[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6125-6126]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                 CAFTA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, a bowling ball weighs about 170 times 
the weight of a slice of sandwich bread. It does not take a physicist 
to see the mismatch between a bowling ball and a slice of bread. And it 
does not take a trade expert to see the economic mismatch between the 
United States and the nations that make up the Central American Free 
Trade Agreement: Honduras, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Guatemala, and El 
Salvador.
  The way that CAFTA, the Central American Free Trade Agreement, 
proponents talk, you would think Central America was one of the biggest 
economies in the Western Hemisphere. CAFTA nations are not only among 
the world's poorest countries, they are among its smallest economies.
  Think about this: this big trade agreement that President Bush wants, 
CAFTA, the combined purchasing power of the CAFTA nations is almost 
identical to the purchasing power of Columbus, Ohio.
  Tomorrow, the Senate will hold the first congressional hearing on 
CAFTA. Congress typically has voted within 55 days of President Bush 
signing a trade agreement. May 28 will mark the 1-year anniversary of 
when the President signed CAFTA.
  The other trade agreements were all done within only about 2 months. 
Because CAFTA is so unpopular and trade policy in this country is so 
wrong-headed, the President still has not sent CAFTA here for a vote. 
Clearly, there is dissension in the ranks, and for good reason.
  CAFTA is the dysfunctional cousin of NAFTA, the North American Free 
Trade Agreement, continuing a legacy of failed trade policies.
  Look at NAFTA's record: one million United States manufacturing jobs 
lost to the North American Free Trade Agreement. One million. NAFTA did 
nothing. NAFTA: Mexico, Canada, the U.S. NAFTA did nothing for Mexican 
workers as promised. They continue to earn just about a dollar a day, 
while living in abject poverty. Not exactly a great market for U.S. 
products.
  And yet the U.S. continues to push for more of the same, more of the 
same job hemorrhaging, income-lowering trade agreements, more trade 
agreements that ship U.S. jobs overseas, more trade agreements that 
neglect essential environmental standards, more trade agreements that 
keep foreign workers in poverty.
  The only difference between CAFTA and NAFTA is the first letter. 
Madness is repeating the same action over and over and over and 
expecting a different result. We hear the same promises on every trade 
agreement. This Congress, somehow barely, in the middle of the night, 
passes them. We see the same bad results.
  But do not just take my word for it. Look at the numbers. Numbers do 
not lie. The U.S. economy, with a $10 trillion GDP in 2002, is 170 
times bigger than the economies of the CAFTA nations, at about $62 
billion combined. It is like pairing a bowling ball with a slice of 
bread.
  CAFTA is not about robust markets for the export of American goods. 
It is about outsourcing. It is about access to cheap labor. We send our 
jobs overseas. The workers overseas get paid almost nothing, not able 
to raise their living standard. U.S. corporations make more money, 
American workers lose their jobs. It is the same old story.
  Again, the combined purchasing power of the CAFTA nations is about 
that of Orlando, Florida. Trade pacts like NAFTA and CAFTA enable 
companies to exploit cheap labor in other countries, then import their 
products back to the U.S. under favorable terms.

[[Page 6126]]

  American companies outsource their jobs to Guatemala, outsource their 
jobs to China, outsource their jobs to Mexico. It costs American 
workers their jobs. It does almost nothing for the workers in those 
countries, yet profits at Wal-Mart and GM and those companies continue 
to rise.
  CAFTA will do nothing to stop the bleeding of manufacturing jobs, 
except make it worse, will do nothing to stop the bleeding of 
manufacturing jobs in the U.S., and will do even less to create a 
strong Central American consumer market for American goods.
  Throughout the developing world, workers do not share in the wealth 
they create. If you work at GM in the United States, if you work at a 
hardware store in the United States, you create wealth for your 
employer and you share some of that wealth. That is how you get a 
middle-class existence.
  But in the developing world, workers do not share in the wealth they 
create. Nike workers in Vietnam cannot afford to buy the shoes they 
make. Disney workers in Costa Rica cannot afford to buy the toys for 
their children. Ford workers in Mexico cannot afford to buy the cars 
that they make. Motorola workers in Malaysia cannot afford to buy the 
cell phones they make.
  The United States, with its unrivaled purchasing power and its 
enormous economic clout, we, in our country, are in a unique position 
to empower workers in the developing world while promoting prosperity 
at home.
  When the world's poorest people can buy American products, rather 
than just make them, then we will know our trade policies finally are 
working. Vote ``no'' on the Central American Free Trade Agreement.

                          ____________________