JUST SAY NO TO CAFTA

Eagle Forum ^ | 06.16.05 | Phyllis Schlafly

[Coleus]

JUST SAY NO TO CAFTA 
Tell Your Members of Congress to vote NO on CAFTA!

The House of Representatives will soon vote on the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) with Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and the Dominican Republic. CAFTA is a dangerous power grab that threatens our national sovereignty. It cannot be amended.

 

What you won't hear about CAFTA

• CAFTA is only the beginning. The Senate Republican Policy Committee policy paper admits that CAFTA's purpose is "integrating more closely with 34 hemispheric neighbors-thus furthering the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA)." Americans do not want to be "integrated" with the poverty, corruption, and Communism of our hemispheric neighbors!
  

 

• CAFTA will put the U.S. under another anti-American international tribunal. CAFTA includes hundreds of pages of grants of vague authority to foreign tribunals. The World Trade Organization has already ruled against the U.S. in 24 costly cases and even had the nerve to outlaw Utah's gambling ban. A NAFTA tribunal opened our highways to Mexican trucks even though they don't comply with U.S. laws.
  

 

• CAFTA would prohibit states from giving any preference to contractors in their state. Any Central American country could file a complaint.
  

 

• Under CAFTA, state legislatures would relinquish their right to regulate utilities, land use, and taxpayer-funded contracts. It forces us to use the "least trade restrictive" regulation and change our laws so they are "no more burdensome than necessary." Activist judges can make that language cover anything they want.
• 
  
• CAFTA will not give us customers for U.S. goods. The total wealth of the six countries in the agreement is about the same as New Haven, Connecticut. Half their population lives below the poverty line.
  

• The real purpose of CAFTA is "round-trip trade." This allows multinational corporations to exploit the abundance of cheap labor and the scarcity of taxes and safety regulations in CAFTA countries. CAFTA will increase our job-killing U.S. trade deficit and further weaken our already suffering dollar.

 

Take Action

Congress should defeat CAFTA and reassert the primacy of our Constitution, which states that only Congress has the power "to regulate commerce with foreign nations" and that treaties are valid only if ratified by two-thirds of Senators.

 

Urge Your Senators and Representative to vote NO on CAFTA!

Targeted Senators: Grassley, Hatch, Lott, Snowe, Kyl, Thomas, Santorum, Frist, Smith, Bunning, Crapo, Baucus, Rockefeller, Conrad, Bingaman, Lincoln, Wyden, Inhofe

Targeted House Members: Wamp, Jenkins, Franks, Tancredo, Deal, Gingrey, Westmoreland, Inglis, Barrett, H. Brown, Coble, Myrick, McHenry, Everett, Bonner, H. Rogers, Sodrel, Hoekstra, J. Davis (VA), Sullivan

Call Your Members of Congress Today!
Capitol Switchboard: (202)-224-3121

[Asclepius]

Dudes! Just say si to CAFTA and freer trade in general.

[Archon of the East]

I say read article 6 section 2 and Just say no to all international treaties with the UN or other international organizations.

[mmercier]

I still stick to the notion that any willing seller should be permitted to deal with any willing buyer on what ever terms they freely establish between themselves.

If the playing field is level and both parties abide by agreed upon terms then there should be no government interference...

Historically, less governmental impediments to free trade have generally created efficiency and prosperity. The free flow of goods and services exchanged on voluntary terms by willing individuals is beneficial, except to the inefficient. You are quick, or you are dead in the market.

I don't know if this makes me a libertarian or a trader, I only know what I see, and what history teaches.

[Dog Gone]

Well, this post is utter crap. I wonder if the author even read the agreement.

CAFTA is good for conservatives. It's bad for nobody except the sugar farmers who take your tax dollars to make sure that you pay more for sugar than anyone else in the world.

It doesn't even hurt them much, but they'll make you think it's the end of the world if you pay lower prices.

I cannot believe how many conservatives are being suckered into opposing this agreement. I thought we were the better educated party.

[cowtowney]

well put. Free Trade ping.

