Thread: Analysis: CAFTA faces tough going on Hill

Link

Analysis: CAFTA faces tough going on Hill
By Christian Bourge
UPI Congressional and Policy Correspondent

Washington, DC, Apr. 14 (UPI) -- Congressional approval of the pending Central American Free Trade Agreement, a top trade priority of the Bush White House, remains uncertain, but prospects are looking dim with proponents of the measure facing a very challenging fight.

With major problems faced in both the House and Senate in terms of gaining enough lawmaker support, the initial attempt by the Bush administration to sell the plan to open duty-free trade with Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and a closely aligned pact with the Dominican Republic has not gone well.

Proponents of the deal call it vital for national security because it will help make the United States and other nations of the region more competitive with Asian and European competitors, but U.S. critics of the deal deride it as shifting domestic market share and jobs to lower-wage developing nations to the south.

It has also been estimated that the deal would almost double current U.S. farm exports to the region to nearly $3 billion a year.

And while nearly all the goods covered by the deal now enter the U.S. market without import duties, 80 percent of U.S. industrial exports and agricultural products would have import tariffs lifted by the signatory nations upon enactment.

However, opposition in the House remains high.

U.S. Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., have gone so far as to form a bipartisan "CAFTA Action Caucus" to fight the deal.

In a letter to colleagues the two argue that the deal will wreak more damage to the U.S. economy that the North American Free Trade Agreement approved during the Clinton administration "by forcing us to compete with countries whose wage, worker safety and pollution standards are dramatically lower than our own."

Despite such rhetoric, it is the lack of support from interests that could usually be expected to support such a deal that must be worrying the White House.

Although a vote on the issue is months away and it has the support from most domestic agricultural interests, acting U.S. Trade Representative Peter Allgeier faced an unusual level of criticism from both Republican and Democratic senators in a hearing on the plan Wednesday.

While the GOP leadership in the House and Senate have expressed support for the plan, lawmakers normally inclined toward supporting free trade, including Sens. Craig Thomas, R-Wyo., and Ron Wyden, D-Ore., are voicing skepticism about the proposal.

"I'm one of the people that you've got to get to vote for it if it has any chance of passage," said Wyden.

Calling a vote against unilaterally lifting import tariffs on a host of U.S. goods from tractors to computer chips into the Latin American nations one that "defied logic," Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassely, R-Iowa, stressed the broad benefits of CAFTA for U.S. farmers in a hearing on the trade deal.

U.S. textile industry and importer interests -- like the American Apparel & Footwear Association -- have been avowed supporters of CAFTA as a means to fight off Asian competitors. They argue that unlike goods made in far-off nations like China, those made in the Americas could help U.S. yarn and fabric producers by opening the markets to even greater imports of their wares.

The Grocery Manufacturers of America have also called for approval of the bill as a means to boost exports of processed foods and consumer goods by lifting the up to 66 percent of tariffs currently in place.

Nevertheless, many lawmakers from states with high concentrations of sugar-beet producers, particularly in the West, are up in arms over the U.S. market access the deal will give to Central American sugar interests.

Thomas has warned that the increased CAFTA sugar exports could also set a precedent for future trade deals with Argentina and Brazil now under consideration.

However, opposition to CAFTA is not limited to sugar interests and their defenders in Congress.

Another contentious issue is the confidentiality protections for pharmaceutical manufacturer test data drug makers included in the measure, which has been categorized as a giveaway to drug makers by critics.

At a House International Relations Committee hearing Wednesday comparing the deal to NAFTA, AFL-CIO Executive Vice President Linda Chavez-Thompson indicated the labor groups' opposition to the deal.

She noted that under NAFTA "real wages in Mexico have fallen, the number of poor people has grown, and the number of people migrating to the United States to seek work has doubled."

Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., has said that while he hopes to vote in favor of CAFTA, he opposes its sugar provisions.

Speaking Tuesday to the North American Agricultural Journalists, Chambliss equated the CAFTA sugar provisions to legislating through a trade agreement, adding that the tariff-quota system would interfere with the implementation of the farm bill lawmakers approved last year.

"This is not a parochial interest to me," Chambliss said. "It doesn't matter what crop is affected."

Despite such statements, the sugar-quota system remains the main focal point of dispute in the House and Senate.

Allgeier told senators Wednesday that around 150,000 tons of imports allowed under the deal once it is fully phased in is only a small portion of total U.S. sugar consumption, around 1.7 percent, and that the sweetener will continue to face import quotas.

Several lawmakers who have expressed opposition to the trade deal cite only the sugar provisions, but Allgeier reiterated the Bush administration's stance that sugar cannot be excluded from the deal -- as some lawmakers have pushed for -- because it would mean that a host of other goods would then be on the table for exclusion.

"The Andean countries would be in there in a nanosecond with their list of exclusions," Allgeier said.

