Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TEXT

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, today, after much deliberation, I decided to cast my vote against the Central American Free Trade Agreement. After careful review, I have concluded that the benefits of CAFTA are likely to flow to a few powerful economic special interests at the expense of working men and women in the United States and Central America. It is my hope that a `no vote' will encourage the President to go back and re-negotiate the labor and environmental provisions of CAFTA so that everyone, not just a few special interests, will experience the rewards of free trade.

The Bush Administration offered as one of its reasons for negotiating this agreement that the growing economic prosperity in Central America as a result of CAFTA would pull Central Americans up from poverty to become enthusiastic consumers of American goods. But by not sufficiently addressing the issue of weak labor protections throughout Central America, the Bush Administration neglected an important tool that could help make this dream a reality.

According to the Administration, CAFTA adequately addressed labor concerns by requiring that each country enforce its own labor laws. Ordinarily, I would not object to this.

GPO's PDF

Similar language is included in some of the other FTAs I have supported in the past. But what is troubling about CAFTA is that, while Central American countries may indeed have worker protections on the books, they have a dismal record of enforcing them. This became clear to me while researching the human rights records of CAFTA countries.

I was disheartened to learn that while the constitutions of each CAFTA country provides for rights of workers, bureaucratic impediments, ineffective legal systems and insufficient resources have precipitated a culture of neglect that has left workers vulnerable to exploitation by employers.

In Guatemala, the law prohibits retribution for forming or participating in trade unions. But, enforcement of these provisions is weak. Employers often circumvent the Labor Code or simply ignore judicial pronouncements altogether.

In El Salvador, there have been repeated complaints that the government prevents workers from exercising their constitutionally recognized right of association by employing excessive judicial formalities and denying unions legal standing.

In Honduras, the Labor Code expressly prohibits retribution by employers for trade union activity and blacklisting--but such violations continue.

The Administration's response to objections about the dismal enforcement records of Central American governments is that CAFTA contains penalties to discourage such activities. While CAFTA does contain provisions crafted to encourage enforcement of labor rights, these provisions fall short of the strength needed to reverse years of indifference and systematic neglect.

CAFTA's enforcement mechanism centers on a strategy of financial penalties. Each time a party is found guilty of violating a worker's rights, that country is assessed a fine. This approach has been employed in earlier agreements with few objections. But in CAFTA, such an approach is problematic.

My principal concern is that only the U.S. has the standing to bring a case against a CAFTA country. NGOs and other international institutions, who are often the most knowledgeable about the labor conditions in these countries, are forbidden from seeking redress on behalf of workers--which means that only the U.S. government will be able to take issue with labor violations under CAFTA. Given our poor history of forcing compliance with labor laws among our trading partners, I am not convinced that this approach will adequately protect Central American workers.

Equally troubling is the requirement that countries found to be in violation pay the fine back to themselves instead of to the United States. This hardly seems like a penalty at all.

Unfortunately, CAFTA would turn the labor conditions in some Central American countries from bad to worse. The Caribbean Basin Initiative, which currently governs U.S. trade relations with Central America provides for periodic opportunities to reconsider and re-negotiate its provisions--including its labor provisions. That creates a mechanism where, over time, we can press for improved labor conditions. But the labor provisions in CAFTA would preempt the CBI process. Once passed, CAFTA can only be changed if each individual country agrees to the change.

Over the years, unions have helped bring scores of Americans into the middle class. Unions helped shield workers from retribution as they sought a fair wage and better benefits for themselves and their families. Given the increased opportunity for trade that CAFTA will bring about, Central American workers deserve the chance to enjoy some of the benefits.

The debate on CAFTA has been long and spirited. Along the way, critics have had time to clearly annunciate their objections. The Bush Administration heard and responded to concerns about textiles and even re-opened negotiations on the issue. Why can't the same be done for labor rights?

Mr. President, many of the flaws in the agreement with respect to labor rights also apply to its environmental provisions. The enforcement mechanisms are weak.

I have therefore concluded that CAFTA is a missed opportunity. Without adequate mechanisms to enforce labor and environmental standards it will trigger a race to the bottom--a race for certain special economic interests to exploit lax labor and environmental protections. The result will be substantial benefits for a few at the expense of many. We can do better. We must do better.

Mr. President, Americans and Central Americans deserve a chance to have their concerns about this agreement addressed--please re-negotiate CAFTA.

BREAK IN TEXT

Source