Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me begin my remarks by saying that I am deeply disappointed about the circumstances under which we are meeting today.

            As we saw from last Thursday’s vote on the WTO disapproval resolution, the vast majority of Democrats and Republicans support increasing trade.

            In fact, I would point out that nearly 80% of Democrats voted in favor of continuing U.S. participation in the WTO.

            The WTO vote demonstrates that the opposition of most members of my party to CAFTA is not based on a rejection of the benefits of trade itself.

            To the contrary, like Mr. Rangel and nearly all of my other colleagues on this committee, I have strongly supported expanded trade for the Caribbean and Central America through the CBI program, and I strongly support a CAFTA – the right CAFTA.

            As demonstrated by my votes on all other trade agreements that this Committee has considered, I believe in the power of trade as a tool for promoting economic growth and enhancing political ties between the United States and its trading partners.

            Do I think a trade agreement with the Central American countries would benefit both the United States and Central America? Absolutely.

            So, why are nearly all Democrats – including those who have supported trade agreements in the past – opposed to the CAFTA that we are considering today? Let me share my thoughts on this issue with you.

            First, despite all the recent rhetoric in the press about the Administration consulting with Democrats, there have yet to be any meaningful efforts to address our basic concerns.

            In particular, there has been no effort to address the fundamental weakness in the agreement – that it lacks provisions that would ensure that the CAFTA countries observe the most basic standards of fairness and decency for working people.

            Perhaps most disturbing to me is that the provisions in the CAFTA would take a step backwards from current U.S. law. Under the enhanced CBI program in effect for the last five years, the CBI countries have been required to attain the five basic standards of fairness and decency to working people. Under the basic CBI program — in effect for the 15 years before that — and the existing GSP program, the countries are required to make progress toward meeting these standards.

            CAFTA requires neither — and that just does not make sense to me.

            I appreciate the efforts of the Administration and CAFTA countries to promote increased enforcement of the labor laws in Central America. Enforcement is an essential part of any effective labor policy.

            However, the bottom line is that the CAFTA only requires countries to enforce whatever labor laws they may have on their books — even if the law on the books is weak and even if there is no law on the books at all!

            To me, this is a critical failing. I have a hard time understanding why we would want to move backwards rather than forward in this critical area of our trade policy.

            Certainly, we would never accept this approach in any other area of our trade policy.

            Can you imagine our being satisfied with merely providing technical assistance to countries whose laws condone piracy of our intellectual property? Or being satisfied with vague promises in a “white paper,” rather than hard and fast, bargained-for commitments in a trade agreement relating to how a country will deal with monopolists in its telecom or insurance markets to ensure that American companies are given a fair shot to compete in the foreign market?

            The answer is obvious. We never have and never would accept promises in place of provisions in a trade agreement. That’s the way the world trading system works and that’s the way it should work.

            Last week’s 86 to 338 vote on the WTO resolution was an affirmation of the fact that overwhelming numbers of both Democrats and Republicans see a need for a strong rules-based trading system, not a promises-based or a faith-based trading system.

            So, as I have said before, I see this agreement as a real missed opportunity.

            A missed opportunity to build the kind of bipartisan support that the Jordan and Australia and Chile and Singapore and Morocco agreements all enjoyed.

            A missed opportunity to raise the bar — in a reasonable way — on issues of importance to U.S. workers, manufacturers and farmers.

            A missed opportunity for the Administration to reach out to all the pro-trade Democrats and Republicans who voted in favor of our participation in the WTO last week – in order to rebuild a lasting, bipartisan coalition to support U.S. trade policy.

            Today, because the Administration allowed these opportunities to slip by, the Committee is sharply divided over whether to approve this CAFTA.

            These divisions reflect poorly on the Administration and the U.S. Congress – our trading partners deserve better.

            So, I hope that this morning, the Committee will agree to adopt amendments to the implementing bill that would ensure a broad bipartisan vote in Committee and on the House Floor in support of the CAFTA.

            And I hope that in the months ahead, my Republican and Democratic colleagues on this committee will take the time to sit down together and have a frank discussion about how to rebuild the bipartisan consensus on trade for future agreements.

            We should not let our trading relations – and our broader relations – with our friends and allies fall victim to disputes over trade policy that could be bridged easily – if only the Administration was willing to work in good faith with Democrats from the outset of trade negotiations to produce the best agreement possible.

            Thank you, Mr. Chairman.