Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member jp_48504's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    19,168

    Gutknecht leaning against CAFTA

    http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article ... yid=103326

    Gutknecht leaning against CAFTA


    Rep. Gil Gutknecht, the last remaining undecided Minnesota lawmaker on the proposed Central American Free Trade Agreement, is hinting he'll vote against the deal when it comes up in the House later this week.

    Gutknecht has declined recent interview requests on the vote, but in a weekly letter to constituents last Friday, he wrote, "If I were to vote on CAFTA today, I would vote no."

    Gutknecht, a Republican from Rochester who generally supports free trade but often bucks his own party, said he agreed with critics that the deal needs to be fixed.

    "Unfortunately, we can't amend it here in the House," he said on his radio show on Friday. "We have to either vote for it or it has to be defeated. Now if it's defeated, I think it can be fixed relatively quickly, on about three fronts."

    Gutknecht said those fronts were immigration, sovereignty and farm policy.

    In the constituent letter, Gutknecht said he was worried about language in the proposed deal that would allow international companies to take the United States to a trade tribunal over alleged "unnecessary barriers to trade in services."

    "So, preventing a company from bringing in foreign workers could prompt a foreign company to file a trade dispute claim against the United States," he said.

    "Another problem is that we are being forced to change our U.S. laws to comply with these free trade agreements," Gutknecht said, citing an export subsidy law Congress rescinded after it was ruled illegal by the World Trade Organization.

    He also expressed concern that the deal would let in more sugar than called for in the farm bill. The Bush administration has agreed to offset those increases by either compensating exporting countries for not sending sugar here, or converting the excess sugar into ethanol. But the American sugar industry has remained opposed to the deal, noting the concessions apply only until the end of 2007, when the farm bill expires.

    "I don't have a lot of sugar beet growers in my district, but those I do know are just regular folk," Gutknecht said. "They are not the big, bad sugar farmers they are being made out to be. Many have mortgaged their farms to invest in sugar refinery co-ops. They are scared to death that they will lose their farms because of CAFTA."

    Gutknecht declined an interview request on Monday.

    Phillip Hayes, a spokesman for the American Sugar Alliance, which is leading the effort to derail the deal, said he was happy about Gutknecht's statements.

    "Representative Gutknecht recognizes the harm that CAFTA would cause the 46,000 sugar workers and farmers in the Red River Valley," he said. Minnesota is the nation's largest producer of sugar beets.

    Officials with the U.S. Trade Representative's office, which is promoting the deal for the Bush administration, and the House Ways and Means Committee, which passed the deal in the House, declined to comment Monday on Gutknecht's statements.

    CAFTA would bring six Latin American countries -- El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and the Dominican Republic -- into the open U.S. market that now includes Mexico and Canada.

    The Senate approved the deal last month, with Minnesota Sen. Norm Coleman, a Republican, voting yes and Minnesota Sen. Mark Dayton, a Democrat, voting no. In the House, all four Democrats from Minnesota are opposed, while the three Republicans besides Gutknecht are in favor. The vote this week in the House is expected to be close.



    By Frederic J. Frommer, Associated Press Writer





    (Copyright 2005 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

    Last Updated: 7/25/2005 4:58:44 PM
    I stay current on Americans for Legal Immigration PAC's fight to Secure Our Border and Send Illegals Home via E-mail Alerts (CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP)

  2. #2
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,668

    Re: Gutknecht leaning against CAFTA

    Gutknecht said those fronts were immigration, sovereignty and farm policy.

    In the constituent letter, Gutknecht said he was worried about language in the proposed deal that would allow international companies to take the United States to a trade tribunal over alleged "unnecessary barriers to trade in services."

    "So, preventing a company from bringing in foreign workers could prompt a foreign company to file a trade dispute claim against the United States," he said.

    "Another problem is that we are being forced to change our U.S. laws to comply with these free trade agreements," Gutknecht said, citing an export subsidy law Congress rescinded after it was ruled illegal by the World Trade Organization.
    NOW, EVERYBODY!! This is what I'm talking about. This is the END OF OUR NATION. Please read this and understand what it means. It means every matter concerning your life that really matters is decided not by our laws, not by our Constitution, not by our US Bill of Rights, not even by our American business laws...it's decided by the World Trade Organization.

    Do we want the WTO telling OUR CONGRESS OR US what we can and can not do. Not only NO, BUT HELL NO!!

    Now, Wake Up, Get Active!!

    Do everything you can to defeat CAFTA!!

    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  3. #3
    Senior Member jp_48504's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    19,168
    Gutknecht said those fronts were immigration, sovereignty and farm policy.

    In the constituent letter, Gutknecht said he was worried about language in the proposed deal that would allow international companies to take the United States to a trade tribunal over alleged "unnecessary barriers to trade in services."

    "So, preventing a company from bringing in foreign workers could prompt a foreign company to file a trade dispute claim against the United States," he said.

    "Another problem is that we are being forced to change our U.S. laws to comply with these free trade agreements," Gutknecht said, citing an export subsidy law Congress rescinded after it was ruled illegal by the World Trade Organization.
    At least he admits what it is really going to do if passed. We need to defeat it.
    I stay current on Americans for Legal Immigration PAC's fight to Secure Our Border and Send Illegals Home via E-mail Alerts (CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP)

  4. #4
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,668
    Yeah....that's why I was excited. He was the first one to put it out just this way...link it to the loss of rights, loss of law, loss of EVERYTHING that matters to the USA and the American People.

    This also supports what I've been saying about "contractng US out" of our nation. Hope people read this article and get the grasp of it. CAFTA and the "Pact" transfer jurisdiction of our trade matters to WTO.

    That is Treason, "By Golly, Miss Molly!"

    Yep....that's what it is alrighty!!

    Get the stakes, I've got the rope!!

    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •