[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 92 (Monday, July 11, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H5619-H5625]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                 CAFTA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) is recognized for 
60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, last year, during the 2004 election 
season, the Republican leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), 
the most powerful Republican in the Congress, in the House or Senate, 
promised that this Congress would vote up or down on the Central 
American Free Trade Agreement. December 31 rolled around, and there was 
no vote.
  Majority Leader DeLay again promised earlier this year there would be 
a vote on the Central American Free Trade Agreement by Memorial Day. 
Memorial Day came and went, and there was no vote.
  Majority Leader DeLay, again the most powerful Republican member of 
this body or the other body, again promised there would be a vote on 
CAFTA, the Central American Free Trade Agreement, and he promised it 
prior to the July 4th break. Again, July 4th came and went, and there 
was no vote on the Central American Free Trade Agreement.
  Now, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) says there will be a vote 
before the end of July up or down on the Central American Free Trade 
Agreement.
  There is a reason that Congress did not vote on it by December 31, 
did not vote on it by Memorial Day, did not vote on it by July 4th, and 
still has not scheduled it for a vote even this month. That is because 
there is strong bipartisan opposition to the Central American Free 
Trade Agreement. It is Democrats on this side and Republicans on that 
side. It is business leaders, small business leaders especially, and 
labor unions. It is religious leaders. The Catholic bishops in Central 
America and other religious leaders, Lutherans, all kinds of 
Protestants, Catholics and Jewish groups, all kinds of religious groups 
in America that oppose this.
  Environmentalists, food safety advocates and people who think the 
Central American Free Trade Agreement is not working and does not work 
for the United States of America and does not work for the five Central 
American countries and the Dominican Republic; they understand we do 
not want this CAFTA. We want a new CAFTA. We want to renegotiate CAFTA 
so it will work for small farmers and ranchers, for small manufacturers 
in my State of Ohio, in Cincinnati and Dayton and Portsmouth and 
Chilicothe. They understand that this was a trade agreement that was 
negotiated by a select few for a select few.
  Sure, Mr. Speaker, there are people that support the Central American 
Free Trade Agreement in addition to Majority Leader DeLay and President 
Bush. The pharmaceutical companies love this agreement because they 
helped to negotiate it. As I said, it was crafted by a select few for a 
select few, and the drug industry is one of the select few. The 
insurance industry loves CAFTA. Again, it was crafted by a select few, 
the insurance industry and a few others, for a select few. The banks 
and the other financial institutions love CAFTA. It was negotiated by a 
select few, and they were at the table, for a select few, for them and 
a few others.
  The largest corporations in the country, many of them like CAFTA 
because it was negotiated by a select few for a select few, not for 
small manufacturers in Akron, Ohio; not for small manufacturers in 
Steubenville, Ohio; but for large corporations that can move their 
production overseas and exploit cheap labor.
  When you think about it, the major reason that Americans are opposed 
to the Central American Free Trade Agreement in every poll you look at 
and that a majority Members of Congress are against CAFTA is, look what 
has happened with our trade policy in the last 15 years.
  Mr. Speaker, I am joined by my colleague, the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), who understands this so very well, and my 
colleague, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) will be here in a 
moment. If you look at 1992, the year I just happened to run for 
Congress the first time and get elected, in 1992, our trade deficit was 
$38 billion. That means the United States imported $38 billion more 
than we exported. We had a negative trade balance, import versus 
export, of $38 billion. Last year, our trade deficit was $618 billion. 
It went from $38 billion to $618 billion in the space of 12 years. It 
is hard to argue we should do more of the same.
  CAFTA, the Central American Free Trade Agreement, is a dysfunctional 
cousin of NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement. NAFTA passed 
here in 1993. Look what happened. Then PNTR for China and a whole host 
of trade agreements as the trade deficit got worse and worse and worse 
and worse. It has clearly not worked for our country.
  Let's look back for a moment at CAFTA to see what has happened. 
Thirteen months ago, the President signed the Central American Free 
Trade Agreement with the other six countries, five in Central America 
and the Dominican Republic. Every other trade agreement the President 
signed was voted on, Morocco, Chile, Australia, Chile, and Singapore, 
was voted on within 60 days of the President's signature. CAFTA was 
signed in May of 2004. It has been more than 13 months, six times plus, 
six times longer than any of these other trade agreements. Again, 
because Americans and their congressional representatives, and that is 
why we are called representatives,

[[Page H5620]]

