Posted on 06/29/2005 9:44:25 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer
A Senate committee on Wednesday approved a trade agreement with Latin American nations, moving Congress a step closer to a decision on an accord that may have minimal effects on the U.S. economy but is of considerable political import to the Bush administration.
The Finance Committee approved the agreement by a voice vote, although it was closely divided on the issue. The bill now goes to the full Senate for a vote as early as this week. Passage in the Senate, traditionally more sympathetic to trade agreements, could give the measure some momentum in the House, where there is stiffer opposition.
The Central American Free Trade Agreement, or CAFTA, would end trade barriers now encountered by U.S. goods in Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic. It also would ease investment rules, strengthen protections for intellectual property and, according to supporters, solidify economic and democratic stability in the region.
But the agreement has run into vigorous opposition from labor groups, and their Democratic allies, who say its provisions on labor rights are weak, and from the U.S. sugar industry, which claims that an increase in Central American imports, while small, could open the door to ruin.
Sen. Jeff Bingaman (news, bio, voting record), D-N.M., a key undecided vote on the Finance Committee, announced he was supporting the pact after the administration answered some of his concerns about the "serious lack of attention to the enforcement of worker rights."
He said he had pledges of an extra $40 million over four years to promote labor laws. The administration also told him it will spend $30 million over five years to help subsistence farmers in three Central American countries who might be displaced by an increase in U.S. agriculture imports.
The Bush administration has waged a relentless lobbying effort in the past month. President Bush invited all six CAFTA presidents to the White House and hailed the agreement in several recent speeches to Hispanic-American and other groups. U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman (news, bio, voting record) and Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns are constantly on Capitol Hill, talking to undecided lawmakers.
Johanns met Monday with senators and representatives of the sugar industry, and again on Tuesday with lawmakers, to discuss proposals to assure that CAFTA will not undermine the industry's future viability. Those plans included the government buying up increased sugar cane imports from Central America to be used in the production of ethanol.
Republican Sen. Craig Thomas (news, bio, voting record), whose state of Wyoming has a large sugar beet industry, told the Finance Committee that "it distresses me a little" that only now, when a final vote on CAFTA is looming, is the administration getting serious about the sugar issue.
But Sen. Trent Lott (news, bio, voting record), R-Miss., suggested that there could be repercussions for the industry, always well-protected by Congress, if it succeeded in scuttling the agreement. "This could be devastating to them if not handled right," he said.
The top Democrat on the committee, Sen. Max Baucus (news, bio, voting record) of sugar beet-growing Montana, opposes CAFTA, breaking with his usual support of trade agreements.
In addition to saying that the agreement was bad for the sugar industry, he criticized the administration for rejecting a proposal to help U.S. service industry workers who lose their jobs because of foreign competition and for not consulting more with Congress.
"They appear to want to win by the thinnest of margins," he said,
VoiceOfSanDiego.org
CAFTA on the Ropes:
Agreement Must Protect People and the Environment(SNIP)
Our experience in the San Diego/Tijuana cross-border region is a lesson for the future. Congress should reject any trade agreement that does not include the following fair trade principles:
Enforceable environmental protections. There must be provisions to prohibit countries from lowering environmental standards or failing to enforce environmental laws as a means of attracting foreign investment. Compliance with International Labor Organization health, safety and wage standards is imperative in order to reduce job flight and create a more equitable global economy.Protection of human, labor and environmental rights over investor rights. NAFTA's disastrous Chapter 11 dispute settlement mechanism allows foreign corporations to sue governments for loss of potential profits due to enforcement of domestic law. In some countries, the mere threat of such costly lawsuits may halt the adoption of new environmental laws or implementation of existing laws. Foreign investors must be required to act in a socially responsible way.
Compliance with established democratic governance. Trade negotiation and administration must be transparent, accountable, participatory, equitable and follow the rule of law. Trade agreements should not set new standards outside domestic regulatory processes.
Transfer economic resources to reduce inequality between trading partners. Trade agreements between countries with wide gaps in development must include assistance for less-developed countries to promote social, regional and economic cohesion and build stable, sustainable economies.
Trade that creates poverty, pollution, instability and injustice is not "free." By defeating the Central American Free Trade Agreement, Congress will fulfill its obligation to defend basic economic and environmental rights and build prosperity and security.
We're screwed.
CFR.
LOST.
CAFTA.
Property rights.
Medicaid and medicare expansion.
"Reforming" the UN to make it more "effective" (aka powerful)
Open borders.
Foreign ownership of energy resources.
Judicial tyrrany.
Someone tell me how a dem would be worse again??? I'm starting to not see any difference between the two parties. Color me dissapointed.
I SAID..."you will be pleased to learn that in all the documentation I read...no mention of protection of American jobs was evident."
WRONG... I forgot about the one protection that SHOULD be removed...a special interest in this country that gets massive government handouts...
THE US SUGAR INDUSTRY STAYS PROTECTED...at least for the forseeable future.
So much for philosophy...lets talk reality.
Thanks for the ping, madfly. We expected this from the Senate. The House is our only hope now.
The "two" parties have morphed into "one", and America will lose until a viable third party becomes electable.
So much for philosophy....lets talk reality.
