[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 104 (Wednesday, July 27, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H6869-H6878]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3045, DOMINICAN REPUBLIC-CENTRAL
AMERICA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 386 and ask for its immediate consideration.
[[Page H6870]]
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 386
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R.
3045) to implement the Dominican Republic-Central America-
United States Free Trade Agreement. All points of order
against the bill and against its consideration are waived.
The bill shall be considered as read. The bill shall be
debatable for two hours equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways
and Means. Pursuant to section 151 of the Trade Act of 1974,
the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
bill to final passage without intervening motion.
Sec. 2. During consideration of H.R. 3045 pursuant to this
resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous
question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the
bill to a time designated by the Speaker in consonance with
section 151 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Sec. 3. A motion to proceed to consideration of H.R. 3045
pursuant to section 151 of the Trade Act of 1974 shall be in
order only if offered by the Majority Leader or his designee.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier)
is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, with today's consideration of the Dominican
Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement, we are now embarking
upon debate on one of the most important national security issues of
the 109th Congress. At the same time, we are addressing the
extraordinarily important issues of border protection and economic
growth in this country and throughout this hemisphere. These issues are
becoming increasingly intertwined.
Just last week, India's Prime Minister stood right here in this
Chamber and spoke very eloquently when he said the following:
``Globalization has made the world so interdependent that none of us
can ignore what happens elsewhere. Peace and prosperity are more
indivisible than ever before in human history.''
Mr. Speaker, Prime Minister Singh is absolutely right. We cannot
afford to pretend that poor, political, and economic conditions outside
our borders do not affect the security of our Nation. As we work to
spread democracy in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere to combat global
terrorism, we must not neglect the anti-democracy, anti-American forces
that are at work in Latin America.
Although our neighbors to the south have chosen democracy over
dictatorship, their old oppressors still refuse to go quietly.
Nicaragua's former communist dictator, Daniel Ortega, wants to return
to power. He has tried time and time again, Mr. Speaker, to do that.
And he is staking his campaign in large part on the defeat of the
Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement. He has found
good company with Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, who is actively using his
nation's oil proceeds to undermine democracy, free markets, and
American interests throughout this hemisphere.
Together with Tomas Borge, the former defense minister, the only
surviving founding member of the Sandinista Front, they oppose this
agreement because it would solidify the region's commitment to
political and economic freedom, thus subverting their plans for
reinstalling leftist control in Nicaragua. The only alliance they seek
would bind together other anti-American parties like Cuba's Fidel
Castro.
Mr. Speaker, The Washington Post editorialized just yesterday in
strong support of the Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade
Agreement, and they said the following: ``The defeat of CAFTA would
help . . . anti-American demogogues, starting with Mr. Chavez. For
them, the retreat of the United States from partnership with Central
America would be a major victory.''
Mr. Speaker, ceding this victory to the likes of Chavez and Ortega
clearly goes against our best interests, against our national security
priorities. It would be the beginning of a return to the era that
Central Americans, with the help of the United States, worked so hard
during the decade of the 1980s to leave behind, an era marked by
totalitarianism, unrest, and the poverty that breeds desperation. This
would obviously be a harsh reality for the people of Central America.
But a return to the Ortega style of government would have grave
consequences for the United States of America as well. Without
political and economic freedom, there can be little hope for the
future. And without hope, Central Americans with families to feed will
look north for economic opportunity.
Nearly all illegal immigrants to the United States come in search of
work because of limited opportunity at home. In fact, Mr. Speaker, T.J.
Bonner, the president of the National Border Patrol Council, estimates
that 98 percent of illegal immigrants come to this country for economic
opportunity, seeking a chance to feed their families.
If we want to combat illegal immigration, we must address its root
causes. By providing the tools for economic growth in the region, DR-
CAFTA will create new opportunities and provide hope for the future in
the region where these people are. The people of Central America will
have a powerful incentive to stay and build their lives in their own
countries rather than make the dangerous and illegal attempt to enter
our country.
Rejecting this agreement, Mr. Speaker, would simply sanction, even
exacerbate, the problem of illegal immigration. We simply cannot ignore
the fact that the strength of democratic and free market institutions
throughout the globe, particularly in our own backyard, directly
impacts our own security. By the same token, we cannot ignore the fact
that the worldwide marketplace directly impacts our own economic
strength.
Mr. Speaker, we all know and everyone recognizes that we have a
global economy. We live in a world that continues to shrink, enabling
us to, in the words of the New York Times columnist Tom Friedman,
``reach around the world farther, faster, deeper, and cheaper than ever
before.''
Mr. Speaker, new technologies are connecting the world's
entrepreneurs, risk takers, creative thinkers, and capital, including
human capital. This worldwide network has been a powerful engine for
growth in the United States economy. We have grown to an $11.5 trillion
economy. We are the world's largest exporter and importer. We lead the
global economy not just by sheer size but by the force of our
innovation.
But we cannot take our global economic leadership for granted. The
worldwide economy is dynamic and fast paced. China has emerged as a
global powerhouse and shows no signs whatsoever of slowing down. India,
as we heard from the Prime Minister, is becoming a formidable
competitor in one of our core areas of strength, the high-tech sector.
Passage of the Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement
represents an opportunity we simply cannot afford to forfeit, the
chance to dramatically strengthen our competitiveness as a country and
as a region. Further integration of our regional economy will allow us
to draw upon all of our strengths and resources to produce locally and
compete globally.
{time} 1830
The DR-CAFTA and U.S. economies already complement each other well.
The textile and apparel industries are a great example of that, Mr.
Speaker. The DR-CAFTA region represents our second largest market for
fabric and our largest market for yarn. Nearly 25 percent of U.S.
fabric exports and 40 percent of U.S. yarn exports are sent to the
Central American countries and the Dominican Republic. The region
exports nearly all of its apparel; 97 percent of its apparel comes to
consumers right here in the United States of America.
As a result of this close, complementary relationship, apparel
manufactured in the DR-CAFTA region is made up of 80 percent U.S.-made
content. By contrast, Chinese apparel is made up of less than 2 percent
U.S. content. Again, that is 80 percent versus 2 percent in terms of
American-made content.
[[Page H6871]]
Now, I ask my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, in the face of the Chinese
juggernaut, why on Earth would we turn our backs on the very region
that supports U.S. industries and offers the opportunity for us to
effectively compete with China and other global competitors?
Trade with the DR-CAFTA countries is so important precisely because
of this global context. The U.S. economy will not be weakened as a
result of the people of Latin America lifting themselves out of
poverty, but it will be weakened if we reject the economic partnerships
that make us strong and enable us to compete in the global economy.
In this interconnected world, isolation is simply not possible. The
state of the global economy affects our economic strength. Our economic
partnerships affect the prosperity of our neighbors and the security of
our borders. Prosperity leads to a greater commitment to the principles
of political and economic freedom; and strong, democratic institutions
throughout the globe lead to greater security for our country.
