[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 104 (Wednesday, July 27, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H6884-H6928]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




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

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 386, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 3045) to implement the Dominican Republic-Central 
America-United States Free Trade Agreement, and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of H.R. 3045 is as follows:

                               H.R. 3045

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION. 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Dominican 
     Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement 
     Implementation Act''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Purposes.
Sec. 3. Definitions.

TITLE I--APPROVAL OF, AND GENERAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO, THE AGREEMENT

Sec. 101. Approval and entry into force of the Agreement.
Sec. 102. Relationship of the Agreement to United States and State law.
Sec. 103. Implementing actions in anticipation of entry into force and 
              initial regulations.
Sec. 104. Consultation and layover provisions for, and effective date 
              of, proclaimed actions.
Sec. 105. Administration of dispute settlement proceedings.
Sec. 106. Arbitration of claims.
Sec. 107. Effective dates; effect of termination.

                      TITLE II--CUSTOMS PROVISIONS

Sec. 201. Tariff modifications.
Sec. 202. Additional duties on certain agricultural goods.
Sec. 203. Rules of origin.
Sec. 204. Customs user fees.
Sec. 205. Retroactive application for certain liquidations and 
              reliquidations of textile or apparel goods.

[[Page H6885]]

Sec. 206. Disclosure of incorrect information; false certifications of 
              origin; denial of preferential tariff treatment.
Sec. 207. Reliquidation of entries.
Sec. 208. Recordkeeping requirements.
Sec. 209. Enforcement relating to trade in textile or apparel goods.
Sec. 210. Regulations.

                     TITLE III--RELIEF FROM IMPORTS

Sec. 301. Definitions.

     Subtitle A--Relief From Imports Benefiting From the Agreement

Sec. 311. Commencing of action for relief.
Sec. 312. Commission action on petition.
Sec. 313. Provision of relief.
Sec. 314. Termination of relief authority.
Sec. 315. Compensation authority.
Sec. 316. Confidential business information.

           Subtitle B--Textile and Apparel Safeguard Measures

Sec. 321. Commencement of action for relief.
Sec. 322. Determination and provision of relief.
Sec. 323. Period of relief.
Sec. 324. Articles exempt from relief.
Sec. 325. Rate after termination of import relief.
Sec. 326. Termination of relief authority.
Sec. 327. Compensation authority.
Sec. 328. Confidential business information.

       Subtitle C--Cases Under Title II of the Trade Act of 1974

Sec. 331. Findings and action on goods of CAFTA-DR countries.

                        TITLE IV--MISCELLANEOUS

Sec. 401. Eligible products.
Sec. 402. Modifications to the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act.
Sec. 403. Periodic reports and meetings on labor obligations and labor 
              capacity-building provisions.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to approve and implement the Free Trade Agreement 
     between the United States, Costa Rica, the Dominican 
     Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua 
     entered into under the authority of section 2103(b) of the 
     Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority Act of 2002 (19 U.S.C. 
     3803(b));
       (2) to strengthen and develop economic relations between 
     the United States, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El 
     Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua for their mutual 
     benefit;
       (3) to establish free trade between the United States, 
     Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, 
     Honduras, and Nicaragua through the reduction and elimination 
     of barriers to trade in goods and services and to investment; 
     and
       (4) to lay the foundation for further cooperation to expand 
     and enhance the benefits of the Agreement.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Agreement.--The term ``Agreement'' means the Dominican 
     Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement 
     approved by the Congress under section 101(a)(1).
       (2) CAFTA-DR country.--Except as provided in section 203, 
     the term ``CAFTA-DR country'' means--
       (A) Costa Rica, for such time as the Agreement is in force 
     between the United States and Costa Rica;
       (B) the Dominican Republic, for such time as the Agreement 
     is in force between the United States and the Dominican 
     Republic;
       (C) El Salvador, for such time as the Agreement is in force 
     between the United States and El Salvador;
       (D) Guatemala, for such time as the Agreement is in force 
     between the United States and Guatemala;
       (E) Honduras, for such time as the Agreement is in force 
     between the United States and Honduras; and
       (F) Nicaragua, for such time as the Agreement is in force 
     between the United States and Nicaragua.
       (3) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the United 
     States International Trade Commission.
       (4) HTS.--The term ``HTS'' means the Harmonized Tariff 
     Schedule of the United States.
       (5) Textile or apparel good.--The term ``textile or apparel 
     good'' means a good listed in the Annex to the Agreement on 
     Textiles and Clothing referred to in section 101(d)(4) of the 
     Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3511(d)(4)), other 
     than a good listed in Annex 3.29 of the Agreement.

TITLE I--APPROVAL OF, AND GENERAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO, THE AGREEMENT

     SEC. 101. APPROVAL AND ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THE AGREEMENT.

       (a) Approval of Agreement and Statement of Administrative 
     Action.--Pursuant to section 2105 of the Bipartisan Trade 
     Promotion Authority Act of 2002 (19 U.S.C. 3805) and section 
     151 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2191), the Congress 
     approves--
       (1) the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States 
     Free Trade Agreement entered into on August 5, 2004, with the 
     Governments of Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El 
     Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua, and submitted 
     to the Congress on June 23, 2005; and
       (2) the statement of administrative action proposed to 
     implement the Agreement that was submitted to the Congress on 
     June 23, 2005.
       (b) Conditions for Entry Into force of the Agreement.--At 
     such time as the President determines that countries listed 
     in subsection (a)(1) have taken measures necessary to comply 
     with the provisions of the Agreement that are to take effect 
     on the date on which the Agreement enters into force, the 
     President is authorized to provide for the Agreement to enter 
     into force with respect to those countries that provide for 
     the Agreement to enter into force for them.

     SEC. 102. RELATIONSHIP OF THE AGREEMENT TO UNITED STATES AND 
                   STATE LAW.

       (a) Relationship of Agreement to United States Law.--
       (1) United states law to prevail in conflict.--No provision 
     of the Agreement, nor the application of any such provision 
     to any person or circumstance, which is inconsistent with any 
     law of the United States shall have effect.
       (2) Construction.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed--
       (A) to amend or modify any law of the United States, or
       (B) to limit any authority conferred under any law of the 
     United States,

     unless specifically provided for in this Act.
       (b) Relationship of Agreement to State Law.--
       (1) Legal challenge.--No State law, or the application 
     thereof, may be declared invalid as to any person or 
     circumstance on the ground that the provision or application 
     is inconsistent with the Agreement, except in an action 
     brought by the United States for the purpose of declaring 
     such law or application invalid.
       (2) Definition of state law.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, the term ``State law'' includes--
       (A) any law of a political subdivision of a State; and
       (B) any State law regulating or taxing the business of 
     insurance.
       (c) Effect of Agreement With Respect to Private Remedies.--
     No person other than the United States--
       (1) shall have any cause of action or defense under the 
     Agreement or by virtue of congressional approval thereof; or
       (2) may challenge, in any action brought under any 
     provision of law, any action or inaction by any department, 
     agency, or other instrumentality of the United States, any 
     State, or any political subdivision of a State, on the ground 
     that such action or inaction is inconsistent with the 
     Agreement.

     SEC. 103. IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS IN ANTICIPATION OF ENTRY INTO 
                   FORCE AND INITIAL REGULATIONS.

       (a) Implementing Actions.--
       (1) Proclamation authority.--After the date of the 
     enactment of this Act--
       (A) the President may proclaim such actions, and
       (B) other appropriate officers of the United States 
     Government may issue such regulations,

     as may be necessary to ensure that any provision of this Act, 
     or amendment made by this Act, that takes effect on the date 
     the Agreement enters into force is appropriately implemented 
     on such date, but no such proclamation or regulation may have 
     an effective date earlier than the date the Agreement enters 
     into force.
       (2) Effective date of certain proclaimed actions.--Any 
     action proclaimed by the President under the authority of 
     this Act that is not subject to the consultation and layover 
     provisions under section 104 may not take effect before the 
     15th day after the date on which the text of the proclamation 
     is published in the Federal Register.
       (3) Waiver of 15-day restriction.--The 15-day restriction 
     contained in paragraph (2) on the taking effect of proclaimed 
     actions is waived to the extent that the application of such 
     restriction would prevent the taking effect on the date the 
     Agreement enters into force of any action proclaimed under 
     this section.
       (b) Initial Regulations.--Initial regulations necessary or 
     appropriate to carry out the actions required by or 
     authorized under this Act or proposed in the statement of 
     administrative action submitted under section 101(a)(2) to 
     implement the Agreement shall, to the maximum extent 
     feasible, be issued within 1 year after the date on which the 
     Agreement enters into force. In the case of any implementing 
     action that takes effect on a date after the date on which 
     the Agreement enters into force, initial regulations to carry 
     out that action shall, to the maximum extent feasible, be 
     issued within 1 year after such effective date.

     SEC. 104. CONSULTATION AND LAYOVER PROVISIONS FOR, AND 
                   EFFECTIVE DATE OF, PROCLAIMED ACTIONS.

       If a provision of this Act provides that the implementation 
     of an action by the President by proclamation is subject to 
     the consultation and layover requirements of this section, 
     such action may be proclaimed only if--
       (1) the President has obtained advice regarding the 
     proposed action from--
       (A) the appropriate advisory committees established under 
     section 135 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2155); and
       (B) the Commission;
       (2) the President has submitted to the Committee on Finance 
     of the Senate and the Committee on Ways and Means of the 
     House of Representatives a report that sets forth--
       (A) the action proposed to be proclaimed and the reasons 
     therefor; and
       (B) the advice obtained under paragraph (1);
       (3) a period of 60 calendar days, beginning on the first 
     day on which the requirements

[[Page H6886]]

     set forth in paragraphs (1) and (2) have been met has 
     expired; and
       (4) the President has consulted with such Committees 
     regarding the proposed action during the period referred to 
     in paragraph (3).

     SEC. 105. ADMINISTRATION OF DISPUTE SETTLEMENT PROCEEDINGS.

       (a) Establishment or Designation of Office.--The President 
     is authorized to establish or designate within the Department 
     of Commerce an office that shall be responsible for providing 
     administrative assistance to panels established under chapter 
     20 of the Agreement. The office may not be considered to be 
     an agency for purposes of section 552 of title 5, United 
     States Code.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated for each fiscal year after fiscal year 
     2005 to the Department of Commerce such sums as may be 
     necessary for the establishment and operations of the office 
     established or designated under subsection (a) and for the 
     payment of the United States share of the expenses of panels 
     established under chapter 20 of the Agreement.

     SEC. 106. ARBITRATION OF CLAIMS.

       The United States is authorized to resolve any claim 
     against the United States covered by article 10.16.1(a)(i)(C) 
     or article 10.16.1(b)(i)(C) of the Agreement, pursuant to the 
     Investor-State Dispute Settlement procedures set forth in 
     section B of chapter 10 of the Agreement.

     SEC. 107. EFFECTIVE DATES; EFFECT OF TERMINATION.

       (a) Effective Dates.--Except as provided in subsection (b), 
     the provisions of this Act and the amendments made by this 
     Act take effect on the date the Agreement enters into force.
       (b) Exceptions.--Sections 1 through 3 and this title take 
     effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (c) Termination of CAFTA-DR Status.--During any period in 
     which a country ceases to be a CAFTA-DR country, the 
     provisions of this Act (other than this subsection) and the 
     amendments made by this Act shall cease to have effect with 
     respect to that country.
       (d) Termination of the Agreement.--On the date on which the 
     Agreement ceases to be in force with respect to the United 
     States, the provisions of this Act (other than this 
     subsection) and the amendments made by this Act shall cease 
     to have effect.

                      TITLE II--CUSTOMS PROVISIONS

     SEC. 201. TARIFF MODIFICATIONS.

       (a) Tariff Modifications Provided for in the Agreement.--
       (1) Proclamation authority.--The President may proclaim--
       (A) such modifications or continuation of any duty,
       (B) such continuation of duty-free or excise treatment, or
       (C) such additional duties,

     as the President determines to be necessary or appropriate to 
     carry out or apply articles 3.3, 3.5, 3.6, 3.21, 3.26, 3.27, 
     and 3.28, and Annexes 3.3, 3.27, and 3.28 of the Agreement.
       (2) Effect on gsp status.--Notwithstanding section 
     502(a)(1) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2462(a)(1)), 
     the President shall terminate the designation of each CAFTA-
     DR country as a beneficiary developing country for purposes 
     of title V of the Trade Act of 1974 on the date the Agreement 
     enters into force with respect to that country.
       (3) Effect on cbera status.--
       (A) In general.--Notwithstanding section 212(a) of the 
     Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (19 U.S.C. 2702(a)), 
     the President shall terminate the designation of each CAFTA-
     DR country as a beneficiary country for purposes of that Act 
     on the date the Agreement enters into force with respect to 
     that country.
       (B) Exception.--Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), each such 
     country shall be considered a beneficiary country under 
     section 212(a) of the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act, 
     for purposes of--
       (i) sections 771(7)(G)(ii)(III) and 771(7)(H) of the Tariff 
     Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1677(7)(G)(ii)(III) and 1677(7)(H));
       (ii) the duty-free treatment provided under paragraph 12 of 
     Appendix I of the General Notes to the Schedule of the United 
     States to Annex 3.3 of the Agreement; and
       (iii) section 274(h)(6)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986.
       (b) Other Tariff Modifications.--Subject to the 
     consultation and layover provisions of section 104, the 
     President may proclaim--
       (1) such modifications or continuation of any duty,
       (2) such modifications as the United States may agree to 
     with a CAFTA-DR country regarding the staging of any duty 
     treatment set forth in Annex 3.3 of the Agreement,
       (3) such continuation of duty-free or excise treatment, or
       (4) such additional duties,

     as the President determines to be necessary or appropriate to 
     maintain the general level of reciprocal and mutually 
     advantageous concessions provided for by the Agreement.
       (c) Conversion to Ad Valorem Rates.--For purposes of 
     subsections (a) and (b), with respect to any good for which 
     the base rate in the Schedule of the United States to Annex 
     3.3 of the Agreement is a specific or compound rate of duty, 
     the President may substitute for the base rate an ad valorem 
     rate that the President determines to be equivalent to the 
     base rate.

     SEC. 202. ADDITIONAL DUTIES ON CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL GOODS.

       (a) General Provisions.--
       (1) Applicability of subsection.--This subsection applies 
     to additional duties assessed under subsection (b).
       (2) Applicable ntr (mfn) rate of duty.--For purposes of 
     subsection (b), the term ``applicable NTR (MFN) rate of 
     duty'' means, with respect to a safeguard good, a rate of 
     duty that is the lesser of--
       (A) the column 1 general rate of duty that would, at the 
     time the additional duty is imposed under subsection (b), 
     apply to a good classifiable in the same 8-digit subheading 
     of the HTS as the safeguard good; or
       (B) the column 1 general rate of duty that would, on the 
     day before the date on which the Agreement enters into force, 
     apply to a good classifiable in the same 8-digit subheading 
     of the HTS as the safeguard good.
       (3) Schedule rate of duty.--For purposes of subsection (b), 
     the term ``schedule rate of duty'' means, with respect to a 
     safeguard good, the rate of duty for that good that is set 
     out in the Schedule of the United States to Annex 3.3 of the 
     Agreement.
       (4) Safeguard good.--In this section, the term ``safeguard 
     good'' means a good--
       (A) that is included in the Schedule of the United States 
     to Annex 3.15 of the Agreement;
       (B) that qualifies as an originating good under section 
     203, except that operations performed in or material obtained 
     from the United States shall be considered as if the 
     operations were performed in, and the material was obtained 
     from, a country that is not a party to the Agreement; and
       (C) for which a claim for preferential tariff treatment 
     under the Agreement has been made.
       (5) Exceptions.--No additional duty shall be assessed on a 
     good under subsection (b) if, at the time of entry, the good 
     is subject to import relief under--
       (A) subtitle A of title III of this Act; or
       (B) chapter 1 of title II of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 
     U.S.C. 2251 et seq.).
       (6) Termination.--The assessment of an additional duty on a 
     good under subsection (b) shall cease to apply to that good 
     on the date on which duty-free treatment must be provided to 
     that good under the Schedule of the United States to Annex 
     3.3 of the Agreement.
       (7) Notice.--Not later than 60 days after the Secretary of 
     the Treasury first assesses an additional duty in a calendar 
     year on a good under subsection (b), the Secretary shall 
     notify the country whose good is subject to the additional 
     duty in writing of such action and shall provide to that 
     country data supporting the assessment of the additional 
     duty.
       (b) Additional Duties on Safeguard Goods.--
       (1) In general.--In addition to any duty proclaimed under 
     subsection (a) or (b) of section 201, and subject to 
     subsection (a), the Secretary of the Treasury shall assess a 
     duty, in the amount determined under paragraph (2), on a 
     safeguard good of a CAFTA-DR country imported into the United 
     States in a calendar year if the Secretary determines that, 
     prior to such importation, the total volume of that safeguard 
     good of such country that is imported into the United States 
     in that calendar year exceeds 130 percent of the volume that 
     is set out for that safeguard good in the corresponding year 
     in the table for that country contained in Appendix I of the 
     General Notes to the Schedule of the United States to Annex 
     3.3 of the Agreement. For purposes of this subsection, year 1 
     in that table corresponds to the calendar year in which the 
     Agreement enters into force.
       (2) Calculation of additional duty.--The additional duty on 
     a safeguard good under this subsection shall be--
       (A) in the case of a good classified under subheading 
     1202.10.80, 1202.20.80, 2008.11.15, 2008.11.35, or 2008.11.60 
     of the HTS--
       (i) in years 1 through 5, an amount equal to 100 percent of 
     the excess of the applicable NTR (MFN) rate of duty over the 
     schedule rate of duty;
       (ii) in years 6 through 10, an amount equal to 75 percent 
     of the excess of the applicable NTR (MFN) rate of duty over 
     the schedule rate of duty; and
       (iii) in years 11 through 14, an amount equal to 50 percent 
     of the excess of the applicable NTR (MFN) rate of duty over 
     the schedule rate of duty; and
       (B) in the case of any other safeguard good--
       (i) in years 1 through 14, an amount equal to 100 percent 
     of the excess of the applicable NTR (MFN) rate of duty over 
     the schedule rate of duty;
       (ii) in years 15 through 17, an amount equal to 75 percent 
     of the excess of the applicable NTR (MFN) rate of duty over 
     the schedule rate of duty; and
       (iii) in years 18 and 19, an amount equal to 50 percent of 
     the excess of the applicable NTR (MFN) rate of duty over the 
     schedule rate of duty.

     SEC. 203. RULES OF ORIGIN.

       (a) Application and Interpretation.--In this section:
       (1) Tariff classification.--The basis for any tariff 
     classification is the HTS.
       (2) Reference to hts.--Whenever in this section there is a 
     reference to a chapter, heading, or subheading, such 
     reference shall be a reference to a chapter, heading, or 
     subheading of the HTS.
       (3) Cost or value.--Any cost or value referred to in this 
     section shall be recorded and maintained in accordance with 
     the generally accepted accounting principles applicable in

[[Page H6887]]

     the territory of the country in which the good is produced 
     (whether the United States or another CAFTA-DR country).
       (b) Originating Goods.--For purposes of this Act and for 
     purposes of implementing the preferential tariff treatment 
     provided for under the Agreement, except as otherwise 
     provided in this section, a good is an originating good if--
       (1) the good is a good wholly obtained or produced entirely 
     in the territory of one or more of the CAFTA-DR countries;
       (2) the good--
       (A) is produced entirely in the territory of one or more of 
     the CAFTA-DR countries, and--
       (i) each of the nonoriginating materials used in the 
     production of the good undergoes an applicable change in 
     tariff classification specified in Annex 4.1 of the 
     Agreement; or
       (ii) the good otherwise satisfies any applicable regional 
     value-content or other requirements specified in Annex 4.1 of 
     the Agreement; and
       (B) satisfies all other applicable requirements of this 
     section; or
       (3) the good is produced entirely in the territory of one 
     or more of the CAFTA-DR countries, exclusively from materials 
     described in paragraph (1) or (2).
       (c) Regional Value-Content.--
       (1) In general.--For purposes of subsection (b)(2), the 
     regional value-content of a good referred to in Annex 4.1 of 
     the Agreement, except for goods to which paragraph (4) 
     applies, shall be calculated by the importer, exporter, or 
     producer of the good, on the basis of the build-down method 
     described in paragraph (2) or the build-up method described 
     in paragraph (3).
       (2) Build-down method.--
       (A) In general.--The regional value-content of a good may 
     be calculated on the basis of the following build-down 
     method:

                                  av-vnm

                            rvc = -------- 100

                                    av

       (B) Definitions.--In subparagraph (A):
       (i) RVC.--The term ``RVC'' means the regional value-content 
     of the good, expressed as a percentage.
       (ii) AV.--The term ``AV'' means the adjusted value of the 
     good.
       (iii) VNM.--The term ``VNM'' means the value of 
     nonoriginating materials that are acquired and used by the 
     producer in the production of the good, but does not include 
     the value of a material that is self-produced.
       (3) Build-up method.--
       (A) In general.--The regional value-content of a good may 
     be calculated on the basis of the following build-up method:

                                   vom

                            rvc = -------- 100

                                    av

       (B) Definitions.--In subparagraph (A):
       (i) RVC.--The term ``RVC'' means the regional value-content 
     of the good, expressed as a percentage.
       (ii) AV.--The term ``AV'' means the adjusted value of the 
     good.
       (iii) VOM.--The term ``VOM'' means the value of originating 
     materials that are acquired or self-produced, and used by the 
     producer in the production of the good.
       (4) Special rule for certain automotive goods.--
       (A) In general.--For purposes of subsection (b)(2), the 
     regional value-content of an automotive good referred to in 
     Annex 4.1 of the Agreement may be calculated by the importer, 
     exporter, or producer of the good, on the basis of the 
     following net cost method:

                                  nc-vnm

                            rvc = -------- 100

                                    nc

       (B) Definitions.--In subparagraph (A):
       (i) Automotive good.--The term ``automotive good'' means a 
     good provided for in any of subheadings 8407.31 through 
     8407.34, subheading 8408.20, heading 8409, or in any of 
     headings 8701 through 8708.
       (ii) RVC.--The term ``RVC'' means the regional value-
     content of the automotive good, expressed as a percentage.
       (iii) NC.--The term ``NC'' means the net cost of the 
     automotive good.
       (iv) VNM.--The term ``VNM'' means the value of 
     nonoriginating materials that are acquired and used by the 
     producer in the production of the automotive good, but does 
     not include the value of a material that is self-produced.
       (C) Motor vehicles.--
       (i) Basis of calculation.--For purposes of determining the 
     regional value-content under subparagraph (A) for an 
     automotive good that is a motor vehicle provided for in any 
     of headings 8701 through 8705, an importer, exporter, or 
     producer may average the amounts calculated under the formula 
     contained in subparagraph (A), over the producer's fiscal 
     year--

       (I) with respect to all motor vehicles in any 1 of the 
     categories described in clause (ii); or
       (II) with respect to all motor vehicles in any such 
     category that are exported to the territory of one or more of 
     the CAFTA-DR countries.

       (ii) Categories.--A category is described in this clause if 
     it--

       (I) is the same model line of motor vehicles, is in the 
     same class of vehicles, and is produced in the same plant in 
     the territory of a CAFTA-DR country, as the good described in 
     clause (i) for which regional value-content is being 
     calculated;
       (II) is the same class of motor vehicles, and is produced 
     in the same plant in the territory of a CAFTA-DR country, as 
     the good described in clause (i) for which regional value-
     content is being calculated; or
       (III) is the same model line of motor vehicles produced in 
     the territory of a CAFTA-DR country as the good described in 
     clause (i) for which regional value-content is being 
     calculated.

       (D) Other automotive goods.--For purposes of determining 
     the regional value-content under subparagraph (A) for 
     automotive goods provided for in any of subheadings 8407.31 
     through 8407.34, in subheading 8408.20, or in heading 8409, 
     8706, 8707, or 8708, that are produced in the same plant, an 
     importer, exporter, or producer may--
       (i) average the amounts calculated under the formula 
     contained in subparagraph (A) over--

       (I) the fiscal year of the motor vehicle producer to whom 
     the automotive goods are sold,
       (II) any quarter or month, or
       (III) its own fiscal year,

     if the goods were produced during the fiscal year, quarter, 
     or month that is the basis for the calculation;
       (ii) determine the average referred to in clause (i) 
     separately for such goods sold to 1 or more motor vehicle 
     producers; or
       (iii) make a separate determination under clause (i) or 
     (ii) for automotive goods that are exported to the territory 
     of one or more of the CAFTA-DR countries.
       (E) Calculating net cost.--The importer, exporter, or 
     producer shall, consistent with the provisions regarding 
     allocation of costs set out in generally accepted accounting 
     principles, determine the net cost of an automotive good 
     under subparagraph (B) by--
       (i) calculating the total cost incurred with respect to all 
     goods produced by the producer of the automotive good, 
     subtracting any sales promotion, marketing and after-sales 
     service costs, royalties, shipping and packing costs, and 
     nonallowable interest costs that are included in the total 
     cost of all such goods, and then reasonably allocating the 
     resulting net cost of those goods to the automotive good;
       (ii) calculating the total cost incurred with respect to 
     all goods produced by that producer, reasonably allocating 
     the total cost to the automotive good, and then subtracting 
     any sales promotion, marketing and after-sales service costs, 
     royalties, shipping and packing costs, and nonallowable 
     interest costs that are included in the portion of the total 
     cost allocated to the automotive good; or
       (iii) reasonably allocating each cost that forms part of 
     the total cost incurred with respect to the automotive good 
     so that the aggregate of all such costs does not include any 
     sales promotion, marketing and after-sales service costs, 
     royalties, shipping and packing costs, or nonallowable 
     interest costs.
       (d) Value of Materials.--
       (1) In general.--For the purpose of calculating the 
     regional value-content of a good under subsection (c), and 
     for purposes of applying the de minimis rules under 
     subsection (f), the value of a material is--
       (A) in the case of a material that is imported by the 
     producer of the good, the adjusted value of the material;
       (B) in the case of a material acquired in the territory in 
     which the good is produced, the value, determined in 
     accordance with Articles 1 through 8, Article 15, and the 
     corresponding interpretive notes of the Agreement on 
     Implementation of Article VII of the General Agreement on 
     Tariffs and Trade 1994 referred to in section 101(d)(8) of 
     the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, as set forth in regulations 
     promulgated by the Secretary of the Treasury providing for 
     the application of such Articles in the absence of an 
     importation; or
       (C) in the case of a material that is self-produced, the 
     sum of--
       (i) all expenses incurred in the production of the 
     material, including general expenses; and
       (ii) an amount for profit equivalent to the profit added in 
     the normal course of trade.
       (2) Further adjustments to the value of materials.--
       (A) Originating material.--The following expenses, if not 
     included in the value of an originating material calculated 
     under paragraph (1), may be added to the value of the 
     originating material:
       (i) The costs of freight, insurance, packing, and all other 
     costs incurred in transporting the material within or between 
     the territory of one or more of the CAFTA-DR countries to the 
     location of the producer.
       (ii) Duties, taxes, and customs brokerage fees on the 
     material paid in the territory of one or more of the CAFTA-DR 
     countries, other than duties or taxes that are waived, 
     refunded, refundable, or otherwise recoverable, including 
     credit against duty or tax paid or payable.
       (iii) The cost of waste and spoilage resulting from the use 
     of the material in the production of the good, less the value 
     of renewable scrap or byproducts.
       (B) Nonoriginating material.--The following expenses, if 
     included in the value of a nonoriginating material calculated 
     under paragraph (1), may be deducted from the value of the 
     nonoriginating material:
       (i) The costs of freight, insurance, packing, and all other 
     costs incurred in transporting the material within or between 
     the territory

[[Page H6888]]

     of one or more of the CAFTA-DR countries to the location of 
     the producer.
       (ii) Duties, taxes, and customs brokerage fees on the 
     material paid in the territory of one or more of the CAFTA-DR 
     countries, other than duties or taxes that are waived, 
     refunded, refundable, or otherwise recoverable, including 
     credit against duty or tax paid or payable.
       (iii) The cost of waste and spoilage resulting from the use 
     of the material in the production of the good, less the value 
     of renewable scrap or byproducts.
       (iv) The cost of originating materials used in the 
     production of the nonoriginating material in the territory of 
     one or more of the CAFTA-DR countries.
       (e) Accumulation.--
       (1) Originating materials used in production of goods of 
     another country.--Originating materials from the territory of 
     one or more of the CAFTA-DR countries that are used in the 
     production of a good in the territory of another CAFTA-DR 
     country shall be considered to originate in the territory of 
     that other country.
       (2) Multiple procedures.--A good that is produced in the 
     territory of one or more of the CAFTA-DR countries by 1 or 
     more producers is an originating good if the good satisfies 
     the requirements of subsection (b) and all other applicable 
     requirements of this section.
       (f) De Minimis Amounts of Nonoriginating Materials.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and 
     (3), a good that does not undergo a change in tariff 
     classification pursuant to Annex 4.1 of the Agreement is an 
     originating good if--
       (A) the value of all nonoriginating materials that--
       (i) are used in the production of the good, and
       (ii) do not undergo the applicable change in tariff 
     classification (set out in Annex 4.1 of the Agreement),

     does not exceed 10 percent of the adjusted value of the good;
       (B) the good meets all other applicable requirements of 
     this section; and
       (C) the value of such nonoriginating materials is included 
     in the value of nonoriginating materials for any applicable 
     regional value-content requirement for the good.
       (2) Exceptions.--Paragraph (1) does not apply to the 
     following:
       (A) A nonoriginating material provided for in chapter 4, or 
     a nonoriginating dairy preparation containing over 10 percent 
     by weight of milk solids provided for in subheading 1901.90 
     or 2106.90, that is used in the production of a good provided 
     for in chapter 4.
       (B) A nonoriginating material provided for in chapter 4, or 
     a nonoriginating dairy preparation containing over 10 percent 
     by weight of milk solids provided for in subheading 1901.90, 
     that is used in the production of the following goods:
       (i) Infant preparations containing over 10 percent by 
     weight of milk solids provided for in subheading 1901.10.
       (ii) Mixes and doughs, containing over 25 percent by weight 
     of butterfat, not put up for retail sale, provided for in 
     subheading 1901.20.
       (iii) Dairy preparations containing over 10 percent by 
     weight of milk solids provided for in subheading 1901.90 or 
     2106.90.
       (iv) Goods provided for in heading 2105.
       (v) Beverages containing milk provided for in subheading 
     2202.90.
       (vi) Animal feeds containing over 10 percent by weight of 
     milk solids provided for in subheading 2309.90.
       (C) A nonoriginating material provided for in heading 0805, 
     or any of subheadings 2009.11 through 2009.39, that is used 
     in the production of a good provided for in any of 
     subheadings 2009.11 through 2009.39, or in fruit or vegetable 
     juice of any single fruit or vegetable, fortified with 
     minerals or vitamins, concentrated or unconcentrated, 
     provided for in subheading 2106.90 or 2202.90.
       (D) A nonoriginating material provided for in heading 0901 
     or 2101 that is used in the production of a good provided for 
     in heading 0901 or 2101.
       (E) A nonoriginating material provided for in heading 1006 
     that is used in the production of a good provided for in 
     heading 1102 or 1103 or subheading 1904.90.
       (F) A nonoriginating material provided for in chapter 15 
     that is used in the production of a good provided for in 
     chapter 15.
       (G) A nonoriginating material provided for in heading 1701 
     that is used in the production of a good provided for in any 
     of headings 1701 through 1703.
       (H) A nonoriginating material provided for in chapter 17 
     that is used in the production of a good provided for in 
     subheading 1806.10.
       (I) Except as provided in subparagraphs (A) through (H) and 
     Annex 4.1 of the Agreement, a nonoriginating material used in 
     the production of a good provided for in any of chapters 1 
     through 24, unless the nonoriginating material is provided 
     for in a different subheading than the good for which origin 
     is being determined under this section.
       (3) Textile or apparel goods.--
       (A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), a 
     textile or apparel good that is not an originating good 
     because certain fibers or yarns used in the production of the 
     component of the good that determines the tariff 
     classification of the good do not undergo an applicable 
     change in tariff classification, set out in Annex 4.1 of the 
     Agreement, shall be considered to be an originating good if--
       (i) the total weight of all such fibers or yarns in that 
     component is not more than 10 percent of the total weight of 
     that component; or
       (ii) the yarns are those described in section 
     204(b)(3)(B)(vi)(IV) of the Andean Trade Preference Act (19 
     U.S.C. 3203(b)(3)(B)(vi)(IV))(as in effect on the date of the 
     enactment of this Act).
       (B) Certain textile or apparel goods.--A textile or apparel 
     good containing elastomeric yarns in the component of the 
     good that determines the tariff classification of the good 
     shall be considered to be an originating good only if such 
     yarns are wholly formed in the territory of a CAFTA-DR 
     country.
       (C) Yarn, fabric, or fiber.--For purposes of this 
     paragraph, in the case of a good that is a yarn, fabric, or 
     fiber, the term ``component of the good that determines the 
     tariff classification of the good'' means all of the fibers 
     in the good.
       (g) Fungible Goods and Materials.--
       (1) In general.--
       (A) Claim for preferential tariff treatment.--A person 
     claiming that a fungible good or fungible material is an 
     originating good may base the claim either on the physical 
     segregation of the fungible good or fungible material or by 
     using an inventory management method with respect to the 
     fungible good or fungible material.
       (B) Inventory management method.--In this subsection, the 
     term ``inventory management method'' means--
       (i) averaging;
       (ii) ``last-in, first-out'';
       (iii) ``first-in, first-out''; or
       (iv) any other method--

       (I) recognized in the generally accepted accounting 
     principles of the CAFTA-DR country in which the production is 
     performed; or
       (II) otherwise accepted by that country.

       (2) Election of inventory method.--A person selecting an 
     inventory management method under paragraph (1) for a 
     particular fungible good or fungible material shall continue 
     to use that method for that fungible good or fungible 
     material throughout the fiscal year of that person.
       (h) Accessories, Spare Parts, or Tools.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), 
     accessories, spare parts, or tools delivered with a good that 
     form part of the good's standard accessories, spare parts, or 
     tools shall--
       (A) be treated as originating goods if the good is an 
     originating good; and
       (B) be disregarded in determining whether all the 
     nonoriginating materials used in the production of the good 
     undergo the applicable change in tariff classification set 
     out in Annex 4.1 of the Agreement.
       (2) Conditions.--Paragraph (1) shall apply only if--
       (A) the accessories, spare parts, or tools are classified 
     with and not invoiced separately from the good, regardless of 
     whether they appear specified or separately identified in the 
     invoice for the good; and
       (B) the quantities and value of the accessories, spare 
     parts, or tools are customary for the good.
       (3) Regional value-content.--If the good is subject to a 
     regional value-content requirement, the value of the 
     accessories, spare parts, or tools shall be taken into 
     account as originating or nonoriginating materials, as the 
     case may be, in calculating the regional value-content of the 
     good.
       (i) Packaging Materials and Containers for Retail Sale.--
     Packaging materials and containers in which a good is 
     packaged for retail sale, if classified with the good, shall 
     be disregarded in determining whether all the nonoriginating 
     materials used in the production of the good undergo the 
     applicable change in tariff classification set out in Annex 
     4.1 of the Agreement, and, if the good is subject to a 
     regional value-content requirement, the value of such 
     packaging materials and containers shall be taken into 
     account as originating or nonoriginating materials, as the 
     case may be, in calculating the regional value-content of the 
     good.
       (j) Packing Materials and Containers for Shipment.--Packing 
     materials and containers for shipment shall be disregarded in 
     determining whether a good is an originating good.
       (k) Indirect Materials.--An indirect material shall be 
     treated as an originating material without regard to where it 
     is produced.
       (l) Transit and Transhipment.--A good that has undergone 
     production necessary to qualify as an originating good under 
     subsection (b) shall not be considered to be an originating 
     good if, subsequent to that production, the good--
       (1) undergoes further production or any other operation 
     outside the territories of the CAFTA-DR countries, other than 
     unloading, reloading, or any other operation necessary to 
     preserve the good in good condition or to transport the good 
     to the territory of a CAFTA-DR country; or
       (2) does not remain under the control of customs 
     authorities in the territory of a country other than a CAFTA-
     DR country.
       (m) Goods Classifiable as Goods Put Up in Sets.--
     Notwithstanding the rules set forth in Annex 4.1 of the 
     Agreement, goods classifiable as goods put up in sets for 
     retail sale as provided for in General Rule of Interpretation 
     3 of the HTS shall not be considered to be originating goods 
     unless--
       (1) each of the goods in the set is an originating good; or
       (2) the total value of the nonoriginating goods in the set 
     does not exceed--
       (A) in the case of textile or apparel goods, 10 percent of 
     the adjusted value of the set; or

[[Page H6889]]

       (B) in the case of a good, other than a textile or apparel 
     good, 15 percent of the adjusted value of the set.
       (n) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Adjusted value.--The term ``adjusted value'' means the 
     value determined in accordance with Articles 1 through 8, 
     Article 15, and the corresponding interpretive notes of the 
     Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of the General 
     Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 referred to in section 
     101(d)(8) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, adjusted, if 
     necessary, to exclude any costs, charges, or expenses 
     incurred for transportation, insurance, and related services 
     incident to the international shipment of the merchandise 
     from the country of exportation to the place of importation.
       (2) CAFTA-DR country.--The term ``CAFTA-DR country'' 
     means--
       (A) the United States; and
       (B) Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, 
     Guatemala, Honduras, or Nicaragua, for such time as the 
     Agreement is in force between the United States and that 
     country.
       (3) Class of motor vehicles.--The term ``class of motor 
     vehicles'' means any one of the following categories of motor 
     vehicles:
       (A) Motor vehicles provided for in subheading 8701.20, 
     8704.10, 8704.22, 8704.23, 8704.32, or 8704.90, or heading 
     8705 or 8706, or motor vehicles for the transport of 16 or 
     more persons provided for in subheading 8702.10 or 8702.90.
       (B) Motor vehicles provided for in subheading 8701.10 or 
     any of subheadings 8701.30 through 8701.90.
       (C) Motor vehicles for the transport of 15 or fewer persons 
     provided for in subheading 8702.10 or 8702.90, or motor 
     vehicles provided for in subheading 8704.21 or 8704.31.
       (D) Motor vehicles provided for in any of subheadings 
     8703.21 through 8703.90.
       (4) Fungible good or fungible material.--The term 
     ``fungible good'' or ``fungible material'' means a good or 
     material, as the case may be, that is interchangeable with 
     another good or material for commercial purposes and the 
     properties of which are essentially identical to such other 
     good or material.
       (5) Generally accepted accounting principles.--The term 
     ``generally accepted accounting principles'' means the 
     recognized consensus or substantial authoritative support in 
     the territory of a CAFTA-DR country with respect to the 
     recording of revenues, expenses, costs, assets, and 
     liabilities, the disclosure of information, and the 
     preparation of financial statements. The principles may 
     encompass broad guidelines of general application as well as 
     detailed standards, practices, and procedures.
       (6) Goods wholly obtained or produced entirely in the 
     territory of one or more of the cafta-dr countries.--The term 
     ``goods wholly obtained or produced entirely in the territory 
     of one or more of the CAFTA-DR countries'' means--
       (A) plants and plant products harvested or gathered in the 
     territory of one or more of the CAFTA-DR countries;
       (B) live animals born and raised in the territory of one or 
     more of the CAFTA-DR countries;
       (C) goods obtained in the territory of one or more of the 
     CAFTA-DR countries from live animals;
       (D) goods obtained from hunting, trapping, fishing or 
     aquaculture conducted in the territory of one or more of the 
     CAFTA-DR countries;
       (E) minerals and other natural resources not included in 
     subparagraphs (A) through (D) that are extracted or taken in 
     the territory of one or more of the CAFTA-DR countries;
       (F) fish, shellfish, and other marine life taken from the 
     sea, seabed, or subsoil outside the territory of one or more 
     of the CAFTA-DR countries by vessels registered or recorded 
     with a CAFTA-DR country and flying the flag of that country;
       (G) goods produced on board factory ships from the goods 
     referred to in subparagraph (F), if such factory ships are 
     registered or recorded with that CAFTA-DR country and fly the 
     flag of that country;
       (H) goods taken by a CAFTA-DR country or a person of a 
     CAFTA-DR country from the seabed or subsoil outside 
     territorial waters, if a CAFTA-DR country has rights to 
     exploit such seabed or subsoil;
       (I) goods taken from outer space, if the goods are obtained 
     by a CAFTA-DR country or a person of a CAFTA-DR country and 
     not processed in the territory of a country other than a 
     CAFTA-DR country;
       (J) waste and scrap derived from--
       (i) manufacturing or processing operations in the territory 
     of one or more of the CAFTA-DR countries; or
       (ii) used goods collected in the territory of one or more 
     of the CAFTA-DR countries, if such goods are fit only for the 
     recovery of raw materials;
       (K) recovered goods derived in the territory of one or more 
     of the CAFTA-DR countries from used goods, and used in the 
     territory of a CAFTA-DR country in the production of 
     remanufactured goods; and
       (L) goods produced in the territory of one or more of the 
     CAFTA-DR countries exclusively from--
       (i) goods referred to in any of subparagraphs (A) through 
     (J), or
       (ii) the derivatives of goods referred to in clause (i),
     at any stage of production.