we are supposed to represent what our people want us to do, the 
American people and this Congress understand that CAFTA is an extension 
of NAFTA. It is more of the same bad trade agreements, and it is simply 
not working for our country.
  Now, these are just numbers. These are trade deficit numbers. Who 
cares about these kind of numbers? Well, here is what they mean, Mr. 
Speaker. If you look at this chart, the States in red are those States 
which have lost 20 percent of their manufacturing jobs in the last 5 
years. The State of New Jersey, my colleague's State, 104,000. More 
than 20 percent of the manufacturing jobs in that State. The 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) and my State, 217,000 jobs lost in 
6.5 years. Michigan, over 200,000. Illinois, 224,000. Pennsylvania, 
200,000. New York, 222,000. The Carlolinas, hit by textile job losses, 
combined 315,000 jobs lost. California, the blue States, have had 15 to 
20 percent of their manufacturing jobs lost in the last 6.5 years. 
California, 354,000 manufacturing jobs. Texas, 201,000. Florida, 
72,000. And Georgia, 110,000.
  State after State after State are losing their manufacturing jobs not 
only because of bad trade policies but certainly principally because of 
bad trade policies. These trade policies simply are not working.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, in the face of this overwhelming opposition, the 
administration and Republican leadership have tried every trick in the 
book to pass this CAFTA. They have tried linking CAFTA to help 
democracy in the developing world. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and 
Deputy Secretary of State Zoellick have said that CAFTA will help in 
the war on terror. I am not sure how, and they do not explain how, but 
I do know that 10 years of NAFTA has done nothing to improve border 
security between the United States and Mexico. So that argument simply 
does not sell.
  Then, in May, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce flew on a nice little 
junket around the country the six Dominican and Central American 
presidents, around our Nation hoping they might be able to sell CAFTA 
to newspapers, to the public and ultimately to the Congress. They went 
to Albuquerque. They went to Los Angeles. They went to Cincinnati in my 
State. They went to New York and Miami, and again, they failed. In 
fact, the Costa Rican president at the end of the trip said, I am not 
going to sign this, I am not part of this until I really see what CAFTA 
is going to do for working people in my country.
  Now, as the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) and I have 
talked, the administration is opening up the taxpayers' bank. 
Desperate, after failing to gin up support for the agreement based on 
its merits, because they know they cannot pass, with this kind of trade 
policy failure for a dozen years, they know they cannot pass it on the 
merits, so what they are doing is the President of the United States is 
promising fundraising for Members of Congress. He is promising bridges 
and highways, more pork than you can imagine in district after district 
after district. He is promising all kinds of jobs to his people later, 
people that might be lame ducks in Congress. Who knows the kinds of 
promises he is making.
  They have made these promises before to pass other trade agreements, 
and they are making them again. But again, Mr. Speaker, we know 
Republicans and Democrats, business and labor groups, farmers, 
ranchers, religious leaders, environmental, and human rights 
organizations are all saying: Vote no on CAFTA. Renegotiate and get a 
better CAFTA.
  Before turning to my colleague from New Jersey, I want to point out 
one other argument that those supporting CAFTA like to put out there. 
Every time there is a trade agreement, the President makes three major 
promises: There will be more jobs in the U.S.; the U.S. will send more 
manufactured goods, export them out of the U.S. to other countries; and 
the standard of living in the poorer countries in the developing world 
will go up. Every time he makes those promises, they fall flat on their 
face. It never happens.
  Benjamin Franklin once said the definition of insanity is doing the 
same thing over and over and over again and expecting it to come out 
differently. They make the same promises, and they never work. And here 
is why. The President says the Central American countries are going to 
buy American products, they are going to buy American manufactured 
goods, and they are going to buy American farm produce. Let's look at 
this chart. The United States average income is $38,000.

                              {time}  2000

  The average income in El Salvador is $4,800; Guatemala, $4,100; 
Honduras, $2,600; Nicaragua, $2,300. The average worker in Nicaragua 
who earns $2,300 a year is simply not making enough money to buy any 
kind of goods that we export. A worker in Honduras cannot afford to buy 
a car made in Dayton, Ohio. A worker in Guatemala cannot afford to buy 
software made in Seattle or Northern California.
  A Nicaraguan worker cannot afford to buy textiles or apparel from 
North Carolina or South Carolina. An El Salvadoran worker making $4,800 
a year is not going to buy prime cut beef grown in Nebraska. The 
combined economic output of these CAFTA countries is equivalent to that 
of Columbus, Ohio, or Orlando, Florida. The combined economic output of 
these six countries is equivalent to that of Columbus, Ohio, or 
Orlando, Florida.
  In other words, Mr. Speaker, they simply cannot buy our products. So 
what this agreement is all about, it is not about them buying our 
products that we export. This agreement is about U.S. companies moving 
plants to Honduras, outsourcing jobs to El Salvador and exploiting 
cheap labor in Guatemala. That is what this agreement and every other 
agreement has led to. It has led to U.S. companies moving to China, 
moving to Mexico, moving to Guatemala, moving to Pakistan, moving 
overseas, exploiting cheap labor, doing nothing to raise the standard 
of living in those countries, and depressing the standard of living in 
our country.
  Mr. Speaker, we want a new CAFTA, a renegotiated CAFTA. When the 
world's poorest people can buy American products, not just make them, 
when the world's poorest people can buy American products, then we will 
know that our trade policies are working. That is why we must 
renegotiate the Central American Free Trade Agreement and this time do 
it right.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) 
who has, ever since his initial term in Congress, been a leader on 
trade issues.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, the Congress must defeat unfair trade 
agreements until we start forming trade policy rationally and in our 
best interest. I am not afraid to say that I opposed both the trade 
policies of the former President, a member of my own party, President 
Clinton; and I oppose this President's trade policies, President Bush, 
and I do so not through perceptions but through facts. What has 
happened to these trade policies as was promised when they were passed 
and signed?
  The folks in my district did not send me to Washington to surrender 
my rights under the Constitution. article I, section 8 is very clear. 
It is the Congress that will declare war; it is the Congress that will 
deal with matters of commerce. We have surrendered that. This 
legislative body has surrendered that right to both Clinton and Bush. 
We say, we voted that way, I did not, the majority voted, that the 
President of the United States is solely responsible for the so-called 
free trade deals and that the Congress can either vote them up or down.
  Now this is what we have done. In diminishing the power of the 
legislative body, we have inflated the power under the Constitution, 
and this is not what our forefathers intended. If Members read what 
went into article I, section 8, it is very, very clear, very succinct.
  In New Jersey, we have lost in the last 14 years 241,000 
manufacturing jobs. We have been told not only in New Jersey but in the 
New Jerseys across this greatest of all Nations, that those jobs will 
be replaced by service jobs, and we have seen what has happened. We 
have seen these jobs replaced by part-time jobs, filled with 
underemployed people, many times working with none of the benefits 
reflected in what was decent manufacturing, decent-paying jobs.
  So when one looks at the facts, the trade deals have not been fair, 
and they certainly have not been free. We want