National security and economic competitiveness must be addressed in a
comprehensive way that fully accounts for this interconnected global
context. With DR-CAFTA, we have the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to do
just that. We can enhance our competitiveness while creating new
opportunities for growth in the DR-CAFTA countries. By spurring
economic growth, we can reduce the incentives for illegal immigration
and strengthen democracy and the rule of law in the region. And, by
supporting democratic institutions, we can advance our own security and
our interests.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the very
important vote that we are going to have on the Dominican Republic
Central American Free Trade Agreement so that we can enhance the
quality of life and the standard of living for the people of the United
States of America, for the people of the five Central American
countries impacted by this, and the people of the Dominican Republic.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from
California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules, for
yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Today the House is debating a trade agreement of tremendous import
not because the markets, exports or money involved are especially
significant; the six countries involved, Costa Rica, El Salvador,
Nicaragua, Guatemala, Honduras, and the Dominican Republic, are smaller
in combined economic clout than the average midsize American city. Most
of their products already enter the United States duty free, and our
exports to them are modest.
No, Mr. Speaker, this debate is important because it brings into
sharp focus the differences over what our global economy should look
like, of how we in the United States and our global trading partners
seek to grow our national economies, create good jobs at decent wages,
and generate the kind of revenue necessary to provide basic public
goods and services, promote human health, and protect the environment.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, this rule is an outrage, an absolute
disgrace. It is one of the most disrespectful rules issued by the
Committee on Rules, which has become infamous for shutting down debate.
This rule allows for only 2 hours of debate on the CAFTA
Implementation Act. That is just 60 minutes each for supporters and
opponents of this agreement to make their voices heard on this very
important and very controversial trade agreement.
I know that nearly every Member on this side of the aisle would like
an opportunity to speak on this bill, to make clear to the American
people, and especially to their constituents at home, why he or she
supports or opposes this trade bill. Mr. Speaker, if every opponent
wanted time to speak, then this rule would allow each of them to have
just 16.8 seconds to make a statement, and the same holds true for
those Members who support CAFTA. What a mockery of the democratic
process.
In 1993, when the Congress debated the North American Free Trade
Agreement, the rule granted Members 8 hours of debate; 8 hours, Mr.
Speaker. Sadly, since Republicans have exercised control of Congress,
we have seen the complete erosion of debate on trade agreements, where
now just 2 hours of debate has become the standard. Well, a couple of
hours might serve for a debate on a Free Trade Agreement with Australia
or Jordan or even Chile or Singapore, agreements that garnered fairly
broad bipartisan support and were not viewed as very controversial.
But CAFTA is arguably the most controversial trade agreement that has
come before this House since NAFTA, and the Members of this House
deserve much better than the shabby treatment handed to them by the
Republicans of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. Speaker, this is not a debate over whether or not to trade with
Central America. We already trade extensively with Central American
countries and the Dominican Republic. But this is a debate, Mr.
Speaker, about people's jobs, both here in the United States and in
Central America. Now, maybe they do not care about jobs on the other
side of the aisle, but, to the average worker, it is a big deal.
I am tired of trade agreements that do not improve workers' wage
protections or benefits, but, rather, are a rush to the bottom that
puts profits above people.
Since 2000, the United States has lost 2.8 million manufacturing jobs
and 1 million high-technology jobs. We now have a $162 billion trade
deficit with China, and a $42 billion deficit with Mexico. Clearly, the
rules of international trade have failed the American worker, the
American standard of living, and the American dream, and have made
American jobs our number one export. CAFTA will further this trend by
rewarding companies that throw U.S. workers out on the streets and by
creating jobs in countries where labor is cheapest, environmental laws
are weakest, and where the rights of workers are violated and scorned.
But this rule, Mr. Speaker, will deny Members the right to debate
these very serious matters.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject this rule
and demand the right to speak.
Mr. Speaker, today the House is debating a trade agreement of
tremendous import--not because the markets, exports or money involved
are especially significant--the six countries involved--Costa Rica, El
Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Honduras and the Dominican Republic--
are smaller in combined economic clout than the average mid-size
American city. Most of their products already enter the United States
duty-free, and our exports to them are modest.
No, Mr. Speaker, this debate is important because it brings into
sharp focus the differences over what our global economy should look
like; of how we in the United States and our global trading partners
seek to grow our national economies, create good jobs at decent wages,
and generate the kind of revenue necessary to provide basic public
goods and services, promote human health, and protect the environment.
This is not a debate over whether or not to trade with Central
America. We already trade extensively with all the Central American
countries and the Dominican Republic. In addition, we have special
trade relations with all of them under the GSP and the Caribbean Basin
Initiative.
Mr. Speaker, the months and weeks leading up to this vote have been
filled with the sounds of battle between so-called ``free trade''
versus ``fair trade.'' Mr. Speaker, I am more interested in ``smart''
trade.
Smart trade is about who gets protected under this agreement and who
does not.
Smart trade provides significant gains for U.S. workers and
consumers, as well as businesses.
Smart trade supports and strengthens development, democracy and the
rule of law.
Smart trade guarantees economic opportunity for those who may be
displaced by trade.
Smart trade is concerned about what happens to the most vulnerable--
in our country and in our trading partners.
Smart trade is sustainable, both here at home and abroad, because it
is created in a bipartisan fashion--and because it brings the benefits
of trade to all countries, and to all the people of those countries,
including the poorest.
[[Page H6872]]
Judged against these standards and principles, CAFTA is neither
``free'' nor ``fair'' trade, and it is certainly not ``smart trade.''
Mr. Speaker, since the year 2000, the United States has lost 2.8
million manufacturing jobs and one million high-technology jobs. We now
have a $162 billion trade deficit with China and a $45 billion deficit
with Mexico. Clearly, the rules of international trade have failed the
American worker, the American standard of living and the American
dream, and have made American jobs our number one export. CAFTA will
further this trend by rewarding companies that throw U.S. workers out
on the streets, and by creating jobs in countries where labor is
cheapest, environmental laws are weakest, and where the rights of
workers are violated and scorned.
Even so, CAFTA is not likely to provide any real increase in U.S.
jobs or production. The six CAFTA countries together currently account
for barely one percent of U.S. trade. In addition, about 80 percent of
the people in CAFTA countries live at or below the poverty line--which
is about two to three dollars a day--or $400 to $900 a year, depending
on which country we're looking at. Almost half the population works in
subsistence agriculture. The only significant export industries in
these countries--with the exception of Costa Rica--are apparel and
agriculture.
This is the reality of life in Central America, and it should be a
sobering reminder to all of us: The overwhelming majority of people in
the CAFTA-DR region are not consumers of high-value American goods--but
they are extremely vulnerable to the kind of dislocation caused by such
trade openings.
