[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15294-15295]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 CENTRAL AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise to speak a moment about why I am 
strongly opposed to the Dominican Republic/Central American Free Trade 
Agreement Implementation Bill, or CAFTA it is often referred to. CAFTA 
threatens a proud heritage and a way of life in Louisiana that dates 
back more than 250 years. Our great-great-great grandfathers were 
raising cane long before our country was even born. Since 1751, 
Louisiana sugar cane farmers have been farming the fertile soil of our 
great State. Before the marble Walls of Congress were ever erected, 
Louisianans built an industry that would weather hurricanes, the Great 
Depression and even the Civil War.
  These farmers have good reason to be proud. American sugar producers 
are among the most efficient in the world.

[[Page 15295]]

Two-thirds of the world's more than 100 sugar-producing countries 
produce at a higher cost than the U.S. And in my State of Louisiana, 
farmers produce about 20 percent of the sugar grown in the United 
States and currently rank fourth in the Nation in production of sugar, 
producing an average revenue of $750 million per year.
  But today, we are prepared to deal this proud industry a death blow. 
We are talking about undoing centuries of tradition and stripping away 
jobs from efficient Louisiana farmers. As passed, this trade agreement 
would have a serious and harmful effect on sugar producers in my State: 
CAFTA will equal job loss and financial despair for 27,000 Louisiana 
sugar workers and farmers. Along with additional bilateral trade 
agreements, CAFTA could cost my State $750 million in direct sugar 
sales, as well as $2 billion in industry-related revenue each year.
  In any trade negotiation, there are losses and there are wins. 
Oftentimes we are willing to accept the impacts these deals might have 
on our domestic producers because in the long run the good outweighs 
the bad. But that is not the case. CAFTA is a relatively small trade 
deal with a group of countries whose combined economies are smaller 
than that of New Haven, CT. Nearly half of all Central Americans earn 
less than $2 a day, and they simply cannot afford the meats or crops we 
have to sell. That is why the Louisiana Farm Bureau has joined other 
State farm bureaus, the National Association of State Departments of 
Agriculture, and numerous national farm groups in opposing CAFTA. Even 
our own Government's economic estimates say that CAFTA will mean little 
to agriculture or to our country as a whole; and these are known to be 
quite optimistic estimates. That is because as the administration 
points out time and time again--we already dominate the import market 
of this poor region.
  According to estimates by the U.S. International Trade Commission, 
CAFTA would actually increase our trade deficit with Central America 
while benefiting our economy by less than one-hundredth of 1 percent. 
That is worth repeating again. The administration's economists say that 
CAFTA will increase our trade deficit with the region while boosting 
our own economy by less than 0.01 percent.
  This same study concluded that for other farmers CAFTA would have ``a 
negligible impact on total U.S. production and employment.'' Why then 
are we talking about dismantling my State's sugar industry? U.S. 
farmers and ranchers get little in return for sending thousands to the 
ranks of the unemployed.
  So what we have here is another raw deal for Louisiana sugar. I urge 
my colleagues to take a long, hard look at our country's current 
agricultural trade agenda. This year, the USDA says America will import 
as much food as we export. The agricultural trade surplus that stood at 
$27 billion less than 10 years ago is now gone. The promises made to 
farmers during the NAFTA debates have come up flat. And the promises 
that will be made today about CAFTA are contradicted by the 
administration's own estimates.
  In closing, let me say I support free trade, so long as it is fair. 
Fair free trade requires that all players operate on as equal and level 
a playing field as possible, accountable to the same labor laws, 
environmental standards, and governmental intervention. To sacrifice 
even one job for a trade deal that will deepen our agricultural trade 
deficit is a travesty. And, having to tell thousands of hard-working 
farmers in Louisiana that they must look for work, because sugar was 
used as a bargaining chip, is unacceptable.

                          ____________________