Supporting the goals of National Marina Day and urging marinas continue providing environmentally friendly gateways to boating.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my strong opposition to the Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement and intend to vote it against.

I am proud to be a pro-trade Democrat in Congress and am proud of my record--having supported every free trade agreement since I took office in 1997.

I voted in favor of granting the President Trade Promotion Authority in 2002 and voted against withdrawing from the World Trade Organization in 2000 and again earlier this year.

I am a longtime member, and the current chair of the New Democrat Coalition, a group of members who often support free trade. We see our role as a group of pro-business, pro-defense, and pro-trade leaning members who seek ways to open foreign markets to American goods and services. I also co-chair the Friends of New Zealand Caucus in the House, and hope we may soon see a free trade agreement with New Zealand.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that free trade, when organized properly, benefits our economy. It can only help to improve our relations with the other countries involved.

In the case of CAFTA, I want to see our Nation maintain close ties with our neighbors in Central America. Our economic security and our National security depend on cooperative relationships with our friends and allies.

However, in pursuing free trade, we must also consider the impact and direct effects the agreements will have on workers--both here and abroad.

And CAFTA fails to provide adequate protection.

It simply does not do enough to invest in basic job training and education for Americans--specifically those Americans who lose their jobs due to trade.

The current budget for Trade Adjustment Assistance is insufficient: the President's 2005 request was $300 million less than Congress authorized for FY 2004, despite the obvious needs for job training and retraining. What's worse, Mr. Speaker, is that CAFTA does not provide any TAA funds for service workers, who comprise 80 percent of today's American workforce and produce three-quarters of our products. When job training programs go under funded, American workers are at risk.

Furthermore, CAFTA is the first FTA negotiated by the United States with developing countries, some of which have weak labor laws and a history of suppressing the rights of their workers.

We need to do all in our power to ensure that this agreement helps these countries raise their working standards. Unfortunately, the labor chapter requires that each country simply enforce its existing laws. It does nothing to require the DR-CAFTA countries improve their laws to reflect fairness to working people. There are also no safeguards in the agreement to prevent countries to explicitly weakening their labor laws. This ``enforce your own laws'' standard is a giant step backwards. Under our current trade policy, the Caribbean Basin Initiative allows us to withdraw trade benefits from countries who violate the labor standards of the agreements they have signed. If CAFTA goes into effect, those remedies are wiped out and simply replaced with the ``enforce your own laws'' standard.

This labor agreement is simply unacceptable.

And finally Mr. Speaker, I feel compelled to say a word about the legislative process here in Congress. I would be remiss if I did not do so.

This Administration has made a habit of regularly excluding Democrats from the table during the negotiation and drafting of all major legislation. We saw this with the energy bill, the Medicare prescription drug bill, and again with CAFTA. We were not consulted at all on this FTA.

We all have valid ideas and concerns worthy of discussion regarding improving international market economies and they need to be fully and fairly debated. That did not happen with CAFTA. We were not engaged. I thought that at some point in the process members of the New Democrat Coalition would be consulted, as we generally support free trade. However, I was wrong. There was no outreach from House leaders or from the President to us.

One would think that after the passage of Trade Promotion Authority in 2002--by a 3 vote margin--a clear signal was sent to the Administration that passing free trade agreements will not be easy. Everyone ought to be at the table. Instead of heeding past warnings, they have continued to make a habit of regularly excluding Democrats. CAFTA has been no exception.

As a result of poor negotiations with the Democrats and a lack of steady involvement by the President with members of his own party, on the day of the CAFTA vote, President Bush made an eleventh hour trip to Congress to twist arms in hopes of squeaking out the minimum number of votes needed to pass this agreement.

Mr. Speaker, trade should not be a Republican or Democrat issue. It is an American issue. Passing trade agreements by one or two votes, in the dead of night when both the American and Central American people are sleeping, is not the way to have a responsible trade policy.

Both the people of Central America and workers here in the United States deserve better.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the U.S.- Central American Free Trade Agreement

For me, free trade has always been about jobs and economic opportunity. But this agreement is about much more than that. It's also about increasing democracy in a region whose stability is fragile but moving in the right direction. It's about improving the environment. And it's about stemming illegal immigration.

The economic benefits of CAFTA are undeniable. CAFTA countries comprise the tenth largest market for U.S. goods, and the rapid growth of U.S. exports to CAFTA countries suggests this market could grow even more with the lowering of trade barriers.

My home State of Minnesota exported $12.7 billion in goods worldwide last year and ranks seventh in State agriculture exporters. Between 2000 and 2004, Minnesota manufacturers' exports to Central America increased by 83 percent, which clearly demonstrates Central America's viability as an emerging market for U.S. exports. And the elimination of protectionist tariffs in Central American countries will provide further increases in export opportunities for Minnesota farmers, manufacturers and service providers.