[[Page H5621]]

to help other countries grow, but not at the detriment and expense of 
the American worker. We are not opposed to trade. The gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Brown) is not opposed to trade. The Members of the other side 
of the aisle, the Republicans who oppose CAFTA like I oppose it and 
like many of us who oppose it on our side, are not against trade. Trade 
is a necessity. We live in a global village, but we want that trade to 
be fair. We want that trade to be a two-way street and not a one-way 
street.
  I give just two basic examples: the only trade deal that I voted in 
favor of was the trade deal with the country of Jordan. I did not vote 
for the Australian free trade agreement. Many of us opposed it. The 
Australian free trade agreement provided for countries enforcing their 
own labor laws. There is a history here. If you are going to enforce 
your own labor laws, you are not going to be able to deal in a free 
trade concept on the agreement you sign. It means nothing, in other 
words. This is unacceptable.
  In section 18.2 of the deal we made with Australia, very specifically 
it says: ``The parties recognize that each party retains the right to 
exercise discretion with respect to investigations, prosecutorial, 
regulatory, compliance matters, and to make decisions regarding the 
allocation of resources to enforcement.''
  In other words, in the Australian so-called free trade agreement we 
signed, the President of the United States signed, signed on the dotted 
line and blinked and winked at the Australians as to how that deal 
would be enforced. It means absolutely nothing, and it will not be 
enforced because of the language.
  Yet in the Jordanian trade deal, very specifically article 6, The 
parties reaffirm their obligations as members of the International 
Labor Organization, the ILO, and their commitments under the ILO 
Declaration of Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its 
follow-up. The parties shall strive to ensure that such labor 
principles and the internationally recognized labor rights set forth in 
paragraph 6 are recognized and protected by domestic law. There is the 
teeth. That is the basic difference between the Australian deal and the 
Jordanian free trade agreement. Standards. We need standards in any 
trade agreement not only to protect the workers in the other country, 
but to protect the workers in the United States of America.
  We should not give up that sovereignty. We should not give up that 
ability to protect our own workers, and that is not what is happening. 
We become a Wal-Mart economy. These people are underemployed, 
regardless of what we hear on the plethora of TV and radio commercials. 
These people are underemployed with very few benefits. And the fact of 
the matter is that it is a rotating system. People leave in a very 
short period of time.
  The Catholic bishops got it right. The Catholic bishops got it right 
on CAFTA. They said we believe that in an increasingly interdependent 
world, it is essential that economic globalization be made more human 
by globalizing solidarity among people everywhere. If this is not done, 
and they quoted Pope John Paul II, the poorest appear to have little 
hope. If globalization is ruled merely by the laws of the market, 
applied to suit the powerful, the consequences cannot but be negative:
  ``We are concerned,'' the bishops wrote, ``about the ability of CAFTA 
to increase opportunities for the poorest and most vulnerable and to 
enhance the prospect that they will genuinely benefit from increased 
trade.''
  Mr. Speaker, I intend in the coming days to show pictorially and 
narratively one example of what is happening in Nicaragua. This is an 
absolute disgrace. These countries have not told or shared with their 
citizens what is in the CAFTA agreement. In fact, the bishops point 
this out. Folks need to be educated before any two countries sign any 
kind of agreement. Do not keep folks in the dark. This is the 
multinational corporation agreement. This is not an agreement that is 
going to help the folks in that country or this country.
  And how many folks have come across the Rio Grande River from Mexico 
in just the last few years that NAFTA went into effect? The promise of 
NAFTA on this floor in 1993 was that it would stop the flow of illegal 
immigration that come across the Rio Grande into this country. We have 
doubled the amount of people because the companies that went to Mexico 
have now gone to China. We have participated in this vicious circle. I 
am glad the gentleman brought up that famous quote regarding the 
definition of insanity is doing something over and over and over again 
and expecting different results.
  Mr. Speaker, our policies are insane. They do not help the workers of 
this Nation. It is sad. But listen to what the bishops have had to say. 
They have had a lot to say.
  This is the time to stop these unfair agreements. We need a trade 
policy in this Nation that is fair before it is free. There are no free 
lunches here. We want a policy that the Members in the Congress of the 
United States are going to be able to vote upon and discuss and amend. 
I want my rights back under article I, section 8 of the Constitution. I 
demand them back or else we might as well go home and let us have a 
monarchy.
  The Forefathers fought this. They argued and debated one another. 
They said we should have three branches of government as a checks and 
balance. What checks and balances do we have on the trade agreements 
that both President Clinton and President Bush have put before the 
Congress with very little debate and we have given the store away? That 
is a fact of life. That is the truth. I ask anybody to come to this 
floor to deny it.
  Our current trade policy is not working, President Bush. It has not 
been functional for some time, I say to the past two Presidents. The 
Bush administration and the Clinton administration have only continued 
and increased its support for multinational imports over domestic 
industry. No wonder the containers come into this country filled, and 
they stay on the docks empty going nowhere. That is part of the trade 
deficit. Look at the empty containers. Congress must take the 
initiative and stop blindly approving free trade agreement after 
agreement.
  As we hemorrhage family-wage manufacturing jobs, how dare we say on 
the floor of this House that these trade agreements are going to bring 
better paying jobs, are going to sustain benefits to those workers, are 
going to sustain this economy. Our trade deficits grow and grow. 
Finally, Mr. Greenspan, in a moment of resiliency, has spoken out on 
this. Finally, we have two cups of coffee maybe instead of one.
  We cannot ignore that we live in a global economy. We must also use 
our strength to help improve the living conditions of those living in 
our partner nations and not just wink when we say it.

