[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 16286-16287]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           RENEGOTIATE CAFTA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, last year this Congress was promised 
a vote on the Central American Free Trade Agreement by the end of 2004. 
December 31 came and went. Then at a White House news conference in 
May, President Bush called on Congress to pass the Central American 
Free Trade Agreement by Memorial Day. Memorial Day came and went. In 
June, Congress was once again promised a vote which was supposed to 
have been before the July 4 recess. The July 4 recess came and went.
  Now we understand a vote on the Central American Free Trade Agreement 
could come in front of the House next week.
  The many of us who have been speaking out against CAFTA have a 
message for this Congress: renegotiate CAFTA.
  Those of us opposed to this CAFTA do want a trade agreement with 
Central America, do want to trade with the five Central American 
countries and the Dominican Republic; but we want an agree that 
benefits the many, not the few.
  This agreement was negotiated and written by a select few. This 
agreement benefits those same select few. As the President travels the 
Nation trying to sell this CAFTA to the American public, he is hearing 
firsthand from U.S. workers, from family farmers, from small business 
owners, especially small manufacturers, from ranchers, from religious 
leaders that they do not want this CAFTA either. Their message is loud 
and clear: renegotiate CAFTA.
  In response to the President's trip this past Friday to North 
Carolina, a New York Times headline reads, ``Bush Sells Trade Pact in 
Hostile Territory.'' That is what the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Jones) spoke about earlier, a Republican from North Carolina. A 
Huntsville, Alabama Times editorial in Sunday's paper reads, ``Say No 
to the Central American Free Trade Agreement.'' Again, a newspaper 
understanding that the free trade agreement is not good for Alabama. It 
is not good for the South. It is not good for Tennessee. It is not good 
for this country.

                              {time}  2000

  A Wall Street Journal headline today reads, and this is a newspaper 
that is always supportive of trade agreements, ``CAFTA Is No Cure-all 
For Central America.''
  This CAFTA represents more than a decade of failed U.S. trade 
policies. Look what has happened with our

[[Page 16287]]

trade policies in the last dozen years. In 1992, the year I was elected 
to Congress, the U.S. had a $38 billion trade deficit. That means we 
exported $38 billion less than we imported. Twelve years later, in 
2004, that trade deficit went from $28 billion in a dozen years to $618 
billion. That translates directly into lost jobs; more than 200,000 
lost jobs in the district of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop), 
more than 220,000 lost jobs in the district of the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) and the district of the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Emanuel). It is clear our trade policy is simply not working.
  CAFTA languished in Congress for more than a year, then passed the 
Senate last month by the narrowest margin ever of any trade agreement 
because this wrong-headed trade agreement does not work for Republicans 
or Democrats. It offends Republicans, dozens of Republicans in this 
body, and it offends dozens of Democrats in this body.
  We know this agreement is a continuation of its dysfunctional cousin, 
NAFTA, another failed trade policy of the last dozen years. It is the 
same old story. Every time there is a trade agreement, the President 
says it will mean more manufacturing products that we will export 
overseas. Every time there is a trade agreement the President says it 
will mean more jobs for Americans. And every time there is a trade 
agreement the President says it will raise the standard of living in 
the developing countries. Yet with every trade agreement their promises 
fall by the wayside in favor of large corporate interests that send 
U.S. jobs overseas and exploit cheap labor abroad.
  This CAFTA is simply, as the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) 
pointed out, about exploiting cheap labor abroad. This CAFTA will not 
enable the Central American or Nicaraguan, or Honduras, or Guatemala 
workers to buy cars made in Ohio. It will not allow those workers to 
buy software developed in Seattle. It will not mean more prime beef 
exports from Nebraska, because those workers simply cannot afford to 
buy those products. This CAFTA, instead, is about U.S. companies moving 
plants to Honduras, outsourcing jobs to Nicaragua, and exploiting cheap 
labor in Guatemala.
  Desperate after failing to gin up support for the agreement based on 
its merits, CAFTA supporters are now attempting to buy votes with 
fantastic promises. And if that fails, they will twist arms. Count on 
this; this is a prediction: They will call the vote in the middle of 
the night, hold the rollcall open for hours to pass a bad agreement 
that will benefit only a select few.
  Instead, Mr. Speaker, we should throw out this failed agreement and 
negotiate a better CAFTA. When the world's poorest people can buy 
American products and not just make them, we will know then that our 
trade policies are working.

                          ____________________