Sandinista 
National Liberation Front of Nicaragua overthrew the 40-year 
dictatorship of the Somoza family and took control. In 1981, the Reagan 
administration responded aggressively to regional concerns with respect 
to the leftist regime. The United States funded and organized the new 
paramilitary force which became known as the Contras. The Contra war, 
as it became known, lasted until 1988 and resulted in more than 25,000 
deaths in that country and 700,000 refugees and displaced people.
  Although Honduras faced no serious civil conflict of its own, it 
served as a staging ground for efforts of the United States to fight 
the insurgencies in Guatemala and El Salvador and to overthrow 
Nicaragua's Sandinista government.
  Honduras's geographically central location made it a convenient base 
of operations for the Contras and a center of training and supply for 
the Salvadoran and Guatemalan militaries.
  Even democratic Costa Rica felt the ripple effects of its neighbors' 
conflicts as displaced persons from other countries took up residence 
in that nation.
  Finally, the governments of Central America courageously decided to 
take matters into their own hands. In 1987, without any real assistance 
from the United States, the Presidents of Guatemala, El Salvador, 
Honduras, Nicaragua, and Costa Rica negotiated and signed an agreement 
to create conditions for peace in Central America, which became known 
as the Esquipulas Agreement. That agreement marked a

[[Page S7712]]

turning point for the people of Central America and created real 
possibilities for peace, reconciliation, and prosperity for the people 
of that region.
  Since 1990, the countries of the region have made progress. The guns 
have been silenced. There has been political reconciliation. There have 
been domestic or democratic elections. But still the region struggles 
for many of the root causes that sparked the civil conflicts in the 
first place: poverty and inequality and injustice.
  Taken individually or as a whole, this poverty, inequality, 
suffering, and political instability have severe implications. First, 
they threaten the political stability of Latin America. And I am very 
worried not only about this region but also other nations in the 
hemisphere that are democratic governments but are very fragile 
democracies. And second, by extension, they also threaten the national 
interests of the United States, as political instability did in the 
1980s.
  To understand how this is possible, I would point to--and advise my 
colleagues, if they have the time, to read--a 2004 report by the United 
Nations Development Program.
  According to that report, progress in extending elective democracy 
across Latin America is threatened by ongoing social and economic 
turmoil. Most troubling, the report suggests that over 50 percent of 
the population of Latin America would be willing to sacrifice 
democratic government for real progress on economic and social fronts. 
That is a very frightening statistic. And it should make crystal clear 
the urgency of this situation.
  Two decades of democratic progress in our hemisphere are at risk. 
Certainly, strong trade relations remain a key to creating a healthy 
economy both here in the United States and throughout the region. But 
trade alone cannot address the myriad of challenges facing Latin 
America, where millions of citizens in this hemisphere remain 
marginalized by economic insecurity and social dislocation. And, sadly, 
the attention and foreign aid dollars of the United States have been 
diverted to other parts of the world in recent years.
  That is why I welcome the Bush administration's decision to reengage 
with the region and to strengthen economic ties by negotiating a 
regional free-trade agreement. I believe that the right kind of trade 
agreements can help these countries get on the proper course to 
stronger and more just societies.
  The question is whether, on balance, the agreement before us is that 
right kind of agreement. I stress the term ``agreement'' because it 
reminds us that these documents are about much more than free trade.
  They are about the worker who could lose his or her job. They are 
about the average citizen trying to provide for their families. And 
they are about social cohesion and political stability.
  These agreements are also about the future of a nation's economy. 
They are about protecting our national security. And they are about 
ensuring that the next generation will inherit a stronger foundation on 
which to build their futures.

  Or at least they should be.
  We, in the Congress need to decide if these agreements live up to 
these standards. As I said earlier, I have been, throughout my years 
here, a strong supporter of free-trade agreements. The case we have 
before us--of course, CAFTA-DR, deals with the Dominican Republic, 
Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras, El Salvador and Costa Rica.
  A meaningful agreement with these countries could, in my view, 
benefit the United States and the nations involved alike. For the most 
part, they need help. Poverty, corruption, social dislocation, and 
instability are all too familiar to the citizens of many of these 
nations.
  But the CAFTA-Dominican Republic agreement has some weaknesses, ones 
we tried to address over the last several days.
  Mr. President, I understand the sense of urgency the administration 
feels in having this agreement be decided upon in the waning hours 
before the Fourth of July recess. I regret, unfortunately, that we have 
to rush at this. But I understand why. If you do not have these 
agreements up under these time constraints, then they may not pass at 
all. So I appreciate the politics of why it is up under this shortened 
time-frame or up against the wall of this recess.
  That said, I regret we did not have a few more days. If we did have 
some more time I believe we might have been able to make some very 
important improvements to weaknesses in the current agreement.
  The most fundamental of these weaknesses I discussed last evening and 
I talked about at great length with Ambassador Portman yesterday.
  I also sent him a letter addressing the specificity of them; and that 
is, namely, the issue of labor laws in the CAFTA-Dominican Republic 
countries.
  When I speak of labor laws, I am speaking about the kinds of laws 
that these countries have enacted and about the enforcement of these 
laws. I am also speaking about current trade packages in this 
hemisphere that have been a major step forward to guarantee 
improvements in quality of life, creating wealth in these countries 
which, obviously, benefits us, as we want trade with nations that have 
people who can afford the cost of our goods and services. Both of these 
issues are critical components, I might add, to protecting Americans 
and to ensuring real progress is made in these nations.
  I would turn here to the issue of labor laws. According to the CAFTA-
Dominican Republic agreement, signatory countries must simply enforce 
the labor laws of their own nations--whatever they may be--in order to 
be in compliance. Indeed, I would note that the Dominican Republic and 
all the Central American countries, except El Salvador, have ratified 
what the International Labor Organization refers to as its eight 
fundamental conventions on labor rights. El Salvador, I might add, has 
ratified six of the eight. And while El Salvador needs to be brought up 
to speed, other signatories' laws seem to be at least minimally 
sufficient to the task, in my view.
  Why then does the current arrangement, with respect to labor laws, 
weaken this agreement? Because of two things. First, it does not hold 
those countries to the same objective standards. In fact, the CAFTA-DR 
agreement would actually lower current standards. Second, it ignores 
the impact that a lack of objective standards could have on the region.
  Let me explain.
  Previous trade preference programs for the region--previous ones; 
this is not new ground; previous ones--provided that the President 
should at least take into account the extent to which the beneficiary 
countries provide internationally recognized workers' rights. This is 
not the case with the CAFTA-DR agreement.
  In addition, as currently written, the CAFTA-DR agreement would 
weaken standards that these countries have been living under through 
the Caribbean Basin Initiative and the Generalized System of 
Preferences, where these agreements are not required. So instead of 
asking them to do the same with the CAFTA-DR agreement--or more--we are 
actually asking them to do less. It is a step backwards.
  Under the current trade agreements in this region, trade benefits can 
be withdrawn if a country lowers its labor laws below international 
standards or simply fails to meet these standards. And they can be 
withdrawn if a government directly violates internationally accepted 
workers rights that might not be protected under their laws.
  Under the Caribbean Basin Initiative, and the GSP, the right to file 
a complaint for violations of these rights is extended beyond just 
governments and to civil societies. But again, with this agreement, we 
exclude all of that.
  Under this agreement, governments will only have to enforce whatever 
laws they have on their own books at any given time. They will not be 
held to any international standards. That means the ocean floor is the 
limit, with respect to how weak these laws can get.
  Moreover, the lack of an objective standard here is troubling because 
it could create a race-to-the-bottom mentality where investors and 
companies play governments, one against the other, seeking lower labor 
standards in a quest for increased profits. That type of situation, in 
my view, could wreak havoc on civil societies in these countries, and 
it could also cost American workers their jobs.

[[Page S7713]]

  A second facet of the labor rights question deals with the issue of 
enforcement.
  As I said earlier, for the most part, CAFTA-DR nations have laws on 
their books. But they face a lack of resources, as well as domestic 
political opposition from influential people, which prevent them from 
enforcing these laws.
  Again, this is not about pointing the finger or accusing these 
government leaders of malice toward their workers. I don't believe 
that. I don't believe that is the case here either. I believe they 
actually want to do the right thing. I know these leaders. I respect 
them. But our neighbors to the south are democratic countries. And as 
in all democracies, they have to deal with powerful opposition 
interests.
  The question remains, will CAFTA-DR help these nations overcome this 
opposition to enforcement? In my view, it doesn't go nearly far enough 
to do so. That is why I met with Ambassador Portman yesterday to see if 
we could strengthen the prospects for enforcement. Laws that can't be 
enforced might as well not be there.
  The administration seems to hold the view that support for expanded 
trade and economic growth is incompatible with advocating core labor 
standards in developing countries. But, in fact, experts in this area 
from 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 being ``shared.''
  Let me say clearly I believe this agreement is fixable. I wish it 
could have been fixed. Ambassador Portman and I met. We exchanged 
letters. We worked hard yesterday to try and see if we couldn't 
strengthen this agreement with respect to enforcement. What we sought 
was the following, exactly what exists in the Cambodian Agreement that 
was negotiated by the Clinton administration and renewed by the Bush 
administration, to their credit. There we said that the International 
Labor Organization ought to be able to make site visits to actually go 
to plants and industries to see whether the labor standards were being 
upheld. Under CAFTA-DR, all they can do is go to the labor ministries 
and ask them whether the laws are being enforced. Obviously, in most of 
these countries the labor ministries are political appointees. They are 
not likely to be critical of their own government's efforts. By not 
having any standard which all countries must meet, each country will be 
able to set the floor. When they do so, of course, the competition to 
have a lower floor to attract more industry from outside the country 
lowers the living standards for the very people I have described who 
are living under some of the worst conditions anywhere in the world.
  I am deeply troubled by this. I so much wanted to be for this 
agreement. I care so much about this region and what happens to these 
people. I would like nothing more than to be standing here today urging 
my colleagues to be supportive of this. This is not a minor point. It 
goes right to the heart of what we try to do with trade agreements; 
that is, to reduce these barriers, expand markets for our businesses 
and industries, create opportunities for additional job creation, and 
also to create and generate wealth in these countries so that in the 
long term, we can produce high value products, high value services, 
that are affordable in these countries.
  So trade agreements have worked both ways--expanding economic 
opportunities for ourselves and creating wealth and opportunity in the 
countries with whom we trade. That is why I supported NAFTA and the 
Jordanian Free Trade Agreement and others. Indeed, I have supported far 
more of these agreements than I have opposed. But with CAFTA-DR, we are 
stepping backwards in a region of the world that needs a commitment to 
lift up the quality of life for its citizens.
  I am not suggesting we could do it solely through this agreement, but 
you can begin to make a difference in these people's lives by insisting 
that they have to meet some minimum standards.
  This is what we should be saying: We want to do business in your 
country. We want to accept your products. We want to trade with you. 
But the small price we ask is that you have some basic standards for 
the people who are going to do the jobs.
  When you eliminate that, then you invite the kind of problems we are 
going to see with these people.
  I am terribly disappointed today. I had hoped I would be able to 
support this agreement. I wanted to be a part of this effort. I respect 
immensely the President inviting us down and talking about this. I 
raised the issue with him. I also respect Rob Portman. He is a good 
man. Obviously, he has the difficulty of dealing with all 535 of us, in 
both this Chamber and the other, to try and get the votes to pass these 
agreements. This agreement is probably going to be passed tonight. My 
hope was that we would be able to broaden the specter along bipartisan 
support for this agreement both here and in the other Chamber. 
Unfortunately, I don't believe that will be the case.
  Let me say to my colleagues: Even with the adoption of this agreement 
and the absence of these labor standards I feel so strongly about, it 
is my intention, through appropriate vehicles, to condition aid and 
other assistance on improving these standards in these countries. I 
will find one way or the other to try and improve them, to insist that 
these countries, in exchange for getting the kind of access to our 
markets, at the very least they ought to be required to improve the 
quality of life and the standards under which many of these people 
work.
  We stand today at a moment of great opportunity and great risk for 
this hemisphere. The past two decades have witnessed the rise of 
democratic governments in nations that have long languished under 
dictatorship of left or right. But this progress is endangered. 
Globalization and free trade promise to bring historic levels of 
prosperity to nations north and south. But economic and social 
conditions for millions of men and women continue to lag dangerously 
far behind, threatening what we have worked so hard to build. Through 
well-crafted trade agreements, the United States can enhance its own 
prosperity and lift other nations on a stable and democratic path.

  That is why I am so disappointed the administration wasn't able to 
explicitly support the efforts to give the ILO a greater role in the 
monitoring and verification process. I believe that in doing so, we 
would have significantly strengthened this agreement, especially given 
the troubled history of the region and the potential for mutual 
prosperity that a CAFTA-DR agreement held for all. Unfortunately, the 
agreement before us won't do that.
  Last night I sent Ambassador Portman a letter detailing proposals 
that have already been adopted in other agreements. This is not 
breaking new ground. I appreciate Ambassador Portman's response today 
in the letter he wrote back to me, but I regret that his letter 
included no real concrete commitment that the U.S. Government would 
guarantee the implementation that I am requesting--specifically, that 
the ILO would be granted unfettered access to workplaces, permitted to 
establish mechanisms for receiving and investigating matters related to 
ILO labor standards, to make private recommendations to worker and 
employer organizations and appropriate officials within each 
government, and to issue periodic public reports of its findings on 
matters of concern.
  Therefore, I am left to conclude that instead of breaking new ground 
and raising standards, the CAFTA-DR agreement is a step backwards from 
existing law. That fact saddens me deeply. This agreement will create a 
weaker set of standards that could very well negatively impact the 
people of this region, negatively impact American workers and our 
national security, and weaken democracy in these countries.
  Regrettably, I won't be able to support this agreement when it comes 
to a vote. I say this with a very heavy heart.
  But I will make a promise to the American people and to the people of 
these countries that I will work vigorously to ensure as we move 
forward with this agreement, workers' rights are protected and new 
avenues are explored for pursuing this goal. I hope at the end of the 
day, with all of the interests in this agreement, that our keeping the 
light shining on labor rights issues will make this agreement

[[Page S7714]]

work. Because even though I can't support this agreement in its current 
form, I truly want to it work for all.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Florida will be recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of this 
CAFTA Free Trade Agreement. Like the distinguished Senator from 
Connecticut, I care greatly about this part of the world. This is a 
part of the world I know well, having been born in the Caribbean 
myself. I do believe it is an important moment, and it is an important 
agreement from a geopolitical sense for the United States and for 
Central America. I believe this is a good-faith effort on our part to 
further strengthen the struggling democracies and economies of our 
neighbors in Central America against the forces opposed to democracy 
and economic freedom and opportunity. I believe this also opens an 
important neighboring market of 40 million people and levels the 
playing field for American businesses as we seek to export our goods 
into this region.
  Although I do think it is important to recognize this agreement will 
not come close to solving all of the problems in Central America, it 
should be a building block in addressing the great needs of this 
important part of our hemisphere. I believe DR-CAFTA is an important 
moment. I believe its adoption does not fix all that needs to be done. 
I think its rejection would be a tremendously bad signal to this 
region. It would be a tremendous blow to our furtherance of democracy 
and stability and economic prosperity for Central America. It is a very 
important step in improving labor conditions, boosting economic growth 
throughout the Central American region.
  CAFTA is a critically important trade agreement for the State of 
Florida. We are the gateway to Latin America, to Central America 
particularly. Countries in Central America and the Dominican Republic 
form the largest foreign market for Florida exports.
  In 2004, Florida exported $3.2 billion of merchandise to the region, 
far surpassing that of the other 49 States. CAFTA is Florida's largest 
export market for paper, electronic equipment, and fabric.
  The CAFTA region is Florida's second largest export market for 
computers and computer equipment, machinery, and processed foods. Most 
of DR-CAFTA agricultural goods already enter the United States duty 
free. This will now even the playing field for our exports into the 
region.
  The CAFTA treaty is supported by the Florida Chamber of Commerce, 
Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce, the Orlando Regional Chamber of 
Commerce, the Greater Tampa Chamber of Commerce, Governor Jeb Bush, 
Florida Citrus Mutual, Seaboard Marine, Associated Industries of 
Florida, the Florida Ports Council, the Florida Poultry Federation, the 
World Trade Center of Florida, Florida East Coast Industries, and many 
others.
  No other State stands to benefit more economically from CAFTA than 
Florida.
  Mr. President, I have been undecided in my position on CAFTA, as much 
as I support free trade and understand the power of leveling trade 
barriers, an important sector of Florida's agricultural industry was 
left unprotected by the original CAFTA agreement.
  The sugar industry in Florida is an incredibly important part of our 
State. It provides over 23,000 jobs, mostly in rural Florida. Over $2 
billion in economic activity is generated in Florida from the 
production of corn and sugar sweetener products. And because of this 
critically important economic engine for our State, I have resisted 
supporting CAFTA because of the potential impact on Florida's sugar 
producers.
  So I and other colleagues began working to see what type of 
compromise might be reached for Florida's sugar producers so that they 
would be treated fairly in the event of a CAFTA agreement.
  After many meetings, phone calls, conference calls, and hard work by 
Secretary of Agriculture Johanns, Ambassador Portman, my good friend, 
the distinguished chairman of the Agriculture Committee, Senator 
Chambliss, along with a group of colleagues that Senator Chambliss 
pulled together, an agreement has been offered that I believe extends 
and offers an opportunity to deal with the sugar problem.
  I thank our Trade Representative, Rob Portman, for his hard work in 
trying to address the concerns of this important part of our 
agricultural industry. I am also very thankful for the leadership of my 
colleague, Senator Chambliss, chairman of the Senate Agriculture 
Committee. Secretary Johanns, from the Department of Agriculture, was 
also instrumental in ensuring that we could come to a proposal on how 
we could best ensure that our domestic sugar producers were treated 
fairly after a CAFTA agreement. I thank them all for their work on this 
important issue to our State.
  My goal was to ensure that the Florida sugar industry was treated 
fairly, be given a viable role in the future, and that they did not 
become the one industry in Florida, the one segment of our agricultural 
industry that would be harmed by a CAFTA agreement. But I do believe 
that this proposal offered by Secretary Johanns and the administration 
is the best case scenario for Florida's sugar producers.
  The Secretary's offer is multifaceted. One, foreign sugar from all 
foreign countries cannot exceed the farm bill's 1.532-million-ton 
limit, regardless if it came from CAFTA countries, Mexico--which is 
under NAFTA and not subject to the farm bill--and other future trade 
agreements. This agreement will last until the current farm bill 
expires.
  Two, USDA will conduct a feasibility study on the potential 
development of using sugar to produce ethanol on a wide scale in the 
United States.
  Thirdly, if the domestic market reaches the sugar trigger from 
foreign sugar, USDA will purchase the excess amount of CAFTA sugar that 
is imported to the United States and then use it to produce ethanol. 
This pilot program will last until the farm bill expires. It 
essentially guarantees that if CAFTA sugar is proven to depress the 
marketplace, the U.S. Government will purchase this sugar from Florida 
farmers and others to produce ethanol.
  This is a very substantial offer. It is an agreement that I think 
represents the sugar industry's best chance to plan for a future. It 
holds the industry harmless from CAFTA and, more than that, from NAFTA. 
The future of the domestic sugar industry lies in new technology and 
ethanol production, and this treaty allows them to begin that very 
important process.
  Mr. President, this is an important moment for us and Central America 
and the Dominican Republic. It represents a future partnership in trade 
and economic development, a better future, a better life, and will 
hopefully help improve economic conditions and provide political 
stability.
  We have a chance to help our Nation's manufacturers, businesses, 
farmers, and ranchers knock down trade barriers and help our country 
remain competitive in a global marketplace.
  In summary, I have said consistently that before I voted for CAFTA, I 
wanted to ensure that all of Florida's agricultural sectors were 
treated fairly under this agreement, including the sugar producers.
  I have worked hard to find a compromise that would offer protections 
to Florida's sugar producers from the threat of a flooded domestic 
sugar market.
  I believe the proposals put forth by Secretary Johanns and the 
administration to hold imports of sugar to levels included in the 2002 
farm bill is the best case scenario for Florida's sugar producers and 
ensures that they are treated fairly not only under CAFTA but NAFTA as 
well.
  The sugar industry is incredibly important to our State, to our 
economy, and a vital part of our agricultural sector. The industry 
provides, as I said, over 23,000 jobs. Therefore, this is an industry 
that we want to make sure was not overlooked as we went about seeking 
this agreement.
  Having obtained what I thought was a fair and reasonable offer, I 
believe now I can wholeheartedly support the CAFTA agreement. I believe 
it will be good not only for the United States and the State of 
Florida, but also for our neighbors in Central America and the 
Dominican Republic. I think it will provide a new opportunity and 
beginning and a new hope for this region to

[[Page S7715]]

begin on a much stronger road to economic development, to economic 
self-sufficiency, and, hopefully, tied into that is political 
stability, democracy, the rule of law, and the free market system.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BAUCUS. 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. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
Florida, and following the remarks of the Senator from Florida, I ask 
unanimous consent that 10 minutes then be allocated to Senator Sessions 
and that the time be taken out of the time allocated to Senator 
Grassley.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Did the Senator yield 10 minutes to the 
Senator from Florida?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Yes, 10 and 10.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I worked on this trade 
agreement pretty hard. Now that this agreement is in front of us, 
despite some lingering concerns I have, I will support it. This 
agreement affects my State of Florida more than any other State in the 
Union. For example, in 2004, the State of Florida exported $3.2 billion 
worth of merchandise to the DR-CAFTA region. Florida has the highest 
total among any State. The next nearest State, Texas, exported $1.8 
billion. And the DR-CAFTA region accounts for 11 percent of Florida's 
total exports.
  Florida does stand to gain a great deal from this agreement. Miami, 
which is really the capital of the Americas, is the national gateway to 
Central America and the Dominican Republic. Throughout the rest of 
Florida, we have other industries that will also increase their 
business and explore new opportunities in the region.
  These Florida industries stand to grow enormously. Because of our 
unique relationship, we have been talking about thousands of jobs 
created in the first year and tens of thousands of jobs in the coming 
years as a result of DR-CAFTA's enactment.
  I have been to the Dominican Republic. I have spoken with the 
President, Leonel Fernandez. I recently went to Honduras at the 
invitation of the President Maduro and spent a couple of days there and 
spoke at length with not only our U.S. embassy personnel but members of 
the Government of Honduras.
  I believe that dramatically lower tariff barriers also will lead to 
increased exports to the region from Florida and through Florida's 
ports. This increase in business and industry for my State is a good 
deal and will increase our connections with these countries and all of 
Latin America.
  This agreement is also, I believe, in our national interest. Free and 
fair trade creates new economic opportunities for Americans, and it 
creates economic uplift in these other countries. This economic uplift 
is critical to ensuring that these countries remain stable and people 
are not forced to emigrate in search of employment.
  As we try to stabilize countries in the region, promote democracy, 
clearly their economic enhancement is in the interest of the United 
States, in order to see those struggling democracies flourish. And that 
is the clear message I heard as I traveled extensively throughout Latin 
America.
  Unfortunately, as we know, free-trade agreements do not affect all 
industries equally, and Florida has vulnerable industries that we must 
protect from unfair trade practices. My colleagues have heard me speak 
many times about the Florida citrus industry and the threat that it 
faces from Brazil. Today, I raise my concerns about another important 
Florida industry, and that is the sugar industry.
  DR-CAFTA, as negotiated, asks our sugar industry to sacrifice more 
than other commodities. American sugar producers face an international 
market where sugar is sold at artificially low prices because of unfair 
labor practices and habitual dumping.
  In the last FTA, the Australia agreement, interestingly, sugar was 
excluded, but the administration changed course on CAFTA negotiating 
extra sugar access and, at the same time, establishing a new precedent.
  I worked with numerous Senators, especially over the last 3 weeks. I 
have raised sand with the administration about these provisions. I have 
let them know that there was more that could be done to protect the 
American sugar industry. In response, the administration has made some 
commitments that I believe will help mitigate the impact on our 
domestic sugar producers through the life of the 2002 farm bill, which 
will go for another 2 or 3 years.
  Sugar levels available on the U.S. market will not go above the level 
established in the farm bill. Ambassador Portman, the U.S. Trade 
Representative, and I had a personal eyeball-to-eyeball meeting this 
afternoon. He made it clear to me that there is no prospect of any 
substantial sugar concessions being included in any other trade 
agreements through the life of the farm bill. This was an individual 
conversation, and he is not going to take that position officially 
because he does not want to tie his hands, but that is the bottom line 
of our conversation.
  The administration has also committed to study the feasibility of 
converting sugar into ethanol. At my urging, the Deputy Secretary of 
Agriculture--and this was arranged by Ambassador Portman who directly 
gave me his word--said: Do you want it in writing? I said: I accept 
your word, that is good enough for me, but others may like to see it 
memorialized. He said: I will get you a letter.
  I have this letter, and I ask unanimous consent that the letter be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                              The Deputy Secretary


                                               of Agriculture,

                                    Washington, DC, June 30, 2005.
     Hon. Bill Nelson,
     U.S. Senator, Hart Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Nelson: I write to provide further guidance on 
     the feasibility study outlined in Secretary Johanns' June 29, 
     2005 letter to Senator Chambliss (attached), which was the 
     result of discussions between the Senator, the Administration 
     and the Members of Congress that the Senator brought 
     together.
       They agreed that the Secretary would conduct a feasibility 
     study on converting sugar into ethanol and submitting the 
     results of the study to Congress not later than July 1, 2006. 
     The Department of Agriculture will begin the feasibility 
     study immediately and I intend to have an initial meeting 
     with our economists during the week of July 4. Furthermore, 
     it would be USDA's intention to issue an interim report by 
     December 15, 2005.
       I hope this additional clarification is helpful to you.
           Sincerely,
                                                Charles F. Conner,
                                                 Deputy Secretary.

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, this letter is from the Deputy 
Secretary of Agriculture, who has promised to commence a feasibility 
study on converting sugar into ethanol and to start it immediately, 
with an initial meeting of the agricultural economists next week, the 
July Fourth week. I believe at that point they will and should lay out 
a baseline of the knowledge we have on this issue.
  I expect that will occur, and I expect that quite a lot of research 
on converting sugar into ethanol has already been carried out and that 
this study should acknowledge this research and build upon it. In other 
words, don't start the feasibility study from scratch.
  The Deputy Secretary has also promised me that the Department of 
Agriculture will issue an interim report in addition to what they had 
earlier promised, a report that would be concluded by July of next 
year, 2006. In this letter, the Deputy Secretary says they will issue 
an interim report by December 15, 2005.
  The feasibility study is a start, but we can do much more. In every 
other ethanol program around the world, sugar is included. I urge the 
conferees on the Energy bill and the administration to make sugar a 
part of the ethanol program established in that bill.
  I ask unanimous consent that my letter to the conferees be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


[[Page S7716]]




                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                    Washington, DC, June 30, 2005.
     Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
     Chairman, Senate Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Joe Barton,
     Chairman, House Energy and Commerce, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
     Ranking Member, Senate Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. John D. Dingell,
     Ranking Member, House Energy and Commerce, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Sirs: I support the inclusion of provisions in the 
     House and Senate energy bills to increase the renewable 
     content of our motor vehicle fuel. Renewables such as ethanol 
     burn cleaner, reduce tailpipe emissions and decrease the 
     amount of oil in our gasoline. But, I urge the Energy Bill 
     Conference Committee to require that 100 million gallons of 
     the five to eight billion gallon-a-year ethanol mandate be 
     sugar-based.
       As you know, sugar cane stalks, or bagasse, produce almost 
     twice as much ethanol per acre as corn and several countries 
     use sugar-based ethanol to fuel their motor vehicles. In 
     fact, Brazil reduced their importation of oil from 80% of 
     their demand in the 1970s to 11% today in part by using 
     ethanol, much of it sugar-based. For these reasons, 
     specifying that a 100 million gallons of sugar-based ethanol 
     be required as part of the overall ethanol motor vehicle 
     fuels program would be an important step towards decreasing 
     our use of fossil fuels and increasing our use of renewable 
     fuels.
       Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Bill Nelson.

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Expansion of alternative fuel programs is an 
urgent national priority. If we are concerned about importing 60 
percent of our daily oil consumption from foreign lands, we best 
develop a substitute, and ethanol works in our existing gasoline 
engines.
  In conclusion, frankly I believe the administration could have done 
better. They could have started discussions with the industry sooner by 
allowing all parties to explore the available options. I believe more 
time could have led to further agreements and compromise, but I must 
look not to the interests of one very important industry in my State 
but also to the greater interests of Florida and especially the Nation 
as a whole.
  I will vote for CAFTA today. It is important to my State and it is 
important to the Nation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have great respect for all of my 
colleagues no matter what they decide to do on this vote. I think the 
vote is probably predetermined this evening. I must say there are a lot 
of promises I have heard on the floor the last day or so. There have 
been a lot of promises made downtown. I would only point out that I 
have seen the result of most of these promises after the votes are 
taken and most of them have not been worth the paper they are written 
on or the assurances given have not been valuable at all.
  One might want to look at the side agreement dealing with sugar from 
Mexico; one can then go on to a sweetener agreement with Mexico; then 
can go on to a lot of these areas and understand that there are a lot 
of promises in order to get these bills passed, but by and large they 
do not amount to very much. They will not need anybody in this Senate 
after the ``yes'' votes are cast.
  I start at the beginning, if I might. I know we are nearing the end 
of this debate. I do not want to go all the way back to the beginning, 
but let me go back a fair piece. It is when John Adams is in Europe as 
they are putting this new country together. He is in Europe 
representing our country. He writes back to his wife Abigail and asks 
Abigail the question: Where is the leadership going to come from? Where 
will the leadership emerge to help form this great country of ours, to 
help form a new government?
  He plaintively kept asking, where will the leadership come from? Then 
in subsequent letters he would say to her, there is really only us. 
There is me. There is Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, George 
Washington, Madison, Mason. Of course, in the rearview mirror of 
history, the only ``us'' represents some of the greatest human talent 
ever assembled. They wrote a document that is the most remarkable 
document. It is a document called the U.S. Constitution that begins 
with ``we the people.'' That Constitution that begins with ``we the 
people'' provides mechanisms, the framework of our Government, the 
framework of a representative democracy.
  Over many years, with that document providing the fabric of the 
growth of this great country, we have been a country that has been 
divinely blessed in many ways. We have built a place unlike any other 
place on the face of this Earth. There is no place like it. One can 
spin the globe and on this little planet called Earth, with 6 billion 
neighbors, there is no place quite like the United States of America.
  We created an expanded set of opportunities for all Americans, 
through a lot of good decisions; for example, universal education. We 
as a country decided long ago every young child ought to be whatever 
their God-given talents allow them to be. We are not going to separate 
kids in our school system. They get to go to school and they get to 
become whatever their talents allow that child to become.
  That universal education for all Americans has created a country that 
is unlike any other in the world. We went from the Colonies to the 
States. We survived a Civil War. We beat back a Depression. We resisted 
the oppression of Adolf Hitler, won a Second World War. We provided a 
GI bill, and when those soldiers came back from that war, they went to 
college. They got their college degrees. They came back to their 
communities. They built a home, got married, raised a family, built 
schools, built communities. What a remarkable country this has been.
  It all comes back to this book, this Constitution. Other countries 
have constitutions, but none are quite like this Constitution. This 
Constitution says something about international trade and commerce. It 
describes the regulation of commerce and trade to the Congress. It is 
our responsibility, not the President's responsibility.
  So over a number of years we have worked on and dealt with these 
issues and then we have had in many ways an almost breathtaking series 
of decades. We have split the atom, we have spliced genes, we have 
cloned animals, we invented plastics, nylon, the radar, the silicon 
chip. We cured polio, smallpox. We built airplanes, learned to fly 
them. We built rockets, flew to the Moon and walked on the Moon. We 
created telephones, television sets, computers. What a remarkable set 
of achievements for the men and women in this country who are the 
doers, the achievers, the inventors. We stand on each other's shoulders 
looking to the future.
  So about three decades ago things began to change. This world became 
smaller. We started hearing about the global economy. We began to do 
more and travel more and have more connections with other parts of the 
world, and particularly large corporations which were developed because 
of economies of scale. Those large corporations began to be able to do 
business in more than one country. Then they defined for their own 
interests the opportunities by which they would do that business. It 
then became a global economy. In that global economy, we began to hear 
the term free trade, free trade, like a chant, almost like the hare 
krishna chanting on a street corner, wearing robes: Free trade.
  Well, free trade is of little interest to me. I am very interested in 
expanded trade and fair trade, but free trade, there are a lot of 
things that are free.
  This country built a place unlike any other on the face of this Earth 
and we need to be concerned about its continuation. So the question is 
what kind of trade gives us the opportunity to continue improving the 
standard of living in America, creating an economy that produces new 
jobs and new opportunities?
  I am sure every single set of parents in this country wants things 
better for their kids. If there is something in second place, beyond 
the importance of their children, I guess I understand that, but 
everybody would believe, I expect, that what is most important in their 
lives is their children. We care about these things that affect our 
children. Are we sending our kids to good schools? Are we proud of 
these schools? Do we believe we are able to leave a world that is a 
better place in which to live than the one we found? Is that what we 
are going to do for our kids?
  So as we confront this question of the new global economy and a new

[[Page S7717]]

global strategy, the galloping globalization of our economy, without a 
set of rules that has kept pace, the question for all of us is: What 
does it mean for our country? What does it mean for our future? What 
does it mean for our kids--especially our kids?
  In the past decade, we have seen a very substantial loss of American 
jobs. Some people say, do not worry, be happy, ignore it. It is all 
part of the transition. What we will see is our low-skilled jobs move 
elsewhere, we will educate our children, and we will assume the role of 
high-skill, high-paying jobs; don't worry.

  So we pass trade laws. They are called CAFTA and NAFTA and GATT, WTO. 
We do all of these things. Then somehow, at the end of this process, we 
look back and we see, you know, something fundamentally has changed. 
Somebody has pulled the rug out from under what are the basic strengths 
of this country--a good job that pays well, that provides benefits, 
that you can count on.
  About 30 years ago the biggest corporation in America was General 
Motors. In most cases, people who went to work for General Motors 
expected to work there for a lifetime. They were paid well and they had 
benefits, health care and retirement. That was 30 years ago.
  Now the largest corporation is Wal-Mart. They do not pay so well. 
Most people do not spend a lifetime at Wal-Mart. The average wage is 
much lower, and a fairly substantial number of their employees do not 
have benefits.
  That is a very substantial change, really a dramatic change in our 
country. But the biggest change has been the development of a set of 
ideas by those who are able to influence thought in this country, 
particularly the largest corporations that have unlimited quantities of 
money, who convinced us that free trade, as a moniker, is a mechanism 
for success in our country.
  So we pass trade agreements, the end of which means we lose American 
jobs, lose economic strength, and somehow believe that somewhere in the 
future things are going to get better.
  I want to show a chart I have shown many times during this debate. It 
is a chart that shows what has happened with our trade deficit. This is 
a dangerous trend. Behind these red lines are lost jobs, families who 
lost their jobs, hundreds of them, thousands of them, and millions of 
them. Not many people in here know those people. No one in this Chamber 
lost his or her job because we all put a suit and necktie on and come 
to work. Nobody is going to get outsourced or offshored in the Senate. 
But all these folks did.
  I have lists of companies and lists of names of people who just lost 
their job because of this new approach, a new defined approach in 
international trade that says in our country, we will be the leader 
that says go ahead and find, with the mechanism of production, the 
lowest cost production in the world. Get your Gulfstream, circle the 
globe and find out where you can produce for 30 cents an hour. Move 
that job to that area and, by the way, when you do, we will give you a 
tax cut. Let me say that again, because that is kind of a Byzantine 
proposition. When you close your American factory and fire your 
American workers, you get a tax cut from our Government. And, yes, I 
have tried twice to change that in the Senate and, yes, a majority of 
the Senate voted to keep a tax cut for workers who get fired and 
companies that move those jobs overseas. I will put in the 
Congressional Record their names. I really don't need to. A very easy 
Nexis-Lexis search will give you the names of who decided they should 
keep their tax cuts for companies that move their jobs overseas.
  The point is, we are seeing this inevitable, relentless move to 
produce where it is cheap and then sell into the established 
marketplace. The problem is, this is unsustainable. This is a theory 
that is off track and it is a practice that injures this country.
  Why do I say the theory is off track? Henry Ford decided, when he was 
going to make Fords, that he wanted to pay his production workers 
sufficient money so that they could buy the cars they were producing. 
That is pretty simple. That is simple economics. If you are paying your 
workers enough money so they can buy the products they are producing, 
you have a market and a consumer for the product. A pretty smart guy, 
Henry Ford.
  Now it has changed. Now we should produce those shirts and those 
shoes and those trousers and all the trinkets where you can do it for 
30 cents an hour and then ship it to Fargo and Toledo and Dayton and 
Los Angeles and New York and sell it there.
  The question is, Who ultimately is going to buy that? Who ultimately 
will buy this?
  We have a lot of dislocations that are dangerous. I have not talked 
at all about this, and I will not talk at length. A part of this, by 
the way, is oil. A part of this is oil. There are some on this globe 
who are lucky enough to have enough oil under the sands so if you stand 
in a depression in the sand with boots, your soles are going to look 
oily because some parts of this world are loaded with oil, particularly 
the Middle East. So the Saudis, Kuwaitis, Iraqis, and others have a lot 
of oil. We are desperately and hopelessly addicted to it. Our economy 
is addicted to it, and that is part of this. It also relates to jobs 
because, when you have the purchase of oil from these countries--Saudi 
Arabia and Kuwait and so on--they end up with American dollars, which 
means they want to buy American companies. They want to buy American 
stock. It is a way of buying part of our country.

  In today's newspaper it says, ``China Tells U.S. Not To Meddle in the 
Bid for California Oil Giant.''
  The story is the Chinese want to buy the ninth largest oil and gas 
company in the United States called Unocal.
  Why would they want to buy Unocal? They are like everybody else. They 
want to control oil to the extent they can. The Chinese, I am told, now 
have 20 million cars. They have 1.3 billion people. By 15 years from 
now they are expected to have 120 million automobiles. They are going 
to need gas. They are going to need a lot of gas. The price of oil is 
not going to go down, it is going to go up. They want to buy an oil 
company. I don't think this should happen in a million years, by the 
way. I don't think we should have the Chinese buying American oil 
companies, but I will tell you why this is happening. It is happening 
because these trade deficits are putting massive amounts of money in 
the hands of Chinese, and it gives them the opportunity to purchase, on 
the open market, America's stocks, bonds, companies.
  I mentioned previously that Warren Buffett, whom I like a lot--I 
think he is the second richest man in the world, but you would never 
know it. Warren is just a great guy. Warren Buffett described this 
problem as ``a country that is now aspiring to an ownership society 
will not find happiness in a sharecropper society.''
  This is where we are heading, he says, a sharecropper society. He 
describes this is when every day, 7 days a week, you put $2 billion in 
the hands of foreigners. You are buying $2 billion more from foreigners 
than you are selling to them every day, 7 days a week. You are putting 
$2 billion more into hands of foreigners and foreign governments. That 
means each day they have more purchasing power to buy another part of 
America. That is where this comes from. The Chinese want to by Unocal. 
That is where the money comes from, the $140 billion trade deficit with 
China last year. That means they have our country's currency. They have 
the capability of buying our stocks and our companies.
  The question is, Do we care about that? Does anybody here want to 
change the strategy or do you want to do some more of it?
  The attitude in the Senate, as I think we will discover when the vote 
is taken tonight is that if you are digging yourself into a hole, what 
you need is more shovels and just dig a little harder. That makes no 
sense to me.
  If there is one person in the U.S. Congress who does not understand 
the danger of this, then they are in the wrong business. This is 
trouble. This comes from CAFTA, it comes from GATT, it comes from 
incompetent trade negotiators and bad trade deal after bad trade deal. 
I just heard on the floor of the Senate today, I will bet you six 
people who talked about promises that have been made to them in order 
to get this trade deal through the Congress. These promises mean 
nothing. These are totally, completely empty promises.

[[Page S7718]]

  Let me briefly describe this. I am going to use Warren Buffett to 
describe it because, again, I like Warren Buffett. He described it this 
way. Stay with me just for a moment.

       To understand why, take a wildly fanciful trip with me to 
     two isolated, side-by-side islands of equal size, 
     Squanderville and Thriftville. Land is the only capital asset 
     on these islands, and their communities are primitive, 
     needing only food and producing only food. Working eight 
     hours a day, in fact, each inhabitant can produce enough food 
     to sustain himself or herself. And for a long time that's how 
     things go along. On each island everybody works the 
     prescribed eight hours a day, which means that each society 
     is self-sufficient.
       Eventually, though, the industrious citizens of Thriftville 
     decide to do some serious saving and investing, and they 
     start to work 16 hours a day. In this mode they continue to 
     live off the food they produce in eight hours of work but 
     begin exporting an equal amount to their one and only trading 
     outlet, Squanderville.
       The citizens of Squanderville are ecstatic about this turn 
     of events, since they can now live their lives free from toil 
     but eat as well as ever. Oh, yes, there's a quid pro quo--but 
     to the Squanders, it seems harmless: All that the Thrifts 
     want in exchange for their food is Squanderbonds (which are 
     denominated, naturally, in Squanderbucks).
       Over time Thriftville accumulates an enormous amount of 
     these bonds, which at their core represent claim checks on 
     the future output of Squanderville. A few pundits in 
     Squanderville smell trouble coming. They foresee that for the 
     Squanders both to eat and to pay off--or simply service--the 
     debt they're piling up will eventually require them to work 
     more than eight hours a day. But the residents of 
     Squanderville are in no mood to listen to such doomsaying.
       Meanwhile, the citizens of Thriftville begin to get 
     nervous. Just how good, they ask, are the IOUs of a shiftless 
     island? So the Thrifts change strategy: Though they continue 
     to hold some bonds, they sell most of them to Squanderville 
     residents for Squanderbucks and use the proceeds to buy 
     Squanderville land. And eventually the Thrifts own all of 
     Squanderville.
       At that point, the Squanders are forced to deal with an 
     ugly equation: They must now not only return to working eight 
     hours a day in order to eat--they have nothing left to 
     trade--but must also work additional hours to service their 
     debt and pay Thriftville rent on the land so imprudently 
     sold. In effect, Squanderville has been colonized by purchase 
     rather than conquest.

  That is my friend Warren Buffett's description of what is happening. 
And it is why, by the way, the Chinese have the money to buy Unocal. 
This is about Squanderville and Thriftville. The question he asks: Is 
anybody listening? Regrettably, the answer in the Senate is: Precious 
few.
  I have spoken at great length about companies. I have not spoken 
previously about Pennsylvania House, which I will do just for a moment. 
I have talked about Huffy bicycles, Radio Flyer little red wagons, Fig 
Newton cookies--which, by the way, went to Monterrey, Mexico, so if you 
want some Mexican food, order Fig Newton cookies.
  Let me tell you about Pennsylvania House Furniture, high-end 
furniture made with Pennsylvania wood, hardwood and cherry wood, high-
end, terrific furniture, made for many decades in Pennsylvania and 
marketed as Pennsylvania Furniture.
  Pennsylvania House Furniture was purchased by Lazy Boy Corporation 
about 4 years ago. Lazy Boy decided it is just too expensive to 
manufacture Pennsylvania House furniture in Pennsylvania, so we have to 
move it to China. Now Pennsylvania House furniture will be made in 
China. They will ship the wood from Pennsylvania to China, the 
hardwood, the cherry wood. They will put it together in China and ship 
the furniture back.
  So it is for Robert Zechman. Robert Zechman worked for that company 
for 29 years. On December 21, four days from Christmas, he got his 
letter: You get $92-a-year severance for the service you have given 
this great company. Now we are shipping the wood and your job to China. 
They put the furniture together and ship it back. We will still call it 
Pennsylvania House Furniture, but the only Pennsylvania part of that 
furniture is the wood. The people are expendable.
  The question is, Does anybody care about that? Does it matter to 
anybody? It mattered to Pennsylvania. Governor Rendell said: We have 
500 people who work here. We would like to save these jobs. They put 
together an effort to save those jobs. Finally, we were told that Lazy 
Boy said: We are not interested in having competition domestically, so 
we are not going to sell. We are moving to China.
  Same story with Huffy bicycles. Same story with dozens and dozens and 
dozens of companies.
  I spoke last week about a refrigerator company that decided they will 
close their American plant, notify the workers: No jobs in this country 
for you anymore. Why? Because we are going to make those refrigerators 
in Mexico. And, by the way, just to rub salt in the wound, one part of 
the manufacturing plant with which they will manufacture those 
refrigerators in Mexico has an Ex-Im Bank loan. That is a loan 
subsidized by this Government to build a part of a plant in Mexico to 
house the jobs of the workers who were fired in this country to build 
some refrigerators.
  Does it matter? Maybe not to some. It matters to me. Does it matter 
whether we make refrigerators? Does it matter whether we make fine 
furniture? Does it matter whether we have a manufacturing base? Will 
America remain a strong world-class economy if it gives its 
manufacturing sector away?
  In the last 25 years, we have lost one-half of our manufacturing 
capacity. Is there anybody here who is having an apoplectic seizure 
about that? Not hardly. We snore our way through this. President after 
President gives us a new trade law to see if we can improve on this 
massive debt that keeps growing and growing and growing. In the 
meantime, Robert Zechman will probably ask his Congressman or his 
Senator: What is going on there? Are you standing up for America, 
standing up for jobs in this country? Absolutely, he will hear. You bet 
your life. We are all for American jobs. It is just that the trade 
agreements trade them away--quickly. The majority of the people in the 
House and the Senate are going to vote for these trade agreements.
  America Online--December 2003--had just laid off 450 American 
employees, mostly design engineers and software engineers, in its 
California offices. Then those same engineers read that America Online 
was trying to hire software development teams and engineers in 
Bangalore, India. Does that mean you change your name to India Online, 
or is it still America Online that divests itself of U.S. employees and 
hires the engineers in Bangalore?
  The list is endless. We come down, finally, to a choice, a choice 
this Senate will make once again on another trade agreement. The NAFTA 
trade agreement, called North American Free Trade Agreement, was 
negotiated between the United States, Mexico, and Canada. It was just 
one more chapter of bad trade agreements. But before that trade 
agreement, we had a slight surplus in trade with Mexico. We had a 
modest deficit with Canada. Now we have had about 10 years of trade 
agreements called NAFTA, and now we have a very large trade deficit 
with Mexico and a larger trade deficit with Canada. One would wonder if 
somebody would stand up and scratch their head and say: Gee, I wonder 
if we didn't make a mistake here.
  The economists, by the way, who most trumpeted the benefits of NAFTA, 
the North American Free Trade Agreement, were two economists named 
Hufbauer and Schott. I am sure they are still practicing economists. I 
see the names Hufbauer and Schott.
  I actually used to teach economics. Economics is just a little bit of 
psychology pumped up with a lot of helium. I taught it for a little 
while and was able to overcome that experience and still lead a 
productive life.
  But these economists, Hufbauer and Schott, said: If you just pass 
NAFTA, we will promise you a remarkable future. What will happen is 
jobs will transpose. We will see low-income, low-skilled jobs being 
performed by Mexicans and high-skill, high-wage jobs now producing a 
product to be sold into an emerging middle class in Mexico, and those 
will be produced in America.
  These people were totally, completely wrong about everything. Has 
anybody said, We were wrong? Of course not. In this debate on CAFTA, 
which is another acronym--NAFTA, CAFTA, SHAFTA, whatever it is--on this 
debate, we are now hearing NAFTA was really good. Boy, if we could just 
get some more of this spoiled trade agreement, somehow things would be 
better off. They would not be better.
  Let me try to tell you what I believe our obligation is. Yes, I want 
a strong

[[Page S7719]]

economy. Yes, I want American companies to understand we support their 
interest in competing around the world.
  But I believe that, first of all, in the boardrooms they ought to say 
the Pledge of Allegiance from time to time. If we charter American 
corporations as artificial people--and that is what a corporate charter 
is about. We say we are going to create you as an artificial person. We 
are going to give you a charter which gives you limited liability. You 
can sue and be sued, contract and be contracted with. You are, in fact, 
an artificial person. If that artificial person, by corporate charter, 
given by this country, is in America, then it ought to care just a bit 
about this country's interests. And, yes, maybe just a recitation of 
the Pledge of Allegiance, occasionally, in the boardroom might help.
  When we hear people say, ``We want all the benefits for our 
corporation being American, except the responsibility for paying taxes 
is something we want to shed,'' I worry about loyalty and commitment to 
this country. And, yes, that is happening. We see what is called 
inversions, where corporations want to renounce their American 
citizenship to become citizens of the Bahamas. Why? Because they want 
to become Bahamian citizens? No. Because they want to avoid paying U.S. 
taxes. I have always said, if they want to do that, if they run into 
trouble, let them call out the Bahamian Navy. My understanding is, 
there are about 24 people in the Bahamian Navy. Let them call on the 
Bahamian Navy.
  The point is, I think we ought to support American companies in 
competing around the world, but we ought to expect certain things from 
them as well. The same is true with respect to other countries. Whether 
it is China, Japan, Europe or Korea, we should not any longer sit idly 
by and roll our eyes at trade agreements that are unfair to our workers 
and unfair to our companies.
  Let me again mention just one specific piece of information. I do not 
mean to pick on Korea for the sake of picking on Korea. I have spoken 
about the Chinese automobile trade previously. Korea, this year, if 
this year is similar to last year, will likely send us about 680,000 
Korean cars, all on ships, to be delivered to the United States, and to 
be sold in the United States--680,000 cars produced in Korea, with 
Korean labor, to be shipped to the United States.
  Do you know how many cars the United States will produce that we will 
be able to sell in Korea? Do you think it will be 680,000? No, 3,900. 
Do you know why? Because Korea does not want American cars sold in 
Korea. They had a little spurt once on the Dodge Dakota pickup, and 
they shut that down real quickly. So 680,000 cars coming this way; 
3,900 cars going from the United States to Korea.
  I think for us to put up with this stuff is unbelievable, just 
unbelievable, in its ignorance. I would say to the Koreans, with 
respect to that piece of bilateral trade, if that is what you want to 
do on bilateral automobile trade, then, for a while, why don't you sell 
your cars in Zambia? Just ship them to Zambia, and we hope you have a 
good commercial success with them. Very soon, they would understand 
they need the American marketplace, and in exchange for needing the 
American marketplace, to have their marketplace wide open to us.
  We know, those of us who will vote against this, and especially those 
who speak as I do, we know that the Washington Post, which will largely 
not run any op-ed pieces from those of us who hold our view, they and 
the other institutional thinkers on this will say: Well, do you know 
what you are? We have just heard you speak, and you basically ignore 
the world as it is. You are willing to reject the global economy, 
despite the fact that it exists and is there. And what you are is a 
xenophobic, isolationist stooge that simply is incapable of seeing over 
the horizon. You don't have the breadth of thought we do. And because 
you don't, you have a basic level of ignorance. That is how they treat 
people who do not buy into the jingoism of free trade.
  This country used to be known as a country of shrewd Yankee traders. 
We were good. Our country wants us to succeed. We should want us to 
succeed. And we want to help others succeed with trade relationships 
that help lift others up, not push us down. But I have described 
already what we have gone through in the last century.
  Unlike almost any other country on Earth, in the last century we 
decided some pretty basics things. And there are some people who had a 
tough time forcing these things to happen. I do not have the names of 
the people who were killed on the streets of America who were demanding 
the right for labor to be able to organize, but they died. Those who 
fought for a safe workplace, they suffered. Those who demanded a fair 
part of the income stream in this country for those who work for a 
living, they too paid the price for that. Those who fought, who said, 
belching chemicals into the air and water out of our factories, it is 
poisoning where we live, and you have to stop it--and they forced 
Congress to put an end to it--they paid a price for that as well.
  But we did all that. It made sense. And now all of a sudden we see 
that does not matter. What matters is to be able to pole-vault over all 
of those regulations and go set up a factory in Guangzhou and produce 
that commodity and send it to Pittsburgh. And the consumer may get a 
$25 lower bill for that commodity. The consumer probably lost their job 
to the worker in the factory in Guangzhou, but they are able to pay 
slightly less for that commodity. That is not a bargain for our 
country. It is a way for our country to lose economic strength and to 
lose its way.
  Now, let me just conclude by saying I have great hope for this 
country. If I did not have hope, I would not serve here in the Senate. 
We come here from a quiltwork of interests around the country--some big 
States and some small States, some big towns, some small towns, ivy 
league colleges and State schools. I come from a town of 300 people. I 
think it is a thrill every day to go to work. I think it is a special 
privilege to be here. If I did not have hope, I would not keep coming 
here, I would not have run for reelection last fall.
  I still have hope that, in the long run, we will understand that the 
path we are on cannot be sustained and there is a better path. And it 
is not a path that is selfish. It is not demanding ``us or nothing.'' 
It is just a path that understands our first responsibility is to 
nurture and strengthen and protect this country of ours and to do what 
we think is necessary to give our kids opportunities. We need to leave 
this place better than the way we found it. And that is not what is 
going to happen unless we change course.
  So I am on the floor of the Senate, not to preach but just to try to 
play a role in seeing if we cannot finally make a U-turn on these 
issues and head in the right direction, in a direction that says to our 
trading partners--China, Korea, Africa, South America, CAFTA, Central 
America--it says to them: Yes, we care about this. We want to help you. 
We want to work with you. But we do not want to do that at the expense 
of taking the American economy apart. We do not want to do that at the 
expense of saying to American families: We are busy helping somebody 
else down there, and so we do not have time to worry about your job.
  If this country says to the people who make bicycles, ``You are paid 
way too much. You are paid $11 an hour plus benefits. We cannot afford 
that. Those jobs go to China,'' there is destined, in my judgment, to 
be nothing but hopelessness for those who come after us. I do not 
believe we can allow that to be the case.
  I started by saying John Adams used to write back to his wife, when 
he was helping put this great country together, and asked her 
plaintively: Where is the leadership? Who will be the leaders? Where 
will the leadership come from in this country? And the answer in every 
generation in America has been to provide that leadership. And that 
question is a loud question in this country, again. It begs for an 
answer. Who will be the leaders? Where will the leadership come from to 
put this country back on track, to put its economy back on track, so 5 
years, 10 years, and 25 years from now we can see something that gives 
us some confidence and some faith this is going to be a better place 
for our children.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the 
floor.


     U.S.-Dominican Republic, Central American Free Trade Agreement

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the U.S.-Dominican 
Republic, Central American-Free Trade

[[Page S7720]]

Agreement, CAFTA. I support free trade when it is fair trade. Yet this 
agreement is not fair for workers in America or in Central America.
  The truth is, this agreement will not dramatically change the trade 
relationship between the United States and our neighbors in Central 
America.
  Thanks to existing agreements, like the Caribbean Basin Initiative, 
there are relatively few trade restrictions today between the U.S. and 
the nations of CAFTA.
  The small increases in trade of textiles and agriculture products 
that will result under CAFTA represent a very modest increase in U.S. 
revenue. According to the U.S. International Trade Commission, CAFTA 
will generate a net increase in U.S. revenues of just 0.01 percent per 
year.
  So this agreement is not going to do much to help the American 
economy. But it contains provisions on labor, the environment and sugar 
that could harm America's working men and women and their families.
  I think we have widespread agreement that workers in the CAFTA 
countries face very difficult conditions.
  In most countries, workers have a very hard time trying to unionize 
and bargain collectively. Intimidation of union organizers is not 
unusual. It often goes unpunished.
  There is even a significant amount of child labor in some sectors in 
these countries.
  So CAFTA is a prime example of a trade agreement that must have 
strong labor provisions if it is to guarantee trade that is not just 
free, but fair.
  But there is only one labor provision in this agreement that is 
enforceable through the regular dispute settlement procedures, and it 
is a weak one.
  It does nothing more than require a country to enforce its own trade 
laws, no matter how weak. And if a company is found in violation of its 
national trade laws, the government pays the fine--not the company.
  That is not much incentive to encourage employers to abide by the law 
and treat their workers with respect and dignity.
  Let me be very clear about one thing. I support trade. I encourage 
trade. Trade is very important to my State. Maryland workers can 
compete successfully in a global marketplace, if they're given a level 
playing field. That's why I support expansion of fair trade.
  I have supported past trade agreements, like the Jordan Free Trade 
Agreement, that included strong, enforceable labor provisions. This 
agreement does not live up to those standards.
  CAFTA's weak labor provisions are a raw deal for American workers.
  They send a terrible message to the men and women in CAFTA nations 
who are trying to earn a fair wage to support their families.
  Our message to them is, we want to do business with the companies you 
work for, but we aren't concerned about how they treat you. That's not 
the message I want to send to our neighbors.
  On the environment, we also face some serious challenges in the CAFTA 
countries.
  As with the labor provisions, the environmental provisions in CAFTA 
are too weak. The one enforceable environmental provision simply 
requires countries to ``effectively enforce'' their own environmental 
laws.
  Again, I believe in free trade that is fair trade. And fair trade 
must include environmental protections. We need strong, enforceable 
environmental provisions to protect American jobs. We also need them to 
ensure that our neighbors have access to the same clean air and safe 
drinking water that we enjoy.
  Finally, Mr. President, I am very concerned that CAFTA unfairly 
exposes the American sugar industry without opening other markets for 
U.S. sugar.
  Even the administration recognizes that CAFTA as it was negotiated 
will unfairly target our sugar industry. That is why they have come up 
with a complicated scheme to pay CAFTA-nation governments and sugar 
producers not to export sugar to America.
  But this deal is no deal for the men and women of America's sugar 
industry. And it is no deal for the American taxpayer who, under this 
plan, would pay between $150 million and $200 million a year to foreign 
governments and companies.
  It makes no sense to negotiate an agreement that opens U.S. markets 
to foreign sugar and then pay foreign producers not to take advantage 
of that agreement.
  Even this flawed plan would not do enough to protect the U.S. sugar 
industry from unfair trade. It would expire after just two years, 
exposing the U.S. market to cheap, low quality imports.
  And it does nothing to open large, protected sugar markets in Europe 
that remain closed to U.S. sugar exports.
  I support the idea of developing stronger ties between the U.S. and 
our neighbors in Central America.
  These nations have made great strides toward democracy and openness. 
We should work more closely with them to support their recent gains in 
the rule of law and efforts to fight terrorism, organized crime and 
drug trafficking.
  But this trade agreement is seriously flawed. It does not do much to 
increase free trade, and it certainly does nothing to support fair 
trade. It is not fair to American workers and their families, and it is 
not fair to workers in Central America. I will vote no, against CAFTA.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I cannot in good conscience support the 
CAFTA agreement as proposed by the Administration. I reviewed this 
agreement carefully and evaluated the arguments of both sides. Exports 
play a central role in the economy of my home State of Vermont, where 
some of the finest specialized goods in the world are made, from 
computer chips to cheese. Free and fair trade benefits us as 
Vermonters, and it benefits the country. I have often voted in favor of 
various trade agreements, including NAFTA and recent bilateral trade 
accords with Jordan, Singapore, and Chile.
  I strongly believe free trade and the agreements that facilitate it 
will be critical to the well being of my State and our country in the 
years ahead. But we have a responsibility to ourselves and those we 
trade with to make sure these agreements are soundly predicated, are 
fair to both sides, are constructed to advance the interests of the 
many and not just a few, and that they will protect the environment 
upon which we all ultimately depend. I do not believe this trade 
agreement adequately meets these tests, and I cannot in good conscience 
vote for CAFTA.
  I have great respect for some of Central America's leaders who favor 
this agreement. I know they have the interests of their countries at 
heart. But I believe they overstate the positive effects this agreement 
would have and give too little weight to negative effects. The weak 
labor and environmental provisions of this agreement will do little to 
help the hardworking men and women of Latin America, and in fact may 
make their already difficult lives even harder and more dangerous.
  I also believe that this agreement is a diversion from the larger 
trade issues that will make a real difference for the long-term health 
of our own economy. This deal should be carefully and conscientiously 
re-negotiated to adequately address these pressing concerns.
  There has been a lot of ink spilled from the administration and from 
groups representing particular interests arguing that CAFTA will be a 
significant boost to the U.S. economy. When you are talking about 
Central American economies that have a combined gross domestic product 
of a medium-sized U.S. city, this argument just does not carry weight. 
Yes, U.S. consumers might be able to buy some Central American exports 
at a cheaper price. And, yes, U.S. manufacturers might gain greater 
access to these markets. But these countries are so small that the 
impact on the U.S. economy will be negligible. For instance, this 
agreement would help the dairy producers in my home State of Vermont 
only marginally, at the very best.
  We all know that when we talk about trade, what makes a real 
difference for the economy is trade with our larger trading partners--
Europe, the NAFTA countries of Canada and Mexico, several Far East 
Asian countries--but, above all, China. Yet we have an enormous trade 
deficit with China today

[[Page S7721]]

that threatens interest rates and the strength of the dollar.
  China has maintained an artificially low exchange rate, removed 
voluntary export quotas, and continually infringed on international 
patents and copyrights. It does not seem that this administration has 
any strategy for dealing with these unfair trade practices, let alone 
with the fact that China's GDP is growing at almost 10 percent every 
year and will challenge us economically in the decades ahead. It is a 
wonder to me that the administration is seeking trade agreements that 
are not part of a comprehensive strategy to deal with this kind of 
continually escalating foreign competition.
  While this agreement will not make much difference for our economy, 
it is likely to have significant negative impacts on the countries of 
Central America, and we should be concerned for the people of those 
impoverished countries. Over the past several decades, dictatorships, 
civil wars and fierce class struggles have buffeted the region, 
particularly during the Cold War when the larger geopolitical 
struggle--in which we were a central player--exploited and heightened 
these local tensions. These countries have set out on a new, democratic 
path over the past year, and our foreign policy should encourage these 
favorable developments. Unfortunately, the weak labor and environmental 
laws of these countries and the complete failure of this agreement to 
elevate and strengthen those standards ensures that any growth that 
rises out of the agreement is unlikely to translate into significant 
real gains for everyday workers and the broader population.
  Under CAFTA, participating countries are only forced to abide by 
their own often weak and rarely enforced labor laws. Sadly, an 
oligarchic culture persists in these countries, whereby wealthy 
business and landowners rarely trickle down profits to the hardworking 
men and women who do the work. Without stronger labor provisions that 
provide increased benefits and protections to workers, CAFTA will do 
little to change that culture.
  A recent World Bank report on the agreement found that Central 
American countries will have to boost spending for schools and rural 
infrastructure to take full advantage of the agreement's benefits. 
Those investments are not realistically forthcoming, and this 
administration has not shown a serious commitment to supporting this 
type of development in those nations to make up the difference. This is 
a lost opportunity. At the same time, CAFTA will displace poor 
subsistence farmers who will abandon their land and follow in the 
footsteps of those who have come illegally to the United States in 
search of employment. And CAFTA will contribute to ongoing 
environmental problems associated with manufacturing and the pesticides 
used in large-scale agriculture.
  I urge the President to send his trade negotiating team back down to 
Central America to rework this deal. We need a better agreement that 
reaches the so-called Jordan Standard, including the strong labor and 
environmental provisions of the United States-Jordan Bilateral Free 
Trade Agreement that we ratified a few years ago.
  More importantly, I hope the President will deal with the mounting 
pile of economic and trade problems that really do have profound 
consequences to our economy and the living standards of the American 
people. Let's come up with a broader approach to trade that addresses 
unfair trading practices, that reduces our ballooning trade deficit, 
that boosts our economy, and that protects the environment and the 
rights of workers. I look forward to working with this or any other 
administration on these challenges. I cannot cast a vote for an 
agreement like this that over-promises and under-delivers to the 
workers of our own country and to the people of Central America.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong opposition 
to the CAFTA implementing legislation before us today. Unlike NAFTA, 
CAFTA won't encourage the migration of a large number of manufacturing 
jobs out of the country or significant worsen our already terrible 
trade deficit; CAFTA countries only account for 1.5 percent of total 
U.S. trade. And unlike the U.S.-Australia free trade agreement which 
put my State's dairy farmers at a competitive disadvantage, CAFTA harms 
most industries like sugar and textiles that do not have a large 
presence in Wisconsin.
  But there are bigger reasons to reject CAFTA today--reasons that 
apply across all regions of the country and should convince all 
Senators. We should reject CAFTA because it makes equal trading 
partners out of countries with labor and environmental standards far 
below those in the United States. Instead of using our negotiating 
power with these countries to lock in improvements in these standards, 
CAFTA establishes rules on workers' rights that take a step backward 
from the labor conditions that exist in current trade programs with 
Central America.
  When we make deals like CAFTA, we do more than give up jobs to low-
wage countries. When we make deals like CAFTA, we accept and encourage 
a global economy where workers' rights, living wages, and humane 
treatment are an anachronism. When we make deals like CAFTA, we tell 
U.S. businesses that the tough environmental standards they live by--
and pay for--are not necessary for their overseas competitors. Why does 
the continuing flow of jobs moving overseas surprise us given this 
message--a message sent by our top trade officials and negotiators?
  In a region where labor laws fall far short of minimum international 
standards and where workers are routinely intimidated, fired, and 
threatened for trying to exercise their most basic rights on the job, 
CAFTA's move backwards on workers' rights is unacceptable. As a 
businessman, I understand that trade agreements that open markets can 
be good for the economy--but not if they do so by accepting as the 
global norm the least common denominator in labor and environmental 
standards.
  The administration has agreed to support $40 million per year from 
fiscal year 2006 to fiscal year 2009 to aid CAFTA countries with their 
labor and environmental protection programs and an additional $30 
million per year over the same period to assist farmers in CAFTA 
countries who may be displaced by the expected increase of agricultural 
imports from the U.S. Mr. President, I am in favor of opening 
international markets for U.S. goods, but why do we need to spend $190 
million over 3 years to have countries trade with us? Wouldn't it have 
been easier to have CAFTA countries work with the International Labor 
Organization to develop the capacity to monitor and enforce labor and 
environmental protections?
  At a time when the trade deficit keeps rising--$655 billion in fiscal 
year 2004 up from $530 billion in fiscal year 2003--and the Federal 
deficit is at an all-time high, the U.S. needs to negotiate free-trade 
agreements where both sides play by the same rules. When I meet with 
constituents and the conversation turns to trade or jobs, the topic of 
China inevitably comes up and I am asked what we are going to do about 
China. Mr. President, what are we going to do about China? I certainly 
have trouble trusting those who negotiated CAFTA to work out the answer 
to that dilemma--an answer that will have a much larger and more direct 
impact on our economy.
  We cannot remain competitive with countries that pay their workers 
next to nothing, have no labor or environmental standards, and who 
offer their employees little or no health care. Yet we are considering 
a trade agreement right now that asks us to do just that. And though 
the CAFTA countries are not large enough to impact our economy 
significantly, the precedent set by agreements like CAFTA--and the 
attitude among our trade negotiators that CAFTA reveals--will. We are 
the strongest economy in the world and can and should be able to 
compete and prosper in a global marketplace. But we will not if we 
continue to sign up for trade agreements that allow other countries to 
undercut us by producing goods using underpaid, abused labor and 
unacceptable environmental practices. I urge my colleagues to reject 
CAFTA--and reject the misguided, eventually disastrous trade policy it 
represents.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am a long-time supporter of free trade 
agreements because I believe free trade agreements can be beneficial to 
everyone. Free trade agreements have a positive impact on the job 
market and the economy.

[[Page S7722]]

  I have spent many hours listening to this body debate the Dominican 
Republic-Central American-United States Free Trade Agreement (DR-
CAFTA). Upon careful consideration of the issues at stake in this 
important economic measure, I have come to the conclusion that the 
ratification of DR-CAFTA will result in the growth of our national 
economy. Additionally, DR-CAFTA's passage will represent an enormous 
step towards increased prosperity in Central America.
  The reasons to support DR-CAFTA are numerous. The measure is 
favorable to our Nation's export market. DR-CAFTA countries currently 
make up the twelfth largest market for U.S. exports, with those 
countries purchasing more than $15.1 billion in U.S. exports in 2003. I 
believe we should do what we can to foster additional growth in that 
market. Passage of DR-CAFTA will do just that. In addition, DR-CAFTA is 
favorable to our country's textile suppliers. Passage of this bill will 
put our suppliers on a level playing field with their counterparts in 
Asia.
  I believe that the argument that DR-CAFTA will represent an exodus of 
jobs and dollars to Central America is unfounded. Under the status quo, 
80 percent of all imports from Central America and 99 percent of 
agricultural imports from Central America enter the United States duty 
free. In contrast, many American farmers suffer from the burden of 
tariffs ranging from approximately 7 percent in the case of Nicaragua 
to 23 percent for certain products from the Dominican Republic. 
Creating a more equitable duty system for agricultural imports and 
exports is important to my home State of New Mexico, which is heavily 
involved in the agricultural industry.
  This agreement is also important to New Mexico because an estimated 
$234 million worth of products, many of them semi-conductors and 
electronics, were exported from New Mexico to DR-CAFTA countries in 
2004. This ranked New Mexico thirteenth among U.S. States exporting 
goods to CAFTA countries. Clearly, my home State will benefit from a 
free trade agreement with these Central American countries.
  DR-CAFTA is important to our country. It is a pro-export, pro-worker, 
pro-agriculture, pro-economy trade agreement, and I appreciate the 
efforts of the administration and our trade negotiators in crafting 
such an agreement. I am proud to vote in favor of DR-CAFTA.
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the 
Central American Free Trade Agreement. CAFTA will be one of the most 
important pieces of legislation considered by the Congress this year. 
Passage of CAFTA means increased markets for our agricultural products 
and manufactured goods to the nations of Central America--Costa Rica, 
El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua--and the Dominican 
Republic. Already, 47,000 Nebraska jobs are supported by exports of 
farm products. CAFTA means more of these jobs across the United States.
  Passing CAFTA will further open new markets for beef, corn, soybeans 
and other products by lowering and eliminating tariffs on U.S. goods in 
CAFTA countries. Currently, U.S. goods exported to CAFTA countries face 
significant tariffs. Despite these tariffs, the U.S. exports more than 
$15 billion to CAFTA countries every year. Nebraska exported over $19.5 
million worth of goods to CAFTA countries in 2004, according to the 
Department of Commerce. With these tariffs eliminated, this region 
provides significant potential for States like Nebraska which depend on 
our ability to export our products. The Office of the United States 
Trade Representative views Central America as a larger market for U.S. 
products than India, Indonesia, and Russia combined.
  All previous trade agreements have benefitted the United States 
economy. Since the North American Free Trade Agreement was signed in 
1993, trade among NAFTA nations rose 150 percent. Nebraska's combined 
exports to Canada and Mexico have increased by more than 160 percent. 
In the first year of the U.S.-Chile Free Trade Agreement, U.S. exports 
to Chile grew 33.5 percent.
  There are those who have argued that there is a danger to the U.S. 
sugar industry if CAFTA is passed into law. They are worried about 
sugar from the Dominican Republic and Central America crowding out 
domestically produced U.S. sugar. These fears, while understandable, 
don't hold up against the facts. Under the current U.S. Farm Bill, 
Congress set an import ceiling of about 1.4 million metric tons of 
sugar. The domestic sugar program is unaffected when imports are below 
this limit. Currently, the U.S. is not close to exceeding that ceiling. 
According to the U.S. Trade Representative, in the first year of the 
agreement, increased access to the U.S. sugar market will be equal to 
little more than one day's sugar production in the United States.
  CAFTA has stronger protections for workers than any other Free Trade 
Agreement. It has a three-part strategy that will ensure effective 
enforcement of domestic labor laws, establish a cooperative program to 
improve enforcement of domestic labor laws, and enhance the ability of 
Central American governments to monitor and enforce labor rights.
  Trade is an opportunity, not a guarantee. CAFTA is supported by over 
50 agricultural industry and farm groups, including the Nebraska Farm 
Bureau and the Nebraska Corn Growers.
  Ultimately, the argument for CAFTA is not about numbers on a page or 
statistics, it is about American families and communities that need the 
opportunities provided by these markets to grow and remain competitive. 
CAFTA is good for the United States. I urge my colleagues to vote for 
this trade agreement.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am opposed to and will vote against the 
Central America Free Trade Agreement, CAFTA.
  I am not against trade agreements, provided they are fair. But when 
those agreements unfairly disadvantage American workers and businesses, 
I oppose them.
  I could vote for CAFTA if it meant more jobs in America and a 
stronger American economy. But, I do not believe that is the case. 
Because of CAFTA, Americans will lose jobs and manufacturing will move 
overseas.
  CAFTA will not foster free trade; it will result in unfair 
competition. Most of the Central American governments are notoriously 
lax in enforcing their labor laws. Under CAFTA, the Central American 
countries pledge to enforce their labor laws and strive to ensure 
workers' rights are protected, but these are merely ``paper pledges.'' 
Moreover, unlike other trade agreements, the mechanisms for forcing the 
Central American governments to enforce their own labor laws are 
limited and the penalties for noncompliance are negligible. Worse 
still, nothing in CAFTA prohibits a country from further relaxing its 
existing laws.
  In addition, most Central American countries do not have strong 
environmental protection laws, and enforcement of the laws that do 
exist is limited. Companies are permitted to destroy the environment 
and harm their workers in order to produce cheaper products for export.
  U.S. manufacturers and workers are the best in the world. Their 
productivity and innovation cannot be matched. But even they cannot--
nor should they have to--compete with foreign companies that have weak 
labor protections and that ignore the environment in order to cut 
prices.
  After careful consideration, I have come to the conclusion that CAFTA 
will result in American workers losing their jobs, U.S. companies 
closing their doors, a downward pressure on wages, and a worsening 
trade deficit.
  For these reasons, I cannot support CAFTA and will vote against it.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I want to express my support for the Central 
America Free Trade Agreement, which is not just important for job 
creation and business opportunities in Arizona, but for the economic 
and political futures of five Central American countries and the 
Dominican Republic, all of which are eagerly awaiting the passage of 
this trade agreement. CAFTA will enhance both economic and political 
ties between Central America and the United States. It will also help 
promote freedom and democracy in our own Hemisphere.
  The United States exports $15 billion annually to the CAFTA-DR 
countries--El Salvador, Honduras, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Guatemala, and 
the Dominican Republic. This is more than our

[[Page S7723]]

exports to Russia, India, and Indonesia combined. In my home State of 
Arizona, our top agricultural exports to the region are beef, 
vegetables, and cotton. We also exported more than $208.9 million in 
manufactured goods to CAFTA countries. The American Farm Bureau 
estimates that CAFTA will increase farm exports from Arizona to CAFTA 
countries by $8 million per year for beef, $1 million per year for 
vegetables, and $800 thousand per year for cotton, part of a total 
future annual increase of $12.14 million in agricultural exports over 
the anticipated pre-CAFTA growth level. The total national increase in 
agricultural products to CAFTA countries is estimated at over $1.5 
billion, and manufacturing exports nationwide will increase 
dramatically as well, which is great for Arizona where 25 percent of 
the manufacturing jobs depend on exports. CAFTA will also reduce the 
U.S. trade deficit by $756 million.
  While the U.S. economy has been growing steadily over the past 2 
years, creating record numbers of new jobs, we can expect even more 
growth with the passage of CAFTA. That, in turn, will foster the growth 
of Central American economies. Take, for example, the textile industry 
in the Central-America region. The CAFTA countries are the largest 
consumers of U.S. apparel and yarn exports, and the second largest 
consumers of U.S. fabric exports. 11,000 Arizonan jobs are supported by 
the textile industry, and approximately 700,000 Americans are employed 
in the yarn and textile sectors. The yarn and fabric we create and 
export to Central America and the Dominican Republic support another 
500,000 jobs in the apparel sector in those countries. By working 
together, the United States and CAFTA countries can more efficiently 
compete with large textile markets such as those in the Asia region. 
With the expiration in 2004 of global multi-fiber quotas in effect 
since the 1970s on textiles and apparel, regional producers face a new 
competitive challenge from Asian imports. CAFTA would provide regional 
garment-makers--and their U.S. or regional suppliers of fabric and 
yarn--a critical advantage in competing with Asia.
  Many Arizona farmers and businessmen are excited about the economic 
growth CAFTA will bring them. There is also just as much excitement in 
Central American countries. I have been to El Salvador and I can tell 
you that people there are looking to the United States to pass CAFTA to 
give them better opportunities and a higher standard of living. They 
have hope that their country's economy will see dramatic growth, 
increasing jobs and the wages that those jobs pay. Without CAFTA, they 
fear that jobs once performed by El Salvadorian workers will be moved 
to Asia.
  CAFTA gives El Salvadorians hope for a better economic future, which 
means a more stable and peaceful future, through rising wages, 
decreasing unemployment rates, and more affordable basic commodities. 
This will raise the standards of living in El Salvador, as well as the 
other countries in this region. The President of El Salvador has said 
that CAFTA matters most to his country because it will strengthen the 
foundations of democracy by promoting economic growth, providing a 
solution to the persistent problem of poverty, and creating equality of 
opportunity. And by addressing the underlying problems of poverty and 
unequal economic opportunities, CAFTA will help stem the tide of 
thousands of Central Americans who leave their homes seeking a better 
life in neighboring countries to the north. CAFTA will help Central 
Americans to earn better livings and successfully support their 
families in their home countries.
  Economic growth fosters stability and peace throughout this region. 
To strengthen democracy in the region, its people need to see concrete 
benefits from economic freedom--tangible improvements in their daily 
life. When a middle class develops and people have a larger economic 
stake in their society, they demand more of a say in how that society 
is run. This is critical for a region's democratic success.
  We can be instrumental in the region's democratic, as well as 
economic, success by passing CAFTA now. If we fail to pass CAFTA, 
America will be turning its back on the hopes and dreams of our 
southern neighbors.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of the 
Republican Policy Committee's recent policy paper, ``The U.S.-Dominican 
Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement is a Win-Win.'' This 
paper goes into further detail as to why the CAFTA agreement is in 
America's interest.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed, as 
follows:

 United States-Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement 
                              Is a Win-Win


                           executive summary

       Congress should soon pass the United States-Dominican 
     Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA). 
     This important agreement expands market access for U.S. 
     exporters of manufactured goods, agriculture products, and 
     services.
       On February 20, 2004, President Bush notified Congress of 
     his intent to enter into a free trade agreement with the 
     Central American nations of Costa Rica, El Salvador, 
     Honduras, Guatemala, and Nicaragua. The Dominican Republic 
     became a party to CAFTA on August 5, 2004.
       The Central American markets are significant to the 
     American economy: the DR-CAFTA countries constitute our 12th 
     largest export market with a consumer base of nearly 44 
     million.
       Passage of DR-CAFTA is vital to the economic and security 
     interests of both the United States and the DR-CAFTA 
     countries, and it will demonstrate the U.S. commitment to 
     foster economic prosperity in the region. It will serve to 
     nurture democracy, transparency, and respect for the rule of 
     law in a region that, only decades ago, was marked by 
     internal strife.
       Commonly heard arguments against DR-CAFTA include concern 
     that U.S. sugar producers will be adversely affected, that 
     American textile jobs will be lost, and that Central American 
     workers' rights and the environment will be harmed.
       The Bush Administration counters that passage of this 
     agreement is a win-win for all parties and that it will 
     preserve the U.S. sugar program, level the playing field for 
     U.S. workers, strengthen freedom and democracy in the region, 
     enable U.S. textile suppliers to compete with Asia, and 
     enhance the enforcement of labor and environmental laws in 
     the region.
       Among the significant consequences of failing to pass the 
     DR-CAFTA would be: (1) a message that the U.S. is not 
     committed to open market principles; (2) the continuation of 
     high tariff barriers on U.S. exports to the region; and (3) 
     the loss of an important export market for numerous U.S. 
     suppliers of cotton, yarns, and fabrics.
       This paper addresses concerns expressed about the agreement 
     and highlight the broad support DR-CAFTA is receiving from 
     many different sectors of the U.S. economy.


                              Introduction

       Congress will soon consider whether to pass the United 
     States-Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade 
     Agreement (DR-CAFTA). This important agreement builds on 
     other recent trade agreements by substantially expanding 
     market access for U.S. exporters of manufactured goods, 
     agriculture products, and services. In fact, DR-CAFTA will 
     level the playing field with our southern neighbors by 
     providing reciprocal access for U.S. businesses to the 
     markets of Central America and the Dominican Republic, which 
     already enjoy liberal access to the U.S. market.
       On February 20, 2004, President Bush notified Congress of 
     his intent to enter into a free trade agreement with the 
     Central American nations of Costa Rica, El Salvador, 
     Honduras, Guatemala, and Nicaragua. [Text of a letter from 
     the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives 
     and the President of the Senate, February 20, 2004.] On May 
     28, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick fulfilled the 
     President's pledge and signed the U.S.-Central America Free 
     Trade Agreement. The Dominican Republic became a party to 
     CAFTA on August 5, 2004.
       The United States has much to gain from this agreement 
     because the Central American markets are significant to the 
     American economy. The DR-CAFTA countries constitute our 12th 
     largest export market with a consumer base of nearly 44 
     million. [U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), ``U.S.-
     Central America-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement: 
     Potential Economy-wide and Selected Sectoral Effects,'' 
     August 2004.] Nearly 80 percent of Central American products 
     already enter the United States duty-free due to unilateral 
     preference programs such as the Caribbean Basin Initiative 
     and the Generalized System of Preferences. CAFTA will 
     eliminate these one-way barriers and provide reciprocal free 
     trade. The Agreement will also provide a chance to unite with 
     customers in the region to better compete against China, 
     especially in apparel and textiles.
       The DR-CAFTA agreement will also serve to nurture 
     democracy, transparency, and respect for the rule of law, in 
     a region which only decades ago was marked by internal 
     strife. Today the Central American nations and the Dominican 
     Republic are democracies wanting to strengthen economic ties 
     which will in turn reinforce their progress in political and 
     social reform. Passage of DR-CAFTA is, thus, vital to the 
     economic and security interests of both the United States

[[Page S7724]]

     and the DR-CAFTA countries, and it will demonstrate the U.S. 
     commitment to foster economic prosperity in the region.
       Despite the great appeal of this agreement to many sectors 
     of the American economy, there are some groups that remain 
     opposed to it. Commonly heard arguments against DR-CAFTA 
     include concern that U.S. sugar producers will be adversely 
     affected, that American textile jobs will be lost, and that 
     Central American workers' rights and the environment will be 
     harmed. [Representative Hilda Solis (D-CA), Congressional 
     Record, March 1, 2005; Representative Sherrod Brown (D-OH), 
     Congressional Record, March 2, 2005.] The Bush Administration 
     counters that passage of this agreement is a win-win for the 
     United States, the Dominican Republic, and Central America 
     that will preserve the U.S. sugar program, level the playing 
     field for U.S. workers, strengthen freedom and democracy in 
     the region, enable U.S. textile suppliers to compete with 
     Asia, and enhance the enforcement of labor and environmental 
     laws in the region. [Office of the U.S. Trade Representative 
     (USTR), ``DR-CAFTA Facts: The Case for DR-CAFTA,'' February 
     2005.]
       This paper will examine the benefits of DR-CAFTA for the 
     United States, the Dominican Republic, and Central America. 
     This paper will also address concerns expressed about the 
     agreement and highlight the broad support DR-CAFTA is 
     receiving from many different sectors of the U.S. economy. 
     And, it will review the consequences to the United States, 
     the Dominican Republic, and Central America if Congress 
     should fail to pass the trade agreement.

    Why DR-CAFTA is a Win-Win for the United States, the Dominican 
                     Republic, and Central America


  Economic Benefits--leveling the playing field for American exporters

       The DR-CAFTA market provides a large export market for the 
     United States. As an integrated market, Central America, and 
     the Dominican Republic purchased more than $15.1 billion in 
     U.S. exports in 2003. [USTR, ``Trade Facts: Free Trade with 
     Central America, Summary of the U.S.-Central America Free 
     Trade Agreement,'' December 17, 2003.] By tearing down tariff 
     barriers, American workers will be able to gain better access 
     to the 44 million consumers living in the Dominican Republic 
     and Central America. Moreover, population in this region is 
     expected to grow by almost 20 percent by 2015, thus adding 
     nearly 10 million new consumers to the marketplace. 
     [Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social 
     Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat, World Population 
     Prospects: The 2004 Revision and World Urbanization 
     Prospects: The 2003 Revision.]
       While the DR-CAFTA countries buy many goods and services 
     from the United States, it is economically important to the 
     U.S. economy to level the playing field on trade between the 
     United States, the Dominican Republic, and Central America. 
     Due to trade preference programs currently in place, 80 
     percent of all Central American goods currently enter the 
     United States duty-free, while the average tariff imposed on 
     U.S. exports to Central America is between 7 and 9 percent. 
     [Chris Padilla, ``DR-CAFTA: A Vote for Freedom, Democracy, 
     Reform,'' Textile News, February 28, 2005.] Some tariffs on 
     many farm goods are as high as 16 percent. [USTR, ``DR-CAFTA 
     Facts: CAFTA Levels the Playing Field,'' February 2005.] 
     These high tariffs hurt our ability to export to and compete 
     in the growing markets of the Dominican Republic and Central 
     America. In addition, U.S. exporters face numerous non-tariff 
     barriers that currently inhibit their ability to export goods 
     and services to the region.
       Upon full implementation of DR-CAFTA, U.S. products will 
     enter the Dominican Republic and Central America duty-free. 
     In fact, 80 percent of consumer and industrial goods exports 
     are immediately duty-free upon enactment of the agreement, 
     with the remaining 20 percent becoming duty-free over 10 
     years. Key U.S. export sectors will benefit including medical 
     and scientific equipment, information technology products, 
     construction equipment, and paper products.
       The agreement will expand markets as well for U.S. 
     agriculture. Currently, U.S. tariff barriers to agricultural 
     exports from DR-CAFTA countries are much lower than tariffs 
     faced by U.S. agricultural exports to DR-CAFTA countries. 
     [USTR, ``DR-CAFTA Facts: CAFTA Levels the Playing Field,'' 
     February 2005.] According to the USTR, more than half of 
     current U.S. farm exports to Central America will become 
     duty-free immediately, including cotton, wheat, soybeans, 
     fruits and vegetables, high-quality cuts of beef, 
     processed food products, and wine. Tariffs on remaining 
     farm items will be phased out over 15 years. [USTR, 
     ``Trade Facts: Free Trade with Central America, Highlights 
     of the U.S.-Central America Free Trade Agreement,'' 
     January 27, 2004.] On May 28, 2004, the American Farm 
     Bureau Federation (AFBF), a national organization 
     representing U.S. farmers and ranchers across the country, 
     stated that the ``U.S.-Central American Free Trade 
     Agreement will provide a substantial competitive advantage 
     to U.S. agriculture,'' and that the Bush administration 
     has ``opened up promising trade potential for the whole of 
     U.S. agriculture.'' [Statement by Bob Stallman, President 
     of the American Farm Bureau Federation regarding the 
     signing of the U.S.-Central American Free Trade Agreement, 
     May 28, 2004.] It estimates that U.S. agricultural 
     producers will increase their exports by $900 million as a 
     result of the DR-CAFTA agreement.
       In the area of services, the DR-CAFTA countries will accord 
     substantial market access across their entire services 
     regime, offering new access in sectors such as 
     telecommunications, computer services, tourism, financial 
     services, insurance, and entertainment among others. The 
     agreement also provides state-of-the-art protections and non-
     discriminatory treatment for digital products such as U.S. 
     software, music, text, and videos. Protections for U.S. 
     patents and trademarks are strengthened.
       The benefits of DR-CAFTA will be numerous. In its analysis 
     of DR-CAFTA implementation, the U.S. International Trade 
     Commission (ITC) found the effect of trade facilitation would 
     likely ``benefit U.S. producers, exports, service providers, 
     and investors.'' [ITC, 2004.] The USITC noted that, ``after 
     tariff liberalization has been fully implemented and all 
     economic adjustments have occurred under the FTA, overall 
     U.S. welfare is likely to increase in the range of $135.31 
     million to $248.17 million.'' [ITC, 2004.] U.S. exports to 
     DR-CAFTA countries are likely to increase by $2.7 billion (or 
     15 percent), and U.S. imports are likely to increase by $2.8 
     billion (or by 12 percent). [ITC, 2004.]
       DR-CAFTA also provides an atmosphere and, more importantly, 
     a legal framework for guaranteeing the security of American 
     investment in Central America. As noted by some policy 
     analysts: ``By locking in these liberal economic policies, 
     [DR-CAFTA] offers investors certainty that policies will not 
     suddenly reverse--a key component in investment decisions.'' 
     [Brett D. Schaefer and Stephen Johnson, ``Backgrounder #1822: 
     Congress Should Support Free Trade with Central America and 
     the Dominican Republic,'' The Heritage Foundation, February 
     8, 2005.] An open and transparent legal framework will 
     encourage investment and economic growth in a region of the 
     world that needs foreign capital to grow its economy and 
     create jobs.


            Political benefits--promoting regional stability

       In the 1970s, every Central American country except Costa 
     Rica and Belize were ruled by military dictators. Lack of 
     democracy and lack of economic opportunity led to communist 
     insurgencies in many parts of the region that were only 
     defeated with the support of the United States. [Ed Greser, 
     Progressive Policy Institute Policy Report, ``DR-CAFTA: The 
     United States and Central America 10 Years After the Wars,'' 
     October 2003.] Today, democracy flourishes in the region. 
     People can freely choose their elected leaders. Through free-
     market economic reforms and U.S. trade preference programs, 
     workers' wages are now on the rise and the standard of living 
     throughout the region has generally improved. Many observers 
     agree that DR-CAFTA will help lock recent political and 
     economic gains into place by bolstering transparency and the 
     rule of law, thereby attracting additional investment which 
     will help to foster continued growth and stability in the 
     region. [See, e.g., The Los Angeles Times, editorial, 
     November 18, 2004; USTR, ``DR-CAFTA Facts: Emphatically 
     Yes,'' February 2005; Stuart E. Eizenstat and David Marchick, 
     ``Trade Wins,'' Wall Street Journal, March 8, 2005.]
       Twenty years ago, trade between Central America and the 
     United States was minimal. In 1984, trade between the U.S. 
     and CAFTA countries totaled $798 million compared to $3.6 
     billion in 2003--an increase of nearly 350 percent. 
     [Statistical data provided by USTR.] During the past few 
     years, significant progress has been made in Central American 
     economic integration, including a May 2000 free trade 
     agreement between Mexico and El Salvador, Guatemala, and 
     Honduras. In December 2001, an agreement was signed to 
     interconnect the electricity networks of the Central American 
     countries, allowing for regional power trading among the 
     member states beginning in 2006. [U.S. Department of Energy, 
     Energy Information Administration, ``Regional Indicators: 
     Central America,'' September 2004.] The integration of 
     electricity grids is only one of several initiatives by the 
     Inter-American Development Bank's Puebla-Panama Plan, which 
     seeks to promote regional development and integration of 
     Central American countries. [U.S. Department of Energy, 
     2004.]
       Public opinion throughout Central America finds that people 
     want to have a strong trading relationship with the United 
     States and want to see DR-CAFTA enacted. According to recent 
     State Department polling, the opinion pattern throughout the 
     region shows that, in most of the CAFTA countries, half of 
     those polled are aware of the trade agreement (up from about 
     a third in 2002-2003). Among those, a majority perceive 
     benefits for their country (e.g., 57 percent in D.R.; 56 
     percent in Costa Rica; and 56 percent in Nicaragua). [Memo 
     from U.S. State Department to Senate Finance Committee on 
     ``Central American Attitudes Toward CAFTA,'' March 16, 2005.] 
     Anticipated benefits include job creation, lower prices, and 
     a wider variety of goods available to consumers.
       Passage of DR-CAFTA by the U.S. Congress will help 
     reinforce the positive image many Central Americans have of 
     the United States, and will show that America does not view 
     Central America only as a trading partner. It will show that 
     the United States believes it has a stake in the development 
     of

[[Page S7725]]

     its neighbors. During his confirmation hearing before the 
     Senate Foreign Relations Committee on February 15, then 
     Deputy Secretary of State nominee Robert Zoellick stated that 
     ``economic power is a very important component of America's 
     power'' and that ``economic freedom is linked to political 
     freedom,'' and so ``how we integrate those can build on some 
     of America's values and its interests.'' [Remarks by Robert 
     B. Zoellick during a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations 
     Committee on his nomination to be Deputy Secretary of State, 
     February 15, 2005.]
       The United States has long fought for democracy and 
     economic freedom for the people of Central America. DR-CAFTA 
     would reinforce democratic and free-market processes through 
     such provisions as transparency and anti-corruption measures. 
     It will also strengthen new democracies and leaders who are 
     working to grow their economies, reduce poverty, fight crime, 
     and deepen the roots of democracy.

                         Criticisms of DR-CAFTA


                                 Sugar

       Some charge the DR-CAFTA will greatly harm U.S. sugar 
     producers due to increased imports of sugar. In fact, U.S. 
     imports of sugar from the DR-CAFTA countries are today 
     limited by tariff rate quotas (TRQs) currently imposed by the 
     United States on each DR-CAFTA country, [ITC, 2004.] and this 
     system (albeit with slightly increased import amounts) will 
     remain in place with DR-CAFTA.
       Under the TRQs, sugar from the DR-CAFTA countries enters 
     duty-free if it is within quota. [ITC, 2004.] Sugar imported 
     over-quota is assessed high tariffs, which are in effect 
     prohibitive tariffs [ITC, 2004.] (of over 100 percent). 
     [USTR, ``DR-CAFTA Policy Brief, Sugar: A Spoonful a Week,'' 
     February 2005.] Because of the high over-quota tariffs, 
     imports of sugar from the DR-CAFTA countries essentially 
     correspond to their TRQ levels. [ITC, 2004.] It is important 
     to note that TRQs on sugar imports from the DR-CAFTA 
     countries will be increased only slightly as a percentage of 
     consumption under the trade agreement, [ITC, 2004.] and 
     prohibitive tariffs on over-quota imports will remain intact 
     under the DR-CAFTA. [ITC, 2004.]
       In 2003, the DR-CAFTA countries exported to the United 
     States 325,146 metric tons of sugar--most of which was raw 
     cane sugar--at a value of $141.3 million. [ITC, 2004.] These 
     imports constituted approximately 3 percent of sugar consumed 
     in the United States during that year. [ ITC, 2004.] 
     Additional increased access during the first year of the 
     trade agreement will total 109,000 metric tons. [ITC, 2004.] 
     That increase is equivalent to little more than one day's 
     production of sugar in the United States, [USTR, ``DR-CAFTA 
     Policy Brief, Sugar: A Spoonful a Week,'' February 2005.] or 
     about 1.2 percent of current annual U.S. sugar consumption. 
     [USTR, ``DR-CAFTA Policy Brief, Sugar: A Spoonful a Week,'' 
     February 2005.]
       By the end of the 15-year phase-in period, sugar imports 
     from this agreement will have increased by a total of 153,140 
     metric tons. [ITC, 2004.] The additional access during the 
     entire 15-year phase-in period represents less than 2 percent 
     of the approximately 7.8 million metric tons of sugar 
     produced in the United States in the 2003/2004 growing 
     season. [USTR, ``DR-CAFTA Policy Brief, Sugar: A Spoonful a 
     Week,'' February 2005.] Again, what the trade agreement 
     permits is an increase in import competition of less than 2 
     percent relative to domestic production--stretched out over a 
     15-year period. Following the phase-in period, the TRQs will 
     grow by an additional 2,640 metric tons each year. [ITC, 
     2004.]
       The potential impact of these increases in the in-quota 
     TRQs for DR-CAFTA countries appears minimal. USTR has found 
     that approval of DR-CAFTA ``would not have a destabilizing 
     effect on the U.S. sugar program.'' [USTR, ``DR-CAFTA Policy 
     Brief, Sugar: A Spoonful a Week,'' February 2005.] And the 
     ITC, using its models, found that there would likely be a 
     decrease in the U.S. price of sugar ``of about one percent as 
     a result of the increase in imports under the FTA.'' [ITC, 
     2004.] Clearly this suggests a negligible impact on U.S. 
     producers. Furthermore, one could argue that such declines in 
     consumer prices could boost demand and actually increase U.S. 
     producers' revenue.
       Moreover, additional TRQ access for the DR-CAFTA countries 
     is conditioned on each country's trade-surplus position. 
     [ITC, 2004.] Specifically, only net-surplus-exporting 
     countries in the region will obtain increased access to the 
     U.S. market. This is because the agreement limits access to 
     the lesser of the amount of each country's net trade surplus 
     in sugar or the specified amounts provided in each country's 
     TRQ. [ USTR, ``DR-CAFTA Policy Brief, Sugar: A Spoonful a 
     Week,'' February 2005.] For example, at the present time the 
     Dominican Republic--currently the largest TRQ holder among 
     the DR-CAFTA countries--would not qualify for increased 
     market access to ship additional sugar to the United States 
     under the agreement. [Inside U.S. Trade, ``USTR Threatens 
     Dominican Republic Over Proposed HFCS Soft Drink Tax,'' 
     September 3, 2004.] As noted by the American Farm Bureau 
     Federation (Farm Bureau), this situation makes the issue of 
     increased sugar imports from the Dominican Republic moot for 
     now. [American Farm Bureau Federation, ``Implications of a 
     Central American Free Trade Agreement on U.S. Agriculture.''] 
     According to Farm Bureau calculations, even if the Dominican 
     Republic were to become a net exporter of sugar by 2024--the 
     year in which the agreement would be fully operational--its 
     exports of sugar would increase by only $11.7 million from 
     the Dominican Republic's current allocation of $96.3 million.
       Still, some critics of the DR-CAFTA assert a second 
     argument--that increased sugar imports under the agreement 
     would have a destabilizing impact on U.S. domestic sugar 
     policies by suspension of sugar marketing allotments. [ITC, 
     2004.] Under marketing allotments, the U.S. Department of 
     Agriculture restricts the amount of sugar that can be sold by 
     domestic producers, [ITC, 2004.] a policy designed to ensure 
     stable sugar prices and supplies in the U.S. market. 
     [American Sugar Alliance, U.S. Sugar Policy Under the Farm 
     Bill, retrieved on 03/15/05.] Under the policy, if U.S. 
     imports of sugar were to exceed a specified amount 
     (approximately 1.5 million tons in a given year) marketing 
     allotments could be suspended, thus enabling U.S. producers 
     to compete with imported sugar under prevailing market 
     conditions. [ITC, 2004.]
       A cushion exists, however, between the ``trigger level'' of 
     imports that would suspend marketing allotments and projected 
     imports under the DR-CAFTA. [ITC, 2004; USTR, ``DR-CAFTA 
     Policy Brief, Sugar: A Spoonful a Week,'' February 2005.] The 
     U.S. International Trade Commission estimates that it would 
     take about 60 years following the agreement's implementation 
     for this cushion to be exceeded, taking into account growth 
     in imports during the phase-in period and subsequent annual 
     imports of 2,640 metric tons under the agreement. [ITC, 
     2004.] In 60 years, it is unknown whether marketing 
     allotments would even be a part of U.S. sugar policy. In any 
     case, the ITC believes it unlikely that increased imports 
     resulting from the agreement will trigger the suspension of 
     marketing allotments. [ITC, 2004.]
       Furthermore, in the unlikely event that U.S. domestic sugar 
     policies were threatened by imports from the DR-CAFTA 
     countries, the agreement includes a mechanism that will 
     permit the United States to restrict sugar imports from these 
     countries and provide them with equivalent benefits to 
     compensate for lost market access. [USTR, ``DR-CAFTA Policy 
     Brief, Sugar: A Spoonful a Week,'' February 2005.] This 
     compensation mechanism further alleviates possible pressures 
     that might threaten U.S. sugar policies.


