Providing for Consideration of H.R. 3045, Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3045, DOMINICAN REPUBLIC-CENTRAL AMERICA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT -- (House of Representatives - July 27, 2005)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov