[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 17978-17987]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3045, DOMINICAN REPUBLIC-CENTRAL 
     AMERICA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 386 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 386

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     3045) to implement the Dominican Republic-Central America-
     United States Free Trade Agreement. All points of order 
     against the bill and against its consideration are waived. 
     The bill shall be considered as read. The bill shall be 
     debatable for two hours equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways 
     and Means. Pursuant to section 151 of the Trade Act of 1974, 
     the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill to final passage without intervening motion.
       Sec. 2. During consideration of H.R. 3045 pursuant to this 
     resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous 
     question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the 
     bill to a time designated by the Speaker in consonance with 
     section 151 of the Trade Act of 1974.
       Sec. 3. A motion to proceed to consideration of H.R. 3045 
     pursuant to section 151 of the Trade Act of 1974 shall be in 
     order only if offered by the Majority Leader or his designee.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, with today's consideration of the Dominican 
Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement, we are now embarking 
upon debate on one of the most important national security issues of 
the 109th Congress. At the same time, we are addressing the 
extraordinarily important issues of border protection and economic 
growth in this country and throughout this hemisphere. These issues are 
becoming increasingly intertwined.
  Just last week, India's Prime Minister stood right here in this 
Chamber and spoke very eloquently when he said the following: 
``Globalization has made the world so interdependent that none of us 
can ignore what happens elsewhere. Peace and prosperity are more 
indivisible than ever before in human history.''
  Mr. Speaker, Prime Minister Singh is absolutely right. We cannot 
afford to pretend that poor, political, and economic conditions outside 
our borders do not affect the security of our Nation. As we work to 
spread democracy in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere to combat global 
terrorism, we must not neglect the anti-democracy, anti-American forces 
that are at work in Latin America.
  Although our neighbors to the south have chosen democracy over 
dictatorship, their old oppressors still refuse to go quietly. 
Nicaragua's former communist dictator, Daniel Ortega, wants to return 
to power. He has tried time and time again, Mr. Speaker, to do that. 
And he is staking his campaign in large part on the defeat of the 
Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement. He has found 
good company with Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, who is actively using his 
nation's oil proceeds to undermine democracy, free markets, and 
American interests throughout this hemisphere.
  Together with Tomas Borge, the former defense minister, the only 
surviving founding member of the Sandinista Front, they oppose this 
agreement because it would solidify the region's commitment to 
political and economic freedom, thus subverting their plans for 
reinstalling leftist control in Nicaragua. The only alliance they seek 
would bind together other anti-American parties like Cuba's Fidel 
Castro.
  Mr. Speaker, The Washington Post editorialized just yesterday in 
strong support of the Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade 
Agreement, and they said the following: ``The defeat of CAFTA would 
help . . . anti-American demogogues, starting with Mr. Chavez. For 
them, the retreat of the United States from partnership with Central 
America would be a major victory.''
  Mr. Speaker, ceding this victory to the likes of Chavez and Ortega 
clearly goes against our best interests, against our national security 
priorities. It would be the beginning of a return to the era that 
Central Americans, with the help of the United States, worked so hard 
during the decade of the 1980s to leave behind, an era marked by 
totalitarianism, unrest, and the poverty that breeds desperation. This 
would obviously be a harsh reality for the people of Central America.
  But a return to the Ortega style of government would have grave 
consequences for the United States of America as well. Without 
political and economic freedom, there can be little

[[Page 17979]]

hope for the future. And without hope, Central Americans with families 
to feed will look north for economic opportunity.
  Nearly all illegal immigrants to the United States come in search of 
work because of limited opportunity at home. In fact, Mr. Speaker, T.J. 
Bonner, the president of the National Border Patrol Council, estimates 
that 98 percent of illegal immigrants come to this country for economic 
opportunity, seeking a chance to feed their families.
  If we want to combat illegal immigration, we must address its root 
causes. By providing the tools for economic growth in the region, DR-
CAFTA will create new opportunities and provide hope for the future in 
the region where these people are. The people of Central America will 
have a powerful incentive to stay and build their lives in their own 
countries rather than make the dangerous and illegal attempt to enter 
our country.
  Rejecting this agreement, Mr. Speaker, would simply sanction, even 
exacerbate, the problem of illegal immigration. We simply cannot ignore 
the fact that the strength of democratic and free market institutions 
throughout the globe, particularly in our own backyard, directly 
impacts our own security. By the same token, we cannot ignore the fact 
that the worldwide marketplace directly impacts our own economic 
strength.
  Mr. Speaker, we all know and everyone recognizes that we have a 
global economy. We live in a world that continues to shrink, enabling 
us to, in the words of the New York Times columnist Tom Friedman, 
``reach around the world farther, faster, deeper, and cheaper than ever 
before.''
  Mr. Speaker, new technologies are connecting the world's 
entrepreneurs, risk takers, creative thinkers, and capital, including 
human capital. This worldwide network has been a powerful engine for 
growth in the United States economy. We have grown to an $11.5 trillion 
economy. We are the world's largest exporter and importer. We lead the 
global economy not just by sheer size but by the force of our 
innovation.
  But we cannot take our global economic leadership for granted. The 
worldwide economy is dynamic and fast paced. China has emerged as a 
global powerhouse and shows no signs whatsoever of slowing down. India, 
as we heard from the Prime Minister, is becoming a formidable 
competitor in one of our core areas of strength, the high-tech sector. 
Passage of the Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement 
represents an opportunity we simply cannot afford to forfeit, the 
chance to dramatically strengthen our competitiveness as a country and 
as a region. Further integration of our regional economy will allow us 
to draw upon all of our strengths and resources to produce locally and 
compete globally.

                              {time}  1830

  The DR-CAFTA and U.S. economies already complement each other well. 
The textile and apparel industries are a great example of that, Mr. 
Speaker. The DR-CAFTA region represents our second largest market for 
fabric and our largest market for yarn. Nearly 25 percent of U.S. 
fabric exports and 40 percent of U.S. yarn exports are sent to the 
Central American countries and the Dominican Republic. The region 
exports nearly all of its apparel; 97 percent of its apparel comes to 
consumers right here in the United States of America.
  As a result of this close, complementary relationship, apparel 
manufactured in the DR-CAFTA region is made up of 80 percent U.S.-made 
content. By contrast, Chinese apparel is made up of less than 2 percent 
U.S. content. Again, that is 80 percent versus 2 percent in terms of 
American-made content.
  Now, I ask my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, in the face of the Chinese 
juggernaut, why on Earth would we turn our backs on the very region 
that supports U.S. industries and offers the opportunity for us to 
effectively compete with China and other global competitors?
  Trade with the DR-CAFTA countries is so important precisely because 
of this global context. The U.S. economy will not be weakened as a 
result of the people of Latin America lifting themselves out of 
poverty, but it will be weakened if we reject the economic partnerships 
that make us strong and enable us to compete in the global economy.
  In this interconnected world, isolation is simply not possible. The 
state of the global economy affects our economic strength. Our economic 
partnerships affect the prosperity of our neighbors and the security of 
our borders. Prosperity leads to a greater commitment to the principles 
of political and economic freedom; and strong, democratic institutions 
throughout the globe lead to greater security for our country.
  National security and economic competitiveness must be addressed in a 
comprehensive way that fully accounts for this interconnected global 
context. With DR-CAFTA, we have the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to do 
just that. We can enhance our competitiveness while creating new 
opportunities for growth in the DR-CAFTA countries. By spurring 
economic growth, we can reduce the incentives for illegal immigration 
and strengthen democracy and the rule of law in the region. And, by 
supporting democratic institutions, we can advance our own security and 
our interests.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the very 
important vote that we are going to have on the Dominican Republic 
Central American Free Trade Agreement so that we can enhance the 
quality of life and the standard of living for the people of the United 
States of America, for the people of the five Central American 
countries impacted by this, and the people of the Dominican Republic.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules, for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Today the House is debating a trade agreement of tremendous import 
not because the markets, exports or money involved are especially 
significant; the six countries involved, Costa Rica, El Salvador, 
Nicaragua, Guatemala, Honduras, and the Dominican Republic, are smaller 
in combined economic clout than the average midsize American city. Most 
of their products already enter the United States duty free, and our 
exports to them are modest.
  No, Mr. Speaker, this debate is important because it brings into 
sharp focus the differences over what our global economy should look 
like, of how we in the United States and our global trading partners 
seek to grow our national economies, create good jobs at decent wages, 
and generate the kind of revenue necessary to provide basic public 
goods and services, promote human health, and protect the environment.
  That is why, Mr. Speaker, this rule is an outrage, an absolute 
disgrace. It is one of the most disrespectful rules issued by the 
Committee on Rules, which has become infamous for shutting down debate.
  This rule allows for only 2 hours of debate on the CAFTA 
Implementation Act. That is just 60 minutes each for supporters and 
opponents of this agreement to make their voices heard on this very 
important and very controversial trade agreement.
  I know that nearly every Member on this side of the aisle would like 
an opportunity to speak on this bill, to make clear to the American 
people, and especially to their constituents at home, why he or she 
supports or opposes this trade bill. Mr. Speaker, if every opponent 
wanted time to speak, then this rule would allow each of them to have 
just 16.8 seconds to make a statement, and the same holds true for 
those Members who support CAFTA. What a mockery of the democratic 
process.
  In 1993, when the Congress debated the North American Free Trade 
Agreement, the rule granted Members 8 hours of debate; 8 hours, Mr. 
Speaker. Sadly, since Republicans have exercised control of Congress, 
we have seen

[[Page 17980]]

the complete erosion of debate on trade agreements, where now just 2 
hours of debate has become the standard. Well, a couple of hours might 
serve for a debate on a Free Trade Agreement with Australia or Jordan 
or even Chile or Singapore, agreements that garnered fairly broad 
bipartisan support and were not viewed as very controversial.
  But CAFTA is arguably the most controversial trade agreement that has 
come before this House since NAFTA, and the Members of this House 
deserve much better than the shabby treatment handed to them by the 
Republicans of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not a debate over whether or not to trade with 
Central America. We already trade extensively with Central American 
countries and the Dominican Republic. But this is a debate, Mr. 
Speaker, about people's jobs, both here in the United States and in 
Central America. Now, maybe they do not care about jobs on the other 
side of the aisle, but, to the average worker, it is a big deal.
  I am tired of trade agreements that do not improve workers' wage 
protections or benefits, but, rather, are a rush to the bottom that 
puts profits above people.
  Since 2000, the United States has lost 2.8 million manufacturing jobs 
and 1 million high-technology jobs. We now have a $162 billion trade 
deficit with China, and a $42 billion deficit with Mexico. Clearly, the 
rules of international trade have failed the American worker, the 
American standard of living, and the American dream, and have made 
American jobs our number one export. CAFTA will further this trend by 
rewarding companies that throw U.S. workers out on the streets and by 
creating jobs in countries where labor is cheapest, environmental laws 
are weakest, and where the rights of workers are violated and scorned.
  But this rule, Mr. Speaker, will deny Members the right to debate 
these very serious matters.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject this rule 
and demand the right to speak.
  Mr. Speaker, today the House is debating a trade agreement of 
tremendous import--not because the markets, exports or money involved 
are especially significant--the six countries involved--Costa Rica, El 
Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Honduras and the Dominican Republic--
are smaller in combined economic clout than the average mid-size 
American city. Most of their products already enter the United States 
duty-free, and our exports to them are modest.
  No, Mr. Speaker, this debate is important because it brings into 
sharp focus the differences over what our global economy should look 
like; of how we in the United States and our global trading partners 
seek to grow our national economies, create good jobs at decent wages, 
and generate the kind of revenue necessary to provide basic public 
goods and services, promote human health, and protect the environment.
  This is not a debate over whether or not to trade with Central 
America. We already trade extensively with all the Central American 
countries and the Dominican Republic. In addition, we have special 
trade relations with all of them under the GSP and the Caribbean Basin 
Initiative.
  Mr. Speaker, the months and weeks leading up to this vote have been 
filled with the sounds of battle between so-called ``free trade'' 
versus ``fair trade.'' Mr. Speaker, I am more interested in ``smart'' 
trade.
  Smart trade is about who gets protected under this agreement and who 
does not.
  Smart trade provides significant gains for U.S. workers and 
consumers, as well as businesses.
  Smart trade supports and strengthens development, democracy and the 
rule of law.
  Smart trade guarantees economic opportunity for those who may be 
displaced by trade.
  Smart trade is concerned about what happens to the most vulnerable--
in our country and in our trading partners.
  Smart trade is sustainable, both here at home and abroad, because it 
is created in a bipartisan fashion--and because it brings the benefits 
of trade to all countries, and to all the people of those countries, 
including the poorest.
  Judged against these standards and principles, CAFTA is neither 
``free'' nor ``fair'' trade, and it is certainly not ``smart trade.''
  Mr. Speaker, since the year 2000, the United States has lost 2.8 
million manufacturing jobs and one million high-technology jobs. We now 
have a $162 billion trade deficit with China and a $45 billion deficit 
with Mexico. Clearly, the rules of international trade have failed the 
American worker, the American standard of living and the American 
dream, and have made American jobs our number one export. CAFTA will 
further this trend by rewarding companies that throw U.S. workers out 
on the streets, and by creating jobs in countries where labor is 
cheapest, environmental laws are weakest, and where the rights of 
workers are violated and scorned.
  Even so, CAFTA is not likely to provide any real increase in U.S. 
jobs or production. The six CAFTA countries together currently account 
for barely one percent of U.S. trade. In addition, about 80 percent of 
the people in CAFTA countries live at or below the poverty line--which 
is about two to three dollars a day--or $400 to $900 a year, depending 
on which country we're looking at. Almost half the population works in 
subsistence agriculture. The only significant export industries in 
these countries--with the exception of Costa Rica--are apparel and 
agriculture.
  This is the reality of life in Central America, and it should be a 
sobering reminder to all of us: The overwhelming majority of people in 
the CAFTA-DR region are not consumers of high-value American goods--but 
they are extremely vulnerable to the kind of dislocation caused by such 
trade openings.
  Mr. Speaker, we should not visit the mistakes of NAFTA upon the 
people of Central America. To take just one example, wages for Mexican 
workers are even lower today than they were before NAFTA.
  And while U.S. agricultural exports to Mexico greatly increased, 
millions of poor Mexican farmers lost what little income they had, 
often even losing their small plots of land. In order to survive, they 
now farm even more marginal land, cut down forests, or use chemical 
inputs that pollute the water and poison the soil. Is this what we have 
in mind for Central America's campesino farmers? It is if we adopt this 
CAFTA agreement.
  Mr. Speaker, a critical issue in strengthening democracy is to 
protect and expand human rights. Workers' rights are human rights. They 
are not a luxury. As every wealthy nation can attest, they are central 
to improving living standards and quality of life, and creating a broad 
middle class.
  While there are a number of labor provisions in the CAFTA agreement, 
they are enforceable under only one trigger: Namely, if a country fails 
to enforce its own labor laws. CAFTA countries' labor laws, Mr. 
Speaker, are internationally recognized as weak.
  Whether you are looking at reports by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty 
International, the International Labor Organization, the United 
Nations, or our own State Department Country Reports--Central American 
labor laws are criticized for failing to meet international standards 
of freedom of association, the right to organize, and the right to 
bargain collectively. This doesn't even begin to touch upon the lack of 
health and safety guarantees in the workplace.
  Also universally acknowledged is that even these weak laws are not 
enforced. Ineffective judicial systems, coupled with the power 
exercised by political and economic elites, derail nearly every attempt 
to enforce current labor laws.
  We had an opportunity under CAFTA to negotiate provisions that would 
have promoted the enactment of stronger labor laws and dispute 
mechanisms in the CAFTA region. But under the agreement before us 
today, that opportunity has been squandered.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very familiar with the CAFTA region. I have 
traveled widely throughout Central America, especially in El Salvador, 
Guatemala and Nicaragua. I have formed deep attachments to the people 
of this region, and I appreciate how far these countries have come 
since the wars there ended. I want to see their democracies thrive; I 
want to see their lives and livelihoods improve; and I think a good 
trade agreement could make a valuable contribution to these efforts.
  But this CAFTA is not such an agreement.
  All the issues of concern that will be raised during today's debate 
are not new. They have been cited and documented for the past 3 years 
in anticipation of the initiation of talks between the U.S. and the 
Central American governments, during the negotiations, and after CAFTA 
was signed.
  The central design for fast-track, up-or-down voting procedures on 
trade agreements was to place a premium on consultation and 
accommodation during the conception and negotiations of trade 
agreements--in effect, to pursue a bipartisan trade policy. But the DR-
CAFTA negotiations turned its back on this process. Not just 
Democrats--but anyone and everyone who tried to raise issues about 
labor rights, or environmental protection, or transparency and 
participation, or the need for access by the poor to critical life-
saving drugs, or