                                Textile

       Some textile producers argue that passage of DR-CAFTA will 
     lead to textile job losses in the United States. [American 
     Manufacturing Trade Action Council, ``CAFTA Bad for 
     U.S. Textile Industry and Workers,'' May 28, 2004.] 
     Additionally some of the same critics have argued that the 
     U.S. textile sector is currently restructuring in response 
     to China's growth in this economic sector and, therefore, 
     American companies cannot allow additional jobs to be lost 
     to Central American textile factories. [New York Times, 
     ``Chinese Textile Flood?'' March 10, 2005.] Both arguments 
     fail to grasp the long-term benefits of regional 
     integration to the U.S. textile and apparel industry of 
     promoting regional integration under the agreement.
       DR-CAFTA will benefit the U.S. textile and apparel industry 
     by expanding the benefits currently provided by the Caribbean 
     Basin Trade Partnership Act (CBTPA) and making the benefits 
     reciprocal. The CBTPA (which includes all DR-CAFTA countries) 
     allows apparel exports from the region to enter the United 
     States duty-free and quota-free, provided that they use U.S. 
     yarn and fabric. This supports U.S. exports and jobs. Indeed, 
     in the past four years, the region has become one of the 
     largest and fastest-growing export markets for U.S. cotton 
     growers, yarn spinners, and fabric mills. Regional producers 
     face new competition from Asian imports since global quotas 
     on textiles and apparel ended January 2005. This agreement 
     will give the region a critical advantage in competing with 
     Asia in a post textile-quota world by helping to retain 
     textile production in the region, rather than moving 
     production to China. [John T. Hyatt, ``Good for Central 
     America, Good for U.S.,'' Times-Picayune, March 15, 2005.]
       When facilities move from Central America to China, they 
     are much less likely to buy U.S. yarns and fabrics. Thus, the 
     competitiveness of the U.S. fiber and yarn industry is 
     inextricably linked to maintaining the competitiveness of the 
     DR-CAFTA region. [Cass Ballenger, ``Producing for N.C.'s 
     Textiles,'' The News and Observer, March 1, 2005.] Currently, 
     71 percent of DR-CAFTA-made apparel enters the United States 
     using U.S. yarns and fabrics, while one tenth of 1 percent of 
     apparel from China enters the United States using U.S. yarn 
     or fabric. [Statistical data provided by the Office of 
     Textiles and Apparel in the International Trade 
     Administration at the U.S. Department of Commerce.] More than 
     $2.6 billion of U.S. fabric and yarn exports went to the six 
     DR-CAFTA nations in 2004. [Jeffrey Sparshott, ``A Tough 
     Sell,'' Washington Times, March 10, 2005.] By keeping apparel 
     assembly in the region through DR-CAFTA, we will retain and 
     grow the market for U.S. exports of fabrics.
       The agreement also contains tough custom enforcement 
     procedures to ensure that only products eligible for DR-CAFTA 
     tariff treatment benefit from the agreement. Further, the 
     agreement contains a special textile safeguard, which 
     authorizes the imposition of tariffs on textiles when injury 
     occurs due to import surges.

[[Page S7726]]

       Many of those who oppose the agreement are weavers, who 
     point to a tariff preference level (TPL) for Nicaragua that 
     extends duty-free treatment for 10 years for cotton and 
     manmade-fiber apparel made in Nicaragua from fabrics made 
     anywhere else (otherwise known as ``non-originating 
     fabric''). In other words, the fabrics do not have to come 
     from either the United States or other DR-CAFTA countries for 
     the apparel to be eligible under the TPL. The TPL was 
     included only for this one country because Nicaragua is by 
     far the smallest and least-developed apparel supplier among 
     the DR-CAFTA countries. However, TPLs have been in every 
     trade agreement negotiated before the DR-CAFTA (excluding 
     Israel and Jordan). Indeed, DR-CAFTA does not include TPLs 
     for the major Central American apparel producers--the first 
     time that a trade agreement did not provide TPLs to our 
     negotiating partners. The TPL granted to Nicaragua would 
     cover only about 3 percent of the total amount of garments 
     shipped by all CAFTA countries.
       Costa Rica is the beneficiary of a small concession for 
     wool fabric, allowing Costa Rica to source non-originating 
     fabric up to capped amount. This concession will be phased 
     out over two years, and was put in place to allow a wool 
     apparel producer to coordinate with suppliers in the United 
     States who are planning to be a source for the fabric in the 
     future (the concession is subject to review after 18 months). 
     [For more details on the textile provisions of DR-CAFTA, see 
     the February 2005 USTR policy brief, ``Textiles of CAFTA--
     Details of the Agreement.'']
       The agreement also contains tough custom enforcement 
     procedures to ensure that only products eligible for DR-CAFTA 
     tariff treatment benefit from the agreement. Further, the 
     agreement contains a special textile safeguard, which 
     authorizes the imposition of tariffs on textiles when injury 
     occurs due to import surges. Many in the U.S. textile 
     industry (retailers, yarn spinners, knitters, and apparel 
     producers) support passage of DR-CAFTA, such as Burlington 
     Industries, the American Apparel and Footwear Association, 
     Levi Strauss and Company, ERICO, International Textile Group, 
     Union Apparel, Sara Lee, and Warnaco.


                                 Labor

       Organized American labor groups oppose this free trade 
     agreement, alleging that it does not include adequate 
     provisions for workers' rights. [Statement by AFL-CIO 
     President John Sweeney on Central American Free Trade 
     Agreement, May 28, 2004.] It should be noted that the AFL-
     CIO, a leading labor union opposed to DR-CAFTA, has never 
     supported a free trade agreement, including the U.S.-
     Australia Free Trade Agreement. Further, Costa Rica, 
     Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and the Dominican Republic 
     have ratified all eight International Labor Organization 
     (ILO) core labor conventions, and El Salvador has ratified 
     six of the eight. In contrast, the United States has ratified 
     only two ILO core conventions.
       An analysis by the ILO demonstrates that the labor laws and 
     constitutions of the DR-CAFTA countries are comparable to ILO 
     core labor standards. [USTR, ``CAFTA Facts: The Facts About 
     DR-CAFTA's Labor Provisions,'' February 2005.] The problem 
     has been, however, that the governments have lacked the 
     capacity to enforce their labor laws due to financial 
     constraints. To address this, the United States is taking a 
     three-pronged approach in DR-CAFTA: First, each country must 
     enforce its own labor laws. If they do not, then a fine will 
     be imposed and the monies from the fine will be used to 
     address the enforcement deficiency. [USTR, ``CAFTA Facts: The 
     Facts About DR-CAFTA's Labor Provisions,'' February 2005.] 
     Second, each country must make the necessary economic and 
     legal reforms to improve ILO adherence. Third, each country 
     must undertake capacity building to enforce its domestic 
     labor laws. To accomplish this, the United States is offering 
     capacity-building assistance to improve labor law 
     enforcement. As a first step, Congress appropriated $20 
     million in the FY05 Foreign Operations appropriations bill 
     specifically to help build the capacity of Central America 
     and the Dominican Republic on labor and environmental law 
     enforcement. [Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-AZ) authored a provision in 
     the FY05 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill that provided 
     $20 million to assist CAFTA countries with labor standards 
     enforcement.]
       Ironically, while the AFL-CIO opposes DR-CAFTA because the 
     agreement doesn't overtly include ILO standards, the 
     conditions in the agreement pertaining to the enforcement 
     of standards for workers' rights will serve as a catalyst 
     for these countries to take labor laws seriously. 
     Moreover, the labor provisions in DR-CAFTA are the same as 
     those contained in the U.S.-Morocco Free Trade Agreement 
     that Congress passed overwhelmingly last July (by a vote 
     of 323-99 in the House and by a vote of 85-13 in the 
     Senate).


                              Environment

       The DR-CAFTA environmental provisions promote policies that 
     ensure protection of current laws while striving to improve 
     those laws, with effective remedies for violating the 
     agreement. This type of environmental protection goes beyond 
     the requirements called for in the Trade Promotion Act (2002) 
     and recently implemented FTAs with Chile and Singapore. The 
     agreement has taken groundbreaking steps to mitigate 
     environmental degradation by involving all stakeholders 
     through meaningful public participation and capacity building 
     for the region. There is wide appeal for the environment 
     provisions because of these new initiatives and it is 
     demonstrated by the support it has received from local 
     environmental conservation NGOs from five of the six DR-CAFTA 
     countries. [Letter to Ambassador Zoellick from 10 NGO's dated 
     January 31, 2005.]
       Failure to pass the agreement will only serve to undermine 
     these important initiatives to strengthen environmental 
     protection in the region.


                  Broad American Support for DR-CAFTA

       Since last year, scores of organizations, associations, and 
     businesses have made known their support for passage of DR-
     CAFTA. Perhaps one of the most compelling, detailed, and 
     broadly supported endorsements was issued on January 26, 2005 
     by the Business Coalition for U.S.-Central America Free 
     Trade. In a letter to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, the 
     Business Coalition listed five reasons why the ``timely 
     implementation'' of DR-CAFTA was important, citing commercial 
     importance (``over the last five years, the [DR-CAFTA] 
     countries have been our fifth largest growth market 
     worldwide''); reciprocity in U.S.-Central American trade 
     relations and creation of new opportunities for all sectors 
     of the U.S. economy; strengthening of democracy and rule of 
     law ``in a region that was wracked by civil war not that long 
     ago;'' critical importance of maintaining and fostering ``key 
     partnerships in the textile and apparel sector;'' and the 
     signal that would be sent to ``all of the United States'' 
     trading partners that the United States remains committed to 
     trade and investment liberalization at an important juncture 
     in WTO negotiations.'' [A letter to Senator Bill Frist (R-
     TN), dated January 26, 2005 by the Business Coalition for 
     U.S.-Central America Trade.]
       The letter was signed by the representatives of more than 
     100 organizations, associations, and companies, including 
     Pepsi, Boeing, American International Group, Warnaco, the 
     American Farm Bureau Federation, Caterpillar, Exxon Mobil, 
     Grocery Manufacturers of America, JC Penney, Microsoft, Mars 
     Incorporated, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, National 
     Pork Producers Council, Procter and Gamble, Time Warner, and 
     the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
       President Clinton's former senior Treasury and trade 
     official, Stuart Eizenstat, has strongly argued that DR-CAFTA 
     is a must-pass agreement. Writing in the Wall Street Journal 
     earlier this month, Eizenstat stated, ``The agreement is 
     deeply in our national interest and will create, not destroy, 
     jobs.'' [Stuart E. Eizenstat, ``Trade Wins,'' Wall Street 
     Journal, March 8, 2005.] He went on to remark that ``the 
     agreement would solidify the United States as the leading 
     supplier of goods and services to Central American and the 
     Dominican Republic at a time when China is making serious 
     inroads as an investor and exporter in the Western 
     Hemisphere.'' [Eizenstat.]

                   Consequences Should DR-CAFTA Fail

       The economic and social consequences of failing to pass the 
     DR-CAFTA would be significant. Economically, U.S. exporters 
     would continue to face high tariff barriers on their exports 
     to the region. Furthermore, U.S. service providers would 
     continue to face numerous non-tariff barriers to their 
     service exports.
       Thousands of apparel production jobs in Central America and 
     the Dominican Republic would be lost as investors move 
     production facilities to China. As a result, numerous U.S. 
     suppliers of cotton, yarns, fabrics and other components 
     would lose an important export market--America's third 
     largest--for their products as Chinese facilities will likely 
     source their needed components from Asia instead of the 
     United States. [USTR, CAFTA Policy Brief, ``Textiles of 
     CAFTA--Details of the Agreement,'' February 2005.] Further 
     economic consequences could also include increased 
     immigration from the Dominican Republic and Central America 
     as displaced workers seek opportunity abroad.
       Politically, failure to pass DR-CAFTA would be seen by our 
     Central American partners as American disengagement from a 
     strategically important region of the world. It would send a 
     signal to our other trading partners that our nation is not 
     committed to the principles of open markets and, thus, 
     discourage them from making market access and other economic 
     commitments that are vitally important to our nation as we 
     negotiate in the Middle East, Asia, Europe, or other areas in 
     the Western Hemisphere. Furthermore, failure to pass DR-CAFTA 
     would have a chilling effect on the Doha Development Agenda 
     of trade negotiations at the World Trade Organization, 
     potentially jeopardizing our most significant opportunities 
     to gain broad access for our agriculture, manufacturing, and 
     services exports.


                               Conclusion

       DR-CAFTA is the latest in a series of successfully 
     negotiated, far-reaching, economically-beneficial trade 
     agreements undertaken by the Bush Administration. DR-CAFTA is 
     the first trade agreement since the U.S.-Chile Free Trade 
     Agreement was passed in 2003 that includes economies in 
     America's geographic backyard. Most importantly, DR-CAFTA is 
     a great economic package for both the nations of Central 
     America and the United States. The agreement will provide new 
     economic opportunities for American investors and secure 
     American and Central American jobs.
       DR-CAFTA is as much a political statement as it is an 
     economic one. As Senator

[[Page S7727]]

     Charles Grassley (R-IA) has noted: [DR-CAFTA] shows our 
     strong desire to reach out and form deeper and lasting bonds 
     with the international community, particularly in Latin 
     America. The agreement will help to lock in economic reform 
     and increase transparency in the region. DR-CAFTA can serve 
     as a cornerstone of economic growth and democracy for the 
     region which will enhance the standard of living for millions 
     of our southern neighbors. [Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA), 
     Congressional Record, July 22, 2004.]
       Congress should pass DR-CAFTA. It is in our national 
     economic, political, and security interests to do so.

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Central America 
Free Trade Agreement, its importance to our country, to our economic 
interests both here and at home, and around the world.
  Since Congress gave the President fast-track trade negotiating 
authority in August of 2002, we've had to face the realities that come 
with it.
  I supported giving the President fast-track authority then, with the 
caveat that I would approach all trade agreements sent to Congress with 
an open mind.
  Three agreements have reached Congress since 2002 and I have voted 
for two of those three.
  The administration has been actively pursuing a vigorous bilateral 
and free-trade agenda around the world, and I believe it is in our best 
interest to do so both economically and socially.
  Trade with foreign nations is a valuable component to promote 
economic opportunities here at home, but also to spread our democratic 
ideals that we value so highly in our country.
  Congress is now debating the Central American Free Trade Agreement, 
otherwise known as CAFTA. I became heavily involved with our trade 
negotiators as the President and our then-Trade Representative Bob 
Zoellick began negotiations with the CAFTA nations.
  As an agricultural State, Idaho has a large stake in these agreements 
and agriculture right now is currently learning how to restructure 
itself as our global markets become highly integrated.
  As many know, a major agricultural crop in my State is the production 
of sugar. Idaho is the second-largest producer of sugarbeets behind 
Minnesota.
  Idaho's sugar industry employs somewhere in the neighborhood of 7 to 
8,000 people and generates nearly $800 million in economic activity for 
the State economy.
  The sugar industry in Idaho, and in most other sugar-producing 
States, has restructured itself after several years of unprofitability. 
Farmers pooled their money to create cooperative processing plants to 
market their sugar and so inherently have a large personal investment 
in all levels of production.
  It's well known that the world sugar market is one of the most 
distorted agricultural markets in the world, and most world sugar 
supplies are simply dumped on the market at prices well below the cost 
of production.
  U.S. producers already face an oversupply situation with significant 
quantities in storage at the expense of producers. Prices have slowly 
declined, yet production costs have sky-rocketed.
  Although the U.S. is the 4th largest importer of sugar in the world, 
CAFTA seeks to significantly compound an already ugly situation and set 
a precedent of ``no return'' for further negotiations already underway 
with major sugar-exporting countries like Thailand and Panama.
  CAFTA nations already enjoy duty-free quota access for sugar with the 
U.S., and I am not prepared to trade away an industry so vital to my 
State and to the overall farm economy in Idaho.
  Other Idaho agricultural groups understand that those farmers who are 
sugar producers are also potato, bean, and grain producers. We're not 
just talking about impacting one commodity, we are cutting a wide swath 
across several industries and sending an economic ripple through our 
rural communities that may not be recoverable.
  Our U.S. negotiators are willing to open our markets to increased 
sugar imports, while our competitors maintain unfair economic 
advantages in domestic subsidies and minimal market access commitments.
  Myself along with my colleagues from sugar-producing States took our 
concerns with CAFTA to the administration. With the help of my good 
friend and Chairman of the Agriculture Committee, Senator Chambliss, we 
spent some late nights and several conference calls to come up with a 
solution that would allow could address the concerns of the sugar 
industry.
  Our new U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman and U.S. Department of 
Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns joined us in trying to iron out the 
differences and find some mutually agreeable options. I am very 
impressed with these two men's willingness to roll up their sleeves and 
work with me and others on what has been a very difficult issue.
  Although these discussions should have occurred much earlier, the 
administration came a very long way in a short amount of time to reach 
a resolution.
  A proposal was offered to maintain the sugar program as passed in the 
2002 Farm Bill and to provide the industry with relief from surges of 
imported, cheap foreign sugar by studying and beginning to establish a 
sugar-to-ethanol program in the U.S.
  I think this proposal represents a strong effort of compromise in a 
complex and difficult environment. I would like to praise Secretary 
Johanns and Ambassador Portman for their willingness to make this 
quantum leap to accommodate our concerns. I think the proposal brings 
some good ideas to the table that we can build upon.
  I understand that Secretary Johanns has sent the proposal in writing 
to Congress to affirm his commitment to the agreement. I will be 
working with Chairman Chambliss on a Sense of the Senate to solidify 
this proposal and strengthen the promise made to the industry.
  The only fault of this proposal is that it does not provide the long-
term solution that the industry desperately needs. I also have major 
concerns that the proposal compromises the law by changing our sugar 
program from that of operating at ``no-cost'' to the taxpayer to one 
that could cost hundreds of millions of dollars. This is just not 
sustainable and a major departure from our promise to the industry.
  I know I share the same strong concerns with Chairman Chambliss that 
free trade agreements should remain faithful to current U.S. policy and 
not restrict options available to Congress in future farm bills.
  For these reasons, I will be voting against CAFTA. However, I do 
applaud the administration for their diligence and willingness to work 
with me on this issue. I hope that as we near the next Farm Bill in 
2007, we will continue to work on a sustainable answer that maintains a 
very important industry in my State but also the agricultural economy 
in the U.S.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, our trade policy is failing. This failure 
is reflected in a trade deficit that grew by 25 percent last year to 
more than $617 billion, and in the loss of 2.8 million manufacturing 
jobs over the past 4 years. We are in this predicament in part because 
we have pursued one-way trade agreements that are not in the best 
interest of the United States and because we have not insisted that our 
trading partners grant us true reciprocity.
  It is difficult to see how pursuing yet another trade agreement in 
the same failed mold will produce a different result. The Central 
America Free Trade Agreement will not benefit American workers and 
farmers because it fails to insist on basic internationally recognized 
labor standards, the agreement will not meet its promise to improve the 
standard of living for the people of Central America and the Dominican 
Republic; Instead, it will set off another race to the bottom.
  The administration is asking the Senate to rubberstamp implementing 
legislation for CAFTA under fast-track procedures that only allow 
Members of Congress an up-or-down vote and no chance to amend or 
improve it. Although I support increased trade with Central America and 
believe that fair trade policies would benefit all parties, I do not 
support the agreement as crafted. Without the chance to improve it, I 
must oppose it.
  The administration is not doing the work necessary to get our trade 
policy on track. The five Central American countries and the Dominican 
Republic account for less than 1.5 percent of

[[Page S7728]]

total U.S. trade, and our own International Trade Commission found that 
the U.S. trade deficit with CAFTA countries would likely increase 
slightly as a result of CAFTA. Yet the administration has made CAFTA 
its No. 1 trade priority. A better focus for our trade policy would be 
opening markets in Nations and sectors where the most egregious trade 
barriers block the sale of U.S. goods and services. We should break 
down barriers faced by U.S. manufacturers, farmers and services in key 
export markets including China, Japan, the EU, Korea, and elsewhere.
  This administration has also failed to deal with our trade deficit 
with China, which is on track to surpass $200 billion this year. The 
administration has failed to take action against China for undervaluing 
its currency by between 15-50 percent relative to the dollar to promote 
exports to the United States and to keep out goods made in the United 
States. This is a violation of the WTO prohibition on gaining a trade 
advantage from currency manipulation. The administration has also 
failed to deal with our large and persistent automotive deficit with 
Japan.
  Likewise, our recent record on trade agreements has not been strong; 
some of the trade agreements the U.S. has entered into have not been in 
the best interest of the United States. The clearest example is NAFTA, 
which made it easier for U.S. companies to outsource production to low-
wage countries. Between NAFTA's enactment in 1994 and the end of 2003, 
the Department of Labor certified that more than 525,000 
American workers suffered job losses as a result of increased imports 
or plant relocations to Mexico and Canada. Under NAFTA, our trade 
balance with Mexico went from a surplus of $1.663 billion in 1993 to a 
deficit of $45 billion in 2004. While it is true that our exports to 
Mexico increased under NAFTA, our imports from Mexico also increased, 
and at a faster rate.

  The American people and Members of Congress are understandably 
frustrated by the failure of NAFTA, and they are equally skeptical 
about the need to enter into another trade agreement pitting low wage 
workers from countries with weak labor and environmental laws against 
U.S. workers. Trade should not be a race to the bottom in which U.S. 
workers must compete with countries that do not recognize core 
international labor standards and basic worker rights, but that is 
exactly what CAFTA would do.
  I am disappointed by the weak labor and environmental provisions 
included in CAFTA. Writing labor and environmental standards into trade 
agreements is an important way to ensure that free trade is fair trade. 
But unlike the 2001 Jordan Free Trade Agreement, CAFTA fails to include 
internationally recognized, core labor standards. Those standards 
include the right to organize/associate; the right to bargain 
collectively; a prohibition on child labor; a prohibition on 
discrimination in employment; and a prohibition on forced labor. I am 
not seeking that CAFTA countries commit to American standards but at 
least to the five basic international standards developed by the ILO 
and supported by virtually every country in the world.
  Indeed, the CAFTA-DR countries are signatories of the International 
Labor Organization conventions. Requiring them to abide by their own 
international obligations is the least we can do when considering 
whether they deserve to receive trade preferences from us. But CAFTA 
only requires member countries to enforce their own labor and 
environmental laws, however inadequate they may be.
  Unlike the Jordan FTA, the CAFTA labor provisions are not 
enforceable. The U.S.-Jordan FTA treats the labor and environmental 
commitments the same as the commercial commitments, enforceable under 
the agreement's dispute settlement procedures. Under CAFTA, however, 
the labor provisions are not subject to the same binding dispute 
settlement mechanisms as are the commercial provisions, and violations 
cannot lead to the same level of fines or sanctions. There is a much 
lower standard for labor and environmental commitments, and that makes 
this a flawed agreement. Under CAFTA, the only labor rights and 
environment provision that is enforceable through dispute settlement 
mechanisms is if a party fails to enforce its own labor or environment 
laws effectively.
  This is of significant concern because CAFTA nations' own labor laws 
do not meet international standards. In fact, these countries have 
histories of serious worker rights abuses. The 2004 U.S. State 
Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices; the October 2003 
ILO Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work'' A Labor law Study, and 
other ILO reports confirm at least 20 areas in which the labor laws in 
the CAFTA countries fail to comply with the right of association, ILO 
Convention 87, and the right to organize and bargain collectively, ILO 
Convention 98.

