I have voted for every trade agreement since coming to Congress in 1987.  I have cast these votes -- often difficult ones -- because I fundamentally believe that trade has the potential to generate economic growth and raise standards of living.

The key is to ensure that we realize that potential.  Unfortunately, the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), as presented to Congress, actually weakens U.S. law with regard to basic labor standards. As this article goes to press, the House is expected to vote on CAFTA before adjourning for its month-long August recess. 

In my view, ensuring basic labor standards is a critical component of any trade agreement because they ensure what we say we care about most: improving living standards, establishing middle-class societies that strengthen young democracies, strengthening U.S. national security, and creating new markets for American goods and services.

Over the last several decades, we have focused more attention in the United States on non-tariff barrier issues.  We currently are working hard on protecting intellectual property and services.  The United States also has been a leader in getting basic international labor standards included in past trade agreements.  Few Americans want products coming into the United States that are made in violation of child labor standards.  I feel the same way about other international labor standards that have been issued by the International Labor Organization (ILO) and accepted by virtually every nation in the world.

As a result, I have joined other members of Congress in pushing for trade agreements that meet the most basic international standards of common decency and fairness. These five basic standards include the right to organize and bargain collectively, and bans on discrimination, exploitative child labor and slave labor. These basic standards should be a priority to our nation and should be reflected in the trade agreements we negotiate.

For more than 20 years, we have made significant progress on these important issues.  In 1984, when we enacted the Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI) under President Reagan, we made it very clear that making progress toward international labor standards was a condition for the trade benefits.  If a country violated that condition, the United States had the right to apply trade sanctions by removing the benefit. In 2000, we strengthened that condition to require that countries actually achieve these basic labor standards.

That's the law today regarding Central American countries, and it’s critical that -- at the very least -- we maintain these minimum standards.  The CAFTA agreement that has been submitted to Congress repeals the CBI standards for Central American countries and puts in place only the requirement that countries enforce their own labor laws — however weak those standards may be.

The U.S. Department of State and the ILO have reported that labor laws in CAFTA countries fail to meet ILO standards in at least 20 areas.  And, if a Central American country does not enforce its labor laws, the CAFTA “remedy” is a very ineffective fine that is paid back to the country that violated the provisions.

If this bill becomes law, the United States will not be able to use trade sanctions or the threat of trade sanctions — as we have done successfully in the past — to press other countries to improve their labor laws and enforcement practices.  If the bill is defeated, it should be taken as a sign that Americans support trade agreements that improve living standards around the world.

The Bush Administration has failed to make workers’ rights a priority. Many Republicans are clearly troubled by the agreement, and the President visited Capitol Hill on Wednesday to keep the pressure on members of his party who may be wavering in their support.

I support a strong free trade agreement for Central America, but, unfortunately, CAFTA is not that agreement.

I want a free trade agreement that will improve the standard of living in these countries so that these nations have a real chance to improve economic opportunities and offer a better way of life to theirs citizens.  Such an agreement would help Central American countries and would also provide grater market access to U.S. manufacturers, producers and farmers.

 
                                                      ##