As part of a series running the week of February 28 on CNN's Lou Dobbs news program, a four person news crew visited American Crystal Sugar Company to do a story on how trade in general, and CAFTA specifically, could affect the sugar industry, its growers and employees. The CNN news crew visited the Moorhead factory and the farm of Moorhead shareholder and Board Vice Chairman, David Kragnes.

The program with American Crystal Sugar Company's segment will air today, Friday, March 4, 2005 at 5:00 p.m. Central time on CNN's Lou Dobbs.

The following is the week's Lou Dobbs show transcripts pertaining to CAFTA.

LOU DOBBS TONIGHT Transcripts Monday, February 28, 2005 Coming up next, the high cost of so-called free trade. Thousands of Americans could well lose their jobs if the White House pushes through a new free trade agreement with Central America. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: Tonight we begin our special report on the latest free trade agreement that the White House is trying now to push through Congress after this fall. Setting it aside for fear of influencing in any way the outcome of the presidential election, now the White House wants to move it quickly and certainly quietly. The Central American Free Trade Agreement, or CAFTA, would open up, its advocates say, free trade between the United States and six countries in Central America. Critics, however, say it will cost only more Americans their jobs.

Kitty Pilgrim reports.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KITTY PILGRIM, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): George Nailer's family has been farming in Greene County, Iowa, since the 1880s. His grandparents bought this farm in 1918, and George started farming it in 1986. But he sees a bleak future. Only 20 percent of the small family farms in the area are left. He says free trade deals like NAFTA and CAFTA will continue to drive down crop prices for small farmers in the United States.

GEORGE NAYLOR, IOWA FARMER: CAFTA is really a bad idea, because it's just continue to continue what's been going on under NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement. And you can see that farmers in this country haven't benefited. We're still getting as low of prices as ever.

PILGRIM: The AFL-CIO says 40 percent of Central America's workers earn less than $2 a day, and their rights are routinely abused. American workers can't compete. Job migrate to other countries. But multinational corporations benefit by finding lowest labor costs. CAFTA includes Central American countries Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua.

RICHARD TRUMKA, AFL-CIO: We want trade that will actually lift their standard of living and will result in a better economy and a better world for all of us, not just multinationals.

PILGRIM: But not every industry is against it. For pharmaceutical companies, CAFTA establishes news rules for the protection and enforcement of drug company patents. The retail apparel industry thinks it will help keep costs low.

ERIK AUTOR, NATIONAL RETAIL FEDERATION: For apparel retailers, one of the critical things about the region is its proximity to the U.S. market.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

PILGRIM: Now, the watchdog group Public Citizens points out the compelling statistics that show American workers cannot compete with the workers in CAFTA country. The average worker in Honduras earns only 90 cents an hour to produce goods for the American market. And on average, Lou, children start working in El Salvador in the sugarcane fields at the age of 10 to 13 years old.

DOBBS: It is -- it is so embarrassing that people, Democrats and Republicans, interested in this issue -- all Americans should be -- but just don't just call lies for what they are. They're not misstatements or misunderstandings. They're straightforward lies being uttered on this issue, and a refusal to deal with the facts.

We had the experience with NAFTA. We had the experience with other free trade agreements. And why there will not be a discussion about labor protection and environmental protection, and a leveling of the field, and the protection of the American middle class, is beyond me.

PILGRIM: We found a very frank discussion of this in Iowa with the farmer, and they seem to know the issues very, very well. It's too bad that the American public is not more well-versed on this issue.

DOBBS: And too bad that many of our representatives and senators in Congress and the Senate aren't as articulate and thoughtful as that farmer in Iowa. Thank you very much. Kitty Pilgrim.

A new poll tonight on CAFTA shows American consumers don't want to give up their jobs for lower prices. And even though advocates of CAFTA and other free trade agreements, by the way, try to bring racial and ethnic issues to the forefront on trade issues, it turns out they are pushing a lie.

In point of fact, there is very little difference between Hispanics and non-Hispanics on this issue. This new poll commissioned by the nonprofit organization Americans for Free Fair Trade, registered voters were asked, "Would you favor or oppose CAFTA if it reduces prices you pay as a consumer but eliminates jobs for U.S. workers?"

Seventy-four percent of those polled said they would oppose it. Only 17 percent would support it. When asked the same question, 67 percent of Hispanics said they would oppose CAFTA, 22 percent said they would support it.

Senator Hillary Clinton addressed the issue of outsourcing American jobs to cheap foreign labor markets this weekend. Senator Clinton was in India, meeting with the country's prime minister and top business leaders. There she urged Indian industries to invest more in the United States to cut the enormous trade deficit with India.

In 2003, the United States exported $5 billion worth of merchandise to India, while India exported nearly $14 billion to this country. The former first lady, however, said outsourcing will continue, saying, "There is no way to legislate reality."

Well, the shipment of American jobs to cheap foreign labor markets is just part of the assault on this country's middle class. Prices on just about anything, in fact, are rising, despite outsourcing, despite a $600 billion-plus trade deficit. And American incomes are now struggling to keep up.

Tuesday, March 1, 2005

Coming up next, a living battle over yet another so called free trade agreement. Why some say Congress will be the death of CAFTA. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: Tonight our special report on the controversial Central American Free Trade Agreement, it's known as CAFTA. The White House brokered the deal with six countries in Central America and was going to push it before Congress last year, but the political season being what it was and the presidential race coming on as it was, it delayed. Now it wants Congress to move as soon as possible, and as quietly as possible. But many lawmakers are now wary from NAFTA and our exploding trade deficits.

They're more than skeptical, As Lisa Sylvester now reports from Washington.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

LISA SYLVESTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The U.S./Australian Trade Agreement sailed through Congress last year with no problems, but CAFTA, the Central American Free Trade Agreement is expected to be a knockdown, drag out fight in Congress later this year. Many lawmakers are souring on new trade agreements.

REP. SANDER LEVIN (D), MICHIGAN: More and more there's a realization that you just can't say expanded trade, willy nilly. You have to look at its impact, its content as it's shaped.

SYLVESTER: That view is gaining in Congress, and it's why CAFTA is in trouble. Lawmakers can point to a 10-year record on NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement. Hundreds of thousands of jobs lost, and a record $618 billion trade deficit. The exporting of American jobs has also made it harder for many Republicans to support the trade deal.

ERNEST BAYNARD, AMERICANS FOR FAIR TRADE: In the first time away, when people were touting NAFTA, they proclaimed it would be this great economic boon for farmers and workers. NAFTA has not turned out that way. I think NAFTA has a very negative legacy, and a history of failed promises.

SYLVESTER: Lawmakers will not be able to make any changes to the existing CAFTA accord, they will only vote yes or no. Even CAFTA proponents fear there will be more no votes than yes.

BILL FRENZEL, BROOKINGS INSTITUTE: It will be a squeaker, because the forces arrayed against it are working very hard now.

SYLVESTER: Bush administration officials delayed bringing CAFTA to Congress last year. They didn't have enough votes, the same reason they haven't brought it forth this year.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SYLVESTER: CAFTA could shape the rest of President Bush's trade agenda. A growing shift away from trade liberalization could also affect upcoming votes on continuing membership in the World Trade Organization, and whether to extend fast-track authority -- Lou.

DOBBS: Big issues indeed. Lisa Sylvester, thank you very much.

We want to hear your thoughts on CAFTA on "Tonight's Poll." And the question is, do you believe Congress should pass the Central American Free Trade Agreement, yes or no. Cast your votes at loudobbs.com. We'll have the results for you later here in the broadcast.

Another poll of a different time, a new UBS Survey showing investors are happy for the most part, but three of the top concerns for investors right now are issues that we've been covering extensively on this broadcast. Four out of five investors surveyed now say they're worried about the outsourcing of American jobs to cheap foreign labor markets, and our soaring federal budget deficit.

And two thirds say the flood of illegal aliens into this country is, in their opinion, hurting our economy.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: We've reported extensively here of course on the so- called free trade policies of both this administration and the previous. We're reported on our record trade deficit. We have reported on a number of issues surrounding the economic well-being of this country and the pressures that are being created on American workers.

We've also reported on the Central American Free Trade Agreement now for some time and how it will affect Americans. Critics of CAFTA say it will have the same effect on this country as NAFTA, which was signed back in 1993. Many blame NAFTA for the loss of nearly a million American jobs. My next guest, however, is not among them. He is the assistant U.S. trade representative, and he says CAFTA will actually protect jobs in the United States. Joining me now from Washington, D.C. is Representative Christopher Padilla. Good to have you with us.

CHRISTOPHER PADILLA, ASSISTANT U.S. TRADE REP.: Thank you, Lou. Appreciate the chance.

DOBBS: Let me ask you, first, the delay in bringing CAFTA forward to Congress, now delayed again. Does the president have the votes at this point in your judgment?

PADILLA: The president is a strong supporter of CAFTA. I think as we have the chance to get the word out about what this trade agreement means, and more importantly what it doesn't mean, I'm confident that we'll get the support in Congress, and I know that we're going to push forward in the next weeks and months to do that.

DOBBS: And with that confidence, what's it based on? Because NAFTA right now is being deemed a failure from many of the same people in the Republican Party supporting the president, looking at 10 years' experience and saying, this is not working the way we intended. It is not working to the advantage of American citizens. How do you construct an argument for CAFTA that will be persuasive?

PADILLA: Well, I don't agree with the characterization of NAFTA, but I would say that while CAFTA rhymes with NAFTA, the similarity pretty much ends there.

DOBBS: An unfortunate rhyme.

PADILLA: Well, maybe we would have named it something differently had we thought about it, but the important thing, Lou, is we already have free trade with Central America. In fact, we've had it for a decade, but it's one-way free trade. I think a lot of folks don't realize that under a program started in the '80s and expanded by President Clinton, about 80 percent of what we import from Central America today comes into this country duty-free.

DOBBS: Right.

PADILLA: And what this trade agreement does is it opens their markets to our products. And so for those like you and many of your viewers who are concerned about the trade deficit, this is the kind of trade agreement that levels the playing field that I hope you'll support.

DOBBS: Well, let's go -- let's move toward that support, and just give me a sense of a couple of things. One, as you point out, free trade has meant for too long for this country, for this administration in my opinion and the previous as well, that we open up our, the world's largest, richest consumer market to whomever we want to target, whether it be the Chinese or whether it be Central America.

To what degree will this redress our trade deficit if we do -- if we were to sign CAFTA and put it into law? How would it improve it? Is there -- have you got a model and a number?

PADILLA: Well, these are small countries, Lou, but they're actually very big markets for our exports. In fact, we trade more with Central America than we trade with Brazil or with Australia.

As the president says, you know, it's easy to trade into America. What we want to do is make sure that others open their markets so that we can sell them our products and services.

I watched your program last night. You had a farmer on from Iowa, who's concerned about CAFTA. And I wonder what that farmer would say if he knew that 99 percent of farm products coming in from Central America today are duty-free, but if he grows corn or soybeans or hogs or cattle, he has to pay pretty hefty tariffs on those things in Central America. So we probably won't agree on a lot of trade agreements, Lou, but on this one, I think we are leveling the playing field, and I think that's a strong argument for it.

DOBBS: If indeed the result is to level the playing field, I couldn't be more supportive. As you point out, right now it's hardly that. The degree to which CAFTA can redress that, you know, it's an open-ended question obviously at this point, and Congress will resolve that.

You know, you once referred to this broadcast, particularly me, implying that I'm something of a protectionist, and I just want to set the record straight, between you and me, just you and me, no one else, I'm neither a protectionist or an economic isolationist as the administration has tried to brand me. I want to see healthy, mutual, balanced trade.

I have to ask you, in that sense, what is this administration? Because if -- I for the life of me cannot understand why we continue to pursue policies that for 20 years have resulted in deficits, and we're a country now approaching $4 trillion in external trade debt. When are we going to redress what is a clear deficit and a clear and I think present danger to the well-being of this economy?

PADILLA: Well, Lou, we agree with you, that we want to have fair and balanced trade. We believe that Americans can compete with anybody in the world when they're given a fair chance to compete. And that's why the president wants to open foreign markets, because, as you said, our market is largely open, and certainly that's the case with Central America.

Now, with regard to the trade deficit, one way we can try to attack that is by opening new opportunities for our exporters, but it's also important to recognize that we have a strong and growing economy. American consumers buy a lot of things from the world, because we're doing well. I wish we could get other economies to grow as fast, Europe and Japan especially.

DOBBS: I agree with you.

PADILLA: That is very important, and we feel the same way about developing economies, like Brazil and China and others. We want them to buy more of our products. So, I think we agree on the goals, Lou. Perhaps we disagree on individual trade agreements, but we certainly want to do what's right for American workers and farmers.

DOBBS: Well, absolutely, and every working man and woman in this country, I'm sure.

PADILLA: Absolutely.

DOBBS: Assistant Trade Representative Chris Padilla, we thank you for being here. We hope you'll come back soon. We would be delighted to have an exchange of views anytime on any subject.

PADILLA: Thank you.

DOBBS: Give you every shot. We'll even bring back the gentleman, the farmer in Iowa. The three of us might have a conversation here one of these days if you're up for that.

PADILLA: I think that would be an interesting conversation. Thank you, Lou.

DOBBS: You got it. Thank you very much, sir.

Coming up next, our nation's labor leaders are planning to take on the growing dominance of corporate America in our economy, and our political system, and our society. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: Tonight the AFL-CIO, the nation's largest labor union, is holding its annual meeting, trying to revitalize both itself and the struggling national labor movement.

I talked earlier with the AFL-CIO's number two official about how organized labor in its present weakened condition will be able to be an effective countervailing influence against the overwhelming dominance of corporate America.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

RICHARD TRUMKA, AFL-CIO SECRETARY TREASURER: We're going to draw on what has always been our greatest strength, and that's unity, and try to bring everybody in the labor movement together, and then build the alliances that we've always had in the past.

Just last year, Lou, we brought in 800,000 people into an organization called Working America, that really aren't part of collective bargaining. But they want a voice in the economy. They know that they are losing their pensions. They know they are losing their health care. They know that they are losing their ability and their future, so they want to have a voice. So they've joined together with us. That's the nascence, the beginning of a real organization and an alliance which we can spread.