       (7) Identical goods.--The term ``identical goods'' means 
     identical goods as defined in the Agreement on Implementation 
     of Article VII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 
     1994 referred to in section 101(d)(8) of the Uruguay Round 
     Agreements Act;
       (8) Indirect material.--The term ``indirect material'' 
     means a good used in the production, testing, or inspection 
     of a good but not physically incorporated into the good, or a 
     good used in the maintenance of buildings or the operation of 
     equipment associated with the production of a good, 
     including--
       (A) fuel and energy;
       (B) tools, dies, and molds;
       (C) spare parts and materials used in the maintenance of 
     equipment or buildings;
       (D) lubricants, greases, compounding materials, and other 
     materials used in production or used to operate equipment or 
     buildings;
       (E) gloves, glasses, footwear, clothing, safety equipment, 
     and supplies;
       (F) equipment, devices, and supplies used for testing or 
     inspecting the good;
       (G) catalysts and solvents; and
       (H) any other goods that are not incorporated into the good 
     but the use of which in the production of the good can 
     reasonably be demonstrated to be a part of that production.
       (9) Material.--The term ``material'' means a good that is 
     used in the production of another good, including a part or 
     an ingredient.
       (10) Material that is self-produced.--The term ``material 
     that is self-produced'' means an originating material that is 
     produced by a producer of a good and used in the production 
     of that good.
       (11) Model line.--The term ``model line'' means a group of 
     motor vehicles having the same platform or model name.
       (12) Net cost.--The term ``net cost'' means total cost 
     minus sales promotion, marketing, and after-sales service 
     costs, royalties, shipping and packing costs, and non-
     allowable interest costs that are included in the total cost.
       (13) Nonallowable interest costs.--The term ``nonallowable 
     interest costs'' means interest costs incurred by a producer 
     that exceed 700 basis points above the applicable official 
     interest rate for comparable maturities of the CAFTA-DR 
     country in which the producer is located.
       (14) Nonoriginating good or nonoriginating material.--The 
     terms ``nonoriginating good'' and ``nonoriginating material'' 
     mean a good or material, as the case may be, that does not 
     qualify as originating under this section.
       (15) Packing materials and containers for shipment.--The 
     term ``packing materials and containers for shipment'' means 
     the goods used to protect a good during its transportation 
     and does not include the packaging materials and containers 
     in which a good is packaged for retail sale.
       (16) Preferential tariff treatment.--The term 
     ``preferential tariff treatment'' means the customs duty 
     rate, and the treatment under article 3.10.4 of the 
     Agreement, that are applicable to an originating good 
     pursuant to the Agreement.
       (17) Producer.--The term ``producer'' means a person who 
     engages in the production of a good in the territory of a 
     CAFTA-DR country.
       (18) Production.--The term ``production'' means growing, 
     mining, harvesting, fishing, raising, trapping, hunting, 
     manufacturing, processing, assembling, or disassembling a 
     good.
       (19) Reasonably allocate.--The term ``reasonably allocate'' 
     means to apportion in a manner that would be appropriate 
     under generally accepted accounting principles.
       (20) Recovered goods.--The term ``recovered goods'' means 
     materials in the form of individual parts that are the result 
     of--
       (A) the disassembly of used goods into individual parts; 
     and
       (B) the cleaning, inspecting, testing, or other processing 
     that is necessary for improvement to sound working condition 
     of such individual parts.
       (21) Remanufactured good.--The term ``remanufactured good'' 
     means a good that is classified under chapter 84, 85, or 87, 
     or heading 9026, 9031, or 9032, other than a good classified 
     under heading 8418 or 8516, and that--
       (A) is entirely or partially comprised of recovered goods; 
     and
       (B) has a similar life expectancy and enjoys a factory 
     warranty similar to such a new good.
       (22) Total cost.--The term ``total cost'' means all product 
     costs, period costs, and other costs for a good incurred in 
     the territory of one or more of the CAFTA-DR countries.
       (23) Used.--The term ``used'' means used or consumed in the 
     production of goods.
       (o) Presidential Proclamation Authority.--
       (1) In general.--The President is authorized to proclaim, 
     as part of the HTS--
       (A) the provisions set out in Annex 4.1 of the Agreement; 
     and
       (B) any additional subordinate category necessary to carry 
     out this title consistent with the Agreement.
       (2) Fabrics and yarns not available in commercial 
     quantities in the united states.--The President is authorized 
     to proclaim that a fabric or yarn is added to the list in 
     Annex 3.25 of the Agreement in an unrestricted quantity, as 
     provided in article 3.25.4(e) of the Agreement.
       (3) Modifications.--
       (A) In general.--Subject to the consultation and layover 
     provisions of section 104,

[[Page H6890]]

     the President may proclaim modifications to the provisions 
     proclaimed under the authority of paragraph (1)(A), other 
     than provisions of chapters 50 through 63, as included in 
     Annex 4.1 of the Agreement.
       (B) Additional proclamations.--Notwithstanding subparagraph 
     (A), and subject to the consultation and layover provisions 
     of section 104, the President may proclaim before the end of 
     the 1-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, modifications to correct any typographical, 
     clerical, or other nonsubstantive technical error regarding 
     the provisions of chapters 50 through 63, as included in 
     Annex 4.1 of the Agreement.
       (4) Fabrics, yarns, or fibers not available in commercial 
     quantities in the cafta-dr countries.--
       (A) In general.--Notwithstanding paragraph 3(A), the list 
     of fabrics, yarns, and fibers set out in Annex 3.25 of the 
     Agreement may be modified as provided for in this paragraph.
       (B) Definitions.--In this paragraph:
       (i) The term ``interested entity'' means the government of 
     a CAFTA-DR country other than the United States, a potential 
     or actual purchaser of a textile or apparel good, or a 
     potential or actual supplier of a textile or apparel good.
       (ii) All references to ``day'' and ``days'' exclude 
     Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays.
       (C) Requests to add fabrics, yarns, or fibers.--(i) An 
     interested entity may request the President to determine that 
     a fabric, yarn, or fiber is not available in commercial 
     quantities in a timely manner in the CAFTA-DR countries and 
     to add that fabric, yarn, or fiber to the list in Annex 3.25 
     of the Agreement in a restricted or unrestricted quantity.
       (ii) After receiving a request under clause (i), the 
     President may determine whether--
       (I) the fabric, yarn, or fiber is available in commercial 
     quantities in a timely manner in the CAFTA-DR countries; or
       (II) any interested entity objects to the request.
       (iii) The President may, within the time periods specified 
     in clause (iv), proclaim that a fabric, yarn, or fiber that 
     is the subject of a request submitted under clause (i) is 
     added to the list in Annex 3.25 of the Agreement in an 
     unrestricted quantity, or in any restricted quantity that the 
     President may establish, if the President determines under 
     clause (ii) that--
       (I) the fabric, yarn, or fiber is not available in 
     commercial quantities in a timely manner in the CAFTA-DR 
     countries; or
       (II) no interested entity has objected to the request.
       (iv) The time periods within which the President may issue 
     a proclamation under clause (iii) are--
       (I) not later than 30 days after the date on which the 
     request is submitted under clause (i); or
       (II) not later than 44 days after the request is submitted, 
     if the President determines, within 30 days after the date on 
     which the request is submitted, that the President does not 
     have sufficient information to make a determination under 
     clause (ii).
       (v) Notwithstanding section 103(a)(2), a proclamation made 
     under clause (iii) shall take effect on the date on which the 
     text of the proclamation is published in the Federal 
     Register.
       (vi) Not later than 6 months after proclaiming under clause 
     (iii) that a fabric, yarn, or fiber is added to the list in 
     Annex 3.25 of the Agreement in a restricted quantity, the 
     President may eliminate the restriction if the President 
     determines that the fabric, yarn, or fiber is not available 
     in commercial quantities in a timely manner in the CAFTA-DR 
     countries.
       (D) Deemed approval of request.--If, after an interested 
     entity submits a request under subparagraph (C)(i), the 
     President does not, within the applicable time period 
     specified in subparagraph (C)(iv), make a determination under 
     subparagraph (C)(ii) regarding the request, the fabric, yarn, 
     or fiber that is the subject of the request shall be 
     considered to be added, in an unrestricted quantity, to the 
     list in Annex 3.25 of the Agreement beginning--
       (i) 45 days after the date on which the request was 
     submitted; or
       (ii) 60 days after the date on which the request was 
     submitted, if the President made a determination under 
     subparagraph (C)(iv)(II).
       (E) Requests to restrict or remove fabrics, yarns, or 
     fibers.--(i) Subject to clause (ii), an interested entity may 
     request the President to restrict the quantity of, or remove 
     from the list in Annex 3.25 of the Agreement, any fabric, 
     yarn, or fiber--
       (I) that has been added to that list in an unrestricted 
     quantity pursuant to paragraph (2) or subparagraph (C)(iii) 
     or (D); or
       (II) with respect to which the President has eliminated a 
     restriction under subparagraph (C)(vi).
       (ii) An interested entity may submit a request under clause 
     (i) at any time beginning 6 months after the date of the 
     action described in subclause (I) or (II) of that clause.
       (iii) Not later than 30 days after the date on which a 
     request under clause (i) is submitted, the President may 
     proclaim an action provided for under clause (i) if the 
     President determines that the fabric, yarn, or fiber that is 
     the subject of the request is available in commercial 
     quantities in a timely manner in the CAFTA-DR countries.
       (iv) A proclamation declared under clause (iii) shall take 
     effect no earlier than the date that is 6 months after the 
     date on which the text of the proclamation is published in 
     the Federal Register.
       (F) Procedures.--The President shall establish procedures--
       (i) governing the submission of a request under 
     subparagraphs (C) and (E); and
       (ii) providing an opportunity for interested entities to 
     submit comments and supporting evidence before the President 
     makes a determination under subparagraph (C) (ii) or (vi) or 
     (E)(iii).

     SEC. 204. CUSTOMS USER FEES.

       Section 13031(b) of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget 
     Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c(b)) is amended by 
     adding after paragraph (14), the following:
       ``(15) No fee may be charged under subsection (a) (9) or 
     (10) with respect to goods that qualify as originating goods 
     under section 203 of the Dominican Republic-Central America-
     United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. Any 
     service for which an exemption from such fee is provided by 
     reason of this paragraph may not be funded with money 
     contained in the Customs User Fee Account.''.

     SEC. 205. RETROACTIVE APPLICATION FOR CERTAIN LIQUIDATIONS 
                   AND RELIQUIDATIONS OF TEXTILE OR APPAREL GOODS.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 514 of the Tariff 
     Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1514) or any other provision of law, 
     and subject to subsection (c), an entry--
       (1) of a textile or apparel good--
       (A) of a CAFTA-DR country that the United States Trade 
     Representative has designated as an eligible country under 
     subsection (b), and
       (B) that would have qualified as an originating good under 
     section 203 if the good had been entered after the date of 
     entry into force of the Agreement for that country,
       (2) that was made on or after January 1, 2004, and before 
     the date of the entry into force of the Agreement with 
     respect to that country, and
       (3) for which customs duties in excess of the applicable 
     rate of duty for that good set out in the Schedule of the 
     United States to Annex 3.3 of the Agreement were paid,

     shall be liquidated or reliquidated at the applicable rate of 
     duty for that good set out in the Schedule of the United 
     States to Annex 3.3 of the Agreement, and the Secretary of 
     the Treasury shall refund any excess customs duties paid with 
     respect to such entry.
       (b) Eligible Country.--The United States Trade 
     Representative shall determine, in accordance with article 
     3.20 of the Agreement, which CAFTA-DR countries are eligible 
     countries for purposes of this section, and shall publish a 
     list of all such countries in the Federal Register.
       (c) Requests.--Liquidation or reliquidation may be made 
     under subsection (a) with respect to an entry of a textile or 
     apparel good only if a request therefor is filed with the 
     Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, within such period 
     as the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection shall 
     establish by regulation in consultation with the Secretary of 
     the Treasury, that contains sufficient information to enable 
     the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection--
       (1)(A) to locate the entry; or
       (B) to reconstruct the entry if it cannot be located; and
       (2) to determine that the good satisfies the conditions set 
     out in subsection (a).
       (d) Definition.--As used in this section, the term 
     ``entry'' includes a withdrawal from warehouse for 
     consumption.

     SEC. 206. DISCLOSURE OF INCORRECT INFORMATION; FALSE 
                   CERTIFICATIONS OF ORIGIN; DENIAL OF 
                   PREFERENTIAL TARIFF TREATMENT.

       (a) Disclosure of Incorrect Information.--Section 592 of 
     the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1592) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c)--
       (A) by redesignating paragraph (9) as paragraph (10); and
       (B) by inserting after paragraph (8) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(9) Prior disclosure regarding claims under the dominican 
     republic-central america-united states free trade 
     agreement.--An importer shall not be subject to penalties 
     under subsection (a) for making an incorrect claim that a 
     good qualifies as an originating good under section 203 of 
     the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free 
     Trade Agreement Implementation Act if the importer, in 
     accordance with regulations issued by the Secretary of the 
     Treasury, promptly and voluntarily makes a corrected 
     declaration and pays any duties owing.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(h) False Certifications of Origin Under the Dominican 
     Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade 
     Agreement.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), it is unlawful 
     for any person to certify falsely, by fraud, gross 
     negligence, or negligence, in a CAFTA-DR certification of 
     origin (as defined in section 508(g)(1)(B) of this Act) that 
     a good exported from the United States qualifies as an 
     originating good under the rules of origin set out in section 
     203 of the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States 
     Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. The procedures and 
     penalties of this section that apply to a violation of 
     subsection (a) also apply to a violation of this subsection.

[[Page H6891]]

       ``(2) Prompt and voluntary disclosure of incorrect 
     information.--No penalty shall be imposed under this 
     subsection if, promptly after an exporter or producer that 
     issued a CAFTA-DR certification of origin has reason to 
     believe that such certification contains or is based on 
     incorrect information, the exporter or producer voluntarily 
     provides written notice of such incorrect information to 
     every person to whom the certification was issued.
       ``(3) Exception.--A person may not be considered to have 
     violated paragraph (1) if--
       ``(A) the information was correct at the time it was 
     provided in a CAFTA-DR certification of origin but was later 
     rendered incorrect due to a change in circumstances; and
       ``(B) the person promptly and voluntarily provides written 
     notice of the change in circumstances to all persons to whom 
     the person provided the certification.''.
       (b) Denial of Preferential Tariff Treatment.--Section 514 
     of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1514) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(h) Denial of Preferential Tariff Treatment Under the 
     Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade 
     Agreement.--If the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection or 
     the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement finds 
     indications of a pattern of conduct by an importer, exporter, 
     or producer of false or unsupported representations that 
     goods qualify under the rules of origin set out in section 
     203 of the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States 
     Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, the Bureau of 
     Customs and Border Protection, in accordance with regulations 
     issued by the Secretary of the Treasury, may suspend 
     preferential tariff treatment under the Dominican Republic-
     Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement to entries 
     of identical goods covered by subsequent representations by 
     that importer, exporter, or producer until the Bureau of 
     Customs and Border Protection determines that representations 
     of that person are in conformity with such section 203.''.

     SEC. 207. RELIQUIDATION OF ENTRIES.

       Subsection (d) of section 520 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 
     U.S.C. 1520(d)) is amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking ``or 
     section 202 of the United States-Chile Free Trade Agreement 
     Implementation Act'' and inserting ``, section 202 of the 
     United States-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 
     or section 203 of the Dominican Republic-Central America-
     United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``or certifications'' 
     after ``other certificates''.

     SEC. 208. RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS.

       Section 508 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1508) is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (g) as subsection (h);
       (2) by inserting after subsection (f) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(g) Certifications of Origin for Goods Exported Under the 
     Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade 
     Agreement.--
       ``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       ``(A) Records and supporting documents.--The term `records 
     and supporting documents' means, with respect to an exported 
     good under paragraph (2), records and documents related to 
     the origin of the good, including--
       ``(i) the purchase, cost, and value of, and payment for, 
     the good;
       ``(ii) the purchase, cost, and value of, and payment for, 
     all materials, including indirect materials, used in the 
     production of the good; and
       ``(iii) the production of the good in the form in which it 
     was exported.
       ``(B) CAFTA-DR certification of origin.--The term `CAFTA-DR 
     certification of origin' means the certification established 
     under article 4.16 of the Dominican Republic-Central America-
     United States Free Trade Agreement that a good qualifies as 
     an originating good under such Agreement.
       ``(2) Exports to cafta-dr countries.--Any person who 
     completes and issues a CAFTA-DR certification of origin for a 
     good exported from the United States shall make, keep, and, 
     pursuant to rules and regulations promulgated by the 
     Secretary of the Treasury, render for examination and 
     inspection all records and supporting documents related to 
     the origin of the good (including the certification or copies 
     thereof).
       ``(3) Retention period.--Records and supporting documents 
     shall be kept by the person who issued a CAFTA-DR 
     certification of origin for at least 5 years after the date 
     on which the certification was issued.''; and
       (3) in subsection (h), as so redesignated--
       (A) by inserting ``or (g)'' after ``(f)''; and
       (B) by striking ``that subsection'' and inserting ``either 
     such subsection''.

     SEC. 209. ENFORCEMENT RELATING TO TRADE IN TEXTILE OR APPAREL 
                   GOODS.

       (a) Action During Verification.--
       (1) In general.--If the Secretary of the Treasury requests 
     the government of a CAFTA-DR country to conduct a 
     verification pursuant to article 3.24 of the Agreement for 
     purposes of making a determination under paragraph (2), the 
     President may direct the Secretary to take appropriate action 
     described in subsection (b) while the verification is being 
     conducted.
       (2) Determination.--A determination under this paragraph is 
     a determination--
       (A) that an exporter or producer in that country is 
     complying with applicable customs laws, regulations, and 
     procedures regarding trade in textile or apparel goods, or
       (B) that a claim that a textile or apparel good exported or 
     produced by such exporter or producer--
       (i) qualifies as an originating good under section 203 of 
     this Act, or
       (ii) is a good of a CAFTA-DR country,

     is accurate.
       (b) Appropriate Action Described.--Appropriate action under 
     subsection (a)(1) includes--
       (1) suspension of preferential tariff treatment under the 
     Agreement with respect to--
       (A) any textile or apparel good exported or produced by the 
     person that is the subject of a verification under subsection 
     (a)(1) regarding compliance described in subsection 
     (a)(2)(A), if the Secretary determines there is insufficient 
     information to support any claim for preferential tariff 
     treatment that has been made with respect to any such good; 
     or
       (B) the textile or apparel good for which a claim of 
     preferential tariff treatment has been made that is the 
     subject of a verification under subsection (a)(1) regarding a 
     claim described in subsection (a)(2)(B), if the Secretary 
     determines there is insufficient information to support that 
     claim;
       (2) denial of preferential tariff treatment under the 
     Agreement with respect to--
       (A) any textile or apparel good exported or produced by the 
     person that is the subject of a verification under subsection 
     (a)(1) regarding compliance described in subsection 
     (a)(2)(A), if the Secretary determines that the person has 
     provided incorrect information to support any claim for 
     preferential tariff treatment that has been made with respect 
     to any such good; or
       (B) the textile or apparel good for which a claim of 
     preferential tariff treatment has been made that is the 
     subject of a verification under subsection (a)(1) regarding a 
     claim described in subsection (a)(2)(B), if the Secretary 
     determines that a person has provided incorrect information 
     to support that claim;
       (3) detention of any textile or apparel good exported or 
     produced by the person that is the subject of a verification 
     under subsection (a)(1) regarding compliance described in 
     subsection (a)(2)(A) or a claim described in subsection 
     (a)(2)(B), if the Secretary determines there is insufficient 
     information to determine the country of origin of any such 
     good; and
       (4) denial of entry into the United States of any textile 
     or apparel good exported or produced by the person that is 
     the subject of a verification under subsection (a)(1) 
     regarding compliance described in subsection (a)(2)(A) or a 
     claim described in subsection (a)(2)(B), if the Secretary 
     determines that the person has provided incorrect information 
     as to the country of origin of any such good.
       (c) Action on Completion of a Verification.--On completion 
     of a verification under subsection (a), the President may 
     direct the Secretary to take appropriate action described in 
     subsection (d) until such time as the Secretary receives 
     information sufficient to make the determination under 
     subsection (a)(2) or until such earlier date as the President 
     may direct.
       (d) Appropriate Action Described.--Appropriate action under 
     subsection (c) includes--
       (1) denial of preferential tariff treatment under the 
     Agreement with respect to--
       (A) any textile or apparel good exported or produced by the 
     person that is the subject of a verification under subsection 
     (a)(1) regarding compliance described in subsection 
     (a)(2)(A), if the Secretary determines there is insufficient 
     information to support, or that the person has provided 
     incorrect information to support, any claim for preferential 
     tariff treatment that has been made with respect to any such 
     good; or
       (B) the textile or apparel good for which a claim of 
     preferential tariff treatment has been made that is the 
     subject of a verification under subsection (a)(1) regarding a 
     claim described in subsection (a)(2)(B), if the Secretary 
     determines there is insufficient information to support, or 
     that a person has provided incorrect information to support, 
     that claim; and
       (2) denial of entry into the United States of any textile 
     or apparel good exported or produced by the person that is 
     the subject of a verification under subsection (a)(1) 
     regarding compliance described in subsection (a)(2)(A) or a 
     claim described in subsection (a)(2)(B), if the Secretary 
     determines there is insufficient information to determine, or 
     that the person has provided incorrect information as to, the 
     country of origin of any such good.
       (e) Publication of Name of Person.--The Secretary may 
     publish the name of any person that the Secretary has 
     determined--
       (1) is engaged in intentional circumvention of applicable 
     laws, regulations, or procedures affecting trade in textile 
     or apparel goods; or
       (2) has failed to demonstrate that it produces, or is 
     capable of producing, textile or apparel goods.

     SEC. 210. REGULATIONS.

       The Secretary of the Treasury shall prescribe such 
     regulations as may be necessary to carry out--
       (1) subsections (a) through (n) of section 203;
       (2) the amendment made by section 204; and
       (3) any proclamation issued under section 203(o).

                     TITLE III--RELIEF FROM IMPORTS

     SEC. 301. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:

[[Page H6892]]

       (1) CAFTA-DR article.--The term ``CAFTA-DR article'' means 
     an article that qualifies as an originating good under 
     section 203(b).
       (2) CAFTA-DR textile or apparel article.--The term ``CAFTA-
     DR textile or apparel article'' means a textile or apparel 
     good (as defined in section 3(5)) that is a CAFTA-DR article.
       (3) De minimis supplying country.--
       (A) Subject to subparagraph (B), the term ``de minimis 
     supplying country'' means a CAFTA-DR country whose share of 
     imports of the relevant CAFTA-DR article into the United 
     States does not exceed 3 percent of the aggregate volume of 
     imports of the relevant CAFTA-DR article in the most recent 
     12-month period for which data are available that precedes 
     the filing of the petition under section 311(a).
       (B) A CAFTA-DR country shall not be considered to be a de 
     minimis supplying country if the aggregate share of imports 
     of the relevant CAFTA-DR article into the United States of 
     all CAFTA-DR countries that satisfy the conditions of 
     subparagraph (A) exceeds 9 percent of the aggregate volume of 
     imports of the relevant CAFTA-DR article during the 
     applicable 12-month period.
       (4) Relevant cafta-dr article.--The term ``relevant CAFTA-
     DR article'' means the CAFTA-DR article with respect to which 
     a petition has been filed under section 311(a).

     Subtitle A--Relief From Imports Benefiting From the Agreement

     SEC. 311. COMMENCING OF ACTION FOR RELIEF.

       (a) Filing of Petition.--A petition requesting action under 
     this subtitle for the purpose of adjusting to the obligations 
     of the United States under the Agreement may be filed with 
     the Commission by an entity, including a trade association, 
     firm, certified or recognized union, or group of workers, 
     that is representative of an industry. The Commission shall 
     transmit a copy of any petition filed under this subsection 
     to the United States Trade Representative.
       (b) Investigation and Determination.--Upon the filing of a 
     petition under subsection (a), the Commission, unless 
     subsection (d) applies, shall promptly initiate an 
     investigation to determine whether, as a result of the 
     reduction or elimination of a duty provided for under the 
     Agreement, a CAFTA-DR article is being imported into the 
     United States in such increased quantities, in absolute terms 
     or relative to domestic production, and under such conditions 
     that imports of the CAFTA-DR article constitute a substantial 
     cause of serious injury or threat thereof to the domestic 
     industry producing an article that is like, or directly 
     competitive with, the imported article.
       (c) Applicable Provisions.--The following provisions of 
     section 202 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2252) apply 
     with respect to any investigation initiated under subsection 
     (b):
       (1) Paragraphs (1)(B) and (3) of subsection (b).
       (2) Subsection (c).
       (3) Subsection (i).
       (d) Articles Exempt From Investigation.--No investigation 
     may be initiated under this section with respect to any 
     CAFTA-DR article if, after the date that the Agreement enters 
     into force, import relief has been provided with respect to 
     that CAFTA-DR article under this subtitle.

     SEC. 312. COMMISSION ACTION ON PETITION.

       (a) Determination.--Not later than 120 days after the date 
     on which an investigation is initiated under section 311(b) 
     with respect to a petition, the Commission shall make the 
     determination required under that section. At that time, the 
     Commission shall also determine whether any CAFTA-DR country 
     is a de minimis supplying country.
       (b) Applicable Provisions.--For purposes of this subtitle, 
     the provisions of paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of section 
     330(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1330(d) (1), (2), 
     and (3)) shall be applied with respect to determinations and 
     findings made under this section as if such determinations 
     and findings were made under section 202 of the Trade Act of 
     1974 (19 U.S.C. 2252).
       (c) Additional Finding and Recommendation if Determination 
     Affirmative.--If the determination made by the Commission 
     under subsection (a) with respect to imports of an article is 
     affirmative, or if the President may consider a determination 
     of the Commission to be an affirmative determination as 
     provided for under paragraph (1) of section 330(d) of the 
     Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1330(d)), the Commission shall 
     find, and recommend to the President in the report required 
     under subsection (d), the amount of import relief that is 
     necessary to remedy or prevent the injury found by the 
     Commission in the determination and to facilitate the efforts 
     of the domestic industry to make a positive adjustment to 
     import competition. The import relief recommended by the 
     Commission under this subsection shall be limited to the 
     relief described in section 313(c). Only those members of the 
     Commission who voted in the affirmative under subsection (a) 
     are eligible to vote on the proposed action to remedy or 
     prevent the injury found by the Commission. Members of the 
     Commission who did not vote in the affirmative may submit, in 
     the report required under subsection (d), separate views 
     regarding what action, if any, should be taken to remedy or 
     prevent the injury.
       (d) Report to President.--Not later than the date that is 
     30 days after the date on which a determination is made under 
     subsection (a) with respect to an investigation, the 
     Commission shall submit to the President a report that 
     includes--
       (1) the determination made under subsection (a) and an 
     explanation of the basis for the determination;
       (2) if the determination under subsection (a) is 
     affirmative, any findings and recommendations for import 
     relief made under subsection (c) and an explanation of the 
     basis for each recommendation; and
       (3) any dissenting or separate views by members of the 
     Commission regarding the determination and recommendation 
     referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2).
       (e) Public Notice.--Upon submitting a report to the 
     President under subsection (d), the Commission shall promptly 
     make public such report (with the exception of information 
     which the Commission determines to be confidential) and shall 
     cause a summary thereof to be published in the Federal 
     Register.

     SEC. 313. PROVISION OF RELIEF.

       (a) In General.--Not later than the date that is 30 days 
     after the date on which the President receives the report of 
     the Commission in which the Commission's determination under 
     section 312(a) is affirmative, or which contains a 
     determination under section 312(a) that the President 
     considers to be affirmative under paragraph (1) of section 
     330(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1330(d)(1)), the 
     President, subject to subsection (b), shall provide relief 
     from imports of the article that is the subject of such 
     determination to the extent that the President determines 
     necessary to remedy or prevent the injury found by the 
     Commission and to facilitate the efforts of the domestic 
     industry to make a positive adjustment to import competition.
       (b) Exception.--The President is not required to provide 
     import relief under this section if the President determines 
     that the provision of the import relief will not provide 
     greater economic and social benefits than costs.
       (c) Nature of Relief.--
       (1) In general.--The import relief that the President is 
     authorized to provide under this section with respect to 
     imports of an article is as follows:
       (A) The suspension of any further reduction provided for 
     under Annex 3.3 of the Agreement in the duty imposed on such 
     article.
       (B) An increase in the rate of duty imposed on such article 
     to a level that does not exceed the lesser of--
       (i) the column 1 general rate of duty imposed under the HTS 
     on like articles at the time the import relief is provided; 
     or
       (ii) the column 1 general rate of duty imposed under the 
     HTS on like articles on the day before the date on which the 
     Agreement enters into force.
       (2) Progressive liberalization.--If the period for which 
     import relief is provided under this section is greater than 
     1 year, the President shall provide for the progressive 
     liberalization (described in article 8.2.3 of the Agreement) 
     of such relief at regular intervals during the period of its 
     application.
       (d) Period of Relief.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), any import 
     relief that the President is authorized to provide under this 
     section may not, in the aggregate, be in effect for more than 
     4 years.
       (2) Extension.--
       (A) In general.--If the initial period for any import 
     relief provided under this section is less than 4 years, the 
     President, after receiving a determination from the 
     Commission under subparagraph (B) that is affirmative, or 
     which the President considers to be affirmative under 
     paragraph (1) of section 330(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 
     U.S.C. 1330(d)(1)), may extend the effective period of any 
     import relief provided under this section, subject to the 
     limitation under paragraph (1), if the President determines 
     that--
       (i) the import relief continues to be necessary to remedy 
     or prevent serious injury and to facilitate adjustment by the 
     domestic industry to import competition; and
       (ii) there is evidence that the industry is making a 
     positive adjustment to import competition.
       (B) Action by commission.--(i) Upon a petition on behalf of 
     the industry concerned that is filed with the Commission not 
     earlier than the date which is 9 months, and not later than 
     the date which is 6 months, before the date on which any 
     action taken under subsection (a) is to terminate, the 
     Commission shall conduct an investigation to determine 
     whether action under this section continues to be necessary 
     to remedy or prevent serious injury and whether there is 
     evidence that the industry is making a positive adjustment to 
     import competition.
       (ii) The Commission shall publish notice of the 
     commencement of any proceeding under this subparagraph in the 
     Federal Register and shall, within a reasonable time 
     thereafter, hold a public hearing at which the Commission 
     shall afford interested parties and consumers an opportunity 
     to be present, to present evidence, and to respond to the 
     presentations of other parties and consumers, and otherwise 
     to be heard.
       (iii) The Commission shall transmit to the President a 
     report on its investigation and determination under this 
     subparagraph not later than 60 days before the action under 
     subsection (a) is to terminate, unless the President 
     specifies a different date.
       (e) Rate After Termination of Import Relief.--When import 
     relief under this section is terminated with respect to an 
     article--

[[Page H6893]]

       (1) the rate of duty on that article after such termination 
     and on or before December 31 of the year in which such 
     termination occurs shall be the rate that, according to the 
     Schedule of the United States to Annex 3.3 of the Agreement 
     would have been in effect 1 year after the provision of 
     relief under subsection (a); and
       (2) the rate of duty for that article after December 31 of 
     the year in which termination occurs shall be, at the 
     discretion of the President, either--
       (A) the applicable rate of duty for that article set out in 
     the Schedule of the United States to Annex 3.3 of the 
     Agreement; or
       (B) the rate of duty resulting from the elimination of the 
     tariff in equal annual stages ending on the date set out in 
     the Schedule of the United States to Annex 3.3 of the 
     Agreement for the elimination of the tariff.
       (f) Articles Exempt From Relief.--No import relief may be 
     provided under this section on--
       (1) any article subject to import relief under chapter 1 of 
     title II of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2251 et seq.); 
     or
       (2) imports of a CAFTA-DR article of a CAFTA-DR country 
     that is a de minimis supplying country with respect to that 
     article.

     SEC. 314. TERMINATION OF RELIEF AUTHORITY.

       (a) General Rule.--Subject to subsection (b), no import 
     relief may be provided under this subtitle after the date 
     that is 10 years after the date on which the Agreement enters 
     into force.
       (b) Exception.--If an article for which relief is provided 
     under this subtitle is an article for which the period for 
     tariff elimination, set out in the Schedule of the United 
     States to Annex 3.3 of the Agreement, is greater than 10 
     years, no relief under this subtitle may be provided for that 
     article after the date on which that period ends.

     SEC. 315. COMPENSATION AUTHORITY.

       For purposes of section 123 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 
     U.S.C. 2133), any import relief provided by the President 
     under section 313 shall be treated as action taken under 
     chapter 1 of title II of such Act.

     SEC. 316. CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION.

       Section 202(a)(8) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
     2252(a)(8)) is amended in the first sentence--
       (1) by striking ``and''; and
       (2) by inserting before the period at the end ``, and title 
     III of the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States 
     Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act''.

           Subtitle B--Textile and Apparel Safeguard Measures

     SEC. 321. COMMENCEMENT OF ACTION FOR RELIEF.

       (a) In General.--A request under this subtitle for the 
     purpose of adjusting to the obligations of the United States 
     under the Agreement may be filed with the President by an 
     interested party. Upon the filing of a request, the President 
     shall review the request to determine, from information 
     presented in the request, whether to commence consideration 
     of the request.
       (b) Publication of Request.--If the President determines 
     that the request under subsection (a) provides the 
     information necessary for the request to be considered, the 
     President shall cause to be published in the Federal Register 
     a notice of commencement of consideration of the request, and 
     notice seeking public comments regarding the request. The 
     notice shall include a summary of the request and the dates 
     by which comments and rebuttals must be received.

     SEC. 322. DETERMINATION AND PROVISION OF RELIEF.

       (a) Determination.--
       (1) In general.--If a positive determination is made under 
     section 321(b), the President shall determine whether, as a 
     result of the elimination of a duty under the Agreement, a 
     CAFTA-DR textile or apparel article of a specified CAFTA-DR 
     country is being imported into the United States in such 
     increased quantities, in absolute terms or relative to the 
     domestic market for that article, and under such conditions 
     as to cause serious damage, or actual threat thereof, to a 
     domestic industry producing an article that is like, or 
     directly competitive with, the imported article.
       (2) Serious damage.--In making a determination under 
     paragraph (1), the President--
       (A) shall examine the effect of increased imports on the 
     domestic industry, as reflected in changes in such relevant 
     economic factors as output, productivity, utilization of 
     capacity, inventories, market share, exports, wages, 
     employment, domestic prices, profits, and investment, none of 
     which is necessarily decisive; and
       (B) shall not consider changes in technology or consumer 
     preference as factors supporting a determination of serious 
     damage or actual threat thereof.
       (3) Deadline for determination.--The President shall make 
     the determination under paragraph (1) no later than 30 days 
     after the completion of any consultations held pursuant to 
     article 3.23.4 of the Agreement.
       (b) Provision of Relief.--
       (1) In general.--If a determination under subsection (a) is 
     affirmative, the President may provide relief from imports of 
     the article that is the subject of such determination, as 
     provided in paragraph (2), to the extent that the President 
     determines necessary to remedy or prevent the serious damage 
     and to facilitate adjustment by the domestic industry.
       (2) Nature of relief.--The relief that the President is 
     authorized to provide under this subsection with respect to 
     imports of an article is an increase in the rate of duty 
     imposed on the article to a level that does not exceed the 
     lesser of--
       (A) the column 1 general rate of duty imposed under the HTS 
     on like articles at the time the import relief is provided; 
     or
       (B) the column 1 general rate of duty imposed under the HTS 
     on like articles on the day before the date on which the 
     Agreement enters into force.

     SEC. 323. PERIOD OF RELIEF.

       (a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), any import 
     relief that the President provides under subsection (b) of 
     section 322 may not, in the aggregate, be in effect for more 
     than 3 years.
       (b) Extension.--If the initial period for any import relief 
     provided under section 322 is less than 3 years, the 
     President may extend the effective period of any import 
     relief provided under that section, subject to the limitation 
     set forth in subsection (a), if the President determines 
     that--
       (1) the import relief continues to be necessary to remedy 
     or prevent serious damage and to facilitate adjustment by the 
     domestic industry to import competition; and
       (2) there is evidence that the industry is making a 
     positive adjustment to import competition.

     SEC. 324. ARTICLES EXEMPT FROM RELIEF.

       The President may not provide import relief under this 
     subtitle with respect to any article if--
       (1) import relief previously has been provided under this 
     subtitle with respect to that article; or
       (2) the article is subject to import relief under--
       (A) subtitle A; or
       (B) chapter 1 of title II of the Trade Act of 1974.

     SEC. 325. RATE AFTER TERMINATION OF IMPORT RELIEF.

       When import relief under this subtitle is terminated with 
     respect to an article, the rate of duty on that article shall 
     be the rate that would have been in effect, but for the 
     provision of such relief.

     SEC. 326. TERMINATION OF RELIEF AUTHORITY.

       No import relief may be provided under this subtitle with 
     respect to any article after the date that is 5 years after 
     the date on which the Agreement enters into force.

     SEC. 327. COMPENSATION AUTHORITY.

       For purposes of section 123 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 
     U.S.C. 2133), any import relief provided by the President 
     under this subtitle shall be treated as action taken under 
     chapter 1 of title II of that Act.

     SEC. 328. CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION.

       The President may not release information received in 
     connection with a review under this subtitle which the 
     President considers to be confidential business information 
     unless the party submitting the confidential business 
     information had notice, at the time of submission, that such 
     information would be released by the President, or such party 
     subsequently consents to the release of the information. To 
     the extent a party submits confidential business information, 
     it shall also provide a nonconfidential version of the 
     information in which the confidential business information is 
     summarized or, if necessary, deleted.

       Subtitle C--Cases Under Title II of the Trade Act of 1974

     SEC. 331. FINDINGS AND ACTION ON GOODS OF CAFTA-DR COUNTRIES.

       (a) Effect of Imports.--If, in any investigation initiated 
     under chapter 1 of title II of the Trade Act of 1974, the 
     Commission makes an affirmative determination (or a 
     determination which the President may treat as an affirmative 
     determination under such chapter by reason of section 330(d) 
     of the Tariff Act of 1930), the Commission shall also find 
     (and report to the President at the time such injury 
     determination is submitted to the President) whether imports 
     of the article of each CAFTA-DR country that qualify as 
     originating goods under section 203(b) are a substantial 
     cause of serious injury or threat thereof.
       (b) Presidential Determination Regarding Imports of CAFTA-
     DR Countries.--In determining the nature and extent of action 
     to be taken under chapter 1 of title II of the Trade Act of 
     1974, the President may exclude from the action goods of a 
     CAFTA-DR country with respect to which the Commission has 
     made a negative finding under subsection (a).