---
yea, thats why i support CAFTA because it is at least a step in the right direction. In theory, private citizens should be able to trade with private citizens from other countries without government interference. As you state, this is not a reality because government gives itself the power to block it.
For example, if I bring in some sugar to sell and save American consumers mucho dinero the US government will throw me in jail for smuggling.
These trade agreements can be as one-sided as they like. They are not hurting anyone but themselves. By protecting their workers, they are in fact going to end up hurting their workers and their economy.
Its like the argument that airbus is getting more subsidies than Boeing. Well, who is getting their money stolen to fund airbus? Productive job creating Europeans! It's like Reagan said:
"Believe me, you cannot create a desert, hand a person a cup of water, and call that compassion. You cannot pour billions of dollars into make-work jobs while destroying the economy that supports them and call that opportunity. And you cannot build up years of dependence on government and dare call that hope."
So let the Europeans destroy their economies and jobs to protect one industry (which won't even be protected in the long run cuz it'll get lazy and fat)
So, if one country is shooting itself in the foot to protect its workers or industries, I don't see why we should follow suit.
I realize what is happening isn't the uptopia that I may seem like I was describing, but at least its a step in that direction.
THE US SUGAR INDUSTRY STAYS PROTECTED...at least for the forseeable future.
---
That is unfortunate. Our bribed congressmen should be ashamed.
the libertarian party is the answer.
"the libertarian party is the answer."
LOL the Losertarians are for open borders - but at least they don't pretend any differently.
aka "The WishieWashies" (Washie refers to D.C.) Hehe.
no, they are an honest bunch. And why is it a bad thing? How did you get here? Tens of Millions of Americans have flocked here since our country's founding and its only made us stronger and more prosperous. Reagan said:
I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace, a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity, and if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.
And how stands the city on this winter night? More prosperous, more secure, and happier than it was eight years ago. But more than that; after two hundred years, two centuries, she still stands strong and true on the granite ridge, and her glow has held steady no matter what storm. And she's still a beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home.
"the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here"
Private citizens have had nothing to do with this agreement. It is solely the venue of transnational corporations and different NGOs. The public citizen has not been invited to participate. The Senate will not even take a roll call vote beause they do not want the private citizen to know how they are voting.
The 2 senators from California have promised to come out with a statement on CAFTA, but not until AFTER it is voted on. They will not divulge to me a private citizena and constitutent, their position at this time.
Private citizens will not be able to trade once the CAFTA is in place. Only organization's which have set up public/private agreements with the federal government will, and they will be required to pay for social programs in these countries for the privilege.
"no, they are an honest bunch. And why is it a bad thing? How did you get here? Tens of Millions of Americans have flocked here since our country's founding and its only made us stronger and more prosperous."
My family came through Ellis Island, legally. They also assimilated, rather than wanting moving as part of an organized "reconquista" invasion.
They didn't sneak over the border, breaking the laws of the country they were moving to.
You don't live anywhere near a border state, do you?
Anyway, the Losertarians are so because they have gotten less and less votes in every national election in the last 20 years.
75% of the US wants the borders enforced. The Losertarians want no borders. They are not a viable third party. Sorry!
ok. well, I see what you're saying and it is an intelligent objection.
What do you propose we do then?
IMHO, It's like government saying if you import any sugar we'll throw you in jail, to them saying, well you can import a little under all of these bloated and wasteful agencies, with all of this regulation and yadda yadda yadda...
seems to me we might as well take it.
I mean, it already gives itself the power to block it, so its not like you're giving it power over an area it didn't previously have.
Oh, and for the record, I consider myself a "little L libertarian." I'm disgusted by the Big L Libertarian party even more than the GOP.
My family came through Ellis Island, legally. They also assimilated, rather than wanting moving as part of an organized "reconquista" invasion.
---
Well today you're family would probably not be allowed to enter unless they hit a 'lottery jackpot' or some such thign. And I don't think most hispanics think much differently from the way your ancestors felt. Why did 44% vote for Bush?
I live in NC, the state with teh greatest jump in illegal immigration in the US.
And just cuz a party looses doesn't have any validity of their stances on issues. Goldwater lost in 1972 by a massive margin. Was he right on almost every issue? You bet. Don't live by polls. And the disasterousness of LBJ and Carter paved the way for Reagan's triumph.
(and I don't think the libertarians are loosing everywhere either, FYI, much of their successes are at local levels)
Europe based the EU on a socialist utopian idea that combines economic integration and supranational authority that will result in general peace
Sound familiar?
They also believe that a Europe without continental "trade barriers" would do better than a Europe fragmented into smaller national markets. Their "framework" would eliminate sovereignty and destroy any sense of national identity.
Sound familiar?
CAFTA is the product of a socialist/utopian/corporatism. It is being implemented in the same "framework" (in other words supranataional socialist government) as the EU.
Now the European people got a chance to vote on the EU constitution. Have the American people had a chance to vote on CAFTA? Have they had a chance to participate in the debate? If you have read the MSM articles on CAFTA, OUR GOVERNMENT only cares what the "stakeholders" and transnational corporations want. They do not care about individual citizens, and no, individual citizens will not be allowed to trade freely with CAFTA countries.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.