[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 17197-17202]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        CAFTA IS BAD FOR AMERICA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Poe). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to my colleague from 
the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. 
Pomeroy), as much time as he shall consume.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleagues who have just 
completed their hour discussing on the House floor tonight why we 
should enact CAFTA.
  Clearly, they were sincere, yet the arguments discussed essentially 
have been the same arguments advanced for why these negotiations even 
began now 2 years, 18 months ago, certainly being concluded well over a 
year ago.
  It is an enormous privilege to serve on the Ways and Means Committee, 
the committee of jurisdiction on trade matters. And during the period 
of time, the extended period of time this has

[[Page 17198]]

been before the Congress, it has given us a chance to look at this 
agreement pretty closely.
  I could spend my time tonight going into the whats, and the whereases 
and the what-fors, but I think it might be more fruitful to discuss 
this in the broader perspective, perspective first of all involving the 
track we are on relative to our trade agreements and our Nation's 
economy.
  Then, secondly, a particular for instance in terms of where this is 
just more of the same, in terms of our loss of jobs, loss of economic 
opportunity here at home, and then finally to discuss the process, a 
process that I think raises serious questions about this trade 
agreement.
  Well, let us start with the broad pattern. We have been on a track of 
these trade deals, part of our participation in the global economy, for 
some years now. A recent commentator contrasted the approach taken by 
the United States with that of most other nations. It would just seem 
natural that as you stroll to the table and negotiate on behalf of the 
country you represent, that you advocate the nation's interests, the 
nation's jobs, the nation's opportunity to sell more under these 
agreements. And most nations do precisely that.
  But this commentator contrasted the United States, where it is not 
just local interests that are represented by the big multinational 
corporations based in this country, it may be a U.S. corporation, but 
may be jobs all across the world.
  Whether or not the interests of the multinational corporations have 
been advanced, the record is clear. The interest of the American worker 
and American opportunities have not been advanced. Just look at the 
trade numbers. Could you possibly have a clearer indicator as to 
whether this is working or not than the trade numbers? And what do they 
tell us? They tell us that our trade deficit, the amount we buy more 
than we sell, has never been greater in the history of our country.
  Now, we have been at this awhile, these trade deals. A friend of mine 
says there is not a trade deal ever negotiated that our silk-shirted 
Ivy League-educated negotiators could not lose in half an hour. You 
certainly seem to think there might be truth in that when you look at 
the job loss that has just wrecked the economies of important parts of 
our country and led us to a net position, again, where we are buying 
more than we are selling to a dimension never before seen in the 
history of the United States.
  I represent an agriculture State, North Dakota. We had, growing up 
when I was a kid in school, we thought of ourselves as North Dakota, 
bread basket to the world. We were very proud of the role we played in 
feeding the world. So let us just break out this agriculture component 
of our economy, take a look at that one. This year, 2005, we are on the 
brink of importing more food than we export.
  The United States of America as a net food importer. Can you imagine 
something more screwed up than that? Clearly, this trade path that we 
are on is not working, and quite clearly CAFTA is more of the same.
  You know, my friends that just took the preceding hour, they took 
about the 44 million new customers, the 44 million new customers. You 
know, we did not just learn of these places down there; heck, we have 
been dealing with them for years and years and years.
  We have got about 94 percent of their wheat market, just to reference 
a commodity important in North Dakota. How much more are we going to 
get? They are not 44 million new customers. These are long-established 
trading partners of the United States. But what is at issue is what we 
are going to do relative to opening the flood gates to their 
production, to the further displacement of our workers and our 
opportunities.
  And let me give you a for instance, because it is an industry I 
represent, the sugar industry. Of all of the commodities of 
agriculture, sugar is one of the higher value opportunities for the 
American farmer. And I represent people, third generation, fourth 
generation on the land, families that broke the prairie under the 
Homestead Act to begin their family's farming experience and now making 
a go of it because they raise sugar beets in the Red River Valley.
  This is an industry that they have grown by blood, sweat and toil and 
risks, enormous financial risk. They had farmers not just raising the 
sugar beets, but when they had an opportunity, they acquired the 
processing neck of the business. So as a cooperative, farmers joining 
together, they actually bought the sugar refinery.