[satchmodog9]

http://www.stoptheftaa.org/ftaa/globalism.html

[Dog Gone]

That's a wonderful red herring by the John Birch Society, but it really doesn't have much to do with CAFTA. Nothing, in fact.

[SunnyD1182]

A big fat NEGATIVE to CAFTA or any more free trade agreements from me. Not until we clean up the existing ones we have, most of which are absolutely not "free" at all, giving America the shaft in favor of greedy corporations that just want to increase their bottom line. Free trade agreements- even ones that are slanted against America- are great for greedy corporations, but not everyone else.

CAFTA doesn't seem anywhere near as bad as the other free trade agreements we've signed in the past (NAFTA, etc), but I'm flat out against it just so we don't continue the free trade spiral of suicide that we're going on. Good post, and I assume the free traders will come out anytime now with their Cato Institute/Heritage Foundation talking points of economic theory- theory which clearly has not worked in the real world.

[Nowhere Man]

I'm on it and rolling. (Visual Effect: think of a 1969 Chevy Penna State Police car taking off with its "bubble gum" machine lit and the sirens on). I will call my Congress Critters tomorrow to say no to CAFTA.

[Nowhere Man]

ping

[austinTparty]

Dog Gone it! Stop making sense!!!

[A. Pole]

It's bad for nobody except the sugar farmers

Once it is blue collar workers, another time it is IT workers, then textiles, steel, this time the sugar farmers. Each time only a minority is affected.

[hedgetrimmer]

I still stick to the notion that any willing seller should be permitted to deal with any willing buyer on what ever terms they freely establish between themselves

Then you must oppose CAFTA. The only groups that will be able to set the terms are the Transnational corporations. Individuals have no place in the WTO global trading system. They are even setting up a pseudogovernment called "civil society" created by the United Nations as a means to eliminate individual rights. There is no place for citizenship nor individual rights in the world of the future if CAFTA and the FTAA are implemented.

Even the south American countries eager to plunder the US citizenry of their taxes do not want their sovereignty to be eliminated, but as with Britain joining the EU, the people will not be allowed to vote on it. Our politicians either believe the claptrap about the world can be one happy placed based on rule by international institutions, or they are getting too much money to turn down the organizations pushing for CAFTA and the FTAA. Either way, the American people have lost their representation to the globalist crowd, and stopping CAFTA may be our only chance to save our country from integration with the rest of the hemisphere.

[hedgetrimmer]

CAFTA is good for conservatives

How is CAFTA conservative? It wasn't even written by the only constitutional body that is authorized to make trade agreements. Congress can't even change CAFTA now they can only vote on it. How is that conservative? How does that uphold the Constitution? How does it preserve our right to elected representation?

You should probably explain that statement.

[hedgetrimmer]

Thanks.

[mmercier]

>> giving America the shaft in favor of greedy corporations that just want to increase their bottom line.


Most Americans who work for "greedy" corporations may have a different opine.

We have "corporations" today because people like Rockefeller, Carnage and myriad others got the message, and became anonymous via necessity.

Corporation: A body that is granted a charter recognizing it as a separate legal entity having its own rights, privileges, and liabilities distinct from those of its members.

Now everyone can bi*ch about "corporations", but in fact they are us. If it were not for the most evil of corporations (Microsoft) we would be deprived of this communication, and about a million corporate slaves would not have jobs.

Most Americans work for small businesses with less than 50 employees; every single small business owner dreams of the day they incorporate. Every single one of them.

It is about competition and the rewards, or failures that come from competition. Competition guarantees efficiency, and is only feared by the inefficient.

Are you scared to have your company go head to head with Guatemala...? Even if the company looses, they win in the sense that they were bested, and can therefrom adapt.

[hedgetrimmer]

Most Americans who work for "greedy" corporations may have a different opine.

I don't believe that most Americans signing employment agreements with transnational corporations think they are signing away the sovereignty of their country so they can have a job.

