Dominican-Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC-CENTRAL AMERICA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT -- (House of Representatives - July 27, 2005)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3045, the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). I am a supporter of trade when it is used to help lift developing countries out of poverty and when it provides jobs with fair wages and protections. However, as negotiated, the CAFTA fails on both counts.
On May 15, 2003, I joined colleagues of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus in sending a letter to U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick regarding concerns we had about the direction the Administration was taking during its negotiations of the Central American Free Trade Agreement. As a signatory to that letter, I urged Ambassador Zoellick to negotiate to strengthen the enforcement of internationally recognized labor rights, such as freedom of association, the right to organize, and to bargain collectively. I regret that U.S. negotiators ignored this critical request and finalized the CAFTA without strong and clear language that would hold the CAFTA countries accountable to such internationally recognized core labor rights.
There are many other concerns I have with the trade agreement that is before us. For example, I am troubled by the fact that the CAFTA does not adhere to the provisions of the 2002 Trade Promotion Authority, which requires that new U.S. trade agreements not provide greater legal rights to foreign investors than to U.S. investors. Under CAFTA, foreign investors have the right to challenge U.S. laws and regulations if they believe the law negatively impacts their ability to conduct trade. As a result, a foreign investor can seek financial compensation from the U.S. by going through an international arbitration panel. Congress was clear in its opposition to this continued foreign investor overreach of power, and it is disturbing that the Administration has not done a better job of protecting U.S. interests.
In addition, I oppose the provisions of this agreement which would impede access to safe and affordable prescription drugs for patients throughout Central America and the Dominican Republic. Specifically, CAFTA would block governments from approving the sale of generic drugs for at least five years after a new drug is introduced in each market, even if the drug's patent has already expired. The agreement would also block the approval of generics unless drug regulators can prove that the drug's patent has expired. These obligations create additional burdens on CAFTA countries that need to focus their limited resources on monitoring the safety and efficacy of their pharmaceutical products. Furthermore, it is unconscionable that we would place the financial interest of large multicultural drug companies above the health needs of families in developing countries.
In conclusion, I continue to express my support for a U.S. Central American Free Trade Agreement that would protect U.S. interests and create economic opportunities for workers, businesses, and farmers here and in Central America. Such an agreement would help break the cycle of poverty in Central America and serve as a model for hemispheric trade. Unfortunately, the agreement your office has negotiated falls far short of meeting these goals.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov