[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 106 (Friday, July 29, 2005)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1672-E1673]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




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

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. MARK UDALL

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, July 28, 2005

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 
3045, the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade 
Agreement Implementation Act, DR-CAFTA. Deciding how to vote on this 
has not been easy, but ultimately I believe that the bad in the 
agreement outweighs the good.
  I definitely believe free trade brings benefits, but in this case I 
question who would get those benefits. I agree that open markets have 
helped lift up the lives of people in many countries of the world. But 
I am also alarmed about the growing economic inequality within and 
between countries. Unless free trade is also fair trade, we risk 
lifting up the few to the detriment of the many.
  I think that an improved commercial relationship with the Dominican 
Republic and the five Central American countries could benefit our 
economy and U.S. farmers, workers, and manufacturers. But I am 
concerned about a number of provisions of DR-CAFTA. The agreement will 
help some U.S. agricultural industries, services markets, and high 
technology, chemical, medical and scientific equipment companies, among 
others. But it will harm other agricultural markets, and could have a 
detrimental impact on small Central American farmers as well. We ought 
to be encouraging rural economic development in this part of the world, 
not undercutting it.
  The most problematic aspect of DR-CAFTA is that the administration 
failed to incorporate internationally recognized labor standards. Nor 
does the agreement clearly require any country to maintain and enforce 
a set of basic environmental regulations. America's interests are

[[Page E1673]]

not simply about the bottom line. The U.S. should also be concerned 
about maintaining and enhancing the high mark set by American workers. 
While expanded trade is important to this country and the world, it 
will only be beneficial to a broad range of people in our Nation and 
abroad if it is carefully shaped to include basic standards and 
adequately protect the rights of workers and the environment. This 
agreement does not meet that test.
  DR-CAFTA would also allow foreign investors to challenge our laws and 
regulations before international tribunals, bypassing domestic courts, 
if they believe U.S. laws on labor, environmental protections, and 
public health and safety reduce the value of their investments. The 
U.S. has already spent millions defending our laws from NAFTA, which 
includes a similar provision. Foreign companies have sued the U.S. over 
California's ban of MTBE, a California law regulating harmful gold 
mining practices, and the Agriculture Department's decision to close 
the border to Canadian beef due to concerns about mad cow disease.
  DR-CAFTA also creates a challenge to the safety of the American food 
supply because it is silent on the issue of imported goods meeting the 
rigorous food safety and sanitary rules of the United States Department 
of Agriculture. This agreement takes a step backward in our efforts to 
provide the American consumer with the safest food possible.
  Finally, the agreement includes a provision precluding generic 
pharmaceutical products from obtaining regulatory marketing approval 
for a 5-8 year period if approval has been granted for a brand name 
drug in that market. Especially since low-cost generics are already 
available in the DR-CAFTA countries, this provision will only serve to 
make drugs unavailable and unaffordable for most Central Americans, who 
are suffering in great numbers from HIV/AIDS and untreated diabetes, 
among other maladies. While market access for U.S. goods is important, 
we shouldn't be in the business of potentially undermining a country's 
ability to provide prescription drugs to its citizens.

  As part of a long-term strategy to strengthen the American economy, I 
have supported a number of agreements to expand access to foreign 
markets for exports from our nation's farmers and businesses. But DR-
CAFTA is one I cannot support.
  I don't want this country to miss out on economic opportunities, but 
the problems with this agreement are real, and I don't believe this 
agreement will create the opportunities its proponents have touted. In 
the end, our progress together has to be about raising, and not 
lowering wages, reducing and not adding to the world's poverty, making 
more ``haves'' and fewer ``have-nots.''
  I do believe in actively shaping globalization, not passively closing 
our doors. Although I cannot support DR-CAFTA today, I remain committed 
to this activist course and hope the Administration will present us 
with an agreement that deserves our support.

                          ____________________