A reply from Congressman Rush Holt on CAFTA.

Unlike Senator Lautenberg, Congressman Holt seems to have actually read my letter. The Congressman addresses many of my concerns and has given thoughtful responses. Whether or not he is right or wrong about the position he is taking (I believe he is right), Congressman Holt shows the proper way to respond to a letter from one of his constiuents. Congressman Holt has earned my respect with his thoughtful response to my letter and likely my vote in the next election in which he takes part. The Congressman's reply to my letter is below. The letter I sent him is below his reply.

Dear Mr. Nef :

Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition to the proposed US-Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA). I appreciate learning your perspective about U.S. trade policy, and I apologize for the delay in responding.

As you may know, former U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick led the team of U.S. negotiators who concluded what they consider to be a good trade agreement in the DR-CAFTA, and President Bush signed it the summer of 2004. This agreement will not take effect, however, until it is formally submitted to the Congress for a straight up-or-down vote, pursuant to the fast-track trade negotiating authority that Congress approved in 2002. This submission to Congress recently occurred, and on June 30, 2005, the U.S. Senate narrowly approved the DR-CAFTA by a vote of 54-45.

Fast-track trade negotiating authority was first approved by Congress when the Trade Act of 1964 was enacted. As a result the Congress cedes much of its power to amend trade agreements negotiated by the President.

I voted against giving the President a 5-year extension of fast-track trade negotiating authority in 2002. Fundamentally, I believe Congress ought not cede such open-ended, blanket trade negotiating authority to any President. Nevertheless, the DR-CAFTA agreement has been negotiated by the President's representatives and will come before Congress.

International trade is not just inevitable, it is a good thing. But lowering the cost of goods and increasing their availably is not the single goal of trade. Trade done right helps lift the global standard of living and works to protect the irreplaceable environment we inherited. Trade is about values.
Trade agreements are not just about goods and commodities; they are also about what constitutes acceptable behavior in environmental matters, worker's rights, intellectual property, and so forth. We should make sure we export the goods we produce and not the workers who produce them.

Each new trade agreement entered into by the U.S. should be very closely scrutinized. Each ought to include the strongest enforceable worker rights and environmental safeguards attainable, like those included in the U.S.-Jordan agreement of 2000. Each should also include enforceable rules to protect intellectual property rights and guarantee access for U.S.-base corporations to foreign markets. This can be achieved in trade agreements if we enter negotiations with clear principles.

I voted against the Chile and Singapore trade agreement, for example, because the inadequate labor and environmental provisions included in them, in my estimation, failed to meet the negotiating objectives that Congress carefully spelled out in the 2002 law extending fast-track negotiating authority to the President. They did not provide, for example, that trade dispute settlement mechanisms within those free trade agreements afford equivalent treatment to trade-related labor and environmental protection as intellectual property rights and capital subsidies, and the impending DR-CAFTA fails in this regard, too. The agreement between the US and Jordan , on the other hand, is a fine example that good agreements are achievable.

I am troubled by the DR-CAFTA that President has signed. The DR-CAFTA does not contain strong, enforceable provisions to protect internationally-recognized worker rights. Nor does it have any provisions for environmental safeguards. Such provisions are critical because they both preserve existing labor laws and environmental standards in the affected countries, and because they ensure that American companies will be competing on a more level playing field with our Central American neighbors. Without such provisions, U.S. companies and employees are forced to compete with countries that have no labor wage, working conditions, or environmental protections. The people of all countries lose in such a "race to the bottom". I will vote against the DR-CAFTA when it comes to the floor of the House of Representatives.

Again, thank you for sharing your concerns about U.S. trade policy and the seriously-flawed DR-CAFTA that has been negotiated and signed by the Bush Administration. I believe it will do more harm than good for most of the people in all of the countries which may become party to it. Please feel free to contact me about other issues of interest.
Sincerely,

RUSH HOLT

Member of Congress

My letter to the Congressman:

June 15, 2005

Congressman Rush Holt
U.S. Congress

Dear Rush,

I strongly oppose the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) for the following reasons:

1. NAFTA, has not been good for America. I believe jobs have been lost because of it. If Congress really wants to do something useful, then pass legislation to better guard our border with Mexico.

2. International tribunals set up under NAFTA have been ruling on U.S. cases, claiming the authority to supersede U.S. court decisions. As a United States citizen, I find this distasteful. My advice to you is to read the constitution, and then vote for bills that adhere to the Constitution and vote against those that don't. This country was born a republic. It has now dropped into a socialist democracy. If you read the Federalist Papers, you will see a strong argument by Thomas Jefferson against democracies. Read the Constitution and the Federalist Papers then look at your voting record and see how it stacks up. Can you look me in the eye and tell me you are proud of it? Can you?

3. The argument that the CAFTA countries can provide valuable markets for American goods is phony. The CAFTA countries are among the world's poorest and their economies among the world's smallest. The only things we will be exporting to these countries are U.S. jobs, industry, and capital. Even some of the U.S. firms that moved to Mexico would likely move further south to cheaper labor markets.

Please let me know that you will vote against the CAFTA agreement if and when it is signed and presented to Congress. The same goes for the misnamed Free Trade Area of the Americas. The FTAA would remove authority over many matters, in addition to trade, that properly belong to Congress. My final thought for you is this. If from here on out you begin voting in ways that uphold the Constitution, then I will vote for you when the time comes. If you do not, then know that my vote will go against you.

Sincerely,

Wayne