[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 13]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 18209]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          THE STAKES IN CAFTA

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. JUDY BIGGERT

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, July 26, 2005

  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following article for the 
Record:

               [From the Washington Post, July 26, 2005]

                          The Stakes in CAFTA

       The House is getting ready to vote on the Central American 
     Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), a deal that would bind the five 
     nations of Central America plus the Dominican Republic to the 
     U.S. economy. From a commercial standpoint, it's curious that 
     most Democrats in the House resist the agreement: 80 percent 
     of Central American exports already enter the United States 
     without tariffs, so the main effect of the deal will be to 
     open the region to U.S. products. But the political argument 
     for CAFTA is at least as compelling. While the United States 
     has been focusing on terrorism, a new challenge has been 
     brewing in its own hemisphere. House members should consider 
     this challenge before voting to slam the door on Central 
     America's pro-American leaders.
       For much of the post-Cold War period, U.S. anxieties in 
     Latin America seemed to be fading. The disintegration of the 
     Soviet Union left Cuba's Fidel Castro without subsidies, 
     undermining his power to buy influence in the region. The 
     peace process in Central America succeeded, ending leftist 
     insurgences in El Salvador and Guatemala and leading to 
     elections in Nicaragua that removed its Marxist leadership. 
     Democracy already had displaced often populist dictatorships 
     across South America; in Mexico, a pro-American, pro-market 
     presidential candidate succeeded against the long-ruling and 
     traditionally leftist Institutional Revolutionary Party. The 
     remaining U.S. problem in Latin America was the drug war. 
     Although the cartels were rich and ruthless, they were not 
     trying to rally Latin Americans behind an anti-Yanqui banner.
       In the past few years, however, an attempt has been made to 
     revive the political challenge once represented by Mr. 
     Castro. It centers on Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, who combines 
     Castroite rhetoric with the financial clout of Venezuelan 
     oil. Mr. Chavez has spread his money around the region, 
     sponsoring anti-American and anti-democrative movements and 
     promoting alternatives to U.S. initiatives. To counter the 
     U.S. trade agenda, for example, he has put forward a 
     ``Bolivarian Alternative.'' This has given critics of the 
     United States something to advocate. El Nuevo Diario, a 
     Nicaraguan newspaper that is critical of CAFTA, praised the 
     Bolivarian Alternative recently, asserting that ``America is 
     for the Americans, not for the North Americans.'' In Costa 
     Rica critics of CAFTA who draw inspiration from Mr. Chavez 
     have made no secret of the fact that they oppose the deal 
     because they oppose the United States.
       Most House Democrats don't want to hear this; they claim 
     that CAFTA is opposed by ``pro-poor'' groups in the region. 
     But this claim is troubling on two levels. First, CAFTA would 
     actually help the poor: It would create 300,000 new jobs in 
     shoes, textiles and apparel; it would create a new mechanism 
     for enforcing labor rights; and a World Bank study has found 
     that the vast majority of poor families in the region would 
     gain from the deal. But second, the defeat of CAFTA would 
     help not anti-poverty movements but anti-American demagogues, 
     starting with Mr. Chavez. For them, the retreat of the United 
     States from partnership with Central America would be a major 
     victory.

                          ____________________