Providing for Consideration of H.R. 3045, Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. 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 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.
* [Begin Insert]
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 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.
* [End Insert]
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BACHUS. 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source