Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
Rep. Earl Pomeroy letter: Alleged benefit of CAFTA for sugar growers is myth
The Forum
Published Tuesday, August 30, 2005
By just two votes, the Central American Free Trade Agreement passed in the House of Representatives. Since the 217-215 vote, I have heard of lots of wheeling and dealing that made sure that the agreement would pass. When I see the administration cutting deals on textiles to pass an agreement it has spent years negotiating and that threatens a critical industry in North Dakota, I see a trade policy on the wrong path.
My colleague, Rep. Mark Kennedy, R-Minn., recently defended this policy in The Forum (Aug. 23) on the grounds that these agreements are just too important to our export markets. What my colleague neglects to mention is that the size of the economies of the CAFTA countries is smaller than that of the state of Connecticut, just two-thirds that of Minneapolis-St. Paul. The idea that we are instantly going to be sending trucks and ships full of American products – high-quality commodities and goods – to the citizens of these countries, where 40 percent of workers earn less than $2 a day, is simply a myth.
Further, Rep. Kennedy suggests that the “deal� offered to sugar during the weeks leading up to the vote was legitimate and a good compromise for the industry. I have to disagree. The much ballyhooed “sugar deal� goes away completely after two short years, while CAFTA continues indefinitely. Let’s face it, the very temporary protection provided to our sugar growers was in reality a “fig leaf� for wavering members of Congress looking for an excuse for selling out the interests of the farmers and factory workers they should have been fighting for.
Those voting for CAFTA suggest that the place to deal with the long term solution for the sugar industry is in the next farm bill. The 2007 Farm Bill is certainly important to the sugar industry, but I have to say that the long-term solution for the Red River Valley sugar industry lies in our trade negotiators refusing to sell out sugar and in the ability of members of Congress to stand up for their constituents.
Side arrangements on textiles and false deals on sugar should not be used to pass flawed trade agreements. And when they are used as they were to get CAFTA into law, we should stand up and oppose these agreements. Instead, these agreements should be sent back to the negotiating room to be fixed. If they are not ultimately capable of standing alone, they are not worthy of our nation’s trade attention.
Pomeroy, D-N.D., serves on the Ways and Means Committee and the Agriculture Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives. _________________ Buy American
www.buydirectusa.com/shop/ http://tinyurl.com/bpdo5
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Contribute/Join
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