                              {time}  2145

  That is the place that makes the refined sugar. They put it into the 
market. Now they control the marketing of it as well.
  This entire sugar industry from the Red River Valley sugar beet 
growers, from the workers in the plants today, to the sugar cane 
growers down in the South Central and Southeastern part of country, to 
the sugar beet growers out in the Northwestern United States, 
significant areas of the country broadly affected by the threat to 
sugar. Because what is at stake in CAFTA is opening up the border for 
yet an additional allotment for sugar to come pouring in from the CAFTA 
countries, countries whose labor wages have no relation to ours, whose 
environmental protections in their plants are no relation to ours, 
whose costs are often subsidized to get them down to global dump price.
  And I have seen the context of the CAFTA debate argument that what 
the United States needs is to resort to the global dump price at the 
end of domestic production of sugar in this country. When will it end? 
When we decide are U.S. jobs worth fighting for, and the economic hopes 
and dreams of our families are what we ought to be representing? If it 
is not good for us, why are we doing it? And when it comes to sugar, 
believe you me, just look right across the opinion of the United Sugar 
Industry in this country. They do not believe this is good for us. They 
believe it is the beginning of an end to domestic production of sugar 
in this country.
  What that means in the Red River Valley, we are talking Fargo, Grand 
Forks, North Dakota, not large places, is a direct and indirect 
economic impact of up to 2- to $3 billion, direct jobs 2,500, indirect 
jobs maybe 30,000 in the area I represent. Just another chapter in this 
global trade path we are on that has cost us so much and brought us the 
deepest deficit in the history of the country.
  Now, you might say, well, those are interesting arguments, but these 
other guys say something quite different. And so who do we believe? I 
would just say look at how this bill CAFTA is being handled. It was 
negotiated in the spring of 2004 and concluded in late spring, early 
summer. If this was such a point of pride for our trade negotiators who 
brought this agreement home, why in the world did President Bush not, 
as an achievement of his administration, put it front and center in the 
election campaign and run it up to Congress for a vote?
  They ran the Australia trade agreement for a vote. That was 
negotiated after CAFTA. Why did they keep CAFTA like a dark family 
secret in the back room, out of the way, out of public view after the 
election? I believe it is because they knew that the American people 
knew this was another raw deal, another trade deal that was a raw deal; 
and, therefore, out of sight, out of mind. Let us get the votes. Let us 
win the election. We will bring it up and run it through later. That is 
a pretty callous way, I think, to deal with something so important to 
the people of this country, but that is what they have done.
  Now, here we are 7 months into the new year, and just now they are 
running up for a vote. What has delayed them now that the election is 
so long past? Very simple. They do not have the votes. Why do they not 
have the votes? Because the American people understand that we have the 
deepest trade deficit in the history of the country. They understand 
that their jobs are not safe. They understand that their friends have 
lost jobs. They understand that industries are being dislocated. And as 
a result they do not have much time or attention for this CAFTA.

[[Page 17199]]