DOBBS: Organized labor has sent out so many confusing signals. At a time when illegal immigration is contributing to depressed wages for working men and women in this country, about $200 billion a year, the AFL-CIO supporting open borders and amnesty. That's a tough message to reconcile with representing U.S. citizen workers.

TRUMKA: Well, first of all, let's look at those workers. Many of those workers that you just referred to have been in this country for three or four or five years. They've been producing, they've been paying taxes, but they get take advantage of.

What we don't want to see is government allow or corporate America actually facilitate workers coming into this country and then exploiting them. What we're asking for is fair treatment for those people. We know that there are people that come into the country illegally. We'd like to see that stemmed.

DOBBS: So let's talk about some of those pressure points that you're talking about. One of them is privatization. And that is in terms of Social Security. Where is the AFL-CIO?

TRUMKA: First of all, there is no crisis. They've tried to manufacture that so that they could reward a lot of their rich buddies that make contributions to them through privatization. We oppose the privatization of Social Security. We oppose the weakening of Social Security.

Social Security has been the most successful program that this country has ever seen. It keeps more people out of poverty than we've ever seen. But in addition to being an income, a guaranteed income for old age, it also is an insurance program, because millions of workers that have been injured and disabled draw Social Security benefits and survive. They wouldn't have been able to do that.

Privatization takes a guaranteed income and turns it into a guaranteed risk. That's something we're not willing to do with the future of every American out there.

DOBBS: What is going on between labor and the Democratic Party and its foremost personalities?

TRUMKA: We represent a lot of Republicans. Now more often than not we represent Democrats, because more often than not Democrats support working people. That's why we're there.

DOBBS: Right, good point.

TRUMKA: We look at the candidate.

When it comes to trade, Bill Clinton was wrong. He did NAFTA, and we were told it would do a lot of things, none of which have come about. That model, the NAFTA model, has failed. It's resulted in the world's largest trade deficit, a trade deficit that causes us to bring $1.7 billion a day into this country from foreign sources, not to build productive facilities, but to finance consumption and a mortgage.

And so anybody, a Democrat, Republican, independent or anybody else who supports CAFTA, another extension of that failed policy, will be opposed by the AFL-CIO. I don't care what senator it is. I don't care what congressman it is. That's bad policy. It's bad for the country. And it is particularly bad for workers on both sides of the border. We will oppose them.

DOBBS: And some would say, good for the AFL-CIO. I happen to be among those who would say, good for the AFL-CIO. Now the question is...

TRUMKA: We appreciate that.

DOBBS: Is there sufficient power, political power and economic power in the hands of the AFL-CIO today to make that promise, if you will, if not outright threat, stick?

TRUMKA: We'll see. We think so. We think we have the votes on both sides of the aisle to beat CAFTA, and the other 15 or 16 that are lined up behind it. Not because we oppose trade, but because the type of trade that we've been engaging in is bad for this country.

We think we'll do that. We have nearly every Democrat lined up. We have a bunch of Republicans lined up that are going to support us on that, because it's bad policy.

DOBBS: Richard Trumka, we thank you for being here as always.

TRUMKA: Lou, thank you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

DOBBS: We have now for you a striking comparison, if we can show you this. It's a comparison between the most advantageous exports of a third-world country and those of the world's leading industrial economy. And the point is, each of these contributes mightily to a surplus, whereas other exports, no matter how large the dollar volume, does not create a surplus. Take a look. See if you can figure out which country is which.

The country on the left boasts a nearly $17 billion surplus in computer equipment in its trade. Its surplus of audio and video equipment adds another $12 billion. Technology, industrialization.

And the country on the right enjoys the most advantageous trade position with its exports of waste and scrap and of course, soybeans. Which country is which, would you guess? You guessed it. The United States exports look like those of a third-world country. China's exports look like those of the industrial power that it will soon become, thanks in part to misguided U.S. trade policies.

Still ahead, the results of our poll. You don't want to miss it. Please stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: Poll results: 89 percent of you say Congress should not pass the Central American Free Trade Agreement. Please join us here tomorrow. Our "Face-Off," two leading members of Congress will be here to debate CAFTA. And we will also be focusing as well on illegal aliens. Two distinguished members of Congress will be here. We hope you will join us as one Texas official takes on the issue of the Ten Commandments before the Supreme Court. Please be with us.

Good night from New York. "ANDERSON COOPER 360" is next.

March 2, 2005

DOBBS: Tonight, our special report on the latest trade agreement that the White House is trying to push through Congress. As we've reported, trying to push through Congress rather quickly and rather quietly.

CAFTA is the focus of what is now an intense debate in this country for many reasons. One of those reasons, its potential impact on our nation's textile workers who are already struggling to compete with China and other Asian nations in particular.

Christine Romans has the report.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Roger Chastain is on the front lines of what he calls a battle for survival in American textiles. And he fiercely opposes CAFTA.

ROGER CHASTAIN, MOUNT VERNON MILLS: We're fighting a war. We're in an economic war. And we're being defeated.

ROMANS: Chastain is the president of Mount Vernon Mills and employs 4,200 workers in six states.

CHASTAIN: We're exporting our middle class jobs. We're exporting our standard of living. We are exporting the American dream for the next generation. And to me, that's criminal.

ROMANS: He's watched 40 textile plants close in the past two years in the Carolinas alone. CAFTA, he says, will destroy more American jobs by moving even more manufacturing to low-wage Central American countries. And, he says, loopholes allow for the use of fabrics from other countries like China and Mexico to be sewn into clothing and sold duty-free right back into the U.S.

But the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is an ardent supporter of CAFTA, claiming it will open a growing, vibrant market to U.S. goods and help a regional textile industry compete with China.

JOHN MURPHY, U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: It will help us to compete globally against big manufacturers like China. That's especially true in textiles and apparel, where we have a partnership going back for 20 years with U.S. companies spinning the yarn, making the cloth, and then working with apparel manufacturers that are based in, say, the Dominican Republic to cut and sew the products and sell it back here.

ROMANS: Indeed, in Washington, CAFTA supporters call a vote against CAFTA a vote for China. The American Manufacturing Trade Action Coalition calls that a lie.

AUGGIE TANTILLO, AMERICAN MANUFACTURING TRADE ACTION COALITION: More importantly, we shouldn't be exporting U.S. jobs to Central America in an effort to compete with China. We need to address that problem head on.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ROMANS: Head on. And, Lou, two more points.

CAFTA would open up a market for U.S. goods in Central America, a market the size of New Haven, Connecticut, or Orlando, Florida. Also, you've got this too small of a market, these guys say, to justify the back-door access that China could get. And they are also pointing out that China is investing heavily in textiles in Central America.

DOBBS: And the fascinating thing is that lost in all of this is, despite everything, we're talking about a market that comprises $85 billion. And the administration couldn't get the votes for this in the fall. It hasn't got the votes now. And it appears to be, for all intents and purposes, another outsourcing agreement, not a trade agreement. CAFTA rhymes with NAFTA, I think is the way the critics are describing it.

Thank you very much for that excellent report, Christine -- Orlando?

ROMANS: Orlando, New Haven.

DOBBS: Amazing. Thank you.

We'll have much more ahead here tonight on CAFTA and other free trade agreements, so-called free trade agreements. Two congressmen will be facing off on whether this country really needs another free trade agreement.

Coming up next here, why two members of Congress say our country should legalize half a million illegal aliens. One senator, one congressman, our guests next.

Please stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: Turning now to an issue we've been reporting on extensively for years, the estimated 20 million illegal aliens in this country and our federal government's failure to enforce either our border or immigration laws. My next guests have actually proposed legalizing hundreds of thousands of those illegal aliens who work in American agriculture. Senator Larry Craig of Idaho and Congressman Howard Berman of California say their plan will benefit our nation's agriculture industry. They were our guests here a couple of weeks ago, and we ran out of time in what was an extensive discussion, I think it's fair to say. And they've graciously agreed to be with us again.

Senator, Congressman, it is great tot have you both back with us.

REP. HOWARD BERMAN (D), CALIFORNIA: Thank you very much, Lou.

SEN. LARRY CRAIG (R), IDAHO: Good to be back.

DOBBS: And Senator Craig, Congressman Berman wasn't given quite the attention that you and I were by the "Idaho Statesman" newspaper, but...

BERMAN: How about that?

DOBBS: But it was kind of fun to look over their review of our discussion. Let's...

BERMAN: The headlines were -- yes, headlines were, "Rupert (ph) Boy Makes Good."

DOBBS: There you go. The fact of the matter is -- and I'm going to turn, if I may, to you, Congressman Berman, the issue, as you know, in this country right now has reached a critical point. The needs of agriculture are critical. Agriculture itself is critical to the well- being of this nation.

But the idea of legalizing illegal aliens and creating an amnesty for whatever the number is -- you estimate a half a million -- is anathema to many who are critical of what is happening in this country. How do you respond?

CRAIG: This is not an amnesty. If I told you, you had done something illegal, you'd come into this country illegally, and you had a choice of two penalties, 30 days in the county jail or working 360 days over a six-year period picking crops in agriculture, most people would say, give me the 30 days.

This is an extended process for an earned adjustment which requires people to continue to work in a particular industry as a condition of getting legal status. In addition to paying the application fees and other costs attendant to the adjustment.