Mr. Speaker, we should not visit the mistakes of NAFTA upon the
people of Central America. To take just one example, wages for Mexican
workers are even lower today than they were before NAFTA.
And while U.S. agricultural exports to Mexico greatly increased,
millions of poor Mexican farmers lost what little income they had,
often even losing their small plots of land. In order to survive, they
now farm even more marginal land, cut down forests, or use chemical
inputs that pollute the water and poison the soil. Is this what we have
in mind for Central America's campesino farmers? It is if we adopt this
CAFTA agreement.
Mr. Speaker, a critical issue in strengthening democracy is to
protect and expand human rights. Workers' rights are human rights. They
are not a luxury. As every wealthy nation can attest, they are central
to improving living standards and quality of life, and creating a broad
middle class.
While there are a number of labor provisions in the CAFTA agreement,
they are enforceable under only one trigger: Namely, if a country fails
to enforce its own labor laws. CAFTA countries' labor laws, Mr.
Speaker, are internationally recognized as weak.
Whether you are looking at reports by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty
International, the International Labor Organization, the United
Nations, or our own State Department Country Reports--Central American
labor laws are criticized for failing to meet international standards
of freedom of association, the right to organize, and the right to
bargain collectively. This doesn't even begin to touch upon the lack of
health and safety guarantees in the workplace.
Also universally acknowledged is that even these weak laws are not
enforced. Ineffective judicial systems, coupled with the power
exercised by political and economic elites, derail nearly every attempt
to enforce current labor laws.
We had an opportunity under CAFTA to negotiate provisions that would
have promoted the enactment of stronger labor laws and dispute
mechanisms in the CAFTA region. But under the agreement before us
today, that opportunity has been squandered.
Mr. Speaker, I am very familiar with the CAFTA region. I have
traveled widely throughout Central America, especially in El Salvador,
Guatemala and Nicaragua. I have formed deep attachments to the people
of this region, and I appreciate how far these countries have come
since the wars there ended. I want to see their democracies thrive; I
want to see their lives and livelihoods improve; and I think a good
trade agreement could make a valuable contribution to these efforts.
But this CAFTA is not such an agreement.
All the issues of concern that will be raised during today's debate
are not new. They have been cited and documented for the past 3 years
in anticipation of the initiation of talks between the U.S. and the
Central American governments, during the negotiations, and after CAFTA
was signed.
The central design for fast-track, up-or-down voting procedures on
trade agreements was to place a premium on consultation and
accommodation during the conception and negotiations of trade
agreements--in effect, to pursue a bipartisan trade policy. But the DR-
CAFTA negotiations turned its back on this process. Not just
Democrats--but anyone and everyone who tried to raise issues about
labor rights, or environmental protection, or transparency and
participation, or the need for access by the poor to critical life-
saving drugs, or the vulnerability of critical agricultural or
manufacturing industries, or the need to account for the vulnerability
of the rural poor--were completely and totally shut down and shut out.
This is why this trade agreement in particular has been so
universally criticized throughout Central American and the United
States by religious leaders and communities, labor organizations,
campesino groups, environmental and women's organizations, legal
advocates, small farmers, and consumer groups.
When the U.S. Trade Representative announces there is absolutely no
way for CAFTA to be renegotiated, I can only ask, ``Why not?'' If the
fast track, one-vote-is-all-you-get process results in the defeat of
this CAFTA agreement, then wouldn't the House clearly be calling for a
renegotiation of the agreement? Saying--Pay attention to our concerns
and go back to the table? It took the Bush administration barely 1 year
to negotiate this CAFTA--why not take some time to get it right?
Mr. Speaker, this agreement fails to learn from the mistakes of
NAFTA. It fails poor workers and poor farmers throughout the CAFTA
region, who make up the majority of the people. And most importantly,
it fails our own workers, consumers and communities.
Vote it down, Mr. Speaker. Vote it down.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me just say that one of our colleagues on the Committee on Rules,
the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), said we should make it
retroactive, the 2 hours of debate. We clearly have been debating this
issue for weeks and months, Special Orders have been taken out here,
and we are looking forward to a rigorous debate not only during the
hour on this rule, but for an additional 2 hours, or 3 hours this
evening at this point.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Miami, Florida
(Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart), my very distinguished friend, the vice
chairman of the Committee on Rules, and a great champion for political
pluralism and democratic institutions in this region.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, every once in a
while, a vote comes before us that is evidently more than important,
and this is one such vote. This is an historic vote that we are taking
today on a special relationship with the countries of Central America
and the Dominican Republic. Those countries, their Presidents, their
Parliaments, have taken a definitive step; they have resisted the
totalitarian temptations, the destabilization efforts of the axis of
Ortega and Chavez with his hundreds of millions of dollars that he is
pouring into these countries and the entire region to destabilize them.
They have resisted that access, and they have voted for a special
relationship with the United States.
Talk about pressure, I say to my colleagues. Mr. Speaker, the
pressures that are genuine, that are extraordinary, are the ones that
are felt by those countries, the countries of Central America and the
Dominican Republic, to accept, to go forth with a totalitarian
temptation, and they have rejected that.
They have provided troops to help us in the war against terrorism in
Iraq. What would we be saying, Mr. Speaker, if we voted against CAFTA
today? ``Thank you. Thank you for your help in Iraq. Thank you for
progressing with democratic reforms, for establishing democracy. Thank
you, but no thanks. We do not want you to tie your histories, your
destinies, your futures to the United States, which is what you have
decided to do.''
We have an obligation, Mr. Speaker, to say, yes, we are proud of our
special relationship with our brother countries of this hemisphere. We
recognize that you are our allies, you are our friends. You have stood
with us in peace, you have stood with us in war, you have decided to
tie your futures to us, and we say, welcome.
That is what this vote is all about, Mr. Speaker. It is a critically
important historic vote. Say ``yes'' to the rule and say ``yes'' to
this agreement. Say ``yes'' to CAFTA.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 5 minutes to the
distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the ranking
Democrat on the Committee on Rules and someone who believes that we
should have a deliberative process here in the House.
[[Page H6873]]
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned that as this discussion on CAFTA
moves forward that the majority will, once again, succumb to the
temptation to twist, bend, and break off the rules of debate and
consideration in order to meet their objectives, just as they did
during the Medicare debate of the 108th Congress.
During that debate the vote on final passage was held open for a
shameful 3 hours while the Republican leadership twisted arms and cut
deals to make up their vote deficit. The events of that night
constituted one of the worst abuses of power I have witnessed in my
almost 20 years in this House.
In the aftermath, allegations of bribery were leveled by a Republican
Congressman, and an Ethics Committee investigation followed closely
behind, one that ended in the admonishment of the majority leader of
this House.
It is no secret that, just like last time, the Republican leadership
is desperately scrambling to find the votes necessary to pass this
bill, which I and many of my colleagues strongly oppose. But I would
warn my friends in the majority that we dare not see a return to those
underhanded tactics used by the leadership during the 108th Congress.