Passage of this agreement is so important to the U.S. economy because under the Caribbean Basin Initiative, over 80 percent of Central American imports already receive duty-free treatment. And if you separate the agriculture sector, CAFTA countries receive duty-free treatment on 99 percent of imports, 99 percent. It's time for our farmers and manufacturers to get fair treatment by allowing our exports to have duty-free access to their market.

CAFTA's passage is also necessary to advance overall trade liberalization. CAFTA's failure could cause a significant setback to other bilateral agreements in the works and also to the WTO-wide Doha Round negotiations.

The U.S. must remain competitive in the global economy, especially with the emergence of major exporters like China. Lowering trade barriers with developing countries in our hemisphere helps our overall competitiveness against China by increasing competition in growth sectors that China would otherwise dominate--like textiles, apparel and light manufacturing.

So the economic argument is rock solid, but CAFTA's passage goes beyond economic considerations. It will also help promote democracy, decrease illegal immigration and increase environmental standards.

For decades during the cold war, the U.S. spent significant resources fighting the spread of Communist and tyrannical dictatorships in Central America. Fortunately, Daniel Ortega's Sandinistas and the other leftist insurgencies which tore Central American countries apart have since been defeated and replaced by fledgling democracies. But now another destabilizing leader--Venezuela's Hugo Chavez--threatens peace and prosperity in the region.

Just last week, Chavez was reportedly revving up his military-- warning them to be prepared for the imminent invasion by the U.S. And not surprisingly, Chavez is also the most vociferous opponent of CAFTA in the region.

Make no mistake, Hugo Chavez is licking his chops at the prospect of CAFTA's failure--waiting to exploit our missed opportunity and trap these nascent democracies under his thumb. These Central American countries lie on the precipice of economic stability and democratic government, and they deserve a chance to develop the same freedoms we have here.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to the economic and political benefits, CAFTA's passage will also improve environmental standards in Central America and decrease the flow of illegal immigrants from the region.

Study after study has shown that as economies improve, so do environmental standards. Once people get beyond the basic needs of food and shelter for their families, they can focus on the greater goods of clean air, clean water and conservation. Trade is not a zero-sum game. The elimination of tariffs helps increase exports and grow economies, and as the economies of Central America grow, so will their environmental quality.

Similarly, illegal immigration stems from the human desire to improve one's economic condition. As a member of the Immigration Reform Caucus, I believe we have a long way to go to improve our border security and stop the flow of illegal immigration. An improving economy in Central America will help achieve this goal, as the increase in job opportunities in the region will encourage more people to remain in their native countries.

The empirical data supports the agreement. Trade liberalization has always had the empirical data on its side. The immediate tariff reductions found in CAFTA expand market access for U.S. farmers, manufacturers and service providers and continue our country down the path of even greater market access worldwide. It will also significantly improve standards of living in Central America.

Congress must now have the resolve to do what is right and pass CAFTA. The future of our economy and the political stability of our region depend on it.

Mr. Speaker, there are various good reasons to vote against CAFTA, but the first is enough and it's basic: this is not a good deal.

The U.S. is running unprecedented trade deficits--$618 billion last year, $195 billion this year in the first quarter alone. And the deficit worsens every year, weakening our economy and our independence. Virtually every trade deal the U.S. has made has resulted in far more imports than exports. Yet we keep creating free trade zones in the blind faith that the market will optimize the outcome.

Central American countries are part of the Carribean Basin and already enjoy wide-open access to our markets by virtue of tariff Item 807, the Generalized System of Preferences, the Carribean Basin Trade Partnership Agreement, and the Uruguay Round of GATT, which has removed all quotas on textile/apparel imports. Far from being disadvantaged, these countries enjoy preferential access now.

In fact, the Caribbean Basin countries as a group already export more to the U.S. than Mexico and import less. The CBI countries shipped $2.6 billion in apparel exports to the U.S. versus $1.6 billion in apparel shipments from Mexico. During the most recent quarter, CBI countries imported $655 million in fabric from the U.S. Mexico imported $809 million. Overall, in 2004 our textile/apparel trade deficit with Mexico was $3.765 versus $5.669 with CBI countries.

CAFTA purports to be based on a rule of origin adopted from NAFTA. NAFTA provides that for textile and apparel goods to move freely among Mexico, Canada, and the U.S., they must be made from the yarn stage forward in these three countries. CAFTA follows the same rule, but carves out so many exceptions that the exceptions swallow the rule.

