Thread: Centrist Democrats oppose CAFTA

I decided to post this under General topics because it doesnt involve immigration, hope that's okay. I just found it interesting.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/11562463.htm


San Jose Mercury News


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted on Wed, May. 04, 2005



Centrist Democrats oppose CAFTA

By Jim Puzzanghera
Mercury News Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON - The leaders of the centrist New Democrat Coalition in the House of Representatives announced today their opposition to a free trade agreement with Central America, imperiling the passage of one of the top legislative priorities of Silicon Valley's high-tech industry.

Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Walnut Creek, chair of the 41-member group, and three other New Democrat officials, released a letter to President Bush asking him to renegotiate the deal, known as the Central American Free Trade Agreement, or CAFTA, because it does not provide adequate protections for workers rights in the region.

``Free trade consist of simply reducing trade barriers. As we pursue trade liberalization we have a responsibility to address the impact that trade deals will have on workers both here and abroad,'' Tauscher said. ``Today we are saying to the president, `Stop.' Don't send a faulty CAFTA trade agreement to Congress.''

Tauscher and her New Democratic Coalition co-chairs -- Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., Ron Kind, D-Wisc., and Artur Davis, D-Ala. -- said Bush needed to use the clout of the United States to force the Central American countries to improve worker rights provisions in any trade deal. They also slammed Bush for failing to provide money in his budgets for training of U.S. workers who lose their jobs because of expanded global trade.

The trade deal between the United States and six Central American countries -- Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua -- is a top priority of the export-heavy high-tech industry. But without the support of centrist Democrats, who tend to be pro-trade, passage of the agreement is in danger.

Although Bush and the House GOP leadership is strongly in favor of the deal, some Republicans from regions with textile factories or sugar farms already oppose CAFTA because of fears of more imports from countries with low-wage workers. Republicans have been hoping to lure enough Democrats to make up the difference and the centrist New Democrats are usually the main source of such votes.

Tauscher said she will not actively urge her group's members to oppose the deal, but said there's no denying the influence the opposition of the group's leaders may have on Democrats considering supporting the trade pact. Reps. Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose, and Anna Eshoo, D-Palo Alto, normally strong supporters of the high-tech industry, have not announced their positions on CAFTA yet.

House Republican leaders blasted the decision of the New Democratic Coalition leaders at a meeting with many high-tech lobbyists today to unveil their high-tech legislative priorities for the year, which include passage of CAFTA.

``We cannot do this by ourselves and you shouldn't expect us to,'' said Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., who is responsible for lining up votes for the bill as the House Majority Whip. ``We'll put the 90 percent or so of our members on the line--just like we always do, and then if this doesn't happen, it doesn't happen because of the Democrats who tell you they'll be there and never are.''

Blunt urged the high-tech lobbyists -- many wearing buttons urging passage of CAFTA -- to penalize Democrats who say during the campaign they are pro-trade but then fail to support important trade deals.

The lose of centrist Democratic votes makes it more difficult to pass CAFTA and will force Republicans to try to offer deals to GOP lawmakers from states that produce sugar in order to allay their concerns over CAFTA and get their votes, said Ralph Hellmann, top lobbyist for the Information Technology Industry Council, a coalition of 31 top IT companies such as Intel and Hewlett-Packard.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contact Jim Puzzanghera at jpuzzanghera@mercurynews.com.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

© 2005 MercuryNews.com and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.mercurynews.com


Lloyd Wood
Director of Media Relations
American Manufacturing Trade Action Coalition (AMTAC)
910 16th ST NW
STE 760
Washington, DC 20006

(202) 452-0866
(202) 452-0739 -- fax

lwood@amtacdc.org
www.amtacdc.org

NO to CAFTA

No to FTAA

No to NWO

NO to CAFTA

No to FTAA

No to NWO

I second the motion.

so do i Dataman!

Acidrain

Originally Posted by jp_48504

I decided to post this under General topics because it doesnt involve immigration, hope that's okay. I just found it interesting.

It may have something to do with immigration... Many of the "free trade" agreements have immigration provisions in them... In other words, we're not just trading goods/services, but people too.

For instance, NAFTA has some big immigration provisions... For the first 10 years of NAFTA, there was a cap on various labor imports... But the cap ended in 2004... This is known as "lifting of the TN cap (where "TN" stands for Trade NAFTA).