There should be no votes held open for 3 hours. There should be no
unethical arm-twisting on this House floor. The American people are
watching this time.
Sadly, though, we are already seeing evidence that this pattern of
abuse will once again carry the day. Last night in the Committee on
Rules, we were given a paltry 1 hour's notice by the Republicans that
we would be considering the most controversial trade agreement this
body has contemplated since NAFTA. And of the three contentious bills
that we considered in the Committee on Rules, not a single amendment
was allowed, nor even a single substitute. It was a shut-out of
democracy. And coming from a country trying to export democracy to the
rest of the world, it showed us on our side of the Committee on Rules
that we do not have it right yet.
Even though the House rules clearly state that 20 hours of debate is
appropriate for a trade agreement, we offered to accept only 8 hours as
a compromise, but that was too much democracy for this leadership. For
the most contested trade agreement this body has considered in 12
years, we will have a whopping 2 hours of debate, less time than it
would take you to watch ``Saving Private Ryan'' on a DVD.
We were actually given more time to debate the renaming of five post
offices Monday. Most high school debate teams spend more time
considering the serious issues that face our country than we do here in
the House.
But CAFTA clearly warrants our full and undivided attention. This is
a major piece of legislation that will affect the lives of every
American. CAFTA threatens to export even more American jobs and
encourages American companies to relocate their factories in other
countries. It does not provide adequate protection for workers, it
turns back the clock on labor standards, and it does not provide any
safeguards for improving environmental standards.
We need trade agreements that expand our access to the new markets
and raise the standard of living for American families. This
legislation falls far short on each of those standards.
As the arbiters of the rules of this hallowed institution, the
Committee on Rules has a special responsibility to ensure that the
integrity of the democratic process is preserved. That is why last
night I asked the Republicans on the Committee on Rules for their
assurance that we will not again see the egregious abuses of power and
the trampling of the democratic process that we experienced in the last
Congress on the Medicare debate, because we should be having 8 hours of
debate and a 15-minute vote, not the other way around. Their reply was
that ``rules would be followed,'' but they must not have meant the
Rules of the House of Representatives when they made that promise,
because what actually followed was a shut-down of any consideration of
amendments to the medical malpractice bill, the prevention of any up-
or-down votes on amendments to the China Trade Act, and the restriction
of debate in consideration of CAFTA.
For the sake of the millions of American families depending on this
Congress to spend the time and get it right on legislation, and
especially on CAFTA, I hope that this time the debate lasts longer than
the vote.
{time} 1845
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me just say that this rule is in compliance with the
1974 Trade Act, which calls for an up-or-down vote on these agreements.
And I also believe that it is very important to note, as my colleague
has just pointed out, that for more than a decade, on every single
trade agreement that has come before this House, we have had 2 hours of
general debate.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Hastings).
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me the time. I want to congratulate him on the work that he
has done on free trade issues in this Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the underlying bill,
to implement the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free
Trade Agreement. This agreement is especially important for my State of
Washington, which is one of the most trade-dependent States in the
Nation.
Mr. Speaker, we live in a global economy. And while 80 percent of
Central American and Dominican Republic products enter the United
States duty free, American exports face tariffs of 33 to 100 percent or
higher in these countries; this is simply not a level playing field.
By approving CAFTA-DR, tariffs on American exports will be
drastically reduced or eliminated. In fact, under CAFTA-DR, 80 percent
of U.S. exports will become duty free immediately and the remaining
tariffs will be phased out over 10 years.
Mr. Speaker, more than half of current U.S. farm exports to Central
America and the Dominican Republic will gain immediately duty-free
access, including beef, wheat, wine, fruits, and vegetables.
In particular, the agreement includes a provision I worked for that
would grant central Washington's apple, pear, and cherry growers
immediate duty-free access to Central American and to Dominican
Republic markets.
These tariffs currently range from 14 to 25 percent. And our fruit
growers' major competitor in the region, Chile, which has already
signed a trade treatment with CAFTA countries, is not subject to
similar duties. This does level the playing field.
Mr. Speaker, this agreement will help potato growers in central
Washington fairly compete with Canadian potato exporters who are
subject to lower tariffs because of favorable trade agreements reached
by Canada and Costa Rica. According to the Washington State Potato
Commission, central Washington and U.S. potato exports to Costa Rica
have declined by 81 percent as a result of the Canada-Costa Rica
agreement, and U.S. producers will continue to lose market share unless
CAFTA-DR is approved.
Many associations in my State have voiced support for CAFTA-DR,
including the Washington State Farm Bureau, the Northwest Horticultural
Council, the Washington State Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, the
Washington Apple Commission, the Washington State Potato Commission, to
name only a few.
Mr. Speaker, CAFTA-DR will help level the playing field for our
farmers and tree fruit growers and is a crucial step forward for
agriculture and many other industries that create jobs and play
important roles in the long-term growth of our economy.
The Senate has approved this agreement by a vote of 54 to 45. It is
now time for the House to do the same to ensure that this measure and
the benefits that it will provide will become law.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the
underlying bill.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Hastings) who believes that if 8 hours of debate was good
enough for NAFTA, it should be good enough for CAFTA.
[[Page H6874]]
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time. Mr. Speaker, I thank him also for his articulate leadership on
this issue and the others which affect working people throughout this
country.
Let my say at the outset, I opposed this closed rule and the limited
amount of time to debate the underlying legislation. Like the owner of
the restaurant in Casablanca who feigned surprise at the illegal
gambling in his club, let me just say that I am shocked, shocked that
the majority would bring a bill of such importance to the House floor
and only permit 2 hours of debate to be split by the 440 Members of the
House of Representatives.
This is not about trade. Trade is a two-way economic street. And the
simple fact of the matter is, no one can demonstrate to me what
Guatemala and Nicaragua are going to be buying from Florida and
elsewhere in the United States. It is a one-way agreement.
Look, NAFTA was bad for your district like it was for the State of
Florida. This deal is going to make things worse. If CAFTA is like
NAFTA, too many Americans will get the shafta. Ten years of NAFTA have
shown just how devastating these agreements can be for working families
and the environment.
Florida has lost more than 35,000 jobs because of NAFTA. Industries
that once were thriving and successful in the State of Florida and
elsewhere in this Nation employing tens of thousands of hard-working
Americans have been shipped south of the border where labor is cheap
and environmental protections are but a figment of our imagination
Mr. Speaker, I voted for NAFTA and the administration was unable to
uphold the things that they said they were going to do with reference
to the environment and labor standards. And I doubt very seriously if
this administration can do any better than the previous one. My
distinguished friend, and he is my good friend, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Dreier), began his remarks this evening by saying
national security and border security.