                        TITLE IV--MISCELLANEOUS

     SEC. 401. ELIGIBLE PRODUCTS.

       Section 308(4)(A) of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (19 
     U.S.C. 2518(4)(A)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (ii);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of clause (iii) and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``(iv) a party to the Dominican Republic-Central America-
     United States Free Trade Agreement, a product or service of 
     that country or instrumentality which is covered under that 
     Agreement for procurement by the United States.''.

     SEC. 402. MODIFICATIONS TO THE CARIBBEAN BASIN ECONOMIC 
                   RECOVERY ACT.

       (a) Former Beneficiary Countries.--Section 212(a)(1) of the 
     Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (19 U.S.C. 2702(a)(1)) 
     is

[[Page H6894]]

     amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(F) The term `former beneficiary country' means a country 
     that ceases to be designated as a beneficiary country under 
     this title because the country has become a party to a free 
     trade agreement with the United States.''.
       (b) Countries Eligible for Designation as Beneficiary 
     Countries.--Section 212(b) of the Caribbean Basin Economic 
     Recovery Act (19 U.S.C. 2702(b)) is amended by striking from 
     the list of countries eligible for designation as beneficiary 
     countries--
       (1) ``Costa Rica'', effective on the date the President 
     terminates the designation of Costa Rica as a beneficiary 
     country pursuant to section 201(a)(3);
       (2) ``Dominican Republic'', effective on the date the 
     President terminates the designation of the Dominican 
     Republic as a beneficiary country pursuant to section 
     201(a)(3);
       (3) ``El Salvador'', effective on the date the President 
     terminates the designation of El Salvador as a beneficiary 
     country pursuant to section 201(a)(3);
       (4) ``Guatemala'', effective on the date the President 
     terminates the designation of Guatemala as a beneficiary 
     country pursuant to section 201(a)(3);
       (5) ``Honduras'', effective on the date the President 
     terminates the designation of Honduras as a beneficiary 
     country pursuant to section 201(a)(3); and
       (6) ``Nicaragua'', effective on the date the President 
     terminates the designation of Nicaragua as a beneficiary 
     country pursuant to section 201(a)(3).
       (c) Materials of, or Processing in, Former Beneficiary 
     Countries.--Section 213(a)(1) of the Caribbean Basin Economic 
     Recovery Act (19 U.S.C. 2703(a)(1)) is amended by striking 
     ``the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the United States 
     Virgin Islands'' and inserting ``the Commonwealth of Puerto 
     Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, and any former 
     beneficiary country''.
       (d) Definitions and Special Rules.--Section 213(b)(5) of 
     the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (19 U.S.C. 
     2703(b)(5)) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subparagraphs:
       ``(G) Former cbtpa beneficiary country.--The term `former 
     CBTPA beneficiary country' means a country that ceases to be 
     designated as a CBTPA beneficiary country under this title 
     because the country has become a party to a free trade 
     agreement with the United States.
       ``(H) Articles that undergo production in a cbtpa 
     beneficiary country and a former cbtpa beneficiary country.--
     (i) For purposes of determining the eligibility of an article 
     for preferential treatment under paragraph (2) or (3), 
     references in either such paragraph, and in subparagraph (C) 
     of this paragraph to--
       ``(I) a `CBTPA beneficiary country' shall be considered to 
     include any former CPTPA beneficiary country, and
       ``(II) `CBTPA beneficiary countries' shall be considered to 
     include former CBTPA beneficiary countries,
     if the article, or a good used in the production of the 
     article, undergoes production in a CBTPA beneficiary country.
       ``(ii) An article that is eligible for preferential 
     treatment under clause (i) shall not be ineligible for such 
     treatment because the article is imported directly from a 
     former CBTPA beneficiary country.
       ``(iii) Notwithstanding clauses (i) and (ii), an article 
     that is a good of a former CBTPA beneficiary country for 
     purposes of section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 
     1304) or section 334 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 
     U.S.C. 3592), as the case may be, shall not be eligible for 
     preferential treatment under paragraph (2) or (3), unless--
       ``(I) it is an article that is a good of the Dominican 
     Republic under either such section 304 or 334; and
       ``(II) the article, or a good used in the production of the 
     article, undergoes production in Haiti.''.

     SEC. 403. PERIODIC REPORTS AND MEETINGS ON LABOR OBLIGATIONS 
                   AND LABOR CAPACITY-BUILDING PROVISIONS.

       (a) Reports to Congress.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than the end of the 2-year 
     period beginning on the date the Agreement enters into force, 
     and not later than the end of each 2-year period thereafter 
     during the succeeding 14-year period, the President shall 
     report to the Congress on the progress made by the CAFTA-DR 
     countries in--
       (A) implementing Chapter Sixteen and Annex 16.5 of the 
     Agreement; and
       (B) implementing the White Paper.
       (2) White paper.--In this section, the term ``White Paper'' 
     means the report of April 2005 of the Working Group of the 
     Vice Ministers Responsible for Trade and Labor in the 
     Countries of Central America and the Dominican Republic 
     entitled ``The Labor Dimension in Central America and the 
     Dominican Republic - Building on Progress: Strengthening 
     Compliance and Enhancing Capacity''.
       (3) Contents of reports.--Each report under paragraph (1) 
     shall include the following:
       (A) A description of the progress made by the Labor 
     Cooperation and Capacity Building Mechanism established by 
     article 16.5 and Annex 16.5 of the Agreement, and the Labor 
     Affairs Council established by article 16.4 of the Agreement, 
     in achieving their stated goals, including a description of 
     the capacity-building projects undertaken, funds received, 
     and results achieved, in each CAFTA-DR country.
       (B) Recommendations on how the United States can facilitate 
     full implementation of the recommendations contained in the 
     White Paper.
       (C) A description of the work done by the CAFTA-DR 
     countries with the International Labor Organization to 
     implement the recommendations contained in the White Paper, 
     and the efforts of the CAFTA-DR countries with international 
     organizations, through the Labor Cooperation and Capacity 
     Building Mechanism referred to in subparagraph (A), to 
     advance common commitments regarding labor matters.
       (D) A summary of public comments received on--
       (i) capacity-building efforts by the United States 
     envisaged by article 16.5 and Annex 16.5 of the Agreement;
       (ii) efforts by the United States to facilitate full 
     implementation of the White Paper recommendations; and
       (iii) the efforts made by the CAFTA-DR countries to comply 
     with article 16.5 and Annex 16.5 of the Agreement and to 
     fully implement the White Paper recommendations, including 
     the progress made by the CAFTA-DR countries in affording to 
     workers internationally-recognized worker rights through 
     improved capacity.
       (4) Solicitation of public comments.--The President shall 
     establish a mechanism to solicit public comments for purposes 
     of paragraph (3)(D).
       (b) Periodic Meetings of Secretary of Labor With Labor 
     Ministers of CAFTA-DR Countries.--
       (1) Periodic meetings.--The Secretary of Labor should take 
     the necessary steps to meet periodically with the labor 
     ministers of the CAFTA-DR countries to discuss--
       (A) the operation of the labor provisions of the Agreement;
       (B) progress on the commitments made by the CAFTA-DR 
     countries to implement the recommendations contained in the 
     White Paper;
       (C) the work of the International Labor Organization in the 
     CAFTA-DR countries, and other cooperative efforts, to afford 
     to workers internationally-recognized worker rights; and
       (D) such other matters as the Secretary of Labor and the 
     labor ministers consider appropriate.
       (2) Inclusion in biennial reports.--The President shall 
     include in each report under subsection (a), as the President 
     deems appropriate, summaries of the meetings held pursuant to 
     paragraph (1).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass). Pursuant to House Resolution 386, 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Rangel) each will control 1 hour.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, for those individuals within our eyesight and earshot, 
there may be some people wondering about the debate that was begun 
under the rule, and that if it, in fact, carries over into the general 
debate, you will be quite perplexed.
  The statement was repeated several times that we are doing this in 
the dead of the night. My friends, it is 5:30 in California. People are 
just getting home from work. Would we not rather debate this during 
prime time when there are people home and who can watch it?
  Words such as ``shameful,'' ``disrespectful,'' ``arrogant''; 
accusations about freely-elected people in countries south of our 
border; someone who is not familiar with the way this place operates 
would be quite amazed at what has been said. Let me assure you, those 
of you who are concerned need only turn to the United States 
Constitution, Article I, section 6. Therein is contained what is often 
called the Speech and Debate Clause. The Speech and Debate Clause in 
the Constitution says, ``And for any speech or debate in either House 
they, the Senators and Representatives, shall not be questioned in any 
other place.''
  In other words, truth, veracity, facts do not apply here if you 
choose not to use them. If you choose to misrepresent, you are allowed 
to do that on the floor of the House. If you wish to confuse, if you 
wish to say black is white or white is black, you can.
  But I do think that you ought to at least give minimum respect for 
people who laid their lives down to have an opportunity to share the 
blessings of democracy.
  In the 1980s we were all concerned, and speeches were made on the 
floor of this House, about the impending loss of Central America to 
totalitarian governments, and, frankly, sometimes it was to the right, 
and sometimes it was to the left.

[[Page H6895]]

  We have before us tonight a freely negotiated trade agreement between 
sovereign countries freely elected by the people of those countries in 
Central America and in the Dominican Republic and in the United States. 
Yet a Member feels comfortable coming to the floor, and the gentlewoman 
from California said that they are going to be able to enforce their 
own trade laws. Does that not worry you? Well, so do we. She said, they 
could change their trade laws to allow child labor. Well, so can we. 
Will we? Of course not. What makes you think they will? The argument 
that somehow these people down there do not love their children any 
more than we do is, in fact, the words that were used earlier, that 
argument is shameful, it is disrespectful, and it is arrogant.
  The idea that these people do not care about their families; have you 
driven around the greater Washington area and run into all these people 
from Central America who are here because they were driven here because 
of the political conditions in the 1980s, and that, in fact, the best 
import they have are the jobs people have here? You do not think they 
want to go home to their families?
  This was negotiated by freely elected people, not because they want 
to sell products and services in the United States; they already have 
that. They want this so that our goods, our services, our jobs will 
come to Central America. And as you make the arguments that you make so 
shamefully, so disrespectfully, and so arrogantly about the governments 
freely elected, supported by their people, just remember, they want a 
job, too. They love their children. They are respectful of you; be 
respectful of them.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me join with the handful of Republicans in 
complimenting the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means. His 
attack against arrogance has moved my heart, and those of others in the 
House, as well as his conversations with the immigrants and the 
newcomers to find out what should be in the trade bill. It certainly 
would have worked out a heck of a lot better if he had talked with some 
of the Democrats in the House.
  This is one day that we all should remember. A small bill designed to 
help small countries. I was successful in having the Dominican Republic 
included in it. People who indeed wanted to work, wanted to have the 
dignity of having a job, wanted to be able to buy some of those U.S. 
products, really wanted to be partners, but they also wanted to be a 
part of this. Arrogance? How can you have a bill you say that is 
helping these people to make certain that they stave off communism and 
that become, indeed, a democratic country and, at the same time, 
exclude them from participating?
  Yes, they want a Central American Free Trade Agreement. Yes, the 
Dominicans want to have a Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement, but 
they want to be a part of it, and they want their people protected.
  The gentleman talked about people who fought and died for our 
Constitution. You do not have to remind us about that. Patriotism can 
bring a tear to our eyes, but why do we not talk about the people who 
fought and died for workers' rights? Hey, can you not get that on your 
agenda? Those who fought and died for human rights, should that not be 
a part of it?
  But let us talk about the moral values. The Catholic bishops in the 
United States, the Catholic bishops in the Dominican Republic, the 
Catholic bishops throughout the island; the religious leaders, the 
labor leaders, the peasants, the farmers, those who work in the free 
trade zone, do they not count for something?
  This could have been an easy thing. This is no big deal. It was not 
before the President came down here. This could have been something we 
could have worked out. There has to be some compassion and less 
arrogance on the other side. We could have talked these things out.
  And what is wrong with language that protects kids? Just because 
people do not have a design to commit crime does not mean you do not 
have a criminal code. Just because people are not inclined to abuse 
workers does not mean you do not have a code.
  All we are saying is this: Let us protect intellectual property 
rights, let us protect our exporters, let us protect the 
multinationals, let us protect the big farm corporations. But, while 
you do that, protect the little guy where, in many of the countries, 
they have not the slightest clue, and they tell us each and every day, 
we want trade, we want to improve our lives; all we want to do is to be 
a part of the agreement.
  Now, I was told that we cannot get back to that. With regard to the 
side agreements, I thought it meant the issue had to be related to 
trade. But some of the offers that I have heard that relate to getting 
votes around here, side agreements mean something else. And that is why 
maybe it may still be light tonight in California, but for those who 
are wide awake tonight, they should know it is not prime time in 
Washington, D.C. As a matter of fact, it is the worst of times.
  This administration has taken a bill that could have meant something, 
a bill we could have been proud of, and has made a political toy out of 
it. They have excluded Democrats; they have offended some Republicans.
  So when we hear about this bill tonight, it will not be a trade bill, 
it will be a bill that would say, which side are you on? Are you on the 
side of transparency, open discussion, wanting to protect American 
farmers, wanting to protect American entrepreneurs, wanting to do 
business with people in these small countries that are impoverished, 
and do you want to help those who are the lesser among us, who, at the 
end of the day, have been excluded from consideration from this treaty?
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman's district is in New York, and 
television is very expensive there, but it may surprise the gentleman 
to know that 8:30 on the east coast is called prime time, and you have 
to pay for it. We are in prime time.
  Just let me say that you must be very proud, as you just indicated, 
to advocate for your side to vote ``no'' on democracy, ``no'' to jobs 
in their own country, ``yes'' to continued poverty, and ``yes'' to a 
threat to fragile democracies, because that is what this vote is. And 
it really is a sad night for your once proud, aggressive party, which 
has a lot of words and no action for people in need.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Shaw), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade of the 
Committee on Ways and Means, and I ask unanimous consent that he 
control the remainder of the time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  2030

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Norwood).
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would point out that probably I do not want to 
associate myself with either of the opening remarks. This is not 
political to me. Mr. Speaker, we can sit here all day and argue about 
what the thousands of pages of CAFTA really mean.
  But the meaning of nearly every provision is debatable. That is the 
problem with this agreement. If it becomes law, the administration, the 
American courts, even the United States Constitution will have no 
effect on the final interpretation of this agreement. That will be left 
to the CAFTA tribunal, two Central American judges, always pitted 
against one judge from the United States.
  Our Bill of Rights will not apply to these courts, neither will any 
sunshine laws, and there will never be a right of appeal. That is a 
direct insult to the sovereignty of the United States. CAFTA should not 
be approved on this point alone.
  But let us go on and look at what is at stake in some of these 
debates, very briefly. CAFTA undermines the ability of the State 
medical and dental boards and health planning agencies to set public 
health standards for licensing of

[[Page H6896]]

professions and institutions. I am sure someone will disagree with me 
about that, and we will decide it in a tribunal.
  CAFTA overturns all of our ``buy American'' laws that encourage local 
jobs and suppliers. CAFTA could legally force States and local 
governments to outsource jobs, not just to Central American countries, 
but to India and to Pakistan and to Malaysia, or to any country that 
wants to set up phone banks.
  CAFTA gives foreign business greater legal rights in America than our 
own businesses. CAFTA could overturn our immigration laws, could 
overturn our immigration laws by allowing CAFTA tribunals to decide 
whether those laws fairly or unfairly restrict another country's 
ability to export cheap contract labor into America.
  CAFTA countries today can ship chicken to my State of Georgia duty 
free, while charging up to 160 percent for the chicken my farmers try 
to ship in return. That is not fair trade.
  Instead of fixing this now, we try to solve it by allowing CAFTA to 
drag out this fair trade policy for over 18 years, during which my 
chicken farmers will continue to face unfair trade competition. 
Eighteen years just to get even.
  CAFTA takes away the few current protections available to the 
American textile workers. There are gaping loopholes in every so-called 
protection for the American workers and farmers. Mr. Speaker, I just 
used the words ``could'' and ``can'' a lot in my comments.
  The other side will argue, well, it is not certain if CAFTA will do 
all of this; it will be left up to three judges.
  I urge us to reconsider this and get a really good fair trade, not 
just fair, but free, trade agreement with Central America.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson), a very respected Democratic member of the 
Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, as a Democrat with a firm commitment to 
eliminate poverty and to improve the lives of workers both here and 
abroad, I believe it is important to discuss the policy implications 
contained in the proposed U.S. FTA with the Dominican Republic and the 
countries of Central America.
  In support of the CAFTA, I support the people of my port city. I have 
determined that the United States can best promote improvements both to 
working conditions and labor standards in those countries with the 
commitment and the supporting capacity-building provisions of this 
agreement.
  I understand that our workers are concerned about our growing trade 
deficit. But CAFTA will have no negative impact here. Our trade deficit 
is driven by our own behavior as a Nation: massive consumption, low 
savings rates, and unwise borrow-and-spend economic policies of our own 
government, not CAFTA-like trade agreements.
  In fact, an ITC study concludes CAFTA will reduce overall U.S. trade 
deficits by $756 million. And the CAFTA-NAFTA talk is a catchy play on 
words, but the comparison is really inappropriate.
  Unlike the situation with Mexico prior to NAFTA, our market is 
already nearly completely open to Central American products. More than 
80 percent of Central American products imported to the United States 
are already duty free. CAFTA will simply open their markets to our 
products leveling the playing field.
  For years, Democrats and Republicans have promoted democracy in 
Central America and have spoken about the need to secure commitments 
from developing countries on core international labor standards, on 
labor enforcement, and have sought U.S. commitments to substantive and 
comprehensive labor-capacity building programs.
  We have sought to ensure a role for international labor organizations 
in these efforts. With this unprecedented agreement, we have concluded 
and included all of these things. CAFTA promotes economic opportunity 
for the workers of the region who are facing massive competition from 
Asia and elsewhere in the most significant formal source of economic 
livelihood, textile and apparel production. With nearly half the 
population of these countries living in extreme poverty, with formal 
employment, the continued competitiveness the textile and apparel 
industry in our and other CAFTA industries can promote is very, very 
critical.
  I have heard my colleagues suggest that the CAFTA textile and apparel 
rules remain too strict to really make a difference. But the countries 
and the companies who invest and purchase from the region believe 
differently.
  Many of us had hoped for more flexibility. But those whose 
livelihoods depend on these issues believe that the new flexibilities 
CAFTA provides are critical to support an industry that provides some 
of the best-paying jobs in the region.
  Are we to substitute our judgment for theirs?
  CAFTA will also help these countries improve their investment climate 
through a more permanent relationship with the United States and many 
other provisions of CAFTA, including increased transparency, curbs on 
corruption and provisions that promote the rule of law, which could in 
fact be the single most important driver to improve the lives of our 
neighbors in Central America and the Dominican Republic.
  And there are the agreement's labor provisions. Both the commitments 
made by each country in the labor chapter to enforce domestic laws and 
the capacity-building program built into the CAFTA, which each of the 
six governments recently relied on in undertaking an unprecedented 
commitment to improve labor standards and enforcement in each of their 
countries in very concrete ways.
  But despite all of these provisions and commitments, it is argued 
that the CAFTA's labor provisions are a backwards step and that CAFTA 
should not be supported because of the CAFTA countries' histories of 
weak labor laws and suppressing worker rights.
  The biggest labor issue of the CAFTA countries is in fact the 
inadequacy of their enforcement of existing laws. Indeed, this is where 
many of the 20-plus labor problems the critics allege actually fall. 
They are issues of enforcement, not issues with the substantive 
existing labor laws; and that is where the CAFTA can do the most good.
  In taking a close look at the other recent trade agreements that 
passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, it is difficult to 
understand why the CAFTA countries are being held to a different 
standard and therefore a double standard.
  The labor laws in the CAFTA countries are similar to those of Jordan 
and Morocco. For example, foreign nationals cannot lead or administer 
local labor unions in Morocco. This is the case for all of the CAFTA 
countries, but Nicaragua. The right to collective bargaining is not 
recognized in Morocco's constitution, but it is in most of the CAFTA 
countries. And, finally, Morocco allows minors to work longer per week 
than all of the CAFTA countries.
  If we can vote overwhelmingly for Morocco and Jordan with these labor 
provisions on the basis that we should engage them economically because 
they have made progress on liberalizing their economies and on 
improving their human rights pictures, then why can we not support this 
FTA with our neighbors in the popularly elected democracies with even 
better laws on the same grounds?
  What all of these countries, Jordan, Morocco and the Centrals, share 
are the same challenges in enforcement and lack of resources. In fact, 
the CAFTA provisions are stronger than those in NAFTA, which has labor 
protections in the signed agreements and did not provide dispute 
resolutions in the main agreement.
  The last point I want to make, Mr. Speaker, is that at our door stand 
our neighbors from Central America literally pleading with us to 
approve this CAFTA agreement. We are substituting our judgment for 
theirs, people who are elected by their own people as we are elected by 
ours.
  Mr. Speaker, I think instead of turning a deaf ear to them, we ought 
to heed them, we ought to hear them. These are our neighbors and our 
friends. And we ought to support them. I urge adoption of this 
agreement.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) is 
the ranking member of the trade committee. He has worked hard on this, 
and he probably never has voted against any trade agreement in this

[[Page H6897]]

House. And I guess he is saying that this is an agreement worthy of his 
vote.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Cardin).


                Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Chair would remind all 
persons in the gallery that they are here as guests of the House and 
that any manifestation of approval or disapproval of proceedings or 
other audible conversation is in violation of the rules of the House.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I am going to first answer my friend, the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson), and he is my friend. I deeply 
respect his views as to why we would oppose this agreement when we 
supported the other agreements that he mentioned.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) is correct. In the 18-plus 
years that I have been honored to served in this body, I have voted for 
all of the free trade agreements. This will be the first agreement that 
I will vote against.
  This is the first agreement in which we actually move backwards on 
advancing international labor standards. Currently, with the Central 
American countries, we had the Caribbean Basin Initiative. The 
Caribbean Basin Initiative has worked. It has provided opportunity for 
the Central American countries. It has opened up markets for their 
products. They get preference. But in order to get that preference, 
they must move towards international labor standards. That is the 
requirement.
  We use the threat of withholding trade benefits if they do not adopt 
international labor standards. That is what we currently have with 
Central American countries, and it is working. We have made progress. 
CAFTA repeals those obligations. As the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Jefferson) said, what is in place is enforcing your own rules without 
any adequate enforcement.
  We have a constitutional responsibility, Mr. Speaker, to approve or 
reject this free trade agreement. Trade opens up opportunity, not only 
for the United States but for the countries that we do business with.
  I represent the Port of Baltimore. I am very much in favor of free 
trade. I would have liked to have had a CAFTA agreement that I could 
support.
  The standard of living in the CAFTA nations is not as high as 
previous agreements that we have approved for Chile, Singapore, 
Morocco, or Australia. So for people living in poverty, trade if 
properly structured holds out the promise of a more meaningful economic 
opportunity and a better way of life in providing markets for our 
products.
  But in order for that to occur, we must move the ball forward on 
protecting labor rights, workers' rights. That is our responsibility. 
That should be our priority. This agreement moves backwards. We have a 
constitutional responsibility to make a judgment on this.
  I do not know how we can support an agreement that moves us in the 
wrong direction. I do not expect miracles from our negotiators. But I 
certainly expect that they will adhere to priorities. I certainly 
expect that they will not give up something that the other countries 
have not asked us to give up.
  You start to worry when you see those types of provisions in an 
agreement. Mr. Speaker, this could have been corrected. We made changes 
in the CAFTA agreement for textiles. We could have made changes for 
these labor provisions. We could have kept the Caribbean Basin 
Initiative protections; but, no, we did not do that. We could have done 
it. If we would have done it, we could have had strong bipartisan 
support for this legislation, as trade bills should be considered.
  This CAFTA agreement is not good for the United States. It is not 
good for the Central American countries. I urge my colleagues to 
exercise their constitutional responsibility, as I am, and vote against 
this agreement.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Cardin) who has voted for previous trade agreements that this 
agreement has the strongest labor provision of any of the agreements 
that the gentleman has voted for, and that these countries, all of 
these countries adhere to international labor standards.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Moran), a distinguished Democratic Member of the House of 
Representatives.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I want to address my colleagues 
on this side of the aisle, the Democratic side of the aisle, because 
there are so many good people and true leaders among you, people who 
understand that we need to do more than we have done for Central 
America and Central Americans.
  In a perfect political world, a Central American trade agreement 
should have passed on the Consent Calendar.

                              {time}  2045

  In a perfect world it would have, because there is virtually no 
Member of Congress who does not have undocumented immigrants who have 
risked their life and limb to come to the United States so as to 
provide some future for themselves and their families. Many of our 
grandparents could empathize, but surely we who were born here must at 
least sympathize.
  We all know the conditions in Central America. You would have to be 
blind or without conscience not to recognize the suffering that Central 
Americans are enduring. Thirty percent of the population cannot afford 
the most basic foodstuffs. In most countries, more than half of the 
population are living in poverty. Certainly we feel some obligation, do 
we not, to do something about it?
  I understand the politics, though, and I regret the politics. But 
from the standpoint of policy, certainly this could and should have 
been a much better agreement. We should have addressed labor conditions 
in a more robust way, likewise, in language to preserve the 
environment. But on the whole this agreement does much more for Central 
America than we will have the opportunity to do in a long time to come, 
and that is the reality.
  Today we have a perfect storm of political confluence where the 
elected leaders of all of these nations are products of democratic 
elections, and their leaders are telling us they want this trade 
agreement to pass. The leader I have the most respect for, Oscar Arias, 
a Nobel Peace Prize winner, wrote an editorial, in the Post, and I 
trust we read it on both sides of the aisle. The thrust of his argument 
was, please give us an opportunity to stop having to export our people 
and let us begin to export our products and our services. And the only 
way that we can do that is to provide an incentive for all these 
multinational corporations, people with capital to invest, to invest it 
in Central America; ultimately invested in the human infrastructure, 
the roads and the bridges, the transportation and the communication 
systems, and the human infrastructure, the people, their education, 
their skills, their training. It will be in their interest. It is not 
in their interest now.
  Central Americans have paid the price for a system of government that 
continually exploited people who had no power; that was ruled largely 
by a handful of elite families, many of them descendents from the 
original European settlers who came there half a millenia ago. For 500 
years they have been suffering. It is time to put an end to their 
desperation and isolation. They need and deserve a seat at the table of 
the global economy.
  I am not going to try to justify or rationalize or excuse all of the 
problems with a globalized economy. Certainly people lose their jobs 
and people are hurt, but the global economy is a reality of today's 
world. And if you are not at the table, you will suffer. We cannot 
maintain even the status quo in Central America any more than we can in 
this country. If CAFTA doesn't pass poverty will get worse in Central 
America. Jobs will continue to be lost at an even faster pace to China 
and other countries who are more competitive, and capital will go 
elsewhere if we do not pass this trade agreement.
  It is in so many ways deficient. I am not going to argue about that. 
But it is a fact that over the next 4 years $160 million is going to be 
invested in enforcement of labor laws, labor laws that are actually 
pretty good on the books of these nations. They are not enforced, but 
today this is the best opportunity to have them enforced. There will 
not be another opportunity to

[[Page H6898]]

have them enforced, and we have that commitment. And, likewise, the 
environment will not be exploited to the degree that it has been.
  It is not a perfect agreement, but it is our responsibility, our 
duty, as far as I am concerned, to pass this agreement now, to work 
with Central America, to work with the people that will invest in 
Central America to bring about a better world. A world one day of 
opportunity for the best and brightest Central Americans in their own 
country, so they don't have to risk everything in pursuit of it outside 
their country of birth. I do understand that it is important to be on 
the right side of the political equation tonight, but it is even more 
important to be on the right side of history, and I think the right 
side of history will prove to be a yes vote for CAFTA.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote what the bishops have said about 
this because I think the previous speaker gave an eloquent speech, but 
he said one thing: It could be better for the workers.
  I do not have any argument with that. And the bishop said, the panel 
urged that the agreement should contribute to sustainable human 
development, especially among the poorest and most vulnerable sectors; 
that the countries' governments take as much time as necessary to 
provide adequate information and foster broad debates about the contact 
and impact of the agreement, and that the moral measure of any trade 
agreement should be how it affects the lives and the dignity of poor 
families and vulnerable workers whose voices should receive special 
attention in this discussion.
  Mr. Speaker, the following six pages are organizations representing 
religious leaders in Central America and the Dominican Republic, 
representing peasants, representing farmers, representing workers that 
all they are asking is please include us.

                Central American Groups Opposed to CAFTA

       Accion Ciudadana (Nicaragua)
       Action Aid International (Guatemala)
       Action Network of Citizens Against Free Trade (SINTI 
     TECHAN)
       Advising Committee of Rural Organizations of Honduras
       Agrarian Platform of Guatemala
       ALERTA-AMBIO (Environmental Alert)
       Alexander Von Humboldt Center
       Alliance for Life and Peace
       Antonio Valdivieso Ecumenical Center (CAV)
       Asociacion de Mujeres de Occidente (Guatemala)
       Asociacion de Trabajadores del Campo (Nicaragua)
       Asociacion Hijos e Hijas del Maiz (Nicaragua)
       Asociacion Servicios de Promocion Laboral (ASEPROLA)
       Asociacion TECUILCAN (Nicaragua)
       Asociaciones de Pacientes
       Association for Development and Ecology (APDE)
       Association for Health and Inter-Communal Social Services 
     in El Salvador (APSIES)
       Association for the Advancement of Social Services 
     (AVANSCO)
       Association for the Promotion and Development of the 
     Community (CEIBA)
       Association of Agronomy Students of Guatemala (FEAG)
       Association of Integral Development of Batan (ADIBA)
       Association of Organizations of Central American Farmers 
     for Cooperation and Development (ASOCODE)
       Association of Professors of Secondary Education (APSE)
       Association of Rural Communities for the Development of El 
     Salvador (CRIPDES)
       Association of Rural Organics Producers (ACAPRO)
       Association of Skilled Women
       Association of Social Security Employees (AESS)
       Association of Women in Micro-Industries of Salamanca 
     (AMUNTA)
       Bishops' Secretariat of Central America (SEDAC)
       Bloque Popular--Colomoncagua (Honduras)
       Bloque Popular (Honduras)
       Bloque Popular Centroamericano
       Bufete Juridico Ambientalista ``4 de Mayo'' (Nicaragua)
       Caribbean Theological Center of Bautista (CTC)
       Catholic Church of Santa Rosa of Copan
       Catholic Church of Trujillo
       Center for Consumer Defense (CDC)
       Center for Legal Assistance for Indigenous Peoples
       Center for Legal Attention in Human Rights (CALDH)
       Center for Studies and Publication Preparation
       Center for the Costa Rican Workers Movement (CMTC)
       Center of Friends for Peace (CAP)
       Center of Work Studies (CENTRA-El Salvador)
       Central American Federation of Communal Organizations 
     (FCOC)
       Centro Civico Democratica (El Salvador)
       Centro de Asistencia Legal a Pueblos Indigenas (Nicaragua)
       Centro de Estudios Internacionales (Nicaragua)
       Centro de Estudios y Apoyo Laboral (El Salvador)
       Centro Humboldt (Nicaragua)
       Centro para la Defensa del Consumidor (El Salvador)
       Citizen Network Against GMOs for Mexico and Central America
       Citizen Council of Popular and Indigenous Organizations of 
     Honduras (COPINH)
       CNOC (Guatemala)
       Civil Society Conference (Costa Rica)
       Colectivo de Mujeres de Matagalpa (Nicaragua)
       Comision Intersindical (El Salvador)
       Comite ``Si a la Vida no a la destruccion del Medio 
     Ambiente'' de Leon v Chichigalpa (Nicaragua)
       Comite de Solidaridad ``El Arenal'' (Nicaragua)
       Comite de Solidaridad Zapatista (Nicaragua)
       Comite por la Paz, Leon (Nicaragua)
       Committee for Work with Women Farmers (CNTMC)
       Committee of Costa Rican Banana Unions (COSIBACR)
       Committee of National Rural Organizations
       Committee of NGOs (Non-Government Organizations) and 
     Cooperatives (CONGCOOP-Guatemala)
       Committee of the Salvadoran Workers Union (CSTS)
       Committee of United Farmers (CUC)
       Convergence of Movements of Peoples of America (COMPA)
       Comunidades Ecleciales de Base (Nicaragua)
       Confederation of Federations for Agricultural Reform of El 
     Salvador (CONFRAS)
       Confederation of Union Unification (CUS)
       Confederation of Union Unity of Guatemala (CUSG)
       Confederation of Workers in Honduras (CTH)
       Confederation of Workers of the Countryside (CTC)
       Consumers Association of Masaya (ACODEMA)
       Consumers International--Regional Office for Latin America 
     and the Caribbean (Chile)
       Convergence of Movements of Peoples of America (COMPA)
       Cooperativa Maquiladora Mujeres de Nueva Vida, 
     Internacional (Nicaragua)
       Cooperativa Multisectorial de Jalapa (Nicaragua)
       Coordinadora de Organizaciones Indigenas y Campesinas 
     (Guatemala)
       Corporacion Horticola (Costa Rica)
       Costa Rica Association of Energy Producers (ACOPE)
       Costa Rica Social Insurance Fund and Allied Institutions 
     (SIPROCEMICA)
       Costa Rican Confederation of Democratic Workers (CCTD)
       Costa Rican Federation of Health Workers (FECTSALUD)
       Costa Rican Lutheran Church (ILCO)
       Costa Rican Union of Aids of Infirmary (SINAE)
       Council of Development Institutions (COINDE)
       Council of Research for Central American Development 
     (CIDECA)
       Democratic Civic Center
       Education Corporation for Costa Rican Development (CEDECO)
       El Salvadoran Center for Appropriate Technology (CESTA)
       Electric Industry Union of El Salvador (SIES)
       Emaus Forum (Costa Rica)
       Employees Union of the National Bank (SEBANA)
       Employees Union of the University of Costa Rica (SINDEU)
       Encuentro Popular (Costa Rica)
       Federacion Nacional de Sindicatos Textil, Vestuario, Piel y 
     Calzado (Nicaragua)
       Federacion Sindical de Trabajadores de los Servicios 
     Publicos de El Salvador (FESTRASPES)
       Federation of Cooperative Associations for Agricultural 
     Production--FEDECOOPADES (El Salvador)
       Federation of Cooperative Associations of Fishing Craftsmen 
     of El Salvador
       Federation of Farming Cooperatives of El Salvador 
     (FEDECOPADES)
       Feminine Group for the Betterment of Families (GRUFEPROFAM)
       Foro de la Mujer Region II (Guatemala)
       Foro de la Sociedad Civil (Nicaragua)
       Foundation for the Cooperation and Communal Development of 
     El Salvador (CORDES)
       Foundation for the Education of Rural Leaders (FUNDACAMPO--
     El Salvador)
       Fundacion del Consumidor y del Usuario (Panama)
       Fundacion por los Derechos del Consumidor (Dominican 
     Republic)
       Friends of the Earth Costa Rica (CEOCO)
       General Workers Confederation (CGT)
       Global Conference of Guatemala
       Green Tropics
       Grupo de Solidaridad--El Arenal (Nicaragua)
       Hemispheric Consumer Task Force on the FTAA (Chile)
       Honduran Confederation of Cooperatives
       Independent Federation of Salvadoran Micro Enterprises 
     (FIMES--El Salvador)

[[Page H6899]]

       Independent Monitoring Group of El Salvador (GMIES)
       Indigenous Movement and Mesoamerican Farmer (MOICAM)
       Indigenous Movement of Jinotega
       Iniciativa CID
       International Center of Political Economy for Sustainable 
     Development (CINPE)
       Inter-Union Commission
       Juntas de Salud
       Las Dignas (Women's Association for Dignity and Life--El 
     Salvador)
       Latin American Association of Pharmaceutical Industries 
     (ASIFAN)
       Latin American Biblical University (UBL)
       Latin American Coordinator of Rural Organizations (CLOC)
       Maquila Zone Federation
       Melida Anaya Montes Women's Movement (MAM)
       Mennonite Central Committee (Nicaragua)
       Mesa Global de Guatemala
       Mesa Laboral de Sindicatos de la Maquila (Nicaragua)
       Mesoamerican Institute of Permanent Culture (IMAP)
       Mesoamerican Peoples Forum
       Movimiento Ambientalista Mesoamericano (Nicaragua)
       Movimiento Ciudadano por la Vida con Justicia Social (El 
     Salvador)
       Movimiento Ciudadano por un Proyecto de Nacion (Nicaragua)
       Movimiento Comunal de Nicaragua
       Movimiento de Activacion Social Alternativo-Esteli 
     (Nicaragua)
       Movimiento Sobrevivencia Local (Nicaragua)
       Movimiento Social Nicaraguense (Nicaragua)
       Mother Jungle
       Municipal Committee for Sister City Projects of Tipitapa 
     (COMPALCIHT)
       Municipal Workers' Union of the Province of Limon 
     (SITRAMUPL)
       National Advisor of Salvadoran Businesses (CONAES)
       National Association for the Right of the Salvadoran Social 
     Security Institute (ANDHISSS)
       National Association of Public and Private Employees (ANEP)
       National Chamber of Generic Products (CANAPROGE)
       National Committee for Defense of Social Security and the 
     Costa Rican Social Security Fund (CCSS)
       National Committee of Salvadoran Women (CONAMUS)
       National Committee of Popular Resistance (CNRP)
       National Committee of Settlers of Marginal Areas of 
     Guatemala (CONAPAMG)
       National Committee of the Widows of Guatemala (CONAVIGUA)
       National Consumer Defense Network
       National Federation of Land Cooperatives and Agro-
     Industries (FENACOOP)
       National Federation of Public Service Employees (FNTSP)
       National Federation of Small Enterprises (FENAPES)
       National Federation of Textile and Clothing Unions
       National Foundation for Development (FUNDE--El Salvador)
       National Indigenous and Rural Committee (CONIC)
       National Medical Union
       National Union and Popular Committee (CNSP)
       National Union of Assistants of Infirmary and Public Health 
     Related Issues (SINAESPA)
       National Union of Costa Rican Small and Medium Sized 
     Farmers (UPANACIONAL)
       National Union of Employees Social Security Fund (UNDECA)
       National Union of Health Workers of Guatemala (SNTSG)
       National Union of Hospital Employees and Assistants (UNEHA)
       National Workers Federation (FNT)
       National Workers Union of Apprentices (SITRAINA)
       Nejapa Foundation
       Network of Alternative Community Commercialization (Red 
     COMAL)
       Nicaraguan Communal Movement (MCN)
       Norma Virgtinia Guirola de Herrera Center for Women's 
     Studies (CEMUJER)
       Organization of Salvadoran Women for Peace (ORMUSA)
       Pastoral Juvenil (Nicaragua)
       Plataforma Contra el Libre Comerico--COMPA (Costa Rica)
       Popular Block
       Pueblo Indigena de Chorotega (Nicaragua)
       Pueblo Indigena de Telpaneca (Nicaragua)
       Red COMAL (Honduras)
       Red Mexicana de Accion frente al Libre Comercio (Mexico)
       Red Nacioinal de Defensa de los Consumidores (Nicaragua)
       Red Sinti--Techan (El Salvador)
       Renum Novarum Confederation of Democratic Workers (CTRN)
       Rural Way--Association of Rural Workers
       Salvadoran Foundation for Peace and Development (FUNDASPAD)
       Salvadoran Foundation for the Promotion of Social and 
     Economic Development (FUNSALPRODES)
       Salvadoran Social Security Institution Workers Union 
     (STISSS)
       Salvadoran Women's Movement (MSM)
       Sandinista Workers Confederation (CST)
       SHARE Foundation
       Sindicato de Empresa de Trabajadores del ANDA (El Salvador)
       Sindicato de Trabajadores de la Loteria Nacional de 
     Beneficencia (El Salvador)
       Sindicato de Trabajadores del Fondo Social para la Vivienda 
     (El Salvador)
       Sindicato de Trabajadores del Instituto Salvadoreno del 
     Serguro Social (El Salvador)
       Sindicato de Trabajadores del Sector Electrico (El 
     Salvador)
       Sindicato de Trabajadores por Establecimiento del 
     Aeropuerto Internacional de El Salvador
       Sindicato de Unidad de Trabajadores de la Empresa de 
     Telecomunicaciones de El Salvador
       Sindicato Nacional de Trabajadores de Industria de 
     Transporte, Similares, y Conexos (El Salvador)
       Solidarity Fund for the Benefit of Social Groups (FOSBAS)
       Syndicated Organizations of the Health Sector (FOSSS)
       Telecommunications Workers Union of El Salvador (SUTTEL)
       Tropico Verde (Guatemala)
       Tzu Kim Popular Movement
       Unidad Ecologica Salvadorena--UNES (El Salvador)
       Unidad Ecologica Salvadorena (El Salvador)
       Unified Workers Union of the Municipality of Pococi 
     (SUTRAM)
       Union Nacional de Pequenos Agricultores (Nicaragua)
       Union of Assistants of the Health Sector (SINASS)
       Union of Engineers and Professionals of ICE, RASCA & CNFL 
     (SIICE)
       Union of Health Workers (SITRASALUD)
       Union of Hospital Workers of San Juan de Dios (SITHOSAJUDI)
       Union of Industry Workers in the Electrical Sector (STSEL)
       Union of the Tourism Industry and Hostelry (STITHS)
       United Federation of Workers of General Foodstuffs and 
     Agro-Industry (FESTRAS)
       Unity Confederation of Workers of Honduras (CUTH)
       Western Civic Committee
       Woman and the Community
       Women and Economy of El Salvador (REMTE)
       Women of Mama Maquin of Guatemala
       Workers Union of the Social Fund for Housing (SITRAFOSVI)
       Workers' Union of the National University (SITUN)
       Young Christian Workers
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Coble), who served this country and served it well, 
and he wears that lapel pin showing how proud he is to be a veteran, 
not a Republican, not a Democrat.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel).
  Mr. Speaker, weeks ago I said that CAFTA was neither as good nor as 
bad as its respective proponents contend. At that time I also said 
whether I vote for or against CAFTA, I will inevitably disappoint many 
of my constituents. It is that controversial, Mr. Speaker, in my 
district.
  I told President Bush that my late mom was a textile worker. She 
sewed pockets in overalls. And when textile workers, specifically 
female workers, plead with me to vote against CAFTA, I said to the 
President, it is my mama talking to me, and I cannot turn a deaf ear to 
those pleas.
  Now these workers, Mr. Speaker, may know virtually nothing about 
CAFTA, but their perception is that it is bad for them, it threatens 
their jobs.
  Now, many Members tonight who normally support trade agreements will 
for some reason, perhaps valid or otherwise, vote no tonight, and that 
is likely unfortunate because it goes away from their normal voting 
pattern. And I am confident that there is much good as well as much bad 
inevitably. I have talked to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) 
about it. Some people are going to be hurt, some people are going to 
benefit, not unlike other trade agreements that have come before us on 
this floor in years previous.
  I usually vote against trade agreements. Tonight will be no 
exception, and I will do so.
  I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for having yielded 
me time.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Cuellar).
  Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Speaker, I ask you to join me in supporting the best 
interests of our Nation by passing DR-CAFTA. I support CAFTA because it 
is deeply in our national interest, and it is a progrowth, projob vote.
  In the past I have seen the way free trade has revolutionized south 
Texas, bringing jobs, prosperity and growth to a part of the country 
that used to be economically underserved. DR-CAFTA will perpetuate that 
growth, opening export markets to our American farmers and businesses, 
thereby creating

[[Page H6900]]

jobs in farming, manufacturing and industry here at home.
  When NAFTA was signed in 1993, there were four Presidents, Clinton, 
Bush, Carter, and Ford, present at the signing. We have a long history 
of bipartisan cooperation when it comes to the benefits of free trade. 
I hope to see that tradition continue.
  American farmers currently face deep tariffs when exporting their 
goods to Central America, while 99 percent of the CAFTA agricultural 
products come into the United States duty free. This is a one-way 
street that needs to be redrawn into a two-way street, a two-way street 
of fair trade.
  American farmers are struggling against an unfair international 
trading system, and they are at risk of failing. CAFTA levels that 
playing field. According to the American Farm Bureau, CAFTA would 
expand U.S. farm exports by $1.5 billion per year. CAFTA is also going 
to bring major gains to U.S. manufacturing. The National Association of 
Manufacturers recently reported that as a direct result of DR-CAFTA, 
U.S. manufacturers stand to gain approximately 12,000 new job 
opportunities for American workers.
  CAFTA will also create tremendous job opportunities for the 13,000 
American small businesses that are currently already exporting to those 
Central America countries. The economic opportunities created by DR-
CAFTA will bring new jobs and the possibility of a middle-class life to 
millions of Central Americans who are currently living in poverty. If 
we create economic opportunities in those countries, fewer will be 
forced to flee to the United States out of economic desperation.
  The prosperity created by CAFTA will act as the foundation for more a 
stable and democratic future for Central America.
  Mr. Speaker, trade has the power to change the world. Out of all the 
policy instruments that we have here in Washington, few have as much 
power to change lives, bring hope, and draw people together in a rising 
tide of prosperity as our ability to promote free and fair trade.
  I am a supporter of DR-CAFTA because I think it is not only as a 
smart policy of the United States, but also it is a way to change our 
whole atmosphere for the better.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin), who has been not only a supporter of trade 
agreements, but he has been an architect in designing trade agreements. 
Every major agreement he just did not vote for, but he helped to make 
it better. That is when we used to work together on trade agreements.
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel) for his kind words. What a privilege it has been to work with 
the gentleman.
  This agreement as negotiated misses an historic opportunity. It fails 
a key growing challenge to globalization to expand trade so that its 
benefits are widely shared. Trade agreements must level up, not level 
down. And unlike Chile or Singapore or Australia, CAFTA nations have 
immense poverty, among the worst income inequalities in the world, and 
a weak middle class. And to change that, to change that, workers must 
be able to lift themselves up the economic ladder. And to do so, they 
have to have their basic internationally recognized rights, including 
the right to bargain and to associate.
  The fact of the matter is contrary to any of the rhetoric that comes 
forth here tonight or any of the disclaimers, a majority of workers do 
not have enforceable rights in their nations' legal structures.
  Unlike CBI now in effect, CAFTA gives Central American governments a 
pass on worker rights. All they have to do is to enforce their own 
laws, no matter how bad they are presently, or no matter how bad they 
make them in the future. It is a standard used nowhere else: Enforce 
your own laws in this agreement is a double standard that would 
stimulate a race to the bottom.
  That is bad, number one, for millions of Central American workers 
mired in poverty.

                              {time}  2100

  Number two, it is bad for the nations desperately needing a growing 
middle class. Three, it is bad for our workers, who will not compete 
with nations who suppress their workers. And it is bad for our 
businesses who need middle classes to buy their products.
  I want to emphasize this, because the President has talked about 
security. Denial of worker rights and persistent poverty and 
inequalities are a source of insecurity, not security. A denial of 
democracy in the workplace is harmful to the spread of democracy. So 
not heeding our repeated warnings, the administration negotiated this 
CAFTA so it shattered the bipartisan foundation many of us have tried 
to build.
  CAFTA needs to be defeated so that it can be renegotiated to meet the 
challenge of globalization. And that challenge is to shape a trade 
agreement so that it spreads more broadly the benefits of expanded 
trade, not reinforces an unsustainable status quo. Defeat this CAFTA so 
we can renegotiate a CAFTA that meets the challenges of globalization.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
point out that the last couple of speakers here, including the 
gentleman who just left the well, voted for trade preferences for these 
countries with much weaker labor standards in 1983. It passed this 
House by 392 to 18. It passed in 1990 by a voice vote. And then with 
the labor standards put in there, more labor standards, it was 309 to 
110. We have strengthened the labor standards.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent 
request to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).
  (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce, which has some jurisdiction on trade, I rise in 
strong support of the CAFTA agreement.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3045, the 
Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement 
Implementation Act (DR-CAFTA). This important Agreement ensures the 
spread of fair and open markets for American goods and services. I want 
to commend the Bush administration, the majority leader, and my good 
friends on the Committee on Ways and Means for bringing this important 
legislation before the House.
  The provisions in DR-CAFTA go beyond the mere dissolution of tariffs. 
This wide-ranging Agreement sets forth detailed requirements to 
eliminate the non-tariff trade barriers erected by the member 
countries. Often more nefarious than traditional protectionist 
measures, these barriers now constitute the principle impediment to 
achieving free and unfettered foreign commerce.
  The elimination of all trade barriers to foreign commerce has long 
been a goal of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. So I want to 
express my great satisfaction that DR-CAFTA contains numerous chapters 
resolving potential non- tariff trade barriers.
  Chapter 6 addresses each country's ability to promulgate needed 
sanitary measures. It is very important that our countries cooperate 
closely, and assist one another in protecting human, animal, and plant 
health. Plant- and animal-borne pests and diseases, including toxins 
and disease-causing organisms, must be carefully controlled, and the 
reaffirmation of WTO rules in this area strengthens the Agreement in a 
significant way.
  Chapter 13 and 14 focus on telecommunications and E-commerce. These 
are some of the most important pieces of the Agreement before us. They 
promote, instead of hamper, growth in these areas. Chapter 13 ensures 
non-discriminatory access to public telecommunications networks in the 
Member countries, and requires the signatories to regulate their 
dominant telecommunications suppliers in ways that will ensure a level 
playing field for new market entrants; deregulation and technological 
neutrality are the key goals. Costa Rica is of particular note because 
of its government-provided telecom services, and the Agreement has 
special requirements for this country to open its market to American 
competition. Additionally, Chapter 14 builds on these goals by 
prohibiting discriminatory regulation of electronic trade. This chapter 
represents a major advance over previous international arrangements 
with regard to E-commerce.
  The protection of Intellectual Property, IP, rights must be a part of 
any Free Trade Agreement, FTA, and Chapter 15 complements and enhances 
existing international standards in this area. It requires the Parties 
to ratify or accede to several existing agreements on IP rights, 
including two significant World Intellectual Property Organization

[[Page H6901]]

agreements to which the U.S. is already a Party.
  Chapter 17 sets out the Parties' commitments and undertakings 
regarding environmental protection. It draws on the North American 
Agreement on Environmental Cooperation and the environmental provisions 
of other recent U.S. FTAs, including those with Jordan, Chile, 
Singapore, Australia, and Morocco. DR-CAFTA goes further however, and 
notably is the first American FTA that includes a process for public 
submission on environmental enforcement matters. The Parties must 
ensure that their laws provide a high level of environmental 
protection, and no Party may strive to weaken these laws to promote 
trade with Another.
  The Committee on Energy and Commerce has jurisdiction over the areas 
I have discussed--as well as jurisdiction over non-tariff trade 
barriers generally--and my Committee plans to continue to exercise its 
jurisdiction over trade barriers to further the expansion of free and 
open foreign commerce.
  Finally--and aside from the actual text of the Agreement--this 
implementing legislation offers an opportunity to show the people of 
the developing countries of Central America and the people of the world 
that when we speak of freedom and liberty and the importance of self-
rule, we mean every word of it. The still-struggling, but nascent 
democracies of the DR-CAFTA countries need political stability to 
continue to grow. Economic stability and growth are important parts of 
that goal. Passing this legislation will help to tie these countries' 
futures to our own, and to reinforce our own democratic principles.
  Mr. Speaker, I would again like to commend all the parties that made 
this Agreement possible, and to once again urge my colleagues to 
support unimpeded trade with foreign nations and to help strengthen 
economic and political stability in our hemisphere through the adoption 
of DR-CAFTA.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Lewis), a member of the House Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise to register my strong 
support for H.R. 3045. For too long, the U.S. has watched from the 
sidelines while other nations have traded in the global marketplace. 
Thanks to the leadership of President Bush and the chairman of the 
Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Thomas), we passed the Trade Promotion Authority Act in 2001. This 
important legislation allowed the administration to engage with other 
countries and find opportunities for U.S. companies to sell their 
products to new customers. DR-CAFTA is another step towards knocking 
down trade barriers and opening new markets for U.S. products. DR-CAFTA 
countries are the second largest U.S. market in Latin America.
  The debate on CAFTA has gone on for a long time. Like many of my 
colleagues, I have reviewed a lot of information. The most important 
thing we must remember is that this agreement levels the playing field. 
Right now, nearly 80 percent of imports from the DR-CAFTA countries 
already enter the United States duty free. Again, 80 percent of imports 
from CAFTA countries already enter the United States duty free. By 
leveling the field, we are opening markets to U.S. goods.
  After passage, DR-CAFTA will immediately provide duty-free treatment 
to 80 percent of U.S. industrial products and 50 percent of 
agricultural products. This means jobs for U.S. workers and farmers. 
For the textile industry, DR-CAFTA will maintain the link between the 
U.S. and the region. Once passed, more than 90 percent of all apparel 
made in the region will be sewn from fabric and yarn made in the United 
States. This will allow the U.S. and the region to compete against 
China imports. As we heard earlier, China is a concern to some of my 
colleagues.
  Finally, trade is key to freedom. By passing DR-CAFTA, we are making 
a firm commitment to the leaders of these Central American countries 
who are fighting corruption and supporting economic reform. President 
Bush has made DR-CAFTA his top priority. The U.S. Trade Representative 
has done an outstanding job in putting together this agreement, and 
Chairman Thomas and Subcommittee Chairman Shaw have successfully moved 
the agreement through the legislative process.
  Let us finish this job and pass CAFTA now, tonight.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Jones), a distinguished Member of the House and of 
the majority party.
  Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
New York for yielding me this time, and I am pleased and honored to be 
here to say it is time to defeat CAFTA.
  This is not what we need for American workers nor what we need for 
those in Central America. I come from North Carolina, and I want to be 
on the floor tonight to speak on behalf of those 200,000 North 
Carolinians that lost their jobs because of NAFTA. I want to be on the 
floor to speak on behalf of the 2.5 million American workers that lost 
their jobs because of NAFTA.
  NAFTA has been a failure for the American worker. Proponents of NAFTA 
promised that agreement would reduce illegal immigration in this 
country. Since then, 1993, Mr. Speaker, illegal immigration is up 350 
percent. It does not work. CAFTA is NAFTA's ugly cousin. In fact, 85 
percent of what is in the CAFTA bill is in the NAFTA bill. It is a 
cousin that is not very attractive at all.
  Mr. Speaker, let me share with you and those on the floor tonight 
that I received a letter written to every Member of Congress from seven 
legislators, seven legislators from El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala, 
and Honduras. Seven of these representatives, elected like we are by 
the people of those countries to speak out, have said that the CAFTA 
market has fewer than 9.2 million people who can buy U.S. goods. They 
say that this should be defeated.
  Just a couple more points, Mr. Speaker. I want to quote from this 
letter: ``Our countries want trade, but trade agreements like CAFTA 
that limit the possibilities for our countries to enact policies that 
will truly develop our economies and improve the lives of our people.'' 
This CAFTA bill will not help the people in Central America and will 
not help them in this great Nation of America.
  I want to take one more moment, and then I will close. I think how 
sad it is that we have lost so many manufacturing jobs in this country. 
How can a Nation remain strong without a strong manufacturing base? I 
want to close by putting this out on the floor. How sad would it be if 
15 years from now we have to order our tanks and planes from China, and 
then drape the coffins of our heroes who have died from this country 
with flags that say ``Made in China,'' or ``Made in Honduras.''
  Let us defeat this evil bill called CAFTA.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Linder), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways 
and Means.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I was actually here when NAFTA was passed, and I voted for it. And I 
represented northeast Georgia, where all the textile mills closed over 
the next 10 years. When we voted on NAFTA, the unemployment rate was 
6.0 in Georgia, and 10 years later it was 2.8. They did not have 
textile jobs, but they had jobs.
  I spoke with President Clinton about it, and he said this is a jobs 
bill. And I said, Mr. President, this is not a jobs bill. Jobs come and 
jobs go. They go to cheaper fingers. It is a modest foreign policy 
agreement between two increasingly friendly countries that share a 
2,000 mile border.
  I actually own a plant in Mexico. You can pay them 58 cents an hour. 
But you pay them on Friday and they do not show up on Monday, and it 
gets very expensive as a businessman to rehire and retrain your 
workforce every Monday. So we now pay them $5.50 or $6.00 per hour, 
plus health care and profit sharing. And they are buying houses, 
planting grass, and buying American products. This is what happens in 
the world. You make their economy better, and they buy more American 
products. And we should continue to do that.
  This is a modest foreign policy agreement between America and five 
countries plus the Dominican Republic that will make them safer and us 
safer in our hemisphere.
  In one of the speeches that Chris Patton made, who was the last 
British Governor of Hong Kong around the time of NAFTA, he said ``If a 
spaceship had come from some foreign galaxy and landed in the teepee 
huts of North America or the typhoid streets of London or the warring 
clans of France,

[[Page H6902]]

they would have concluded within a millisecond that China would rule 
the world for centuries. China had discovered gun powder, the printing 
press, and had a rich and engaging culture. And then she built a wall 
around herself and history told a different tale.
  Free trade agreements are about tearing down those walls.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
  (Mr. KILDEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to CAFTA.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the CAFTA.
  My statement can be summed up in two words: job loss.
  We are voting today on an outsourcing agreement, not a trade 
agreement.
  If anyone here thinks that CAFTA will help our economy, they need to 
look at the report prepared by the international trade commission.
  The ITC says that CAFTA would actually increase our trade deficit 
with Central America while benefiting our economy by less than one-
hundredth of one percent.
  This same report says that sugar, textiles, apparel, electronics, 
transport, coal, oil and gas industries will see job losses if CAFTA is 
approved.
  And in the case of sugar farmers and workers--like the 5,000 in 
Michigan--the report says job loss will be 38 times that of other 
industries.
  The sugar industry is a major economic driver in my district and 
state, adding $525 million to the economy every year.
  It's unbelievable that we are even here talking about destroying the 
lives of so many Michigan families, just so we can increase our trade 
deficit with Central America.
  as a Nation, we need to get our priorities straight.
  CAFTA's big brother, NAFTA, cost this country one million jobs.
  And since NAFTA, our trade deficit with Canada and Mexico has 
increased by $100 billion.
  Why then, did U.S. trade negotiators use the NAFTA model to construct 
CAFTA?
  I implore my colleagues to make a stand with me today to not make the 
same mistake we made with NAFTA.
  Let's tell our constituents that their jobs are more important than 
big business panning for cheap labor. Vote ``no'' on the CAFTA!
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. McDermott), a senior member of the Committee on Ways 
and Means, and who, without his research and support, we never would 
have the Africa Growth and Opportunity Bill and who has worked on every 
trade agreement that we have passed in this House.
  (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, a question you might ask tonight is: Why 
are we passing this Central American Free Trade Agreement?
  Today, the President of the United States came up to the Republican 
caucus and someone reported to me that he made some statement equal to, 
we have had a marvelous year. Now, if you think about what has gone on 
in the last 6 months, you would have a hard time finding any marvelous 
year. I must have missed it somewhere.
  Our trade deficit is as big as it has ever been in our history. So is 
this a fix for that? If we pass the Central American Free Trade 
Agreement, will that fix our problems in trade?
  Let me put it in perspective for you. The combined economies of these 
six countries is $85 million GDP. That is equivalent to Tampa, Florida, 
and the neighborhood around it. That is what kind of place we are 
talking about. We are talking about a little bitty place.
  Now, what do they have down there? Well, they have lots of poor 
people. Right? Good workers. Hard workers. A lot of them go to a lot of 
trouble to try to come up here and get into this country. And people 
wonder why? Well, it is because they are hard-working people. They are 
tough, they work hard, and they go through a lot of stress and strain. 
So if we can keep them down in their own country and keep them working 
down there where they do not have any laws and move our jobs down there 
to them, well, who wins in that?
  I guess they get a 50-cent-an-hour job. That is a real improvement. 
With no protections, no guarantees from a union that they are going to 
have health care or education or worker safety or any of the things 
that our workers have in this country. But we have got a cheap 
workforce.
  You heard the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) talk about 
one of the underlying things here. One of the ideas about this bill is 
if we can keep them down there, they will not be coming in up here. We 
will stop that immigration. Let me tell you something, folks. It has 
not stopped it from Mexico. It is not going to stop it from Central 
America. These people know. They are not stupid. They may be poor, but 
they can figure it out. And they can figure out working for 50 cents an 
hour down there is not as good as coming up here and getting involved 
in even the most menial jobs in this country.
  So what we are saying is we have negotiated a treaty. Did we 
negotiate a trade agreement with the workers? No. If you look at every 
single one of those countries, they are all the same. They have a very 
thin elite who control the whole country, and have for centuries. And 
all we are doing is giving them more power to work on their workers. 
That, in my view, is not fair to the workers, and it is not an honest 
way for this country to operate. We are setting no example for the 
world by keeping poor workers down.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the American worker and American 
business, and the best way I can do that this week is to vote against 
CAFTA and I urge every I Member to do the same.
  We know better, it is as simple as that.
  CAFTA is bad public policy that has no place in a 21st century global 
economy.
  Free trade between the United States, and the Dominican Republic and 
Central America is vitally important, but it has to be fair trade and 
CAFTA does not measure up. We have known this about CAFTA for some 
time.
  For over a year, the American people kept hearing that CAFTA was 
coming, but it never arrived. The majority didn't have the votes 
because they had not earned the votes--even within their own party--by 
floating a blatantly unfair agreement that fails repeatedly to make 
real gains and real change.
  For over a year, Democrats and many rank-and-file Republicans 
repeatedly urged the majority to act like statesmen and not henchmen 
for the administration.
  Instead, Republican leaders have chosen destructive confrontation 
instead of constructive dialogue. If their strong arm tactics succeed, 
America will have an unfair international trade policy that would not 
help Central America much and will harm America a lot.
  The omissions are glaring in CAFTA--chief among them: environmental 
protection, worker rights, and fair policies that could benefit every 
American business, not just a few.
  As the largest market in the world, United States international trade 
policy should be leading the world, not following special interests, 
which have only their own interests in mind. But that is not the case 
in CAFTA, which retains protectionist trade policies that benefit U.S. 
textile interests and no one else.
  CAFTA represented a real opportunity for the United States to apply 
what we have learned--both good and bad--from NAFTA and all the other 
trade agreements implemented over the last decade.
  In CAFTA, we could have supported American jobs and American 
companies. We could have led the region into creating real family wage 
jobs instead of any wage employment.
  There is so much we could have done but what we have is a Republican 
majority attempting to export their philosophy of the Haves and Have-
nots. ``Greed is good'' should not be the mantra that comes from CAFTA.
  The United States and Central America need an honest trade agreement 
that represents the best of America and CAFTA doesn't come close. Vote 
to keep America as a beacon of hope and not a bastion of greed.
  We need to renegotiate CAFTA and the first step in that process is to 
vote ``no'' on this hopeless, helpless, and hapless agreement.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), a member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means who has been very active in putting together this agreement.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me this time. In recent years, a bipartisan Congress, Republicans and 
Democrats together, has extended our trade hand to the Muslim people of 
Morocco, the sub-Saharan nations of South Africa, our Asian allies in 
Singapore, and Arab friends in Jordan. Why would we now refuse to 
extend the same hand of trade to our Hispanic neighbors in Central 
America?
  This ought to be larger than raw partisan politics. This is a test of 
American leadership in a changing world. We

[[Page H6903]]

cannot claim to be fighting for American jobs yet turn our backs on 44 
million new customers in Central America, already the tenth largest 
buyer of America's goods and services, when much of the world has 
firmly posted ``America need not apply'' signs on their markets.
  We cannot claim to be serious about winning the textile war against 
China if we turn our back on the partnership with Central America where 
our textile workers in America and Central America can compete and win 
against the surge of China's imports.

                              {time}  2115

  And we cannot claim to be the world's beacon of freedom if we turn 
our back on Central America, a region which 20 years, amid civil war, 
chose the values of freedom and democracy, and, to their credit, have 
made absolutely remarkable progress in free and fair elections, rule of 
law, human rights, labor rights, and environmental protections.
  Central America has painfully pulled itself up the ladder of 
democracy. Rather than kick them back down as opponents suggest, we 
ought to continue to extend our hand of trade to help them pull 
themselves up even further.
  America must not retreat or disengage. We must not abandon our 
commitment to democracy and human rights in our hemisphere. We must 
continue to stand for economic opportunity at home and abroad. This 
Central American trade agreement is a test we cannot fail.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Idaho (Mr. Otter) on the other side of the aisle.
  Mr. OTTER. Mr. Speaker, in my other life I was a salesman. As a 
salesman, I negotiated a few trade agreements, trade agreements between 
my potato company in Idaho and McDonald's all over the world; in fact, 
82 foreign countries.
  I would venture to say that I could challenge anybody on this floor 
that I sold more potatoes, more French fries, more product for more 
money than probably anybody else in the United States Congress. So let 
me come at this from a little different perspective, and the reason I 
want to come at it from a little different perspective is because I 
cannot flimflam. I cannot overpromise and underdeliver hoping that 
people will forget in a couple of years, a la NAFTA.
  Mr. Speaker, when I was working, my boss said, you come home with an 
order, you come home with an agreement, you get an agreement from 
somebody, you better perform on it.
  So I would do this tonight, Mr. Speaker. I would tell Members, 
everybody that wants to adopt this agreement, put your job on the line. 
If in 2 years all of the things that you say are going to come true do 
not come true, quit. Quit the United States House of Representatives, 
because, my friends, you are the salesmen for the United States.
  If you want to stand behind this trade agreement, you go ahead. But I 
am not; I would not risk, if I were you, your job on this, because as 
Patrick Henry said, I have been one lamp that guides my path into the 
future, and that is the lamp of experience.
  We have experienced NAFTA. And by the way, as we stand on the 
shoulders of those Founding Fathers that built the very foundation of 
philosophy and politics that we stand on today, let me also quote 
George Washington who said, If to please the people we promise that 
which we ourselves disprove, how will we later defend our work?
  You will not be able to defend your work, folks. Give it up.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I guess that challenge would go in both 
directions.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Chocola).
  Mr. CHOCOLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot about manufacturing jobs and about 
the trade deficit tonight. I think we will probably hear more.
  As one of the very few Members of this body who actually spent my 
entire adult life in manufacturing, I rise in strong support of DR-
CAFTA. The reason I support it is because during my business career, I 
learned a couple things. One of the first things I learned is that when 
you are trying to export your goods outside the United States, no 
tariffs is a good thing. When you do not have to pay tariffs for your 
products you are exporting, you are more competitive, you sell more of 
your products, and you create more jobs.
  The other thing I learned is that in business you have to make your 
decisions based on facts. If you make your decisions based on rhetoric, 
you will go out of business pretty darn quickly. When it comes to the 
trade deficit, the facts are that 82 percent of our trade deficit comes 
from countries we do not have trade agreements with. Thirty percent of 
our imports come from countries we do have trade agreements with, while 
40 percent of our exports go to countries we do have trade agreements 
with. And 96 percent of the world's consumers are outside of the United 
States.
  Mr. Speaker, the facts are if we are serious about creating jobs, if 
we are serious about reducing our trade deficit, we must tear down 
trade barriers and give American companies access to the world's 
consumers, and that is exactly what DR-CAFTA does. I urge all of my 
colleagues to support it tonight.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Becerra), someone who has studied and is very familiar 
with this legislation.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, President Reagan said it best: Trust, but 
verify. On CAFTA, that is all we are asking. I think most of us believe 
that the Central American governments want to prove that they can play 
by the rules in the international marketplace, but before we agree to 
open up America's markets, and that means America's jobs, to fierce 
competition, we must know that the rules will be followed and enforced. 
Trust, but verify.
  An agreement that merely says enforce your own existing laws fails 
President Reagan's test. The truth is if the American public knew that 
we were about to open up America's markets to further international 
competition based solely on the good faith of our competitors, they 
would run us out of Washington. Just as no consumer today would buy or 
sell a house on a handshake, neither should we open our markets with 
one.
  When we shook hands with China and allowed them to receive favored-
trading status with America, did we expect that they would respond by 
pirating America's goods or by paying industrial wages of 60 cents an 
hour? That is the kind of cutthroat competition that CAFTA will permit, 
but this time that kind of distorted competition will live and breathe 
in our neighboring Central American countries, not 6,000 miles away. 
Will the Central America countries feel the pressure to trade under 
America's standards or China's standards?
  Mr. Speaker, no one wins in a race to the bottom. The vast majority 
of people in the Central American countries, the workers, the farmers, 
the small merchants, would not win, and certainly U.S. businesses will 
not win in the long run.
  Mr. Speaker, it is better to lift all boats so we can trade as 
partners and as equals. I recognize the importance of trade in our 
hemisphere. I have supported every piece of legislation for every trade 
agreement that has come before me in my 12 years in Congress. 
Regrettably, this is not a trade agreement I can support. It does not 
reward work in America or Central America. It is not an agreement that 
deserves our vote. Vote ``no'' on CAFTA.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways 
and Means.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting listening to 
this debate, and there are some points that are being missed. Everybody 
says we should not open our markets to Central America. They are 
already open to Central America. We already gave them free access to 
the American market.
  Everybody says this is going to encourage companies to relocate to 
Central America. That is what we are doing today. The current system is 
an incentive to relocate because right now an American company can move 
to Central America, build their equipment or product there, and bring 
it back tariff free to the United States.

[[Page H6904]]

  Right now if we want to sell a product into these countries, we have 
to build it there. We have to relocate jobs there if we want to sell it 
there in order to avoid these tariffs.
  Mr. Speaker, what this simply does is open up their markets as we 
have opened up ours to them. It takes a one-way trade agreement and 
makes it a two-way trade agreement because we are already giving them 
free and fair access. That is what I call fair trade, having them treat 
us as we treat them.
  Look at what it does in just my own State of Wisconsin. The corn 
tariffs, our tariff on corn, 35 percent; tariff on their corn, zero. 
That goes to zero tomorrow if this passes.
  Tariff on American soybeans going into the CAFTA countries, 20 
percent; tariff on theirs coming here, zero. Our tariffs goes to zero 
tomorrow.
  Manufacturing goods, most of our products in the State of Wisconsin 
that are exported is our manufacturing sector. This takes those 
manufacturing tariffs and drops them so we can export more 
manufacturing goods and keep these jobs in Wisconsin. This is good for 
our States. This is good for our economy.
  I heard Members say it is bad for labor. Most Republicans and 
Democrats voted for the Moroccan trade agreement. This is even stronger 
than that Moroccan trade agreement. This is the strongest labor 
agreement of any trade agreement that we have brought to this floor to 
date.
  Mr. Speaker, lastly, it is no secret the antidemocracy movement is 
trying to stop this. Let us strike a blow for democracy and help these 
fledgling democracies and pass this bill.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Paul).
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I rise in strong opposition to this legislation. As many Members 
know, I frequently vote no in this House because I have a very strict 
rule. The rule is I look to Article I, section 8 for authority. Article 
I, section 8 gives very precise items that we have authority over. One 
is foreign commerce. We, the Congress alone, have authority over 
regulating foreign commerce.
  This bill is a violation of that provision in the Constitution. We as 
a Congress have done something over the past several years that is 
unconstitutional in transferring this power first to the President and 
then to an international bureaucratic agency. This is wrong. It is not 
practical. It is not beneficial, it is unconstitutional, and it is a 
threat to our national sovereignty.
  Members say it is not a threat to our national sovereignty and that 
we can veto what they tell us to do; but it does not happen that way. 
If we were interested in free trade, as the pretense is, you could 
initiate free trade in one small paragraph. This bill is over 1,000 
pages, and it is merely a pretext for free trade.
  At the same time we talk about free trade, we badger China, and that 
is not free trade. I believe in free trade, but this is not free trade. 
This is regulated, managed trade for the benefit of special interests. 
That is why I oppose it.
  There is one specific provision in this bill that bothers me a lot, 
and that has to do with the Codex Alimentarius. These are rules and 
regulations written by the WTO, accepted by the European community, and 
it is specifically mentioned in this bill in chapter 6, paragraph 
number 6, and it talks about a forum where you can come and complain 
about regulation on vitamins and nutritional products.
  If Members are interested in freedom to buy vitamins without going to 
a doctor for a prescription, you have to vote against this bill. If you 
want international harmonization of nutrition and vitamins, you can 
vote for this bill, but I am opposed to that, and most Americans are as 
well. Vote no on this legislation.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I will supply to the gentleman who just left the well 
the case number of the case which settles this. This is certainly 
within the bounds of the Constitution.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Burton).

                              {time}  2130

  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk to my 
colleagues who were here back in the early to mid-1980s, some of the 
older gentry in this body. Do you remember when we saw the Contras and 
the Sandinistas fighting and the bodies in the streets of Nicaragua, 
Managua? Do you remember all the wrangling that went on in this place 
because of the war down there? Do you remember the FMLN in El Salvador 
and the killing that went on down there?
  The same people that were involved in the leftist movements down 
there that Fidel Castro was supporting, the Communists down there that 
Che Guevara was supporting are the same people that are opposing CAFTA 
today because they believe in a different form of government and a 
different approach to government. The Sandinistas are opposed in 
Nicaragua to CAFTA. The leftists throughout Central and South America 
are opposed to CAFTA because they do not want free enterprise to 
flourish down there. They do not want trade to flourish.
  I would like to say to my colleagues tonight, look back at history. 
It is extremely important that you think about not only trade, but the 
security of the United States and immigration. When the wars broke out 
in Nicaragua and El Salvador, there was a massive migration of people 
to the United States. Go to Miami today. There are a lot of people who 
illegally came into this country from El Salvador and Nicaragua because 
they were fleeing the war down there. The people who could not afford 
it came up through Mexico and started coming across the border.
  I submit to you tonight if we do not pass CAFTA and help stabilize 
those fledgling democracies and deal with the poverty problems down 
there, that we are going to have more wars down there, we are going to 
have more civil disorder and insurrection. There are governments down 
there that are trying to undermine fledgling democracies with their 
largesse, and they are going to continue to do it. What we have to do 
to combat that, in my opinion, is to support CAFTA, support trade, 
which will create more jobs down there and create an economy that will 
keep people at home and stop massive immigration into the United 
States. If we do not, in my opinion, there will be wars there, there 
will be massive immigration, and the security of the United States as 
well as the immigration problems will increase.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentleman from Indiana is really so entertaining. After he got 
past Fidel Castro, I was ready for Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. 
Now that you mention it, I think we ought to have a search for weapons 
of mass destruction. I do not know how short you are on votes, but I 
want the gentleman to know, I appreciate his edification of how serious 
it can be. The Communists can come back.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RANGEL. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I love you, man. You know that. But I have got 
to tell you, the Sandinistas and the leftists in Central and South 
America are against this for the reasons I stated. If you really 
believe in stability in our hemisphere, and you do not want to see more 
conflict and massive immigration, this is a good vehicle to vote for. 
And I love you, man.
  Mr. RANGEL. You have access to secret information from what I read in 
the paper, so be careful what you say because you may have to go to 
Niger.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. 
Jones), a member of the committee.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. I would like to thank the gentleman from New York 
for this opportunity to be heard.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today against CAFTA because the agreement not 
only lacks significant labor protections for workers in the CAFTA 
countries, but also lacks necessary support for American workers. 
Charity begins at home. Let us not talk about our neighbors' workers. 
Let us talk about our own workers. With international trade comes 
economic pain.
  The United States has lost 2.8 million manufacturing jobs since 
January 2001. In Ohio, we have lost 200,000 jobs. Past administrations 
and Congresses have acknowledged a relationship between international 
trade and domestic job

[[Page H6905]]

losses by having created the Trade Adjustment Assistance program in 
1962 and subsequently expanding it. The program assists workers who 
have lost their jobs due to international trade by extending 
unemployment compensation and providing job training. Training is 
arguably the most important TAA component, as education and learning 
new skills is essential to finding a new job.
  During the Ways and Means Committee markup, I introduced an amendment 
that addressed that problem in order to keep up with worker demand. 
Unfortunately, that amendment was rejected. Additionally, during CAFTA 
markup, the Senate Finance Committee adopted an amendment that would 
have expanded TAA. Unfortunately, that provision was stripped from the 
CAFTA legislation. So right now there is nothing in TAA or in this 
final CAFTA legislation to assist American workers that have lost their 
jobs. Even a provision that Chairman Thomas originally included in the 
bill is stripped from the legislation. That study would have looked 
into whether TAA should be expanded as a result of any negative effects 
of CAFTA.
  So I ask, where is the commitment to the American worker in the CAFTA 
bill? NAFTA, CAFTA, SHAFTA for American workers.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Oxley).
  Mr. OXLEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of this trade agreement. 
This has enormous upside potential for financial services. As chairman 
of the Financial Services Committee, we have studied this issue at 
great length. The opportunity for American financial services companies 
to provide services in the DR-CAFTA region is truly a unique 
opportunity for those companies. We would be foolhardy if we were to 
ignore the opportunity for a two-way street in providing those 
financial services.
  Let us review the bidding. The Caribbean Basin Initiative essentially 
was a one-way street. That is going to expire. This is an opportunity 
for American companies, financial services, manufacturers, farmers, to 
be able to introduce their products to these markets. Currently over 80 
percent of the exports that come in from the Caribbean countries come 
in duty free in this country, unlike some of the rules that restrict 
our ability to do that in that region.
  This is a huge opportunity for my home State of Ohio, whether it be 
manufacturing or whether it be agriculture. It is easy to talk about 
job losses, but the idea is to actually improve the opportunity to 
expand exports into these countries. This Congress time and time again 
has approved free trade agreements, with Australia, with Chile, with 
Morocco and other countries, on a large bipartisan majority. Why would 
we ignore the opportunity in our own backyard to improve the markets 
and to improve the ability of our exporters to penetrate those markets 
when we are doing the same for other countries throughout the globe? 
This is an incredibly important statement. Let us support this free 
trade agreement and move on.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), an outstanding member of the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I represent the family farmers of the Red 
River Valley. They are descendants of the families that broke the 
prairie of the northern plains and are now raising sugar beets as part 
of an industry that they have grown with their own sweat and tears. 
This industry from the farmers to the workers in the processing plants 
today amounts to an economic impact of $2 billion to $3 billion and 
nearly 30,000 jobs in our rural region alone.
  The CAFTA deal places all of this at risk. It allows sugar to pour in 
from the CAFTA countries whose wages have no relation to ours, and 
whose environmental protections in their plants are all but 
nonexistent. That is just the start, because this will serve as a 
precedent for any number of trade deals with sugar-producing countries 
to follow.
  Some supporters argue we should not even have a domestic sugar 
industry anymore, that these farms and these jobs should be sacrificed 
at the altar of free trade just like so many jobs that have been lost 
in the flawed trade deals that have gone on before. We are now at the 
deepest trade deficit in the history of our country. My colleagues, 
this year we are on track to import more food than we sell. The United 
States of America. A net food importer.
  This has to end. When will it end? When will we decide U.S. jobs are 
worth fighting for and that the economic hopes and dreams of our 
families are what we ought to be representing? It should end tonight. 
Tonight we stand for our constituents, their jobs, their lives, their 
hopes and dreams of a better life. Tonight we need to defeat this bad 
trade deal. Let us win one for the American people. Vote ``no'' on 
CAFTA.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), a great advocate of free trade.
  Mr. KOLBE. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Central American Free 
Trade Agreement. CAFTA is a little trade agreement with small economic 
consequences for our country, but it is a huge national security issue 
with enormous implications for our entire foreign policy. With CAFTA, 
we can close the book and forever put the decade of the 1980s behind 
us, or we can start at the beginning and relive the nightmares of 
earlier chapters in U.S. relations with Central America.
  In a single generation, Central America has been transformed from a 
region of conflict, instability, and authoritarian regimes to a region 
of peace, emerging democracies, and growing prosperity.
  Today we cast our votes for more than a trade agreement. We are 
voting for an initiative that will strengthen democracy and promote 
prosperity in our hemisphere. It is a vote that will have enormous 
consequences for U.S. national security, because without economic 
growth and opportunity for the nations and people of Central America, 
the U.S. will inevitably be confronted with growing political 
instability and social unrest in our own backyard. Deprive Central 
America of economic opportunities, and we run the risk of a return to 
authoritarian regimes and a rising tide of illegal immigration from 
people without jobs and without hope.
  None of us want to return to the dark days of the 1980s when the 
Sandinistas and the rebel groups prospered from economic policies that 
left people desperate for a better life, but no one stands to gain more 
from the defeat of CAFTA than President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. 
Fueled by $100 million each day of oil money, President Chavez is 
already meddling in Central American affairs and would like nothing 
more than to pick up the pieces of an economic policy in a region 
shattered by the defeat of CAFTA. The Washington Post editorialized 
that Mr. Chavez has spread his money around the region, sponsoring 
anti-American and antidemocratic movements and promoting alternatives 
to U.S. initiatives.
  Those in opposition say CAFTA will increase poverty, spur 
immigration, ruin the environment, and exploit workers. Nothing could 
be further from the truth. Certainly CAFTA does not fix all the 
problems facing Central America, but increased economic integration can 
only add jobs and help alleviate poverty, reduce the flow of migration 
northward, and make our region more competitive in world markets.
  Mr. Speaker, let us turn the page and write a new chapter of 
partnership with the peoples and the countries of Central America. I 
urge an ``aye'' vote.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Brown), who has worked very hard in trying to perfect this 
legislation.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding 
me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I have been privileged to work closely with dozens of 
Democrats and Republicans in building a strong coalition against the 
Central American Free Trade Agreement. I would like to thank the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), the gentleman from Idaho 
(Mr. Otter) and their staffs for their outstanding efforts in helping 
to build this coalition.