                              {time}  2015

  This Congress must defeat unfair trade agreements until we start 
forming trade policy rationally and fairly. You look at what happened 
to the Mexicans who came across the Rio Grande, our brothers and our 
sisters who came across that river. The promise that was given to them 
in 1993 was that you would not have to do that anymore. You will have a 
job. You will have a job that pays. You will have a job that gives you 
benefits. Your family will be able to live. How come they have come 
here? Because the jobs are not there.
  Who made money? Not those people. The multinational corporations made 
the money. CAFTA as drafted is not an agreement to accomplish these 
goals. It needs to be renegotiated. We do not want to bury it. We want 
to renegotiate it so that it is fair, so that it does have teeth, so 
that it protects the sovereignty of the United States and every other 
country who wishes to participate. I intend to show pictorially, and I 
will keep my word, on what has happened in Nicaragua, that poorest of 
all poor nations; $2,200 a year they make. They are going to buy 
American products? Is this reality TV or is this reality?
  I see my other friend from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), and I want to yield to 
her so that perhaps, when she finishes, we will have a triumvirate 
here.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I thank my dear colleague the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Brown) who has brought us together

[[Page H5622]]

this evening to discuss the pending vote on CAFTA, godchild of NAFTA, 
and my dear friend the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) who has 
been such a leader on all economic concerns that face our country, and 
indeed they are daunting, this one among them.
  As I listened to the gentleman from New Jersey and the gentleman from 
Ohio discuss this pending CAFTA vote, I could not help but think NAFTA. 
In a bullet, 1 million lost jobs for our country, of jobs all over this 
country, Ohio, New Jersey, California, Oregon. The list goes on and on. 
I think Ross Perot talked about the great sucking sound 10 years ago, 
and we certainly have seen that. This is going to be the last few 
inches left in the tub, are going to go down to Central America now on 
this continent.
  I usually talk about the economic dimension of NAFTA and CAFTA, but 
tonight for just a brief moment I wanted to talk a little bit about the 
political issues involved, most importantly freedom. If America's goal 
really is to export products, that is a good secondary goal. The first 
goal ought to be exporting freedom and finding a way to make sure that 
any agreement that we enter into advances the cause of freedom 
globally. If we look at NAFTA as a model of what happened economically, 
this chart very clearly demonstrates every single year since NAFTA's 
signing, we have moved into greater and greater job loss and greater 
movement of the deficit with Mexico as well as Canada. So it is 
negative; negative, negative, negative in exponential proportions. This 
is just an example in the automotive industry post-NAFTA. We had many 
more cars coming into our country from Mexico than exports going out. 
So it is pretty clear what it did economically.
  But politically, we ask ourselves, will CAFTA support growing 
democracy in Central America? Will we export freedom first? Do we 
consider trade more important than freedom?
  This agreement is going to undermine democracy in our neighboring 
Central American countries. Central America without question faces 
serious challenges in the consolidation of democracy and the protection 
of human rights. Peace accords in some of the countries that the 
gentleman from New Jersey and the gentleman from Ohio have been talking 
about tonight, peace accords in El Salvador and Guatemala and the end 
of the Contra war in Nicaragua signaled the beginning of a hopeful era 
for Central America, but the implementation of reforms there has been 
incomplete, and many democratic institutions remain weak. Increasing 
political violence, in Guatemala in particular, is a grave reminder 
that the conflict of previous decades has not been laid to rest.
  Just last week in another country, as high school and college 
students in El Salvador protested an increase in bus fare, Salvadoran 
riot police attacked the protesters, seriously injuring and detaining 
high school students. Riot police followed students as they retreated 
inside the gates of the university, setting off bombs of tear gas at 
them and opening fire on the students with what they claim were safe 
bullets. Four high school students were hospitalized, and others were 
arrested. To even try to freely assemble in these countries is met with 
great resistance. Still, civil society in Central America struggles to 
gain voice, and hundreds of thousands of small farmers, workers, women 
and young people have gathered in these countries to protest this CAFTA 
agreement as not contributing to the advancement of freedom in those 
nations. In recent months, there have been 10 significant protests in 
Guatemala. You have to be very courageous to demonstrate there. 
Thirteen in El Salvador. Twelve protests in Honduras. Six protests in 
Nicaragua. Seven in Costa Rica. They have ranged in attendance from 
10,000 to 250,000 people. The people of these countries are saying: 
United States, pay attention. This agreement will not help us. Hear our 
voices. Still, their voices are ignored by their own legislatures. They 
are doing this in order to try to get our attention.
  CAFTA passed under very undemocratic procedures in Honduras and 
Guatemala and El Salvador; with an early morning surprise vote in 
Honduras, we had parliamentarians from Honduras who just came here and 
told us that; and an emergency session in the Congress in Guatemala 
because, if they had considered it under regular order, it simply would 
not have passed. The public would have come into those chambers. They 
would have stood around the buildings and made their voices heard.
  Not only does CAFTA do nothing to promote democracy among our 
neighbors, but in fact, it undermines democratic processes here at 
home. For example, CAFTA's chapter 10 undermines our ability to uphold 
our living standards because, under this proposed agreement, 
corporations have the right to sue a government directly if they feel 
their ability to earn a profit has been undermined, for example, by a 
public health law or regulation. Is safe drinking water not important? 
Not having streams polluted, is that not important?
  CAFTA's chapter 10, which is modeled on NAFTA's investor right 
provisions, goes way beyond the rights granted to U.S. companies in the 
law. Under NAFTA's rules, indirect expropriation and loss of future 
profits constitute grounds for a NAFTA case. These rules have been 
reproduced in CAFTA, and they threaten a wide array of legitimate 
public health and environmental protections.
  Under NAFTA's investor provisions, several attacks have already been 
made on our democratically passed laws. For example, and I will just go 
through two of these, a Canadian gold mining company under NAFTA 
recently sued the United States to escape the cleanup and reclamation 
of a mine site in the United States, claiming this would have 
interfered with the Canadian company's profits. Well, too bad. Why 
should they leave behind squalor in this country or any other one? 
Another example, a Canadian company challenged California's right to 
ban the gasoline additive MTBE. California banned that ingredient 
because it leaks from underground gasoline storage tanks and polluted 
drinking and surface water throughout that water-short State. The 
Canadian company, Methanex, sued California for almost $1 billion 
because, they said, their profits were allegedly harmed by California's 
MTBE ban. Now, what sense does that make? Do we not have a social 
compact here? Do we not have the right to protect people and under 
freedom's institutions make sure that our laws reflect that?