[[Page 17981]]

the vulnerability of critical agricultural or manufacturing industries, 
or the need to account for the vulnerability of the rural poor--were 
completely and totally shut down and shut out.
  This is why this trade agreement in particular has been so 
universally criticized throughout Central American and the United 
States by religious leaders and communities, labor organizations, 
campesino groups, environmental and women's organizations, legal 
advocates, small farmers, and consumer groups.
  When the U.S. Trade Representative announces there is absolutely no 
way for CAFTA to be renegotiated, I can only ask, ``Why not?'' If the 
fast track, one-vote-is-all-you-get process results in the defeat of 
this CAFTA agreement, then wouldn't the House clearly be calling for a 
renegotiation of the agreement? Saying--Pay attention to our concerns 
and go back to the table? It took the Bush administration barely 1 year 
to negotiate this CAFTA--why not take some time to get it right?
  Mr. Speaker, this agreement fails to learn from the mistakes of 
NAFTA. It fails poor workers and poor farmers throughout the CAFTA 
region, who make up the majority of the people. And most importantly, 
it fails our own workers, consumers and communities.
  Vote it down, Mr. Speaker. Vote it down.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me just say that one of our colleagues on the Committee on Rules, 
the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), said we should make it 
retroactive, the 2 hours of debate. We clearly have been debating this 
issue for weeks and months, Special Orders have been taken out here, 
and we are looking forward to a rigorous debate not only during the 
hour on this rule, but for an additional 2 hours, or 3 hours this 
evening at this point.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Miami, Florida 
(Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart), my very distinguished friend, the vice 
chairman of the Committee on Rules, and a great champion for political 
pluralism and democratic institutions in this region.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, every once in a 
while, a vote comes before us that is evidently more than important, 
and this is one such vote. This is an historic vote that we are taking 
today on a special relationship with the countries of Central America 
and the Dominican Republic. Those countries, their Presidents, their 
Parliaments, have taken a definitive step; they have resisted the 
totalitarian temptations, the destabilization efforts of the axis of 
Ortega and Chavez with his hundreds of millions of dollars that he is 
pouring into these countries and the entire region to destabilize them. 
They have resisted that access, and they have voted for a special 
relationship with the United States.
  Talk about pressure, I say to my colleagues. Mr. Speaker, the 
pressures that are genuine, that are extraordinary, are the ones that 
are felt by those countries, the countries of Central America and the 
Dominican Republic, to accept, to go forth with a totalitarian 
temptation, and they have rejected that.
  They have provided troops to help us in the war against terrorism in 
Iraq. What would we be saying, Mr. Speaker, if we voted against CAFTA 
today? ``Thank you. Thank you for your help in Iraq. Thank you for 
progressing with democratic reforms, for establishing democracy. Thank 
you, but no thanks. We do not want you to tie your histories, your 
destinies, your futures to the United States, which is what you have 
decided to do.''
  We have an obligation, Mr. Speaker, to say, yes, we are proud of our 
special relationship with our brother countries of this hemisphere. We 
recognize that you are our allies, you are our friends. You have stood 
with us in peace, you have stood with us in war, you have decided to 
tie your futures to us, and we say, welcome.
  That is what this vote is all about, Mr. Speaker. It is a critically 
important historic vote. Say ``yes'' to the rule and say ``yes'' to 
this agreement. Say ``yes'' to CAFTA.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 5 minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the ranking 
Democrat on the Committee on Rules and someone who believes that we 
should have a deliberative process here in the House.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned that as this discussion on CAFTA 
moves forward that the majority will, once again, succumb to the 
temptation to twist, bend, and break off the rules of debate and 
consideration in order to meet their objectives, just as they did 
during the Medicare debate of the 108th Congress.
  During that debate the vote on final passage was held open for a 
shameful 3 hours while the Republican leadership twisted arms and cut 
deals to make up their vote deficit. The events of that night 
constituted one of the worst abuses of power I have witnessed in my 
almost 20 years in this House.
  In the aftermath, allegations of bribery were leveled by a Republican 
Congressman, and an Ethics Committee investigation followed closely 
behind, one that ended in the admonishment of the majority leader of 
this House.
  It is no secret that, just like last time, the Republican leadership 
is desperately scrambling to find the votes necessary to pass this 
bill, which I and many of my colleagues strongly oppose. But I would 
warn my friends in the majority that we dare not see a return to those 
underhanded tactics used by the leadership during the 108th Congress. 
There should be no votes held open for 3 hours. There should be no 
unethical arm-twisting on this House floor. The American people are 
watching this time.
  Sadly, though, we are already seeing evidence that this pattern of 
abuse will once again carry the day. Last night in the Committee on 
Rules, we were given a paltry 1 hour's notice by the Republicans that 
we would be considering the most controversial trade agreement this 
body has contemplated since NAFTA. And of the three contentious bills 
that we considered in the Committee on Rules, not a single amendment 
was allowed, nor even a single substitute. It was a shut-out of 
democracy. And coming from a country trying to export democracy to the 
rest of the world, it showed us on our side of the Committee on Rules 
that we do not have it right yet.
  Even though the House rules clearly state that 20 hours of debate is 
appropriate for a trade agreement, we offered to accept only 8 hours as 
a compromise, but that was too much democracy for this leadership. For 
the most contested trade agreement this body has considered in 12 
years, we will have a whopping 2 hours of debate, less time than it 
would take you to watch ``Saving Private Ryan'' on a DVD.
  We were actually given more time to debate the renaming of five post 
offices Monday. Most high school debate teams spend more time 
considering the serious issues that face our country than we do here in 
the House.
  But CAFTA clearly warrants our full and undivided attention. This is 
a major piece of legislation that will affect the lives of every 
American. CAFTA threatens to export even more American jobs and 
encourages American companies to relocate their factories in other 
countries. It does not provide adequate protection for workers, it 
turns back the clock on labor standards, and it does not provide any 
safeguards for improving environmental standards.
  We need trade agreements that expand our access to the new markets 
and raise the standard of living for American families. This 
legislation falls far short on each of those standards.
  As the arbiters of the rules of this hallowed institution, the 
Committee on Rules has a special responsibility to ensure that the 
integrity of the democratic process is preserved. That is why last 
night I asked the Republicans on the Committee on Rules for their 
assurance that we will not again see the egregious abuses of power and 
the trampling of the democratic process that we experienced in the last 
Congress on the Medicare debate, because we should be having 8 hours of 
debate and a 15-minute vote, not the other way around. Their reply was 
that