[[Page H6906]]

I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) for 
their leadership, as well as Tim Reif and Julie Herwig and, in my 
office, Joanna Kuebler and Brett Gibson for their outstanding work. A 
special thank you to the members and staff of the CAFTA whip operation, 
a grassroots bipartisan operation numbering literally in the hundreds, 
made up of Members and staff on both sides of the aisle.

                              {time}  2145

  CAFTA faces broad and deep opposition because it was crafted by a 
select few for a select few. More than 200,000 Central Americans have 
protested the Central America Free Trade Agreement. In the United 
States, thousands, literally thousands of Democrats and Republicans, 
business and labor groups, small manufacturers, family farmers and 
ranchers, religious leaders have called on the administration not to 
reject any CAFTA, but to renegotiate this Central American Free Trade 
Agreement. We do want trade with Central America, but we want a trade 
agreement that deserves to pass Congress based on its merits.
  CAFTA supporters have resorted to toothless side deals and strong-arm 
tactics. Late last week, a CAFTA supporter and member of the 
congressional leadership said they would win this vote by twisting arms 
until they break in a thousand pieces. By twisting arms until they 
break into a thousand pieces. When facts fail, they twist arms. They 
make deals. They buy votes.
  The CAFTA debate is not a Democrat or Republican issue. The call to 
renegotiate crosses party lines and ideologies, as we have seen 
tonight. Tonight's debate is about social and economic responsibility 
to our families in this country and our communities and our trading 
partners abroad. This agreement is about U.S. companies moving plants 
to Honduras, outsourcing jobs to El Salvador, and exploiting cheap 
labor in Guatemala. It is not about lifting up standards in the 
developing world. It hurts our families in this country. It does 
nothing for the Dominican Republic and the five Central American 
countries.
  Mr. Speaker, when the nations' poor can buy American products, not 
just make them, then we will know finally that our trade policies are 
succeeding.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), who knows what it is like to lose freedom 
in her native country.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding me this time and for his great leadership on this important 
issue.
  America is the beacon of hope, the beacon of freedom and hope and 
opportunity for so many people. It was the beacon of hope and 
opportunity for my family when we came over from Cuba. America spreads 
democracy to every corner of the world. We stand firm in the belief 
that every person is entitled to the freedom that we in the United 
States are so fortunate to enjoy. Open trade and free markets with 
democracies play key roles in sustaining that vision.
  This House tonight will demonstrate our unwavering commitment to the 
spread of democracy by passing CAFTA. Some countries in this region 
were riddled with internal strife and political instability. I know. I 
represent many of those people who escaped from that internal strife in 
their countries. Although many of them have traveled a long way toward 
democracy in their homelands, now their homelands have arrived. They 
have democracies, and they are flourishing. But they need our help.
  CAFTA will be a critical tool in maintaining this momentum towards a 
prosperous future. Not only will it promote expanded development and 
openness in the region; CAFTA will also create new opportunities, 
economic opportunities, jobs and growth, by eliminating tariffs, by 
promoting transparency, and by opening markets to U.S. products going 
abroad.
  We have a commitment to work together to promote civil society, the 
rule of law, and to spread democracy throughout the world; and CAFTA-DR 
will help us achieve that commitment.
  (The gentlewoman from Florida spoke in Spanish.)
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, we are privileged on this side to have 
someone who is very familiar with that area, who worked hard and became 
a Member of this body.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Solis).
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank our ranking member for yielding me 
this time, and I thank the Members in the House tonight.
  I have to tell the Members that, as a proud member of Congress, the 
only Member of Congress of Nicaraguan descent, I am proud to say that 
my mother just returned from Nicaragua. The news was not a happy sound 
at all. Poverty, yes, is very bad. The people there are looking for 
leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives. They are asking us to 
vote down CAFTA because they know that the government there does not 
realize that the people there have been suffering for over 40 years. 
And to this day, they are looking for Members in the House to provide 
support so that people there can have dignity and respect.
  Why is it that we can pass an agreement like this that does not allow 
for people in those countries, in El Salvador and Nicaragua and Costa 
Rica, to collectively bargain? Why is it in El Salvador two people who 
were trying to organize were shot to death in front of their houses? 
Why is it that we have to stand up and allow for that disgrace to occur 
when this country is so rich and so wealthy that we cannot provide 
other types of aid and assistance so that people can be empowered to do 
what they choose to do, to build their houses, to have dignity, to have 
health care?
  What we are doing and are proposing tonight is that the 
pharmaceutical companies would take away very important medical 
assistance to people who are dying of HIV and AIDS in Guatemala. How 
dare we decide the destiny of people in Guatemala by saying we are 
going to raise the price of medicine for them and for their children. 
Yes, they are going to want to come to this country because do the 
Members know why? We are cutting them off at the knees.
  And as a proud member of the Hispanic Caucus, 14 members, a majority 
of that caucus, voted against DR-CAFTA.
  We need to go back to the table. We need to have more transparency. 
We need to stand up for those young women who are going to be drawn 
into those jobs, who are going to be abused, who are currently being 
abused even in Mexico.
  I would just like to tell the Members that in Mexico, where my father 
was raised, in the area of Ciudad Juarez, the people who were attracted 
to those jobs were ages 14 to 20 years old. These are young women who 
were drawn into the maquiladores. They are the same type of individuals 
that we have drawn into these types of factories that will work in El 
Salvador and Nicaragua. Right now there are some free trade zones 
there. The people that I see lining up for those jobs are 14 and 16 
years of age, working 12 hours a day, in an encampment where they are 
not even allowed to go to the restroom without having permission.
  We do not need DR-CAFTA. Please vote for humanity, for respect for 
the people of Latin America and Central America. I stand tall with the 
Democratic Party.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentlewoman in the well that this 
bill contains an unprecedented amount of capacity-building in which we 
will give assistance to these countries to enforce their own labor 
laws, more than in any other bill that has ever come to the floor of 
this House. Also, the enforcement provisions are within the trade bill 
itself.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Inglis).
  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I had real doubts about CAFTA as it started. In 
particular, representing a textile district, there were three specific 
concerns. And the very exciting thing is that this House really went to 
work to fix those. I am looking at the gentleman from California

[[Page H6907]]

(Chairman Thomas), who has worked very hard with us, along with Rob 
Portman, USTR, to address those concerns.
  Three of them: one was pockets and linings. That is important only if 
one comes from a district that makes pockets and linings, I suppose. 
Another was Mexican cumulation. And then a third was the Nicaraguan 
TPL.
  In working through Rob Portman's office and through the chairman, we 
were able to get some progress on those, some commitments for some 
supplemental agreements, some implementation agreements that will 
address those concerns and go a long way toward fixing the problem in 
the textile world.
  It is not perfect. There are some still in textile districts that are 
not sure. But I stand here tonight certain that CAFTA is a wise Western 
Hemisphere strategy. I stand here convinced that it is the best 
strategy available to combine with our neighbors to the south to 
compete with the Chinese. If I am concerned, and I am concerned, about 
the future of the textile industry in competition with China, the best 
way that I see to fix that is to combine with our neighbors to the 
south. So I particularly call on those from textile districts to 
consider is there a better strategy.
  This is the best strategy available. Let us vote for CAFTA. Let us 
pass it and get on with this good strategy.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I have been reminded by staff that the Costa 
Rican Government has not approved of these changes; but since they are 
merely side agreements, I guess that means it is on the side.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Doggett), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, it is possible to enjoy the many benefits 
of trade extolled here tonight without having a race to the bottom on 
working conditions. It is possible to enjoy the benefits of expanded 
trade without endangering our environment. It is possible to enjoy 
trade without yielding our sovereignty by granting foreigners more 
legal rights than Americans will have under this agreement--special 
preferences that these foreigners can use to undermine our health and 
safety laws. It is possible to have a modern 21st-century trade policy, 
which recognizes that we cannot measure the benefits of trade solely on 
how many widgets move across the border while forgetting what happens 
to the workers and the air we breathe and the water that we drink.
  But it is impossible to accomplish any of this when the negotiators 
for our side come from an administration that cares as little about 
workers in America as those in Honduras, an administration that views 
the environment as just something to exploit.
  I am against CAFTA because, basically, I am against protectionism. I 
reject an administration that protects polluters, that protects 
corporate wrongdoers, that protects those who think that arrogance 
alone can represent an effective foreign policy. I am proud to stand 
with the NAACP and LULAC and the League of Conservation Voters and so 
many Americans, who say we need a new trade policy, not yet another 
failed foreign policy from a narrow-minded administration.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I think everybody knows. They have heard quite a bit 
this evening.
  Trade adds growth, generates more jobs, and raises our standard of 
living. Passing CAFTA-DR will bring more of these benefits to our 
economy.
  Let us be very clear: it will. This is a big deal for America.
  We already have a trade agreement with the CAFTA-DR countries. It is 
just not good enough. It is only one way. Currently, 80 percent of 
their exports come into the U.S. duty free. In fact, about 5 years ago, 
309 Members of this House voted in May of 2000 to unilaterally cut and 
eliminate our tariffs on their goods to help their economies. And I 
have the list, 183 Republicans and 126 Democrats.
  Tonight, those same Members can now vote in favor of this trade 
agreement which will eliminate their tariffs on our goods and help our 
economy. And then when this agreement goes into effect, 80 percent of 
our manufactured exports and 50 percent of our agricultural exports 
will be immediately duty free. The rest will be phased out over 10 
years.
  I do not think we can ask for a better deal, and it is about time we 
evened the score. The facts are clear. CAFTA-DR is a great deal for 
America.
  By the way, I have those results, if anybody is interested, of the 
vote 5 years ago.

                              {time}  2200

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 10 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the esteemed Ranking Member from New 
York (Mr. Rangel) for granting me this time.
  I want to begin by saying, Mr. Speaker, that DR-CAFTA will give us 
more of the great sucking sound that we said NAFTA would accelerate, 
and, indeed, it did; 1 million more lost U.S. jobs, worsening squalor 
in Mexico, huge trade deficits with Mexico and Canada, as we predicted 
would happen.
  I urge those who have been offered a deal tonight for your vote not 
to trade your conscience for a deal.
  If you think about this, American icon companies leaving our country 
are--just a month ago, Brunswick Bowling Balls left Muskegon, Michigan, 
adding to this trade deficit, taking 115 more jobs; and then last week 
from Nashville, Louisville Ladder Group, 110 more lost jobs; and then 
this week a Kansas radiator company leaving announced it was leaving 
for Mexico. These jobs go to places where working conditions are 
abominable, as the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis) has so well 
documented tonight. Sweatshops rule the day.
  CAFTA will fuel more such trade deficits as with Mexico, more illegal 
immigration as people, desperate, try to find some type of refuge 
north. We know illegal immigration has doubled just since NAFTA passed. 
We know CAFTA will increase drug trafficking, sexual harassment of 
women in the workplace. Environmental conditions will worsen. CAFTA 
will keep Central American workers in sweatshop conditions by rolling 
back enforcement provisions of the Caribean Basin Initiative, CBI. 
Indeed, the administration has cut the U.S. contribution to the 
International Labor Organization for child labor enforcement by 87 
percent. What kind of commitment is that?
  CAFTA will regress democratic reform in the countries where our 
Central American neighbors live.
  Your conscience should not allow you to vote for this flawed approach 
that will bring lower wages and benefits, exploitation and hardship to 
individuals in our country and our sister nations, where full liberties 
do not exist. Our policy should be free trade among free people.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, today we have an historic choice to make. 
It is a choice to unite America and our partners in Central America and 
the Caribbean in the continued march for progress and democracy, or a 
choice that pushes them into the arms of Bolivarian socialism, the 
clutches of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Cuba's Fidel Castro.
  Mr. Speaker, if we fail to pass DR-CAFTA, then we will potentially 
undermine the stability of our regional democratic allies across 
Central America and the Caribbean Basin. Worse, we will open the door 
for the Venezualan-Cuban alliance to fill the vacuum created by our 
failure to construct an economic security partnership with Central 
America and Caribbean democracies.
  This weekend I had 300 pages translated for me to see what the people 
or the governments in Venezuela and Cuba were saying about this 
agreement. Castro and Chavez want to defeat CAFTA. I encourage my 
colleagues to go to the Web page, read the agreement between the 
President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and the President of 
the Council of the State of Cuba for the implementation of the 
Bolivarian alternative for the Americas. They have an alternative 
vision for Central and South America

[[Page H6908]]

and the Caribbean, and it does not include the United States. Read this 
agreement and see where they are headed. Read their documents. 
Venezuela, politics of oil and energy.
  The sixteenth World Youth and Students Festival is going to meet in 
Caracas, Venezuela, August 7 to August 15. Here is what they have to 
say: Venezuela has the potential to become a center of resistance to 
imperialist intervention in Latin America. Holding the festival there 
will be a strong answer of the progressive youth of the world to U.S. 
imperialism designs to pacify working people in Latin America. Where 
has the youth conference been held before? In 1947 it was in Prague, 
1949 in Budapest.
  Now is the time to stand with our allies in Central America. In the 
war on terror, they have been there with us. Four of these countries 
have sent troops to Iraq. All six of these countries are part of the 
coalition to defeat terrorism. Build the relationships with these 
countries who have stood with us. This is a good agreement. Let us move 
forward, and let us vote ``yes'' on CAFTA.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New 
York for his leadership on this issue.
  Let me begin with an image the President of the United States laid 
out before us. In his inaugural address very close to where we stand 
today, the President said that we have the capacity as a superpower on 
this planet to change the world, to reform it, to make it a better and 
more democratic place.
  I wish that with respect to this debate, I say to the gentleman from 
New York, that those same values and that same vision had been brought 
to the floor, because the reality is that, as one who believes an 
American power can make a difference, this agreement is a missed 
opportunity.
  Instead of taking these nations that struggle so much day in and day 
out, instead of challenging them to move to a better place, we gave up 
and we accepted the status quo. And one of the cruelest and strangest 
arguments, I say to the gentleman from New York, that I have heard 
tonight is that somehow we are not standing by these countries if we 
defeat this agreement.
  What a bizarre, upside-down world we would have, Mr. Speaker, if we 
think that we are standing by these countries when we are not standing 
by the millions of children between the ages of 5 and 14 who got up to 
go to work this morning, will get up to go to work again tomorrow 
morning. What a strange and bizarre world if we think we are standing 
by these countries when we cannot stand by the dignity of their women. 
And what a strange and bizarre world if we think we stand by these 
countries when we do not stand by their voiceless and by the people who 
work and who are shot down in fire because they speak up for their 
political rights.
  For the Republicans and the conservatives who support this agreement, 
if you believe in what your President said, if you believe that the 
superpower has the capacity to help remake this world, then let it 
begin in Central America, and let it begin by pushing these nations to 
do better.
  The final statement I will make is that this is a values statement. 
We hear the word ``values'' in this Chamber a lot. Well, the strongest 
value is what we take of our conscience and how we extend it to other 
people. A value is whether or not we push others to do better, and we 
fall short on the value scale tonight.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Beauprez), a valued member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Trade for yielding me this time.
  After what we just heard from the gentleman from Alabama, I simply 
have to respond. We had a meeting, we members of the Committee on Ways 
and Means had a meeting with the six economic ministers of these 
countries, and I have to tell the Members of this body that it was 
those ministers who sat in front of us and begged us, be our economic 
mentor, be our political mentor. Help us as developing countries to 
become like the great country of the United States of America. They 
held their hand out.
  I have heard all night long about phantoms and ghosts and about how 
terrible things are going to happen if the United States of America, 
the greatest country on God's green Earth, would not reach out and 
grasp a hand that is reaching toward us. How in the world can we leave 
an empty hand? How can we spit in that very hand and say, no, you are 
not worthy somehow to participate in the freedom, in the dream that we 
as United States citizens have?
  It says right up there, ``In God We Trust,'' and we ask God to bless 
us, and God has blessed this Nation. We are the greatest Nation on 
God's green Earth, and it is nations like the United States of America 
that are good neighbors. This is a good neighbor trade agreement. 
Neighbors help neighbors. This is a chance to do the right thing.
  Mr. Speaker, I have heard all night long, I have heard all night long 
about the horrors that are going to happen. You can go looking, when 
you get up in the morning, you can go looking for reasons to not do 
something. I was raised by a guy who got up in the morning and looked 
for reasons to do something, to show up.
  This is a bill, this is a trade agreement that allows us to do the 
right thing, to do the right thing for American workers, because the 
day it is signed, $1 billion worth of tariffs, like an anvil around 
their neck, goes away.
  I was in the farming business. I know what competitiveness is about. 
This will make our workers more competitive. This is good for America, 
and good for our friends in Central America. Let us support CAFTA. Let 
us do the right thing.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Ford).
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for 
yielding me this time.
  I have voted for every trade agreement, I say to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thomas), that has come before this Congress; all the 
ones that have been listed tonight. I was not here when NAFTA passed, 
my dad was, but I probably would have voted for it had I been here. 
Large employers and others in my district and farmers all across my 
State benefit when markets are open.
  But I ran into a problem not long ago. I was traveling through a 
little area, and, as a matter of fact, the son of this mayor in 
Crossville, Tennessee, came to me today, Mayor Graham's son, and I ran 
into a lady who was there with her daughter and granddaughter. Now, the 
grandmama had just lost her job from a little company called Mallory in 
Crossville. She is about, almost 60 years old. The daughter is a middle 
school teacher, eighth grade teacher, and the 11-year-old granddaughter 
is going to sixth grade.
  I felt bad for the grandmother, and I felt okay for the mom, because 
she had a job. The grandmother worked almost 30 years. But I felt worse 
for the 11-year-old, because I think about all of these trade 
agreements and trade policies, and I got to tell you, I like the idea 
of us being able to sell goods anywhere.
  I come back to what the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter) said a 
little while ago here. I do not know what to tell the 60-year-old 
grandmother anymore, because I used to tell them that jobs would be 
created once we did these things, but she lost hers. She is past her 
prime, so where does she go? Does she move to India, China, Singapore, 
Canada, Mexico? I doubt it. The daughter at least has a job. But the 
granddaughter is 11 years old, and we did not have a national strategy 
to teach her math, science, or any of the essentials that she needs to 
learn to compete in a global society.
  President Clinton, who supported all of these trade agreements, at 
least had an investment agenda that accompanied his trade policies. We 
have neither now.
  The challenge before this Congress this evening is not whether we 
pass this trade bill in the interests of some of my dear friends in the 
financial services and in the computer and IP industries and 
entertainment industries; the question we have tonight is, what are be 
doing for the 11-year-old girl? Sure, we can produce movies here in 
town, but will we be producing it here? Sure,

[[Page H6909]]

we can make things and have the capacity to do it, but will we be 
making things here?
  I ask my colleagues, as somebody that supported you all the time, I 
say to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), how do we answer that 11-
year-old granddaughter in Crossville, Tennessee?
  I will vote ``no'' on CAFTA this evening.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), a distinguished member of the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, this is how we answer that 
little girl. We tell her the world that she is going to work in is 
going to be a world in which there will be better labor laws better 
enforced.
  For the very first time ever, the International Labor Organization 
spent 1 year working with these countries to upgrade their labor laws, 
and, everyone agrees, their labor laws meet the core standards of the 
ILO. For the very first time ever, the ILO is going to be the 
enforcement mechanism to see that those laws are enforced as 
enforcement is always the weakness. Always the weakness.
  Many of you voted for the Jordan Free Trade Agreement. Many of you 
voted for the Moroccan Free Trade Agreement. Not nearly as good of a 
body of laws in those countries, and the enforcement was: You must be 
making efforts towards; you must be striving to enforce. In this labor 
agreement, in CAFTA, the ILO will come in and review every 6 months and 
publicly report every 6 months: Are you implementing the plan?
  Now, they have written the plan. You can see whether they will have 
implemented the plan, because it is laid out, how many inspectors, and 
so on and so forth. It is all detailed. They will be accountable for 
implementing those plans.
  Those Presidents whom we met with were proud that they are upgrading 
their labor law and upgrading their enforcement. This is capacity-
building. The very first Free Trade Agreement or trade agreement that 
focuses on capacity-building, building the ability of departments of 
labors within these governments to enforce domestic labor law which 
meets international labor standards, and the International Labor 
Organization is going to be there to oversee it, and we are putting 
money behind it. We are, and others are.
  This is a unique labor agreement. It really, really pains me that 
there is so much ignorance about the details of this agreement. You sit 
with the people who negotiate an agreement, you sit with the economic 
ministers, you sit with the Presidents, and you get a concrete, 
tactical sense of the tremendous strides they have made through the 
agreement to improve new labor laws and enforcement capacity. This is 
not status quo; this is going to change their world and protect their 
workers.

                              {time}  2215

  Now, if in addition you care about fair trade, and you want to walk 
the walk of fair trade and not just talk the talk, then you better 
remember, their goods come in, no tariffs, no duties, no nothing into 
our country.
  Do you not think our guys deserve the same right? To me that is fair 
trade. Level the playing field. Our products should have the same 
access their products have. And their people deserve the same respect 
our people do. They do not deserve a double standard.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) for purposes of correcting the record.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, just to answer the lady 
about walking the walk and talking the talk, this administration and 
this Congress just cut child labor enforcement around the world by 87 
percent in our dollars that we contribute to the international labor 
organization.
  So on the one hand for people to say that we are really strengthening 
labor law, but on the other hand not putting the dollars behind it to 
make sure children are protected to me does not sound like we are 
walking the walk that we are so talking the talk.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).
  Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the DR-CAFTA agreement. 
And I stand here supporting it from a district that has a pretty 
significant portion of organized labor, and a district that has a 
pretty significant portion of manufacturing.
  Many of my colleagues who support this agreement are from very 
similar districts. One might wonder why, if one has been listening to 
the arguments from the other side of the aisle all night. But one does 
not wonder why if one made the phone calls into the district like we 
have been making over the last several months, talking to employers 
about this agreement.
  And what we have learned was that companies employing from 12 to 600 
are excited about this. American companies with American employees, 
many of them organized labor, are excited about this agreement. And 
why? Because they have a very difficult time getting their products 
into Central America as it is today.
  That is because there are very high tariffs on our products going 
into Central America. Right now Central American countries have very 
little, if any, barrier getting their products into the United States. 
It has been that way for 20 years. But one of the best ways we can help 
move them forward is to get our products into Central America.
  Partially because a lot of their industrial development needs to be 
advanced, and we have the products to help them do that. How to raise 
their standard of living? Certainly raise their quality of 
manufacturing. Raise their opportunity to sell quality goods, give us 
the opportunity to help them do that.
  Interestingly enough, the arguments we hear do not seem to make any 
sense; they are very circular. We have to oppose this because we will 
hurt Central Americans, but we have to oppose this because we will hurt 
Americans. Neither of those arguments holds water.
  This agreement is good for Central America, it is good for the United 
States manufacturing, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, tonight we stand on the precipice 
of doing something great for America. And I think we ought to pause for 
a moment and ask the question: What would the American people want us 
to do here tonight?
  Well, I am here to tell you what I think the American people want us 
to do. The American people who are watching television tonight, they 
are hoping with their fingers crossed that finally, finally the 
Congress will stand up for America.
  We stood up for Morocco, we stood up for Singapore, we stood up for 
China, for India. Now we are about to stand up for the nations in 
Central America. America is saying, when are you going to stand up for 
us, the workers, the backbone of America?
  This CAFTA is fraught with weaknesses in terms of labor rights all 
throughout. Ever since we have had our trade agreements, just over the 
past 10 years we have lost 3 million jobs, manufacturing jobs. We have 
lost 2\1/2\ million jobs to China, to India in servicing.
  I say to you tonight, stand up for America and America will be very 
thankful and very proud that we did. Vote ``no'' on CAFTA. Let us send 
it back, and let us fix it.
  Trade agreements must benefit both workers and corporations. CAFTA 
benefits corporations but does not benefit workers. CAFTA fails to 
include adequate protections for workers. In fact, the U.S. State 
Department has documented numerous areas where CAFTA countries failed 
to comply with even the most basic minimum labor standards and worker's 
rights.
  CAFTA will cost American jobs and this is the Achilles' heal in our 
approach to trade agreements which I find most disturbing. Were sending 
millions of jobs overseas and manufacturing plants are closing in 
America because of our trade policies. In the last 10 years, we have 
lost 3 million manufacturing jobs and nearly 1 million financial 
services and call center jobs to China and especially, India because of 
our trade agreements.


                   China & India are eating our lunch

  We must fix this ``outsourcing of American jobs'' problem in this 
CAFTA bill before we move forward with it. During one of our Financial 
Services Committee hearings, I asked Federal Reserve Chairman Alan 
Greenspan what he thought was the big threat to the American economy 
and he said the `loss of

[[Page H6910]]

jobs, the loss of skilled jobs.'' We are lossing too many American jobs 
to overseas foreign markets and we are not investing in retaining, 
retooling our workforce for the technically skilled jobs of the 21st 
Century.
  Finallty, we need to ask ourselves how the American people want us to 
vote on CAFTA tonight. All over the country, they are watching us to 
see what Congress is going to do. I am there to tall you that the 
people of America wants us to stand up for Americans, for change. In 
our trade agreements, they want us to keep American jobs in America, to 
protect workers' rights protect the environment, and stop out sourcing 
jobs to other countries.
  Vote ``no'' on CAFTA so that we can go back and fix this imbalance. 
We can do this and still keep trade benefits for American corporations.
  To night, let's stand up for American. Ladies and Gentlemen vote 
``no'' on CAFTA.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Melancon).
  Mr. MELANCON. Mr. Speaker, I have got a lot of emotions running 
through me tonight. I represent a sugar area. But more important than 
that, I come from a sugar family. My three sisters and I owe our 
education and our families and our success to an industry that has been 
around in Louisiana for 225 years.
  It is an efficient industry. It is a good industry. It is the same 
hard-working people that get up in the West and get up in the East and 
get up in the North every morning. They are no different. They have 
just been attacked by the big multinational corporations, and you keep 
falling for it. NAFTA was horrible.
  We were lucky, we had a side letter. We are still negotiating sugar 
10 years later. I do not see any benefits for workers, for sugar 
people. We have given away textiles. We have given away steel. We have 
given away fruits and vegetables. Now let us just go ahead and give 
away everything and be dependent on every other country for our food 
and our defense.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentleman in the well that 
the vast majority of our agriculture community vigorously supports this 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Herger).
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I represent one of the richest agricultural 
districts in the world in Northern California, in the northern 
Sacramento Valley. And this CAFTA agreement will create important new 
export opportunities for the Northern California farmers and ranchers I 
represent.
  Three nations have already ratified this one-of-a-kind agreement. 
However, if this enacting legislation fails, the prospects of approving 
any similar agreement for the Central American countries fail as well.
  Placed in a broader historical context, in May of 2000, I joined 308 
of my 435 colleagues in lowering or eliminating completely the tariffs 
on products entering the U.S. from CAFTA nations. At the time there was 
no reciprocal treatment, and our U.S. products continued to face high 
tariffs in CAFTA nation markets.
  The ratifying bill now before us will immediately zero out tariffs on 
50 percent of U.S. agricultural products exported to the region, with 
the remaining scheduled to be reduced and eliminated over time.
  This is vitally important to all U.S. agriculture, especially in my 
home State. California produces 350 different agricultural commodities 
and is America's largest agricultural exporting State. When fully 
implemented, it is estimated that CAFTA could help boost U.S. 
agriculture exports by $1.5 billion.
  I firmly believe trade must be a two-way street. Currently, our 
Nation's agricultural exports like rice, almonds, pistachios, and dried 
plums, grown in my district, face average tariffs of 35 to 60 percent.
  As I previously stated, we already allow 99 percent of CAFTA nations' 
imports duty free. Mr. Speaker, CAFTA will level the playing field for 
American agriculture and will help producers from California and other 
States gain valuable new export opportunities. I urge my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle to approve this measure.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Kucinich), a former Presidential candidate.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, the average hourly earnings of U.S. 
manufacturing workers was $16.01 in March of 2004. The average hourly 
wages for Honduran workers producing goods for the U.S., 90 cents.
  CAFTA is about institutionalizing cheap labor. Multinational 
corporations want trade agreements where they can make a profit by 
closing factories in the U.S. and moving jobs to places where workers 
have no rights and work for very low wages. Cheap labor.
  Now, I have traveled across America. And I have seen the effects of 
agreements like NAFTA and CAFTA: padlocked gates of abandoned 
factories, grass growing in parking lots of places where workers used 
to make steel, used to make washing machines, used to make textiles, 
used to make machine parts.
  Free trade has meant freedom for the American worker to stand in the 
unemployment line while their jobs were traded away. So-called free 
trade has brought broken dreams, broken homes, broken hearts to the 
American manufacturing worker. Trade without equity is tyranny. Trade 
without economic justice is theft. Trade without integrity, without 
workers' rights, without human rights, without environmental principles 
is not worthy of a free people.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maine 
(Mr. Michaud).
  Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. As a 
mill worker at Great Northern Paper Company for over 30 years, I rise 
in strong opposition to CAFTA. Two days after I was sworn in as a 
Member of Congress, I learned that the very mill that I worked at, that 
my dad worked at for 43 years, my grandfather before him for 40 years, 
filed bankruptcy and was shutting down.
  The reason? Unfair trade policies that have devastated our industry. 
Job loss is something that we Mainers know all about. In Maine, in the 
wake of NAFTA, we have lost 23 percent of our manufacturing base in the 
last 3 years alone. The unemployment rate in certain areas is over 30 
percent.
  CAFTA takes most of the language right out of NAFTA. It only has 
promises of more job losses. Business organizations, family farms, 
church groups, Republicans and Democrats are united in opposition to 
CAFTA.
  I ask my colleagues tonight, do not sell the American people out for 
some back-room deal. Our workers deserve more.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, there are many reasons to oppose the CAFTA-DR deal. But 
I want to talk about one reason that has not gotten much attention, the 
inclusion of tobacco products.
  Mr. Speaker, tobacco is a unique commodity, killing millions of 
people around the globe each year. Trade agreements are supposed to 
benefit consumers by spurring competition and reducing prices for 
beneficial products such as wheat, computers, and auto ports.
  While increased trade may offer a range of benefits for exporters and 
importers alike, these benefits do not apply to tobacco products. 
Reducing tariffs on cigarettes, other tobacco products, or removing 
public health measures that may run afoul of trade agreement's rules on 
non-tariff barriers is going to result in increased smoking rates, 
needless preventable deaths, and disease. That is a fact.
  Tobacco products were excluded from the tariff schedules in the U.S.-
Jordan and U.S.-Vietnam free trade agreements negotiated under the 
Clinton administration.

                              {time}  2230

  This administration has done an about-face including tobacco products 
in the U.S.-Chile agreement at the behest of Philip Morris. This 
unfortunate turn of events should not be repeated. I urge my colleagues 
to reject the CAFTA-DR trade agreement. It is bad for workers, it is 
bad for the environment, and with the inclusion of tobacco products, it 
is bad for health.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Barrett).

[[Page H6911]]

  Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time.
  We have talked about a lot of different issues tonight. Let me tell 
you what it is all about, how it hit home with me. Stephen Felker, 
Avondale Mills, Graniteville, South Carolina, textile manufacturer, 
asked me to coming down Monday to his factory to look around, and we 
did. We had a wonderful tour. He showed us around, and I was on the 
floor taking a tour and happened to see a gentleman behind one of the 
weaver machines. Roosevelt Mims. This was not a staged event or 
anything like that. I just happened to see Roosevelt behind the weaver 
there.
  I walked up to him and said, I am Congressman Barrett. What is your 
name? He said, Roosevelt Mims. I said, Roosevelt, how long have you 
been working with Avondale Mills? He said, 36 years. His supervisor 
came over and whispered in my ear, he said, 36 years, Congressman, 
perfect attendance.
  Roosevelt Mims is the heart and soul of this whole debate, a textile 
worker in Graniteville, South Carolina; a textile worker in 
Graniteville, South Carolina that a good CAFTA is going to save.
  I do not know about you, but at the end of this debate, I am going to 
vote for CAFTA. I am going to vote for Roosevelt Mims, and I urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the outstanding 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel) for yielding me time.
  Almost 2.8 million American manufacturing jobs have been lost since 
President Bush took office in 2001. These were good jobs with good 
wages, and they have been shipped overseas to countries with cheap 
labor. CAFTA will export even more American jobs, but it will do 
nothing to improve wages and living conditions in Central America.
  CAFTA is not about free trade at all. It is an outsourcing agreement. 
It allows profit-hungry corporations to ship American jobs to 
impoverished countries where workers can be forced to work long hours 
for little pay and no benefits. It is a bad deal for Central American 
workers, and it is an equally bad deal for workers here in the United 
States.
  I ask my colleagues who are thinking of voting in favor of CAFTA, how 
will you tell poor workers in Central America who are trying to 
organize labor unions and demand living wages that you voted for this 
agreement which does not require their governments to respect human 
rights or comply with international labor standards? How will you go 
home to your constituents and tell them you voted to export their jobs 
overseas? How will you tell working families in your district that you 
care more about corporate profits than workers wages?
  I request Members to vote no on CAFTA.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Rangel) has 7 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Shaw) has 6 minutes remaining.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Gene Green).
  (Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the reason we do not have 
enough time is we have so many speakers; but when people talk tonight 
about how CAFTA will help us with immigration, obviously this side 
voted for NAFTA, and we have had a bigger problem with illegal 
immigration, people who are looking for work, coming to this country.
  I was in Michoacan in February and saw villages that were 60 percent 
depopulated because they had no opportunity to work, and that was 10 
years after NAFTA. Just wait until 10 years after CAFTA. It is 
outrageous that we are trying to sell this as a benefit to the American 
worker.
  The ILO is a weak sister compared to even our laws, and in this case 
if a country in Central America or Dominican Republic does not enforce 
their laws, they pay themselves a fine. Come on now. This is so 
outrageous, I cannot believe we even have it on the floor.
  To say we are worried about Venezuela the way we are worried about 
Cuba, do not sell it on that. Sell it on that we are really friends 
with Costa Rica and Nicaragua and Guatemala and the Dominican Republic. 
Say we are friends with them, and let us make sure they have a decent 
standard of living.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, there is a dump in Nicaragua 
where 700 adults and children pick through fields of rotting garbage 
for scraps of food, metal and plastic to eat and sell.
  I want the American people to know that this is the trade agreement, 
3,600 pages, 3,000-plus pages; not one statement is in this document 
that talks about protecting American jobs. Not one statement is in here 
that confirms that the language in the laws of labor in these 
particular nations refers to the children age 5 and 14 to work that are 
working in these dumps, that are picking up the trash in these dumps.
  There is no language in here about creating American jobs. There is 
no specific language in here that talks about the language of labor 
laws that would protect the children from these dumps.
  I say to you out of 3,000 pages, do you not think America deserves 
one line protecting their jobs? Do not you think the children of 
Central America deserve one specific line about keeping them from the 
damages of a dump in Central America?
  Vote against CAFTA. It does not protect American jobs, and it does 
not protect children.
  Mr. Speaker I rise in opposition to CAFTA though not without 
reservation. Increased Economic, social, and political ties with 
Central America are noble goals and ones for which we should strive. 
However, the facts behind the crafting of DR-CAFTA suggest that this is 
an irresponsible and rushed trade agreement.
  I can support an agreement that serves to support the interests of 
all parties at stake. By this standard, I have based my previous votes 
on free trade agreements, and by this standard I have decided to vote 
against CAFTA. While I do not doubt that several parts of the US 
economy will benefit from passage of this bill I shudder at the 
repercussions that will face many of our manufacturing industries.
  Increased trade with this region will lead to an increase in economic 
exchange and probably to overall job growth. I also recognize that 
overall job growth as a result of NAFTA in all likelihood exceeded job 
losses. However, trade agreements should not be judged by job loss and 
creation statistics alone. CAFTA will undoubtedly create more 
opportunities for exports to Central America and will produce more 
wealth, but where does that wealth go? Thousands of hard working 
Americans will lose their jobs under CAFTA. Will they benefit from the 
increased trade with Central America?
  The problem with wealth created through free trade agreements is the 
high probability it will not reach the average worker. The example of 
NAFTA proves this point. Some economic gains in both the Untied States 
and Mexico have made from NAFTA, but there is scant evidence as to the 
improvement of the livelihood of the average worker. The fact of the 
matter is that NAFTA has lead to neither improved working conditions in 
Mexico nor a windfall for higher paying jobs here in the U.S. Instead 
it has lead to more employer who pay their employees 5 dollars per day. 
There simply has not been enough effort on the part of the US or the 
Mexican government to ensure that the poor and middle classes benefited 
from the accord.
  Trade agreements should be implemented to increase the standing of 
both nations and help both all people. We must guarantee the protection 
of rights and wellbeing of the poor. Without this guarantee, we can not 
nor we will we make strides in fighting poverty. In the words of the 
Great Cesar Chavez, ``What is at stake is human dignity. If a man is 
not accorded respect he cannot respect himself and if he does not 
respect himself, he cannot demand it.'' When the lower classes have no 
power or support, they cannot stand up and fight for themselves. 
Poverty reduction must be a key factor in all trade agreements.
  The United States does not see such indept poverty. I have been to 
Honduras and Guatemala and have seen the pain and suffering of the 
masses. In Guatemala, over 75 percent of the population lives below the 
poverty line. In Nicaragua, the GDP per capita is $2,300. This sort of 
endemic poverty is far too common in

[[Page H6912]]

the region. At the ``La Chureca'' (La--Chew-RAKE-aa) dump in Managua 
(mun-A-gwa), Nicaragua (knee-ka-Rah-gwa) about 700 adults and children 
pick through fields of rotting garbage for scraps of food, metal, and 
plastic to eat and sell. For these residents, the dump is home--one 
laden with disease and danger, broken bottles and old tires, cardboard-
and-tin shacks, grazing cattle, circling buzzards, screeching 
bulldozers and smoke that often obscures the sun. This is poverty on a 
level most Americans have never seen.
  In order to fight this poverty, we must be committed to a 
comprehensive plan to help the poor. I would like to think that free 
trade agreements would alleviate poverty in third world nations, but 
unfortunately, the facts prove otherwise. Conditions in Mexico over the 
past 10 years demonstrate this fact quite succinctly. Since the passage 
of NAFTA, environmental problems along the border with Mexico have 
worsened, drug trafficking and violent crime in the border regions have 
increased, and violence against women has intensified. Ten years ago, 
there were few reports of rape and kidnappings of women in northern 
Mexico, today they are wide spread. These are not the indicia of 
progress.
  In order to ensure progress, we must establish a system of improved 
standards in education, labor, and environment, among others. In this 
regard, the DR-CAFTA fails drastically. The DR-CAFTA does not have 
sufficient labor protection provisions. This omission of labor 
standards will result in the continuation of awful and unconscionable 
labor conditions for both adults and children. What concerns me most is 
the use of child labor throughout the region. Child labor is an 
activity that must eradicated from of all comers of the world. The DR-
CAFTA contains no provisions that would prevent or alleviate the use of 
child labor. The DR-CAFTA fails to enforce international labor 
standards set by the International Labor Organization. This will result 
in the continued use of child labor in the fields and factories of the 
signatory countries. With this agreement, many will make money on the 
backs of Central American children, literally. These Children will be 
our beast of burden. I cannot accept an agreement that allows others to 
increase their profits margins on the backs of children. These children 
should be in school getting educated, not toiling on a farm for 5 
dollars a day under the hot Central American sun.

  It seems clear to me that under the current system of ``free trade to 
fight poverty,'' sufficient resources are not being used to help the 
poor. Businesses are often more interested in the bottom line then the 
bottom of society. Foreign governments are often far too eager to 
invite these companies into their nations. This is not the best manner 
to help fight poverty in the 3rd world. In order to fight poverty, we 
must insist on the resources used to protect the poor, not exploit 
them. We must insist on better labor and environmental standards in 
order to ensure that the poor also benefit from free trade agreements. 
Fair trade should be our paramount concern.
  Supporters of the bill have claimed that its passage is imperative 
for Central America and will be mutually beneficial to all parties. 
They also argue that since 80 percent of goods from the DR-CAFTA 
countries already enter the United States duty free as a result of the 
Caribbean Basin Initiative and on that basis we have no reason to fear 
job exportation to the region. They argue that if job exportation was 
to happen, it would have occurred all ready. Yet, they also argue that 
passage of the DR-CAFTA is imperative for Central American economies to 
succeed. It seems to me that while they use the 80 percent duty free 
number to quell fears of job exportation, they somehow forget it when 
they talk of the necessity of the agreement for Central America's 
economies. If the DR-CAFTA countries already import 80 percent of their 
goods duty free then they have already received most of the benefits of 
a free trade agreement!
  I am not opposed to allowing Central American nations to import many 
of their goods duty free. I believe that this number, 80 percent duty 
free importation, is a good number because it was designed to help 
alleviate poverty in the region. It has succeeded in doing so. Central 
America is far better off today then it was 20 years ago. Yet, this 
duty free access also means that it is not imperative for the US to 
pass this legislation. Since these countries already import 80 percent 
of goods duty free, the remaining 20 percent will not have such a 
dramatic effect. The USTR should have taken the success of the 
Caribbean Basin Initiative and used it to negotiate a fair and balanced 
trade agreement. Clearly, passage of this bill is not imperative to the 
economic well-being of Central America. So why were the USTR and the 
Bush administration so hasty in forcing execution and enactment of this 
agreement? Because of the success of the Caribbean Basin Initiative, we 
have the leeway to send this agreement back to the Bush Administration 
and ask that it not return until it has an agreement that genuinely 
benefits the poor and marginalized sectors of society both here in the 
United States and in Central America and the Dominican Republic.
  The DR-CAFTA is not a fair trade agreement. It is a mechanism to 
support business interests in the United States and Central America. In 
the United States, we have sufficient labor standards to accommodate 
business interests. Over the past 200 years, the labor movement in this 
country has fought diligently to provide us with these protections. In 
Central America, these safeguards exist on paper, but not in practice. 
When we submit to special interests in this situation, we forfeit work 
protections. Therefore, we must insist that our trade agreements 
contain more then an expansion of business interests, they must contain 
provisions that expand social and justice interests. We must ensure 
that trade agreements benefit all of the people, men and women, young 
and old. This agreement fails to meet these standards and therefore 
should not be supported.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Chicago, Illinois (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I do not profess to know 
everything that CAFTA is going to do, but I do know that when I wake up 
in the morning, my congressional district has lost more than 150,000 
good-paying manufacturing jobs. I know that we make candy. We make a 
lot of it. We used to be called the Candy Capital of the World. But my 
candy makers are leaving because the price of sugar is too high.
  I was told and I was hoping that CAFTA would help reduce the price of 
sugar for my candy makers. It will not. Therefore, there is no reason 
for me to vote for CAFTA, and I shall not.
  Vote no for CAFTA.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I am about to cast my first vote ever 
against a trade agreement. While this has very little impact overall in 
the United States economy, it is very important for the direction of 
our trade and economic policy. Are we going to continue to parcel out 
piecemeal agreements? When pushed, are we going to cut side deals and 
understandings like we have done of late with citrus and steel and 
textiles and sugar? Are we going to fail to own up to our own 
agriculture subsidies?
  We do not do a very good job in this country anymore enforcing our 
own labor laws. I am no longer interested in one more suboptimal 
agreement. Because it has such a small impact, there is no excuse for 
not advancing workers and their environment at home and abroad. There 
is no reason to settle for this agreement, and I urge its rejection.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Etheridge).
  (Mr. ETHERIDGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I have supported trade agreements that 
have come through this body since I have been here, but this one falls 
short. I stand in opposition to the legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in reluctant opposition to the 
implementation legislation for the Free Trade Agreement with the 
Dominican Republic and Central America, known as DR-CAFTA.
  Throughout my service in the U.S. House, I have supported policies 
that encourage export promotion because exports can play an important 
role in strengthening our economy. But our economic policies must work 
to build the American middle class by investing in education, training 
and health care for working families as well as expanding access to new 
markets for our products. Our trade policies must lift living standards 
in other countries whose workers will compete for American jobs. If 
American workers are forced to compete with workers from countries 
without a growing standard of living, the race to the bottom will lower 
the economic opportunities and quality of life for everyone. I firmly 
believe that America must exert our global economic leadership to 
promote democracy and economic growth, but that engagement must be 
matched with a commitment to empower middle class Americans to compete 
and win in the global economy. We can do better than this DR-CAFTA, and 
we must.
  First, as a member of the House New Democrats Coalition, I have 
worked with administrations of both political parties, including the 
Bush administration, to promote policy for sound economic growth and a 
growing middle class. I have met with business leaders and officials 
from each of the DR-CAFTA countries, and I recently traveled to visit 
Honduras

[[Page H6913]]

and El Salvador to see for myself the conditions of these trading 
partners. Although I want to help the peoples of the DR-CAFTA countries 
to secure their democracies and build economic opportunities, this free 
trade agreement fails to erect the conditions necessary for those 
goals. For example, in Honduras, I saw oxen pulling carts as a primary 
means of industrial production and impoverished workers struggling to 
eke out a meager living. Without strict, enforceable labor standards, 
these workers will suffer exploitation of market forces without 
enjoying any upward mobility. I also want to see our trading partners 
make the kind of commitment to education and infrastructure that we 
have in the U.S. that has provided us the foundation for our economic 
growth and rising living standards for our people.
  Unfortunately, this DR-CAFTA represents a step backwards in 
strengthening labor standards, and thereby standards of living, abroad. 
Specifically, DR-CAFTA is a step back from the progress made in the 
Jordan Free Trade Agreement and even the rules under the Generalized 
System of Preferences, GSP, and the Caribbean Basin Initiative, CBI. 
America must maintain our global economic leadership and be a force for 
rising living standards with all of our trading partners so that broad-
based economic growth creates sustainable markets for American goods 
and services. The countries of the DR-CAFTA accord possess some of the 
world's worst records for workers' rights, and this DR-CAFTA not only 
fails to correct this glaring problem but reverses progress made in 
previous trade agreements to raise labor standards abroad.
  It is also important to note DR-CAFTA's weak environmental 
enforcement provisions. Although the agreement contains important 
protections for intellectual property that are subject to dispute 
resolution, it fails to include adequate enforcement of environmental 
protection, which will put American companies at a competitive 
disadvantage with companies in the DR-CAFTA countries. In fact, what 
language DR-CAFTA does contain on environmental protection and 
improvement of standards is explicitly excluded from dispute settlement 
under the agreement, rendering it meaningless. Previous trade pacts, 
such as the Jordan Free Trade Agreement, contain strong labor and 
environment provisions, and DR-CAFTA should as well.
  Finally, the vote on DR-CAFTA comes at a time when the Bush 
administration economic program has reversed years of progress in 
building a thriving middle class. Instead of making critical 
investments in education, training and health care so working families 
can compete and prosper in the global economy, the administration is 
cutting these vital initiatives. Specifically, this administration and 
Congress have shortchanged our schools $39 billion they were promised 
in order to comply with the No Child Left Behind education reform law. 
And last month, the House passed an appropriations bill with 
devastating cuts in needed efforts for education, Trade Adjustment 
Assistance and other job training, and rural health care. In the global 
economy of the 21st century, working Americans can compete and win only 
if they are equipped with the tools to make the most of their God-given 
abilities. We need an economic policy that helps middle class families, 
those striving to get into the middle class and those struggling to 
stay in the middle class.
  In conclusion, I will vote against DR-CAFTA because it is a missed 
opportunity to help our neighbors in the Dominican Republic and Central 
America and put America back on the path to a growing middle class.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
  (Mr. ENGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill, which will 
hurt workers and cost jobs.
  I am opposed to the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), 
because if enacted, it would have severe economic and social 
consequences.
  CAFTA virtually turns back the clock on labor and environmental 
standards.
  Many factory workers in Central America are underpaid and overworked, 
and CAFTA's weak labor provisions will not effectively force the 
Central American governments to enforce their labor laws.
  If CAFTA is enacted, goods produced by industries that overwork their 
labor force and abuse the environment will have an unfair advantage 
over products manufactured in the United States.
  Additionally, CAFTA threatens the livelihood of U.S. sugar producers 
and refineries, including Domino Sugar in my district in Yonkers. CAFTA 
would open the U.S. market to sugar from CAFTA countries which need not 
comply with the robust U.S. labor and environmental protections.
  Thousands of people in Central America have protested against CAFTA. 
These people worry about their jobs, their health, and their families. 
They deserve an agreement which would improve their livelihoods and 
promote economic stability.
  I would prefer to see reasonable, fair trade agreements which contain 
adequate labor and environmental protections with our Latin American 
neighbors.
  Mr. Speaker, I have supported free trade agreements in the past when 
there have been adequate labor and environmental standards. But CAFTA 
does not measure up.
  I believe CAFTA would not serve the best interests of the nation, and 
I urge my colleagues to vote no.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a gentleman from 
California (Mr. Farr), who was a Peace Corps volunteer in South 
America.
  (Mr. FARR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I want to ask this body what is the rush? 
There is no need to adopt. There is no deadlines on this agreement. 
Three of the six countries have not even ratified it yet. I think when 
we are trying to do a trade agreement, we have got to do the best that 
America can do.
  The richest country in the world is about to enter into a trade 
agreement with the poorest countries in the Western Hemisphere so that 
we can open up nontariff issues. They send us goods without tariffs. 
Yes, we do not grow bananas in the United States or guanabana or 
platano, but we want to send them our goods so that people who are 
earning $2 a day can buy Two Buck Chuck.
  Come on. America, can do better. You cannot have fair trade until you 
have basic aid. You cannot have a middle class without having schools 
and water and sewers. There is nothing in here; even the Millennium 
Fund that the President introduced, a good program, underfunded it to 
these countries.
  You have got to build up countries so that they have a faith in 
themselves before they have the opportunity for a middle class. We can 
do better, America. Congress, put this over. Vote against it.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to particularly the last few 
people who have gotten up, and they talk about how they support free 
trade, but they cannot support this agreement. And I ask why. This is 
the strongest trade agreement we have ever had, it has the best labor 
standards of any that we ever had, and they voted for the others, and 
they cannot vote for this.
  Mr. Speaker, we already have free trade. The problem is it is free 
trade from the CAFTA countries into the United States, not from the 
United States into the CAFTA countries. Now we want fair trade. We want 
to have the same privacy for American workers and American business, 
American farmers that the CAFTA countries have by having access to our 
markets. How can one be against that, particularly when these other 
countries are behind it?
  We even put capacity building into this agreement so that we are 
assisting these countries in enforcing their own labor laws, and we put 
more enforcement money in this for our being able to enforce those 
labor laws and keep watch over these other countries.
  This is a strong agreement. It is a strong agreement. But let us look 
at something else. The President was up here on the Hill yesterday 
talking to the Republican Members, and he made a statement that I think 
all of us can agree to, and that statement is that family values do not 
end at our border. And he is absolutely correct.
  We know right well that any of us here as a mother and a father, that 
if our children are hungry, we are going to find a way to work. And so 
many of these countries now send their workers north into the United 
States, most of them illegally. We want to build jobs at home for them, 
permanent jobs, good jobs, and at the same time we would be able to use 
our markets to get to supply them.

                              {time}  2245

  If you get a pair of blue jeans made in Honduras, it is 70 percent 
American content. These jobs that go to China, if those sewing 
factories move out and it goes to China, those same jeans are 1 percent 
American content. So we know that American workers, American jobs will 
benefit from this type of agreement. And it brings wealth into our

[[Page H6914]]

hemisphere. Right now, in Nicaragua, the average salary, the average 
pay for a worker is somewhere less than $800 a year. This will help.
  Politically, let us talk about it. What is going on down there 
politically and what will happen? We are going to be driving these 
countries away that are looking towards us. They are all looking north. 
They have democracies now, they are capitalistic systems, and they are 
working towards being a part of this hemisphere. And my colleagues want 
to kick them in the teeth? They are also supporting us in our war 
against terror in Iraq, and that is not an easy lift for all of these 
countries, I can tell you that.
  This CAFTA agreement has been endorsed by a number of groups, and I 
would like to put their endorsement in the Record at this time. Former 
President Jimmy Carter, the American Jewish Committee, and B'nai 
B'rith, they have all endorsed this agreement. We have also enjoyed the 
endorsement by many of the newspapers, including The Washington Post 
and the New York Times, the Miami Herald and the Orlando Sentinel.
  This is a good agreement. It is good for America, so let us vote for 
it.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit herewith for the Record the letters of support 
I just referred to:

     Hon. Bill Thomas,
     Rayburn House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
                                                     June 8, 2005.
       To Representative Bill Thomas: As you prepare for your 
     initial consideration of the Central American Free Trade 
     Agreement (CAFTA) with the nations of Central America and the 
     Dominican Republic, I want to express my strong support for 
     this progressive move. From a trade perspective, this will 
     help both the United States and Central America.
       Some 80 percent of Central Americas exports to the U.S. are 
     already duty free, so they will be opening their markets to 
     U.S. exports more than we will for their remaining products. 
     Independent studies indicate that U.S. incomes will rise by 
     over $l5 billion and those in Central America by some $5 
     billion. New Jobs will be created in Central America, and 
     labor standards are likely to improve as a result of CAFTA.
       Some improvements could be made in the trade bill 
     particularly on the labor protection side, but, more 
     importantly, our own national security and hemisphere 
     influence will be enhanced with improved stability, 
     democracy, and development in our poor, fragile neighbors in 
     Central America and the Caribbean. During my presidency and 
     now at The Carter Center, I have been dedicated to the 
     promotion or democracy and stability in the region. From the 
     negotiation of the Panama Canal Treaties and the championing 
     of human rights at a time when the region suffered under 
     military dictatorships to the monitoring of a number of free 
     elections in the region, Central America has been a major 
     focus of my attention.
       There now are democratically elected governments in each of 
     the countries covered by CAFTA. In negotiating this 
     agreement, the presidents of each of the six nations had to 
     contend with their own companies that fear competition with 
     U.S. firms. They have put their credibility on the line, not 
     only with this trade agreement but more broadly by promoting 
     market reforms that have been urged for decades by U.S. 
     presidents of both parties. If the U.S. Congress were to turn 
     its back on CAFTA, it would undercut these fragile 
     democracies, compel them to retreat to protectionism, and 
     make it harder for them to cooperate with the U.S.
       For the first time ever, we have a chance to reinforce 
     democracies in the region. This is the moment to move forward 
     and to help those leaders that want to modernize and humanize 
     their countries. Moreover, strong economies in the region are 
     the best antidote to illegal immigration from the region.
       I appreciate your consideration of my views and hope they 
     will be helpful in your important deliberations.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Jimmy Carter.
                                  ____
                                  


                                The American Jewish Committee,

                                         New York, February, 2005.
     Hon. ------,
     House of Representatives
     Washington, DC
       Dear Representative: We are writing to express our deep 
     support for the free trade agreement between the U.S., the 
     Dominican Republic and Central America. (DR-CAFTA). The 
     American Jewish Committee has been actively involved in Latin 
     America for many decades, promoting democracy, the rule of 
     law and respect for human rights. We actively support free 
     trade--and therefore DR-CAFTA--as a tool to generate 
     sustained development in the region and as a contributor to 
     long-term potential and strategic cooperation between the 
     United States and some of its closest neighbors.
       We believe this historic pact makes sense for various 
     reasons. Once in force, DR-CAFTA will become the U.S. second 
     largest free trade agreement after NAFTA. As such it will 
     surely contribute much to generate economic prosperity by 
     securing increased trade and investment flows and thus better 
     opportunities for the improvement of living standards for all 
     of the people in this region who only two decades ago were 
     immersed in civil wars. In addition, it will strengthen the 
     ties between the U.S. and the Central American nations as key 
     allies in the fight against narcotics and terrorism.
       As an organization committed to U.S leadership in world 
     affairs and as a friend of the Dominican Republic and the 
     Central American nations, we urge you to support this 
     important agreement which stands out as a shining example of 
     our country's commitment to bolstering democracy and 
     promoting stability in Latin America and elsewhere. It 
     represents, undoubtedly, a joint investment in a more vibrant 
     future for our countries and for the hemisphere at large.
       We thank you for your consideration of our views.
           Sincerely,

                                                E.R. Goodkind,

                                                        President,
                                        American Jewish Committee.

                                                  Bruce Ramer,

                                                            Chair,
                              Latino and Latin American Institute.
                                  ____
                                  


                                   B'nai B'rith International,

                                    Washington, DC, July 27, 2005.
     Hon. Kevin Brady,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC
       Dear Representative Kevin Brady: On behalf of B'nai B'rith 
     International's more than 110,000 members and supporters, we 
     write to urge your vote in favor of the Central America Free 
     Trade Agreement. (CAFTA). B'nai B'rith, which has members 
     throughout Latin America, strongly encourages the passage of 
     CAFTA, a trade agreement with the Central American nations of 
     Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua, 
     as part of a broader support for democracy and economic 
     stability.
       B'nai B'rith, an organization with a long history of 
     involvement in Latin America and a registered NGO member of 
     the Organization of American States, views CAFTA as a 
     positive step in the U.S.-Central America trade relationship, 
     one that will greatly help the economies of Central American 
     nations and bolster democratization in the region. As we 
     believe that the spread of democracy is essential to the 
     advancement of human rights worldwide, we feel that CAFTA 
     will produce lasting and far-reaching benefits.
       B'nai B'rith further recognizes the significance of the 
     decision by Costa Rica and El Salvador to maintain embassies 
     in Jerusalem; they are the only two countries in the wodd to 
     do so. Costa Rica and El Salvador have persisted in keeping 
     their embassies in Jerusalem, despite intense international 
     pressure to move them to Tel Aviv, in what has amounted to a 
     remarkable act of solidarity with America's greatest ally in 
     the Middle East: the State of Israel.
       We ask that you encourage these positive trends by voting 
     in favor of CAFTA. We look forward to remaining in contact 
     with you on this and other issues of mutual interest in the 
     near future.
           Respectfully,
                                                   Joel S. Kaplan,
                                                         President
                                             Daniel S. Mariaschin,
                                          Executive Vice President
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
note that when the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means 
indicated that the speech and debate clause of the Constitution allowed 
us to distort the truth, I had no idea where he was coming from. But I 
now truly understand why he opened up the debate that way.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi), our gentle minority leader, who made certain 
that we did not make this a partisan issue, who struggled hard to keep 
this agreement and to try to get it open so that we could have input 
and have a bipartisan agreement, and who will close on behalf of the 
minority.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time and, more importantly, for his distinguished leadership on many 
issues concerning America's working families. I know I speak for all 
our colleagues when I say it is a privilege to call the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Rangel) colleague.
  I also extend my thanks to the distinguished ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Trade, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), for 
his very, very substantive review of this CAFTA treaty. It has been an 
enormous help to Members, and I thank him for his leadership as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Central American Free 
Trade Agreement. It is a small treaty economically, but it has enormous 
implications for our country. I oppose CAFTA because it is a step 
backward for workers in Central America and a job killer here at home.

[[Page H6915]]

  As a Californian, and there are many of us in the Chamber this 
evening, we all know full well the significance of our close ties to 
Central America. My own city of San Francisco is blessed with large 
populations of Central Americans, including those who sought sanctuary 
from El Salvador and those fleeing decades of civil war in Guatemala. 
Our fate is tied with our neighbors in the hemisphere.
  President John F. Kennedy recognized this in 1961 when he announced 
the Alliance for Progress calling for ``vast multilateral programs to 
relieve the continent's poverty and social inequities.'' The Alliance 
for Progress included both economic cooperation and called for economic 
reforms as conditions of participation, just as we call for stronger 
labor and environmental standards today as the reasonable condition for 
trade agreements.
  Mr. Speaker, I wish that the CAFTA bill we are debating tonight were 
an agreement that opened markets, included basic labor standards, and 
protected our environment. This type of agreement would have lifted the 
economies of both the United States and Central America. It would have 
attracted support from a large number of Democratic Members who have 
long histories of supporting free and fair trade, including recent 
trade agreements with Australia, Singapore, Chile, Morocco, Jordan, 
Vietnam, and Cambodia. Unfortunately, that is not the type of trade 
agreement before us tonight.
  Instead, we are considering a trade agreement that promotes a race to 
the bottom, that hurts U.S. workers, that turns back the clock on basic 
internationally accepted worker protections, and fails to protect the 
environment. As a result, the Republican leadership is having a hard 
time convincing its own Members to vote for this bill.
  We have heard our colleague earlier, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Brown), talking about twisting arms until they are broken into a 
thousand pieces. The New York Times today, the gentleman referenced The 
New York Times, so I will too, said that a White House official said 
that the last votes are likely to be won with the most expensive deals. 
We should be able to pass good fair trade agreement treaties on their 
merits. Instead, the administration is trying to persuade people with 
side bars, side letters, and side deals. They have never worked in the 
past. They are just a con. And I hope that our colleagues will not fall 
for the con.
  In their desperation to win votes, the President and the Republican 
leadership in the House have also proclaimed that CAFTA here tonight 
will promote U.S. security and democracy in Central America. The truth 
is if we want to improve our national security and promote democracy 
there, we should heed the words of Pope Paul VI, who said ``If you want 
peace, work for justice.''
  Trade alone, devoid of basic living and working standards, has not 
and will not promote security, nor will it lift developing nations out 
of poverty. Our national security will not be improved by exploiting 
workers in Central America.
  Here at home, this CAFTA threatens U.S. jobs by making it harder for 
American businesses and farmers to compete with countries that have 
excessively low wages and deficient working conditions. Mr. Speaker, I 
repeat: here at home CAFTA threatens U.S. jobs by making it harder for 
American businesses and farmers to compete with countries that have 
excessively low wages and deficient working conditions. We have lost 
2.8 million manufacturing jobs since President Bush took office. CAFTA 
does not solve the jobs problem; it only digs the hole deeper.
  These downward pressures create a race to the bottom that needlessly 
threaten U.S. jobs. Nothing in this agreement will help raise 
substandard wages in Central America or help create a strong middle 
class that has the disposable income to buy U.S. goods. Democrats 
understand the need to help our Central American neighbors reap the 
benefits of increased trade, but the cost of this CAFTA are too high, 
with too little to justify this agreement's deficiencies.
  We must have basic worker protections which ensure that our trading 
partners abide by the most fundamental standards of common decency and 
fairness. The CAFTA we are debating today fails to promote these basic 
measures of decency and fairness and, in fact, takes a step backward 
from current law because it removes the requirement from these 
countries to abide by the workers' rights standards of the 
international labor standards.
  When it comes to the environment, Democrats believe that 
environmental principles must be a central part of the core trade 
agreement. CAFTA will do absolutely nothing to improve environmental 
protection in Central America, and it will open up our own 
environmental laws to attack by foreign corporations.
  My colleagues, this CAFTA allows multinational corporations to sue 
governments, including our own, for compensation if the environmental 
laws reduce the value of their investment or cut their profits. I 
repeat: CAFTA allows multinational corporations to sue governments, 
including our own, for compensation if an environmental law reduces the 
value of their investment or cuts into their profits.
  CAFTA places no value on the environmental health of the Americas. 
Moreover, the enforcement provisions of this CAFTA are virtually 
nonexistent. It merely calls for CAFTA countries to enforce their own 
laws. Enforcement in these areas must be written in to CAFTA if they 
are to be effective. They are not.
  Democrats believe that to keep America in the lead, the Nation must 
adopt a bold new and sustained commitment to technological innovation 
and educational excellence. That commitment would ensure that our 
country remains competitive and vibrant against formidable 
international competition, generating high-quality jobs throughout the 
21st century.
  We are committed to addressing challenges of increasing competitive 
global market. Our economic future rests on our ability to innovate new 
products and to create new markets for those goods and services. We 
insist that this administration revisit its flawed trade policy and 
work with Democrats so that we can pass free trade agreements, 
including a new improved CAFTA that will expand markets, spur economic 
growth, protect the environment, and raise living standards in the 
United States and abroad. That would allow us to move forward with our 
other priorities.
  Mr. Speaker, American families are facing serious challenges: rising 
health care costs, record gas prices, climbing college costs, and 
massive job layoffs. They are worried about the direction of our 
country. Instead of addressing the serious issues that directly affect 
America's families and coming up with real solutions, Republicans have 
abused their power and focused on the wrong priorities: pursuing an 
energy bill that does nothing to lower gas prices or a Social Security 
privatization plan that weakens the safety net for America's elderly.
  Sadly, this trade agreement and the way it has been pursued by the 
administration has become yet another example of those misplaced 
priorities and missed opportunities. Again, President Kennedy said in 
1961 that the United States and Latin America are ``firm and ancient 
friends, united by history and experience and by our determination to 
advance the values of American civilization. We must support all 
economic integration, which is a genuine step toward larger markets and 
greater competitive opportunity.'' It was true then; it is an 
inspiration now.
  I urge my colleagues to send this CAFTA back to the drawing board. 
The administration can negotiate a new CAFTA that will open new 
markets, include basic labor standards, and protect the environment. 
Such an agreement would attract strong bipartisan support. This CAFTA 
does none of the above. It does not protect the environment, it does 
not grow the economy in our country, it does not lift the living 
standard in Central America, and it does not have my support. Vote 
``no'' on this CAFTA.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), chairman of the Committee on 
Ways and Means.

                              {time}  2300

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I wondered when this moment would come, and 
apparently it comes tonight.
  For more than 40 years the Democratic Party was a very forward-
looking, progressive party. It led us into

[[Page H6916]]

many new and important endeavors in helping people around the world. It 
was FDR that coined the phrase ``good neighbor policy.'' I want to 
explain what this is all about.
  This is a letter from 20 labor leaders, and it is addressed to the 
minority leader. It says, The American labor movement has been one of 
the Democratic Party's most consistent and stalwart supporters. Every 
election cycle labor delivers. We expect that House Democratic 
leadership will convey very strongly to all wavering Democrats that 
voting for CAFTA against our strong, clear, and loud objections, would 
signal to the labor movement that those candidates do not want our 
support. Our work to help elect at-risk Members at your urging will not 
extend to those who vote against us on this issue.
  Tonight I will tell my party, they moved from the majority to the 
minority. We moved from the minority to the majority. And tonight we 
have an opportunity to move to the progressive, aggressive and good 
neighbor policy party. They have urged all-night protectionism. They 
have urged fear. They have urged that we do not do what is right.
  All I ask of Members is tonight we have been a majority for a decade. 
It is time that we mature into a permanent majority. We will lead, we 
will be progressive, we will help our neighbors. We will not quote 40-
year-old quotes about how much we want to help and, when we have an 
opportunity to do so, heel to the protectionism labor union movement in 
this country.
  Please, those freely elected Presidents came to us and said, help us. 
We help them by voting ``yes'' on CAFTA. We will be the good neighbors.
  Mr. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, I fully support global commerce.
  Almonds, which I grow on my land in Fresno, have become one of 
California's most valuable exports through development of foreign 
markets. In fact, more than two-thirds of this $1 billion a year crop 
is shipped outside of the United States every year. So, I truly 
understand the benefit of opening the world to the abundance of U.S. 
products. Of the producers in my district, some will win and some will 
lose with CAFTA.
  I am here to speak on behalf of America's best interest. That 
interest is a trade policy that is free and, more importantly, fair.
  Unfortunately, regardless of the diligent work and excellent 
intentions of our trade negotiators, the bi-lateral and multi-lateral 
agreements we have entered into are not serving America well, 
especially not American agriculture, if you use the last 10 years of 
increasing trade deficit as the standard.
  The evidence of our trade failures is undeniable. Over the last dozen 
years, the U.S. trade deficit has grown exponentially from a deficit of 
$38 billion in 1992 to $668 billion last year, a incredible increase of 
more than $630 billion in 12 years--more than 1700 percent. This year, 
in spite of the Trade Promotion Authority enjoyed by the President and 
the plethora of agreements brought before this body, America's trade 
deficit is the largest it has been in nearly 50 years.
  Last year, of the ships arriving from Asia to West Coast ports--
Seattle, Portland, Oakland, Los Angeles--more than half of them 
traveled back across the Pacific empty. This is a tragic illustration 
of a trade policy that is not working.
  It is not working because these agreements give us little or no 
ability to leverage our strengths as a trading partner.
  Do we truly need another agreement when Japan, one of our most 
important trading partners, continues to refuse entry to American 
beef--one of our safest and highest quality food products?
  For the sake of the American agricultural economy, and other American 
industries, we must do better. We must seriously evaluate the way in 
which we conduct trade, beginning with the agreements we negotiate; to 
look at what is working and, more importantly, what is not working.
  Ten years ago, I supported NAFTA. But, with the current state of our 
trade situation and the weakness and our current agreements, I cannot 
find any sense in supporting another trade agreement that perpetuates 
this sort of ineffective policy. I am reminded of a familiar quote 
attributed to Albert Einstein that illustrates my hesitation about 
CAFTA. ``Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting 
different results.''
  In light of our trade deficits, how can we approve another agreement 
and expect different, better results for the American farmer?
  In conclusion, my vote today against CAFTA is a vote of protest, a 
vote of dissatisfaction, a line in the sand. My ``nay'' vote today is a 
message on behalf of American agriculture, American businesses, and 
American workers to the administration and my colleagues in Congress 
that we absolutely must develop a new trade strategy, a strategy that 
reverses, over time, our trade deficit.
  This new trade strategy must be straight with the American public. It 
must define who--over the next 10, or 20, or 30 years--will be the 
winners and losers. Because, for America to be economically strong in 
the 21st century, we must have a plan to address the transitions and 
shifts in our domestic economy.
  As participants in the 21st century economy that Thomas Friedman 
refers to as ``the new flat earth,'' American workers and businessmen 
deserve to know what their chances are in the global economy. They need 
to know who among them will be the winners and losers. And, throughout 
that deliberation, American agriculture must have a seat at the table.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement 
Implementation Act, DR-CAFTA or CAFTA. This trade agreement will 
eliminate thousands of American jobs without raising the quality of 
life for Central Americans and Dominicans. It is an agreement written 
to raise profits for multinational corporations at the expense of 
workers and the environment in the U.S. and the CAFTA countries. CAFTA 
should be renegotiated or voted down.
  There is wide, bipartisan opposition to this bill here in the 
Congress because it endangers workers and jobs in the U.S. and abroad, 
it endangers our economy and it endangers the environment. Opposition 
to congressional ratification of this flawed agreement also runs deep 
outside of the Congress, throughout this country and the other 
signatory nations. The public as well as labor leaders, 
environmentalists, economists, and business owners and the clergy all 
strongly oppose the measure. Hundreds of thousands of Central Americans 
have taken to the streets to protest CAFTA.
  I strongly support increased global trade for the United States. 
However, when negotiated, I believe free trade agreements should place 
human and labor rights and the protection of the environment on an 
equal par with the rights of capital. While CAFTA provides extensive 
protections for goods and capital, it provides no new protections for 
workers or the environment, and allows the signatory nations to do 
nothing more than enforce their own laws on labor and the environment.
  Implementation of CAFTA would further the failed experiment that was 
NAFTA. As a result of NAFTA, my home State of Illinois has suffered the 
loss of over 100,000 jobs. The Nation has lost almost 1 million jobs 
due to the displacement of production that supported them prior to the 
implementation of NAFTA. Free trade agreements like NAFTA and PNTR for 
China perpetuate the race to the bottom in the global economy. They 
lower working and living standards for workers in other countries and 
kill jobs in the United States. CAFTA's effects would be no different.
  The labor provisions in CAFTA are intentionally unenforceable. 
Violations of core labor standards cannot be taken to dispute 
resolution. The commitment to enforce domestic labor laws is subject to 
remedies weaker than those available for commercial disputes. This 
violates the negotiating objective of current U.S. trade law that 
equivalent remedies should exist for all parts of an agreement. 
Further, the ``enforce your own laws'' standard allows countries the 
opportunity to rewrite and weaken their labor laws to attract 
investment.
  Instead of pursuing policies that undermine the rights and security 
of U.S. workers and workers in other countries, the United States 
should lead the world by example through a trade policy that improves 
the lives of individuals and does not just add to the profits of major 
corporations. Our policies should benefit workers here in this country, 
create and sustain jobs and help our small and medium-sized and family-
owned businesses grow. CAFTA will not accomplish those goals nor will 
it offer better opportunities to the people of Central America and the 
Dominican Republic.
  The abysmal working conditions in Mexico should serve as a sign of 
what CAFTA will bring to Central America and the Dominican Republic. 
The Mexican middle class that was supposed to arise as a result of 
NAFTA is missing. I visited Ciudad Juarez on the tenth anniversary of 
NAFTA. Instead of finding a thriving Mexican middle class, I found 
workers living in the packing crates of the products that they were 
manufacturing. The poverty rates and disparities in wealth in Mexico 
have actually grown since NAFTA. CAFTA would just spread those 
conditions further south by offering multinational corporations new 
opportunities to profit off the backs of low-wage workers.
  I dispute the attempts by free trade proponents to reduce the debate 
to a choice between ``free trade'' and ``no trade,'' ``this agreement'' 
or ``no agreement.'' We can do better. We can achieve our economic 
objectives and moral responsibilities through responsible trade. And we 
can and should go back to the drawing board and fix CAFTA if we want to 
protect workers and the environment and give

[[Page H6917]]

the people of the DR-CAFTA countries the chance for a better future. I 
urge my colleagues to vote no on CAFTA so that we can renegotiate this 
flawed trade agreement.
  Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the U.S.-
Central American Free Trade Agreement
  For me, free trade has always been about jobs and economic 
opportunity. But this agreement is about much more than that. It's also 
about increasing democracy in a region whose stability is fragile but 
moving in the right direction. It's about improving the environment. 
And it's about stemming illegal immigration.
  The economic benefits of CAFTA are undeniable. CAFTA countries 
comprise the tenth largest market for U.S. goods, and the rapid growth 
of U.S. exports to CAFTA countries suggests this market could grow even 
more with the lowering of trade barriers.
  My home State of Minnesota exported $12.7 billion in goods worldwide 
last year and ranks seventh in State agriculture exporters. Between 
2000 and 2004, Minnesota manufacturers' exports to Central America 
increased by 83 percent, which clearly demonstrates Central America's 
viability as an emerging market for U.S. exports. And the elimination 
of protectionist tariffs in Central American countries will provide 
further increases in export opportunities for Minnesota farmers, 
manufacturers and service providers.
  Passage of this agreement is so important to the U.S. economy because 
under the Caribbean Basin Initiative, over 80 percent of Central 
American imports already receive duty-free treatment. And if you 
separate the agriculture sector, CAFTA countries receive duty-free 
treatment on 99 percent of imports, 99 percent. It's time for our 
farmers and manufacturers to get fair treatment by allowing our exports 
to have duty-free access to their market.
  CAFTA's passage is also necessary to advance overall trade 
liberalization. CAFTA's failure could cause a significant setback to 
other bilateral agreements in the works and also to the WTO-wide Doha 
Round negotiations.
  The U.S. must remain competitive in the global economy, especially 
with the emergence of major exporters like China. Lowering trade 
barriers with developing countries in our hemisphere helps our overall 
competitiveness against China by increasing competition in growth 
sectors that China would otherwise dominate--like textiles, apparel and 
light manufacturing.
  So the economic argument is rock solid, but CAFTA's passage goes 
beyond economic considerations. It will also help promote democracy, 
decrease illegal immigration and increase environmental standards.
  For decades during the cold war, the U.S. spent significant resources 
fighting the spread of Communist and tyrannical dictatorships in 
Central America. Fortunately, Daniel Ortega's Sandinistas and the other 
leftist insurgencies which tore Central American countries apart have 
since been defeated and replaced by fledgling democracies. But now 
another destabilizing leader--Venezuela's Hugo Chavez--threatens peace 
and prosperity in the region.
  Just last week, Chavez was reportedly revving up his military--
warning them to be prepared for the imminent invasion by the U.S. And 
not surprisingly, Chavez is also the most vociferous opponent of CAFTA 
in the region.
  Make no mistake, Hugo Chavez is licking his chops at the prospect of 
CAFTA's failure--waiting to exploit our missed opportunity and trap 
these nascent democracies under his thumb. These Central American 
countries lie on the precipice of economic stability and democratic 
government, and they deserve a chance to develop the same freedoms we 
have here.
  Mr. Speaker, in addition to the economic and political benefits, 
CAFTA's passage will also improve environmental standards in Central 
America and decrease the flow of illegal immigrants from the region.
  Study after study has shown that as economies improve, so do 
environmental standards. Once people get beyond the basic needs of food 
and shelter for their families, they can focus on the greater goods of 
clean air, clean water and conservation. Trade is not a zero-sum game. 
The elimination of tariffs helps increase exports and grow economies, 
and as the economies of Central America grow, so will their 
environmental quality.
  Similarly, illegal immigration stems from the human desire to improve 
one's economic condition. As a member of the Immigration Reform Caucus, 
I believe we have a long way to go to improve our border security and 
stop the flow of illegal immigration. An improving economy in Central 
America will help achieve this goal, as the increase in job 
opportunities in the region will encourage more people to remain in 
their native countries.
  The empirical data supports the agreement. Trade liberalization has 
always had the empirical data on its side. The immediate tariff 
reductions found in CAFTA expand market access for U.S. farmers, 
manufacturers and service providers and continue our country down the 
path of even greater market access worldwide. It will also 
significantly improve standards of living in Central America.
  Congress must now have the resolve to do what is right and pass 
CAFTA. The future of our economy and the political stability of our 
region depend on it.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues from both sides of the 
aisle in strong opposition to CAFTA.
  Mr. Speaker, this trade agreement is a complete failure on all 
levels. The defeat of CAFTA is the only option.
  Mr. Speaker, what we need is not just free trade, but fair trade.
  What we need is a trade agreement that supports domestic 
manufacturers, while promoting labor standards overseas.
  What we need is a trade agreement that protects our environment and 
stops corporations from trampling local governments.
  And most importantly, what we need is a trade agreement that doesn't 
turn back the clock and deny access to lifesaving medicine to people 
suffering from diseases like HIV/AIDS.
  Generic competition has reduced the cost of medicine and made access 
to treatment a possibility in developing countries, but DR-CAFTA puts 
profits over people and sacrifices access to medication to drug 
industry greed.
  Experts estimate that in some DR-CAFTA countries, drug costs could 
increase as much as 800 times.
  People will be dying in order to promote the profits of the 
pharmaceutical industry. It is morally outrageous, and it sets a 
horrible precedent for future trade agreements.
  DR-CAFTA is an absolute failure on every count. We have all learned 
from 10 years of failed NAFTA policies, and we cannot and we must not 
repeat those mistakes.
  The administration needs to go back to the table and develop a trade 
agreement that reduces our trade deficit, upholds labor and 
environmental standards and protects the access to lifesaving medicines 
for those who need them most.
  This bill must be defeated. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I have long believed that as a matter of 
principle we should try to take down barriers that divide economies and 
people. Under the right conditions, trade between countries can create 
American jobs and raise standards of living both at home and abroad. 
But globalization is a developing issue and our policies need to 
reflect developments in our economy and the economies of our trading 
partners.
  When seeking new markets for our products and services, we need to 
ensure that we are competing on a level playing field. We must work to 
ensure that our trade agreements are not only free, but also fair.
  Tonight I will cast my vote against the Central American Free Trade 
Agreement because it is not free and fair trade.
  When this Administration cuts the job retraining and education 
assistance necessary for our workers to compete in the global economy, 
we should reject trade agreements like CAFTA that fail to protect 
workers on both sides of the agreement.
  The United States has a half-trillion dollar trade deficit. American 
businesses are choosing not to invest at home and our economy is no 
longer attracting private foreign capital.
  The minimum wage is at its lowest level in 50 years, and nearly 7.5 
million Americans are unemployed. The Republican Congress has enacted 
legislation that actually creates incentives for companies to move jobs 
overseas.
  The CAFTA agreement President Bush has submitted to Congress would 
open U.S. markets to products from Latin American countries with 
poverty-level wage scales and poor environmental conditions. In return, 
we get access to six countries whose combined economic output is 
smaller than that of the city of Boston. Under this agreement, hard-
working Americans will be forced to compete with nations that don't 
enforce international human rights standards in wage and hour rules and 
child labor laws.
  Rather than foster sustained economic growth, CAFTA would freeze 
Central America's substandard labor laws in place. CAFTA is as bad a 
deal for Central American workers as it is for workers in the United 
States.
  Time and time again, the Bush Administration has failed to take the 
necessary steps to help American workers succeed in the changing global 
economy. When the Senate Finance Committee made a bipartisan 
recommendation to include aid for displaced American workers in CAFTA, 
the Bush Administration simply ignored the request.
  This indifference to the needs and concerns of the people most likely 
to be hurt by this agreement is typical of the Bush Administration's 
handling of economic policy. Instead of strengthening job training 
programs, the Administration has cut funding for these programs by over 
$750 million over the last five years. Instead of strengthening 
education, the Administration has cut these programs by over $500 
million. Instead of addressing the health