  To give just a few examples, in El Salvador and Nicaragua it is legal 
to fire workers simply because they are union members; Human Rights 
Watch found that the use of child labor in El Salvador's sugar cane 
fields is widespread; and under Honduran law, it is legal to fire 
workers who say they intend to organize a union. One company in the 
Dominican Republic fired 140 workers at once because they sought a 
collective bargaining agreement. The company was fined $660, or about 
$5 per worker.
  Our own Department of Labor and State Department reports show that 
CAFTA countries fail to provide their workers internationally 
recognized rights. The U.S. State Department's 2002 Human Rights report 
on Guatemala said:

       Retaliation, including firing, intimidation, and sometimes 
     violence, by employers and others against workers who try to 
     exercise internationally recognized labor rights is common 
     and usually goes unsanctioned.

  The U.S. State Department's 2002 Human Rights report on El Salvador 
said:

       There were repeated complaints by workers, in some cases 
     supported by the ILO Committee on Freedom of Association 
     (CFA), teat the Government impeded workers from exercising 
     their right of association. In June 2001, the CFA reiterated 
     its 1999 finding that the existing labor code restricts 
     freedom of association.

  That same report also said of El Salvador:

       The constitution prohibits the employment of children under 
     the age of 14; however, child labor is a problem.

  CAFTA would give away the current leverage we have against these 
violations of basic workers rights. Under CAFTA, the U.S. can only take 
action against a country if it deliberately fails to enforce its labor 
and environmental laws in an effort to gain a trade advantage. Even 
then, the country must only pay a fine to itself, which will be used to 
fund labor enforcement in that country. This is a step backwards from 
the status quo.
  CAFTA countries currently have preferred access to our markets 
through the Caribbean Basin Initiative, CBI, and the Generalized System 
of Preferences, GSP. Under these trade preference programs, beneficiary 
countries must meet internationally recognized labor standards or risk 
losing their preferential trade treatment. These current trade 
preferences can be completely withdrawn for failure to meet ILO core 
labor standards. The possibility of losing trade benefits works as a 
strong incentive for CAFTA countries to make improvements in their 
worker rights laws. CAFTA eliminates that incentive because it gives 
CAFTA countries permanent trade benefits regardless of how they treat 
their workers and no matter how far their labor laws fall short of 
international norms.
  If we give away that leverage, CAFTA countries would have no 
incentive to improve their inadequate labor laws or the treatment of 
their workers. If a country wants to have preferential access to the 
U.S. market through a trade agreement or preferential trade benefit 
program, it ought to agree to abide by the ILO labor standards. Without 
such a commitment, we might be giving special access to our markets to 
products made with child labor or forced labor, or to employers that 
intimidate or use violence against workers attempting to organize or 
join labor unions. That is not something we as a Nation would want to 
do.
  Countries getting benefits from the U.S. should comply with 
internationally recognized labor standards as a condition for receiving 
those benefits. That is a reasonable expectation and one that is 
reflective of basic American values. Trade should not be a race to the 
bottom. And American workers should not be asked to compete with

[[Page S7729]]

countries that do not recognize core international labor standards and 
basic worker rights.
  Rejecting the CAFTA implementing legislation as currently drafted is 
a rejection of the failed and flawed trade policies of the past and a 
signal of support for a better approach to trade that supports both the 
rights of American workers and the rights of our trading partners.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, throughout my 30 years in the Congress, 
I have considered myself a free-trader. I believe that breaking down 
barriers to trade and opening access to markets in a fair and balanced 
way in the long run benefits all economies, both consumers and 
producers. As the distance between economies shrinks, integration of 
economies in a positive way is increasingly important. The 
implementation of free-trade agreements to codify the rules of fair 
play and bind all parties to strong and enforceable labor and 
environmental protection standards are important steps in the 
development of a more broadly beneficial and less biased world trading 
system.
  In the case of our nearest neighbors, trade agreements take on a 
security component as well. I believe a strong trade agreement can help 
break the cycles of poverty, deprivation and marginalization currently 
operating in many of the Central American countries. We know the 
economic status quo is unjust and dangerous. Many people in the region 
feel they have little hope of earning a good living or providing a good 
education for their children. That must change. It is in the United 
States' economic and security interest that positive change occurs.
  Throughout the Dominican Republic--Central America--U.S. Free Trade 
Agreement, CAFTA, negotiation process, I joined a number of my 
colleagues on the Finance Committee in urging President Bush and the 
U.S. Trade Representative to address concerns about the labor and 
environment standards and enforcement mechanisms in this agreement. I 
indicated my deep concern that historically, in most of these 
countries, economic benefits are not shared by all strata of society. 
When negotiating trade agreements between economies of such unequal 
scale, these concerns are of particular importance. I am disappointed 
the administration did not do more to advance these causes in this 
agreement. Some progress was made, but more could have been 
accomplished if our recommendations had been adopted in full.
  I have heard from a great many points of view as this agreement has 
firmed up and the implementing legislation came before Congress. I have 
heard from many Vermonters who are opposed to increased trade in 
general and this agreement in particular. On the other hand, Vermont 
dairy farmers have come to me in support of CAFTA. Dairy industry 
experts predict that the ratification of this agreement will increase 
the sales of American dairy products to Central America by $100 million 
over the next several years--not a huge amount, but a significant one, 
given the economics of our dairy industry. As an important dairy State 
offering a number of high-quality cheeses and specialty products, 
Vermont stands to gain from this agreement. The agreement will create 
opportunities for other Vermont exporters as well, particularly small, 
niche businesses for which Vermont is famous. As with dairy sales, I 
don't expect these opportunities will be voluminous, but every bit 
helps in a global economy.
  I have heard very diverse viewpoints from the Central American 
countries as well. The region's historic inability to spread economic 
gains to all sectors of society is of deep concern to many in the 
region, and I share this concern. For two decades, I have been involved 
in the struggle to end human rights violations and labor rights abuses 
in many of these countries. While CAFTA extracts important promises 
from Central American Governments to abide by international standards 
of human rights and labor rights, my experience leaves me very 
skeptical of these commitments. Furthermore, the economic deprivation 
of much of the region frustrates all but the most committed efforts at 
reform. Current trends are leading to greater disparity between the 
rich and the poor, urban areas versus rural areas, and economically 
connected versus economically marginalized populations. These trends 
must be reversed--not just for the health of the region, but also for 
our own economic health and national security.
  The key question is whether CAFTA will exacerbate these trends, or 
whether it can help reverse them. Many in the region fear the United 
States will move in to benefit from markets in the region while 
frustrating Central American efforts to access U.S. markets. I have 
also heard from Central Americans who believe the reduction of tariffs 
and the standardization of commerce will greatly enhance their ability 
to sell to the U.S. market, thereby benefiting communities, often 
marginal ones, in Central America.
  After hearing diverse points of view, I concluded that without 
significant support from the United States to assist in the enforcement 
of labor agreements and development of greater capacity for balanced 
economic growth, I could not support CAFTA. Over the past few weeks, I 
have joined several of my colleagues in pushing the administration to 
commit to greater support for foreign assistance to the region, aimed 
specifically at the most vulnerable sectors of Central American society 
and the need for a strong international presence to monitor labor 
rights compliance. While we requested greater levels of aid, our 
negotiations produced a commitment from the White House to budget for 
and support $40 million in labor and environment capacity building 
assistance for the next 4 years. Additionally the administration has 
agreed to increase funding to the International Labor Organization, 
ILO, by $3 million annually for on the ground monitoring of each 
country's labor rights commitments and actual labor practices. This 
could potentially produce the first significant step forward in broad 
enforcement of labor standards throughout the region.
  In response to our concerns, the administration has also agreed to 
provide, through the Inter-American Development Bank, $30 million 
annually to El Salvador, Guatemala and the Dominican Republic, $10 
million to each country, for rural development and institution building 
for a period of 5 years. This commitment of $150 million for rural 
development assistance to the region is very significant. We have asked 
that these funds be targeted most directly to the poorer sectors of 
these economies, particularly those most likely to suffer adverse 
effects from CAFTA. The administration had previously announced 
agreements to provide Honduras and Nicaragua with U.S. foreign 
assistance through the Millennium Challenge Corporation, MCC, at $215 
million and $175 million, respectively. In the course of recent 
discussions, the administration has agreed to give higher priority to 
the development of MCC compacts with El Salvador, Guatemala, and the 
Dominican Republic as well.
  While I still have concerns about CAFTA's effect upon Central 
America, I believe the commitments we have received from the Bush 
administration on foreign aid, labor rights and the environment 
represent a significant step forward in the ability of the region to 
reverse current trends and improve regional standards of living. I am 
hopeful these steps will lead to the improvement of the region's vital 
institutions and help ensure that the benefits of the agreement will 
trickle down to all members of society. The proof will be in the 
implementation, which I plan to follow very closely. However, I am 
heartened that we now have more to work with, and we are assured of 
greater support from the administration for this process. Based on the 
strength of these assurances, I will support the CAFTA agreement.
  Mr. HATCH. Over the years, I have been a strong advocate for free 
trade. Free trade is important. I know of no other endeavor that 
affords us the opportunity to forge closer links between nations while 
simultaneously improving the lives of millions.
  The vast majority of economists agree that free trade is in every 
nation's long-term best interests. Diplomats also know that it is far 
easier to reach a compromise between nations whose economies are 
mutually reliant. That being said, there are certain aspects of free 
trade that cause me concern. We need to be ever vigilant to ensure our 
approach to free trade does

[[Page S7730]]

not relinquish our sovereign rights as a nation.
  Over the last few years, I have heard from many Utahns who are 
concerned that the U.S. is relinquishing sovereignty to other countries 
through our trade agreements. Let me make clear that we absolutely 
cannot give up our right to govern within our own borders. We have laws 
for a reason and they represent the ideals and values we hold dear in 
our society.
  Constituents contact me on a constant basis to underscore their 
frustration with the gradual loss of sovereignty the U.S. is 
experiencing in international arenas. Local lawmakers from across the 
country are reaching out to us and asking for our help in ensuring 
their local laws and authority remain intact as we enter into 
international trade agreements. Indeed, recently, the Utah State 
Legislature passed a resolution which echoes these concerns.
  The issue of maintaining sovereignty was highlighted by a recent 
World Trade Organization, WTO, dispute resolution body ruling on 
Internet gambling. The ruling stated that the United States cannot 
block other countries from offering Internet gambling to U.S. 
residents, even if they live in States such as Utah where gambling is 
illegal.
  This is outrageous.
  We absolutely cannot enter into agreements where our laws are 
overturned by outsiders. It is important for my colleagues to be aware, 
however, that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative has 
interpreted the language in the WTO decision stating that gaming laws 
are ``necessary to protect public morals or to maintain public order'' 
to mean that ``WTO members are entitled to maintain restrictions on 
internet gaming . . . and U.S. restrictions on internet gambling can 
stand.''
  I am aware that many in Utah are concerned that CAFTA could usurp our 
State's right to regulate gambling. That is a concern I shared as well. 
However, many of us were reassured by the statements made by the Office 
of the U.S. Trade Representative that CAFTA does not jeopardize any 
existing State laws, including Utah's antigambling laws.
  We will have to stay on top of this, though. I do not intend to let 
any international agreement affect the laws our great State has enacted 
that represent the predominant moral views of our citizens.
  Other concerns with CAFTA regarding ``investor-state provisions that 
will allow corporations to challenge public interest policies at the 
state and local level'' have also been raised. Once again, however, the 
Office of the United States Trade Representative has clearly stated 
that ``nothing in CAFTA, or any other free trade agreement or bilateral 
investment treaty, interferes with a state or local government's right 
to regulate. An investor cannot enjoin regulatory action through 
arbitration, nor can arbitral tribunals.'' This statement, in black and 
white, will ensure that Internet gambling is not--and will not--become 
legal in the State of Utah without the consent of its citizens. There 
can be no ``end-run'' around the USTR's interpretation of the Internet 
gambling decision.
  Although our CAFTA trade negotiators have done much to protect our 
sovereignty, it is obvious that we must remain vigilant and ensure that 
the sovereignty of not only our Nation, but also our States, is 
maintained. I will work to maintain this sovereign right of the people.
  Mr. President, I have become convinced that many of these problems 
and concerns with U.S. trade agreements could be alleviated if we 
improved the amount and quality of consultation occurring between 
States and the Federal Government with respect to trade agreements. 
Simply put, we need to provide greater opportunities for substantive 
consultation to occur.
  This problem was the topic of a recent letter signed by 28 States 
attorneys general, including Utah, requesting greater consultation 
between the U.S. Trade Representative and the States on issues 
affecting States rights.
  I believe we need to take action on this immediately and ensure that 
we provide greater access to and consultation with our States and 
citizens. We clearly are seeing how big of an impact these trade 
agreements are having in every State and city in America.
  We need to give the States a direct conduit for their input.
  Negotiators need to have this information in order to ensure we are 
representing the interests and beliefs of our constituents.
  Mr. President, these concerns have weighed heavily upon my mind. At 
the same time, I am encouraged by the many positive results CAFTA will 
have for our State, our country, and for Utah's farmers and industries. 
According to the Department of Commerce, between 2000 and 2004, Utah's 
exports to CAFTA nations increased by 58 percent. This includes such 
product areas as plastics, electronics, and instrumentation.
  In plastic products, Utah industries sold $18.6 million in goods in 
2004. In electronic and instrumentation products, Utah businesses sold 
$5.6 million worth of goods in 2004. The elimination of tariffs will 
make these products even more competitive in this developing market.
  We have reason for our optimism. While our experience with the 
Chilean Free Trade Agreement provides no guarantees, it is 
illustrative. In the first year of the U.S.-Chile Free Trade Agreement, 
Utah's exports to Chile grew by 152 percent.
  I am also pleased that CAFTA will level the playing field so that 
American goods and products can have better access to Central American 
markets. As part of our long-standing effort to support democracies in 
the region, the United States has afforded unilateral preferences to 
Central American goods under the Caribbean Basin Initiative and the 
Generalized System of Preferences. CAFTA eliminates these preferences 
while simultaneously strengthening our commercial ties by making the 
trading relationship permanent. All of this will be accomplished while 
American products will have greater opportunities for export in the 
region.
  One example of the positive attributes of CAFTA can be found in the 
agreements effect on the hard-pressed textile and yarn producing 
industries. Our nation, through the use of modern equipment and greatly 
improved efficiency, continues to be competitive in this area. Where we 
have lost ground is in the labor-intensive apparel construction 
industry.
  CAFTA provides an opportunity to help rectify this setback. Under 
current agreements, 56 percent of all textile products that are 
imported from CAFTA nations to the United States contain U.S. yarns or 
fabrics. When CAFTA is enacted, we can only expect these numbers to 
increase. This stands in marked contrast to apparel imported from 
Pacific Rim, and in particular China, where less than 1 percent of all 
of apparel imports contain U.S. yarns and fabrics. Therefore, I 
believe, that in the case of CAFTA, the pros do outweigh the cons.
  But, I will end on this note of caution. I will watch implementation 
of this agreement carefully. We need to have recognition of the fact 
that States are partners in these agreements. There must be greater 
opportunities afforded to the States to be consulted on free-trade 
agreements.
  Likewise, we must remain vigilant that our Nation's and respective 
States' sovereignty is maintained.
  On balance, Mr. President, any reasoned analysis indicates that CAFTA 
will benefit our Nation and our State. It is for this reason that I 
will cast my vote in support of the Dominican Republic-Central American 
Free Trade Agreement.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, today the Senate votes on the Central 
American-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement. During my tenure as 
Senator, I have voted for every trade agreement that has come before 
the Senate and I believe that properly negotiated trade agreements can 
increase living standards and foster openness and economic development 
for all parties. When DR-CAFTA negotiations began, I was eager to 
support an agreement. It was my sincere hope that President Bush would 
send an agreement to Congress that would help address the DR-CAFTA 
nations' development challenges and spread the gains from trade more 
broadly. Unfortunately, the Bush administration has not submitted such 
an agreement, instead missing a tremendous opportunity to conclude an 
agreement that

[[Page S7731]]

strengthens the bonds between the United States and the DR-CAFTA 
nations. While this agreement provides some benefit for New York, I 
regretfully conclude the harm outweighs the good. I must therefore vote 
to oppose.
  My vote to oppose DR-CAFTA is one taken with great difficulty. I have 
heard strong arguments both for and against from many New Yorkers who 
have a stake in the agreement and I have weighed them seriously. 
Segments of the New York economy would benefit from this agreement, but 
at the end of the day, I cannot support an agreement that fails to 
include adequate labor standards and is a step backward in the 
development of bipartisan support for international trade.
  At the outset, it is important to understand that consideration of 
DR-CAFTA is not occurring in isolation. This agreement must be read 
within the larger context of the failed economic and trade policies of 
this administration. Under this administration, the trade deficit has 
soared. The offshoring of U.S. jobs has continued to increase, and the 
U.S. economy has experienced a net loss of U.S. jobs. The 
administration has no plans to address rising health care and pension 
costs that are imposing such a tremendous burden on American 
businesses. This administration has also failed to enforce existing 
trade rules and has not been aggressive in addressing the tax and 
capital subsidies of our competitors.
  Turning to the specifics of the agreement itself, DR-CAFTA fails in 
significant respects. The most problematic elements are its labor 
provisions which retreat from advances made in the late 1990s and that 
culminated in the labor provisions of the U.S.-Jordan Free Trade 
Agreement. The U.S.-Jordan Free Trade Agreement included 
internationally recognized enforceable labor standards in the text of 
the agreement. Sadly, DR-CAFTA is a step backward. The labor provisions 
of the DR-CAFTA agreement instead used an ``enforce your own laws'' 
standard which is not included in any other area of the agreement. An 
``enforce your own laws'' standard may work in nations with a strong 
tradition of labor enforcement, but the International Labor 
Organization, ILO, has documented that the CAFTA countries' labor laws 
have not complied with international norms in at least 20 areas.
  The Jordan FTA made labor rights obligations subject to the same 
dispute settlement resolution procedure as commercial obligations. 
Conversely, DR-CAFTA includes a separate dispute settlement procedure 
for labor disagreements, which caps the damages that can be imposed for 
labor violations.
  The Chile, Australia and Singapore free trade agreements, which I 
supported, contained similar ``enforce your own law'' labor provisions 
to DR-CAFTA, but as I noted when I voted for these agreements, I was 
greatly disturbed by these provisions' departure from the labor rights 
standards negotiated in the U.S.-Jordan Free Trade Agreement. In the 
end, I supported these agreements despite these concerns because I 
believed the agreements would not harm the average working person in 
those nations and, thus, the flawed labor provisions did not outweigh 
the benefits offered by the agreements. I noted, however, that I would 
not continue to support agreements with these provisions where the 
impact was greater on workers. In the DR-CAFTA agreement, the flawed 
labor provisions represent a real missed opportunity to spread the 
benefits of trade not just to the wealthy elites, but to the broader 
workforce as well.
  There are other problems with the DR-CAFTA agreement. The final 
agreement excludes provisions for assisting U.S. workers harmed by 
trade. The environmental provisions of CAFTA undermine environmental 
protection, by including a lack of parity between the enforcement of 
commercial and environmental provisions. This is a clear step back from 
the Jordan Free Trade Agreement. Finally, the environmental 
conservation provisions lack a commitment to fund their implementation.
  The agreement also fails in the area of public health. Regarding 
pharmaceuticals, I would note that in 2001, 142 countries, including 
the United States, adopted the Doha Declaration, an agreement that 
provided that trade obligations should be interpreted and implemented 
in ways that protect public health. In August 2002, Congress passed the 
Trade Promotion Authority Act which applied Doha to U.S. trade 
negotiations. Despite this commitment, the administration has promoted 
provisions within trade agreements, including DR-CAFTA, that will 
significantly impede the ability of developing countries to obtain 
access to inexpensive, life-saving medications. Contrary to the 
principles of Doha, these agreements place the interests of large 
multinational drug companies over the ability of developing countries 
to safeguard public health.
  The DR-CAFTA agreement negotiated by the President represents a 
missed opportunity in many respects, both for the DR-CAFTA nations and 
for the U.S. For the DR-CAFTA nations, it is a missed opportunity to 
ensure that the benefits of trade flow to all of their citizens and not 
just wealthy elites. This agreement will not promote democracy and 
stability in these nations. A stronger agreement would instead have 
bolstered the political and economic stability in these nations, 
through fair apportionment of benefits. In some of the DR-CAFTA 
nations, the agreement has proved to be quite polarizing and a better 
agreement could have gained broader public support.
  For the United States, DR-CAFTA was a missed opportunity to 
reconstitute the bipartisan consensus in support of international 
trade. Rather than consult widely and develop a consensus, the 
administration has decided to go for a narrow victory with disturbing 
implications for the possibility of bipartisan trade agreements in the 
future. In a time when Americans are facing increasing economic 
anxiety, trade is often viewed with suspicion. An administration which 
fails to consult and pushes for trade agreements which are unable to 
get bipartisan support undermines public support for international 
trade as a tool for economic development and greater prosperity. Even 
if the administration is successful in gaining passage of DR-CAFTA, I 
fear that this victory will be hollow as the anxiety over international 
trade continues to grow. In the end, the administration's strategy to 
ignore consultation and consensus in its trade policy may do more harm 
for the cause of international trade than the purported benefits of 
this agreement.
  While it is inevitable that some will benefit more than others from 
open markets, we have a responsibility to ensure that the basic rules 
of the game are fair. In previous trade agreements, this balance was 
achieved. And I voted for those agreements. DR-CAFTA fails this test.
  This is a sad day for supporters of free and fair rules-based trade. 
Our relationship with our Central American neighbors is a critical one. 
The right CAFTA deal would strengthen ties between the United States 
and these nations. I urge the administration to reopen the CAFTA 
negotiations and re-establish the broad, bipartisan coalition for 
trade.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to express my opposition to 
the Central American Free Trade Agreement, CAFTA. The United States 
Congress has been waiting for over a year to consider this agreement 
which was signed on May 28, 2004, because of the contentious nature of 
many of the agreement's provisions. It is those provisions that I rise 
today to address.
  Ethanol is an incredibly important industry in my home State of South 
Dakota. It is imperative for facilitating additional market 
opportunities for producers in the State and adding value to 
agricultural commodities. CAFTA maintains the ethanol provisions 
contained in the Caribbean Basin Initiative, CBI, which allows CBI 
countries to export up to 7 percent of the U.S. ethanol market duty-
free containing no local feedstocks. Under these provisions, I am 
concerned that Central American countries may function as conduits for 
South American ethanol. El Salvador and Costa Rica, in particular, are 
granted generous carve-outs from the total ethanol allotments under 
CAFTA. El Salvador will eventually be allowed .7 percent of the U.S. 
market, and Costa Rica will be allowed twice what they are currently 
importing into the U.S. under CAFTA.