As of 2004, TN allows unlimited labor imports for 63 job categories, including jobs ("americans won't do", Ha!!!) such as accountant, architect, economist, engineer, scientist, hotel manager, systems analyst, lawyer, social worker, dentist, nurse, pharmacist, and teacher.
Some Lost Jobs Never Leave Home - May 2, 2004

"The lifting of the TN cap has resulted in a rush on Mexican nurses. One Mexican headhunting firm has a contract with hospitals in four U.S. states to provide 3,000 nurses."

I wouldn't be surprised if there's a BIG IMMIGRATION aspect of future trade agreements, in order to circumvent some of the political challenges of forcing through unpopular laws liberalizing the importation of guest workers... With Trade Promotion Authority, Congress cannot deliberate and alter the trade agreements... Congress can only give the thumbs-up or thumbs-down.

Of course, Trade Promotion Authority is UNconstitutional - not that our government cares about such minor details.
The Unfolding FTAA Battle

In 2000, Rep. Ron Paul offered a resolution to withdraw U.S. membership in the WTO... As Rep. Paul explained, the WTO 'is an unconstitutional approach to managing trade... We cannot transfer the power to manage trade from the Congress to anyone... The Constitution is explicit... ‘Congress shall have the power to regulate foreign commerce.’ We cannot transfer that authority.'�

Another rep who campaigned on withdrawal from the WTO was Dennis Kucinich :
Kucinich on FTAA, NAFTA & the WTO

My campaign is all about bringing back democracy... And today one of the biggest threats to American democracy is the system of corporate-managed trade that has been imposed on the backs of workers and the environment here in America and throughout the world.

It's interesting that the article mentions the "export-heavy high-tech industry."

The trade deal between the United States and six Central American countries -- Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua -- is a top priority of the export-heavy high-tech industry.

These countries are super poor... I doubt they will be buying lots of high-priced high-tech stuff... The "export-heavy high-tech industry" probably just wants to export jobs (which seems to be their chief export these days.)... (Or perhaps, they want to import workers.).. In 2004, the U.S. became a net importer of technology (for the first time ever.).. And we can thank "free trade" for that.

It has EVERYTHING TO DO WITH IMMIGRATION

Okay, i take it back. Strange how everything seems to be connected.

It has EVERYTHING TO DO WITH IMMIGRATION

Illegal immigration, CAFTA, FTAA, and NAFTA all are part of the dissolution of our borders.

We didn't stop NAFTA, but we must stop the others, or we will have no country left.

Absolutely, we must stop CAFTA...all...I say ALL of these trade agreements are unconstitutional...

WHEN are we going to file that lawsuit!

With all the small battles that we are fighting..they are mere symptoms of the real problem. That would be the unconstitutionality of our current government. We MUST start holding their feet to the fire on this.

RR

ALL MISSOURIANS!!

This is my home state....get reins on Roy Blunt!! He is FOR CAFTA bought and sold by the lobbyists pushing globalization which is Open Borders and the end of the United States.

He is the Majority Whip in the Congress, House of Representatives....brand new, no seniority but has this HUGE Position.

Start calling his office....let him know you've got his number...

Tell him to BACK OFF CAFTA, NAFTA, OPEN BORDERS, BACK OFF IT ALL or ELSE!!

He represents my home district in Missouri....I could not be sicker to learn of this TRAITOR to the United States.

NO ON CAFTA!!

NO ON NAFTA II!!

NO ON OPEN BORDERS!!

When they are talking about the "high tech" lobby, they are talking about "biotechnology", "genetically modified foods", the end of the natural world on this earth. They are NOT talking about "high tech electronics".

Missouri is a FOOD state, headquarters to Monsanto (bio-engineering), Ralston-Purina, Anheuser Busch....food and drink....mmmmm give me another one of those genetically modified brewskies!!

And there is no labelling....so unless your food is organic, it is all genetically modified with no human trials of the consequences of eating this "lab" food. They only did a small set of agricultural tests and a Monsanto employee, Ann Miller, ends up working for FDA, and their request for approval of their RoundUpReady Wheat, etc. ends up on HER DESK for approval and so it was, despite dead bees, dead butterflies, and a conclusion by many that these crops pose substantial risk to the natural environment and wildlife....but they were IGNORED and FDA approved it anyway.

These are bad, bad, bad people.

And so is Roy Blunt. And it breaks my heart to say it. But it has to be said and dealt with.