I invite the chairman to tell me how it is our border security is
better on Mexico because of NAFTA, or that our national security is
better. In western Palm Beach County, a region which I am proud to
represent, and is our country's second most sugar cane-intensive area,
unemployment is already above 15 percent.
Under CAFTA, the future of this industry, which provides more than
20,000 jobs to this area alone, will undoubtedly be in jeopardy.
Considering who wins and who loses with CAFTA, it is clear that only
the most selfish of fat cats would favor this terrible agreement. I
challenge any of my colleagues to raise a family on a minimum wage in
America, and indeed to find a job in America when CAFTA has sucked yet
more of our factories and other businesses out of our country.
But a bigger challenge would be to survive as a campesino in any
Central American nation, where wages are even lower, where
environmental controls are weak or non-existent, where there is little
or no access to health care, and where openly complaining about working
conditions could mean death or disappearance. This is what the majority
claims they want to approve today. We should be ashamed of ourselves.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Shaw).
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I have heard for so long we keep talking about
NAFTA as if it was somewhat of a disaster. But I think there are some
statistics that have to be really examined when we are talking about
NAFTA.
Sure, there have been some jobs lost in this country because of
NAFTA. There have also been some jobs created. In fact, there are many
more jobs created since NAFTA than there are jobs that went overseas.
Since NAFTA was formed in 1994, U.S. exports of manufacturing goods
to Canada and Mexico have grown 55 percent faster than shipments to the
rest of the world. And when you look down and see what has happened in
Chile, actually our exports have vastly outpaced our imports from
Chile.
Now, let U.S. talk about what we are trying to do here. We are just
trying to have fair trade. Right now, the Central American countries
have a preference where their goods come into this country without
paying any meaningful tariffs, and there are very few areas where they
are restricted.
We simply now say give U.S. that privilege in Central America, and
Central America says, yes, we will do that, because they know that that
is good for their future.
And we have another thing to do think about. What about the security
interests there? I was here and the gentleman from California (Mr.
Dreier) when we first came in 1981 during the Reagan administration. We
had huge security problems in Central America. Communism was on the
rise; Castro was having all kinds of influence in that part of the
world.
Since then, wonderful things have happened. These communist countries
have collapsed. They have embraced democracy. They have embraced
capitalism. And they are looking where? They are looking north to the
United States. There is where they find their future. There is where
their future is. Let us not cut them short.
This is a good, good bill. It is well balanced. It is good for
American business. It is good for American farmers. It is good for
American laborers. Let us get together and pass this bill.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Matsui).
(Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying
measure to implement CAFTA. As we debate CAFTA, I can only express my
disappointment from the restrictive rule limiting debate to the failure
of the administration to use the full force and weight of the United
States in negotiating all aspects of this agreement.
Because CAFTA has sparked much debate, the House needs robust
discussion of this legislation. And during the Rules Committee hearing
on CAFTA, I offered an amendment to allow 8 hours of debate, the same
as for NAFTA.
But the Republicans on the committee voted down the amendment. And we
have a mere 2 hours to debate an agreement, which in its entirety is
over 3,600 pages, the implications of which may well determine the
future direction of U.S. trade policy.
As a world leader, the United States has a crucial role to play on
trade. We cannot step back from the global community. However, free
trade must be tempered with meaningful policy which acknowledges that
each trade agreement produces winners and losers, and it is our
responsibility to do right by those displaced in the process.
CAFTA falls far short in this regard and is thus fatally flawed.
Those flaws are apparent throughout CAFTA's chapters and are most
egregious on labor and environmental protections, for CAFTA offers only
tokens and symbols.
In contrast are the intellectual property provisions where it is
obvious the United States Trade Representative used the full weight of
the United States to ensure protection for business interests.
This administration's handling of workers' protections relative to
other issues raises troubling questions about their agenda for these
negotiations. The only enforceable worker protections in CAFTA state
that participating countries must enforce their own laws. It does not
set any standards those laws must meet.
Yet CAFTA countries already have a history of failing to provide even
minimal worker protections.
There is nothing within CAFTA to prohibit these countries from
weakening their labor laws. If a CAFTA country wants to pass a law that
encourages child labor, CAFTA merely requires that country to enforce
its own law. These enforcement provisions are a step back from the
previous accord governing trade with Central America established in
1984.
This is different than labor management debates here in the United
States. This is about basic human decency and fairness. There is a
reason for the bipartisan opposition to CAFTA. It cannot pass this
Chamber on its merits.
[[Page H6875]]
I am sure no one will be surprised if this vote is held open until
enough Members relent, as we have seen before. But this flawed
agreement should be returned to the President to be renegotiated.
Trade is a powerful phenomenon that is capable or raising living
standards, encouraging innovation, and building lasting ties between
nations. And as we work to conclude the Doha Round, global trade is at
a critical point.
America must promote trade policies that acknowledge the fundamental
rights of workers and reassert our belief that the benefits of trade
should flow throughout the population. If the House passes CAFTA, we
will be abdicating this duty.
The future direction of trade will be shaped by our actions today, as
the implication of the vote will resonate far beyond Latin America.
While trade agreements encourage the flow of goods and services, they
also embody important values and principles.
What message does it send if we start passing trade agreements that
concentrate benefits in the hands of special interests and the
privileged few at the expense of workers in the United States and in
some of the poorest countries in the world?
I have heard some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
hesitantly talk about this agreement saying trade is usually a good
thing, so I guess I will vote for CAFTA.
I say to you, that, yes, free trade agreements are a good thing, but
only when based on solid principles that reflect the concern for all
parties involved. CAFTA fails to meet the standard.
I urge my colleagues to reject this inferior agreement. If we do not
get CAFTA right, we risk undercutting support for all future trade
agreements.
{time} 1900
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my colleague that free trade
is a good thing. The labor rights that are recognized here in the
opening up of markets for U.S. workers into Central America is very
important.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indianapolis,
Indiana (Mr. Burton), my very good friend, the distinguished chairman
of the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, who has been a champion
for freedom and democracy in Central America for years.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that
very eloquent introduction. I am not sure I deserve it, but I
appreciate it.
Let me say to my colleagues who are undecided and my colleagues on
the Democrat side of the aisle, I voted against NAFTA. I voted against
GATT. I voted against the World Trade Organization. So why am I for
CAFTA? And I want to tell you why, because I think it is extremely
important. There are three reasons.
First of all, right now as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) said
a minute ago, the trade balance is in favor of the countries in the
Caribbean and the Central American nations because they have duty free
into our country, and we have to pay a duty to sell products in their
country. CAFTA will change that. It will balance it out so there will
be free trade in both directions. That will encourage more trade in
both directions.
Second, this is a national security issue, and the President of the
United States talked about this today, and we need to talk about it
right now on this floor.
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) talked about what went on in
the early 1980s when we had wars in Nicaragua and El Salvador, and
people's bodies were laying all over the place because of this
insurrection and these civil wars down there. If we do not do something
to stabilize those countries in Central and South America, we will see
wars not only in Nicaragua and El Salvador and possibly other Central
American countries, we will see them in South America. We have got
governments down there that are trying to export revolution right now
by undermining some of the fledgling democracies in Central and South
America.
CAFTA is one of the mechanisms that we could use to stabilize those
fledgling democracy by creating more jobs and helping fight poverty in
those countries. It is extremely important from a national security
standpoint. That is one of my biggest concerns. If there is
destabilization in those Central and South American countries, you can
rest assured that there will be massive flight from those countries
when wars break out, and they will be coming north. We have an
immigration problem right now that we must solve, and we have talked
about this time and again. But the problem is going to be exacerbated
and made a lot worse if we let those countries, those fledgling
democracies, starting to be destabilized by revolutionaries. There are
governments down there right now that are using their resources to
undermine some of these democracies, and we need to do everything we
can to countermand that.
This is a very important piece of legislation. It is very important.
I hope my colleagues will see that and vote for it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), who believes that it is shameful that the
majority has stifled debate on this important trade agreement.
(Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I want to make a quick note
of this. Is the previous speaker arguing that NAFTA derailed illegal
immigration to the United States or slowed it down?
Mr. Speaker, let me stand in opposition to the Central American Free
Trade Agreement. Let me say at the outset that I do not reflexively
oppose international trade. The previous speaker noted the trade
agreements he has voted against. Let me talk about the trade agreements
I have voted for, all of them from this administration: Australia,
Singapore, Chile, Morocco; and in the past, China, GATT and WTO.
I know that done the right way with carefully balanced provisions,
these agreements can expand the U.S. economy and create jobs. Trade can
really be good for American workers and American businesses. Indeed, I
believe we could have struck an acceptable agreement with Central
America. I have no choice but to oppose this agreement because it
failed to reach a crucial balance. In truth, it did not even come
close.
CAFTA would exacerbate the crisis in our country's trade deficit, and
it is completely unfair to U.S. workers and companies. We have already
got trade deficits with every one of the CAFTA countries, and this
agreement will only make that situation worse. What is more, it is the
first time that the United States has negotiated a trade agreement with
developing countries that have weak labor laws and histories of violent
suppression of worker rights.
CAFTA should have stipulated that our trading partners adhere to
basic internationally recognized labor standards like prohibitions on
child labor, prison labor, and guaranteeing workers the right to
organize. Instead, it only requires that those countries enforce
whatever laws they happen to have on their books. Those laws are wholly
inadequate, and they will only get worse because CAFTA will set off a
race to the bottom. We are already seeing it. Some of the CAFTA
countries have already taken steps to water down their labor laws so
that they are the cheapest destination for foreign investment.
This CAFTA agreement passed up an opportunity to conduct trade the
right way. It passed up an opportunity to expand the U.S. economy and
create jobs. It passed up an opportunity to help our neighbors to the
south develop safe and decent workplaces. It passed up an opportunity
to reduce our country's trade deficit. It passed up an opportunity to
do the right thing by U.S. workers and firms.
I intend to oppose this misguided agreement, and I urge the rest of
the Members of this institution to do the same.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the very
distinguished gentleman from Birmingham, Alabama (Mr. Bachus).
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. Let me say
that there have been several newspaper articles lately dealing with
these side agreements that we had under NAFTA and China, NTPR, and the
two fast tracks. And, in fact, here is one in a
[[Page H6876]]
newspaper yesterday after the side agreement that we made on textiles.
It said, The nonprofit Public Citizen reviewed past trade votes and
found that 89 percent of the side deals affecting trade policy were
broken. Never enacted. And, in fact, I got that information, and it is
about a 40-page attachment with all the broken side agreements. Very
sobering to read. Promises made in the midst of negotiations, then
promises broken.
But let me just say this, and I want to be positive here. These are
the trade agreements, these are the side agreements that President Bush
made, and although there have been almost 89 broken agreements,
President Clinton, of all the ones he has made, 3 of the over 80 have
been by President Bush. The vast majority of the side agreements that
President Bush has made he has kept, and they are on the books today.
So is there a difference between this and past agreements? I think
the difference is that we have a President who has honored his side
agreements in the past 3 or 4 years and will honor them again. That is
his track record. He has made side agreements, and the vast majority of
those he has abided by.
As we talk about these side agreements, and I will just say that here
it says, ``Democrats opposing CAFTA have warned colleagues about last-
minute promises in exchange for votes. `Side letters and so-called side
agreements promised are not worth the paper they are written on,' said
Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Ohio, Jan Schakowsky, Democrat of
Illinois.''
There is a lot of truth to that. There is a record of broken side
agreements, but not by President Bush. The Business Week says,
``Signed, sealed and undelivered. The history of broken side
agreements.'' That was in the paper about CAFTA.
Again, I will say to you, this President has honored his agreements.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just say, if it is not in the
agreement, it is not in the agreement.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), who believes that the debate on CAFTA should
be longer than the vote on CAFTA.
(Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership has submitted a
rule for CAFTA that makes a mockery of our Democratic process. The
restrictive rule is part and parcel of a Republican leadership strategy
to win passage of CAFTA at any cost, whatever the price to the
taxpayer, whatever the damage to the fabric of our democracy. The
Republican leadership has shown that when it comes to CAFTA, they will
cross any line and stifle any voice.
CAFTA will hurt workers here at home and devastate the lives of the
rural poor in Central America, a region where the inequality of income
is the leading economic and political challenge. It will widen the gap
between the haves and have-nots, weaken labor and environmental
standards, and set a dangerous precedent for future trade agreements.
Carnegie Endowment points out that under NAFTA, the rural population
in Mexico suffered the greatest consequences, losing 1.3 million
agricultural jobs. Repeating that outcome in Central America will leave
only more of the poorest in the region to migrate north, further
exacerbating the challenges we face in securing our border.
It is appalling and inexcusable how President Bush has sold the CAFTA
deal with one hand while busily cutting aid that helps the poor
throughout Central America with the other. Not only is this agreement
bad for Central America, it also undermines labor policy and workers
around the world. Under this agreement, countries get paid for the
abuses suffered by workers because the fines paid for violations go to
the countries in which it was committed. Some justice.
Tonight will be a defining moment for this Congress. The American
people are watching this debate, and they will not stand for waking up
tomorrow to read that in the darkness of the night, the leadership of
this House has passed yet another bill by holding a vote open for hours
while the purveyors of threats and intimidation perform their work
under the cover of darkness.
This ill-conceived measure is a bad deal for workers, a bad deal for
America, and a bad vote.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as I listen to people malign the procedure
we are going under, let me just say the procedure is the procedure that
is prescribed by the 1974 Trade Act, which says, ``No amendment to an
implementing bill or approval resolution shall be in order in either
the House of Representatives or the Senate.''
