Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3045) to implement the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Rules and someone who believes that we should have a deliberative process here in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) who believes that if 8 hours of debate was good enough for NAFTA, it should be good enough for CAFTA.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).

(Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), who believes that it is shameful that the majority has stifled debate on this important trade agreement.

(Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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.

(Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out that the little black book that the chairman of the Committee on Rules read from also said that the Rules of the House allows for up to 20 hours of debate on trade agreements.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), who believes that a full and thorough debate is a good thing.

(Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), who believes that 2 hours of debate is an insult to American workers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished minority whip who recognizes that curtailing debate is an abuse of power.

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.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 386 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, with today's consideration of the Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement, we are now embarking upon debate on one of the most important national security issues of the 109th Congress. At the same time, we are addressing the extraordinarily important issues of border protection and economic growth in this country and throughout this hemisphere. These issues are becoming increasingly intertwined.

Just last week, India's Prime Minister stood right here in this Chamber and spoke very eloquently when he said the following: ``Globalization has made the world so interdependent that none of us can ignore what happens elsewhere. Peace and prosperity are more indivisible than ever before in human history.''

Mr. Speaker, Prime Minister Singh is absolutely right. We cannot afford to pretend that poor, political, and economic conditions outside our borders do not affect the security of our Nation. As we work to spread democracy in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere to combat global terrorism, we must not neglect the anti-democracy, anti-American forces that are at work in Latin America.

Although our neighbors to the south have chosen democracy over dictatorship, their old oppressors still refuse to go quietly. Nicaragua's former communist dictator, Daniel Ortega, wants to return to power. He has tried time and time again, Mr. Speaker, to do that. And he is staking his campaign in large part on the defeat of the Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement. He has found good company with Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, who is actively using his nation's oil proceeds to undermine democracy, free markets, and American interests throughout this hemisphere.

Together with Tomas Borge, the former defense minister, the only surviving founding member of the Sandinista Front, they oppose this agreement because it would solidify the region's commitment to political and economic freedom, thus subverting their plans for reinstalling leftist control in Nicaragua. The only alliance they seek would bind together other anti-American parties like Cuba's Fidel Castro.

Mr. Speaker, The Washington Post editorialized just yesterday in strong support of the Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement, and they said the following: ``The defeat of CAFTA would help . . . anti-American demogogues, starting with Mr. Chavez. For them, the retreat of the United States from partnership with Central America would be a major victory.''

Mr. Speaker, ceding this victory to the likes of Chavez and Ortega clearly goes against our best interests, against our national security priorities. It would be the beginning of a return to the era that Central Americans, with the help of the United States, worked so hard during the decade of the 1980s to leave behind, an era marked by totalitarianism, unrest, and the poverty that breeds desperation. This would obviously be a harsh reality for the people of Central America.

But a return to the Ortega style of government would have grave consequences for the United States of America as well. Without political and economic freedom, there can be little hope for the future. And without hope, Central Americans with families to feed will look north for economic opportunity.

Nearly all illegal immigrants to the United States come in search of work because of limited opportunity at home. In fact, Mr. Speaker, T.J. Bonner, the president of the National Border Patrol Council, estimates that 98 percent of illegal immigrants come to this country for economic opportunity, seeking a chance to feed their families.

If we want to combat illegal immigration, we must address its root causes. By providing the tools for economic growth in the region, DR- CAFTA will create new opportunities and provide hope for the future in the region where these people are. The people of Central America will have a powerful incentive to stay and build their lives in their own countries rather than make the dangerous and illegal attempt to enter our country.

Rejecting this agreement, Mr. Speaker, would simply sanction, even exacerbate, the problem of illegal immigration. We simply cannot ignore the fact that the strength of democratic and free market institutions throughout the globe, particularly in our own backyard, directly impacts our own security. By the same token, we cannot ignore the fact that the worldwide marketplace directly impacts our own economic strength.

Mr. Speaker, we all know and everyone recognizes that we have a global economy. We live in a world that continues to shrink, enabling us to, in the words of the New York Times columnist Tom Friedman, ``reach around the world farther, faster, deeper, and cheaper than ever before.''

Mr. Speaker, new technologies are connecting the world's entrepreneurs, risk takers, creative thinkers, and capital, including human capital. This worldwide network has been a powerful engine for growth in the United States economy. We have grown to an $11.5 trillion economy. We are the world's largest exporter and importer. We lead the global economy not just by sheer size but by the force of our innovation.

But we cannot take our global economic leadership for granted. The worldwide economy is dynamic and fast paced. China has emerged as a global powerhouse and shows no signs whatsoever of slowing down. India, as we heard from the Prime Minister, is becoming a formidable competitor in one of our core areas of strength, the high-tech sector. Passage of the Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement represents an opportunity we simply cannot afford to forfeit, the chance to dramatically strengthen our competitiveness as a country and as a region. Further integration of our regional economy will allow us to draw upon all of our strengths and resources to produce locally and compete globally.

The DR-CAFTA and U.S. economies already complement each other well. The textile and apparel industries are a great example of that, Mr. Speaker. The DR-CAFTA region represents our second largest market for fabric and our largest market for yarn. Nearly 25 percent of U.S. fabric exports and 40 percent of U.S. yarn exports are sent to the Central American countries and the Dominican Republic. The region exports nearly all of its apparel; 97 percent of its apparel comes to consumers right here in the United States of America.

As a result of this close, complementary relationship, apparel manufactured in the DR-CAFTA region is made up of 80 percent U.S.-made content. By contrast, Chinese apparel is made up of less than 2 percent U.S. content. Again, that is 80 percent versus 2 percent in terms of American-made content.

Now, I ask my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, in the face of the Chinese juggernaut, why on Earth would we turn our backs on the very region that supports U.S. industries and offers the opportunity for us to effectively compete with China and other global competitors?

Trade with the DR-CAFTA countries is so important precisely because of this global context. The U.S. economy will not be weakened as a result of the people of Latin America lifting themselves out of poverty, but it will be weakened if we reject the economic partnerships that make us strong and enable us to compete in the global economy.

In this interconnected world, isolation is simply not possible. The state of the global economy affects our economic strength. Our economic partnerships affect the prosperity of our neighbors and the security of our borders. Prosperity leads to a greater commitment to the principles of political and economic freedom; and strong, democratic institutions throughout the globe lead to greater security for our country.

National security and economic competitiveness must be addressed in a comprehensive way that fully accounts for this interconnected global context. With DR-CAFTA, we have the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to do just that. We can enhance our competitiveness while creating new opportunities for growth in the DR-CAFTA countries. By spurring economic growth, we can reduce the incentives for illegal immigration and strengthen democracy and the rule of law in the region. And, by supporting democratic institutions, we can advance our own security and our interests.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the very important vote that we are going to have on the Dominican Republic Central American Free Trade Agreement so that we can enhance the quality of life and the standard of living for the people of the United States of America, for the people of the five Central American countries impacted by this, and the people of the Dominican Republic.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me just say that one of our colleagues on the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), said we should make it retroactive, the 2 hours of debate. We clearly have been debating this issue for weeks and months, Special Orders have been taken out here, and we are looking forward to a rigorous debate not only during the hour on this rule, but for an additional 2 hours, or 3 hours this evening at this point.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Miami, Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart), my very distinguished friend, the vice chairman of the Committee on Rules, and a great champion for political pluralism and democratic institutions in this region.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say that this rule is in compliance with the 1974 Trade Act, which calls for an up-or-down vote on these agreements.

And I also believe that it is very important to note, as my colleague has just pointed out, that for more than a decade, on every single trade agreement that has come before this House, we have had 2 hours of general debate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw).

Mr. Speaker, I would say to my colleague that free trade is a good thing. The labor rights that are recognized here in the opening up of markets for U.S. workers into Central America is very important.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indianapolis, Indiana (Mr. Burton), my very good friend, the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, who has been a champion for freedom and democracy in Central America for years.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Birmingham, Alabama (Mr. Bachus).