  CAFTA aims to constrain local and national procurement laws that 
could otherwise address off-shoring, which I know my colleagues are 
concerned about, or promote economies that serve our communities, 
promoting living wage jobs and healthy ecosystems. What is wrong with 
that?
  In closing my opening remarks today, I guess I would have to say, 
what is next? What will be left of our democracy here at home after 
more trade agreements like CAFTA? What kind of model are we exporting, 
where freedom is shortchanged, where profits are given the green light? 
We should only have free trade among free people. We should use trade 
as a lever to raise living standards, and we should place freedom 
first. It is truly a joy to be with my colleagues here this evening and 
to try to fight in freedom's cause.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I thank the gentlewoman from Toledo, Ohio, who has 
been on this floor for literally more than 20 years arguing, fighting 
for American workers and fighting to lift up standards, everything from 
food safety to environment to workers' standards and standards of 
living in the poorest countries in the world and trying to get trade 
agreements that work for everybody.
  One thing that I particularly liked that the gentlewoman from Ohio 
said is that it is pretty clear that the opposition to these trade 
agreements is not just a few Democratic Members of Congress or 
Republican Members of Congress, it is also a wide swath of Americans 
who are against this. It is labor. It is working people and small 
manufacturers. It is environmentalists. It is religious leaders, but 
also, as the gentlewoman from Ohio points out, it is religious leaders 
in all of the CAFTA countries. It is workers in all of the CAFTA 
countries. It is poor people in all of the CAFTA countries. They had to 
pull late-night shenanigans, as they have on occasion in this body, in 
several countries in Central America to even pass this agreement.

[[Page H5623]]

  We hear the people for CAFTA saying, Well, the people of Central 
America need this. It will make them more prosperous. It will help 
them. It will help keep them from being so poor. It will help raise 
their standard of living. But we do not see any evidence that people in 
Central America want this agreement except for the wealthiest in those 
countries. And as we all have said in our opening remarks, this 
agreement is negotiated by a select few for a select few. It is 
negotiated by the largest corporations for the largest corporations. It 
is negotiated by the drug industry, the insurance industry, the banks, 
the financial institutions because they, in fact, will benefit. The 
wealthy corporate interests in Guatemala will benefit as they do in the 
United States. But workers in both countries will not benefit. 
Religious leaders in both countries think this is a bad idea, 
environmentalists, all kinds of people.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Trade agreements, as I learned about them through 
school and reading on my own, used to be about tariff levels and 
quotas. That was the basis of trade agreements. But the modern trade 
agreement is about much more than just importing and exporting goods. I 
agree that foreign policy and trade go together. This is very critical. 
These agreements, and specifically the one we are talking about now, 
include entire chapters on foreign investor rights.
  If I may, I want to talk about that just for a few moments, the 
ownership in domestic regulation of services and even how tax dollars 
can be spent on procurement, buying things. We have had debates on the 
floor of the House in the last 2 months which have centered upon the 
sovereignty, the independence of our country in the world. Just last 
month, we saw a comprehensive United Nations reform measure pass this 
House. In that debate, we heard about how the U.N., the International 
Criminal Court, and other global bodies can undermine policies set by 
this Congress and this Federal Government. How any of those same 
critics can support CAFTA is beyond me. These agreements include, as I 
said, whole chapters on foreign investor rights. Over the past 10 
years, NAFTA, which is the model for this piece of legislation, has 
been a disaster for American sovereignty and has undermined the intent 
of our Constitution.
  The much reviled NAFTA chapter 11 was designed to grant special legal 
protection and new rights to corporations from one NAFTA country that 
invests in another NAFTA country. Again, we see multinational 
corporations winning out over the little guy. We have surrendered our 
independence as a nation. Extraordinarily, NAFTA chapter 11 provided 
for the private enforcement of these investor rights by the investors 
themselves outside of the nation's domestic court system and in a 
closed-door trade tribunal. How can you be so concerned about what the 
U.N. is imposing upon the United States and not look at what CAFTA is 
doing to the sovereignty of this greatest of all democracies? Secret 
tribunals have the ability to override our Federal courts. They have 
the ability to exact fines from the Federal Treasury. They have the 
ability to make new Federal policies outside the congressional process.

                              {time}  2030

  In the 2002 Fast Track law, we attempted to add some assurances that 
trade agreements could no longer replicate this dangerous chapter 11 
precedent outlined in NAFTA. We did not succeed. The language enacted 
in the final Fast Track bill was weak at best. The act did state that 
foreign investors should have no ``greater substantive rights with 
respect to investment protections than U.S. investors in the United 
States.'' This is unbelievable. The investment provisions of CAFTA 
failed to satisfy even the modest congressional requirement. And I must 
say on this point, this CAFTA agreement provides greater rights to 
foreign investors and businesses than provided to the United States 
citizens and the United States businesses. Read it. Do not take my word 
for it. Go to the document.
  How anybody could stand on this floor, and I know those that did, and 
beg us to make sure the United Nations does not undermine the 
sovereignty of the United States and not have the same standard in 
looking at the CAFTA agreement and chapter 11 in the NAFTA agreement 
and not say we have surrendered. The United States has surrendered 
under this agreement.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the gentleman for his 
passion and for placing the net result of the architecture of NAFTA and 
all succeeding agreements that follow in its path like this proposed 
CAFTA because what we see is a system, an economic system, that is 
really very cruel, foisted upon societies that do not have the legal 
system nor the financial system nor the political systems to really 
allow the voices of the people to be heard in their chambers of 
government.
  In Mexico, after people's wages were cut by 40 percent, the value of 
their buying power down by 40 percent post-NAFTA, nearly 2 million 
people in the countryside thrown off their land, what happened there, 
they got so angry, there have been protests in Mexico City of a million 
people. A million people. That is three times as many people as live in 
the major city that I represent. They could not have their voices heard 
any other way. There was a group of farmers that got on their horses 
from the different states in northern Mexico and central Mexico. They 
literally rode into the parliament to try to say stop it, this is 
hurting us too much.
  That is about all they can do to make their voices heard unless they 
can change over their government. They come here and say to us, 
America, do you not realize what you are doing to us, whom you are in 
partnership with? They are begging us to help them improve their 
societies. Do we not have the greatness as a Nation that believes in 
freedom and the liberty for all people that we would use our powers, 
political, economic, moral, whatever they might be, to help these poor 
people? What is wrong with us? We have been hurt ourselves greatly by 
our jobs moving to Mexico and other places. We know how tough it is.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, may I suggest to the gentlewoman from Ohio 
that it is not the Congress that is making the trade agreements. I have 
pointed that out before. We have surrendered that right, that power. I 
do not even think it is the President. What do my colleagues know about 
that? We have surrendered to many multinational corporations. They are 
making the trade deals at our expense.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Ohio would continue to 
yield, I think what the gentleman from New Jersey said is absolutely 
accurate, and they expect that through the institutions that are set 
up, these NAFTA tribunals or CAFTA tribunals or TWO or they meet in 
places that most people had never heard of. Right? Davos, who can get 
there? Do people want to go to a meeting somewhere on the west coast of 
Mexico around Cancun or whatever that was? The roads are blocked off.
  They tried to pass something here on GATT. When did they do it? In a 
lame duck session after midnight. In these countries, by special 
session, early in the morning, late at night, and the people in those 
societies even have less opportunity to try to impact the legislative 
process, as I have spoken about this evening. So we have surrendered, 
we have surrendered to the largest, most powerful private corporations 
on the face of the Earth: oil companies, automotive companies, 
electrical companies, and agricultural companies, people that need 
cheap labor whether it is to make clothing or whether it is to pick 
sugar beets, whatever it is. What we have done is we have let that big 
bulldozer ride over all of us.
  And here we stand in the citadel of freedom this evening and we say 
to ourselves, is this the best we can do? Is this the best we can do, a 
Nation that rebuilt Europe after the Second World War, a Nation that 
worked for 50 years to see the collapse of the Soviet regime? Is this 
the best we can do in the modern age in the 21st century?
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