Here are some of the exceptions to the rule of origin that CAFTA allows for textiles and apparel:

Only the component that gives the garment its essential character is subject to the rule of origin. Non-essential components are excepted.

Textile or apparel goods that contain fabric or yarn deemed ``in short supply'' in the U.S. are treated as originating in CAFTA, regardless of origin. This opens the door to more Chinese components entering the U.S. duty-free.

Denim, wool, cotton, and man-made fiber woven products from Mexico and Canada, are permitted under the rule of ``cumulation.'' Cumulation allows countries that have free trade agreements with us to supply component parts to CAFTA countries without affecting duty-free treatment. This opens the sale of U.S. yarn and fabric to competition and increases the likelihood that transshipped textiles from China will enter the U.S. duty free.

For the first 10 years, CAFTA grants Tariff Preference Levels (TPL) to Nicaragua, for up to 100 million square meter equivalents of out-of- region cotton or man-made fiber garments. These goods come into the U.S. at nominal duties. This exception represents \2/3\ of Nicaragua's current capacity and opens another back door to Chinese imports.

The origin of collars, cuffs, and linings is not considered when determining the origin of the apparel goods. This allows the use of Chinese collars, cuffs and linings.

CAFTA allows Central American countries to use components from anywhere--including China--to make pajamas, bras, and boxers and import them duty-free. The import of these goods from China has been found disruptive to our markets. So, they are subject to ``restraints'' under a special ``safeguard'' agreement with China. By allowing duty-free access to the U.S. for these goods, CAFTA allows China a route around the ``safeguard'' restraints.

Here's another oddity about CAFTA. CAFTA benefits are retroactive to January 1, 2004. Manufacturers will receive duty rebates if CAFTA is ratified. Under the Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act, garments made in the region from U.S. yarns and fabrics already receive duty- free treatment. The only manufacturers who will benefit from retroactivity are the ones who want to use non-U.S. fabric as part of the single transformation, TPL, or cumulation loopholes. Retroactivity is essentially an invitation from the U.S. government to manufacturers to start using non-U.S. fabrics immediately.

The U.S. has been unable to make labor and environmental standards a condition of free trade for GATT/WTO members, though they should be. Otherwise, free trade becomes a race to the bottom. Our goal should not be just to expand markets, but to raise living standards. All CAFTA says is that a country must enforce its own laws. CAFTA sanctions the status quo, doing nothing for labor or environmental laws.

All in all, CAFTA strikes a poor bargain. China is now making trade deals world-wide, using as leverage the largest emerging market in the world. The U.S. still has the largest existing market in the world. Surely in exchange for access to our markets, we can cut a better deal than CAFTA--better for our workers and theirs.

Mr. Speaker, the late Pope John Paul said, ``If globalization is ruled merely by the laws of the market applied to suit the powerful, the consequences cannot be but negative.''

I agree with the late Pope John Paul. Trade is more than just economics. It's about peoples' lives and livelihoods. Our economic policies should create the rising tide that lifts all boats. Each decision we make must take into account the welfare and dignity of all people, but especially the poor and vulnerable who struggle daily to support themselves and their families.

When CAFTA is viewed through this moral framework, it is clear the agreement does not pass muster. That is why Pax Christi, Catholics for Faithful Citizenship and 34 other organizations (attached) of faith oppose CAFTA. If this agreement is enacted, the poor will get poorer and the rich will get richer.

The consequences of CAFTA will be felt by people throughout the Northern hemisphere--from the Michigan sugarbeet farmer trying to put food on the table for his family to the poor Dominican laborer in need of basic medicines.

The developing countries affected by CAFTA have an enormous need for better access to medication. Despite these compelling health needs, CAFTA would undermine their access to affordable medicine and potentially give billions of dollars worth of patent protections to drug companies.

Closer to home, the sugarbeet farmers in Michigan will be forced off their farms as the price of sugar plummets. Hourly workers at sugar refineries will find their jobs outsourced to other countries. These workers' and farmers' livelihoods will be ruined. We're not talking about big Agri-business here--we are talking about small farmers who will no longer be able to support themselves. We're talking about small businesses owners laying off their workforces.

I ask the Bush Administration and the Republican Leadership, ``If enacted, can you imagine what kind of damage CAFTA would inflict on Michigan's sugar industry, which ranks fourth in the country?''

With a state sugar beet economy that spans 2,000 farms, employs thousands of people, and totals over $300 million annually, it doesn't take a genius to predict that flooding our market with sugar imports will strike a blow that may be unrecoverable.

The National Farmers Union, the National Family Farm Coalition, the Institute on Agriculture and Trade Policy, Michigan Sugar Company, and the Monitor Sugar Company--they understand the impact it will have on the sugar industry. Why doesn't the House Leadership pushing this bill get it? Or maybe they just don't care.