It is -- it is no more an amnesty than the present situation, which is to ignore the presence of 8, 10, 12 million people in this country, which is a situation we're in now. Only it's a much healthier proposal than the status quo.

DOBBS: It at least has the courage of recognizing that there is a problem. And the courage, if I may say, even though I don't agree necessarily with the solutions you've put forward, at least you have the courage to put forward a solution. Senator Craig, let me ask you this... we're dealing with, as we discussed the last time, we're dealing with people who have broken the law. First, the illegal aliens who have crossed our borders illegally. And secondly, the employers who have hired them illegally.

Is it really an appropriate response to say we're going to legalize those who have broken our nation's laws?

CRAIG: Well, most important, Lou, we have a border we have not controlled for nearly two decades. We also have a very real need for a workforce. And if you don't have a way to make a workforce legal, so they can come here and work and go home, then you get the situation that we currently have.

And so what we're trying to deal with is readjusting and changing the law that creates a legal workforce for the very real needs of American agriculture. And I think that what Howard has so clearly said was, we give people the right to earn a position. We also do a background check and we begin to clean up and identify a portion of the 8 to 12 million undocumented people that are in this country. And I think that's what the American citizens want.

DOBBS: I think the American citizens based at least on -- and I would certainly would not speak for any group of people, but at least those who watch this broadcast and the way they've responded to our polls and interact with us, I will tell you are definitely, definitely against the president's proposal on amnesty as it's constructed now. They are very concerned about the lack of border security. But as you say, the issue is critical. We need to make some adjustments.

Let me ask you both this question as we try to deal with it. In our last discussion you asked me to put forth a proposal. Mine is very, very simple. And that is simply a work visa. I discovered the Sonora, Arizona border as a young reporter 30 years ago. The fact is that work visas and green cards worked very well then. There was no impetus for a gained citizenship in this country, no expectation of it. And certainly, it worked effectively. Why is that not an adequate solution, if I may ask you first Congressman Berman?

BERMAN: Well, if you are going to give a work visa to people in this country who came here illegally then I would say your proposal is an amnesty. Since you seem to say that any proposal to deal with the status quo is an amnesty. And we're talking about authorizing work on condition that you continue to work as a condition of a adjustment program. I'm not quite sure what the distinction is.

And if you are going to ignore the people who are now in this country and only apply to people who are outside the country, then you are leaving the status quo, which is what -- that's what people are really angry about. They are angry that there are 8 to 12 million people illegally.

DOBBS: I'm sorry, who is angry? Who is angry?

BERMAN: The American people are very upset by the present situation. It's huge cost to taxpayers, it's very unhealthy, leads to all kinds of exploitation. It's a humanitarian nightmare, it jeopardizes our national security. This is not a problem that we should be ignore anything longer.

DOBBS: Congressman? Senator? Democrat and Republican. You just articulated, Congressman, the issue. Why in the world is not the United States Congress and the United States Senate absolutely insisting on control, not operational control, but real control of our borders, absolute security and controlling the flow of immigration across our borders?

CRAIG: Lou, you ask a very important question. We are investing billions on the border. We are hiring tens of thousands of border guards. And we are attempting to control the border.

But here is a very real human reality. On the other side of that border, the American side of that border, there is a need for a very large workforce of a certain kind. And human beings will go where they feel they can better themselves, even if they put themselves as risk on the border.

Lou, you are absolutely right. In the '50s, we had a bresarro (ph) program. We gave visas. We identified the worker and the work. And that program worked very well. Then we changed the law and we turned our back on a law that was very bureaucratic, very time consuming.

Last year in Idaho, we believe there were some 30,000 workers, foreign nationals, only 1,100 of them had been worked through the legal H2A program. And yet that 30,000 were desperately needed to harvest the crops of Idaho, to change the sprinkler pipes and to put food on the Americans' tables.

So what Howard and I are attempting to do is, No. 1, correct the current problem and then reform the H2A law to do much of what you are saying, to identify a worker and a visa and a job to make them legal so they can move across the border, do their work and go home. We think that in the end is absolutely the appropriate way to handle this.

DOBBS: Congressman Berman, your thoughts?

BERMAN: Well, I think Senator Craig said it very well. We are trying to do something about this problem. And the three alternatives is to take an approach like ours, to leave the status quo or to create the pretense that somehow we are going to search through the streets and roads and homes and apartments of America to find 10 to 14 million people and deport them. If we do that, we don't have the resources for anything else. And I don't think the price the American people are willing to pay constitutes the creation of that kind of an operation.

DOBBS: Those have to be the last words. We thank you for being with us again. Congressman Berman, Senator Craig we thank you. You are both very gracious to come back and further the discussion. Thank you both.

Thursday, March 3, 2005

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: Tonight, our special report on the newest so-called free trade agreement the White House wants to push through Congress. The Central America Free Trade Agreement would, according to its advocates, open up trade between this country and six others. Critics say, however, that it would also open our border to an invasion of millions more in illegal aliens.