[[Page S7732]]

  I have worked tirelessly with my Senate colleagues to ensure an eight 
billion gallon Renewable Fuels Standard, RFS, in the Senate version of 
the Energy bill. As our United States ethanol market increases, so to, 
under this agreement, does the quantity of the market afforded to CAFTA 
countries--or afforded to ethanol en route to the U.S. through CAFTA 
countries for a quick and easy reprieve from tariffs. Foreign producers 
of ethanol will find the U.S. even more attractive with an 8 billion 
gallon RFS, and I am concerned for the impact that this, and future 
trade agreements, will have on the ethanol industry. I simply cannot 
support an agreement that may undermine one of the most important 
industries in my home state, and set a dangerous precedent for future 
agreements of this nature. Specifically, producers have expressed 
concerns for the pending Free Trade Area of the Americas, and the 
impact that CAFTA will have on this potentially detrimental agreement.
  The sugar provisions are troubling as well, and have been a marked 
point of contention causing controversy among agriculture groups. I 
continue to hear from producers in my home State who are concerned with 
the potential impact of displaced sugar acres from this agreement, as 
the treatment of sugar will impact numerous commodities in South 
Dakota. Producers are concerned that displaced sugar acres will lead to 
increased corn and soybean acres, depressing commodity prices for corn 
and soybeans. Parts of this agreement are still being negotiated, 
specifically with respect to the sugar compensation mechanism to ensure 
we have not imported more than 1.5 million tons of sugar, and I fail to 
see how we can adopt an agreement with so many outstanding questions.
  Secretary Johanns indicated that a few possible compensation 
mechanisms existed for the sugar industry, which the sugar industry has 
thoroughly rejected. The Secretary actually proposed purchasing sugar 
that would otherwise surpass the trigger limit and use that sugar for 
nonfood items, specifically ethanol production. Using foreign sugar to 
produce ethanol is an incredible, and outrageous proposal. It will only 
function to displace a hard-earned market for domestic corn producers. 
Instead of offering a reasonable solution to the sugar industry, the 
administration is now persisting to sacrifice domestic commodities to 
placate opposition to this incredibly flawed agreement. Alternatively, 
U.S. agricultural commodities may be offered up as compensation for 
undesired sugar from CAFTA countries. And both of these proposed 
compensation mechanisms are temporary, through the life of the Farm 
bill only. The administration is persisting with this Band-aid 
approach, while offering no real or meaningful solutions.
  CAFTA fails to address key labor issues and environmental standards. 
Under CAFTA, countries are not obligated to uphold International Labor 
Organization, ILO, laws and the agreement fails to include enforceable 
labor standards. The agreement states that countries should ``strive 
to'' ensure their labor laws are comparable to international labor 
laws, but includes no enforcement mechanisms. This effectively renders 
the aforementioned laws meaningless. The agreement speaks to the 
enforcement of domestic labor laws--the enforcement of domestic labor 
laws, however, that are held to no particular standard. Aside from an 
ethical and moral dilemma, this agreement also functions to highlight 
an economic dilemma. The lack of labor standards will arguably present 
a competitive advantage over U.S. companies that are observing labor 
standards and ensuring, quite simply, the humane treatment of their 
employees.
  Myriad reports exist that detail the harsh and unforgiving conditions 
workers are subjected to in countries with lax, or nonexistent, labor 
standards. According to ILO estimates, 17 million children between the 
ages of 5 to 14 are part of the working population in Central American 
countries. These children all too often miss out on any type of formal 
schooling because they are responsible for earning a meager salary, 
just a few dollars, to contribute to their family's income. These dire 
economic circumstances only function to illustrate the weakened labor 
standards that CAFTA will, effectively, endorse and sanction. 
International human rights organizations have repeatedly criticized 
labor standards in CAFTA countries, and this agreement does nothing to 
remedy this. Additionally, these circumstances underscore an inability 
on the part of CAFTA countries to purchase a substantive amount of 
American commodities.
  Additionally, the environmental standards in CAFTA are troubling. 
Countries will be deterred from instituting meaningful environmental 
regulations when they may be held accountable for any inconveniences 
that foreign investors experience. International tribunals will enable 
foreign investors to challenge meaningful environmental regulations and 
rules that were instituted to preserve the environment. Foreign 
investors may expect and seek monetary compensation.
  I voted against the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, 
because I was concerned for the detrimental impacts on our rural 
communities and for the preservation of rural America. I continue to 
hear from producers in South Dakota who are concerned for the impacts 
of NAFTA on our economy, and I am concerned for the proposed expansion 
of this model under CAFTA. Producers are simply tired of seeing the 
unrecognized trade benefits promised under these trade agreements.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, today, I proudly announce my support for 
S. 1307, a bill implementing the Dominican Republic-Central America-
United States Free Trade Agreement, or CAFTA. There is much in CAFTA 
that helps Washington State.
  I generally support trade agreements such as CAFTA because I believe 
that free trade is the best way to raise the standard of living for all 
Americans and for all people in other countries with which we trade. I 
believe that once other nations have access to our goods, culture and 
ideas, we will find that the world will adopt the best attributes of 
America, including our values.
  The alternative to supporting CAFTA is unworkable. If CAFTA fails, 
the Nation's efforts to negotiate future trade agreements will be badly 
damaged. Congress has to pass CAFTA because it offer benefits to all 
CAFTA signatories, and because in light of the broader trade context 
our negotiators would suffer a setback if CAFTA does not pass.
  Washington State has historically benefited from liberalizing trade 
laws. For example, in the first year following the United States-Chile 
Free Trade Agreement, Washington State exports to Chile more than 
doubled. And since NAFTA passed in 1993 Washington exports to Canada 
and Mexico have increased by 130 percent.
  CAFTA promises to confer some of the same benefits on Washingtonians. 
CAFTA makes all U.S. exports to the CAFTA countries duty free in 10 
years, and most of these tariffs are eliminated immediately. U.S. 
exports to these countries are often subject to tariffs, and CAFTA 
brings us closer to trade parity. In particular, Washington State's 
pear, cherry, apple and potato growers will see most tariffs on their 
crops immediately reduced to zero as soon as CAFTA is implemented. 
These farmers have low enough profit margins without having to contend 
with high tariffs on their goods, and tariffs place our farmers at a 
competitive disadvantage with farmers in other countries that are not 
subject to high tariffs. Our farmers need and deserve better conditions 
for selling their goods to the seven CAFTA countries.
  In total, Washington State exported $113 million worth of goods to 
CAFTA countries in 2004, including oil and coal exports, crops, 
computers and electronics, processed foods, machinery manufactures and 
paper, and Washington's trade relationship with CAFTA countries 
increased by 251 percent from 2000 to 2004. These goods are heavily 
tariffed under current international trade laws with the CAFTA 
countries.
  But under CAFTA, Washington's apple and pear growers will see duties 
that are currently up to 25 percent on their goods reduced to zero, and 
our grape growers will see 20 percent tariffs zeroed out. Tariffs on 
Washington's raspberry growers will be phased out over 5 to 15 years, 
depending on the CAFTA country, and our dairy farmers, some of whose 
products are subject to 60 percent tariffs, will see those tariffs 
phased out over 20 years. The Washington beef industry will see 30 
percent

[[Page S7733]]

tariffs immediately eliminated on some of their products, and other 
beef product tariffs will be phased out over 10 years. Wheat and barley 
duties are zeroed out immediately, and potato growers will see some 
tariffs immediately eliminated and most others phased out over 15 
years.
  Washington State is likely to see its exports to CAFTA countries 
dramatically increase over time, once CAFTA is enacted. For example, 
Northwest Washington is likely to see its agricultural exports to CAFTA 
countries increase as CAFTA is gradually implemented up until 2024, 
from $2.1 million to $3.8 million, and Central Washington is likely to 
see agricultural products shoot up from $14.5 million to $22.4 million 
during the same 20-year stretch. These heavy increases mean more jobs 
for Washingtonians, at a time when the State is just now turning things 
around economically.
  Nationally, CAFTA is also important. CAFTA countries make up the 
tenth largest export partner for American goods, making that region a 
larger trading partner for the U.S. than Australia, Brazil or India.
  While I support CAFTA, I acknowledge that it could do more to protect 
labor rights in the CAFTA countries, it could be better on the 
environment and it could better take account of human rights in those 
nations. Therefore, CAFTA should not be seen in a vacuum. CAFTA is 
merely one part of what must be a larger strategy for addressing our 
workers' needs in a rapidly evolving world economy, and for addressing 
the economic and political problems of our neighbors to the South.
  I firmly believe that in the long run, encouraging export-led growth 
in developing countries will help raise incomes, tighten labor markets, 
and improve job standards in those countries. Opening markets will 
drive political changes too. Open markets and democracy are the two 
prevailing political ideas of the present, and they will become even 
more prevalent in the future. America has to remain the leader in 
exporting these powerful ideas to the entire world, and CAFTA is one 
more step we can take to accomplish this.
  I also strongly believe that our trade policy should couple trade 
liberalization with worker retraining and other creative, proactive and 
responsive forms of labor assistance. Globalization will happen no 
matter what. So we need to be prepared for these changes, and help 
assure that America's working families do not take the brunt of them.

  That is why I am working with my colleagues to fully implement 
improvements to the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program, TAA. TAA 
provides workers with access to retraining programs, income support, 
and other benefits when they lose their jobs due to trade. And TAA 
works--the Government Accountability Office reports that after TAA was 
last modified, most workers are enrolling in training services sooner, 
from 107 days in Fiscal Year 2002 to 38 days in Fiscal Year 2003.
  TAA must be expanded. We should raise the cap on TAA funds, since 35 
States in Fiscal Year 2004 did not have sufficient funds to cover funds 
those States obligated and paid to TAA-eligible workers. After Trade 
Promotion Authority passed, we doubled the TAA program to help cushion 
difficult transitions of workers whose jobs are lost because of trade. 
We should plan ahead and increase TAA again, to coincide with enactment 
of CAFTA.

  TAA and similar programs must also work better. We must plan ahead 
for changes in our economy--these changes are inevitable, and our long-
term plan at training our workers to be prepared for these changes will 
determine whether America competes in the global market.
  The 21st century marketplace is dynamic, and public policy must also 
be flexible if we are to best take advantage of these changes. As our 
economy continues to shift from a predominantly manufacturing base to a 
heavy service sector economy, government programs such as TAA must 
continue to reflect these changes.
  Specifically, I support proposals such as the Trade Adjustment 
Assistance Equity for Service Workers Act, which would enhance TAA by 
extending the program to service sector and secondary service workers. 
Currently only manufacturing workers qualify for these benefits. 
Including service sector workers merely reflects the realities of our 
economy--America will lose somewhere between 500,000 and 3 million 
service sector jobs to other countries in the next 10 years. I want to 
emphasize that these are not net job losses, but they will result in 
people being displaced. People with service sector jobs have families 
in need just as sure as manufacturing workers do. They should share in 
the TAA program.
  We can also close loopholes that make it difficult for some older 
workers to participate in an add-on to TAA that was meant specifically 
for them. Now that we have identified these loopholes, it is good 
government to close them. Our older workforce, some of whom are not the 
ideal candidates for longer training courses, will benefit from closing 
these loopholes and once this is done they will be placed in new jobs 
more quickly.
  Those concerns, especially about the need to make preparing our 
workforce for the global economy a higher priority, can be addressed by 
Congress and the administration in the coming months, and I will work 
to achieve these goals moving forward. I ask unanimous consent that a 
letter from Ambassador Portman be printed in the Record.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, though we have much to do to make 
opening markets fairer to all those affected, CAFTA is good for 
Washingtonians, especially our farmers, it is good for America, and in 
the long run it will be good for the people living in CAFTA countries 
too. I will vote for CAFTA and continue to work to maximize what 
Washingtonians get out of globalization, while also working to minimize 
the negative side effects that sometimes result from it. Aggressively 
balancing the impact of opening markets is the track we must all 
accept. America's economic future hangs in the balance.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         Executive Office of the President, the United States 
           Trade Representative,
                                    Washington, DC, June 28, 2005.
      Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington DC.
       Dear Jeff: As the Congress considers the Central America-
     Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR), you have 
     raised concerns about ongoing efforts to improve enforcement 
     of labor laws and to monitor progress in this regard in the 
     CAFTA-DR signatory countries. As you know, Congress 
     appropriated $20 million in FY05 specifically for projects to 
     improve labor and environmental law enforcement in these 
     countries.
       The recent House Appropriations Committee mark-up of the 
     FY06 Foreign Operations appropriations bill increases this 
     commitment for the next fiscal year, with $40 million 
     earmarked for labor and environmental enforcement capacity-
     building in the CAFTA-DR signatory countries. The 
     Administration is willing to support this level of funding in 
     the FY06 Senate appropriations bill.
       Furthermore, because we are willing to make a longer-term 
     commitment to improve labor and environmental law enforcement 
     in the CAFTA-DR countries, the Administration is willing to 
     propose and support this same level of labor/environment 
     capacity-building assistance for the next three fiscal years, 
     FY07 through FY09.
       More specifically, you have suggested the assistance of the 
     International Labor Organization (ILO) in monitoring and 
     verifying progress in the Central American and Dominican 
     governments' efforts to improve labor law enforcement and 
     working conditions.
       We are willing to implement your idea. Your proposal, as I 
     understand it, is that the ILO would make a transparent 
     public report of its findings every six months. The 
     Administration has now consulted with the ILO and determined 
     that this function would require additional funding to the 
     ILO of approximately $3 million annually. The Administration 
     is willing to devote approxiniately $3 million of the $20 
     million in FY05 labor enforcement assistance monies to 
     support and fund this ILO monitoring initiative. To ensure 
     that this monitoring continues, the Administration is willing 
     to continue a funding commitment to ILO monitoring for the 
     next three fiscal years, FY07 through FY09.
       The Administration also shares your goal of ensuring that 
     we pair expanded trade opportunities with economic 
     development assistance designed to ease the transition to 
     free trade, especially for rural farmers in our CAFTA-DR 
     partners. On June 13, 2005, the U.S. Millennium Challenge 
     Corporation (MCC) signed a $215 million compact with Honduras 
     targeted specifically at rural development and 
     infrastructure, and on the

[[Page S7734]]

     same day the MCC announced a $175 million compact with 
     Nicaragua that will be signed shortly.
       As Secretary Rice and I have already communicated to you, 
     we are willing to give high priority to negotiating compacts 
     with El Salvador, Guatemala; and the Dominican Republic when 
     those countries become eligible for MCC assistance under 
     higher per capita income caps next year. I anticipate that 
     such compacts would provide substantial U.S. economic 
     assistance for rural development in these countries.
       In addition, the administration has worked with the Inter-
     American Development Bank (IDB) to provide new assistance, 
     including $10 million in new grants announced by the IDB 
     earlier this month for rural development and institution 
     building. I hope you will join me and officials from the IDB, 
     World Bank, and other institutions next month for an 
     international donors conference to discuss other ways we can 
     direct development assistance toward meeting the needs of 
     rural populations.
       To address your specific concern about the period before 
     MCC compacts might be negotiated with El Salvador, Guatemala, 
     and the Dominican Republic, the administration is willing to 
     support additional spending for rural development assistance 
     of $10 million per year for each of those countries starting 
     in FY07 for a total of five years, or until the signing of an 
     MCC compact with such country, whichever comes first. This 
     amounts to a $150 million commitment in transitional rural 
     assistance for these countries over five years.
       These monies will provide transition assistance to rural 
     farmers in these three countries for a defined period, while 
     preserving a very strong incentive for candidate countries to 
     meet the statutory criteria to receive what would likely be 
     much higher levels of economic assistance under an MCC 
     compact. Since the implementation of CAFTA-DR requires steps 
     which reinforce the statutory criteria for funding under the 
     MCC law, I believe that implementation of the agreement will 
     assist these three countries to move quickly toward 
     qualifying for a successful MCC compact with the United 
     States.
       Furthermore, because many of the agreement's requirements 
     for agriculture liberalization in the CAFTA-DR countries for 
     sensitive commodities--such as dairy, poultry, and rice--will 
     not fully occur until ten, fifteen, or even twenty years 
     after CAFTA's implementation date, I am confident that this 
     transitional mechanism provides ample time for adjustment in 
     the rural economies of these nations.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Rob Portman.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition today to express my 
objections to the U.S. Central American Free Trade Agreement, CAFTA. I 
have spent a considerable amount of time reviewing the contents of the 
agreement and there remain outstanding questions regarding labor and 
agriculture. Until these questions are satisfactorily answered, I am 
opposed to the agreement.
  Since June of 1998, Pennsylvania has lost 199,600 manufacturing jobs. 
Nationwide nearly 900,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost. These 
statistics are staggering. Unfortunately, this trade agreement would 
adversely affect this job loss in the United States; especially in 
Pennsylvania. As I reviewed the agreement, I noticed the establishment 
of a new legal regime that increases safeguards for multinational 
investment through changes in tariff rates, rules of origin, and quota 
phase-outs, which would allow corporations in Central America to sell a 
product at a cheaper price. In order to compete under these conditions, 
many U.S. corporations would have to shut down their operations, export 
their jobs, and leave skilled workers jobless. This agreement would 
aggravate the problem.
  In addition to job loss, this agreement fails to enhance workers' 
rights. Over the course of the last 5 years, Congress has worked to 
establish a standard within trade agreements that protects workers' 
rights. In 2001, when Congress adopted the Jordanian Trade Agreement, 
labor provisions were included in the body of the agreement. These 
labor provisions were made subject to sanctions through the dispute 
resolution process. Unfortunately, this agreement only strives to 
enforce workers' rights but does not offer provisions for Central 
Americans to unionize, collectively bargain, and secure the right to 
strike.
  Currently, the six CAFTA nations are subject to the Generalized 
System of Preferences, GSP, and the Caribbean Basin Initiative, CBI, 
which condition market access with respect to the International Labor 
Organization, ILO, standards. Linking market access to labor 
protections has been responsible for many significant labor reforms in 
Central America in the last 20 years. However, if enacted, CAFTA does 
not mandate that the labor laws of the Central American countries 
comply with the International Labor Organization, ILO, core standards, 
which include freedom of association, the right to organize and bargain 
collectively, and the freedom from child labor, forced labor, and 
discrimination.
  Ultimately, CAFTA would create downward pressure on wages because it 
would force our American workers to compete with Central American 
workers who are working for lower wages. This would allow foreign based 
companies to expand while leaving America more dependent on imports 
from abroad, which in turn would lessen the demand for domestic 
production and create even greater economic instability.
  Finally, CAFTA's impact on agriculture is problemsome. CAFTA will not 
open new markets for American agriculture goods. The U.S. is already 
the CAFTA regions largest trading partner. In many cases, our farm 
exports to the six CAFTA nations face tariffs that are low or 
nonexistent and dominate their agricultural markets in several 
commodities. The International Trade Commission has indicated that 
there would be little gain for agriculture. For example, currently, the 
U.S. supplies 94 percent of all grain into the region.
  I urge my colleagues to carefully examine this trade agreement. As a 
nation, we cannot continue to allow the erosion of our manufacturing 
base. Equally, CAFTA should continue to meet the labor standards 
created in previous trade agreements, which it must before I will 
consider supporting it. For these reasons I am voting no.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, free trade--when done correctly--can be an 
important tool in building consumer demand for U.S. products worldwide, 
encouraging investment and growth in developing markets, and forging 
new alliances. Today, Congress is considering an agreement to expand 
trade with Central America and the Dominican Republic.
  Delaware is already heavily engaged in trade with Central American 
countries, with $25 million in exports in 2004. In fact, a large amount 
of the fruit imported through the Port of Wilmington by Chiquita and 
Dole come from Central America. However, while 75 percent of Central 
American products enter the United States tariff free, almost all U.S. 
goods continue to face tariffs in Central America. The Dominican 
Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement, or DR-CAFTA, will level 
the playing field for U.S. workers and businesses that rely on exports 
to Central America and the Dominican Republic by providing immediate, 
duty-free access for more than 80 percent of U.S. consumer and 
industrial goods.
  For Delaware, this will lift tariffs on the fabrics supplied by 
companies like Invista to sewing operations in Central America, making 
textiles in the Americas more competitive with China. Delaware's 
poultry producers will finally gain access to Central American markets 
under DR-CAFTA. When the agreement goes into effect, some U.S. chicken 
products will be given immediate duty-free access, and that access will 
expand annually until duties are eliminated.
  Free-trade agreements with developing countries also offer an 
opportunity to encourage reform. Certain reforms were accomplished in 
DR-CAFTA, such as competitive bidding for government contracts and 
protection of copyrights, patents and trademarks--very important to 
Delaware companies such as AstraZeneca and Dupont.
  However, we have not used the opportunity provided by the negotiation 
of this agreement to make as much progress as we should have, 
particularly in improving conditions for workers and protecting the 
environment. Steady progress was made in the 1990s in the way these 
important issues were addressed. By the time the Jordan Free Trade 
Agreement was adopted in 2001, labor and environment provisions were 
all subject to sanctions through the agreement's dispute resolution 
process. This was an important advancement, not just for workers in 
developing nations but also for competing workers and businesses in the 
United States. The agreements Congress has considered since 2001 have 
retreated from this

[[Page S7735]]

strong enforcement standard, and this has unnecessarily weakened the 
bipartisan support for free trade that we have built over the years.
  While I am pleased that the administration has agreed to support an 
increase in funding to support efforts to improve labor and environment 
conditions in Central America, I am aware of no reason to back off of 
the strong enforcement of labor and environmental obligations that we 
have included in several agreements. Let me be clear. The 
administration must include a greater level of enforcement of labor and 
environment standards in those trade agreements currently being 
negotiated in order to be assured of garnering my support in the 
future. It is particularly important that we enforce the obligation not 
to backslide or repeal current labor and environmental laws and 
regulations.
  I will be watching the negotiations of the Andean and Thailand trade 
agreements closely. If this administration is serious about getting 
those approved, they will listen to the concerns that have been 
expressed in the debate over DR-CAFTA, consult with Democrat and 
Republican Senators during the course of those negotiations and send 
the Senate free trade agreements with stronger enforcement of labor and 
environmental standards. In the months and years ahead.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, after serious deliberation, I will be 
voting against the United States-Dominican Republic Central American 
Free Trade Agreement, or CAFTA. While I support the principle of free 
trade, free trade must also be fair. I have supported our trade 
agreements with Australia, Jordan, and Morocco because these agreements 
reduce or eliminate barriers to American exports while preserving and 
protecting important labor, environmental and security interests around 
the globe.
  A trade agreement between the United States and Central America with 
the same safeguards has the potential to serve as an important tool for 
promoting development and advancing meaningful socioeconomic reform in 
the region. That said, the agreement before us takes a significant step 
back from previous agreements with respect to both labor and 
environmental protections, and will only exacerbate the outsourcing of 
American jobs and aggravate an already dangerous world trade imbalance. 
American workers justifiably feel insecure in today's economy, and the 
outsourcing of American jobs at home is a major reason. The increasing 
trade deficit puts an exclamation point on their concerns.
  I would like to understand how this agreement is not just another in 
a long line of bad trade agreements that exacerbate our trade problems. 
Before we rush forward with policies that on the surface are failing, I 
would like some assurances that this won't be just another punch to the 
stomach of American industry and American workers. What we have been 
doing obviously has not been working. Why do we continue down this 
misguided path? The American trade deficit over the past ten years 
demonstrates we're on the wrong track.
  At a more parochial level, since NAFTA was implemented in 1994, New 
Jersey has lost 130,000 manufacturing jobs--46,000 as a direct result 
of NAFTA. New Jersey was once a center for manufacturing. In 1996, 
Allied Signal in Eatontown sent 230 jobs to Mexico, and required the 
laid off workers to train their Mexican replacements. American Standard 
in Piscataway and Hamilton sent 495 jobs to Mexico. Patterson's textile 
industry disappeared. I could go on and on about town after town in New 
Jersey that lost jobs after NAFTA--from Millville to Elizabeth, from 
Woodbridge to Pennsauken. Another bad trade agreement is the last thing 
New Jersey needs.
  It is clear this is part of the Bush administration's misguided 
strategy with respect to U.S. trade policy. The Bush administration has 
made CAFTA, not China, is its No. 1 trade priority. Yet trade with 
Central American countries represents only 1.5 percent of U.S. trade. 
The Gross Metropolitan Product, GMP, of the city of Newark is $103 
billion, larger than the GDP of all of these countries combined, $85.2 
billion. Compare that with the fact that, just last year, the United 
States ran a $162 billion trade deficit with China. Our trade deficit 
alone with China is nearly double the GDP of the entire Central 
American trade region. This is a much more pressing issue for our 
economic security, and we should be focusing our attention on where the 
risks to imbalances are. Where is the pressure for currency adjustment 
with China or the protection of intellectual property rights?
  But this administration insists we first take up CAFTA, and so I feel 
compelled to discuss my opposition to this agreement. Free trade 
agreements must protect the rights of workers, both at home and abroad. 
When NAFTA was passed by Congress more than eleven years ago, there was 
great hope that the agreement would create thousands of new jobs in 
America and promote labor rights abroad.
  Yet, as we stand here 11 years later, we know that the U.S. 
Department of Labor has certified more than 525,000 workers for NAFTA 
trade adjustment assistance because their jobs were lost due to NAFTA 
imports or shifts in production to Canada or Mexico under NAFTA. Those 
same numbers reveal that, through 2002, more than 46,000 New Jersey 
workers had similarly lost their jobs. And the numbers are actually 
more serious, because since 2002, the Department of Labor has refused 
to release these sobering statistics--some estimates suggest it is 
closer to one million jobs lost.
  The U.S. International Trade Commission, ITC, predicts that CAFTA 
will actually increase the U.S. trade deficit with Central America 
because American companies will relocate their workforces and export 
their products back to the United States, just as companies did under 
NAFTA. This can continue to decimate communities across the country, as 
local plants shut down and the jobs moved overseas. NAFTA established 
the Trade Adjustment Assistance program, TAA, to help thousands of 
manufacturing workers receive retraining, keep their health insurance, 
and make a new start. But service sector jobs were left out. During the 
past several years, nearly half a million service jobs have moved 
offshore to other--mostly low-wage--countries. Senator Wyden's 
bipartisan amendment to extend TAA to service employees was accepted by 
the Finance Committee. Yet, when President Bush sent the CAFTA 
legislation to Congress, this amendment had been stripped from the 
bill. This amendment was sensible, it was fair, and it should have been 
included in this legislation.
  For all of the harm CAFTA would cause U.S. workers, I am equally as 
concerned about the harm the agreement could do to the rights and 
protections of workers in Central America. A fair trade agreement must 
require each nation to improve domestic labor laws to meet basic 
workers' rights. And it should discourage our trading partners from 
weakening or eliminating entirely their labor laws in order to gain an 
unfair trade advantage. But CAFTA does neither. CAFTA's lone 
enforceable workers' rights provision requires only that these 
countries enforce their own labor laws--laws that our own State 
Department has said fail to meet recognized international standards. 
This not the standard for commercial or investment standards. This 
failure to include an enforceable requirement that labor laws meet 
basic international standards represents a significant step backwards 
from the labor rights provisions of our agreement with Jordan, a 
country with significantly stronger labor protections. In our shared 
goal at improving labor standards around the world, trade agreements 
like CAFTA should be both the carrot and the stick. CAFTA is neither.
  CAFTA proponents have argued that this agreement is the principle 
means to lift Central America out of poverty and promote these shared 
principles. But this agreement will not do that, and the consequences 
of NAFTA are evidence of why. Since NAFTA was implemented more than 
eleven years ago, real wages in Mexico have fallen, the number of 
people in poverty has grown, and the number of people illegally 
migrating to the United States to seek work has doubled.
  NAFTA's liberalization in the agriculture sector displaced more than 
1.7 million rural small farmers, overwhelming the 800,000 number of new 
jobs created in the export processing sectors. Rather than learn from 
these sobering failings by negotiating a trade