Despite such arguments, several lawmakers pressed Allgeier on the sugar issue, saying that the level is enough to hurt domestic makers by lowering prices, driving them out of business.

But the Bush administration says that an unusual provision in the measure that would allow the United States to not import sugar if it would hurt domestic industry would protect U.S. sugar makers.

The provisions would provide for compensation for the nations in the agreement affected by such a move, but critics doubt it would be applied in time to block harm to domestic producers.

In the end, the deal's success, like that of Bush's proposal to add private investment accounts to Social Security, is likely to hinge on the ability of the Bush administration to garner the votes of free-trade-inclined Democrats because of the contentiousness of the proposal.

So far, the prospects for this appear slim, even as Democrats echo the line heard from some GOP lawmakers on the Social Security plan for the need for Bush to step up and sell the plan.

"Without presidential leadership, this agreement is going to face a very steep uphill battle," said the Senate Finance Committee' ranking Democrat, Max Baucus of Montana, a free-trade advocate who has expressed reservations about the deal.

In the end, the politics at play on the issue are clear.

For instance, consider the opposition by GOP Rep. Dennis Rehberg of Montana, who is a potential challenger to Baucus in 2008. He opposes the pact because of the sugar-quota system.

--

(Please send comments to nationaldesk@upi.com.)

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassely, R-Iowa, stressed the broad benefits of CAFTA for U.S. farmers in a hearing on the trade deal.

U.S. textile industry and importer interests -- like the American Apparel & Footwear Association -- have been avowed supporters of CAFTA as a means to fight off Asian competitors. They argue that unlike goods made in far-off nations like China, those made in the Americas could help U.S. yarn and fabric producers by opening the markets to even greater imports of their wares.

The Grocery Manufacturers of America have also called for approval of the bill as a means to boost exports of processed foods and consumer goods by lifting the up to 66 percent of tariffs currently in place.

Has anyone noticed that these particular groups gain enormous profits already with the ILLEGALS working for slave wages? HOW MANY MORE ILLEGALS WILL THEY NEED TO IMPORT after CAFTA to supply increasing exports and gain even greater profits???

Has anyone noticed that these particular groups gain enormous profits already with the ILLEGALS working for slave wages? HOW MANY MORE ILLEGALS WILL THEY NEED TO IMPORT after CAFTA to supply increasing exports and gain even greater profits???

Yes, I noticed. It's all part of the plan to sink America and create a Banana Republic.

Bush is not an American President. He is a disgrace to our country. How do you know a President's proposals are bad? When his party controls both houses of Congress and he STILL has a huge uphill battle to get his proposals passed. His programs: CAFTA, privitization of SS, guest worker program are not good for Americans, only his big business buddies!

We knew all of this going into the second election, but what choice did they give us.

Being from the Pittsburgh area. I remember when Teresa was married to John Heinz, he was a Republican and they couldn't keep her mouth shut then, she was always spouting some socialist crap.

If you thought Hillary was bad, I could just imagine her as "First Lady".

Kerry was going to give them amnesty in 30 days, or so he said.

I didn't vote for Bush the first time, but I did the second time just to keep Kerry out, and boy am I sorry.

He has doomed the Republican party by splitting his base.

Maybe there will be a Minuteman Party. They would get my vote.

Darlene said:

I didn't vote for Bush the first time, but I did the second time just to keep Kerry out, and boy am I sorry.

Darlene,
As frustrated as you & I as well as millions of Americans are with Bush, this is one sure thing that would have truly put us on the faster track to destruction........J Fn Kerry.

There are more actual/factual connections between him and covert communists that would fry your hair and spin your head. He is a true traitor and legally should have never been allowed into the seat of government.

Every time that pissant rears his head & speaks, my husband {former Army Intel 66-70} gets absolutely red & crazy.

Just my 2 cents.

Originally Posted by Darlene

We knew all of this going into the second election, but what choice did they give us.

Being from the Pittsburgh area. I remember when Teresa was married to John Heinz, he was a Republican and they couldn't keep her mouth shut then, she was always spouting some socialist crap.

If you thought Hillary was bad, I could just imagine her as "First Lady".

A restaurant actually took the Heinz catsup off the table. It made national news!

Originally Posted by watchman

Originally Posted by Darlene

We knew all of this going into the second election, but what choice did they give us.

Being from the Pittsburgh area. I remember when Teresa was married to John Heinz, he was a Republican and they couldn't keep her mouth shut then, she was always spouting some socialist crap.

If you thought Hillary was bad, I could just imagine her as "First Lady".

A restaurant actually took the Heinz catsup off the table. It made national news!

Heinz employs illegals. They work in my state of Michigan in a plant near the town of Holland. That's why Kerry is probably so pro-illegal alien. His millionaire wife must need the cheap labor!