http://www.farmandranchguide.com/

Ag News: Regional News

Congressional delegation continues opposition to CAFTA during 'mock' markup

By DALE HILDEBRANT, Farm & Ranch Guide
Thursday, June 23, 2005 10:20 AM CDT


North Dakota's Congressional delegation, including U.S. Sens. Kent Conrad and Byron Dorgan, and Rep. Earl Pomeroy, continued to oppose the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) as it made its way through a "mock markup" in House and Senate committees.

On June 15, House Ways and Means held a "mock markup" on CAFTA. Pomeroy, a member of that committee, voiced his opposition to the trade agreement and pledged to continue his efforts to kill the trade deal.

"CAFTA is a flawed trade agreement that would drive our trade deficit deeper and mean the loss of thousands of jobs in North Dakota. It is bad policy, plain and simple," Pomeroy said. "We need to rethink the way our country approaches trade and the first step is beating back CAFTA."

The action by the Ways and Means Committee is known as a "mock markup" because Fast-Track Trade Authority prevents Congress from altering trade agreements negotiated by the Administration. Congress can, however, recommend changes to the Administration and vote to not approve the agreement.

Conrad was one of nine members of the Senate Finance Committee who cast a ballot against CAFTA. However, the Finance Committee, which oversees trade policy, voted 11-to-9 to ultimately approve the draft legislation the Administration submitted.

"We need to carefully review the trade strategy of our nation, because if anything is clear, it is that this strategy is not working," Conrad said. "Our trade deficit has now skyrocketed to $600 billion a year. Foreign holdings of our debt have gone up 100 percent in four years. We owe large sums of money to other nations. That's utterly unsustainable."

Though CAFTA received the committees' support during the markup, the beleaguered trade agreement still faces stiff opposition in Congress. The House leadership has not yet brought the agreement forward for a vote despite the fact that CAFTA was signed in May of 2004. It is estimated that the Administration and its allies in Congress are dozens of votes short of being able to ratify the treaty, according to Pomeroy.

In an interview with Farm & Ranch Guide, Pomeroy said there is a lot of behind the scene maneuvering going on at this time in an effort to line up enough votes for passage, but he thinks the time for a vote may be a long ways off if at all. Passage by the Ways and Means Committee wasn't a surprise, Pomeroy mentioned, since the membership of this particular committee tend to be pro-trade in their stance, and the vote isn't a clear indication on how the rest of the House feels about CAFTA.

"My read on this is they still don't have the votes and if they get to the point that they do we will see this fly onto the floor," Pomeroy said. "Right now there is a lot of behind the door arm twisting and deal cutting, but at this time they don't have the votes. I think in the next few weeks it will be determined if this is a go or no. I think if they don't get the votes to pass it we will just see it go quietly away without a vote on the floor."

If passed by Congress, CAFTA could result in an influx of more than 109,000 tons of foreign-subsidized sugar imports annually from five Central American countries and the Dominican Republic. According to a news release from Pomeroy's office, this sets a dangerous precedent for future trade agreements with sugar producing nations like Thailand, South Africa and the Andean nations currently being considered for negotiation by the Administration. If similar agreements are made with them that could eventually allow as much as 500,000 metric tons of foreign-subsidized sugar into the United States.

The Red River Valley is a major producer of sugar beets and is home to a $2.5 billion sugar-producing industry. Pomeroy believes that sugar policy can be addressed within the World Trade Organization, and not be negotiated in bilateral trade agreements like CAFTA.

"Economists of every stripe agree that allowing that much sugar into the U.S. would gut our domestic sugar industry. That's a $2 billion business in North Dakota that's being traded away by the Administration here," Conrad said. "Maybe other people don't care if we trade away entire industries, and the jobs, homes and businesses that rely on them. But I care."