This bill is bad for sugar beet growers and bad for Michigan.

As Pope John Paul said, let's not strengthen the powerful at the expense of the less fortunate. That is what CAFTA will do--advance the financial interests of large multinational companies at the expense of the common good.

I cannot support an agreement that fails to protect the livelihood of so many families, in Michigan, the United States, and abroad. That is why I will vote ``NO'' on CAFTA.

Interfaith Working Group on Trade and Investment member

organizations have mission workers and partner institutions

in Central America who believe that DR-CAFTA will harm their

families and communities. IWG members on record as opposing

CAFTA include:

American Friends Service Committee, Center of Concern,

Church of the Brethren Witness/Washington Office, Church

World Service, Conference of Major Superiors of Men

Religious, Columban Mission Center, Columban Office: Justice,

Peace and Integrity of Creation, Congregation Justice

Committee: Sisters of Holy Cross, Notre Dame, IN,

Congregation of St. Joseph, Cleveland, Ohio, Office of

Governmental Affairs (Evangelical Lutheran Church of

America), Franciscan Sisters of Allegheny, New York, Holy

Cross Institute Office, Institute Justice Team: Sisters of

Mercy of the Americas, International Association of the

Presentations, Leadership Conference of Women Religious,

Lutheran World Relief, Maryknoll Office of Global Concerns.

Mennonite Central Committee: Washington Office, Medical

Mission Sisters Alliance for Justice, Missionary Oblates:

Justice, Peace and Integrity of Creation, National Council of

Churches USA, NETWORK: A National Catholic Social Justice

Lobby, Presbyterian Church (USA Washington Office), Religious

Task Force on Central America and Mexico, SHARE Foundation,

Sisters of Charity of St. Augustine: Social Concerns

Committee, Sisters of Charity of Cincinnati, Sisters of

Humility of Mary, Sisters of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana,

Sisters of Notre Dame, Justice and Peace Office, United

Church of Christ Justice and Witness Ministries, United

Methodist Church: General Board of Church and Society,

Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations, Witness

for Peace.

Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, which has some jurisdiction on trade, I rise in strong support of the CAFTA agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3045, the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (DR-CAFTA). This important Agreement ensures the spread of fair and open markets for American goods and services. I want to commend the Bush administration, the majority leader, and my good friends on the Committee on Ways and Means for bringing this important legislation before the House.

The provisions in DR-CAFTA go beyond the mere dissolution of tariffs. This wide-ranging Agreement sets forth detailed requirements to eliminate the non-tariff trade barriers erected by the member countries. Often more nefarious than traditional protectionist measures, these barriers now constitute the principle impediment to achieving free and unfettered foreign commerce.

The elimination of all trade barriers to foreign commerce has long been a goal of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. So I want to express my great satisfaction that DR-CAFTA contains numerous chapters resolving potential non- tariff trade barriers.

Chapter 6 addresses each country's ability to promulgate needed sanitary measures. It is very important that our countries cooperate closely, and assist one another in protecting human, animal, and plant health. Plant- and animal-borne pests and diseases, including toxins and disease-causing organisms, must be carefully controlled, and the reaffirmation of WTO rules in this area strengthens the Agreement in a significant way.

Chapter 13 and 14 focus on telecommunications and E-commerce. These are some of the most important pieces of the Agreement before us. They promote, instead of hamper, growth in these areas. Chapter 13 ensures non-discriminatory access to public telecommunications networks in the Member countries, and requires the signatories to regulate their dominant telecommunications suppliers in ways that will ensure a level playing field for new market entrants; deregulation and technological neutrality are the key goals. Costa Rica is of particular note because of its government-provided telecom services, and the Agreement has special requirements for this country to open its market to American competition. Additionally, Chapter 14 builds on these goals by prohibiting discriminatory regulation of electronic trade. This chapter represents a major advance over previous international arrangements with regard to E-commerce.

The protection of Intellectual Property, IP, rights must be a part of any Free Trade Agreement, FTA, and Chapter 15 complements and enhances existing international standards in this area. It requires the Parties to ratify or accede to several existing agreements on IP rights, including two significant World Intellectual Property Organization

agreements to which the U.S. is already a Party.

Chapter 17 sets out the Parties' commitments and undertakings regarding environmental protection. It draws on the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation and the environmental provisions of other recent U.S. FTAs, including those with Jordan, Chile, Singapore, Australia, and Morocco. DR-CAFTA goes further however, and notably is the first American FTA that includes a process for public submission on environmental enforcement matters. The Parties must ensure that their laws provide a high level of environmental protection, and no Party may strive to weaken these laws to promote trade with Another.