[[Page H5624]]

  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, would it not be great if we put an end to 
it in this Congress on both sides of the aisle? The gentleman from Ohio 
knows better than anybody there are a number of people, I cannot count 
the ones and I am not taking them for granted, I never do that, but 
there are a number of people on the other side who see through this 
fantasy and are willing to stand up for it. We know that pressure is 
going to be put on them. Two administrations past, pressure was put on 
folks right here, right here. And I supported President Clinton on most 
of what he ever wanted.
  But on trade, I think the administration and the executive branch of 
government are selling our intellect short, and our responsibilities, I 
want those responsibilities back. I believe that Congress should be 
part of a negotiating team to negotiate these agreements and then bring 
them to the floor, we debate them, and we pass it. We need to do 
something to make these agreements fair. Up until now we have not.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, both the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) and the gentlewoman from Ohio 
(Ms. Kaptur) have pointed out how these agreements are not fair. They 
are written by a select few for a select few, and the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) writes about how especially working people in Central 
America and the Dominican Republic simply cannot figure out how to get 
their voices heard. They ride their horses from the far end of the 
capital and try to tell their legislators this agreement is not working 
for them.
  But what we are seeing this week is there are a handful of Central 
American legislators that have come here to say this is a bad idea for 
our country and various different countries in Central America. We are 
seeing a Central American Roman Catholic cardinal join with American 
Catholic leaders and Lutheran and Presbyterian leaders in our country 
saying this is bad for the poor in all seven countries. It is bad for 
the poor in the United States. It is bad for the poor in Costa Rica and 
the Dominican Republic, in El Salvador and Guatemala, in Honduras and 
Nicaragua.
  This agreement, if we want to talk about economic justice and social 
justice, as all of us, and I know faith is important to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Kaptur) as it is to me, if we want to talk about what faith is all 
about, any religious faith to which one ascribes, it is clear that 
faith is about social and economic justice.
  That is why the cardinal is here talking to Members of Congress about 
how this hurts his flock in Central America. That is why Lutheran and 
Presbyterian leaders and activists in our country are here talking to 
their Members of Congress, saying this is not fair to our communities, 
it does not work for our families, it does not work for our workers, it 
does not work for the environment, it does not work for anybody but 
those large companies that the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) 
talked about, the large oil companies, the banks, the insurance 
companies, the drug companies, the big multinationals, that will use 
this agreement to not lift standards up in any country but to outsource 
jobs, to ship jobs overseas.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I ask either one of my colleagues what are 
the circumstances that allow us to vote for a bill where foreign 
investors and foreign firms are granted greater rights than U.S. 
citizens and United States firms? What is the rationale? I will listen 
very carefully.
  I have read the document. To those who are going to vote for it and 
do not want to read it, they do not know what is there, please read the 
document. How can they vote for a surrender of sovereignty? They took 
the oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States. How 
can they surrender sovereignty of this Nation? Do my colleagues think 
folks understand that in this Chamber?
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New 
Jersey for so effectively raising that issue this evening because I do 
not think the public fully understands who can take whom to court and 
how our basic legal rights are undermined through the NAFTA agreement 
and the CAFTA agreement. We basically abdicate that to these bodies 
that have no transparency. They have no regular right for an individual 
citizen, for example, to take a claim. We end up with big corporations 
taking the laws of the State of New York to court or the United States 
of America to court.
  I mentioned the instance where a Canadian company, a company, 
challenged California as a State their right to ban MTBE from their 
gasoline because it was polluting their water, of which they have a 
limited amount.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
there is no question in my mind that we are surrendering the 
sovereignty of this Nation if we vote ``yes'' on this legislation. 
There is a legitimate debate in this Nation about what public interest 
functions are inherently governmental. Governments choose at what times 
and with what vendors they wish to procure goods and services. The 
procurement issue is a very central point in the CAFTA debate. The 
votes are there to outsource some tasks and not there for others. They 
are there to purchase locally made products in some cases, import 
services in other cases. On a State and local level, these same debates 
are considered every day as the Constitution properly allows them to be 
considered. Democracy lives.
  But under CAFTA, under CAFTA, whether a state privatizes its auto 
inspection program, whether we give preferences for a local 
construction firm, whether a city privatizes its water system, 
Nicaragua, is not necessarily a local decision. It is potentially an 
international case. How can we accept these conditions?
  Globalization is here. We do not and cannot deny that fact. But that 
does not mean we must give up the values we hold dear to us. That does 
not mean that we must take what we are given by this administration. 
Congress has rights too. I thank my friend from Ohio, my two friends 
from Ohio. Why is it that folks from Ohio are always there to protect 
the American worker? And I thank each of them for all they have done 
through all of these years.
  We are not going to take one step backwards on this deal. We are 
going to say this is the end of it.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman so effectively raises the 
issues of sovereignty and of protecting our legal system based on a 
rule of law with individual rights embedded in those very deeply, and I 
wanted to thank him for his constant leadership, as well as the 
gentleman from Ohio's (Mr. Brown) leadership in this whole anti-CAFTA 
effort, and say that, in addition to the sovereignty issue, following 
on something the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) said, I think one also 
has to look at the morality of what is being done here, and his 
reference to the religious leaders that are coming here from Central 
America this week, certainly I think of the Roman Catholic Guatemalan 
cardinal and his tremendous letter that he wrote.
  But according to Christian teaching, we remember the words: ``As you 
do unto them, the least of my brethren, so you do unto me.'' And we, as 
the most powerful Nation in the world, have to think about the impact 
of what we are doing as a country on the least among us not just at 
home but abroad. And without question, as the gentleman from Ohio has 
stated, the net income and the earning power of those in these Central 
American countries, in El Salvador, Guatemala, we put them all 
together, they are so poor. They are so low income. Our predilection 
should be to have a preference for the poor, that, in fact, we should 
make it no worse than they already have it.
  And we can see the women who are working in those banana packing 
houses who earn pennies a day, bitten by spiders, and they are told to 
pack 40 boxes; no, pack 50 boxes an hour; no, pack 100; no, pack 200, 
until they wear out, and then there is another person lined up. They 
have no rights.
  And how about in the places that sew clothing? Those are largely 
women