[[Page S7736]]

agreement that creates good jobs, guarantees worker rights, and lays 
the groundwork for a strong middle class, the Administration has cloned 
NAFTA. Unfortunately, the results are likely to be the same.
  What is also likely to be the same is the devastating impact on the 
environment that CAFTA is likely have on Central America. Central 
America is one of the most biologically diverse areas of the world. The 
region faces daunting environmental challenges that threaten its 
potential for sustainable development. Yet CAFTA would undermine hard-
won environmental protections by allowing foreign investors to 
challenge environmental laws and regulations in all of the countries, 
including the U.S., that are parties to the agreement.
  We have not learned the lessons of the past. This is another bad 
trade agreement that fails to address the real economic issues our 
nation faces today. We should be addressing our trade imbalance. We 
should be promoting job growth here in the United States, instead of 
further encouraging companies to move jobs elsewhere. I oppose CAFTA 
because it fails to preserve worker rights, protect the environment, or 
promote economic development at home and abroad. It is wrong for New 
Jersey, and it is wrong for America.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, more than 20 years ago President Reagan 
made a commitment to help the countries of Central America by providing 
them with unilateral access to the U.S. market. Through preference 
programs such as the Generalized System of Preference, GSP, and the 
Caribbean Basin Initiative, Congress and various administrations have 
sought to help our southern neighbors by promoting development and 
encouraging the building of democratic societies.
  The Caribbean Basin Initiative has provided critical economic aid to 
the fledgling democracies of Central America, and in the past 20 years, 
chaos has been replaced by commerce.
  Since 1985, exports from the region to the United States have 
quadrupled; and today, the agreement that we are taking up seeks to 
provide reciprocal access for our domestic producers.
  Today, 80 percent of goods and services and 99 percent of 
agricultural products from the CAFTA-DR countries already enter the 
U.S. duty free. In contrast, our domestic producers face steep 
tariffs--which are essentially foreign taxes--into the region. Under 
CAFTA-DR, many of those tariffs would go to zero.
  It is estimated that if approved, CAFTA-DR would result in 
approximately $1 billion in annual savings on tariffs for U.S. 
producers.
  Under CAFTA-DR, Oregon apple and pear growers, who currently face 
tariffs as high as 25 percent into the region, will benefit from 
immediate duty elimination on fresh apples and pears.
  Oregon potato producers benefit from duty elimination on certain 
potato products, including french fries, which will immediately become 
duty-free in most DR-CAFTA countries.
  With $104 million in export sales and total cash receipts of $155 
million, Oregon's wheat producers will benefit from the immediate 
elimination of tariffs on wheat and barley in all six countries. An 
American Farm Bureau analysis shows that U.S. agriculture may gain $1.5 
billion in increased exports each year when the agreement is fully 
implemented.
  Oregon retailers, including Nike and Columbia Sportswear, would 
benefit from greater market access and increased sourcing options.
  Intel, another major employer in my state, stands to benefit from 
this agreement. The CAFTA-DR countries combine to rank as Oregon's 10th 
largest export market. According to the Office of Trade and Economic 
Analysis, 94 percent of Oregon's exports to the region in 2003 were 
high-tech products. For the 15,500 Intel employees in Oregon, CAFTA-DR 
is critical for future growth in the region.
  This agreement is about leveling the playing field for our domestic 
producers. The CAFTA-DR countries already have access to our market; 
this agreement gives our growers and manufactures a chance to thrive in 
DR-CAFTA markets.
  In recent weeks, this agreement has been endorsed by the Oregonian, 
the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the 
Los Angeles Times, and USA Today.
  I understand that there are those who are not entirely happy with 
this agreement, including some in my own State. However, I come from a 
State in which one in four jobs is tied to exports. This agreement is 
about increasing export opportunities for producers in my State and 
around the country.
  A recent editorial in the Oregonian said this about the agreement:

       It is disturbing to see Oregon and national leaders back 
     away from the principle that free and fair trade is good for 
     the United States and the rest of the world. People are 
     better off in an integrated global economy where they have 
     the opportunity to sell their goods, services, and skills 
     around the world.

  As a businessman, I have seen firsthand the remarkable ability that 
trade has to raise the standard of living both domestically and around 
the world. I am hopeful that by passing this agreement, we will be able 
to create new growth opportunities for U.S. and Central American 
producers, and we will be able to show that America truly is a leader 
in furthering free and fair trade.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I want, first to compliment the subcommittee 
chairman of the Energy and Water Appropriations bill, Senator Peter 
Domenici, and the ranking member, Senator Harry Reid, for the 
outstanding job they have done in putting together this bill. The well-
being of the Nation depends greatly upon adequate investments in the 
many programs and activities contained in this bill.
  Through this measure, we are supporting the backbone of our Nation's 
water transportation and flood protection programs through the Army 
Corps of Engineers; the irrigation water supply systems for the western 
States through the Bureau of Reclamation; the protection of our 
Nation's nuclear weapons stockpile; the advancement of science programs 
to help ensure that the United States remains a leader in the 
international scientific community; a number of independent agencies 
and commissions, including the Appalachian Regional Commission, the 
Denali Commission, and the Delta Regional Authority; and now, due to 
the restructuring of subcommittee jurisdictions, the entire Department 
of Energy, DOE.
  As part of that restructuring, the Energy and Water Subcommittee was 
charged with oversight and appropriations responsibilities for the 
fossil energy research and development, R&D, within the Department of 
Energy. Senator Domenici and I have long worked on these programs, and 
I thank him and Senator Reid and their staffs for their hard work, 
diligence, and support for fossil energy research in this bill.
  Through the Fossil Energy R&D programs, DOE supports research 
involving economically and environmentally sound use of our Nation's 
domestically produced fossil energy resources. It forges partnerships 
between Government and industry to accelerate the development, 
demonstration, and deployment of advanced technologies that show 
promise in helping to ensure cleaner, more reliable, and more 
affordable energy, now and in the future.
  While the subcommittee did not hold a fiscal year 2006 budget hearing 
on the fossil energy R&D programs this spring, I appreciate Senator 
Domenici's commitment to hold annual oversight hearings on the fossil 
energy programs beginning next year. I look forward to participating in 
these hearings as our fossil energy resources will continue to be 
important to this Nation.
  I would also like to mention that the clean coal program, which falls 
under the fossil energy portfolio, has been critical to the development 
of cleaner, low-carbon fossil energy technologies.
  I created the Clean Coal Technology program in 1985, and I am very 
proud to report that after five solicitations, 32 projects have been 
completed, with a combined value of $3.7 billion Government/industry 
investments to develop advanced technologies that are resulting in 
cleaner, more efficient, and more cost-effective power generation.

  The subsequent Clean Coal Power Initiative, started by President Bush 
in 2000, was to be a $2 billion demonstration program over 10 years, 
consisting of four rounds of solicitations. The administration's fiscal 
year 2006 budget request of $50 million falls woefully short of being 
able to keep the CCPI on a 2-year solicitation schedule. However, I am 
very appreciative of the additional $50 million that was provided

[[Page S7737]]

by Senators Domenici and Reid, at my request. This funding will help to 
pave the way for a third CCPI solicitation in the near future.
  If we ever hope to increase our energy security, reduce our 
dependence on foreign energy resources, and develop fossil energy 
technologies that allow us to burn coal with little to no pollution, we 
must adequately invest in these critical programs. There are no better 
champions for energy research than Senator Domenici, Senator Reid, and 
me. We have been able not only to authorize initiatives so critical to 
America's energy independence, but we also have been able to direct 
resources to those important efforts and keep them adequately funded 
for at least another year.
  On Tuesday, June 28, 2005, the Senate passed a bipartisan Energy 
bill, and I was happy to support that bill. It is generally a positive 
bill, but it is also very much of a business-as-usual approach toward 
energy policy. This bill simply provides authorization for new and 
existing programs related to energy policy. Despite the fact that the 
administration is strongly pressing for an Energy bill, I have to 
wonder if the necessary funding to support this legislation will ever 
emerge in subsequent administration budgets.
  Certainly, the administration's track record on funding other 
important measures like No Child Left Behind makes one wonder if energy 
funding will face continued shortfalls despite the prized rhetoric and 
Rose Garden ceremonies. Due to very constrained budget allocations, the 
Appropriations Committee is likely to find it extremely difficult to 
maintain funding for current energy programs, to say nothing of adding 
funding for the new or expanded energy programs in an Energy bill.
  At least for the next fiscal year, the Senate's mark for the fossil 
energy programs will keep these programs moving in the right direction, 
despite the administration's budget cuts. Again, I thank the chairman 
and the ranking member of the Energy and Water Subcommittee and their 
staff, Scott O'Malia, Roger Cockrell, Emily Brunini, Drew Willison, and 
Nancy Olkewicz, for their extraordinary efforts in this regard and for 
producing a bill that I believe we can all support.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise to oppose CAFTA for the reasons I 
stated earlier. It seems logical to say that if we want to expand our 
export markets, we should be negotiating with countries who have a more 
sizable market for our goods and greater buying power to purchase our 
goods. However, these CAFTA countries account for only 1.5 percent of 
U.S. exports.
  Illinois is an agriculture State. I have supported prior trade 
agreements because of the benefit they have provided to agriculture. 
However, estimates that passage of CAFTA will produce sizable trade 
gains for U.S. farmers are overly optimistic. CAFTA countries have a 
combined population of approximately 31 million people who generally 
have limited incomes with which to purchase agriculture products. In 
fact, the market is only worth $1.6 billion in annual agriculture 
products.
  According to the most recent data, the U.S. supplied 94 percent of 
all grains imported into the six CAFTA countries. This domination means 
there is little room for further upward growth in grain exports to 
CAFTA nations.
  I believe in international trade, provided it is fair trade and can 
expand our economy and create jobs. But I have concluded that this 
trade agreement will not do that. It is merely another product of this 
administration's failed trade strategy--a strategy that has victimized 
American manufacturers while costing millions of American workers their 
jobs. The administration is so wedded to the notion that all is well 
that it cannot hear the cries of those who would be harmed by this 
trade agreement. The failure to take sufficient and educated steps to 
strengthen America's future in this trade agreement is why I am 
opposing CAFTA.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, not that long ago, for the average 
American, our world was not a threatening place. Not long ago, there 
was little reason for the average American to feel anxious about the 
future. The United States was the only superpower; our economy was 
enjoying record growth and job creation.
  Those things are no longer true. The rise of terrorism, the war in 
Iraq, international economic competition from new sources like China 
and India, as well as increased economic insecurity here at home--
together these forces have cost us a lot of our optimism, a lot of our 
self-confidence.
  We are a people whose birthright is a belief in a better future, a 
belief in our ability to control our own fate, at home and abroad. That 
is our national character. But these days, our character is being 
tested.
  Even in the best of times, trade legislation has been a touchy 
subject. These days, it can be among the most contentious issues we 
confront. Our trade deals carry the freight of our insecurities, 
economic and otherwise.
  They carry our worries about our place in international competition, 
about job security, about losing our grip on our standard of living. 
There are real reasons that Americans are worried these days. Studies 
by the Federal Reserve and others confirm that income mobility--the 
opportunity for children to do better in life than their parents is 
declining, approaching the levels of more static, developing economies.
  Without poring over statistics, Americans can see that happening. The 
reality of self-determination, the fact of social mobility, has been 
the foundation of our optimism. When the facts change, when the pace of 
mobility slows, it shows. Instead of a generation or two between 
poverty and a solid middle class living, today it can take five or six 
generations.
  We have yet to produce one single new job since this administration 
came into office. Not one. Whomever you blame or however you explain 
it, that is a fact that registers in the lives of Americans. Not since 
the Great Depression has it taken so long to replace lost jobs.
  That is why long-term unemployment--over half a year looking for a 
job--is the lot of over a million and a half Americans.
  These conditions keep wages low, falling behind the cost of living. 
Real wages are falling at a rate we haven't seen in 14 years.
  Into these tough times comes the word that 2 billion new workers, in 
China and India, to take the two biggest examples, are now competing 
with Americans for new jobs created in the global economy.
  These workers are highly motivated--the poverty they are rising from, 
the pace of growth they can see in their cities, is a powerful 
incentive. Their governments are increasingly sophisticated about 
attracting investment and expertise from here and around the world to 
fuel their national economic strategies.
  With these troubling trends, Americans are in no mood to accept text 
book platitudes about the benefits of free trade. They want to see some 
of the gains come home.
  I am personally convinced that trade is in fact not only ultimately 
good for us, but inevitable. Standing at our shores, commanding the 
tides of trade to retreat, is not a plan for our Nation's economic 
future.
  We fought and won a Cold War in the last century a war against a 
totalitarian economic ideology, to protect and project American values 
of political and economic freedom in the world.
  Now is not the time to doubt those values. They are still the right 
values for us, and the right values for the citizens of other nations. 
Free men and women, freely exchanging goods and ideas, innovating, 
creating. That is the world we fought for, that is the evidence of our 
success.
  And what is the alternative? Do we expect to close our ports to 
products Americans want to buy? Can we expect to successfully block 
American companies from seeking profitable investments overseas?
  In today's world, American leadership is a reality. We cannot lead 
the world in the search for security but at the same time retreat 
economically. Trade can help cement peaceful ties, raise living 
standards, give desperate people hope and put idle hands to work. Trade 
must be part of our security strategy, or that strategy will not 
succeed.
  If there is to be a better world ahead of us, wealthier, healthier, 
freer--and I

[[Page S7738]]

am certain that there is--then expanding international trade will be 
part of it. I don't think you can envision that world without expanding 
trade ties, expanding economic integration.
  But there is no free lunch. This world comes at a cost. It comes at 
the cost of predictability, at the cost of stability. The economist 
Joseph Schumpeter called capitalism a process of creative destruction. 
And that it is.
  The telephone replaced the telegraph, the automobile replaced the 
horse, supermarkets replaced mom-and-pop grocery stores. Our farms are 
mechanized; our manufacturing is robotized; our information 
is computerized. With every new idea, with every new invention, an old 
product, an old technology, and the jobs they sustained, are left 
behind.

  Our Nation has become wealthy riding the waves of innovation, 
opportunity, efficiency, and economic growth. That, in part, is the 
American way.
  But another part of the American way is our shared commitment to each 
other. With every wave of change, from agrarian nation to manufacturing 
power, to the world's richest economy, we have created the institutions 
to cope with the human costs of economic change. Child labor laws, 
minimum wage, the 40-hour workweek, these are evidence of our values. 
And we have Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance--all ways 
to share the costs and spread the burdens of a churning economy.
  Most fundamentally, we have established the rights of working men and 
women to bargain collectively for their wages and working conditions: 
these things are also the American way.
  When it is done right, trade makes us more efficient and more 
productive. With the economic gains from trade we can afford to take 
care of those whose jobs are lost as the new ones are created.
  There is a human logic to this, a logic that says the men and women, 
and their families and communities, who are displaced by economic 
change are not to blame for their fate. They should not shoulder alone 
the costs of change while others reap the benefits.
  There is an economic logic, as well--by compensating some for bearing 
the cost of change, we keep innovation and opportunity expanding for 
everyone.
  And finally there is a political logic. When we all know that we are 
not alone, that there are resources we can draw on in tough times, we 
don't have to fight change. Without that assurance, in our open 
political system, those who bear the cost of change and innovation 
will--understandably--resist it.
  If trade is ultimately good for our economy as a whole, we must make 
sure that it is good for American workers and their families, too.
  This trade deal does not do that, and that is why I cannot support 
it.
  I said 2 years ago that I was concerned about the lack of effective 
enforcement provisions for the labor standards in the Chile and 
Singapore trade deals, and the precedent that might set for the CAFTA 
negotiations. What we now call the ``Jordan standard,'' that treats 
labor provisions on the same terms as intellectual property and 
commercial provisions, allows for effective enforcement when a party 
fails to live up to its labor rights commitments. That effective 
enforcement standard is part of the Jordan Free Trade Agreement, now in 
effect.
  But instead of building on that success, CAFTA comes to us today 
without that effective means of enforcement.
  At a time when the political support for trade is shaky at best, with 
American families justifiably anxious about the volatility and 
insecurity just below the surface of our economy, why would we roll 
back the standards for labor protections in our trade deals?
  It just doesn't make any sense.
  I notice that there is a lot of new language in this trade agreement 
about labor rights in the countries of Central America and the 
Dominican Republic. That shows that our negotiators are getting the 
message about how important those provisions are to the political 
support we need for trade.
  But instead of providing labor standards with the same level of 
effective enforcement that American businesses will get for their 
concerns, this deal leaves labor a second-class citizen.
  But it is not just the specific terms of this trade deal that concern 
me today. If we are going to compete in today's global economy, we need 
a plan to protect American living standards and a plan to keep our 
Nation the most competitive on Earth.
  We need a good defense, but we need a good offense, too.
  We need a strong trade adjustment assistance program, and we need the 
will to enforce it. We need to make sure that health insurance, 
pensions, and other basic benefits are protected and portable in a 
changing world.
  I think we should consider a real wage insurance policy that 
addresses not just the jobs lost by trade--in reality, trade is a small 
part of the churning in our economy--but any job loss that could put a 
family's standard of living at risk.
  If we do it right--and right now we just have a small pilot program 
out there--wage insurance could provide real help to families in 
transition from one job to another and keep our labor markets open and 
dynamic.
  But important as those kinds of protections can be, they are just 
playing defense. Right now, I don't see a plan for an offense, a plan 
for us to take on the rising competition from around the world, a plan 
to make American working men and women the winners.
  That is going to take investments in education, in research, and in 
new technologies. That is going to take a commitment to making our 
workforce the most productive in the world, giving them the tools and 
the skills they need to compete. That is going to take a plan to create 
a new generation of good-paying jobs.
  On the education front, Bill Gates has told us that our high school 
graduates are not up to the standards his company needs. Newt Gingrich 
has called the administration's lack of investment in basic research, 
and I quote, ``unilateral disarmament'' in the face of international 
competition. Those are not partisan attacks. Those are warnings we 
cannot ignore.
  Because we don't have an adequate defense for the families who are 
affected by economic change, because we don't have an effective offense 
to win in a globalizing economy, I cannot lend my support to this trade 
deal. It sends the wrong message, it sets the wrong example.
  The CAFTA countries themselves are no more than 1 percent of our 
trade. In many ways, they are not the issue here. I believe it will be 
good for our country if these nations can enter our markets. It will 
make those economies stronger, make them better neighbors, and open 
markets for the products made by American workers.
  But only if the deal is done right. Only if we have the protections 
in place that can truly lift human rights, labor, and environmental 
standards there, and build the protections for American workers and 
producers here.
  So I will vote against CAFTA not because I oppose trade but because I 
support smart trade, trade that works for American families, trade that 
is good for both sides.
  I am afraid that more trade agreements along these lines will weaken 
domestic support for expanding trade. We need the full, informed 
consent of American citizens for trade, we need a trade agenda 
Americans can support, and we need to a plan to defend our standard of 
living here and to compete to win in the global economy.
  We need to win the support of American working families for expanded 
trade, and restore their faith in our ability to win. Until then, trade 
deals like this one will just add to their worries.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I have spent many hours examining and 
discussing the agreement before us today.
  As my colleagues know, my vote has never been a rubberstamp for trade 
agreements.
  I take my responsibility to examine these agreements very seriously. 
My constituents deserve no less. In the past, I have supported trade 
agreements, and I have opposed trade agreements, as their merits 
demanded.
  After long and careful thought, I have decided that I will support 
the agreement with Central America which is before the Senate today.
  This agreement is not perfect--far from it.
  The phaseout times on many of the agricultural products are too long. 
We should not be waiting for 10, 15, sometimes 20 years for duty-free 
access to

[[Page S7739]]

sell our farm products in these countries. It is my understanding that 
the protection of one particular American product was largely 
responsible for the negotiating situation that led to the long tariff 
elimination schedules for so many of our farming products.
  If not for the fact that, almost without exception, the Central 
American countries have enjoyed duty-free access to our markets for 
their agricultural exports for years, these long tariff phaseout 
schedules might well have forced me to oppose this agreement.
  The truth is, due to existing trade relationships, the various 
parties did not start out this trade negotiation on similar footings: 
We paid to export to them and they did not pay to export to us.
  While this agreement absolutely does not even this relationship as 
quickly and fairly as I would like, it does eventually get the job 
done. While our farmers are often forced to wait far too long for duty-
free acess, that duty-free access does eventually go into place. The 
opportunity for new export markets for our farmers will be--
ultimately--beneficial to the folks in Kentucky, particularly the rural 
parts of my State.
  While I have concerns about other parts of the agreement, 
particularly some textile issues, there are also aspects of the 
agreement which are especially good for Kentucky.
  Important to my State of Kentucky is the treatment of the exportation 
of tobacco products under the agreement. I was particularly pleased to 
see that the report of the Agricultural Technical Advisory Committee 
for Cotton, Peanuts, Planting Seeds and Tobacco, which included a 
member of the Kentucky Farm Bureau, found the agreement to be fair 
regarding tobacco trade.
  I was also pleased to see that this agreement immediately eliminates 
tariffs on bourbon and whiskeys exported from America. Furthermore, 
agreement for the recognition of ``bourbon'' as an exclusively 
Kentucky-made product is important to an industry employing over 30,000 
Kentuckians.
  I also want to bring the attention of my colleagues to the fact that 
this agreement, while obviously primarily a trade agreement, also 
represents an opportunity for us to show our support to a region that 
has come a long way in the area of democracy.
  Not so long ago, most of us here will remember, democracy was not 
assured in this part of the world. In Central America--our own 
backyard--communism was a threat. The United States has worked hard 
over the years and we have seen the menace of communism recede and the 
democracies and economies of El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua and 
Honduras begin to flourish.
  We must not lose track of the message that the approval of this 
agreement will send to these new democracies on our doorstep. Without 
this agreement, the democracies we have helped build in Central America 
will be less prosperous in the increasingly competitive global 
marketplace. We must allow these fledgling democracies the access they 
need to compete with the overwhelming wave of Chinese imports.
  It is the development of strong trade in goods and services that will 
help these countries to oppose a return to corrupt regimes that promote 
trade in illegal drugs.
  We in this body have done so much to foster democracy and economic 
stability in Central America. The approval of DR-CAFTA is another 
chance for us to show our support of these democratic governments.
  I have come to believe after long and careful examination, that this 
agreement is good for the United States and for the future of Central 
America. I urge my colleagues to support the agreement before us today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order----
  Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following 
be the only remaining debate on the bill, in the following order: 
Senator Sessions, 10 minutes; Senator Dayton, 5 minutes; Senator 
Sununu, 5 minutes; Senator Ensign, 5 minutes; Senator Baucus, 10 
minutes; Senator Grassley, 10 minutes; Senator Reid from Nevada, 10 
minutes; Senator Frist, 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, how much 
time remains on my allocation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota has 11 minutes 
28 seconds.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me reserve 5 minutes of that as well.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I add that to the request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator from Montana state where he 
would like that placed in the order.
  Mr. BAUCUS. That would be after Ensign and before myself.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modified request? 
Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Colorado.

                          ____________________