Corporations in the United States are granted that status by the American people, and they can take that status away if need be. If the American people knew that corporations were conspiring to eliminate our borders and merge us with the assorted socialist, communist and totalitarian dictatorships that make up the Western Hemisphere, they would not allow it.

Corporations might have loosely been called "us" before they were transnational, however now they are definitely not "us" and their goals are a system that is the antithesis of the government based on Liberty and individual rights that was created by our founding fathers.

Microsoft didn't create the internet. Arpanet was the first internet and it was created by the DOD paid for by the American people.

By the grace of the American people that technology has been made available for commerce.

Funny you should mention slaves in a post about "free trade". Right now "free trade" and slavery are part and parcel, and thats another thing that "free traders" obscure when they say "I'm in favor of CAFTA".

In fact, wasn't the Dominican Republic one of the countries chastised by the current administration a few years ago for slavery and human trafficking? Don't you think its funny that a "free trade" agreement, CAFTA-DR is named after a country that is one of the 10 worst offenders for human trafficking?

[hedgetrimmer]

Here are excerpts from a state department report discussing the country they have decided to name CAFTA after, the Dominican Republic (remember say CAFTA-DR because CAFTA rhymes with NAFTA and Rob Portman wants you to forget that CAFTA and NAFTA are two peas in a pod).

Please note that the country they are naming a "free trade" agreement for, that they want to grant more that MFN status is described by our US state department thusly:

The Government's human rights record remained poor; although there were some improvements in a few areas, serious problems remained. Members of the security forces continued to commit unlawful killings. The police and, to a lesser degree, the military, tortured, beat, or otherwise abused suspects, detainees and prisoners. Prison conditions ranged from poor to harsh. Police arbitrarily arrested and detained suspects and suspects' relatives. Lengthy pretrial detention and long trial delays continued to be problems. The authorities sometimes infringed on citizens' privacy rights, and police entered private homes without judicial orders. Journalists and editors practiced self-censorship. The Government restricted the movement of Haitian and Dominican-Haitian migrants and forcibly expelled some of them. Other serious problems included violence and discrimination against women; child prostitution; abuse of children; discrimination against persons with disabilities; and severe discrimination against and abuse of Haitian migrants and their descendants. Trafficking in persons was a serious problem, although the Government increased its investigations of traffickers. There continued to be reports of forced labor. Some workers were not able to organize freely and continued to face unsafe labor conditions. Child labor was a serious problem.


There were no politically motivated killings by the Government or its agents; however, security forces were involved in many killings that were unlawful, unwarranted, or involved excessive use of force.

Security forces killed between 250 and 350 people during the year. In the majority of killings by police, the police stated that the deaths resulted from a gunfire exchange in the course of an arrest, which required officers to act in self-defense. A number of eyewitness accounts corroborated police reports; others did not. Many killings were related to aggressive tactics on the part of the police.

The National Commission on Human Rights reported approximately 300 killings by security forces, 20 of which occurred after a new National Police chief took control of the police department in August. A major newspaper reported 360 deaths in "exchanges of gunfire" with police during the year, including 74 such deaths from August until the end of the year. The National Police reported 75 deaths at the hands of officers between August and the end of the year, compared with 167 such killings during the same time period in 2003. According to the National Police, three of the post-August killings were unlawful. Accounts of incidents varied, and some went unreported.

According to the National Police, authorities had referred 30 cases to civilian courts for accusations of unlawful killings as of October. However, human rights organizations stated that the police employed unwarranted deadly force about as often against criminal suspects as in previous years, and uniformed vigilantism persisted on a less-than-deadly level (see Section 1.c.). The lack of qualified investigators and the nontransparent conduct of investigations of killings in "exchanges of gunfire" resulted in impunity in a number of cases.

In January, Sergeant Major Pablo Valdez Perez, Sergeant Cesar Troncoso Encarnacion, Corporal Wilson Aquino Garcia, and Corporal Nandy Beltre Espinosa rushed a car parked in front of the passenger's house at nighttime without identifying themselves as officers. The occupants tried to drive away, and the policemen opened fire, killing the passenger and injuring the driver. The case was referred to the civilian Court of Instruction in the National District. At year's end, three of the policemen were free on bail, and Beltre was awaiting a bail hearing.

Police Lieutenant Reyes Santana, known as "Tyson," and Sergeant Medina Medina were sentenced to 8 years in prison and required to pay indemnification of approximately $33,000 (1 million pesos) for a 2001 killing in which the officers claimed that there was an exchange of gunfire with the victim.

Many cases previously referred to courts for investigation remained unresolved or resulted in the release of the accused. The Supreme Court investigation into the court-ordered release of police officer Cristino Alvarez Ventura, who shot and killed a youth in September 2003, remained pending at year's end.

There were no developments in the case of the September 2003 mistaken identity killing by police officer Rubio Blondy and another officer. The case was sent to the civilian Court of Instruction in the National District where it remained in the investigation phase.

In the case against off-duty police officers Abel Garcia and Luis Castro Concepcion for the October 2003 killing of an advertising agent, a court dismissed charges against Garcia but convicted Castro and sentenced him to 4 months in jail.

Police lieutenant Juan Bautista Berroa and his accomplices were free on bail pending trial for an unlawful killing in 2002 in San Pedro de Macoris.

Pedro Encarnacion Baez, convicted of the 2001 killing of Carmelo del Rosario, was sentenced to 15 years in jail but has been free on bail since December 2002.

A significant number of deaths occurred in custody due to negligence by prison authorities (see Section 1.c.).


There were reports of violence against demonstrators and protesters by members of the security forces, including some deaths (see Section 2.b.).

Senior police officials took the prohibition on torture and physical abuse seriously, but lack of supervision, training, and accountability throughout the law enforcement and corrections systems exacerbated the problem. Human rights groups reported repeated instances of physical abuse of detainees, including various forms of torture, beatings, and sexual abuse. Certain police units, called "the surgeons," intentionally shot young men in the lower extremities during nighttime patrols as part of a strategy to deter crime, resulting in a number of serious injuries and amputations.

According to human rights organizations, both the National Police and prison officials used forms of torture. The method most often used was beating. Other forms included asphyxiation with plastic bags to elicit confessions and a method called "roasting the chicken" in which the victim was placed over hot coals and turned.

According to the National Commission on Human Rights, military and police officials reportedly beat, tortured, and randomly deported Haitians living in the border towns of Pedernales and Elias Pina (see Section 2.d.).

The press and human rights groups also reported extensive drug and arms trafficking within the prisons, as well as prostitution and sexual abuse, including abuse of minors. In February, the DNCD uncovered a large cache of drugs, alcohol, and weapons in Rafey prison. In August, three prisoners were burned to death during a riot in Mao that began as a dispute over the control of the drug trade in the prison.

Child labor was a serious problem in the informal sector of the economy (see Section 6.d.).

Trafficking in Persons

The comprehensive Law Against Trafficking in Persons and Alien Smuggling, enacted in August 2003, prohibits trafficking of persons; however, trafficking in women and children from, to, and within the country remained a serious problem.


http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2004/41758.htm

[mmercier]

Hohum.

>> Then you must oppose CAFTA.

I must not.

>> The only groups that will be able to set the terms are the Transnational corporations. Individuals have no place in the WTO global trading system.

Transnational corporations, consisting of nameless but identifiable individuals, are the WTO and "global trading system". Bill Gates is an "individual"; love or hate him, he will make his own place there as he did here.

>> They are even setting up a pseudo government called "civil society" created by the United Nations as a means to eliminate individual rights.

You will never meet another Freeper with deeper ire towards "everymans United Nations". The UN could not set up a car wash as effectively as any high school class looking to fund a yearbook. The UN has sought to eliminate individual rights since the 50's. They are routinely ignored, as they have proven themselves ineffective; just a collection of third world pygmies and old communists. They can "eliminate" my human rights, but can they actually come and take them from me..? I have been waiting.

>> There is no place for citizenship nor individual rights in the world of the future if CAFTA and the FTAA are implemented.