[[Page H5625]]

workers. They have no voice. They earn pennies. It takes them 2 weeks 
of work to even afford one pair of the trousers they make that are sold 
in this country for $39. What is right about that?

                              {time}  2045

  What about those people? Are we not to think about them as well? Yes, 
those jobs were lost in South Carolina or Mississippi, or they moved 
somewhere from this country, and we fought that with these unfair trade 
advantages that some of these multinationals have.
  Now, what this is doing is it is putting a Good Housekeeping Seal of 
Approval on a system that we know is so exploitative. It is bad for our 
people and horrendous for those doing the work in these packing sheds 
and these hot, dusty textile companies that no one will ever see.
  I remember hearing a letter written by one woman working in a company 
that was headed by a South Korean who was making the women work faster 
and faster and faster and faster with no rights. That is where our 
country was 70 years ago, and we got rid of that kind of sweatshop 
condition, or at least we got the laws on the books to allow people to 
have some dignity in their work.
  We should not be giving any Good Housekeeping Stamp of Approval to a 
system which will approve that kind of sweatshop labor that is going 
down in Central America, which this will exacerbate.
  We should listen to the people, listen to those who are 
demonstrating, listen to those traveling here, listen to their 
religious leaders and using our power, which is our marketplace. They 
all want to take their stuff in here. So let us lift standards 
elsewhere as a condition of market entry, and let us make sure, by 
raising living standards, we do not keep washing out jobs in this 
country more and more.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the 
gentlewoman from Toledo, Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  As we wrap up in the last 60 or 90 seconds, what I again point out, 
what the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) said, working conditions 
and the standard of living in all of these CAFTA countries. Nicaragua, 
people are making $2,300 a year; Honduras, $2,600 a year. This 
agreement does nothing to lift up living standards in those countries.
  It means, one, they cannot buy American products as the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) has said, but it also means they 
continue to live in abject poverty. And this agreement does nothing to 
lift them up. That is why the opposition to CAFTA is so broad. That is 
why the cardinal is here this week. That is why Central American 
legislators have come up here and paid their own way to get here, I 
believe. That is why religious leaders in our country who see this 
issue, this agreement, as a moral question, what we do to the least 
among us, and so many people, religious leaders, advocates for the 
poor, advocates for working people, unions, small businesses that care 
about their communities, Republicans and Democrats alike, have joined 
against this agreement.
  That is why if this vote on CAFTA were held tonight, if it were held 
right now, this agreement would go down by 20 or 25 votes. I will make 
a prediction, and I have heard the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Pascrell) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) say the same sort 
of thing, we know that in the next 2 weeks, if this comes up to a vote, 
that the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the 
most prominent and most powerful Member of this body, will put immense 
pressure on Republican Members to change their votes, to vote against 
what they were going to do, to change their vote and vote for this 
agreement. And the prediction I would make is if this comes to a vote, 
if in fact they think it is close enough for a vote, they will bring it 
up in the middle of the night; the roll call will stay open not the 
regular 15 minutes, but for an hour, 2 hours or 3 hours, as they have 
done before; and if it in fact passes, it will pass by no more than two 
or three votes.
  That is the way business is all too often done here. And when this 
agreement so clearly runs counter to what most Americans want, it runs 
counter to what most Central Americans and Latin Americans want, it 
runs counter to what is good for business and what is good for workers 
in our country, the only way that they can possibly pass it is to twist 
arms, exert all kinds of pressures, open up the taxpayer bank and give 
out all kinds of pork projects to Members so they can get this 
agreement through. If it passes, it will pass by no more than two or 
three votes, we can count on that.
  But if this Congress, this House of Representatives, follows what the 
word ``representative'' means and really represents the people whom we 
are supposed to represent, this agreement will be defeated and Members 
of this body will look for a new, renegotiated CAFTA that will lift 
living standards up in the six Latin Americans countries and in the 
United States and will actually be a win for everyone involved.
  Mr. Speaker, I particularly thank my friend, the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), who has been so stalwart in this for so many years, 
and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), who speaks so 
eloquently about our constitutional rights and sovereignty and where we 
should go as a Nation.

                          ____________________