Congressional Record, Volume 151 Issue 104 (Wednesday, July 27, 2005)

[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

(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

(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

(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.

____________________