With a million illegals scampering across our boarders a year, citizenship is already effectively eliminated. Fear not however, this situation is in the process of being rectified by "the people", seeing as our present government is not interested. We will simply get a new government. It takes time, but the wheels are already in motion.

>> Even the south American countries eager to plunder the US citizenry of their taxes do not want their sovereignty to be eliminated, but as with Britain joining the EU, the people will not be allowed to vote on it.

South American countries are slow, corrupt and inefficient, they fear open competition, nothing more. That is why they export their young to America. They are unwilling to compete with their ambitious young and therefore exile them to America. Britannia is full of retards, a rat hole I will avoid this morning.

I'll stop here and pick up at lunch, work calls.

[mr_hammer]

Thank you hedgetrimmer!

[Designer]

"The free flow of goods and services.."

It has the word "trade" in the title, but it is not about trade, free or otherwise, but about control.

[Dog Gone]

How is CAFTA conservative? It wasn't even written by the only constitutional body that is authorized to make trade agreements. Congress can't even change CAFTA now they can only vote on it. How is that conservative? How does that uphold the Constitution? How does it preserve our right to elected representation?

Congress authorized the negotiations and the drafting of the agreement and the ground rules for approval or disapproval. There is no constitutional requirement that language in a bill being voted on must be drafted by a Congressman or Senator.

They could vote to pass legislation drafted by the John Birch Society or Jacques Chirac.

I seriously doubt whether any legislator actually drafts any language in any bill anymore. At best, it comes from their staff, but much of it comes from lobbyists.

[mr_hammer]

"but much of it comes from lobbyists."

Question: Do you think this is what our Founding Father's had intended? (No Sarcasm)

I am slightly uneasy with the thought. Aren't our elected official abdicating their responsibilities with regards to the writing of our laws.

Just asking????

[Dog Gone]

It's probably not what they envisioned. I'm less sure that they directly intended it.

But let's be realistic. The practice of law and the drafting of legislation has become far more complex today than it was prior to 1800. In order to be effective and to withstand the scrutiny and challenges that are sure to accompany any new law, the legislation has to be drafted by a legal team, and there's no requirement than any legislator be a lawyer.

Hopefully, our legislators are telling their legal staff what they want to accomplish in a proposed new bill that they want passed, but the actual drafting of the bill is going to be done by an unelected person.

[mr_hammer]

Laws by committee of lobbyist brought us this law in Ohio.

In Ohio a person with a CCW (Carry Conceal Permit) must have the firearm in plain sight of a police officer during a traffic stop or it must be locked in the automobiles glove box. Kind of an oxymoron anyway you slice.

Sometimes, these laws make absolutely no sense or have untended consequences. I wonder if their written to be so convoluted as to produce a steady stream of work for lawyers. Kind of a make work program, if you will. (major sarcasm)

[Dog Gone]

The quality of the drafting of the laws varies greatly between the states and the federal level. The federal level moves much slower. Often the states move quickly at the end of the legislative session and bills don't get studied much at all. The legislators vote based on a synopsis provided by staff.

I don't think anyone drafts poorly worded or intended statutes on purpose, but not all lawyers are created equal. Some I wonder how they passed the bar.

[hedgetrimmer]

but can they actually come and take them from me

They have been taken from you and you don't even know it.
Big Media Won't Touch Agenda 21

[hedgetrimmer]

Sometimes the text for legislation comes directly from international foreign bodies. Many of the groups that wrote the sample legislation for states to pass to allow illegals drivers licenses came from international NGOs. For some citizens to be blase about the fact that the wrong people, unauthorized by the US constitution to legislate is frightening. It is unforgivable that our congress is doing this and unforgivable that US citizens are allowing outside interests and internationalists to warp our Constitution.

[SunnyD1182]

Most Americans who work for "greedy" corporations may have a different opine.