Mr. Speaker, as I listen to people malign the procedure we are going under, let me just say the procedure is the procedure that is prescribed by the 1974 Trade Act, which says, ``No amendment to an implementing bill or approval resolution shall be in order in either the House of Representatives or the Senate.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), a the dear friend, a hard-working Member committed to free trade.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time remains on each side.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say that the democratically elected parliaments in El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala all have had votes on this issue. It was 49 to 30 in the democratically elected parliament of El Salvador; 126 to 12 in the democratically elected parliament of Guatemala; and 100 of 128 legislators in Honduras were supportive of the Central American Free Trade Agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Midland, Texas (Mr. Conaway), my very good friend and a hard-working new Member of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Morris, Illinois (Mr. Weller), a hard-working member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, back on November 6 of 1979, Ronald Reagan announced his candidacy for President of the United States; and in that announcement, he envisaged a free trade accord of all the Americas, where we could have the free flow of goods and services and capital and ideas.

This is a very important part of that vision which has not only been supported by Republicans, but President Clinton was a strong supporter of that notion, the free trade area of the Americas; back in 1993, by a 392-18 vote, passed the Caribbean Basin Initiative. Why, so rather than sending aid, we would open up the U.S. market to these struggling countries in the Caribbean.

We now have an opportunity to respond to the fact that we have provided unlimited access to our consumer market by these countries.

Mr. Speaker, it is true, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and I have been here for a quarter century, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) a little less than that. I have never witnessed greater politicization or a greater mischaracterization of a piece of legislation than I have this. For the last decade we have had 2 hours of debate on trade agreements that we have dealt with. Yes, the statute says up to 20 hours. The last time that happened was November 14, 1980. And once they started it, they pared it back.

We have been debating this issue for literally months. Special Orders and 1-minute speeches have taken place. It is time for us to vote. I believe we are going to have a great opportunity, a great opportunity, to enhance the standard of living for people in the United States and in this region. It is going to create an opportunity for us to better compete globally, and as we enhance the standard of living in Latin America, it will clearly help us with this very important problem that we have of border security and illegal immigration.

We have a win-win all of the way around. We have seen great benefits from trade. The much-maligned North American Free Trade Agreement has created a scenario whereby we have a third of a trillion dollars in trade between Mexico and the United States. Mexico's population now has a middle class that is larger than the entire Canadian population. Yes, there is poverty; yes, it needs to improve, but clearly the cause of freedom is an important one. The cause of stability in our region is a very, very important one.

I urge support of this rule. I urge support of the Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, let me join with the handful of Republicans in complimenting the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means. His attack against arrogance has moved my heart, and those of others in the House, as well as his conversations with the immigrants and the newcomers to find out what should be in the trade bill. It certainly would have worked out a heck of a lot better if he had talked with some of the Democrats in the House.

This is one day that we all should remember. A small bill designed to help small countries. I was successful in having the Dominican Republic included in it. People who indeed wanted to work, wanted to have the dignity of having a job, wanted to be able to buy some of those U.S. products, really wanted to be partners, but they also wanted to be a part of this. Arrogance? How can you have a bill you say that is helping these people to make certain that they stave off communism and that become, indeed, a democratic country and, at the same time, exclude them from participating?

Yes, they want a Central American Free Trade Agreement. Yes, the Dominicans want to have a Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement, but they want to be a part of it, and they want their people protected.

The gentleman talked about people who fought and died for our Constitution. You do not have to remind us about that. Patriotism can bring a tear to our eyes, but why do we not talk about the people who fought and died for workers' rights? Hey, can you not get that on your agenda? Those who fought and died for human rights, should that not be a part of it?

But let us talk about the moral values. The Catholic bishops in the United States, the Catholic bishops in the Dominican Republic, the Catholic bishops throughout the island; the religious leaders, the labor leaders, the peasants, the farmers, those who work in the free trade zone, do they not count for something?

This could have been an easy thing. This is no big deal. It was not before the President came down here. This could have been something we could have worked out. There has to be some compassion and less arrogance on the other side. We could have talked these things out.

And what is wrong with language that protects kids? Just because people do not have a design to commit crime does not mean you do not have a criminal code. Just because people are not inclined to abuse workers does not mean you do not have a code.

All we are saying is this: Let us protect intellectual property rights, let us protect our exporters, let us protect the multinationals, let us protect the big farm corporations. But, while you do that, protect the little guy where, in many of the countries, they have not the slightest clue, and they tell us each and every day, we want trade, we want to improve our lives; all we want to do is to be a part of the agreement.

Now, I was told that we cannot get back to that. With regard to the side agreements, I thought it meant the issue had to be related to trade. But some of the offers that I have heard that relate to getting votes around here, side agreements mean something else. And that is why maybe it may still be light tonight in California, but for those who are wide awake tonight, they should know it is not prime time in Washington, D.C. As a matter of fact, it is the worst of times.