The Committee on Energy and Commerce has jurisdiction over the areas I have discussed--as well as jurisdiction over non-tariff trade barriers generally--and my Committee plans to continue to exercise its jurisdiction over trade barriers to further the expansion of free and open foreign commerce.

Finally--and aside from the actual text of the Agreement--this implementing legislation offers an opportunity to show the people of the developing countries of Central America and the people of the world that when we speak of freedom and liberty and the importance of self- rule, we mean every word of it. The still-struggling, but nascent democracies of the DR-CAFTA countries need political stability to continue to grow. Economic stability and growth are important parts of that goal. Passing this legislation will help to tie these countries' futures to our own, and to reinforce our own democratic principles.

Mr. Speaker, I would again like to commend all the parties that made this Agreement possible, and to once again urge my colleagues to support unimpeded trade with foreign nations and to help strengthen economic and political stability in our hemisphere through the adoption of DR-CAFTA.

Mr. Speaker, I want to address my colleagues on this side of the aisle, the Democratic side of the aisle, because there are so many good people and true leaders among you, people who understand that we need to do more than we have done for Central America and Central Americans.

In a perfect political world, a Central American trade agreement should have passed on the Consent Calendar.

In a perfect world it would have, because there is virtually no Member of Congress who does not have undocumented immigrants who have risked their life and limb to come to the United States so as to provide some future for themselves and their families. Many of our grandparents could empathize, but surely we who were born here must at least sympathize.

We all know the conditions in Central America. You would have to be blind or without conscience not to recognize the suffering that Central Americans are enduring. Thirty percent of the population cannot afford the most basic foodstuffs. In most countries, more than half of the population are living in poverty. Certainly we feel some obligation, do we not, to do something about it?

I understand the politics, though, and I regret the politics. But from the standpoint of policy, certainly this could and should have been a much better agreement. We should have addressed labor conditions in a more robust way, likewise, in language to preserve the environment. But on the whole this agreement does much more for Central America than we will have the opportunity to do in a long time to come, and that is the reality.

Today we have a perfect storm of political confluence where the elected leaders of all of these nations are products of democratic elections, and their leaders are telling us they want this trade agreement to pass. The leader I have the most respect for, Oscar Arias, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, wrote an editorial, in the Post, and I trust we read it on both sides of the aisle. The thrust of his argument was, please give us an opportunity to stop having to export our people and let us begin to export our products and our services. And the only way that we can do that is to provide an incentive for all these multinational corporations, people with capital to invest, to invest it in Central America; ultimately invested in the human infrastructure, the roads and the bridges, the transportation and the communication systems, and the human infrastructure, the people, their education, their skills, their training. It will be in their interest. It is not in their interest now.

Central Americans have paid the price for a system of government that continually exploited people who had no power; that was ruled largely by a handful of elite families, many of them descendents from the original European settlers who came there half a millenia ago. For 500 years they have been suffering. It is time to put an end to their desperation and isolation. They need and deserve a seat at the table of the global economy.

I am not going to try to justify or rationalize or excuse all of the problems with a globalized economy. Certainly people lose their jobs and people are hurt, but the global economy is a reality of today's world. And if you are not at the table, you will suffer. We cannot maintain even the status quo in Central America any more than we can in this country. If CAFTA doesn't pass poverty will get worse in Central America. Jobs will continue to be lost at an even faster pace to China and other countries who are more competitive, and capital will go elsewhere if we do not pass this trade agreement.

It is in so many ways deficient. I am not going to argue about that. But it is a fact that over the next 4 years $160 million is going to be invested in enforcement of labor laws, labor laws that are actually pretty good on the books of these nations. They are not enforced, but today this is the best opportunity to have them enforced. There will not be another opportunity to

have them enforced, and we have that commitment. And, likewise, the environment will not be exploited to the degree that it has been.

It is not a perfect agreement, but it is our responsibility, our duty, as far as I am concerned, to pass this agreement now, to work with Central America, to work with the people that will invest in Central America to bring about a better world. A world one day of opportunity for the best and brightest Central Americans in their own country, so they don't have to risk everything in pursuit of it outside their country of birth. I do understand that it is important to be on the right side of the political equation tonight, but it is even more important to be on the right side of history, and I think the right side of history will prove to be a yes vote for CAFTA.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, DR-CAFTA or CAFTA. This trade agreement will eliminate thousands of American jobs without raising the quality of life for Central Americans and Dominicans. It is an agreement written to raise profits for multinational corporations at the expense of workers and the environment in the U.S. and the CAFTA countries. CAFTA should be renegotiated or voted down.