And I'm sure they'll think otherwise when their corporation decides to send their job to India or China, or lays them off in favor of a Mexican south of the border. Maybe they'll also think otherwise when this nation gets involved in another world war, and we are forced to rely on ourselves for manufacturing and other services that we have long ago sent abroad. We are one World War away from losing our economic and national sovereignty, and it doesn't take a genius to understand that. We rely so heavily on China at this point that if a war broke out between us and China, we wouldn't stand a chance. Yes, our military is good, but that can only last so long, given that we barely have a manufacturing sector anymore.

We also don't have money, but that's another story.

[mmercier]

>> It has the word "trade" in the title, but it is not about trade, free or otherwise, but about control.

What a rat hole this thread is, I hate trolling this deep into the past.

In any case, all things must be "controlled" by rules and procedures. Every written word is not a reality, but written words permit possible options for people to deal with realities and eventualities that manifest. Would you prefer there were no rules and no method of establishing trade relations...?

If so then good for you. Every day is a new day, and every new situation is a surprise.

I prefer flawed policies and procedures to after the fact disaster recovery.

[mmercier]

>> They have been taken from you and you don't even know it. Big Media Won't Touch Agenda 21

I gave up conspiracy theories when I gave up scotch. They just make you mean.

I read the "Agenda 21" thing till my eyes started to roll.

Not impressed. Not scared. Not even Amused. A good CT is at least amusing, IMO.


With all due respect.

[hedgetrimmer]

Just a conspiracy by Congress. But feel free to disregard the threat, after all its only your personal liberty that is at stake.

EXPRESSING SENSE OF CONGRESS THAT U.S. SHOULD DEVELOP NATIONAL STRATEGY IMPLEMENTING EARTH SUMMIT AGREEMENTS

(House of Representatives - October 02, 1992)

[Page: H10825]

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 353) expressing the sense of the Congress that the United States should assume a strong leadership role in implementing the decisions made at the Earth summit by developing a national strategy to implement Agenda 21and other Earth summit agreements through domestic policy and foreign policy, by cooperating with all countries to identify and initiate further agreements to protect the global environment, and by supporting and participating in a high-level U.N. Sustainable Development Commission, as amended.

The Clerk read as follows:

H. Con. Res. 353

Whereas the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (hereinafter in this preamble referred to as `UNCED'), known as the Earth Summit, assembled in June of 1992 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, the largest summit of heads of state in history and outlined a comprehensive action plan for environmentally sustainable development, known as Agenda 21 ;

Whereas the United States has a strong national interest in the environmental sustainability of global economic development, and many pressing environmental and economic problems are inherently transboundary and not susceptible to resolution by the actions of any single nation acting alone;

Whereas Agenda 21, a plan of national and international actions to integrate environment and development, negotiated and adopted by the United States and 177 other countries, offers a significant starting point for continuing progress in avoiding environmental degradation and social and economic disintegration in the 21st century;

Whereas the role of the United States, as a major economic force and a country that has long been in the forefront of environmental protection activities nationally and internationally, should be one of leadership and positive action in the implementation process of Agenda 21 and all decisions of UNCED;

Whereas Agenda 21 urges all governments to adopt national strategies for sustainable development;

Whereas Agenda 21 urges all countries to `make significant progress' in incorporating environmental costs into economic decisions, to undertake research or sustainable production methods and consumption patterns, and to undertake other actions to make their economies more environmentally sustainable;

Whereas Agenda 21 calls for a `supportive international climate for achieving environment and development goals,' by `providing adequate financial resources to developing countries and dealing with international debt,' and calls for `the reallocation of resources presently committed to military purposes' to support United States policies and the efforts of developing countries to implement Agenda 21;

Whereas UNCED recommended that high-level United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (hereinafter in this preamble referred to as the `Commission') be established by the 47th United Nations General Assembly to provide a vital forum in which the member states of the United Nations may review progress made by considering reports from national governments, international organizations, and nongovernmental organizations;

Whereas the United States was an active and positive participant in UNCED negotiations regarding the Commission, and will play a major role in the decisions of the 47th United Nations General Assembly regarding the specific modalities and effectiveness of the Commission;

Whereas the agreements adopted at UNCED are milestones toward the achievement of environmentally sustainable economic development and for holding governments accountable for progress toward integrating environment and development;