  The House of Representatives is a very imperfect place, but there is 
one thing that this place captures, and that is what the American 
people are thinking. And that is why, beginning this last week before 
the August recess, the majority, the majority who have dictated so much 
in terms of vote outcomes, did not know whether they have the votes to 
pass CAFTA. And I believe they do not or we would have had it up for a 
vote this afternoon.
  The Members of this body know that CAFTA is a loser for the American 
people. And so what are we hearing in these final hours before the 
CAFTA vote? I want the American people to understand what is at stake 
just as I discuss it with my colleagues. They have directly linked 
China to CAFTA. There is no linkage to China and CAFTA. We are upset 
about China. We are worried about the trade imbalance with China. CAFTA 
gives us a deeper trade imbalance, in my view, with CAFTA countries. It 
has nothing to do with China. They are trying cross-linkages, anything 
to try and get votes. Even more insidious.
  There is a highway bill in conference committee. One of the things 
each and every Member represents is thousands and thousands of miles of 
roads back in their home districts. It is very important for each of 
us, Republican and Democrat alike, from every corner of the country, 
that we get our local needs attended to in the highway bill.
  Now, do you think the highway bill is being held up because there is 
a problem with the highway bill? Absolutely not. The highway bill is 
being held up to leverage votes for CAFTA. This trade deal, so 
important for American jobs, is being bartered for highway projects in 
far-flung congressional districts.
  This is no way for us to look at the future of U.S. trade. We can do 
better than that. It is just wrong to link Federal highway 
appropriations to preferred votes on trade deals. It is absolutely 
wrong.
  Now we are hearing that it is going to be brought up for a vote late 
at night, in the early morning hours of the last minutes before we 
break for August recess. I fully expect that you might see this up for 
a vote between 2 and 3 in the morning maybe, or 4 and 5 in the morning 
if they have not corralled the votes before we leave town.
  Can you imagine this body acting any more disgracefully than to hold 
the debate, run it when people are not watching, try and break the arms 
required to pass the deal, and then leave town under cloak of darkness 
for a month to hope the heat cools down because we have passed another 
bad deal for the American people?
  I would hope and I would urge those who really determine the outcome 
of this fight, those who tonight find themselves caught between 
standing for their constituents and what their constituents want and 
what their leadership tells them they have to do, I would urge them to 
do the thing that you could never lose by doing: Stand with your 
constituents. They are the ones that sent you here. They are the ones 
we pledged to support. They are the ones who are counting on you 
tonight.
  I was as a freshman in a Democrat majority. We have been in the 
minority for more than 10 years. And I believe we are in the minority 
in part because our leaders thought there were times when we had to 
vote for the majority instead of voting for those who sent us here.
  I urge my Republican colleagues who are on the fence on this trade 
deal, getting tremendous pressure from the leadership, I urge you to 
stand your ground, stand with your constituents. They need you. They 
need you badly on this vote.
  To the Democrat and Republican Members who have already signaled that 
we are opposed to this deal, we are opposed to another sell-out of our 
economy, we are opposed to another rolling over of the concerns about 
American workers, I urge you to dig down and work harder than we have 
ever worked before.
  We are on the brink of winning this important vote. What happens if 
we do? It is not like relations end, for heaven's sake, with our near 
neighbors. We go back to the table and we get a deal we can all be 
proud of, one that has some fundamental protections for our country. 
That is all that happens if we defeat this deal. So let us stand 
together and win one, by golly. The American economy and the American 
workers deserve no less.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for his 
excellent statement.
  It is now my pleasure to yield to another colleague who comes across 
the country from the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), about 
as far east as you can get from the Dakotas, I think, the gentleman 
from Maine (Mr. Michaud).
  Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, earlier this evening we heard an hour debate of why 
Congress and the American people should support CAFTA. And to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) I would like to say, as Paul Harvey 
would say, Now the rest of the story.
  I want to thank my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Levin), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means. He 
has been a remarkable advocate for issues affecting working families. 
This week the House is expected to vote on a trade agreement that only 
promises job losses and devastation.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in strong opposition to CAFTA. I rise 
tonight for all Mainers who have lost their jobs. I rise for all 
working Americans and their families, many who are still working at 
this late hour to help make ends meet. And I know what it is like 
myself. For almost 30 years I worked at Great Northern Paper Company in 
East Millinocket, Maine, where my father worked for 43 years, my 
grandfather before him for 40 years. And that is the way it is in a lot 
of mill towns in Maine and all across the country.
  Two days after I was sworn in as a Member of Congress in January of 
2003, I learned that the mill where I worked filed bankruptcy and was 
shutting its doors. The mill was closed largely due to the pressure 
created by unfair trade agreements, years of poorly thought-out trade 
deals that placed manufacturing industries at a huge disadvantage. And 
one would only have to look at the huge trade deficits that are 
continuing to grow ever since NAFTA went into effect.
  I know firsthand, as many Mainers do, that with these layoffs and 
closures, when these businesses go under because of unfair trade deals, 
so does the heart and souls of these communities. In Maine alone, since 
1998 and to late 2004, the Federal Government had documented 11,724 
workers who lost their job due to trade. Although the real undocumented 
number is much higher, it has been estimated that 24,000 Mainers have 
lost their jobs due to NAFTA alone.
  The number serves to demonstrate yet again what people in Maine 
already know through our own tough experience. The economy continues to 
struggle and our workers see fewer good prospects. Maine has lost 23 
percent of our manufacturing base over the last 3 years alone.
  Now, I heard my colleague who supported CAFTA earlier talk about the 
unemployment going down. Well, I can say my first year in Congress we 
had labor market areas in Maine whose unemployment rate was over 35 
percent. And the reason why the number is lower today is not because 
they have found jobs, it is because this Congress, the previous 
Congress, has failed to extend the unemployment benefits, so they are 
no longer counted as being unemployed. They just drop off the list.
  We are sick of watching our jobs get shipped overseas as our workers 
stand waving good-bye to them. It is time to get off the fast track of 
lost jobs and shattered dreams and on to the right track for fair trade 
agreements.
  When it comes to CAFTA, the benefit is pretty hard to find. Despite 
having 44 million inhabitants, the CAFTA nations' total purchasing 
power is the same as New Haven, Connecticut. More than 40 percent of 
the Central American workers work for less than $2 a day. CAFTA 
outsources our jobs to

[[Page 17200]]

cheap labor markets with almost nonexisting environmental or labor 
standards.

                              {time}  2200

  How could such a bad deal for our workers pass?
  In recent days, the administration authorized House leadership to 
secure votes with whatever is at hand, from extra funding, as you heard 
earlier, for individual Members' districts in the highway projects and 
energy bill, to the still incomplete appropriations bills. Members are 
being asked to trade away their votes for agreements that trade 
American jobs away. This is just unbelievable.
  Tomorrow, the House is expected to vote on H.R. 3283, the so-called 
United States Trade Rights Enforcement Act. This bill does nothing to 
effectively address China's unfair trade practices and their adverse 
impact on U.S. workers and manufacturers and the Nation's economy. In 
fact, it makes it harder to stop unfair Chinese trade practices. But it 
has a good-sounding title.
  This bill is an effort to sway votes for CAFTA, giving Members a fig 
leaf to hide behind so they can say they are standing up against unfair 
trade agreements. It is nothing but smoke and mirrors. Smoke and 
mirrors.
  Two years ago, these tactics worked to pass the deeply flawed 
Medicare bill by one vote. Leadership held open a 15-minute vote for 3 
hours while they twisted arms in order to ensure passage. It is 
expected the same will happen with the CAFTA vote. Is this the way the 
people of the House should be acting? Is this in the best interest of 
our Nation?
  What message does this send the American people and our workforce and 
our businesses? And why must these votes always happen in the dark of 
night? It is because while working Americans sleep, their jobs are 
being traded away.
  Mr. Speaker, all Americans who are watching tonight should check for 
themselves. They should pay close attention to what time the CAFTA vote 
happens. They should ask themselves why under such cover of darkness 
should we be voting. It is said that midnight is the witching hour. 
Americans should wonder what kind of witchcraft is being passed on the 
House floor as we consider CAFTA in the dead of night.
  The administration may want this deal to pass as quickly as possible 
before more opposition mounts, but the people who have suffered the 
most under our trade policies, including many of my neighbors, my 
coworkers and my family, and many of the good people in Maine have 
earned the right to ask a simple question about what a new trade deal 
will mean to their families and get some real answers before we move 
forward.
  One of the things I hear a lot of people say is that large stable 
companies, like Great Northern was, where I worked for over 30 years, 
will never move overseas because it is too costly. I can tell my 
colleagues firsthand that the mill I worked at had six paper machines. 
They uplifted four of them and shipped them overseas. The mill in 
Millinocket, the Great Northern Paper Company's other mill, did the 
same thing. It is nothing for large corporations to unbolt their 
machines and ship them overseas so they can get that cheap labor.
  We heard earlier that in some of these CAFTA countries labor is less 
than $2 a day. That is exploiting workers. It is not to benefit the 
CAFTA nations. It definitely will not benefit the United States of 
America. So I hope Members on both sides of the aisle will take a good 
hard look at this trade policy because we cannot sell-out the American 
workers. We cannot sell out the American Dream that we have.
  We must reverse these trade policies to once again put the United 
States of America on the path of growth. The only way we are going to 
be a secure country, the only way we are going to be able to be 
respected among other nations, like we have in the past, is to make 
sure that we have a strong economy.
  When we look at what happened during World War II, what made this 
country the greatest country in the world, with our Greatest 
Generation, was the ability for Americans back home to work in our 
manufacturing industry, to work hand in hand. But what are we going to 
do if we continue to ship these jobs overseas? It is going to weaken 
the United States' ability to be the number one leader as far as our 
national defense.
  We must vote this CAFTA deal down, regardless of what time in the 
morning it comes up and regardless of how long the leadership holds the 
vote open. We must do what is right, and what is right is fair trade 
agreements.
  So I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and I will be with him 
voting against CAFTA.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for his 
eloquent statement.
  Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity tonight to listen to an hour 
that was presided over by my colleague on the Committee on Ways and 
Means on the majority side, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner), and 
his fellow Republicans and the statements of my colleagues on the 
Democratic side. It has been refreshing in this sense, that we have 
talked about the issues. I very much disagree with the statements of 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner) and others, and I will get to 
that; but at least we have been talking about issues.
  In the last few days, when it comes to CAFTA, that is not what the 
administration or the Republican majority have been doing. Instead, we 
have learned about a number of deals that have been cut, one of them 
relating to dams and locks in return for a vote; or if not in return, 
that being taken into account if the vote was cast.
  We have heard the administration make statements regarding fabrics, 
regarding apparel and textiles. They have made commitments that they 
cannot on their own keep. And if history is any judge, they are 
unlikely to do so. They have made a commitment, for example, regarding 
pockets and linings, essentially reopening the agreement, saying that 
they are going to secure that change. However, the truth of the matter 
is it would take action by this Congress to do that, and not under Fast 
Track; and also there would have to be agreement by the six DR-CAFTA 
countries.
  Regarding a provision of concern to Nicaragua, the administration has 
made some statement that Nicaragua will more or less back off. However, 
it is only for Nicaragua to make that statement.
  And then there has been the same process regarding sugar in order to 
try to win some votes from people who object to the provisions on 
sugar. There have been statements about some adjustments that will be 
made or some further actions that will be taken. Again, they are not in 
the agreement. There is nothing that this administration can really say 
that it can be assured of producing.
  Oh, and then I guess it was today I read about discussions relating 
to agricultural shipments to Cuba and some bargaining back and forth 
between some of the Members of this Congress and the administration 
regarding that.
  So while I very much disagree with the statements in almost every 
case made by the majority regarding CAFTA, in a way they were talking 
about issues and they were not talking about bait being offered for 
people to cast their vote.
  I want to talk about what is really, as I see it, and my colleagues 
in so many cases see it, as the overriding issue. Why are so many of us 
who have worked for expanded trade, who have helped to shape trade 
agreements opposed to this agreement? There are economic aspects, and 
one can argue them various ways. I suggest that they be kept to the 
economic data in perspective. One estimate is that in terms of GDP, the 
impact of CAFTA on the U.S. would be less than one-fifth of 1 percent. 
As to Central American countries, there is evidence on all sides of the 
issue, including dislocation, that would occur.
  But, again, I want to talk about the larger issue, and that is where 
globalization is today and where it is going. Because here at CAFTA, 
globalization is at a crossroads, and