[[Page H6918]]

care crisis in this country, the Administration has brought us 
legislation to protect the profits of HMOs and insurance companies.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in voting to send the Central 
American Free Trade Agreement back to the White House with a clear 
message that we will not approve this agreement unless it reflects our 
priorities and values.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to cast their 
votes in support of DR-CAFTA for three very compelling reasons:
  First and foremost, the agreement will help our manufacturers, 
workers and farmers. Let's face it--the U.S. is the most open market in 
the world. Right now, about 80 percent of the goods made in DR-CAFTA 
countries enter the U.S. with no duties whatsoever. In contrast, our 
$1.6 billion in exports face about $1 billion in tariffs and additional 
non-tariff barriers. That's not fair. DR-CAFTA will change that.
  Second, it bolsters our national security as it helps strengthen 
relationships with six very important new governments in our own 
backyard. If we turn our backs on the fledgling democracies of the DR-
CAFTA nations, we risk a return to the instability, leftist 
insurgencies, and Marxist leadership of the 1980's. Our worldwide anti-
terrorist efforts could all be for naught if we drive our friends in 
Central America back into the arms of leaders like Venezuela's Hugo 
Chavez and Cuba's Fidel Castro.
  And last, DR-CAFTA is the right thing to do. Those who wish to help 
the anti-poor efforts in these six nations, or stem the flow of illegal 
immigration to the U.S., or reverse China's dominance in textiles and 
apparel, should vote for this agreement. It is expected to create 
300,000 jobs in these industries in the DR-CAFTA nations, while 
creating new demand for U.S.-sourced inputs--not raw materials from 
China. Upon enactment, more than 90 percent of all apparel made in the 
region will be sewn from fabric and yarn made in the U.S.
  I urge my colleagues to support the agreement.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, there are various good reasons to vote 
against CAFTA, but the first is enough and it's basic: this is not a 
good deal.
  The U.S. is running unprecedented trade deficits--$618 billion last 
year, $195 billion this year in the first quarter alone. And the 
deficit worsens every year, weakening our economy and our independence. 
Virtually every trade deal the U.S. has made has resulted in far more 
imports than exports. Yet we keep creating free trade zones in the 
blind faith that the market will optimize the outcome.
  Central American countries are part of the Carribean Basin and 
already enjoy wide-open access to our markets by virtue of tariff Item 
807, the Generalized System of Preferences, the Carribean Basin Trade 
Partnership Agreement, and the Uruguay Round of GATT, which has removed 
all quotas on textile/apparel imports. Far from being disadvantaged, 
these countries enjoy preferential access now.
  In fact, the Caribbean Basin countries as a group already export more 
to the U.S. than Mexico and import less. The CBI countries shipped $2.6 
billion in apparel exports to the U.S. versus $1.6 billion in apparel 
shipments from Mexico. During the most recent quarter, CBI countries 
imported $655 million in fabric from the U.S. Mexico imported $809 
million. Overall, in 2004 our textile/apparel trade deficit with Mexico 
was $3.765 versus $5.669 with CBI countries.
  CAFTA purports to be based on a rule of origin adopted from NAFTA. 
NAFTA provides that for textile and apparel goods to move freely among 
Mexico, Canada, and the U.S., they must be made from the yarn stage 
forward in these three countries. CAFTA follows the same rule, but 
carves out so many exceptions that the exceptions swallow the rule.
  Here are some of the exceptions to the rule of origin that CAFTA 
allows for textiles and apparel:
  Only the component that gives the garment its essential character is 
subject to the rule of origin. Non-essential components are excepted.
  Textile or apparel goods that contain fabric or yarn deemed ``in 
short supply'' in the U.S. are treated as originating in CAFTA, 
regardless of origin. This opens the door to more Chinese components 
entering the U.S. duty-free.
  Denim, wool, cotton, and man-made fiber woven products from Mexico 
and Canada, are permitted under the rule of ``cumulation.'' Cumulation 
allows countries that have free trade agreements with us to supply 
component parts to CAFTA countries without affecting duty-free 
treatment. This opens the sale of U.S. yarn and fabric to competition 
and increases the likelihood that transshipped textiles from China will 
enter the U.S. duty free.
  For the first 10 years, CAFTA grants Tariff Preference Levels (TPL) 
to Nicaragua, for up to 100 million square meter equivalents of out-of-
region cotton or man-made fiber garments. These goods come into the 
U.S. at nominal duties. This exception represents \2/3\ of Nicaragua's 
current capacity and opens another back door to Chinese imports.
  The origin of collars, cuffs, and linings is not considered when 
determining the origin of the apparel goods. This allows the use of 
Chinese collars, cuffs and linings.
  CAFTA allows Central American countries to use components from 
anywhere--including China--to make pajamas, bras, and boxers and import 
them duty-free. The import of these goods from China has been found 
disruptive to our markets. So, they are subject to ``restraints'' under 
a special ``safeguard'' agreement with China. By allowing duty-free 
access to the U.S. for these goods, CAFTA allows China a route around 
the ``safeguard'' restraints.
  Here's another oddity about CAFTA. CAFTA benefits are retroactive to 
January 1, 2004. Manufacturers will receive duty rebates if CAFTA is 
ratified. Under the Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act, garments 
made in the region from U.S. yarns and fabrics already receive duty-
free treatment. The only manufacturers who will benefit from 
retroactivity are the ones who want to use non-U.S. fabric as part of 
the single transformation, TPL, or cumulation loopholes. Retroactivity 
is essentially an invitation from the U.S. government to manufacturers 
to start using non-U.S. fabrics immediately.
  The U.S. has been unable to make labor and environmental standards a 
condition of free trade for GATT/WTO members, though they should be. 
Otherwise, free trade becomes a race to the bottom. Our goal should not 
be just to expand markets, but to raise living standards. All CAFTA 
says is that a country must enforce its own laws. CAFTA sanctions the 
status quo, doing nothing for labor or environmental laws.
  All in all, CAFTA strikes a poor bargain. China is now making trade 
deals world-wide, using as leverage the largest emerging market in the 
world. The U.S. still has the largest existing market in the world. 
Surely in exchange for access to our markets, we can cut a better deal 
than CAFTA--better for our workers and theirs.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am a strong supporter of trade. 
Since I came to Congress, I have voted for free trade agreements with 
Australia, Chile, Morocco, and Singapore.
  There has been a lot of exaggeration about the benefits and the 
problems that would be attributable to DR-CAFTA, but I look at this 
agreement in a larger context.
  First, I believe that the Bush Administration has never done enough 
to provide Florida businesses with the government services they need to 
expand, develop new markets, and operate efficiently, especially with 
regard to Miami International Airport, which is the single largest 
employer in Miami-Dade County.
  Second, we know the state of Florida lost 35,000 jobs after the 
passage of NAFTA. While some Florida businesses will benefit from DR-
CAFTA, I don't believe the gain in new business will be as pronounced 
as proponents have claimed, and I am deeply concerned about the impact 
on some industries, like sugar.
  Third, I believe that it is unjust to include the Dominican Republic 
in this trade agreement while excluding Haiti. The Administration had 
the opportunity to promote stability, job growth and democratic 
government in Haiti last year with the HERO bill, but the President was 
never fully committed to the legislation and the opportunity was lost.
  I think it is disingenuous of the President to now claim that the 
passage of DR-CAFTA is essential for the growth of democracy in the 
hemisphere when he passed up the opportunity to help Haiti with both of 
these trade bills.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, today, after much deliberation, I 
decided to cast my vote against the Central American Free Trade 
Agreement. After careful review, I have concluded that the benefits of 
CAFTA are likely to flow to a few powerful economic special interests 
at the expense of working men and women in the United States and 
Central America. It is my hope that a `no vote' will encourage the 
President to go back and re-negotiate the labor and environmental 
provisions of CAFTA so that everyone, not just a few special interests, 
will experience the rewards of free trade.
  The Bush Administration offered as one of its reasons for negotiating 
this agreement that the growing economic prosperity in Central America 
as a result of CAFTA would pull Central Americans up from poverty to 
become enthusiastic consumers of American goods. But by not 
sufficiently addressing the issue of weak labor protections throughout 
Central America, the Bush Administration neglected an important tool 
that could help make this dream a reality.
  According to the Administration, CAFTA adequately addressed labor 
concerns by requiring that each country enforce its own labor laws. 
Ordinarily, I would not object to this.

[[Page H6919]]

Similar language is included in some of the other FTAs I have supported 
in the past. But what is troubling about CAFTA is that, while Central 
American countries may indeed have worker protections on the books, 
they have a dismal record of enforcing them. This became clear to me 
while researching the human rights records of CAFTA countries.
  I was disheartened to learn that while the constitutions of each 
CAFTA country provides for rights of workers, bureaucratic impediments, 
ineffective legal systems and insufficient resources have precipitated 
a culture of neglect that has left workers vulnerable to exploitation 
by employers.
  In Guatemala, the law prohibits retribution for forming or 
participating in trade unions. But, enforcement of these provisions is 
weak. Employers often circumvent the Labor Code or simply ignore 
judicial pronouncements altogether.
  In El Salvador, there have been repeated complaints that the 
government prevents workers from exercising their constitutionally 
recognized right of association by employing excessive judicial 
formalities and denying unions legal standing.
  In Honduras, the Labor Code expressly prohibits retribution by 
employers for trade union activity and blacklisting--but such 
violations continue.
  The Administration's response to objections about the dismal 
enforcement records of Central American governments is that CAFTA 
contains penalties to discourage such activities. While CAFTA does 
contain provisions crafted to encourage enforcement of labor rights, 
these provisions fall short of the strength needed to reverse years of 
indifference and systematic neglect.
  CAFTA's enforcement mechanism centers on a strategy of financial 
penalties. Each time a party is found guilty of violating a worker's 
rights, that country is assessed a fine. This approach has been 
employed in earlier agreements with few objections. But in CAFTA, such 
an approach is problematic.
  My principal concern is that only the U.S. has the standing to bring 
a case against a CAFTA country. NGOs and other international 
institutions, who are often the most knowledgeable about the labor 
conditions in these countries, are forbidden from seeking redress on 
behalf of workers--which means that only the U.S. government will be 
able to take issue with labor violations under CAFTA. Given our poor 
history of forcing compliance with labor laws among our trading 
partners, I am not convinced that this approach will adequately protect 
Central American workers.
  Equally troubling is the requirement that countries found to be in 
violation pay the fine back to themselves instead of to the United 
States. This hardly seems like a penalty at all.
  Unfortunately, CAFTA would turn the labor conditions in some Central 
American countries from bad to worse. The Caribbean Basin Initiative, 
which currently governs U.S. trade relations with Central America 
provides for periodic opportunities to reconsider and re-negotiate its 
provisions--including its labor provisions. That creates a mechanism 
where, over time, we can press for improved labor conditions. But the 
labor provisions in CAFTA would preempt the CBI process. Once passed, 
CAFTA can only be changed if each individual country agrees to the 
change.
  Over the years, unions have helped bring scores of Americans into the 
middle class. Unions helped shield workers from retribution as they 
sought a fair wage and better benefits for themselves and their 
families. Given the increased opportunity for trade that CAFTA will 
bring about, Central American workers deserve the chance to enjoy some 
of the benefits.
  The debate on CAFTA has been long and spirited. Along the way, 
critics have had time to clearly annunciate their objections. The Bush 
Administration heard and responded to concerns about textiles and even 
re-opened negotiations on the issue. Why can't the same be done for 
labor rights?
  Mr. President, many of the flaws in the agreement with respect to 
labor rights also apply to its environmental provisions. The 
enforcement mechanisms are weak.
  I have therefore concluded that CAFTA is a missed opportunity. 
Without adequate mechanisms to enforce labor and environmental 
standards it will trigger a race to the bottom--a race for certain 
special economic interests to exploit lax labor and environmental 
protections. The result will be substantial benefits for a few at the 
expense of many. We can do better. We must do better.
  Mr. President, Americans and Central Americans deserve a chance to 
have their concerns about this agreement addressed--please re-negotiate 
CAFTA.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 
3045, the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). I am a 
supporter of trade when it is used to help lift developing countries 
out of poverty and when it provides jobs with fair wages and 
protections. However, as negotiated, the CAFTA fails on both counts.
  On May 15, 2003, I joined colleagues of the Congressional Hispanic 
Caucus in sending a letter to U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick 
regarding concerns we had about the direction the Administration was 
taking during its negotiations of the Central American Free Trade 
Agreement. As a signatory to that letter, I urged Ambassador Zoellick 
to negotiate to strengthen the enforcement of internationally 
recognized labor rights, such as freedom of association, the right to 
organize, and to bargain collectively. I regret that U.S. negotiators 
ignored this critical request and finalized the CAFTA without strong 
and clear language that would hold the CAFTA countries accountable to 
such internationally recognized core labor rights.
  There are many other concerns I have with the trade agreement that is 
before us. For example, I am troubled by the fact that the CAFTA does 
not adhere to the provisions of the 2002 Trade Promotion Authority, 
which requires that new U.S. trade agreements not provide greater legal 
rights to foreign investors than to U.S. investors. Under CAFTA, 
foreign investors have the right to challenge U.S. laws and regulations 
if they believe the law negatively impacts their ability to conduct 
trade. As a result, a foreign investor can seek financial compensation 
from the U.S. by going through an international arbitration panel. 
Congress was clear in its opposition to this continued foreign investor 
overreach of power, and it is disturbing that the Administration has 
not done a better job of protecting U.S. interests.
  In addition, I oppose the provisions of this agreement which would 
impede access to safe and affordable prescription drugs for patients 
throughout Central America and the Dominican Republic. Specifically, 
CAFTA would block governments from approving the sale of generic drugs 
for at least five years after a new drug is introduced in each market, 
even if the drug's patent has already expired. The agreement would also 
block the approval of generics unless drug regulators can prove that 
the drug's patent has expired. These obligations create additional 
burdens on CAFTA countries that need to focus their limited resources 
on monitoring the safety and efficacy of their pharmaceutical products. 
Furthermore, it is unconscionable that we would place the financial 
interest of large multicultural drug companies above the health needs 
of families in developing countries.
  In conclusion, I continue to express my support for a U.S. Central 
American Free Trade Agreement that would protect U.S. interests and 
create economic opportunities for workers, businesses, and farmers here 
and in Central America. Such an agreement would help break the cycle of 
poverty in Central America and serve as a model for hemispheric trade. 
Unfortunately, the agreement your office has negotiated falls far short 
of meeting these goals.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Dominican 
Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement. There are a whole host 
of reasons to support this legislation.
  CAFTA will benefit both the U.S. economy and the economies of the 
Central American nations. Opponents of CAFTA would have us believe the 
North American Free Trade Agreement moved all our jobs to Mexico and 
seriously harmed the American economy. Contrary to their assertion, our 
economy's strength is due in no small part to the advancement of free 
trade.
  Expanding trade is critical to strengthening our economy. This is 
especially true in Connecticut where our businesses exported $8.3 
billion in 2002, up $1.1 billion since 1999. In fact, export-supported 
jobs accounted for an estimated 7.5 percent of the state's total 
private-sector employment.
  Many of my friends in the labor and environmental communities have 
expressed concern that signing this agreement will be bad for their 
interests. I strongly believe by integrating ourselves with these 
countries, we give ourselves greater leverage to work on enforcing 
labor standards and environmental safeguards. Only through isolation do 
we risk letting these countries slip down the very path these groups 
are concerned about.
  Furthermore, I believe the best way the United States can facilitate 
social and economic reforms in other countries is through an open 
dialogue and greater trade. Free trade leads to a richer and more 
educated populace, which leads to the expansion of democracy and a 
desire to be accepted as a full member in the world community.
  Leaders like Venezuela's Hugo Chavez are advancing an anti-American, 
anti-Western agenda in our hemisphere. It amazes me we would turn our 
back on leaders who are standing up and asking to be more closely 
linked with the United States.
  CAFTA is good for our economy and our workers, it's good for the 
economies of these countries and their workers, and it's good for the 
stability of our continent by promoting democratic governments. I urge 
this legislation's passage.

[[Page H6920]]

  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, the Republic Leadership has insisted on 
bringing the proposed Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) 
before the House tonight. CAFTA tacitly endorses labor and 
environmental conditions in Central America that would be illegal in 
the U.S.
  CAFTA allows goods produced under these conditions to unfairly 
compete with the Imperial County sugar growers, of my district. If we 
pass this agreement, American farmers and ranchers that comply with 
U.S. environmental and labor standards will be at a grave disadvantage 
in the global economy.
  My district which encompasses the border of California and Mexico, 
has felt the negative impact from the failure of the North America Free 
Trade Agreement (NAFTA). My district has seen NAFTA's promises broken, 
translating free trade into poverty; increasing social inequality; and 
creating severe environmental degradation.
  The current CAFTA proposal would expand on NAFTA's failures, and send 
the wrong message: labor and environmental standards are not as 
important as producing cheap goods under horrible labor conditions.
  At the minimum CAFTA should call for basic labor standards including 
child labor protections, and environmental standards. Make no mistake 
about it, CAFTA is not about national security, it's about the 
exploitation of cheap labor!
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose approval of the US-
Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA).
  On the floor today we are considering a far reaching and important 
trade agreement with our Central American neighbors, and yet we will 
only spend two hours debating DR-CAFTA. I am disappointed that more 
time was not provided to debate this highly controversial legislation. 
We will have spent more time this week naming various post offices than 
seriously debating this trade agreement. This is simply wrong. When the 
House considered the North American Free Trade (NAFTA), a full eight 
hours of debate was allowed. This is how the House should consider such 
agreements, with meaningful and extended debate.
  International trade is not just inevitable, it is a good thing. But 
lowering the cost of goods and increasing their availably is not the 
single goal of trade. Trade done right helps lift the global standard 
of living and works to protect the irreplaceable environment we 
inherited. Trade is about values. Trade agreements are not just about 
goods and commodities; they are also about what constitutes acceptable 
behavior in environmental matters, worker's rights, intellectual 
property, and so forth. We should make sure we export the goods we 
produce and not the workers who produce them. Unfortunately, the DR-
CAFTA before us today fails these basic tests. The DR-CAFTA does not 
contain the values we would require in America and that we must help 
spread in Central America. Even the United States Conference of 
Catholic Bishops has come out in opposition to DR-CAFTA because of its 
effect on the poor and most vulnerable in Central America.
  Each new trade agreement entered into by the U.S. should be very 
closely scrutinized. Each ought to include the strongest enforceable 
worker rights, human rights, and environmental safeguards attainable, 
like those included in the U.S.-Jordan agreement of 2000. Each should 
also include enforceable rules to protect intellectual property rights 
and guarantee access for U.S.-based corporations to foreign markets. 
This can be achieved in trade agreements if we enter negotiations with 
clear principles.
  I voted against the Chile and Singapore trade agreements, for 
example, because the inadequate labor and environmental provisions 
included in them, in my estimation, failed to meet the negotiating 
objectives that Congress carefully spelled out in the 2002 law 
extending fast-track negotiating authority to the President. They did 
not provide, for example, that trade dispute settlement mechanisms 
within those free trade agreements afford equivalent treatment to 
trade-related labor and environmental protection as intellectual 
property rights and capital subsidies, and the impending DR-CAFTA fails 
in this regard, too. The agreement between the US and Jordan, on the 
other hand, is a fine example that good agreements are achievable.
  I am deeply troubled by the DR-CAFTA before us today. The DR-CAFTA 
does not contain strong, enforceable provisions to protect 
internationally-recognized worker rights. Nor does it have any 
provisions for environmental safeguards. Such provisions are critical 
because they both preserve existing labor laws and environmental 
standards in the affected countries, and because they ensure that 
American companies will be competing on a more level playing field with 
our Central American neighbors. Without such provisions, U.S. companies 
and employees are forced to compete with countries that have inadequate 
wage, working conditions, or environmental protections. The people of 
all countries lose in such a ``race to the bottom''.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote no on DR-CAFTA tonight, and I urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, as our nation leads the world into the 21st 
century, we should not shy away from opportunities to guide and expand 
global trade. Lowering tariffs and advancing economic engagement among 
nations not only helps the American economy, it also can provide real 
opportunity to those in the developing world who are working to 
eradicate poverty, build their nations and bring prosperity to their 
people.
  It is critical that we build a bipartisan consensus around the 
importance of trade, which, unfortunately, does not currently exist. 
Such a consensus requires that trade agreements be balanced and fair 
for American workers and companies as well as for the nations with 
which we seek to engage. It also requires that domestic priorities be 
put in place to assist Americans in transitioning to the global 
economy.
  While I have supported previous free trade agreements, it is with 
regret that I oppose H.R. 3045, legislation implementing the Central 
American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) between the United States, the 
Dominican Republic and five Central American nations: Costa Rica, 
Honduras, Nicaragua, EI Salvador and Guatemala. DR-CAFTA does not build 
the bipartisan consensus we must achieve to succeed in the emerging 
global economy.
  When increasing opportunities through trade, we must be sure to do 
more to empower the American workforce through a comprehensive and 
upgraded education and worker training policy. The single most 
important factor in determining America's success in the 21st Century 
will be maintaining our innovation and creativity.
  Over the last few years, the world has become a smaller and more 
integrated place with technology, which levels the playing field like 
never before. Greater competition and collaboration exist now between 
countries, companies, and individuals. Meeting this challenge requires 
a new set of big ideas. Instead of this Administration being so eager 
to dismantle the new deal, it should be working with Congress to offer 
the American people a new ``New Deal.''
  This new ``New Deal'' should provide working families with the skills 
to compete successfully in the 21st Century economy. We must renew our 
commitment to worker training programs, an education investment that 
emphasizes math, science and engineering, research funding in science 
and medicine, and a comprehensive broad-band strategy for all America.
  Unfortunately, DR-CAFTA fails on a number of fronts. While the 
Administration has aggressively negotiated intellectual property and 
investor rights provisions in the agreement, it has simply not taken 
the same approach to protect workers' rights abroad or address the 
needs of working families here at home.
  DR-CAFTA does not require nations to bring their laws into compliance 
with the International Labor Organization (ILO) core labor standards, 
even though the ILO and U.S. State Department have documented numerous 
areas where the CAFTA countries' laws fail to comply with even the most 
basic international norms. Further, the agreement lacks critical 
dispute settlement and enforcement mechanisms for worker rights 
provisions beyond a normal fine for countries that fail to enforce 
their own current labor laws. Even this minimal standard is flawed, as 
DR-CAFTA does not require countries to maintain their current labor 
laws.
  In addition to the inadequate labor provisions in the trade 
agreement, the Administration has done nothing to prepare hard-working 
American families for the consequences of increased trade. Rather, the 
Administration and Congressional Leadership have provided irresponsible 
tax cuts benefiting the wealthiest one percent of Americans at the 
expense of investing in education, skills training, and research and 
development.
  Mr. Speaker, economics and trade need not be a zero-sum game; it can 
be a win-win for everyone involved as long as people have the tools to 
succeed. I cannot in good faith support an incomplete trade and 
economic policy that leaves Americans less able to be creative and 
innovative.
  Mr. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 
3045, the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). My opposition 
is based on my conclusion that CAFTA is another chapter in trade 
legislation that will spur job losses, depress American wages, 
eviscerate laborer's rights, emasculate the environment, and contribute 
to our nation's deficit.
  Recent statistics from the Labor Department indicate that America has 
lost more than 2.5 million manufacturing jobs since the passage of 
NAFTA. In my home state of Michigan, we have experienced a net job loss 
of over 200,000 manufacturing jobs due to exports.

[[Page H6921]]

Throughout the U.S., American workers suffer with anxiety about the 
elimination of their jobs each time we pass another free trade 
agreement. They know that factories are being relocated to foreign 
countries where they will be immune from paying U.S. taxes, and will be 
able to pay workers a fraction of U.S. hourly wages that range from $14 
to almost $18. Each time we pass another trade agreement, their worst 
fears are realized.
  According to the United Nations International Labor Organization 
(ILO), the average hourly wage earner in Nicaragua makes 95 cents; $1 
in Guatemala, and $1.25 in El Salvador. Such minuscule wages pose a 
tremendous incentive to Asian and U.S. manufacturers to build factories 
and strategic alliances in Central America. The same factories that 
will be created in Central America will be able to avoid strong 
environmental laws that exist in the U.S., thereby contributing to 
environmental degradation throughout Central America.
  If Americans have any concerns about the prospects posed by CAFTA, we 
need only look at the explosion of our deficit after the passage of 
NAFTA. Our trade deficit with Mexico mushroomed to $15 billion from a 
figure of $3 billion, resulting in a loss of 200,000 high wage U.S. 
jobs.
  I am a very concerned that worker protection provisions throughout 
Central America will be weakened if CAFTA is passed. The legislation 
omits an important protection that was included in NAFTA--that labor 
enforcement proceedings not be unnecessarily complicated. I reject the 
hypocrisy of a trade agreement that would sanction placing the welfare 
of low wage earners in jeopardy. In my state of Michigan, we have 
strong worker protections in place. I cannot in good conscience support 
a measure that would pose potential harm to workers throughout 
countries in Central America.
  Finally, supporters of CAFTA state that its passage will facilitate 
the elimination of tariffs and quotas and will ultimately result in 
increased trade and long-term growth. In reality, consumers and 
laborers in Central America will not be able to afford American 
manufactured goods. They will, however, be able to manufacture goods in 
Central America that will be sold in America with a profit margin that 
could not be realized if the same item were manufactured domestically.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to HR 3045, the Central 
American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). Passage of this bill will 
accelerate job losses, contribute to our deficit, circumvent labor 
rights and contribute to global environmental degradation. My 
constituents have overwhelmingly expressed their concerns and 
opposition to HR 3045. I urge my colleagues in the House to defeat this 
measure and stand up for fair and free trade.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. Speaker, I came to Congress to defend the values of 
rural Colorado; our farming lifestyle, our ranching communities, our 
jobs. DR-CAFTA, the Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade 
Agreement goes against those values, posing a threat to the very 
backbone of our economy and our lifestyle.
  Trade has always been a way for cultures to exchange not only goods, 
but also ideas and good will. I support trade with our neighbors; it is 
what we should be doing to help promote democracy and economic 
prosperity. But just because we have a trade agreement before us does 
not mean it is the right agreement.
  DR-CAFTA is an attempt to liberalize trade between the United States 
and six Latin American countries. The Administration negotiated with 
other foreign leaders in 2004 and today the House of Representatives 
will vote whether to approve the agreement. Due to Fast Track 
Authority, however, Congress will not have an opportunity to amend the 
agreement--it will merely have an up-or-down vote regardless of any 
concerns that may be voiced. DR-CAFTA has divided many agricultural 
groups among the states as well as other industries, business groups 
and human rights organizations.
  Over the last several months, I have met with a variety of groups 
from Colorado and around the nation about DR-CAFTA and I am sad to 
report there is no consensus about how this agreement will affect our 
nation's economy.
  The promise of new markets for agricultural exports has prompted many 
groups to throw their weight behind DR-CAFTA, but a deeper examination 
of the supposed benefits vs. the actual consequences of DR-CAFTA's 
enactment warrants hesitation.
  Our beef industry is strong and fiercely protected in our state. 
According to the proponents of the deal, DR-CAFTA will open up new 
markets and opportunities for the U.S. beef industry. But our local 
ranchers and beef producers will not benefit from the agreement--DR-
CAFTA will only allow duty-free access for prime and choice cuts of 
U.S. beef, which makes little sense when 40 percent of the people in 
DR-CAFTA nations make $2 a day or less.
  Meanwhile, DR-CAFTA is silent on the issue of imports meeting our 
rigorous food safety and sanitary standards, creating a challenge to 
the safety of our food supply.
  The Colorado Farm Bureau has publicly expressed its opposition to 
this agreement because of the potential adverse effects it would have 
on agricultural sectors. In particular, the Colorado sugar industry 
could be devastated by increased imports of sugar from the Dominican 
Republic. According to estimates, the effect of lower sugar prices 
after increased imports could be nearly $180 million. This means the 
loss of nearly 150,000 sugar-industry jobs. A report prepared by the 
United States International Trade Commission estimates job loss in the 
sugar industry will be 38 times higher than the next most harmed 
sector.

  Not only would DR-CAFTA threaten the livelihoods of thousands of US. 
sugar farmers and workers, but it would cost taxpayers millions of 
dollars. Another government report reveals information condemning DR-
CAFTA as a burden on taxpayers. According to the Congressional Budget 
Office, the influx of sugar from Central American countries would push 
prices down so low that our own sugar farmers would be forced to 
forfeit government loans on their crops. These forfeitures would cost 
taxpayers about $50 million annually through 2015. When added to a 
trade deficit that has ballooned to $617 billion, claims of economic 
gain are hard to believe.
  The trade commission study states DR-CAFTA will actually accelerate 
the pace at which jobs are outsourced overseas. The North America Free 
Trade Agreement certainly hasn't set a good precedent, with estimates 
of nearly 900,000 jobs lost.
  In the wake of NAFTA, Trade Adjustment Assistance programs were 
designed to assist those who lose their jobs as a result of companies 
moving out of the United States. More than a decade after NAFTA, the 
programs receive only one-quarter of the needed funding. Despite 
progress made in recent years to improve the Trade Adjustment 
Assistance program, budget cuts have left many workers who qualify for 
TAA benefits without access to this program when they need it most. 
Workers in Grand Junction were displaced this year when their jobs were 
outsourced overseas; I would hate to see other communities have to deal 
with this problem.
  How will the TAA programs keep up with DR-CAFTA's fast-paced 
outsourcing? And why spend millions of dollars to fix the effects of a 
flawed trade agreement, instead of renegotiating the entire agreement? 
Proponents of DR-CAFTA can't seem to defend the agreement on its own 
merits.
  Since the solid economic reasoning isn't there, curbing illegal 
immigration has become the new purpose of DR-CAFTA, another argument 
that doesn't have the backing of facts or figures. In the wake of 
NAFTA, 1.3 million farmers in small to medium-size operations were 
forced off their land because they were unable to compete with the 
multinational producers. For those concerned about ``broken borders,'' 
think of this: The employed farmers and agriculture workers of 10 years 
ago have become the undocumented immigrants of today. I fear DR-CAFTA 
will create a new wave of illegal immigration from Latin America.
  I will close as I began by reiterating my feelings about free trade. 
I support trade as part of a long-term strategy to grow our economy and 
support democracy. Economic ties with other nations help the American 
economy and national security. But trade agreements should provide real 
gains for U.S. workers and businesses. In any agreement, we must be 
vigilant about protecting our economic security. DR-CAFTA is a flawed 
agreement that needs to be renegotiated to address the concerns of our 
agricultural sector and the concerns of illegal immigration. Safeguards 
to protect American jobs and rural values must be strengthened before 
moving ahead with free trade in Latin America.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, over the past several weeks, I have closely 
studied the proposed free trade pact between the United States and 
Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and the 
Dominican Republic, commonly referred to as CAFTA.
  After careful consideration, research, and meetings with national 
security experts and representatives of Missouri agriculture, labor, 
and business, I have decided to vote in favor of CAFTA. While this 
legislation is far from perfect--no trade pact ever is--my support 
comes down to two issues.
  First, CAFTA is a national security issue. As the ranking Democrat on 
the House Armed Services Committee, I have the opportunity to consider 
not only the military component of national security, but other 
elements as well. Our security depends upon the success and the 
competitiveness of the U.S. economy. We must exert leadership, 
especially in our own hemisphere.
  Just 20 years ago, civil wars, communist insurgencies, and military 
dictatorships oppressed and destabilized much of Central America. 
Because conditions in Central America are critical to our national 
security, the

[[Page H6922]]

United States has actively supported these nations during the 
transition from insurgency and military rule to democracy. However, 
these new democratic governments cannot be taken for granted. Threats 
to their existence remain, notably from countries in South America that 
are suffering the effects of civil war, narcotics trafficking, and 
communist inspired agitation. Turning our backs on a region only 
recently freed from the grasp of dictatorship would diminish our 
international credibility and would send the wrong message to the world 
at a time when our troops are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq to build 
stable, democratically-elected governments.
  As former President Jimmy Carter said, ``For the first time ever, we 
have a chance to reinforce democracies in the region. This is the 
moment to move forward and to help those leaders who want to modernize 
and humanize their countries.''
  Second, the market access provided by CAFTA will benefit American 
agriculture, which is of primary importance to those of us who care 
about the future of rural America and want to promote a strong rural 
economy. Currently, 99 percent of, agricultural products from CAFTA 
countries enter the United States duty free, while U.S. farm exports 
face significant barriers in these markets. Many of these commodities 
are produced in Missouri, where agricultural exports totaled $1.24 
billion in 2003 and account for one-fourth of farm cash receipts.
  Under CAFTA, U.S. farm products--like pork, poultry, soybeans, corn, 
and beef--will receive preferential access to Central American markets, 
giving Missouri's agricultural exports a significant economic advantage 
over agricultural exports from our competitors in South America, 
Europe, and Canada. It is projected the CAFTA could increase 
agricultural exports in the Show-Me State by $33 million annually once 
the agreement is fully implemented in 2024.
  Again, no trade deal is perfect. Clearly, some improvements could be 
made in the bill, especially on the labor protection side. But, as I 
studied CAFTA and heard from national security, agriculture, labor, and 
business leaders, I became convinced that this trade agreement is 
critical to U.S. national security and to rural America.
                                                     June 8, 2005.
     Hon. Bill Thomas,
     Rayburn House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       To Representative Bill Thomas: As you prepare for your 
     initial consideration of the Central American Free Trade 
     Agreement (CAFTA) with the nations of Central America and the 
     Dominican Republic, I want to express my strong support for 
     this progressive move. From a trade perspective. this will 
     help both the United States and Central America.
       Some 80 percent of Central America's exports to the U.S. 
     are already duty free, so they will be opening their markets 
     to U.S. exports more than we will for their remaining 
     products. Independent studies indicate that U.S. incomes will 
     rise by over $15 billion and those in Central America by some 
     $5 billion. New jobs will be created in Central America, and 
     labor standards are likely to improve as a result of CAFTA.
       Some improvements could be made in the trade bill, 
     particularly on the labor protection side, but, more 
     importantly, our own national security and hemispheric 
     influence will be enhanced with improved stability, 
     democracy, and development in our poor, fragile neighbors in 
     Central America and the Caribbean. During my presidency and 
     now at The Carter Center, I have been dedicated to the 
     promotion of democracy and stability in the region. From the 
     negotiation of the Panama Canal Treaties and the championing 
     of human rights at a time when the region suffered under 
     military dictatorships to the monitoring of a number of free 
     elections in the region, Central America has been a major 
     focus of my attention.
       There now are democratically elected governments in each of 
     the countries covered by CAFTA. In negotiating this 
     agreement, the presidents of each of the six nations had to 
     contend with their own companies that fear competition with 
     U.S. firms. They have put their credibility on the line, not 
     only with this trade agreement but more broadly by promoting 
     market reforms that have been urged for decades by U.S. 
     presidents of both parties. If the U.S. Congress were to turn 
     its back on CAFTA it would undercut these fragile 
     democracies, compel them to retreat to protectionism, and 
     make it harder for them to cooperate with the U.S.
       For the first time ever, we have a clause to reinforce 
     democracies in the region. This is the moment to move forward 
     and to help those leaders that want to modernize and humanize 
     their countries. Moreover, strong economics in the region are 
     the best antidote to illegal immigration from the region.
       I appreciate your consideration of my views and hope they 
     will be helpful in your important deliberations.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Jimmy Carter.

  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, the debate over the potential 
costs and benefits of the proposed Dominican Republic-Central American 
Free Trade Agreement, CAFTA, has been contentious; and at times it has 
been difficult to separate fact from fiction and the myths from 
reality. In fact, I don't think I have ever seen as many wild and 
unsubstantiated allegations thrown around about a bill as I have seen 
during the debate over CAFTA. I rise tonight though because one myth 
perpetuated by opponents of CAFTA has caused me great deal of concern; 
namely the myth that CAFTA will restrict American consumers' access to 
the wide range of vitamin and mineral supplements of varying potencies 
that are legally sold in the United States. Then there are the related 
myths that CAFTA will limit the amount and type of information on the 
labels of dietary supplements sold in the United States or even require 
that dietary supplements be sold as drugs.
  I, along with millions of Americans, firmly believe that dietary 
supplements have been shown through research and historical use to be 
of immeasurable benefit to human health. As a regular consumer, I know 
firsthand the health benefits of using dietary supplements on a daily 
basis. Whether taking a multi-vitamin, herbal product, or specialty 
supplement, I know that people can and do live healthier lives and save 
money in long-term health costs by supplementing their diets.
  Approximately 10 years ago, seeing a need for the Federal Government 
to address the American consumer's growing interest in dietary products 
and public safety, Congress overwhelmingly passed the Dietary 
Supplement Health and Education Act, DSHEA, to make certain that all 
dietary health products sold in the United States are held to the 
highest and safest quality standards.
  This legislation ensures the safety of dietary supplements by 
requiring manufacturers to follow standards called ``Good Manufacturing 
Practices,'' or GMPs. Essentially, all ingredients in supplements sold 
in the United States must be previously approved by the FDA and listed 
on the bottle label, and distributors must follow strict guidelines on 
any claims that are made in regard to a particular product--to provide 
consumers with the most accurate information on supplements. 
Additionally, if at any time the FDA decides that a particular product 
or dietary ingredient is detrimental to human health; it reserves the 
right to have those items removed from the marketplace.
  This legislation provides the current framework for how the Federal 
government ensures the safety and efficacy of dietary supplements sold 
in the United States, and there is no provision in CAFTA that requires 
the United States to change DSHEA in any way.
  Nevertheless, I was so concerned about this issue that I asked the 
U.S. Trade Representative's, USTR, Office to clear up any 
misunderstanding about CAFTA and DSHEA. I would like to have the text 
of the USTR's fact sheet on CAFTA and Dietary Supplements placed into 
the Congressional Record following my statement.