[[Page 17982]]

``rules would be followed,'' but they must not have meant the Rules of 
the House of Representatives when they made that promise, because what 
actually followed was a shut-down of any consideration of amendments to 
the medical malpractice bill, the prevention of any up-or-down votes on 
amendments to the China Trade Act, and the restriction of debate in 
consideration of CAFTA.
  For the sake of the millions of American families depending on this 
Congress to spend the time and get it right on legislation, and 
especially on CAFTA, I hope that this time the debate lasts longer than 
the vote.

                              {time}  1845

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just say that this rule is in compliance with the 
1974 Trade Act, which calls for an up-or-down vote on these agreements.
  And I also believe that it is very important to note, as my colleague 
has just pointed out, that for more than a decade, on every single 
trade agreement that has come before this House, we have had 2 hours of 
general debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me the time. I want to congratulate him on the work that he 
has done on free trade issues in this Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the underlying bill, 
to implement the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free 
Trade Agreement. This agreement is especially important for my State of 
Washington, which is one of the most trade-dependent States in the 
Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, we live in a global economy. And while 80 percent of 
Central American and Dominican Republic products enter the United 
States duty free, American exports face tariffs of 33 to 100 percent or 
higher in these countries; this is simply not a level playing field.
  By approving CAFTA-DR, tariffs on American exports will be 
drastically reduced or eliminated. In fact, under CAFTA-DR, 80 percent 
of U.S. exports will become duty free immediately and the remaining 
tariffs will be phased out over 10 years.
  Mr. Speaker, more than half of current U.S. farm exports to Central 
America and the Dominican Republic will gain immediately duty-free 
access, including beef, wheat, wine, fruits, and vegetables.
  In particular, the agreement includes a provision I worked for that 
would grant central Washington's apple, pear, and cherry growers 
immediate duty-free access to Central American and to Dominican 
Republic markets.
  These tariffs currently range from 14 to 25 percent. And our fruit 
growers' major competitor in the region, Chile, which has already 
signed a trade treatment with CAFTA countries, is not subject to 
similar duties. This does level the playing field.
  Mr. Speaker, this agreement will help potato growers in central 
Washington fairly compete with Canadian potato exporters who are 
subject to lower tariffs because of favorable trade agreements reached 
by Canada and Costa Rica. According to the Washington State Potato 
Commission, central Washington and U.S. potato exports to Costa Rica 
have declined by 81 percent as a result of the Canada-Costa Rica 
agreement, and U.S. producers will continue to lose market share unless 
CAFTA-DR is approved.
  Many associations in my State have voiced support for CAFTA-DR, 
including the Washington State Farm Bureau, the Northwest Horticultural 
Council, the Washington State Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, the 
Washington Apple Commission, the Washington State Potato Commission, to 
name only a few.
  Mr. Speaker, CAFTA-DR will help level the playing field for our 
farmers and tree fruit growers and is a crucial step forward for 
agriculture and many other industries that create jobs and play 
important roles in the long-term growth of our economy.
  The Senate has approved this agreement by a vote of 54 to 45. It is 
now time for the House to do the same to ensure that this measure and 
the benefits that it will provide will become law.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Hastings) who believes that if 8 hours of debate was good 
enough for NAFTA, it should be good enough for CAFTA.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time. Mr. Speaker, I thank him also for his articulate leadership on 
this issue and the others which affect working people throughout this 
country.
  Let my say at the outset, I opposed this closed rule and the limited 
amount of time to debate the underlying legislation. Like the owner of 
the restaurant in Casablanca who feigned surprise at the illegal 
gambling in his club, let me just say that I am shocked, shocked that 
the majority would bring a bill of such importance to the House floor 
and only permit 2 hours of debate to be split by the 440 Members of the 
House of Representatives.
  This is not about trade. Trade is a two-way economic street. And the 
simple fact of the matter is, no one can demonstrate to me what 
Guatemala and Nicaragua are going to be buying from Florida and 
elsewhere in the United States. It is a one-way agreement.
  Look, NAFTA was bad for your district like it was for the State of 
Florida. This deal is going to make things worse. If CAFTA is like 
NAFTA, too many Americans will get the shafta. Ten years of NAFTA have 
shown just how devastating these agreements can be for working families 
and the environment.
  Florida has lost more than 35,000 jobs because of NAFTA. Industries 
that once were thriving and successful in the State of Florida and 
elsewhere in this Nation employing tens of thousands of hard-working 
Americans have been shipped south of the border where labor is cheap 
and environmental protections are but a figment of our imagination
  Mr. Speaker, I voted for NAFTA and the administration was unable to 
uphold the things that they said they were going to do with reference 
to the environment and labor standards. And I doubt very seriously if 
this administration can do any better than the previous one. My 
distinguished friend, and he is my good friend, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier), began his remarks this evening by saying 
national security and border security.
  I invite the chairman to tell me how it is our border security is 
better on Mexico because of NAFTA, or that our national security is 
better. In western Palm Beach County, a region which I am proud to 
represent, and is our country's second most sugar cane-intensive area, 
unemployment is already above 15 percent.
  Under CAFTA, the future of this industry, which provides more than 
20,000 jobs to this area alone, will undoubtedly be in jeopardy.
  Considering who wins and who loses with CAFTA, it is clear that only 
the most selfish of fat cats would favor this terrible agreement. I 
challenge any of my colleagues to raise a family on a minimum wage in 
America, and indeed to find a job in America when CAFTA has sucked yet 
more of our factories and other businesses out of our country.
  But a bigger challenge would be to survive as a campesino in any 
Central American nation, where wages are even lower, where 
environmental controls are weak or non-existent, where there is little 
or no access to health care, and where openly complaining about working 
conditions could mean death or disappearance. This is what the majority 
claims they want to approve today. We should be ashamed of ourselves.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Shaw).
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I have heard for so long we keep talking about

[[Page 17983]]

NAFTA as if it was somewhat of a disaster. But I think there are some 
statistics that have to be really examined when we are talking about 
NAFTA.
  Sure, there have been some jobs lost in this country because of 
NAFTA. There have also been some jobs created. In fact, there are many 
more jobs created since NAFTA than there are jobs that went overseas.
  Since NAFTA was formed in 1994, U.S. exports of manufacturing goods 
to Canada and Mexico have grown 55 percent faster than shipments to the 
rest of the world. And when you look down and see what has happened in 
Chile, actually our exports have vastly outpaced our imports from 
Chile.
  Now, let U.S. talk about what we are trying to do here. We are just 
trying to have fair trade. Right now, the Central American countries 
have a preference where their goods come into this country without 
paying any meaningful tariffs, and there are very few areas where they 
are restricted.
  We simply now say give U.S. that privilege in Central America, and 
Central America says, yes, we will do that, because they know that that 
is good for their future.
  And we have another thing to do think about. What about the security 
interests there? I was here and the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dreier) when we first came in 1981 during the Reagan administration. We 
had huge security problems in Central America. Communism was on the 
rise; Castro was having all kinds of influence in that part of the 
world.
  Since then, wonderful things have happened. These communist countries 
have collapsed. They have embraced democracy. They have embraced 
capitalism. And they are looking where? They are looking north to the 
United States. There is where they find their future. There is where 
their future is. Let us not cut them short.
  This is a good, good bill. It is well balanced. It is good for 
American business. It is good for American farmers. It is good for 
American laborers. Let us get together and pass this bill.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Matsui).
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying 
measure to implement CAFTA. As we debate CAFTA, I can only express my 
disappointment from the restrictive rule limiting debate to the failure 
of the administration to use the full force and weight of the United 
States in negotiating all aspects of this agreement.
  Because CAFTA has sparked much debate, the House needs robust 
discussion of this legislation. And during the Rules Committee hearing 
on CAFTA, I offered an amendment to allow 8 hours of debate, the same 
as for NAFTA.
  But the Republicans on the committee voted down the amendment. And we 
have a mere 2 hours to debate an agreement, which in its entirety is 
over 3,600 pages, the implications of which may well determine the 
future direction of U.S. trade policy.
  As a world leader, the United States has a crucial role to play on 
trade. We cannot step back from the global community. However, free 
trade must be tempered with meaningful policy which acknowledges that 
each trade agreement produces winners and losers, and it is our 
responsibility to do right by those displaced in the process.
  CAFTA falls far short in this regard and is thus fatally flawed. 
Those flaws are apparent throughout CAFTA's chapters and are most 
egregious on labor and environmental protections, for CAFTA offers only 
tokens and symbols.
  In contrast are the intellectual property provisions where it is 
obvious the United States Trade Representative used the full weight of 
the United States to ensure protection for business interests.
  This administration's handling of workers' protections relative to 
other issues raises troubling questions about their agenda for these 
negotiations. The only enforceable worker protections in CAFTA state 
that participating countries must enforce their own laws. It does not 
set any standards those laws must meet.
  Yet CAFTA countries already have a history of failing to provide even 
minimal worker protections.
  There is nothing within CAFTA to prohibit these countries from 
weakening their labor laws. If a CAFTA country wants to pass a law that 
encourages child labor, CAFTA merely requires that country to enforce 
its own law. These enforcement provisions are a step back from the 
previous accord governing trade with Central America established in 
1984.
  This is different than labor management debates here in the United 
States. This is about basic human decency and fairness. There is a 
reason for the bipartisan opposition to CAFTA. It cannot pass this 
Chamber on its merits.
  I am sure no one will be surprised if this vote is held open until 
enough Members relent, as we have seen before. But this flawed 
agreement should be returned to the President to be renegotiated.
  Trade is a powerful phenomenon that is capable or raising living 
standards, encouraging innovation, and building lasting ties between 
nations. And as we work to conclude the Doha Round, global trade is at 
a critical point.
  America must promote trade policies that acknowledge the fundamental 
rights of workers and reassert our belief that the benefits of trade 
should flow throughout the population. If the House passes CAFTA, we 
will be abdicating this duty.
  The future direction of trade will be shaped by our actions today, as 
the implication of the vote will resonate far beyond Latin America. 
While trade agreements encourage the flow of goods and services, they 
also embody important values and principles.
  What message does it send if we start passing trade agreements that 
concentrate benefits in the hands of special interests and the 
privileged few at the expense of workers in the United States and in 
some of the poorest countries in the world?
  I have heard some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
hesitantly talk about this agreement saying trade is usually a good 
thing, so I guess I will vote for CAFTA.
  I say to you, that, yes, free trade agreements are a good thing, but 
only when based on solid principles that reflect the concern for all 
parties involved. CAFTA fails to meet the standard.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this inferior agreement. If we do not 
get CAFTA right, we risk undercutting support for all future trade 
agreements.

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my colleague that free trade 
is a good thing. The labor rights that are recognized here in the 
opening up of markets for U.S. workers into Central America is very 
important.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indianapolis, 
Indiana (Mr. Burton), my very good friend, the distinguished chairman 
of the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, who has been a champion 
for freedom and democracy in Central America for years.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that 
very eloquent introduction. I am not sure I deserve it, but I 
appreciate it.
  Let me say to my colleagues who are undecided and my colleagues on 
the Democrat side of the aisle, I voted against NAFTA. I voted against 
GATT. I voted against the World Trade Organization. So why am I for 
CAFTA? And I want to tell you why, because I think it is extremely 
important. There are three reasons.
  First of all, right now as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) said 
a minute ago, the trade balance is in favor of the countries in the 
Caribbean and the Central American nations because they have duty free 
into our country, and we have to pay a duty to sell products in their 
country. CAFTA will change that. It will balance it out so there will 
be free trade in both directions. That will encourage more trade in 
both directions.
  Second, this is a national security issue, and the President of the 
United

[[Page 17984]]

States talked about this today, and we need to talk about it right now 
on this floor.
  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) talked about what went on in 
the early 1980s when we had wars in Nicaragua and El Salvador, and 
people's bodies were laying all over the place because of this 
insurrection and these civil wars down there. If we do not do something 
to stabilize those countries in Central and South America, we will see 
wars not only in Nicaragua and El Salvador and possibly other Central 
American countries, we will see them in South America. We have got 
governments down there that are trying to export revolution right now 
by undermining some of the fledgling democracies in Central and South 
America.
  CAFTA is one of the mechanisms that we could use to stabilize those 
fledgling democracy by creating more jobs and helping fight poverty in 
those countries. It is extremely important from a national security 
standpoint. That is one of my biggest concerns. If there is 
destabilization in those Central and South American countries, you can 
rest assured that there will be massive flight from those countries 
when wars break out, and they will be coming north. We have an 
immigration problem right now that we must solve, and we have talked 
about this time and again. But the problem is going to be exacerbated 
and made a lot worse if we let those countries, those fledgling 
democracies, starting to be destabilized by revolutionaries. There are 
governments down there right now that are using their resources to 
undermine some of these democracies, and we need to do everything we 
can to countermand that.
  This is a very important piece of legislation. It is very important. 
I hope my colleagues will see that and vote for it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), who believes that it is shameful that the 
majority has stifled debate on this important trade agreement.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I want to make a quick note 
of this. Is the previous speaker arguing that NAFTA derailed illegal 
immigration to the United States or slowed it down?
  Mr. Speaker, let me stand in opposition to the Central American Free 
Trade Agreement. Let me say at the outset that I do not reflexively 
oppose international trade. The previous speaker noted the trade 
agreements he has voted against. Let me talk about the trade agreements 
I have voted for, all of them from this administration: Australia, 
Singapore, Chile, Morocco; and in the past, China, GATT and WTO.
  I know that done the right way with carefully balanced provisions, 
these agreements can expand the U.S. economy and create jobs. Trade can 
really be good for American workers and American businesses. Indeed, I 
believe we could have struck an acceptable agreement with Central 
America. I have no choice but to oppose this agreement because it 
failed to reach a crucial balance. In truth, it did not even come 
close.
  CAFTA would exacerbate the crisis in our country's trade deficit, and 
it is completely unfair to U.S. workers and companies. We have already 
got trade deficits with every one of the CAFTA countries, and this 
agreement will only make that situation worse. What is more, it is the 
first time that the United States has negotiated a trade agreement with 
developing countries that have weak labor laws and histories of violent 
suppression of worker rights.
  CAFTA should have stipulated that our trading partners adhere to 
basic internationally recognized labor standards like prohibitions on 
child labor, prison labor, and guaranteeing workers the right to 
organize. Instead, it only requires that those countries enforce 
whatever laws they happen to have on their books. Those laws are wholly 
inadequate, and they will only get worse because CAFTA will set off a 
race to the bottom. We are already seeing it. Some of the CAFTA 
countries have already taken steps to water down their labor laws so 
that they are the cheapest destination for foreign investment.
  This CAFTA agreement passed up an opportunity to conduct trade the 
right way. It passed up an opportunity to expand the U.S. economy and 
create jobs. It passed up an opportunity to help our neighbors to the 
south develop safe and decent workplaces. It passed up an opportunity 
to reduce our country's trade deficit. It passed up an opportunity to 
do the right thing by U.S. workers and firms.
  I intend to oppose this misguided agreement, and I urge the rest of 
the Members of this institution to do the same.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the very 
distinguished gentleman from Birmingham, Alabama (Mr. Bachus).
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. Let me say 
that there have been several newspaper articles lately dealing with 
these side agreements that we had under NAFTA and China, NTPR, and the 
two fast tracks. And, in fact, here is one in a newspaper yesterday 
after the side agreement that we made on textiles. It said, The 
nonprofit Public Citizen reviewed past trade votes and found that 89 
percent of the side deals affecting trade policy were broken. Never 
enacted. And, in fact, I got that information, and it is about a 40-
page attachment with all the broken side agreements. Very sobering to 
read. Promises made in the midst of negotiations, then promises broken.
  But let me just say this, and I want to be positive here. These are 
the trade agreements, these are the side agreements that President Bush 
made, and although there have been almost 89 broken agreements, 
President Clinton, of all the ones he has made, 3 of the over 80 have 
been by President Bush. The vast majority of the side agreements that 
President Bush has made he has kept, and they are on the books today.
  So is there a difference between this and past agreements? I think 
the difference is that we have a President who has honored his side 
agreements in the past 3 or 4 years and will honor them again. That is 
his track record. He has made side agreements, and the vast majority of 
those he has abided by.
  As we talk about these side agreements, and I will just say that here 
it says, ``Democrats opposing CAFTA have warned colleagues about last-
minute promises in exchange for votes. `Side letters and so-called side 
agreements promised are not worth the paper they are written on,' said 
Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Ohio, Jan Schakowsky, Democrat of 
Illinois.''
  There is a lot of truth to that. There is a record of broken side 
agreements, but not by President Bush. The Business Week says, 
``Signed, sealed and undelivered. The history of broken side 
agreements.'' That was in the paper about CAFTA.
  Again, I will say to you, this President has honored his agreements.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just say, if it is not in the 
agreement, it is not in the agreement.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), who believes that the debate on CAFTA should 
be longer than the vote on CAFTA.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership has submitted a 
rule for CAFTA that makes a mockery of our Democratic process. The 
restrictive rule is part and parcel of a Republican leadership strategy 
to win passage of CAFTA at any cost, whatever the price to the 
taxpayer, whatever the damage to the fabric of our democracy. The 
Republican leadership has shown that when it comes to CAFTA, they will 
cross any line and stifle any voice.
  CAFTA will hurt workers here at home and devastate the lives of the 
rural poor in Central America, a region where the inequality of income 
is the leading economic and political challenge. It will widen the gap 
between the haves and have-nots, weaken labor and environmental 
standards, and set a dangerous precedent for future trade agreements.
  Carnegie Endowment points out that under NAFTA, the rural population 
in Mexico suffered the greatest consequences, losing 1.3 million 
agricultural jobs. Repeating that outcome in

[[Page 17985]]