[[Page 17201]]

that is why so many of us who have worked for expanded trade feel that 
we needed to take a hard look to judge whether this agreement was going 
to shape globalization so, as was put by President Clinton some years 
ago, it would level up, not level down.
  I think the basic assumption of many proponents of CAFTA is, well, 
that does not really matter because trade is win-win; that there is no 
possible loss; that trade inevitably works out for everybody's benefit. 
But for those of us who, I say, have worked and often worked very hard 
and successfully to shape expanded trade the right way, we believe this 
does it the wrong way; that you need to shape trade agreements so it is 
not a race to the bottom.
  And that is why the issues relating to worker rights are so 
important. That is what this basic issue is really all about. This is 
why Central America, Dominican Republic and CAFTA, matter so much in 
terms of where trade is going. Regarding the CAFTA countries, we are 
now talking about countries in a region that has, Latin America, the 
worst income distribution of any region in the world. We are talking 
about within most of the countries immense maldistribution of income. 
We are talking about immense poverty. There is a weak middle class in 
most of the countries.
  It was interesting to read a Wall Street Journal article just a week 
ago. The headline was: ``In Latin America, Rich-Poor Chasm Stifles 
Growth,'' and I quote: ``Because of an abundance of natural resources 
and a large indigenous population, Latin American nations group up 
relying on raw materials, cheap manual labor to exploit them, and low 
government taxation. The system concentrated land ownership and wealth 
in a few hands, deprived governments of money to spend on education and 
other incentives, and essentially ordered the incentives for the elite 
to invest not in human capital or technology. Latin America has also 
historically relied on monopolies and franchises, leaving few 
opportunities for entrepreneurs to advance through hard work and 
innovation.''
  If you look at the history of trade agreements, there has been an 
effort to begin to have them relate to workers, to take into account 
the capital of workers as well as financial capital. And so in recent 
years, we had agreements, Jordan, Cambodia, which essentially said to 
countries: look, take steps to make sure that workers have their basic 
rights.
  We are not talking about the laws of the United States; we are 
talking about the five core internationally recognized rights: no child 
labor, also no forced labor, no discrimination in the workplace, and 
also, so importantly, the rights of workers to associate and to 
organize.
  And what has happened is that this agreement is a step backwards from 
where we were going, a step backwards from Jordan, a step backwards 
from the Cambodia experiment, and also a step backwards from CBI and 
the second CBI, and what is called the ``generalized system of 
preferences.'' What this agreement says to a country when it comes to 
these basic rights of workers is, enforce your own laws, no matter what 
they are, no matter how bad they are. That is the standard: enforce 
your own laws.
  That standard is not used in any other part of the agreement, whether 
it is intellectual properties or investments or tariffs or subsidies. 
Here it is: enforce your own laws.

                              {time}  2215

  There has been an effort to obscure what the reality is on the ground 
in Central America, but State Department reports make it clear, the ILO 
reports make it also very clear. There is a recent report of USTR 
itself that it was required to give to Congress. That report also makes 
it clear.
  In reality, workers do not have the ability to exercise 
internationally recognized rights. When they want to associate, 
essentially there can be action by the employer with impunity. In some 
cases all they have to do, if they fire workers who want to form a 
union, all they have to do is pay severance pay. That is the reality on 
the ground, and there are so many cases that prove it. In a Special 