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Hensarling), a the dear friend, a hard-working Member committed to free
trade.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in support of the rule
for CAFTA. For over 200 years America has been benefited from trade. It
means American families can buy more, using less of their paycheck.
Trade means more competition. Competition is the consumer's best
friend, and it does not matter whether that competition comes from
Houston or Honduras or El Paso or El Salvador.
Now, CAFTA is a very simple trade agreement regardless of what you
hear tonight. It allows our consumers to buy a few more items from
Central America, and it allows our producers to sell a whole lot more
to those same countries. It creates jobs. It will help ease our trade
deficit. It is more than fair trade for us.
Now, you hear some people opposing CAFTA, claiming that somehow this
is actually going to hurt jobs. Yet 80 percent of Central America are
already entering our country duty free. What will help us is our
ability to export to those countries duty free.
Now, some are talking about labor and environmental standards; but,
Mr. Speaker, by helping further impoverish Latin America, we are
somehow going to help improve their labor standards? We are somehow
going to help improve their environmental standards? I think not.
There is no rational economic reason, Mr. Speaker, to oppose CAFTA.
Increasingly this debate against CAFTA is boiling down to raw
protectionism and bitter partisanship. It is amazing how many people
love competition and the products they buy, but they seem to hate
competition in the products they sell. That just cheats American
consumers.
And then there are those who just reflexively oppose anything that
President Bush favors, anything, regardless of its merits. Mr. Speaker,
we ought to all read the headlines. Everybody knows about the threats
and arm-twisting taking place on the Democrat side of the aisle. It is
time to put aside protectionism, put aside the bitter partisanship. It
is time to vote for personal economic freedom. Vote for more American
exports, and vote for the rule for the Central American Free Trade
Agreement.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out that the
little black book that the chairman of the Committee on Rules read from
also said that the Rules of the House allows for up to 20 hours of
debate on trade agreements.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Cardin), who believes that a full and thorough debate is a good thing.
(Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my friend for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I, along with many Democrats, have supported every trade
agreement that has been presented. We do that because we believe trade
has the potential to generate economic growth and raise the standard of
living. The trick though is to make sure that we realize that
potential.
During the last several decades we have really changed our focus in
opening up markets for American manufacturers and producers. We have
initially worked on removing tariff barriers. Now we are concerned
about nontariff barriers. It does not mean we have done all we need to
on tariff barriers, but the priority in our country has been to open up
markets by removing nontariff barriers. That is why we spend a lot of
time on intellectual property protection, on opening up opportunity for
services, and, yes, Mr. Speaker, working on basic international labor
standards.
I believe everybody in this body would agree with me that we do not
[[Page H6877]]
want products coming into this country that violate child labor
standards. Well, the same is true with other basic internationally
recognized labor rights. We have made progress. The Caribbean Basin
Initiative, the CBTPA, AGOA and GSP all have improved labor standards
around the globe because we have raised the issue and raised the bar.
{time} 1915
In the Central American countries today, we have the Caribbean Basin
Initiative. It has worked. It gives trade preferences to the Central
American countries provided that they recognize international labor
standards. The failure to do so allows us to impose trade sanctions.
The threat has made progress in raising international labor standards
and workers' rights in the Central American countries.
Mr. Speaker, I do not expect the administration to perform miracles
when they negotiate free trade agreements, but I do expect them to
represent the priorities of our Nation. In the CAFTA agreement, they
repeal the rights we currently have under CBI, under the Caribbean
Basin Initiative. Therefore, CAFTA is left with a weaker standard than
current law in regards to workers' rights.
All CAFTA provides is for a country to enforce their own laws,
regardless of how they may be; and then the sanction for failure to
enforce their own laws that we have under the dispute settlement
resolution are weaker standards. We cannot impose trade sanctions. All
we can do is impose a fine, and that fine goes back to their own
country. We cannot even enforce these weak standards.
You have to draw a line somewhere, Mr. Speaker. We have the
constitutional responsibility on trade. We have to make that judgment.
This agreement fails in that regard.
I had hoped that we would be able to renegotiate so that we could
have a strong bipartisan vote on CAFTA. After all, we did that with
textiles, and we could have done that with workers' rights. But this
administration chose not to do it. In a way, Mr. Speaker, it is more
important for a CAFTA agreement than some of the other agreements that
have passed, for Chile and Singapore, Morocco and Australia, because of
the standard of living in the Central American countries. For people
living in poverty, trade, if properly structured, holds out the promise
of more meaningful economic opportunities and a better way of life. But
trade without basic labor standards will not do that.
I think this agreement is not a good agreement for the Central
American countries, and it is not a good agreement for the United
States.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time
remains on each side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass). The gentleman from California
(Mr. Dreier) has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) has 6 minutes remaining.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), who believes that 2 hours of debate is
an insult to American workers.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule.
Think of the voiceless, the poor for once, and not play and pray at the
alter of the multinational corporations.
I just talked to a group of folks that came back from Nicaragua, and
that you have the nerve to stand before this House and talk about those
six governments of purity is an insult to our intellect. Some of these
politicians that run these countries are despised by the very people in
their country. It is those leaders that made the deal, not the people
of those countries. In every one of those countries, the majority of
the people are against this deal.
Trade agreements are not just tariff levels and quotas; they are
human beings. By passing this agreement, Congress is giving up more of
its authority under article I, section VIII. We have done that under
three Presidents in a row. Our CAFTA becomes a legally-bound treaty. It
will supersede any legislation passed by this Congress.
And by the way, a slight detail: the CBO has told us that CAFTA will
cost the American taxpayers $4.4 billion over the next 10 years. And
since those in favor of CAFTA turn to this document, Mr. Speaker, this
document shows that of the 14 agreements, the 14 agreements since Bush
became the President of the United States, only three have been
outrightly kept. He has as bad a record as President Clinton.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say that the
democratically elected parliaments in El Salvador, Honduras, and
Guatemala all have had votes on this issue. It was 49 to 30 in the
democratically elected parliament of El Salvador; 126 to 12 in the
democratically elected parliament of Guatemala; and 100 of 128
legislators in Honduras were supportive of the Central American Free
Trade Agreement.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Midland, Texas
(Mr. Conaway), my very good friend and a hard-working new Member of
Congress.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me this
time, and I rise tonight to support this rule and also the underlying
document that we will vote on later on tonight.
We have heard it is important for national security issues, and it
is. Strengthening these six democracies, fledgling though they may be,
makes America a safer place to be.
We have heard that it is good for immigration control, and it is.
Prosperity and jobs created in Central American countries will lessen
the pressure of those folks trying to percolate up through Mexico and
trying to get into America to get a job here.
We have heard it is good for trade, and it is. Our manufacturers and
producers will no longer pay the tariffs and duties we are currently
paying. Manufacturers like Kraft Macaroni & Cheese and breakfast
cereals will now be able to be sold in these Central American countries
with that trade.