                     CAFTA and Dietary Supplements

       The CAFTA-DR will not limit consumer access to dietary 
     supplements in any way, nor will it change the way the 
     federal government or U.S. states regulate dietary 
     supplements.
       Chapter Six of the CAFTA-DR (Sanitary and Phytosanitary 
     Measures--SPS), which some have claimed could limit access by 
     American consumers to dietary supplements, does not create 
     any substantive rights or obligations. It merely:
       Says the seven governments do not intend the CAFTA-DR to 
     change their existing SPS rights and obligations under the 
     WTO.
       Note: WTO rules, in effect since 1995, have had absolutely 
     no impact on the regulation or availability of dietary 
     supplements in the United States.
       Establishes an inter-governmental committee to discuss SPS 
     issues of mutual interest.
       The SPS committee will not seek to harmonize national SPS 
     regulations governing dietary supplements. In fact, Chapter 
     Six does not require, recommend, or even mention 
     harmonization.
       The committee will simply work to assist the seven 
     governments in carrying out their obligations under the WTO 
     SPS Agreement.
       Contrary to assertions some have made, the CAFTA-DR will 
     not require the United States to:
       Apply the recently adopted Codex Alimentarius Guidelines 
     for Vitamin and Mineral Supplements. In fact, the agreement 
     imposes no obligations regarding Codex standards or 
     guidelines.
       Change the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 
     1994 (DSHEA), which regulates dietary supplements in the 
     United States.
       The Codex Guidelines provide voluntary guidance to 
     governments relating to the composition of vitamin and 
     mineral supplements and criteria for establishing maximum 
     amounts of vitamins and minerals per daily portion of 
     supplement consumed.
       The Guidelines do not establish upper limits for vitamins 
     and minerals in supplements.
       Nothing in the WTO SPS Agreement will require the United 
     States to adopt the Codex Guidelines.

  Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Central 
American Free Trade

[[Page H6923]]

Agreement, but I do so some reservation. While CAFTA should provide 
economic benefits to most industries in Florida, it does create some 
difficulties for our State's sugar farmers. I am disappointed that 
tonight's vote will have a negative impact on an important agricultural 
industry in our State, but along with this vote comes the broad 
economic benefits of free trade.
  I have made a difficult decision tonight to support an agreement that 
will negatively impact some farmers in my State because of my belief in 
the principles of free trade. So it would be irresponsible of me not to 
make several points perfectly clear to my colleagues from other areas 
of the Nation, particularly the Midwest, whose farmers receive billions 
of dollars in farm program subsidies each year.
  Unlike most commodity programs, the U.S. sugar program is designed to 
operate at no cost to the taxpayer. Unlike other crops, our Nation does 
not produce too much sugar, in fact we are the fourth largest importer 
in the world. We don't have to prop up sugar farmers by finding ways to 
get excess sugar out of the country, and we don't have to write 
billions of dollars of government checks to sugar farmers to allow them 
to stay in business.
  I want to be sure that my colleagues understand that they may be 
called on to make an equally hard choice in the near future. Some corn 
groups have been especially critical of their fellow farmers who 
produce sugar cane and sugar beets. According to the President's 
budget, corn farmers will receive almost $9 billion in government 
support for the 2004 crop alone. If sugar farmers received billions of 
dollars in government subsidies, they might produce a surplus like corn 
and be less concerned about increased imports.
  I don't raise this issue in an effort to attack other Members' 
constituent industries; rather, like many of my colleagues, I am very 
concerned about Federal Government spending and the deficit. I just ask 
that those who are so quick to dismiss the concerns of my State's 
farmers be willing to take the same position of responsibility when you 
are called on to cut spending to your farmers. There has been a great 
deal of scrutiny of the sugar program in recent months. It is time we 
applied that scrutiny to other, high cost, farm programs as well, and 
all do our part to cut government spending.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, the late Pope John Paul said, ``If 
globalization is ruled merely by the laws of the market applied to suit 
the powerful, the consequences cannot be but negative.''
  I agree with the late Pope John Paul. Trade is more than just 
economics. It's about peoples' lives and livelihoods. Our economic 
policies should create the rising tide that lifts all boats. Each 
decision we make must take into account the welfare and dignity of all 
people, but especially the poor and vulnerable who struggle daily to 
support themselves and their families.
  When CAFTA is viewed through this moral framework, it is clear the 
agreement does not pass muster. That is why Pax Christi, Catholics for 
Faithful Citizenship and 34 other organizations (attached) of faith 
oppose CAFTA. If this agreement is enacted, the poor will get poorer 
and the rich will get richer.
  The consequences of CAFTA will be felt by people throughout the 
Northern hemisphere--from the Michigan sugarbeet farmer trying to put 
food on the table for his family to the poor Dominican laborer in need 
of basic medicines.
  The developing countries affected by CAFTA have an enormous need for 
better access to medication. Despite these compelling health needs, 
CAFTA would undermine their access to affordable medicine and 
potentially give billions of dollars worth of patent protections to 
drug companies.
  Closer to home, the sugarbeet farmers in Michigan will be forced off 
their farms as the price of sugar plummets. Hourly workers at sugar 
refineries will find their jobs outsourced to other countries. These 
workers' and farmers' livelihoods will be ruined. We're not talking 
about big Agri-business here--we are talking about small farmers who 
will no longer be able to support themselves. We're talking about small 
businesses owners laying off their workforces.

  I ask the Bush Administration and the Republican Leadership, ``If 
enacted, can you imagine what kind of damage CAFTA would inflict on 
Michigan's sugar industry, which ranks fourth in the country?''
  With a state sugar beet economy that spans 2,000 farms, employs 
thousands of people, and totals over $300 million annually, it doesn't 
take a genius to predict that flooding our market with sugar imports 
will strike a blow that may be unrecoverable.
  The National Farmers Union, the National Family Farm Coalition, the 
Institute on Agriculture and Trade Policy, Michigan Sugar Company, and 
the Monitor Sugar Company--they understand the impact it will have on 
the sugar industry. Why doesn't the House Leadership pushing this bill 
get it? Or maybe they just don't care.
  This bill is bad for sugar beet growers and bad for Michigan.
  As Pope John Paul said, let's not strengthen the powerful at the 
expense of the less fortunate. That is what CAFTA will do--advance the 
financial interests of large multinational companies at the expense of 
the common good.
  I cannot support an agreement that fails to protect the livelihood of 
so many families, in Michigan, the United States, and abroad. That is 
why I will vote ``NO'' on CAFTA.

       Interfaith Working Group on Trade and Investment member 
     organizations have mission workers and partner institutions 
     in Central America who believe that DR-CAFTA will harm their 
     families and communities. IWG members on record as opposing 
     CAFTA include:
       American Friends Service Committee, Center of Concern, 
     Church of the Brethren Witness/Washington Office, Church 
     World Service, Conference of Major Superiors of Men 
     Religious, Columban Mission Center, Columban Office: Justice, 
     Peace and Integrity of Creation, Congregation Justice 
     Committee: Sisters of Holy Cross, Notre Dame, IN, 
     Congregation of St. Joseph, Cleveland, Ohio, Office of 
     Governmental Affairs (Evangelical Lutheran Church of 
     America), Franciscan Sisters of Allegheny, New York, Holy 
     Cross Institute Office, Institute Justice Team: Sisters of 
     Mercy of the Americas, International Association of the 
     Presentations, Leadership Conference of Women Religious, 
     Lutheran World Relief, Maryknoll Office of Global Concerns.
       Mennonite Central Committee: Washington Office, Medical 
     Mission Sisters Alliance for Justice, Missionary Oblates: 
     Justice, Peace and Integrity of Creation, National Council of 
     Churches USA, NETWORK: A National Catholic Social Justice 
     Lobby, Presbyterian Church (USA Washington Office), Religious 
     Task Force on Central America and Mexico, SHARE Foundation, 
     Sisters of Charity of St. Augustine: Social Concerns 
     Committee, Sisters of Charity of Cincinnati, Sisters of 
     Humility of Mary, Sisters of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana, 
     Sisters of Notre Dame, Justice and Peace Office, United 
     Church of Christ Justice and Witness Ministries, United 
     Methodist Church: General Board of Church and Society, 
     Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations, Witness 
     for Peace.

  Mr BACA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in oposition to this bill.
  I urge all of my colleagues to join me in standing up for America and 
our working families by rejecting CAFTA.
  CAFTA is a bad deal: bad for workers and businesses in my district, 
bad for America, and bad for workers in Central America.
  CAFTA would cause more job losses, more poverty and more hardship for 
workers both here at home and in Central America, while expanding the 
gap between rich and poor.
  We all should have learned from the mistakes of NAFTA, which was 
passed 12 years ago and has hurt American workers.
  Let's all keep in mind the saying, ``Fool me once, shame on you. Fool 
me twice, shame on me.''
  After NAFTA, there should be no CAFTA.
  When NAFTA was passed, many believed it would lead to higher wages 
and economic development in the U.S., Mexico and Canada and less 
illegal immigration.
  Those hopes turned out to be false: Instead of helping American 
workers, NAFTA took away jobs. Instead of helping American businesses, 
many were forced to close down or move out of the country.
  As we work hard to strengthen the American economy, we cannot afford 
a bad trade bill that is unfair to American workers.
  CAFTA does not hold companies in other countries to the same 
standards. Workers in those countries do not have the same rights or 
protections. They do not have a voice and do not have safety standards.
  Central American workers will be exploited. They will be expected to 
work like elephants and if they are not producing enough to satisfy 
their bosses, their jobs will be eliminated and replacements brought 
in.
  We must not help or reward companies that prefer to exploit Central 
American workers in sweatshops instead of creating jobs in the U.S., 
hiring American workers and increasing wages.
  It seems every day we read in the papers about another factory 
closing down. Since President Bush took office, 2.5 million 
manufacturing jobs have been lost. At least 750,000 American jobs have 
been lost directly due to NAFTA. And they are not coming back.
  My constituents know about the impact of offshoring. We remember when 
Kaiser Steel closed its factory in Fontana, California, resulting in 
devastating job losses that hurt hundreds of workers, their families 
and their neighborhoods.
  I am especially concerned about the harmful effect that CAFTA would 
have on Hispanic communities in the U.S. because we have seen that 
almost half (47%) of the American workers who lost jobs due to NAFTA 
were Latinos.
  In addition to protecting American jobs, I want to protect our 
homeland security and I

[[Page H6924]]

am concerned that CAFTA would make us less secure. Our ports and 
borders are already vulnerable. Many shipments of cargo enter our 
country without inspection. Increasing shipments of goods from Central 
America could pose additional threats to our security.
  I am disappointed that the Administration did not work closely with 
my colleagues in the Congressional Hispanic Caucus to propose an 
agreement that protects American workers and businesses.
  Instead, the Administration is proposing an unacceptable trade deal 
that I cannot support.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, having voted in favor of every free trade 
agreement considered during my tenure in Congress, I have been and 
continue to be an avid supporter of free trade. However, I cannot, in 
good faith, vote for the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) 
as it stands today. Instead of helping to improve labor and 
environmental standards and increase the enforcement of those standards 
in Central America, CAFTA is a rubber stamp of the status-quo. CAFTA 
fails to strengthen existing labor and environmental laws and 
deliberately excludes meaningful penalties for Central American 
governments that fail to enforce such laws. What is worse, CAFTA 
removes the current ability of the United States to withdraw trade 
benefits when countries in the region refuse to improve labor and 
environmental standards. By removing this important--and proven--
oversight mechanism, CAFTA could perversely weaken the few protections 
that exist for workers and the environment in Central America today.
  CAFTA also includes an investment provision similar to North America 
Free Trade Agreement's (NAFTA) Chapter 11, which puts profits of 
multinational firms before the public safety and public health of 
citizens in the United States and in Central American countries. With 
CAFTA in its current form, the Administration makes its priorities 
clear: corporate need and greed above all else.
  At the same time it leaves workers behind in Central America, CAFTA 
fails to help workers here at home. When drafting CAFTA, the Bush 
Administration refused to expand Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) to 
service workers who stand to lose from CAFTA, and similarly, it did not 
increase the amount of assistance for those workers who are currently 
eligible under the TAA program. More generally, this Administration 
repeatedly refuses to fund education and training programs that would 
help to ensure the future competitiveness of the American people.
  It is unfortunate that I, along with my other like-minded Democrats 
who support free trade, do not have the opportunity to vote on a free 
and fair trade agreement with Central America. I believe that free, 
fair trade can be a powerful means to improve living standards abroad 
and to broaden economic opportunities for people here at home. 
Unfortunately, the Bush Administration negotiated this agreement behind 
closed doors without soliciting the bipartisan input of Congress. While 
the Administration has had numerous opportunities to make simple, but 
important changes to CAFTA, it has consistently refused, and instead, 
has insisted on supporting the deeply flawed agreement we have before 
us today--an agreement that I oppose in its current form.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 
3045, to implement the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States 
Free Trade Agreement. While I favor expanding trade and eliminating 
restrictive tariffs and barriers, the DR-CAFTA agreement does not 
create a fair playing field for United States companies and workers to 
compete. I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting H.R. 3045 and 
tell the Administration to renegotiate a more responsible trade 
agreement. We can do better.
  For the DR-CAFTA countries, the agreement would permanently expand 
preferential market access for most goods. For us, DR-CAFTA would phase 
out duties on manufactured and agricultural goods over 10 to 20 years. 
The countries included in this trade agreement, the Dominican Republic, 
Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua, are of 
extreme strategic importance to us. We must not neglect our neighbors 
to the south, and improving economic ties to these countries should be 
a top priority. However, the DR-CAFTA agreement before us today is just 
as likely to hurt workers in these countries as it is to help them.
  While a properly written agreement could mutually benefit companies 
and workers in all of the countries involved, this agreement avoids 
specific language to improve working conditions abroad. H.R. 3045 does 
not contain strong environmental or labor enforcement, which are the 
keys to fair trade. The agreement requires the DR-CAFTA countries to 
enforce their own laws, but it does not demand compliance with the 
International Labor Organization's core labor standards. Central 
America has among the worst working conditions in the world. In 
Nicaragua, for instance, more than 40 percent of the population lives 
on less than $1 per day, so the agreement could have vastly improved 
their living conditions. Instead, DR-CAFTA will likely continue the 
status quo of cheap labor and weak worker protections.
  Likewise, DR-CAFTA does not require countries to meet any minimum 
standards on the environment or public health. DR-CAFTA countries have 
no restrictions on air or water quality, which creates unhealthy living 
conditions and damages the environment. If a country does not meet its 
own environmental laws, it could be fined up to $15 million, a stark 
contrast to intellectual property violations, which have unlimited 
fines under the agreement. On a level playing field, American workers 
can compete and win, but it is unfair for our companies to compete 
against a DR-CAFTA country that employs minors earning pennies per hour 
without the same air and water quality guidelines under which American 
companies operate.
  In 2004, Rhode Island exported approximately $30 million to these 
countries, or 2 percent of the state's worldwide exports. This 
agreement is important to several companies in my district, but we must 
go back to the drawing board to ensure American companies and American 
jobs are not left behind. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing 
H.R. 3045 and encouraging the Administration to renegotiate a more 
equitable agreement.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 
3045, the implementing legislation for the U.S.-Central America-
Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). When big business 
calls, Republicans always answer, and today we vote on a gift to big 
business paid for by American and Central American workers.
  The signatory countries inked this agreement 14 months ago. CAFTA is 
so unpopular that the Republicans were unwilling to bring it up for a 
vote before the 2004 elections. Now we're voting at the final hour with 
supporters relying on promised favors and twisted arms for victory. 
This is not the example we should be setting for growing democracies in 
Central America and around the world.
  Beyond the example we set globally, this agreement does not include 
basic labor, environmental and public health standards.
  Instead of forcing countries to meet basic environmental standards, 
the agreement allows them to enforce their own substandard 
environmental laws. If you have ever wanted to see the pristine beauty 
of the Costa Rican rain forest or Lake Atitlan in Guatemala you might 
want to book your tickets before the ``benefits'' of CAFTA begin to 
destroy these natural wonders.
  ``Enforce your own laws'' must be the favorite new saying in the Bush 
Administration because CAFTA applies this meaningless standard to labor 
rights as well. It would have been simple to require all CAFTA 
signatories to codify the International Labor Organization's core labor 
standards. But the Bush Administration doesn't care about workers 
rights as long as American companies have a cheap Central American 
labor pool to draw from. When Central American workers don't have the 
right to organize, or even the right to a safe workplace, at least the 
Bush Administration can take solace in the fact that they have sent 
them low-paying jobs that used to belong to hard-working Americans.
  There are other egregious provisions in CAFTA, some written for 
Republican benefactors like the pharmaceutical industry. At the behest 
of PhRMA--the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association--
the Bush Administration negotiated a sweet deal for brand name drugs 
that will limit CAFTA countries' access to affordable generic 
alternatives.
  The pharmaceutical industry will solely benefit from a provision to 
extend its monopolies to Central America. If this agreement is 
approved, the most profitable industry on the planet will get an 
additional five years to exploit the sick to maximize profits. This 
provision will raise the price of drugs for CAFTA-country residents and 
could limit their ability to provide more affordable generic drugs 
during public health emergencies.
  In countries where people make two dollars a day, it is abhorrent to 
eliminate cheaper generics from the market and force workers to pay for 
expensive, brand name drugs.
  Instead of voting on CAFTA today, we should be telling the Bush 
Administration to renegotiate. This is a bad agreement for America and 
for Central America. I urge all my colleagues to ignore the Majority's 
empty promises and arm-twisting and vote against this reprehensible 
free trade agreement.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in vigorous opposition to this so-
called ``free trade'' agreement. It is a bad agreement- bad for US 
workers, bad for Central American workers, bad for small farmers, bad 
for the environment, and bad for our economy.
  The proponents of this deal point not to facts, but to predictions. 
They talk about projected growth and theorize that our Central American 
neighbors will enjoy increased living standards and a better future.

[[Page H6925]]

  We don't have to consult a crystal ball to see what effect CAFTA will 
have on the lives of American and Central American citizens. We have an 
example before us, it is called NAFTA. CAFTA is a junior version of 
NAFTA; it is quite literally the ``Son of NAFTA''.
  Ask the people of Michigan, Ohio, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, 
Indiana, Oklahoma, or any other State that saw factories shuttered if 
they have benefited from NAFTA.
  Ask the people of Mexico who have dirtier air, dirtier water, little 
collective bargaining rights, and are now watching their new factories 
close and move across the Pacific if they have benefited from NAFTA.
  If you can look at the results of NAFTA and think our quality of life 
has improved; if you think there are more and better jobs post-NAFTA 
than before; if you think Mexico is on the verge of joining the ranks 
of the G-8, then CAFTA is the trade agreement for you.
  Evaluate carefully the claims which will be made about CAFTA. For 
example, we have heard that CAFTA will open important markets for U.S. 
goods. Sound familiar? As we learned from NAFTA, if labor standards are 
not improved as part of these Agreements, few workers in these markets 
will be able to afford our goods.
  We make cars and trucks in my home State of Michigan. American auto 
manufacturers are currently putting over $1,400 of health care costs 
into each American-made car. Yet the average Nicaraguan worker earns 
only about $2,300 a year. Yes, that's for an entire year.
  While the rising health care burden on American manufacturing is an 
important issue for another day, it illustrates the absurdity of the 
claims that new markets will be flooded with American products. How 
many cars or computers can we reasonably expect to sell in these new 
markets?
  Instead of raising the living standards of people in Central America, 
CAFTA will accelerate a race to the bottom. Instead of creating new, 
high value jobs in the United States, CAFTA will only replace good jobs 
with unemployment checks.
  I urge all my colleagues not only to read the details of this deal, 
but also to look around. Look at the closed factories, talk to 
unemployed manufacturing workers, and remember the promise of NAFTA.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, I can think of no better distillation of my 
vote against CAFTA than the old saying, ``Fool me once, shame on you. 
Fool me twice, shame on me.'' I urge my colleagues not to be fooled 
again.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in unfortunate 
opposition to this DR-CAFTA agreement. represents a real missed 
opportunity for this Congress and this Administration to engage in a 
real meaningful negotiation to improve trade relations between the 
United States, the Central American countries, and the Dominican 
Republic. Unfortunately, this agreement represents a step backward from 
over 20 years worth of U.S. laws and enforcement efforts.
  The pact falls short of the standards that any trade agreement 
America signs onto should meet: the broad fulfillment of America's 
economic interests, the opening of fair markets for America's goods and 
services and the reversal of America's ever-growing trade deficit. 
Whoever the winners, they're not the American or the Central American 
worker. I support free--and fair--trade, but that isn't what CAFTA will 
accomplish.
  At a Chamber of Commerce meeting in my district, I was struck by the 
fact that many small manufacturers were outraged at the lack of focus 
by the Administration in protecting their industry and their jobs. In 
fact, had I closed my eyes I would have thought I was at an A.F.L.-
C.I.O. rally. In a moment of candor, one of the manufacturers said, 
when large companies started downsizing their labor force and 
outsourcing their work to us we were silent, we couldn't conceive that 
it was only a matter of time before we too would be outsourced. When 
will the government do something about this race to the bottom?
  That's how my district sees this, and I share their view. 
Unfortunately, this is a missed opportunity, an opportunity where 
frankly CAFTA countries told us they were more than willing to accept 
stronger provisions if they had only been asked to. Violations of 
international labor standards should not be held to a different 
standard than other violations on matters like intellectual property.
  Supporters of CAFTA also point to the fact that labor standards and 
working conditions will be monitored by agencies like the International 
Labor Organization, part of the United Nations which established 
international labor standards and which verifies that these standards 
are met. I guess now with this trade agreement the Administration is 
running out of American Jobs to outsource and has moved on to official 
U.S. government functions. Since when are we are going to allow the 
United Nations to determine whether or not other counties are in 
compliance with our treaties?
  In the typical ``bait and switch'' tactics of the Republican 
Majority, what they are not telling you here is that just a few weeks 
ago, they approved an $82 billion funding cut Proposed by President 
Bush to the principal agency that supports foreign labor standards 
technical assistance, virtually assuring that no oversight or 
enforcement will ever actually take place.
  Jobs are now America's fastest-growing export. We should be exporting 
our values and market goods not our jobs. As the world's richest 
nation, we have a moral obligation to lift the standard of living of 
the world's poor. It is double-speak for the President to say he wants 
to promote democracy to the south of our borders but pushes a trade 
agreement that consigns subsistence workers to economic bondage and 
forces American businesses to compete on an uneven playing field.
  This is the wrong trade agreement for the United States and for 
Central America. I urge my colleagues to vote no and send this treaty 
back to President Bush to be renegotiated.
  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3045, the 
Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement 
Implementation Act. Passage of this important legislation will give 
Alabama exporters greater access to Central American markets and 
bolster American security.
  When I co-chaired the Republican anti-NAFTA task force in 1993 we 
were determined to defeat NAFTA, but we failed by a few votes. I remain 
convinced that NAFTA has been bad for my district and increased the 
Nation's trade deficit with Mexico. While CAFTA and NAFTA sound alike, 
the two trade agreements have substantial differences that cannot be 
overlooked. NAFTA exported thousands of jobs to Mexico, while 
dramatically increasing the flood of Mexican made products into the 
U.S. market. CAFTA, meanwhile, gives U.S. goods the same market access 
to Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, 
Honduras, and Nicaragua as those countries already enjoy here, thereby 
leveling the playing field for American exporters.
  Ratifying CAFTA actually benefits the United States significantly 
more than it does Central America since those nations already have 90 
percent duty-free access to our markets. CAFTA simply gives American 
companies and workers equal access to Central America. As such, Alabama 
agriculture and other industry will benefit from the ability to export 
more goods duty-free, resulting in lower prices and increased 
consumption in this area. Alabama ranks eighth among all U.S. states in 
exports to Central America and that is expected to grow with CAFTA's 
passage.
  However, I did not give my support to this agreement without 
carefully considering several issues. First, I remain concerned about 
saving thousands of remaining textile jobs in Alabama and protecting 
agriculture and other industries in my district. Secondly, I have 
serious concerns over the return of leftist insurgencies in the 
struggling democratic countries that are a part of CAFTA and the harm 
that would do to our national security. Finally, I also have concerns 
about the threat of illegal immigration.
  Most of the Alabama textile plants that survived the effects of NAFTA 
did so by establishing relationships with Central American partners who 
assemble Alabama-made components. This delicate balance would be upset 
if this relationship were not allowed to continue; ultimately forcing 
the remaining U.S. textile industry to Asia. CAFTA strengthens this 
beneficial arrangement by making these current trading arrangements 
permanent.
  While I have consistently supported tougher immigration laws, the 
Congress has resisted approving some of these measures. Also, the 
Administration has not been as helpful as I would like in trying to 
solve the border security problem.
  I am convinced that should CAFTA fail the illegal immigration flow 
into America would increase. Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez is using 
his country's vast oil money to create anti-American and anti-
democratic upheaval in the countries affected by CAFTA. Should CAFTA 
fail and Chavez is successful in bringing down these fragile 
governments, thousands more would flood our borders seeking to escape 
new leftist regimes. Such an unstable situation would increase many 
times over our worry of terrorists crossing into the United States.
  In summary, passage of CAFTA will provide a tremendous economic boost 
to our critical industrial base, support fledgling democracies in a 
crucial part of the world, and help stem the tide of illegal 
immigration into the U.S.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support this measure.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my strong 
opposition to the Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade 
Agreement and intend to vote it against.
  I am proud to be a pro-trade Democrat in Congress and am proud of my 
record--having supported every free trade agreement since I took office 
in 1997.
  I voted in favor of granting the President Trade Promotion Authority 
in 2002 and voted against withdrawing from the World Trade Organization 
in 2000 and again earlier this year.

[[Page H6926]]

  I am a longtime member, and the current chair of the New Democrat 
Coalition, a group of members who often support free trade. We see our 
role as a group of pro-business, pro-defense, and pro-trade leaning 
members who seek ways to open foreign markets to American goods and 
services. I also co-chair the Friends of New Zealand Caucus in the 
House, and hope we may soon see a free trade agreement with New 
Zealand.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that free trade, when organized properly, 
benefits our economy. It can only help to improve our relations with 
the other countries involved.
  In the case of CAFTA, I want to see our Nation maintain close ties 
with our neighbors in Central America. Our economic security and our 
National security depend on cooperative relationships with our friends 
and allies.
  However, in pursuing free trade, we must also consider the impact and 
direct effects the agreements will have on workers--both here and 
abroad.
  And CAFTA fails to provide adequate protection.
  It simply does not do enough to invest in basic job training and 
education for Americans--specifically those Americans who lose their 
jobs due to trade.
  The current budget for Trade Adjustment Assistance is insufficient: 
the President's 2005 request was $300 million less than Congress 
authorized for FY 2004, despite the obvious needs for job training and 
retraining. What's worse, Mr. Speaker, is that CAFTA does not provide 
any TAA funds for service workers, who comprise 80 percent of today's 
American workforce and produce three-quarters of our products. When job 
training programs go under funded, American workers are at risk.
  Furthermore, CAFTA is the first FTA negotiated by the United States 
with developing countries, some of which have weak labor laws and a 
history of suppressing the rights of their workers.
  We need to do all in our power to ensure that this agreement helps 
these countries raise their working standards. Unfortunately, the labor 
chapter requires that each country simply enforce its existing laws. It 
does nothing to require the DR-CAFTA countries improve their laws to 
reflect fairness to working people. There are also no safeguards in the 
agreement to prevent countries to explicitly weakening their labor 
laws. This ``enforce your own laws'' standard is a giant step 
backwards. Under our current trade policy, the Caribbean Basin 
Initiative allows us to withdraw trade benefits from countries who 
violate the labor standards of the agreements they have signed. If 
CAFTA goes into effect, those remedies are wiped out and simply 
replaced with the ``enforce your own laws'' standard.
  This labor agreement is simply unacceptable.
  And finally Mr. Speaker, I feel compelled to say a word about the 
legislative process here in Congress. I would be remiss if I did not do 
so.
  This Administration has made a habit of regularly excluding Democrats 
from the table during the negotiation and drafting of all major 
legislation. We saw this with the energy bill, the Medicare 
prescription drug bill, and again with CAFTA. We were not consulted at 
all on this FTA.
  We all have valid ideas and concerns worthy of discussion regarding 
improving international market economies and they need to be fully and 
fairly debated. That did not happen with CAFTA. We were not engaged. I 
thought that at some point in the process members of the New Democrat 
Coalition would be consulted, as we generally support free trade. 
However, I was wrong. There was no outreach from House leaders or from 
the President to us.
  One would think that after the passage of Trade Promotion Authority 
in 2002--by a 3 vote margin--a clear signal was sent to the 
Administration that passing free trade agreements will not be easy. 
Everyone ought to be at the table. Instead of heeding past warnings, 
they have continued to make a habit of regularly excluding Democrats. 
CAFTA has been no exception.
  As a result of poor negotiations with the Democrats and a lack of 
steady involvement by the President with members of his own party, on 
the day of the CAFTA vote, President Bush made an eleventh hour trip to 
Congress to twist arms in hopes of squeaking out the minimum number of 
votes needed to pass this agreement.
  Mr. Speaker, trade should not be a Republican or Democrat issue. It 
is an American issue. Passing trade agreements by one or two votes, in 
the dead of night when both the American and Central American people 
are sleeping, is not the way to have a responsible trade policy.
  Both the people of Central America and workers here in the United 
States deserve better.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, It is with great disappointment that I rise 
in opposition to CAFTA. I support free trade. Trade agreements are an 
important tool to strengthen ties with strategic partners, expand 
opportunities for American industry, and improve the standard of 
living. Unfortunately, I believe that this agreement will do more harm 
than good.
  Among my chief concerns, the agreement perpetuates weak and 
unenforced labor and environmental standards. The failure to raise 
these standards will hurt Central Americans and create unfair 
competition for American workers.
  CAFTA would also allow foreign companies to bypass the U.S. court 
system and challenge Federal, State and local laws and regulations 
through a veiled and unaccountable trade tribunal.
  But, today I would like to focus my remarks on a major issue that 
unfortunately has gotten relatively little attention in this debate, 
which is that CAFTA will seriously impede access to essential medicine 
in poor developing countries.
  In June, the minority staff on the Government Reform Committee 
released a report entitled ``Trade Agreements and Access to Medications 
Under the Bush Administration.'' The complete report is available at 
www.democrats.reform.house.gov and I would ask unanimous consent that 
the Executive Summary be printed in the Congressional Record.
  The alarming conclusion the report reached is that under CAFTA, 
patients in poor countries will often have to wait longer than those in 
the United States to gain access to generic drugs.
  Specifically, CAFTA would block governments from approving the sale 
of generic drugs for at least five years after a new drug is 
introduced, even if the drug's patent has already expired. The 
agreement would also inhibit generic competition with patent extensions 
and other measures that will make it harder for drug regulators to 
approve generic drugs.
  The impact will be devastating in the developing world where large 
poor and uninsured populations cannot afford brand name drugs. For many 
patients suffering from diseases like AIDS, tuberculosis, heart disease 
and cancer, waiting five years to afford new cures will mean the 
difference between life and death.
  In reality, the pharmaceutical companies actually stand to gain 
little from these protections in a region of the world that barely 
represents one half of one percent of the global drug market. But the 
companies view this trade agreement as a cookie cutter model for USTR 
to negotiate with all countries regardless of the consequences.
  The Bush Administration has boldly advanced the pharmaceutical 
agenda, claiming that the provisions are merely an extension of a U.S. 
law known as Hatch-Waxman. As an author of that legislation, I could 
not disagree more.
  Hatch-Waxman was a carefully crafted measure that reflects both the 
need to promote innovation and the need to facilitate generic 
competition. In contrast, CAFTA does not establish a proper balance 
between the interests of the drug companies and consumers, between 
intellectual property rights and the human rights of patients.
  It is reckless and dangerous to force our partners in the developing 
world to trade away their timely access to inexpensive, lifesaving 
medications.
  It is irresponsible for the United States to undermine its commitment 
to the 2001 Doha Declaration, which expressly called for trade rules to 
respect public health needs.
  It is wrong for CAFTA to advance the financial interests of large 
multinational drug companies at the expense of the developing world's 
ability to address public health problems.
  If we defeat CAFTA today, we can put pressure on the Bush 
Administration to change course. Then we can vote on an agreement that 
is both ethically and economically sound.

                           Executive Summary

       In 2001, 142 countries, including the United States, 
     adopted ``the Doha Declaration,'' an international agreement 
     that trade obligations should be interpreted and implemented 
     in ways that protect public health and access to essential 
     medications. In August 2002, the U.S. Congress passed the 
     Trade Promotion Authority Act, which directs adherence to the 
     Doha Declaration in U.S. trade negotiations.
       Since the adoption of the Doha Declaration and the passage 
     of the Trade Promotion Authority Act, the Bush Administration 
     has signed and Congress has ratified bilateral free trade 
     agreements with three developing countries: Chile, Singapore, 
     and Morocco. The Administration has signed one regional free 
     trade agreement, commonly referred to as CAFTA, with five 
     Central American nations and the Dominican Republic, and a 
     bilateral agreement with Bahrain. Six more free trade 
     agreements with 13 developing countries have been initiated, 
     including a proposed agreement with four Andean nations. 
     Negotiations have also continued on the Free Trade Agreement 
     of the Americas (FTAA).

[[Page H6927]]

       At the request of Rep. Henry A. Waxman, this report 
     examines whether the Administration is complying with the 
     Doha Declaration in its pursuit of these trade agreements. 
     The report finds that contrary to the Doha Declaration, U.S. 
     trade negotiators have repeatedly used the trade agreements 
     to restrict the ability of developing nations to acquire 
     medicines at affordable prices. In effect, the President's 
     trade representatives have elevated the protection of 
     pharmaceutical patents above the pressing health needs of 
     developing countries.
       Specifically, the report finds that the agreements:
       Delay approval of generic drugs. CAFTA and the other four 
     signed trade agreements, as well as the Andean proposal and 
     FTAA draft, contain provisions that block the approval of 
     inexpensive generic drugs until the more expensive brand-name 
     drug has received at least five years of market exclusivity 
     in the developing nation. Under the agreements, the 
     developing nations will often have to wait longer than the 
     United States to gain access to low-cost versions of 
     essential medications.
       Require patent extensions. CAFTA and the other four signed 
     trade agreements, as well as the Andean proposal, require the 
     developing nations to grant patent extensions to the 
     manufacturers of brand-name drugs to account for delays in 
     the regulatory approval process in the developing nation. 
     These provisions can extend the term of patents in the 
     developing nations beyond their duration in the United 
     States.
       Link drug approval to patent status. CAFTA and the other 
     four signed trade agreements, as well as the Andean proposal 
     and the FTAA draft, require drug regulatory authorities in 
     the developing nations to adjudicate patents despite their 
     lack of expertise in the area of patent enforcement, placing 
     an additional constraint on the approval and availability of 
     low-cost generics.
       Restrict compulsory licensing. The Singapore agreement, the 
     Andean proposal, and the FTAA draft limit the circumstances 
     under which developing nations can issue compulsory licenses 
     authorizing generic manufacturers to produce low-cost 
     versions of patented drugs.
       Prohibit parallel importation. The trade agreements with 
     Morocco and Singapore, as well as the Andean proposal and the 
     FTAA draft, prevent the developing nations from importing 
     patented drugs from abroad at the lowest available price.
       Expand patent protections. The Andean proposal has a 
     provision that would require the Andean nations to issue 
     patents for diagnostic, therapeutic, and surgical methods 
     that are currently exempted from patentability.
       Taken together, these trade provisions will significantly 
     impede the ability of developing countries to obtain access 
     to inexpensive, lifesaving medications. Contrary to the 
     principles of the Doha Declaration, these provisions in the 
     trade agreements advance the financial interests of large 
     multinational drug companies at the expense of the developing 
     world's ability to address public health problems.

  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, Congress debated the North American Free 
Trade Agreement in 1993, I wrote an op-ed titled ``Not This Treaty, Not 
Now,'' arguing that NAFTA's time had not come, that the U.S. and Canada 
should require Mexico to meet certain preconditions before agreeing to 
the trade deal. Over the objections of those who argued NAFTA should be 
used to leverage reforms in Mexico, it passed without enforceable 
provisions to protect labor rights or the environment. Supporters of 
the agreement insisted NAFTA would create millions of good jobs, help 
stem illegal immigration and raise living standards ``from the Yukon to 
the Yucatan.''
  A decade later, NAFTA's promise is largely unrealized. Environmental 
conditions in Mexico have worsened, real wages have stagnated, the 
income disparity between the U.S. and Mexico has widened, and illegal 
immigration shows no signs of slowing. Clearly, NAFTA is not all that 
advocates claimed.
  The broken promises of NAFTA should serve as a warning, and cast 
doubt on similar claims that the recently negotiated Central American 
Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) will do what NAFTA has not.
  Our Central American neighbors have made real economic and political 
progress in recent years, and the U.S. should work to re-enforce that 
progress. But as with NAFTA, CAFTA brings together countries with 
greatly varying labor and environmental standards and enforcement 
methods. This disparity necessitates strong and enforceable provisions 
to protect workers and the environment. As did NAFTA, CAFTA comes up 
short.
  CAFTA's penalties for failing to enforce labor and environmental laws 
provide no real deterrent against future abuses; it offers no 
incentives to improve standards over time. In fact, CAFTA weakens labor 
protections by removing an existing oversight mechanism available under 
our current system of trade preferences for the region.
  CAFTA also incorporates NAFTA's troubling Chapter 11 provisions, 
which effectively give foreign investors the right to challenge U.S. 
health, safety and environmental laws. California has been at the 
forefront of efforts to protect its communities from air and water 
pollution, yet CAFTA gives foreign investors the right to challenge our 
state law if it affects their commercial interests.
  Free and fair trade can lift living standards both at home and 
abroad, encourage technological innovation, create jobs and empower 
individuals. But each agreement must be considered on its merits. 
Bilateral agreements with Chile, Singapore, Jordan, and Australia; 
normal trade relations with China; and renewal of ``fast track'' 
approval were issues I supported.

  But trade is not fair if desperate people are forced to work in 
hazardous conditions or communities are forced to bear the costs of 
environmental degradation. In the context of lax enforcement of labor 
and environmental regulations, free trade can provide perverse 
incentives to impose the costs of production onto workers, communities 
and the environment. Such incentives serve neither the economic 
interests of the U.S. nor our trading partners.
  Mr. Speaker, with respect to CAFTA, I echo my refrain from 10 years 
ago: ``Not this treaty, and not now.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). All time for debate has 
expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 386, the bill is considered read, and 
the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on H.R. 3045 will be followed by a 5-minute vote on 
suspending the rules on H. Res. 308.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 217, 
noes 215, not voting 2, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 443]

                               AYES--217

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Cox
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Matheson
     McCaul (TX)
     McCrery
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Meeks (NY)
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skelton
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Towns
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

[[Page H6928]]



                               NOES--215

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jindal
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (WI)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Ney
     Norwood
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Otter
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Davis, Jo Ann
     Taylor (NC)

                              {time}  0003

  Mr. HAYES changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                          ____________________