Casey Wian has the report from Los Angeles.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CASEY WIAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Eleven years ago, the North American Free Trade Agreement was supposed to reduce illegal immigration by cutting poverty in Mexico. So the League of United Latin-American Citizens supported NAFTA.

But NAFTA allowed big corporations to overwhelm Mexican farmers and small businesses. Millions of workers flocked illegally to the United States. That's why LULAC now opposes the Central American Free Trade Agreement, or CAFTA.

GABRIELA LEMUS, LULAC: What we need to do is review the lessons of NAFTA because, at the same time at the macro level, we've seen an expansion of the Mexican economy. At the micro level, we've also seen a dislocation of workers in certain sectors, specifically in agricultural sector, small business sector, as well as in the United States of Latino workers.

WIAN: In fact, in 1999, almost half the U.S. workers who were receiving federal aid because they lost jobs to NAFTA were Latino. Labor leaders believe that CAFTA will destroy more U.S. jobs by encouraging more illegal immigration from Central America.

LINDA CHAVEZ-THOMPSON, EXECUTIVE VP, AFL-CIO: Time and time again, when you have a class of workers that is treated in a lesser manner, what it does is it pulls everybody down. Wages are pulled down because employers can say, hey, I can go down the street and I can hire anybody at the lowest wage possible.

WIAN: Union leaders meeting in Las Vegas this week discussed strategies for defeating CAFTA.

ROBERT BAUGH, INDUSTRIAL UNION COUNCIL: We know it doesn't work. NAFTA proved it. We know about the million jobs we lost in this country. We know about the million peasants, small farmers driven off their lands and were driven across our borders to seek work.

WIAN: Wile union leaders believe they have the support to defeat CAFTA in Congress, a State Department official told lawmakers just yesterday that CAFTA remains a major priority for the White House.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WIAN: And it's not just U.S. labor leaders who oppose CAFTA. This week in Guatemala 8,000 people, mostly teachers, demonstrated against the proposed deal -- Lou.

DOBBS: Casey this is remarkable, LULAC coming out -- coming out against this agreement. Is this the first time they've made this kind of move? Is it purely because they believe Hispanic workers are threatened as a result of what CAFTA would achieve?

WIAN: Absolutely. That's their motivation. It's a big shift for them.

They were strong supporters of NAFTA. They thought it would help Hispanic workers both here and in Mexico. Obviously that has turned out to be not the case. In fact, just the opposite has happened.

So they've learned their lesson. They say they're going to fight against CAFTA. They want better conditions for workers here and workers in Central America, which they say this trade deal will not produce -- Lou.

DOBBS: Thank you very much. Casey Wian reporting from Los Angeles.

North Dakota lawmakers are also urging Congress not to approve CAFTA. North Dakota's House and Senate passed a resolution saying CAFTA will devastate North Dakota's sugar industry, one of the largest in this nation.

That resolution also says CAFTA will only encourage a deluge of cheap sugar imports. Incidentally, Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns will visit North Dakota tomorrow. Not to address concerns about CAFTA, but to speak at a Republican Party dinner.

We'll have much more tomorrow evening on the impact of this proposed agreement on our nation's sugar farmers. Next, a former Border Patrol agent who says President Bush's Border Patrol policies are simply shameful.

Stay with us.

March 4, 2005

Coming up next, the high cost of so-called free trade. How Americans at one critical industry say CAFTA will kill their jobs and their industry. That story's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: Tonight, the escalating concerns about the Central American Free Trade Agreement. Some of the most vocal critics of the so-called free trade agreement are American sugar beet growers and farmers. They say CAFTA could cost thousands of Americans their jobs. Lisa Sylvester has the report from Felton, Minnesota.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

LISA SYLVESTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): David Kragnes family has raised sugar beets on this land for four generations. But now the family business is in trouble because of CAFTA. He blames U.S. trade negotiators for selling out the industry.

DAVID KRAGNES, SUGAR BEET FARMER: We should make jerseys for our trade negotiators so they could look down once in a while and see which team they're on.

SYLVESTER: Kragnes is part of American Crystal Sugar, a farmer- owned co-op that turns sugar beets into sugar. The industry estimates as many as 20,000 jobs could be lost if CAFTA is passed. U.S. farmers and producers would be hit with a near 10-percent increase in sugar imports, 100,000 tons in the first year alone. The flood of imports will likely push down the price and make it harder for U.S. workers to compete.

MIKE NERGUSON, AMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR: It's, you know, kind of uncertain times. It's kind of scary. You don't know if you want to jump ship when you can or wait and fall to the bottom.

SYLVESTER (on camera): Sugar growers are worries that CAFTA will open the door to new trade agreements, like the Free Trade Area of the Americas agreement. Then they won't be just competing against Central America, but the entire western hemisphere.

(voice-over): It won't by a fair fight. Other countries don't have the same environmental and labor standards.

TONY ST. MICHEL, AMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR: They can inundate us with sugar and we -- you know, we can't compete with people who are making 60 cents a day or 90 cents an hour, or whatever. You know, you put us on a level playing field, we can compete with anybody. But we have to have a level playing field.

SYLVESTER: The sugar beets are a livelihood for as many as 30,000 people in the Red River Valley, a livelihood that many say is being traded away.

Lisa Sylvester, CNN, Felton, Minnesota.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

DOBBS: And the Red River Valley sugar beet farms, of course, spread into North Dakota. Still ahead here tonight, I'll be talking with the agriculture commissioner in that state who says CAFTA could destroy the sugar industry, not just in the Red River Valley, but nationwide.

DOBBS: My next guest says the Central American Free Trade Agreement will destroy our nation's sugar industry. Roger Johnson is agricultural commissioner for the state of North Dakota, one of our nation's largest sugar beet producers joining us from Bismarck, North Dakota. Commissioner, good to have you with us.

The Central American Free Trade Agreement threatens, according to most critics, many, many industries. Why in particular the sugar beet industry not only in your state but indeed throughout the country?

ROGER JOHNSON, N. DAKOTA AGRICULTURE COMMISSION: Well, the sugar industry is a very import-sensitive industry, obviously. We have in the United States it's about $8.5 billion kind of industry, or 8.5 million ton industry. We produce about three-quarter million of those tons here in North Dakota. And the Red River Valley is the largest sugar beet-growing area in the country.

About half of that total production of sugar in this country comes from sugar beets, and the other half from cane sugar.

There are a lot of jobs associated with it. In this region, it's about 30,000 jobs that are associated with the sugar industry just in the state of North Dakota. It's over 13,000 of those jobs. And the estimates that we have seen suggest that CAFTA initially is going to allow about 100,000 additional tons to come in. But if it sets a precedent for other free trade agreements, which is what we really expect it to do, it will in fact destroy the industry, if that's the case.

We've seen economic studies that show...

DOBBS: The assistant U.S. trade representative Christopher Padilla said point-blank that farmers should be -- and growers should excited about CAFTA, because it's going to open up markets to their products. That isn't -- why isn't that accepted by you and others?

JOHNSON: That certainly is not going to be the case with sugar. Sugar is the industry that is threatened most, I think, in North Dakota by CAFTA. But even for the grains, you know, wheat for example, which is the largest crop that we grow in terms of acreage in North Dakota. We've already got 100 percent access. There are no duties against wheat going into the CAFTA countries. And in terms of the other grains, we're 94 percent of them go in right now duty-free.

So in terms of access to creating new markets, it's not going to be that. It will result in imports of sugar coming into this country, and that's going to be a problem for this industry.

DOBBS: Certainly, as you well know, sugar is one of the most heavily protected industries in this country, it is also one of the most heavily subsidized in this country. I guess, you know, I can imagine the millions of manufacturing workers in this country who have lost their jobs, because of these so-called free trade agreements, whether one is talking about NAFTA or any other number of free trade agreements, saying why should we care about the sugar beet growers, the sugar industry? They're subsidized.

We have had all sorts of pain. The technology industry, we have lost jobs for programming, every aspect of outsourcing, why should we worry about you guys? We've been told for years that this pain is short-term. In five, ten years, somebody will work it out. Why isn't that satisfactory?

JOHNSON: You know, Lou, if you take sugar out of the Red River Valley, there will be an enormous economic impact. and it will be negative. Now, I need to correct something. Sugar in terms of this country, there's a program for it, but it is not subsidized. There are quotas to allow certain amounts to come in, and production is limited to those who have contracts and who have purchased...

DOBBS: You would agree with me it's....

JOHNSON: Shares of sugar beet stocks so they can grow it. So it's basically supply management coming in.

DOBBS: You're right, it's protected, I think we can say that. Is that a fair statement?

JOHNSON: It is protected. DOBBS: I'm not suggesting, by the way, that I agree with that, commissioner. I'm just asking you really simply at this point, what are you going to do about it?

JOHNSON: Well, what we're going to do about it, the sugar industry has been very straightforward. And they have said, hey, the world has lots of different policies about sugar, and so what the sugar industry has said, listen, talk about this at the WTO...

DOBBS: Commissioner, I'm sorry, we...

JOHNSON: Don't do it on a regional agreement by region agreement basis by, a country at a time and pick away at a industry, or by the time we get to the WTO, there won't be an industry left to be talking about.

DOBBS: We appreciate you being here, Roger Johnson. We appreciate it a good deal, and good luck.

JOHNSON: My pleasure.

View All News