Thread: CAFTA Passed in the Senate: Pressure House & embold Bush

7/1/2005
Associated Press and CNN
Topics: Central American Free Trade Agreement, CAFTA, illegal immigration, North American Community, Open Borders, laws
Fresh off a victory in the Senate, the Bush administration turned to the House in the drive to conclude a free trade agreement it says will promote democracy in Central America while opening new markets to American businesses.

Read the latest headlines about illegal immigration.

The House vote, expected in July, on the Central America Free Trade Agreement is certain to be close, but supporters expressed new confidence Thursday after a 54-45 vote in the Senate.

The Senate win "was a huge momentum builder," U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman said, noting that only a few weeks ago analysts were saying the agreement was in deep trouble.

Since then, the Bush administration has turned up the heat, with President Bush personally lobbying lawmakers and his trade officials dangling concessions on labor rights and sugar, the agreement's two most contentious issues.

Ten Democrats joined 43 Republicans and one independent to vote in favor of the agreement.

In a statement following the vote, Bush said the agreement would be "good for American workers, good for our farmers and good for small businesses" and "help increase sales abroad and job creation at home.

"The agreement is also a strong boost for young democracies in our own hemisphere, whose success is important for America's national security and for reducing illegal immigration," the president said.

CAFTA would further open a market of 44 million people by eliminating trade barriers to U.S. manufactured and farm goods, protecting trademarks and other intellectual property and establishing legal frameworks for U.S. investment. Last year the region purchased about $15 billion worth of U.S. goods.

The administration says it is also an indispensable step toward far broader free trade agreements with other Western Hemisphere nations and under the auspices of the World Trade Organization.

In the House, supporters will go up against a strong majority of Democrats, who argue that inadequate worker rights provisions in the agreement will lead to labor abuses, lawmakers from sugar beet and sugar cane-growing areas, and others who link free trade to America's soaring trade deficits.

For people living in poverty, trade can lead to a better way of life, said Rep. Ben Cardin, D-Maryland, a Democratic leader on trade issues. "But trade without basic labor standards will not do that."

But CAFTA "is more than just a trade agreement," House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas, R-California, said. "It is also a commitment by the United States to stand with nations seeking open markets for its people in the pursuit of freedom and a strengthened democratic process."

Thomas' panel on Thursday endorsed the agreement on a 25-16 vote.

The United States signed CAFTA a year ago with the five Central American countries of Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua and the Caribbean nation, the Dominican Republic.

It won't go into effect until approved by Congress, and from the start that has been a far more difficult task than the bilateral agreements the administration has concluded with Singapore, Chile, Australia and Morocco.

The Hispanic business community has supported it but the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and Hispanic human rights groups are against it. Some textile groups oppose it, while others say it would allow U.S. fabric makers and Central American manufacturers to team up to deflect the onslaught of Chinese competitors.

Representatives of the sugar industry have been adamantly opposed, saying it would open the way for other countries to seek a larger share of the U.S. market. But some lawmakers from beet and cane states decided to back CAFTA after Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns proposed steps that, at least for the short term, would protect the industry.

Florida's two senators, Republican Mel Martinez and Democrat Bill Nelson, both came out for the agreement despite the importance of sugar to their state. Nelson said Florida is the U.S.' largest exporter to the CAFTA region, and the agreement could substantially increase those sales.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, said she had opposed another controversial pact, the North American Free Trade Agreement with Mexico and Canada a decade ago, but was backing CAFTA because the Central American countries, trying to emerge from years of civil war and political strife, deserved the chance for greater prosperity.

Denying them the agreement, she said, "is certainly not the way to reward them for advances made in the areas of democracy, human rights and the rule of law."

The bill is S. 1307.

Diane Feinstein quote is amazing. She opposed NAFTA but supported CAFTA because the Central American countries, following years of civil strife, need new prosperity that CAFTA will give them.

Well....every dollar of prosperity she intends to give these countries is your money and wasn't hers to give.

I guess she's planning to run for head of the CAFTA Committee.

Seeing our our US Senate initiate the passage of the CAFTA, this formerly wise and esteemed group, usually the check and balance on a more unsteady House of Representatives is tremendously discouraging.

Even though the word was that the Senate would pass CAFTA and we had to defeat it in the House, actually seeing it has been extremely depressing.

They passed it in the Senate as soon as they made enough deals to get it passed and to help coerce the house to pass it.

Diane Feinstein = Out of Work Senator.

JP, you are exactly right. No wonder the delay for two days. They were "busy".

Yep, which means next week, we need to get busy as well talking to them on the phones.

Let us forecast what will happen in the House of Representatives



First let me state my position : I am for CAFTA approval in the House of Representatives. But I am very fond of forecasting events and helping businessmen to make decissions based on sound forecasts.


Can 190 Democrats and 40 Republicans, in the House be swayed to vote YES for CAFTA ???


Those 190 Democrats and 40 Republicans have announced a NO vote or are undecided.

190 + 40 = 230

With only 218 the CAFTA bill will be killed by the House of Representatives.

So the president has to persuade 13 Representatives to change sides.

Can they be moved to vote YES for CAFTA ??

The vote in the House will be after July 11, so the President of the United States has a lot of time to work on those that are undecided or that can be swayed even if they have announced a NO vote for CAFTA.

Some people in the House need some "encouragement" to turn coats. Something like the old "Pork Barrel". Some gift from Government for their constituencies.



Reasons why I believe that CAFTA will be approved :



1) The power of a Reelected U. S. President is immense. He can sway representatives and he has had time, and will have time in the next seven days before the vote.


2) The Power of Big American Business is immense. Do not underestimate Microsoft, IBM, Hewlett Packard, Wal Mart, FedExp, and thousands of other "deep pockets" that finance campaigns.

And they have powerful associations talking to congressmen all these decision days. Don't forget the most powerful Agricultural Associations outside the sphere of Sugar. They support this legislation.

3) Donal Rumsfeld and many other Politicians of Foreign Policy are urging passage based on Global Strategy without consideration to economics. Very powerful arguments.

I am based in Colombia, South America and I have a Pro CAFTA forum at

http://fashyon.com

Forum on Fashion, Apparel, Textiles, Trade, CAFTA, NAFTA, Free trade and Relations of the U. S. with the Americas and Hispanics. This Forum has lots of data and trade statistics.


You are invited to participate, even if you dislike CAFTA. I will respect your opinions.


Vicente Duque

It is hard to judge how many House members will be swayed by Bush.

To me it is a good litmus test of Bush's power.


One primary reason I hope it fails is that it would send Bush a clear message that the people of this country think his agenda stinks and we want no part of it.


Cafta may not be all bad. But it is considered a stepping stone to FTAA which would mark the end of the United States as a sovereign nation.


Plus, anyone with eyes wide open can see that Nafta has been a disaster.


But the most important thing is that George Bush be told in no uncertain terms:

YOU DO NOT RUN THIS COUNTRY!


On a separate issue, it will be interesting to see whether Bush continues to engage in hostile actions against those few that still support him by appointing Alberto Gonzales to the Supreme Court.

And I would say to vicente:


Yes corporations wield a lot of power in this country, but so do the people.

And the people are against Cafta.


If Bush wins Cafta it will be one more in a long series of hostile actions by Bush against the people of the United States.

One of these days the people will demand he be held accountable for his crimes.

Originally Posted by bot_feeder

And I would say to vicente:


Yes corporations wield a lot of power in this country, but so do the people.

And the people are against Cafta.


If Bush wins Cafta it will be one more in a long series of hostile actions by Bush against the people of the United States.

One of these days the people will demand he be held accountable for his crimes.

Well said bot_feeder. We the People are the ones that elect them and We the People will Make sure they are not Re-elected if they vote yes on it.

vicente,
Of course you are Pro CAFTA if you want jobs for your people. The problem is that corporate America will make slaves down there with the wages they pay as well as conditions your people will have to endure.

jp_48504 :

Thanks for your post and thanks to other posters here for their contributions.

You said :

vicente,
Of course you are Pro CAFTA if you want jobs for your people. The problem is that corporate America will make slaves down there with the wages they pay as well as conditions your people will have to endure.

With all respect. I have worked with IBM in Colombia and IBM is not an enslaver or abusive Business in Latin America. American Investments and Purchases in Colombia have brought some prosperity to this country, even in the middle of Violence and strife that seems to be behind.

There are many opponents in my country to Free Trade with the United States, and they are mainly from the left, I consider them ignorant and uninformed. And they preach that we are going to be slaves of American Corporations or American Culture or the English Language, or Americans.

I found that to be nothing but FEAR and IGNORANCE. Fortunately for Colombia a very conservative Government has corraled and largely vanquished the Guerrillas ( at least for the time being )

Colombia has not only an excellent Government, but also a very smart Business Class that understands that Free Trade is essential.

If the United States does not accept us ( I doubt that this is going to occur long term ) then we will have to join another block : Mercosur, or the European Community or some Asian Block.

Because the benefits of Free Trade are an Economic Law, discovered by Adam Smith in 1776 and David Ricardo around 1812, and they don't depend on the existence of Today's Nations like the USA or the Latin Countries.

Adams, Jefferson, Franklin and the First U. S. Congress were ardent Free Traders.

A few weeks after the Declaration of Independence on the 4th of July of 1776, the U. S. Congress passed the “Model Treaty� a legislation of liberal trade and offering the possibility of treaties with other nations.

You find more information on U. S. Politics, Trade Statistics and the Textiles Garments Industry in my site :

htpp://fashyon.com

While I understand that every country has to defend its borders and close its borders to undesirable people, I don't share the ideas of Lou Dobbs or Bill O'Reilly.

With all my respects for you Americans, you have to surpass and overcome those ideas of Lou and Bill. Trade and Business are better than confrontation.

Vicente