OUR TRADE RECORD -- (House of Representatives - March 01, 2005)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, here is the trade record. The United States is moving deeper and deeper into red ink with every major country with which we have a trade agreement. In fact, when we sign the trade agreements, the deficits get worse. Last year, it rung in at well over $600 billion, nearly two-thirds of $1 trillion, money that flows out of this country someplace else.
I rise tonight to join my colleagues in opposition to the newest idea that is being proposed, CAFTA, the Central American Free Trade Agreement. There is nothing free about free trade.
We are united in support of worker rights, the environment, family farmers and working men and women. This is not about us in our country versus people in other countries. It is about supporters of fair trade, teaming up for trade agreements that raise standards of living for everyone, and put people and communities before multinational corporations that pit one Nation against another.
Free trade can only exist among free people. Where that does not exist, trade then equals exploitation of people and communities.
During the 10th anniversary of NAFTA, I led a delegation to Mexico last year to examine NAFTA's trade, economic and social record applications. Unfortunately, NAFTA's story does not have a happy ending. In Mexico, real wages have declined, not increased, as promised. Millions of farmers and rural dwellers have been kicked off their land, fueling an exodus north to the Maquiladora zones that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis) so aptly described.
Here, at home, factory after factory continues to shut its doors to the cheap labor of the Maquiladoras, and U.S. workers have been handed pink slips by the thousands, by the hundreds of thousands and the border ecosystem has taken a major hit.
Thousands were told we would have trade surpluses with all of these countries. Well, there is another false one.
Here is Mexico. Ever since NAFTA's signing, we have moved into deeper and deeper trade deficit with the Nation of Mexico, now nearly $50 billion a year, and the same is true with Canada.
How can the Bush administration propose to expand NAFTA to five more countries? I know his father did this for NAFTA, but should we not have learned something by now? I am not sure the President is willing to learn from past mistakes. If something does not work, are we not supposed to fix it? Should we not be fixing this?
The same is true with China. Another agreement was signed with the Nation of China. Have we moved into trade balance with China? Absolutely not. In fact, we have the largest trade deficit in history with China today, now totaling over $170 billion, and the red ink just gets deeper.
With all of its faults, NAFTA's negotiations took 7 years. CAFTA's negotiations took barely one year. One year? Do we really want to base major policy trade decisions on such a rushed process? Do my colleagues know why it only took 1 year? Because Congress and fair trade organizations were shut out. It did not even get a chance to testify. President Bush expects to bring this to the floor for a simple up or down vote under fast track. Is that really the way to develop international trade policy?
Besides, what is the rush? The combined GDP of Central America is equal to one-half of one percent of the United States. What Central America does have is idle hands, not consumers with dollars ready to spend. We should take the time needed to address serious concerns in labor, so those folks can actually earn a decent living, agriculture and their right to eke out a decent living, investment rights and many more topics as we did with the Jordanian trade agreement.
Let the public then get a good look at it here in this Congress and decide do we want more NAFTAs.
The labor provisions of CAFTA are shameful. The only requirement is to enforce laws already on the books, and let me ask, what labor rights exist in El Salvador? They are nonexistent. Would people rather work in the United States or in El Salvador? CAFTA is another example of a rush to the bottom.
Just like the fight over China trade, we are being promised great markets for our goods. They obviously have not happened in China. Two-thirds of Central America's poor live in desperately poor rural regions. They are not going to be rushing out to buy Microsoft Office systems.
Let us be realistic. I support trade with Central America, but free trade ought to occur among free people, and America ought to stand for internationally recognized labor rights, the right to own and farm your land, the right to a clean environment and the right to economic security.
http://thomas.loc.gov