|
Washington, D.C. - Since I joined this committee in 1989, I have voted for every trade agreement that has come before us. I have cast these votes because I believe fundamentally that trade has the potential to generate economic growth and raise standards of living.
The trick is making sure that we realize that potential.
Over the last several decades, we have been placing more and more attention in the United States on non-tariff barrier issues.
Initially, we sought to open up markets by removing tariff barriers. We still have work to do in that area, but we were so successful that we are now more concerned about non-tariff barriers.
As you know, there's been a lot of attention on intellectual property and services and other related fields that affect access to markets.
One of the areas in which the United States has been a leader has been in trying to get basic international labor standards included in trade agreements. I don't think you would get many people who would argue that we want products coming into the U.S. market that are made in violation of child labor standards. No one would disagree with that.
Well, we feel the same way about other international labor standards that have been issued by the ILO and accepted by virtually every country on Earth. I think it’s wrong for the United States to deal with countries that do not respect the right of workers to organize and bargain collectively.
So, therefore, I and many other members of Congress have been pushing for trade agreements to meet just the most fundamental international standards of common decency and fairness to working people — not European vacations or American minimum wage, but the five basic standards.
Now, if you look at the evolution of this, we've been moving in this direction now for the last several decades. We've used understandings, we've used sidebar agreements, we've used U.S. trade preference programs like the CBI and the CBTPA and AGOA and GSP to move forward with countries that did not have acceptable standards.
When we enacted the Caribbean Basin Initiative, we made it very clear that this was one of the conditions of giving trade preference to Central American countries — to make progress toward international labor standards.
And if a country violated that commitment, the president had the ability to use trade sanctions, that is, to take away the trade preferences, in making them move forward toward worker rights.
That's the current status. That's the law today with the Central American countries.
Now, I don't expect the administration to perform miracles. I never thought that everything that I want to achieve in a trade agreement needs to be done for me to support it. But I do expect the administration to negotiate on the issues that should be priorities of this nation.
So, in the case of Central America, I expect that, at a minimum, we would continue the commitments that we currently have from the Central American countries under the Caribbean Basin Initiative and have at least the same enforcement of those commitments.
Instead, the bill before us specifically removes each of the CAFTA countries from the CBI. If this bill becomes law, the United States will not be able to use trade sanctions or the threat of trade sanctions — as we can today under CBI — to press these countries to improve their labor standards and enforcement practices.
Instead, the only inquiry we will be able to make is whether a country is enforcing its own labor laws — however weak they may be. And I might point out that our own State Department and ILO report that CAFTA countries’ laws fail to meet ILO standards.
And even if you want to put aside for one moment that if a Central American country does not enforce its own labor laws properly, the dispute settlement system sets up a completely separate remedy for that kind of violation — and the maximum exposure is a fine paid back to the country that violated the provisions in the first place!
Obviously, this is not an effective way even to enforce inadequate labor laws in their own country.
So I think you have to draw a line. It's difficult to understand how we could be acting on an agreement that moves backwards in an area that should be a principal priority of this country in its trade negotiations.
Finally, let me say that, in all the conversations I've had with representatives from these countries, I've raised these issues and not once has any of these representatives argued that we should not have at least the same standards that were in the CBI as it relates to labor standards.
So, for those reasons, I believe Congress has a responsibility to draw a line, and I still hope we’ll find a way to reopen negotiations to deal with the labor issues so that we can move forward with a very positive vote on this agreement.
But if the Administration insists on moving the bill we have before us to the Floor, I will oppose it, as I intend to oppose it when we vote in a few minutes.
Lastly, in closing, let me say one last thing. As I have said before — as Mr. Rangel and others on this Committee and I think it's important to pass a good free trade agreement for Central America.
It may well be that an FTA between the United States and these countries is more important than the FTAs we have completed with other countries — which I supported. It may be more important, because the standard of living of people in the Central American countries and the Dominican Republic is lower than that in Chile or Singapore or Morocco, and, obviously, Australia.
For people living in poverty, trade, if properly structured, holds out the promise of more meaningful economic opportunities and a better way of life.
But, trade without basic labor standards will not do that.
I think this agreement is not a good agreement for Central America and it's not a good agreement for the United States.
# # # |