This administration has taken a bill that could have meant something, a bill we could have been proud of, and has made a political toy out of it. They have excluded Democrats; they have offended some Republicans.

So when we hear about this bill tonight, it will not be a trade bill, it will be a bill that would say, which side are you on? Are you on the side of transparency, open discussion, wanting to protect American farmers, wanting to protect American entrepreneurs, wanting to do business with people in these small countries that are impoverished, and do you want to help those who are the lesser among us, who, at the end of the day, have been excluded from consideration from this treaty?

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) is the ranking member of the trade committee. He has worked hard on this, and he probably never has voted against any trade agreement in this

House. And I guess he is saying that this is an agreement worthy of his vote.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).

Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote what the bishops have said about this because I think the previous speaker gave an eloquent speech, but he said one thing: It could be better for the workers.

I do not have any argument with that. And the bishop said, the panel urged that the agreement should contribute to sustainable human development, especially among the poorest and most vulnerable sectors; that the countries' governments take as much time as necessary to provide adequate information and foster broad debates about the contact and impact of the agreement, and that the moral measure of any trade agreement should be how it affects the lives and the dignity of poor families and vulnerable workers whose voices should receive special attention in this discussion.

Mr. Speaker, the following six pages are organizations representing religious leaders in Central America and the Dominican Republic, representing peasants, representing farmers, representing workers that all they are asking is please include us.

Central American Groups Opposed to CAFTA

Accion Ciudadana (Nicaragua)

Action Aid International (Guatemala)

Action Network of Citizens Against Free Trade (SINTI

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), who served this country and served it well, and he wears that lapel pin showing how proud he is to be a veteran, not a Republican, not a Democrat.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), who has been not only a supporter of trade agreements, but he has been an architect in designing trade agreements. Every major agreement he just did not vote for, but he helped to make it better. That is when we used to work together on trade agreements.

(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), a distinguished Member of the House and of the majority party.

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

(Mr. KILDEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means, and who, without his research and support, we never would have the Africa Growth and Opportunity Bill and who has worked on every trade agreement that we have passed in this House.

(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter) on the other side of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), someone who has studied and is very familiar with this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The gentleman from Indiana is really so entertaining. After he got past Fidel Castro, I was ready for Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Now that you mention it, I think we ought to have a search for weapons of mass destruction. I do not know how short you are on votes, but I want the gentleman to know, I appreciate his edification of how serious it can be. The Communists can come back.

I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

You have access to secret information from what I read in the paper, so be careful what you say because you may have to go to Niger.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), an outstanding member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), who has worked very hard in trying to perfect this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, we are privileged on this side to have someone who is very familiar with that area, who worked hard and became a Member of this body.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

Mr. Speaker, I have been reminded by staff that the Costa Rican Government has not approved of these changes; but since they are merely side agreements, I guess that means it is on the side.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 10 seconds to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) for purposes of correcting the record.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Melancon).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), a former Presidential candidate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the outstanding gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

(Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Chicago, Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).

(Mr. ETHERIDGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

(Mr. ENGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), who was a Peace Corps volunteer in South America.

(Mr. FARR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to note that when the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means indicated that the speech and debate clause of the Constitution allowed us to distort the truth, I had no idea where he was coming from. But I now truly understand why he opened up the debate that way.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), our gentle minority leader, who made certain that we did not make this a partisan issue, who struggled hard to keep this agreement and to try to get it open so that we could have input and have a bipartisan agreement, and who will close on behalf of the minority.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson), a very respected Democratic member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) who has voted for previous trade agreements that this agreement has the strongest labor provision of any of the agreements that the gentleman has voted for, and that these countries, all of these countries adhere to international labor standards.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), a distinguished Democratic Member of the House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to point out that the last couple of speakers here, including the gentleman who just left the well, voted for trade preferences for these countries with much weaker labor standards in 1983. It passed this House by 392 to 18. It passed in 1990 by a voice vote. And then with the labor standards put in there, more labor standards, it was 309 to 110. We have strengthened the labor standards.