It seems odd to me if I have a job, and a group comes to me and says
we want to help you get a better job, we want you to earn more and we
want the labor standards to be improved, but we want you to keep that
job, well, that is the kind of idea I would like to have help with. But
if I have another side that says I want to help you with labor
standards and I want to help you have a better job, but in the meantime
I want you to be unemployed, that does not make a lot of sense to me.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote for this rule and the
underlying bill.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished minority whip who recognizes
that curtailing debate is an abuse of power.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I have been a strong advocate for free trade
and open markets because I believe that the American businesses and
workers can compete in a global market. The United States is the most
powerful Nation in the world, and it is incumbent upon us to lead, to
foster global trade, to engage our partners in a system based on rules
and law and to work to raise the living standards of working men and
women both at home and abroad.
However, the centrality of free trade in our interdependent world
cannot relegate our commitment to working men and women to the
peripheral. We must seek to provide a level playing field for American
workers and improve living and working conditions for foreign workers
by guaranteeing fair wages and basic workplace protections. I have
consistently supported legislation and trade agreements that have
furthered these goals.
I was hopeful the Bush administration would pursue these objectives
in negotiating CAFTA and that we would ultimately be presented an
agreement that advanced the cause of free trade, promoted the rule of
law, and generated economic development in countries in great need, and
extended to U.S. workers, farmers, and businesses the advantages of
expanded access to new markets. Regrettably, the agreement before us
does not meet these goals.
Specifically, CAFTA fails to ensure the implementation and
enforcement of the five core internationally recognized labor rights.
Compounding the problem is the failure to allow trade sanctions to
enforce the deal's modest labor provisions. In other words, the
enforcement structure is absent.
[[Page H6878]]
I am, therefore, regrettably unable to support the Central American
Free Trade Agreement for its failure to guarantee basic workplace
protections for Central Americans and a level playing field for
American workers.
It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, that given the problems that we have
with CAFTA, given the questions that have been raised, that the
majority is unwilling to give sufficient debate to develop the
arguments. This is a critically important issue. NAFTA was an important
issue. It was 8 hours of debate. This is one-quarter of that.
We are unable to fully develop the deficiencies in this bill with the
1 hour of debate that the minority will be given. Perhaps that is the
point. Perhaps that is the objective. Perhaps the meaning of this rule
is to shut us up, shut us out, and shut us down. That is a shame, that
my colleagues do not have the confidence in their proposition that they
put on this floor to give it a full airing, a full debate in the light
of day.
Why do these issues always come up in the late of night? I do not
understand that. Oppose this rule. Oppose this bill. It is not good for
America. It is not good for the countries that have signed it.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, fast track up-or-down voting procedures place a premium
on consultation and accommodation during the conception and negotiation
of trade agreements. But the DR-CAFTA negotiations turned its back on
this process. Everyone who raised concerns about labor rights,
environmental standards, or the vulnerability of key agricultural and
manufacturing sectors was shut out. That is why this agreement has been
so universally criticized throughout Central America and the United
States.
Mr. Speaker, I am very familiar with Central America. I have deep
attachments to the people, and I appreciate how far these countries
have come since the wars there ended. I want their democracies to
thrive. I want their lives and livelihoods to improve. And I think a
good trade agreement could make a valuable contribution to these
efforts. But this CAFTA is not that agreement, and this rule deprives
Members of their democratic rights to speak on the floor of the House
on this controversial issue.
It is shameful how the Republican leadership of this House continues
to use the Committee on Rules as a weapon to undermine the deliberative
process. It is disrespectful to American workers that the Republican
leadership is shortchanging this debate. It is a disgrace. But, sadly,
that has become the norm around here. I urge all my colleagues to vote
down this rule and vote down this CAFTA bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Morris, Illinois (Mr. Weller), a hard-working member of the Committee
on Ways and Means.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I rise in support of the rule as well as in support of the
Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement.
Let me ask a very simple question. Next door to you is a neighbor,
and you are charged by your neighbor to enter his back yard. But then
when he comes over to visit your back yard, he can come in free. That
is really what this trade agreement is all about.
Right now, 80 percent of all manufactured goods made in the Dominican
Republic-Central America come in duty free into Illinois, into my State
in the United States, and 99 percent of all farm products from the DR
and Central America come into Illinois and the United States duty free.
Now, is there reciprocity under the current status quo? No. Illinois
corn faces a 20 percent tariff, Illinois soybeans a 30 percent tariff,
Illinois pork a 40 percent tariff. Under DR-CAFTA, those tariffs are
either eliminated immediately or phased out very quickly.
We make yellow bulldozers. Caterpillar is the biggest manufacturer in
the State of Illinois and the biggest employer in my district. Those
yellow bulldozers made in Joliet face a 14 to 20 percent tariff under
the status quo. Under DR-CAFTA it is eliminated immediately.
Vote ``yes'' for DR-CAFTA. It is good for Illinois workers and good
for Illinois farmers.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, back on November 6 of 1979, Ronald Reagan announced his
candidacy for President of the United States; and in that announcement,
he envisaged a free trade accord of all the Americas, where we could
have the free flow of goods and services and capital and ideas.
{time} 1930
This is a very important part of that vision which has not only been
supported by Republicans, but President Clinton was a strong supporter
of that notion, the free trade area of the Americas; back in 1993, by a
392-18 vote, passed the Caribbean Basin Initiative. Why, so rather than
sending aid, we would open up the U.S. market to these struggling
countries in the Caribbean.
We now have an opportunity to respond to the fact that we have
provided unlimited access to our consumer market by these countries.
Mr. Speaker, it is true, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and I
have been here for a quarter century, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Burton) a little less than that. I have never witnessed greater
politicization or a greater mischaracterization of a piece of
legislation than I have this. For the last decade we have had 2 hours
of debate on trade agreements that we have dealt with. Yes, the statute
says up to 20 hours. The last time that happened was November 14, 1980.
And once they started it, they pared it back.
We have been debating this issue for literally months. Special Orders
and 1-minute speeches have taken place. It is time for us to vote. I
believe we are going to have a great opportunity, a great opportunity,
to enhance the standard of living for people in the United States and
in this region. It is going to create an opportunity for us to better
compete globally, and as we enhance the standard of living in Latin
America, it will clearly help us with this very important problem that
we have of border security and illegal immigration.
We have a win-win all of the way around. We have seen great benefits
from trade. The much-maligned North American Free Trade Agreement has
created a scenario whereby we have a third of a trillion dollars in
trade between Mexico and the United States. Mexico's population now has
a middle class that is larger than the entire Canadian population. Yes,
there is poverty; yes, it needs to improve, but clearly the cause of
freedom is an important one. The cause of stability in our region is a
very, very important one.
I urge support of this rule. I urge support of the Dominican
Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________