There is wide, bipartisan opposition to this bill here in the Congress because it endangers workers and jobs in the U.S. and abroad, it endangers our economy and it endangers the environment. Opposition to congressional ratification of this flawed agreement also runs deep outside of the Congress, throughout this country and the other signatory nations. The public as well as labor leaders, environmentalists, economists, and business owners and the clergy all strongly oppose the measure. Hundreds of thousands of Central Americans have taken to the streets to protest CAFTA.

I strongly support increased global trade for the United States. However, when negotiated, I believe free trade agreements should place human and labor rights and the protection of the environment on an equal par with the rights of capital. While CAFTA provides extensive protections for goods and capital, it provides no new protections for workers or the environment, and allows the signatory nations to do nothing more than enforce their own laws on labor and the environment.

Implementation of CAFTA would further the failed experiment that was NAFTA. As a result of NAFTA, my home State of Illinois has suffered the loss of over 100,000 jobs. The Nation has lost almost 1 million jobs due to the displacement of production that supported them prior to the implementation of NAFTA. Free trade agreements like NAFTA and PNTR for China perpetuate the race to the bottom in the global economy. They lower working and living standards for workers in other countries and kill jobs in the United States. CAFTA's effects would be no different.

The labor provisions in CAFTA are intentionally unenforceable. Violations of core labor standards cannot be taken to dispute resolution. The commitment to enforce domestic labor laws is subject to remedies weaker than those available for commercial disputes. This violates the negotiating objective of current U.S. trade law that equivalent remedies should exist for all parts of an agreement. Further, the ``enforce your own laws'' standard allows countries the opportunity to rewrite and weaken their labor laws to attract investment.

Instead of pursuing policies that undermine the rights and security of U.S. workers and workers in other countries, the United States should lead the world by example through a trade policy that improves the lives of individuals and does not just add to the profits of major corporations. Our policies should benefit workers here in this country, create and sustain jobs and help our small and medium-sized and family- owned businesses grow. CAFTA will not accomplish those goals nor will it offer better opportunities to the people of Central America and the Dominican Republic.

The abysmal working conditions in Mexico should serve as a sign of what CAFTA will bring to Central America and the Dominican Republic. The Mexican middle class that was supposed to arise as a result of NAFTA is missing. I visited Ciudad Juarez on the tenth anniversary of NAFTA. Instead of finding a thriving Mexican middle class, I found workers living in the packing crates of the products that they were manufacturing. The poverty rates and disparities in wealth in Mexico have actually grown since NAFTA. CAFTA would just spread those conditions further south by offering multinational corporations new opportunities to profit off the backs of low-wage workers.

I dispute the attempts by free trade proponents to reduce the debate to a choice between ``free trade'' and ``no trade,'' ``this agreement'' or ``no agreement.'' We can do better. We can achieve our economic objectives and moral responsibilities through responsible trade. And we can and should go back to the drawing board and fix CAFTA if we want to protect workers and the environment and give

the people of the DR-CAFTA countries the chance for a better future. I urge my colleagues to vote no on CAFTA so that we can renegotiate this flawed trade agreement.

Mr. Speaker, as our nation leads the world into the 21st century, we should not shy away from opportunities to guide and expand global trade. Lowering tariffs and advancing economic engagement among nations not only helps the American economy, it also can provide real opportunity to those in the developing world who are working to eradicate poverty, build their nations and bring prosperity to their people.

It is critical that we build a bipartisan consensus around the importance of trade, which, unfortunately, does not currently exist. Such a consensus requires that trade agreements be balanced and fair for American workers and companies as well as for the nations with which we seek to engage. It also requires that domestic priorities be put in place to assist Americans in transitioning to the global economy.

While I have supported previous free trade agreements, it is with regret that I oppose H.R. 3045, legislation implementing the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) between the United States, the Dominican Republic and five Central American nations: Costa Rica, Honduras, Nicaragua, EI Salvador and Guatemala. DR-CAFTA does not build the bipartisan consensus we must achieve to succeed in the emerging global economy.

When increasing opportunities through trade, we must be sure to do more to empower the American workforce through a comprehensive and upgraded education and worker training policy. The single most important factor in determining America's success in the 21st Century will be maintaining our innovation and creativity.

Over the last few years, the world has become a smaller and more integrated place with technology, which levels the playing field like never before. Greater competition and collaboration exist now between countries, companies, and individuals. Meeting this challenge requires a new set of big ideas. Instead of this Administration being so eager to dismantle the new deal, it should be working with Congress to offer the American people a new ``New Deal.''

This new ``New Deal'' should provide working families with the skills to compete successfully in the 21st Century economy. We must renew our commitment to worker training programs, an education investment that emphasizes math, science and engineering, research funding in science and medicine, and a comprehensive broad-band strategy for all America.

Unfortunately, DR-CAFTA fails on a number of fronts. While the Administration has aggressively negotiated intellectual property and investor rights provisions in the agreement, it has simply not taken the same approach to protect workers' rights abroad or address the needs of working families here at home.

DR-CAFTA does not require nations to bring their laws into compliance with the International Labor Organization (ILO) core labor standards, even though the ILO and U.S. State Department have documented numerous areas where the CAFTA countries' laws fail to comply with even the most basic international norms. Further, the agreement lacks critical dispute settlement and enforcement mechanisms for worker rights provisions beyond a normal fine for countries that fail to enforce their own current labor laws. Even this minimal standard is flawed, as DR-CAFTA does not require countries to maintain their current labor laws.

In addition to the inadequate labor provisions in the trade agreement, the Administration has done nothing to prepare hard-working American families for the consequences of increased trade. Rather, the Administration and Congressional Leadership have provided irresponsible tax cuts benefiting the wealthiest one percent of Americans at the expense of investing in education, skills training, and research and development.

Mr. Speaker, economics and trade need not be a zero-sum game; it can be a win-win for everyone involved as long as people have the tools to succeed. I cannot in good faith support an incomplete trade and economic policy that leaves Americans less able to be creative and innovative.

Mr. Speaker, I fully support global commerce.

Almonds, which I grow on my land in Fresno, have become one of California's most valuable exports through development of foreign markets. In fact, more than two-thirds of this $1 billion a year crop is shipped outside of the United States every year. So, I truly understand the benefit of opening the world to the abundance of U.S. products. Of the producers in my district, some will win and some will lose with CAFTA.

I am here to speak on behalf of America's best interest. That interest is a trade policy that is free and, more importantly, fair.

Unfortunately, regardless of the diligent work and excellent intentions of our trade negotiators, the bi-lateral and multi-lateral agreements we have entered into are not serving America well, especially not American agriculture, if you use the last 10 years of increasing trade deficit as the standard.

The evidence of our trade failures is undeniable. Over the last dozen years, the U.S. trade deficit has grown exponentially from a deficit of $38 billion in 1992 to $668 billion last year, a incredible increase of more than $630 billion in 12 years--more than 1700 percent. This year, in spite of the Trade Promotion Authority enjoyed by the President and the plethora of agreements brought before this body, America's trade deficit is the largest it has been in nearly 50 years.

Last year, of the ships arriving from Asia to West Coast ports-- Seattle, Portland, Oakland, Los Angeles--more than half of them traveled back across the Pacific empty. This is a tragic illustration of a trade policy that is not working.

It is not working because these agreements give us little or no ability to leverage our strengths as a trading partner.

Do we truly need another agreement when Japan, one of our most important trading partners, continues to refuse entry to American beef--one of our safest and highest quality food products?

For the sake of the American agricultural economy, and other American industries, we must do better. We must seriously evaluate the way in which we conduct trade, beginning with the agreements we negotiate; to look at what is working and, more importantly, what is not working.

Ten years ago, I supported NAFTA. But, with the current state of our trade situation and the weakness and our current agreements, I cannot find any sense in supporting another trade agreement that perpetuates this sort of ineffective policy. I am reminded of a familiar quote attributed to Albert Einstein that illustrates my hesitation about CAFTA. ``Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.''

In light of our trade deficits, how can we approve another agreement and expect different, better results for the American farmer?

In conclusion, my vote today against CAFTA is a vote of protest, a vote of dissatisfaction, a line in the sand. My ``nay'' vote today is a message on behalf of American agriculture, American businesses, and American workers to the administration and my colleagues in Congress that we absolutely must develop a new trade strategy, a strategy that reverses, over time, our trade deficit.

This new trade strategy must be straight with the American public. It must define who--over the next 10, or 20, or 30 years--will be the winners and losers. Because, for America to be economically strong in the 21st century, we must have a plan to address the transitions and shifts in our domestic economy.

As participants in the 21st century economy that Thomas Friedman refers to as ``the new flat earth,'' American workers and businessmen deserve to know what their chances are in the global economy. They need to know who among them will be the winners and losers. And, throughout that deliberation, American agriculture must have a seat at the table.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose approval of the US- Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA).

On the floor today we are considering a far reaching and important trade agreement with our Central American neighbors, and yet we will only spend two hours debating DR-CAFTA. I am disappointed that more time was not provided to debate this highly controversial legislation. We will have spent more time this week naming various post offices than seriously debating this trade agreement. This is simply wrong. When the House considered the North American Free Trade (NAFTA), a full eight hours of debate was allowed. This is how the House should consider such agreements, with meaningful and extended debate.

International trade is not just inevitable, it is a good thing. But lowering the cost of goods and increasing their availably is not the single goal of trade. Trade done right helps lift the global standard of living and works to protect the irreplaceable environment we inherited. Trade is about values. Trade agreements are not just about goods and commodities; they are also about what constitutes acceptable behavior in environmental matters, worker's rights, intellectual property, and so forth. We should make sure we export the goods we produce and not the workers who produce them. Unfortunately, the DR- CAFTA before us today fails these basic tests. The DR-CAFTA does not contain the values we would require in America and that we must help spread in Central America. Even the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has come out in opposition to DR-CAFTA because of its effect on the poor and most vulnerable in Central America.

Each new trade agreement entered into by the U.S. should be very closely scrutinized. Each ought to include the strongest enforceable worker rights, human rights, and environmental safeguards attainable, like those included in the U.S.-Jordan agreement of 2000. Each should also include enforceable rules to protect intellectual property rights and guarantee access for U.S.-based corporations to foreign markets. This can be achieved in trade agreements if we enter negotiations with clear principles.

I voted against the Chile and Singapore trade agreements, for example, because the inadequate labor and environmental provisions included in them, in my estimation, failed to meet the negotiating objectives that Congress carefully spelled out in the 2002 law extending fast-track negotiating authority to the President. They did not provide, for example, that trade dispute settlement mechanisms within those free trade agreements afford equivalent treatment to trade-related labor and environmental protection as intellectual property rights and capital subsidies, and the impending DR-CAFTA fails in this regard, too. The agreement between the US and Jordan, on the other hand, is a fine example that good agreements are achievable.

I am deeply troubled by the DR-CAFTA before us today. The DR-CAFTA does not contain strong, enforceable provisions to protect internationally-recognized worker rights. Nor does it have any provisions for environmental safeguards. Such provisions are critical because they both preserve existing labor laws and environmental standards in the affected countries, and because they ensure that American companies will be competing on a more level playing field with our Central American neighbors. Without such provisions, U.S. companies and employees are forced to compete with countries that have inadequate wage, working conditions, or environmental protections. The people of all countries lose in such a ``race to the bottom''.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote no on DR-CAFTA tonight, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3045, the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. Passage of this important legislation will give Alabama exporters greater access to Central American markets and bolster American security.

When I co-chaired the Republican anti-NAFTA task force in 1993 we were determined to defeat NAFTA, but we failed by a few votes. I remain convinced that NAFTA has been bad for my district and increased the Nation's trade deficit with Mexico. While CAFTA and NAFTA sound alike, the two trade agreements have substantial differences that cannot be overlooked. NAFTA exported thousands of jobs to Mexico, while dramatically increasing the flood of Mexican made products into the U.S. market. CAFTA, meanwhile, gives U.S. goods the same market access to Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua as those countries already enjoy here, thereby leveling the playing field for American exporters.

Ratifying CAFTA actually benefits the United States significantly more than it does Central America since those nations already have 90 percent duty-free access to our markets. CAFTA simply gives American companies and workers equal access to Central America. As such, Alabama agriculture and other industry will benefit from the ability to export more goods duty-free, resulting in lower prices and increased consumption in this area. Alabama ranks eighth among all U.S. states in exports to Central America and that is expected to grow with CAFTA's passage.

However, I did not give my support to this agreement without carefully considering several issues. First, I remain concerned about saving thousands of remaining textile jobs in Alabama and protecting agriculture and other industries in my district. Secondly, I have serious concerns over the return of leftist insurgencies in the struggling democratic countries that are a part of CAFTA and the harm that would do to our national security. Finally, I also have concerns about the threat of illegal immigration.

Most of the Alabama textile plants that survived the effects of NAFTA did so by establishing relationships with Central American partners who assemble Alabama-made components. This delicate balance would be upset if this relationship were not allowed to continue; ultimately forcing the remaining U.S. textile industry to Asia. CAFTA strengthens this beneficial arrangement by making these current trading arrangements permanent.

While I have consistently supported tougher immigration laws, the Congress has resisted approving some of these measures. Also, the Administration has not been as helpful as I would like in trying to solve the border security problem.

I am convinced that should CAFTA fail the illegal immigration flow into America would increase. Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez is using his country's vast oil money to create anti-American and anti- democratic upheaval in the countries affected by CAFTA. Should CAFTA fail and Chavez is successful in bringing down these fragile governments, thousands more would flood our borders seeking to escape new leftist regimes. Such an unstable situation would increase many times over our worry of terrorists crossing into the United States.

In summary, passage of CAFTA will provide a tremendous economic boost to our critical industrial base, support fledgling democracies in a crucial part of the world, and help stem the tide of illegal immigration into the U.S.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this measure.