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis), a member of the House Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means who has been very active in putting together this agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I guess that challenge would go in both directions.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I will supply to the gentleman who just left the well the case number of the case which settles this. This is certainly within the bounds of the Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), a great advocate of free trade.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), who knows what it is like to lose freedom in her native country.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentlewoman in the well that this bill contains an unprecedented amount of capacity-building in which we will give assistance to these countries to enforce their own labor laws, more than in any other bill that has ever come to the floor of this House. Also, the enforcement provisions are within the trade bill itself.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Inglis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez), a valued member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentleman in the well that the vast majority of our agriculture community vigorously supports this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to particularly the last few people who have gotten up, and they talk about how they support free trade, but they cannot support this agreement. And I ask why. This is the strongest trade agreement we have ever had, it has the best labor standards of any that we ever had, and they voted for the others, and they cannot vote for this.

Mr. Speaker, we already have free trade. The problem is it is free trade from the CAFTA countries into the United States, not from the United States into the CAFTA countries. Now we want fair trade. We want to have the same privacy for American workers and American business, American farmers that the CAFTA countries have by having access to our markets. How can one be against that, particularly when these other countries are behind it?

We even put capacity building into this agreement so that we are assisting these countries in enforcing their own labor laws, and we put more enforcement money in this for our being able to enforce those labor laws and keep watch over these other countries.

This is a strong agreement. It is a strong agreement. But let us look at something else. The President was up here on the Hill yesterday talking to the Republican Members, and he made a statement that I think all of us can agree to, and that statement is that family values do not end at our border. And he is absolutely correct.

We know right well that any of us here as a mother and a father, that if our children are hungry, we are going to find a way to work. And so many of these countries now send their workers north into the United States, most of them illegally. We want to build jobs at home for them, permanent jobs, good jobs, and at the same time we would be able to use our markets to get to supply them.

If you get a pair of blue jeans made in Honduras, it is 70 percent American content. These jobs that go to China, if those sewing factories move out and it goes to China, those same jeans are 1 percent American content. So we know that American workers, American jobs will benefit from this type of agreement. And it brings wealth into our

hemisphere. Right now, in Nicaragua, the average salary, the average pay for a worker is somewhere less than $800 a year. This will help.

Politically, let us talk about it. What is going on down there politically and what will happen? We are going to be driving these countries away that are looking towards us. They are all looking north. They have democracies now, they are capitalistic systems, and they are working towards being a part of this hemisphere. And my colleagues want to kick them in the teeth? They are also supporting us in our war against terror in Iraq, and that is not an easy lift for all of these countries, I can tell you that.

This CAFTA agreement has been endorsed by a number of groups, and I would like to put their endorsement in the Record at this time. Former President Jimmy Carter, the American Jewish Committee, and B'nai B'rith, they have all endorsed this agreement. We have also enjoyed the endorsement by many of the newspapers, including The Washington Post and the New York Times, the Miami Herald and the Orlando Sentinel.

This is a good agreement. It is good for America, so let us vote for it.

Mr. Speaker, I submit herewith for the Record the letters of support I just referred to:

Hon. Bill Thomas,

Rayburn House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

June 8, 2005.

To Representative Bill Thomas: As you prepare for your

initial consideration of the Central American Free Trade

Agreement (CAFTA) with the nations of Central America and the

Dominican Republic, I want to express my strong support for

this progressive move. From a trade perspective, this will

help both the United States and Central America.

Some 80 percent of Central Americas exports to the U.S. are

already duty free, so they will be opening their markets to

U.S. exports more than we will for their remaining products.

Independent studies indicate that U.S. incomes will rise by

over $l5 billion and those in Central America by some $5

billion. New Jobs will be created in Central America, and

labor standards are likely to improve as a result of CAFTA.

Some improvements could be made in the trade bill

particularly on the labor protection side, but, more

importantly, our own national security and hemisphere

influence will be enhanced with improved stability,

democracy, and development in our poor, fragile neighbors in

Central America and the Caribbean. During my presidency and

now at The Carter Center, I have been dedicated to the

promotion or democracy and stability in the region. From the

negotiation of the Panama Canal Treaties and the championing

of human rights at a time when the region suffered under

military dictatorships to the monitoring of a number of free

elections in the region, Central America has been a major

focus of my attention.

There now are democratically elected governments in each of

the countries covered by CAFTA. In negotiating this

agreement, the presidents of each of the six nations had to

contend with their own companies that fear competition with

U.S. firms. They have put their credibility on the line, not

only with this trade agreement but more broadly by promoting

market reforms that have been urged for decades by U.S.

presidents of both parties. If the U.S. Congress were to turn

its back on CAFTA, it would undercut these fragile

democracies, compel them to retreat to protectionism, and

make it harder for them to cooperate with the U.S.

For the first time ever, we have a chance to reinforce

democracies in the region. This is the moment to move forward

and to help those leaders that want to modernize and humanize

their countries. Moreover, strong economies in the region are

the best antidote to illegal immigration from the region.

I appreciate your consideration of my views and hope they

will be helpful in your important deliberations.

Sincerely,

Jimmy Carter.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, there is a dump in Nicaragua where 700 adults and children pick through fields of rotting garbage for scraps of food, metal and plastic to eat and sell.

I want the American people to know that this is the trade agreement, 3,600 pages, 3,000-plus pages; not one statement is in this document that talks about protecting American jobs. Not one statement is in here that confirms that the language in the laws of labor in these particular nations refers to the children age 5 and 14 to work that are working in these dumps, that are picking up the trash in these dumps.

There is no language in here about creating American jobs. There is no specific language in here that talks about the language of labor laws that would protect the children from these dumps.

I say to you out of 3,000 pages, do you not think America deserves one line protecting their jobs? Do not you think the children of Central America deserve one specific line about keeping them from the damages of a dump in Central America?

Vote against CAFTA. It does not protect American jobs, and it does not protect children.

Mr. Speaker I rise in opposition to CAFTA though not without reservation. Increased Economic, social, and political ties with Central America are noble goals and ones for which we should strive. However, the facts behind the crafting of DR-CAFTA suggest that this is an irresponsible and rushed trade agreement.

I can support an agreement that serves to support the interests of all parties at stake. By this standard, I have based my previous votes on free trade agreements, and by this standard I have decided to vote against CAFTA. While I do not doubt that several parts of the US economy will benefit from passage of this bill I shudder at the repercussions that will face many of our manufacturing industries.

Increased trade with this region will lead to an increase in economic exchange and probably to overall job growth. I also recognize that overall job growth as a result of NAFTA in all likelihood exceeded job losses. However, trade agreements should not be judged by job loss and creation statistics alone. CAFTA will undoubtedly create more opportunities for exports to Central America and will produce more wealth, but where does that wealth go? Thousands of hard working Americans will lose their jobs under CAFTA. Will they benefit from the increased trade with Central America?

The problem with wealth created through free trade agreements is the high probability it will not reach the average worker. The example of NAFTA proves this point. Some economic gains in both the Untied States and Mexico have made from NAFTA, but there is scant evidence as to the improvement of the livelihood of the average worker. The fact of the matter is that NAFTA has lead to neither improved working conditions in Mexico nor a windfall for higher paying jobs here in the U.S. Instead it has lead to more employer who pay their employees 5 dollars per day. There simply has not been enough effort on the part of the US or the Mexican government to ensure that the poor and middle classes benefited from the accord.

Trade agreements should be implemented to increase the standing of both nations and help both all people. We must guarantee the protection of rights and wellbeing of the poor. Without this guarantee, we can not nor we will we make strides in fighting poverty. In the words of the Great Cesar Chavez, ``What is at stake is human dignity. If a man is not accorded respect he cannot respect himself and if he does not respect himself, he cannot demand it.'' When the lower classes have no power or support, they cannot stand up and fight for themselves. Poverty reduction must be a key factor in all trade agreements.

The United States does not see such indept poverty. I have been to Honduras and Guatemala and have seen the pain and suffering of the masses. In Guatemala, over 75 percent of the population lives below the poverty line. In Nicaragua, the GDP per capita is $2,300. This sort of endemic poverty is far too common in

the region. At the ``La Chureca'' (La--Chew-RAKE-aa) dump in Managua (mun-A-gwa), Nicaragua (knee-ka-Rah-gwa) about 700 adults and children pick through fields of rotting garbage for scraps of food, metal, and plastic to eat and sell. For these residents, the dump is home--one laden with disease and danger, broken bottles and old tires, cardboard- and-tin shacks, grazing cattle, circling buzzards, screeching bulldozers and smoke that often obscures the sun. This is poverty on a level most Americans have never seen.