Order that I took on some weeks ago, I spelled out one example in El 
Salvador.
  Why does this matter? Why is it important that workers in Central 
America have their basic internationally recognized rights? Here is why 
it matters.
  In these countries with immense poverty, in these countries with 
terrible maldistribution of income, in these countries with weak middle 
classes, if workers cannot exercise their rights, they are going to 
remain poor. Their countries are going to remain without the middle 
classes that they so badly need. Our workers are going to have to 
compete with workers whose rights are suppressed, and our workers are 
saying, no, they do not want to do that. And our companies and their 
workers are not going to have middles classes in Central America that 
can buy their goods.
  So I want to say a few more words about the implications of all this. 
There has been talk about security and stability. I want to say to my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle, what undermines stability and 
security is when people are impoverished, when people have no 
opportunity to climb up the ladder to the middle class.
  This was also in the Wall Street Journal, I read a letter to the 
editor by Rutilio Martinez, who is a professor in Colorado, and he was 
responding to an article about Chavez in Venezuela, and he is very much 
opposed to the Chavez regime. He concluded, ``The rest of Latin 
America, from Mexico to Argentina, should take notice what is happening 
in Venezuela and do something to improve their horrible distribution of 
wealth, otherwise soon there will be very many Venezuelas in this 
poverty-ridden but resource-rich region.''
  A major threat to security in Central American countries is terrible 
income distribution. It is also the absence of strong middle classes 
and the presence of immense poverty. There was talk about certain 
groups in Central America opposing this agreement.
  I just urge everybody to listen also to bishops who are there with 
their flock in Central America. I read from a recent joint statement 
concerning the Central American Free Trade Agreement by the Bishops' 
Secretariat of Central America and the chairman of the Domestic and 
International Policy Committees of the U.S. Conference of Catholic 
Bishops. ``In light of a recent visit to Washington, D.C., 23-24 June, 
2004, by a delegation of six bishops representing the Church in Central 
America, the Bishops' Secretariat of Central America and the chairman 
of Domestic and International Policy Committees of the United States 
Conference of Bishops wish to express with one voice our observations 
and concerns about the U.S.-Central American Free Trade Agreement.''
  I quote from just one of their concerns. This is in subsection 3. 
``Many have claimed that CAFTA will lead to a significant increase in 
jobs. However, these jobs could principally be in assembly plants, 
maquilas, which mainly employ women, and which offer an unstable form 
of employment. Without proper worker protections, we know from our own 
experience that this type of employment will not foster authentic human 
development.''
  It is said by some defenders of this agreement that the problem is 
not in the laws, it is enforcement. First of all, that is not true 
about the laws. No matter how much you put into enforcement, if the 
laws are inadequate, it will not work.
  But also this administration is really not candid about its claims 
about money for enforcement. It cut moneys for the entity within the 
Department of Labor that deals with capacity-building of labor 
departments of other countries. It proposed cuts of 87 percent, and now 
it is being suggested that some of that money be put back. The record 
of this administration in terms of trying to bolster enforcement is 
abysmal. They are now coming forth and saying, well, we will reform, so 
support CAFTA.
  The laws do not measure up to international standards. As I saw a few 
years ago in Central America in the maquilas in three of the countries, 
there are no rights of workers on the

