Search Form
First, enter a politician or zip code
Now, choose a category

Public Statements

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

By:
Date:
Location: Washington DC


DOMINICAN REPUBLIC-CENTRAL AMERICA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT -- (House of Representatives - July 27, 2005)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. Speaker, I came to Congress to defend the values of rural Colorado; our farming lifestyle, our ranching communities, our jobs. DR-CAFTA, the Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement goes against those values, posing a threat to the very backbone of our economy and our lifestyle.

Trade has always been a way for cultures to exchange not only goods, but also ideas and good will. I support trade with our neighbors; it is what we should be doing to help promote democracy and economic prosperity. But just because we have a trade agreement before us does not mean it is the right agreement.

DR-CAFTA is an attempt to liberalize trade between the United States and six Latin American countries. The Administration negotiated with other foreign leaders in 2004 and today the House of Representatives will vote whether to approve the agreement. Due to Fast Track Authority, however, Congress will not have an opportunity to amend the agreement--it will merely have an up-or-down vote regardless of any concerns that may be voiced. DR-CAFTA has divided many agricultural groups among the states as well as other industries, business groups and human rights organizations.

Over the last several months, I have met with a variety of groups from Colorado and around the nation about DR-CAFTA and I am sad to report there is no consensus about how this agreement will affect our nation's economy.

The promise of new markets for agricultural exports has prompted many groups to throw their weight behind DR-CAFTA, but a deeper examination of the supposed benefits vs. the actual consequences of DR-CAFTA's enactment warrants hesitation.

Our beef industry is strong and fiercely protected in our state. According to the proponents of the deal, DR-CAFTA will open up new markets and opportunities for the U.S. beef industry. But our local ranchers and beef producers will not benefit from the agreement--DR-CAFTA will only allow duty-free access for prime and choice cuts of U.S. beef, which makes little sense when 40 percent of the people in DR-CAFTA nations make $2 a day or less.

Meanwhile, DR-CAFTA is silent on the issue of imports meeting our rigorous food safety and sanitary standards, creating a challenge to the safety of our food supply.

The Colorado Farm Bureau has publicly expressed its opposition to this agreement because of the potential adverse effects it would have on agricultural sectors. In particular, the Colorado sugar industry could be devastated by increased imports of sugar from the Dominican Republic. According to estimates, the effect of lower sugar prices after increased imports could be nearly $180 million. This means the loss of nearly 150,000 sugar-industry jobs. A report prepared by

the United States International Trade Commission estimates job loss in the sugar industry will be 38 times higher than the next most harmed sector.

Not only would DR-CAFTA threaten the livelihoods of thousands of US. sugar farmers and workers, but it would cost taxpayers millions of dollars. Another government report reveals information condemning DR-CAFTA as a burden on taxpayers. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the influx of sugar from Central American countries would push prices down so low that our own sugar farmers would be forced to forfeit government loans on their crops. These forfeitures would cost taxpayers about $50 million annually through 2015. When added to a trade deficit that has ballooned to $617 billion, claims of economic gain are hard to believe.

The trade commission study states DR-CAFTA will actually accelerate the pace at which jobs are outsourced overseas. The North America Free Trade Agreement certainly hasn't set a good precedent, with estimates of nearly 900,000 jobs lost.

In the wake of NAFTA, Trade Adjustment Assistance programs were designed to assist those who lose their jobs as a result of companies moving out of the United States. More than a decade after NAFTA, the programs receive only one-quarter of the needed funding. Despite progress made in recent years to improve the Trade Adjustment Assistance program, budget cuts have left many workers who qualify for TAA benefits without access to this program when they need it most. Workers in Grand Junction were displaced this year when their jobs were outsourced overseas; I would hate to see other communities have to deal with this problem.

How will the TAA programs keep up with DR-CAFTA's fast-paced outsourcing? And why spend millions of dollars to fix the effects of a flawed trade agreement, instead of renegotiating the entire agreement? Proponents of DR-CAFTA can't seem to defend the agreement on its own merits.

Since the solid economic reasoning isn't there, curbing illegal immigration has become the new purpose of DR-CAFTA, another argument that doesn't have the backing of facts or figures. In the wake of NAFTA, 1.3 million farmers in small to medium-size operations were forced off their land because they were unable to compete with the multinational producers. For those concerned about ``broken borders,'' think of this: The employed farmers and agriculture workers of 10 years ago have become the undocumented immigrants of today. I fear DR-CAFTA will create a new wave of illegal immigration from Latin America.

I will close as I began by reiterating my feelings about free trade. I support trade as part of a long-term strategy to grow our economy and support democracy. Economic ties with other nations help the American economy and national security. But trade agreements should provide real gains for U.S. workers and businesses. In any agreement, we must be vigilant about protecting our economic security. DR-CAFTA is a flawed agreement that needs to be renegotiated to address the concerns of our agricultural sector and the concerns of illegal immigration. Safeguards to protect American jobs and rural values must be strengthened before moving ahead with free trade in Latin America.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov

Skip to top
Back to top