In order to fight this poverty, we must be committed to a comprehensive plan to help the poor. I would like to think that free trade agreements would alleviate poverty in third world nations, but unfortunately, the facts prove otherwise. Conditions in Mexico over the past 10 years demonstrate this fact quite succinctly. Since the passage of NAFTA, environmental problems along the border with Mexico have worsened, drug trafficking and violent crime in the border regions have increased, and violence against women has intensified. Ten years ago, there were few reports of rape and kidnappings of women in northern Mexico, today they are wide spread. These are not the indicia of progress.

In order to ensure progress, we must establish a system of improved standards in education, labor, and environment, among others. In this regard, the DR-CAFTA fails drastically. The DR-CAFTA does not have sufficient labor protection provisions. This omission of labor standards will result in the continuation of awful and unconscionable labor conditions for both adults and children. What concerns me most is the use of child labor throughout the region. Child labor is an activity that must eradicated from of all comers of the world. The DR- CAFTA contains no provisions that would prevent or alleviate the use of child labor. The DR-CAFTA fails to enforce international labor standards set by the International Labor Organization. This will result in the continued use of child labor in the fields and factories of the signatory countries. With this agreement, many will make money on the backs of Central American children, literally. These Children will be our beast of burden. I cannot accept an agreement that allows others to increase their profits margins on the backs of children. These children should be in school getting educated, not toiling on a farm for 5 dollars a day under the hot Central American sun.

It seems clear to me that under the current system of ``free trade to fight poverty,'' sufficient resources are not being used to help the poor. Businesses are often more interested in the bottom line then the bottom of society. Foreign governments are often far too eager to invite these companies into their nations. This is not the best manner to help fight poverty in the 3rd world. In order to fight poverty, we must insist on the resources used to protect the poor, not exploit them. We must insist on better labor and environmental standards in order to ensure that the poor also benefit from free trade agreements. Fair trade should be our paramount concern.

Supporters of the bill have claimed that its passage is imperative for Central America and will be mutually beneficial to all parties. They also argue that since 80 percent of goods from the DR-CAFTA countries already enter the United States duty free as a result of the Caribbean Basin Initiative and on that basis we have no reason to fear job exportation to the region. They argue that if job exportation was to happen, it would have occurred all ready. Yet, they also argue that passage of the DR-CAFTA is imperative for Central American economies to succeed. It seems to me that while they use the 80 percent duty free number to quell fears of job exportation, they somehow forget it when they talk of the necessity of the agreement for Central America's economies. If the DR-CAFTA countries already import 80 percent of their goods duty free then they have already received most of the benefits of a free trade agreement!

I am not opposed to allowing Central American nations to import many of their goods duty free. I believe that this number, 80 percent duty free importation, is a good number because it was designed to help alleviate poverty in the region. It has succeeded in doing so. Central America is far better off today then it was 20 years ago. Yet, this duty free access also means that it is not imperative for the US to pass this legislation. Since these countries already import 80 percent of goods duty free, the remaining 20 percent will not have such a dramatic effect. The USTR should have taken the success of the Caribbean Basin Initiative and used it to negotiate a fair and balanced trade agreement. Clearly, passage of this bill is not imperative to the economic well-being of Central America. So why were the USTR and the Bush administration so hasty in forcing execution and enactment of this agreement? Because of the success of the Caribbean Basin Initiative, we have the leeway to send this agreement back to the Bush Administration and ask that it not return until it has an agreement that genuinely benefits the poor and marginalized sectors of society both here in the United States and in Central America and the Dominican Republic.

The DR-CAFTA is not a fair trade agreement. It is a mechanism to support business interests in the United States and Central America. In the United States, we have sufficient labor standards to accommodate business interests. Over the past 200 years, the labor movement in this country has fought diligently to provide us with these protections. In Central America, these safeguards exist on paper, but not in practice. When we submit to special interests in this situation, we forfeit work protections. Therefore, we must insist that our trade agreements contain more then an expansion of business interests, they must contain provisions that expand social and justice interests. We must ensure that trade agreements benefit all of the people, men and women, young and old. This agreement fails to meet these standards and therefore should not be supported.