Central America will leave only more of the poorest in the region to 
migrate north, further exacerbating the challenges we face in securing 
our border.
  It is appalling and inexcusable how President Bush has sold the CAFTA 
deal with one hand while busily cutting aid that helps the poor 
throughout Central America with the other. Not only is this agreement 
bad for Central America, it also undermines labor policy and workers 
around the world. Under this agreement, countries get paid for the 
abuses suffered by workers because the fines paid for violations go to 
the countries in which it was committed. Some justice.
  Tonight will be a defining moment for this Congress. The American 
people are watching this debate, and they will not stand for waking up 
tomorrow to read that in the darkness of the night, the leadership of 
this House has passed yet another bill by holding a vote open for hours 
while the purveyors of threats and intimidation perform their work 
under the cover of darkness.
  This ill-conceived measure is a bad deal for workers, a bad deal for 
America, and a bad vote.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as I listen to people malign the procedure 
we are going under, let me just say the procedure is the procedure that 
is prescribed by the 1974 Trade Act, which says, ``No amendment to an 
implementing bill or approval resolution shall be in order in either 
the House of Representatives or the Senate.''
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Hensar-
ling), a the dear friend, a hard-working Member committed to free 
trade.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in support of the rule 
for CAFTA. For over 200 years America has been benefited from trade. It 
means American families can buy more, using less of their paycheck. 
Trade means more competition. Competition is the consumer's best 
friend, and it does not matter whether that competition comes from 
Houston or Honduras or El Paso or El Salvador.
  Now, CAFTA is a very simple trade agreement regardless of what you 
hear tonight. It allows our consumers to buy a few more items from 
Central America, and it allows our producers to sell a whole lot more 
to those same countries. It creates jobs. It will help ease our trade 
deficit. It is more than fair trade for us.
  Now, you hear some people opposing CAFTA, claiming that somehow this 
is actually going to hurt jobs. Yet 80 percent of Central America are 
already entering our country duty free. What will help us is our 
ability to export to those countries duty free.
  Now, some are talking about labor and environmental standards; but, 
Mr. Speaker, by helping further impoverish Latin America, we are 
somehow going to help improve their labor standards? We are somehow 
going to help improve their environmental standards? I think not.
  There is no rational economic reason, Mr. Speaker, to oppose CAFTA. 
Increasingly this debate against CAFTA is boiling down to raw 
protectionism and bitter partisanship. It is amazing how many people 
love competition and the products they buy, but they seem to hate 
competition in the products they sell. That just cheats American 
consumers.
  And then there are those who just reflexively oppose anything that 
President Bush favors, anything, regardless of its merits. Mr. Speaker, 
we ought to all read the headlines. Everybody knows about the threats 
and arm-twisting taking place on the Democrat side of the aisle. It is 
time to put aside protectionism, put aside the bitter partisanship. It 
is time to vote for personal economic freedom. Vote for more American 
exports, and vote for the rule for the Central American Free Trade 
Agreement.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out that the 
little black book that the chairman of the Committee on Rules read from 
also said that the Rules of the House allows for up to 20 hours of 
debate on trade agreements.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Cardin), who believes that a full and thorough debate is a good thing.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my friend for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I, along with many Democrats, have supported every trade 
agreement that has been presented. We do that because we believe trade 
has the potential to generate economic growth and raise the standard of 
living. The trick though is to make sure that we realize that 
potential.
  During the last several decades we have really changed our focus in 
opening up markets for American manufacturers and producers. We have 
initially worked on removing tariff barriers. Now we are concerned 
about nontariff barriers. It does not mean we have done all we need to 
on tariff barriers, but the priority in our country has been to open up 
markets by removing nontariff barriers. That is why we spend a lot of 
time on intellectual property protection, on opening up opportunity for 
services, and, yes, Mr. Speaker, working on basic international labor 
standards.
  I believe everybody in this body would agree with me that we do not 
want products coming into this country that violate child labor 
standards. Well, the same is true with other basic internationally 
recognized labor rights. We have made progress. The Caribbean Basin 
Initiative, the CBTPA, AGOA and GSP all have improved labor standards 
around the globe because we have raised the issue and raised the bar.

                              {time}  1915

  In the Central American countries today, we have the Caribbean Basin 
Initiative. It has worked. It gives trade preferences to the Central 
American countries provided that they recognize international labor 
standards. The failure to do so allows us to impose trade sanctions. 
The threat has made progress in raising international labor standards 
and workers' rights in the Central American countries.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not expect the administration to perform miracles 
when they negotiate free trade agreements, but I do expect them to 
represent the priorities of our Nation. In the CAFTA agreement, they 
repeal the rights we currently have under CBI, under the Caribbean 
Basin Initiative. Therefore, CAFTA is left with a weaker standard than 
current law in regards to workers' rights.
  All CAFTA provides is for a country to enforce their own laws, 
regardless of how they may be; and then the sanction for failure to 
enforce their own laws that we have under the dispute settlement 
resolution are weaker standards. We cannot impose trade sanctions. All 
we can do is impose a fine, and that fine goes back to their own 
country. We cannot even enforce these weak standards.
  You have to draw a line somewhere, Mr. Speaker. We have the 
constitutional responsibility on trade. We have to make that judgment. 
This agreement fails in that regard.
  I had hoped that we would be able to renegotiate so that we could 
have a strong bipartisan vote on CAFTA. After all, we did that with 
textiles, and we could have done that with workers' rights. But this 
administration chose not to do it. In a way, Mr. Speaker, it is more 
important for a CAFTA agreement than some of the other agreements that 
have passed, for Chile and Singapore, Morocco and Australia, because of 
the standard of living in the Central American countries. For people 
living in poverty, trade, if properly structured, holds out the promise 
of more meaningful economic opportunities and a better way of life. But 
trade without basic labor standards will not do that.
  I think this agreement is not a good agreement for the Central 
American countries, and it is not a good agreement for the United 
States.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time 
remains on each side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass). The gentleman from California 
(Mr. Dreier) has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) has 6 minutes remaining.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New

[[Page 17986]]

Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), who believes that 2 hours of debate is an insult 
to American workers.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. 
Think of the voiceless, the poor for once, and not play and pray at the 
alter of the multinational corporations.
  I just talked to a group of folks that came back from Nicaragua, and 
that you have the nerve to stand before this House and talk about those 
six governments of purity is an insult to our intellect. Some of these 
politicians that run these countries are despised by the very people in 
their country. It is those leaders that made the deal, not the people 
of those countries. In every one of those countries, the majority of 
the people are against this deal.
  Trade agreements are not just tariff levels and quotas; they are 
human beings. By passing this agreement, Congress is giving up more of 
its authority under article I, section VIII. We have done that under 
three Presidents in a row. Our CAFTA becomes a legally-bound treaty. It 
will supersede any legislation passed by this Congress.
  And by the way, a slight detail: the CBO has told us that CAFTA will 
cost the American taxpayers $4.4 billion over the next 10 years. And 
since those in favor of CAFTA turn to this document, Mr. Speaker, this 
document shows that of the 14 agreements, the 14 agreements since Bush 
became the President of the United States, only three have been 
outrightly kept. He has as bad a record as President Clinton.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say that the 
democratically elected parliaments in El Salvador, Honduras, and 
Guatemala all have had votes on this issue. It was 49 to 30 in the 
democratically elected parliament of El Salvador; 126 to 12 in the 
democratically elected parliament of Guatemala; and 100 of 128 
legislators in Honduras were supportive of the Central American Free 
Trade Agreement.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Midland, Texas 
(Mr. Conaway), my very good friend and a hard-working new Member of 
Congress.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me this 
time, and I rise tonight to support this rule and also the underlying 
document that we will vote on later on tonight.
  We have heard it is important for national security issues, and it 
is. Strengthening these six democracies, fledgling though they may be, 
makes America a safer place to be.
  We have heard that it is good for immigration control, and it is. 
Prosperity and jobs created in Central American countries will lessen 
the pressure of those folks trying to percolate up through Mexico and 
trying to get into America to get a job here.
  We have heard it is good for trade, and it is. Our manufacturers and 
producers will no longer pay the tariffs and duties we are currently 
paying. Manufacturers like Kraft Macaroni & Cheese and breakfast 
cereals will now be able to be sold in these Central American countries 
with that trade.
  It seems odd to me if I have a job, and a group comes to me and says 
we want to help you get a better job, we want you to earn more and we 
want the labor standards to be improved, but we want you to keep that 
job, well, that is the kind of idea I would like to have help with. But 
if I have another side that says I want to help you with labor 
standards and I want to help you have a better job, but in the meantime 
I want you to be unemployed, that does not make a lot of sense to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote for this rule and the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished minority whip who recognizes 
that curtailing debate is an abuse of power.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I have been a strong advocate for free trade 
and open markets because I believe that the American businesses and 
workers can compete in a global market. The United States is the most 
powerful Nation in the world, and it is incumbent upon us to lead, to 
foster global trade, to engage our partners in a system based on rules 
and law and to work to raise the living standards of working men and 
women both at home and abroad.
  However, the centrality of free trade in our interdependent world 
cannot relegate our commitment to working men and women to the 
peripheral. We must seek to provide a level playing field for American 
workers and improve living and working conditions for foreign workers 
by guaranteeing fair wages and basic workplace protections. I have 
consistently supported legislation and trade agreements that have 
furthered these goals.
  I was hopeful the Bush administration would pursue these objectives 
in negotiating CAFTA and that we would ultimately be presented an 
agreement that advanced the cause of free trade, promoted the rule of 
law, and generated economic development in countries in great need, and 
extended to U.S. workers, farmers, and businesses the advantages of 
expanded access to new markets. Regrettably, the agreement before us 
does not meet these goals.
  Specifically, CAFTA fails to ensure the implementation and 
enforcement of the five core internationally recognized labor rights. 
Compounding the problem is the failure to allow trade sanctions to 
enforce the deal's modest labor provisions. In other words, the 
enforcement structure is absent.
  I am, therefore, regrettably unable to support the Central American 
Free Trade Agreement for its failure to guarantee basic workplace 
protections for Central Americans and a level playing field for 
American workers.
  It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, that given the problems that we have 
with CAFTA, given the questions that have been raised, that the 
majority is unwilling to give sufficient debate to develop the 
arguments. This is a critically important issue. NAFTA was an important 
issue. It was 8 hours of debate. This is one-quarter of that.
  We are unable to fully develop the deficiencies in this bill with the 
1 hour of debate that the minority will be given. Perhaps that is the 
point. Perhaps that is the objective. Perhaps the meaning of this rule 
is to shut us up, shut us out, and shut us down. That is a shame, that 
my colleagues do not have the confidence in their proposition that they 
put on this floor to give it a full airing, a full debate in the light 
of day.
  Why do these issues always come up in the late of night? I do not 
understand that. Oppose this rule. Oppose this bill. It is not good for 
America. It is not good for the countries that have signed it.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, fast track up-or-down voting procedures place a premium 
on consultation and accommodation during the conception and negotiation 
of trade agreements. But the DR-CAFTA negotiations turned its back on 
this process. Everyone who raised concerns about labor rights, 
environmental standards, or the vulnerability of key agricultural and 
manufacturing sectors was shut out. That is why this agreement has been 
so universally criticized throughout Central America and the United 
States.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very familiar with Central America. I have deep 
attachments to the people, and I appreciate how far these countries 
have come since the wars there ended. I want their democracies to 
thrive. I want their lives and livelihoods to improve. And I think a 
good trade agreement could make a valuable contribution to these 
efforts. But this CAFTA is not that agreement, and this rule deprives 
Members of their democratic rights to speak on the floor of the House 
on this controversial issue.
  It is shameful how the Republican leadership of this House continues 
to use the Committee on Rules as a weapon to undermine the deliberative 
process. It is disrespectful to American workers that the Republican 
leadership is shortchanging this debate. It is a disgrace. But, sadly, 
that has become the norm around here. I urge all my colleagues to vote 
down this rule and vote down this CAFTA bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page 17987]]


  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Morris, Illinois (Mr. Weller), a hard-working member of the Committee 
on Ways and Means.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise in support of the rule as well as in support of the 
Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement.
  Let me ask a very simple question. Next door to you is a neighbor, 
and you are charged by your neighbor to enter his back yard. But then 
when he comes over to visit your back yard, he can come in free. That 
is really what this trade agreement is all about.
  Right now, 80 percent of all manufactured goods made in the Dominican 
Republic-Central America come in duty free into Illinois, into my State 
in the United States, and 99 percent of all farm products from the DR 
and Central America come into Illinois and the United States duty free.
  Now, is there reciprocity under the current status quo? No. Illinois 
corn faces a 20 percent tariff, Illinois soybeans a 30 percent tariff, 
Illinois pork a 40 percent tariff. Under DR-CAFTA, those tariffs are 
either eliminated immediately or phased out very quickly.
  We make yellow bulldozers. Caterpillar is the biggest manufacturer in 
the State of Illinois and the biggest employer in my district. Those 
yellow bulldozers made in Joliet face a 14 to 20 percent tariff under 
the status quo. Under DR-CAFTA it is eliminated immediately.
  Vote ``yes'' for DR-CAFTA. It is good for Illinois workers and good 
for Illinois farmers.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, back on November 6 of 1979, Ronald Reagan announced his 
candidacy for President of the United States; and in that announcement, 
he envisaged a free trade accord of all the Americas, where we could 
have the free flow of goods and services and capital and ideas.

                              {time}  1930

  This is a very important part of that vision which has not only been 
supported by Republicans, but President Clinton was a strong supporter 
of that notion, the free trade area of the Americas; back in 1993, by a 
392-18 vote, passed the Caribbean Basin Initiative. Why, so rather than 
sending aid, we would open up the U.S. market to these struggling 
countries in the Caribbean.
  We now have an opportunity to respond to the fact that we have 
provided unlimited access to our consumer market by these countries.
  Mr. Speaker, it is true, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and I 
have been here for a quarter century, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Burton) a little less than that. I have never witnessed greater 
politicization or a greater mischaracterization of a piece of 
legislation than I have this. For the last decade we have had 2 hours 
of debate on trade agreements that we have dealt with. Yes, the statute 
says up to 20 hours. The last time that happened was November 14, 1980. 
And once they started it, they pared it back.
  We have been debating this issue for literally months. Special Orders 
and 1-minute speeches have taken place. It is time for us to vote. I 
believe we are going to have a great opportunity, a great opportunity, 
to enhance the standard of living for people in the United States and 
in this region. It is going to create an opportunity for us to better 
compete globally, and as we enhance the standard of living in Latin 
America, it will clearly help us with this very important problem that 
we have of border security and illegal immigration.
  We have a win-win all of the way around. We have seen great benefits 
from trade. The much-maligned North American Free Trade Agreement has 
created a scenario whereby we have a third of a trillion dollars in 
trade between Mexico and the United States. Mexico's population now has 
a middle class that is larger than the entire Canadian population. Yes, 
there is poverty; yes, it needs to improve, but clearly the cause of 
freedom is an important one. The cause of stability in our region is a 
very, very important one.
  I urge support of this rule. I urge support of the Dominican 
Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________