[[Page 17202]]

ground in reality. They are working for 75 cents an hour, maybe a buck, 
mostly young women in the maquilas, many with children, sole supporter 
of their children. As soon as they tried to have a voice in the 
workplace, a voice at work, that voice is kicked out, is snuffed out by 
their discharge.
  Let me make just a few comments. Someone said, well, there are 44 
million people, and they cannot buy high-end goods. That is not the 
issue at all. Let me just read quickly from an article that is going to 
be published in the Sister City News, ``Dos Pueblos: The New York-
Tipitapa Nicaragua Sister City Project.'' Dos Pueblos is a nonprofit 
organization that began way back in 1987. They went to Nicaragua just 
recently and reported back, ``The salaries they receive, however, are 
covering fewer and fewer of their families' basic needs. While the 
minimum salary in 2003 covered 49.2 percent of the basic food basket, 
53 products identified as necessary to feed a family of four for a 
month, the minimum pay in 2005 is only covering 26 percent of these 
costs.'' So it is not a question of buying a Cadillac, it is a question 
of buying food.
  Mr. Speaker, it is tragic that this administration has handled trade 
and shattered the bipartisan foundation for trade that is so necessary, 
that is so vital that a number of us have wanted to help reestablish in 
this country. They have shattered that foundation.
  Now they are going to come here on this floor in just a few days, and 
what they are apparently going to try to do once again, instead of 
getting 250 to 300 votes on a truly bipartisan basis, they are going to 
essentially, headstrong, I think head-in-the-sand in terms of good 
trade policy, see if they can squeeze out a victory by one or two 
votes.
  That will not happen. If it did, it would be a defeat for the 
bipartisan foundation so essential for trade policy. It would be a 
defeat for the people of Central America, the workers there, for their 
countries that so badly need the development of a middle class, people 
moving up the ladder. It will be bad for our workers who refuse to 
compete against workers whose rights are so badly suppressed, and it 
will be bad for our companies who need middle classes to sell to.
  In closing, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner) said at the very end 
that people supported Morocco, people supported Jordan, I did, because 
in those countries the rights, the internationally recognized rights of 
workers were in place, so enforce your own laws, there were laws to 
implement. There were conditions that were worthy of international 
respect. That is not true in CAFTA. It is not true in Central America.
  We need to renegotiate. I am in favor of a CAFTA. So are others of my 
colleagues who have worked with me and who are leading this effort to 
make sure that CAFTA is defeated and we go back to the table and 
address these basic issues. Globalization is here to stay. The question 
is whether globalization is going to have its benefits spread, or 
essentially they are going to be distributed only to a minority.
  If that continues to happen in Latin America, we are going to see 
more people voting with their feet, or voting at the ballot box as they 
have been doing. People want a share of globalization. They want a 
stake in globalization. In order to have that, they have to have a 
voice in the workplace. So that is what this is all about. There are 
other issues, but there is this larger issue. There is a test here, a 
test presented by the CAFTA agreement. This administration flunked the 
test, and now they are just charging ahead hoping to capture a narrow 
victory. It will not happen. It will be a defeat.
  I urge we defeat CAFTA as negotiated and return to the table, which 
we can do, and refinish this agreement in about a month. In that way we 
can proudly say we met the challenges of globalization in this case in 
the year 2005.

                          ____________________