Whereas many opportunities for agreements concerning more extensive actions on critical issues remained unresolved at UNCED and will require further attention by the nations of the world; and

Whereas the ultimate success of achieving sustainable development and a healthy environment at the national and international levels depends upon actions taken at the State and local community levels, and on actions by schools, public offices, businesses, and citizens: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that--

(1) effective follow-up to achieve the many goals of the agreements reached at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (hereinafter in this resolution referred to as `UNCED') will depend on the following actions by the President and the United States Government:

(a) The United States should adopt a national strategy for environmentally sustainable development, based on an extensive process of nationwide consultations with all interested organizations and individuals, including State and local governments, nongovernmental organization, businesses, and labor groups.

(B) The United States Government should encourage and facilitate, at all levels of community and sectors of society, appropriate means for adopting individual Agenda Agenda 21 plans of action, including the establishment of local, county, State, business, and other boards and commissions for achieving sustainable development. Each member of the Congress should help initiate this process within their States or districts.

(C) The President should establish an effective mechanism to plan, initiate, and coordinate United States policy for implementing Agenda 21. Responsibility should be vested in a duly constituted office, headed by an appropriate high level official, and the necessary staff support structure should be provided.

(D) Policies should be formulated for foreign policy and foreign assistance in order to help developing countries, and for domestic actions in order to assure appropriate action by the United States to implement Agenda 21;

(2) in order to contribute to a transition to a sustainable United States economy, the research and policy initiatives urged in Agenda 21 should be pursued, including research on sustainable consumption and production patterns, creation of a policy framework for sustainable consumption patterns, identification of a strategy to eliminate or reduce subsidies for unsustainable natural resource exploitation, and to improve pricing policies;

(3) the Congress should adopt a plan to reallocate an appropriate amount of savings from reduced defense spending in order to achieve its goals of global environmental protection and sustainable development over the next decade;

(4) the President should urge and actively participate in new and existing multilateral efforts aimed at creating a more favorable international economic climate for developing countries to practice sustainable development, and such efforts should include international consultations regarding reduction in developing country debt linked with environmental policy reforms, and increased loans and concessional assistance upon development and implementation of national sustainable development strategies in developing countries;

(5) the United States should actively support, at the 47th United Nations General Assembly, the effective establishment of a high-level United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (hereinafter in this resolution referred to as the `Commission'), including the establishment of provisions for meaningful participation by organizations of the United Nations system, international financial institutions, and other relevant intergovernmental organizations and nongovernmental organizations recommended by UNCED;

(6) the President should affirm strong United States commitment to the Commission by appointing a high-level representative from the United States to the Commission, and by encouraging the United Nations Secretary General to appoint an Under Secretary General for Sustainable Development to coordinate the implementation of Agenda 21 in the United Nations system and to head the secretariat support structure for the Commission;

(7) the President should submit a national report for the Commission on activities the United States has undertaken to implement Agenda 21, both domestically and internationally, on progress made toward fulfilling other commitments undertaken at UNCED, and on other environmental and developmental issues that the United States finds relevant, and should strongly encourage all United Nations members to submit national reports;

(8) the United States should encourage the Commission to call for periodic international meetings to continue the process toward developing and advancing international agreement to facilitate sustainable economic development for the protection of the global environment and the promotion of human dignity of current and future generations; and

(9) the President should submit an annual report to the Congress on the steps taken by the United States to implement Agenda 21 and the recommendations made by this resolution, and should make information regarding such steps available to members of the Congress upon their request.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel] will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Broomfield] will be recognized for 20 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel].

[hedgetrimmer]

Here is Al Gore's report to congress on the United Nations Agenda 21. Note that "free trade" agreements are implementing some of the goals of Agenda 21. They include DEBT RELIEF (G8 just relieved a number of countries from their debts), capacity building(free trade agreements require that "rich" nations provide "capacity building" for "poor" nations in their trade agreements)Investment (that would be FDI, foreign direct investment)

****

In addition to calling for increased funding, this chapter of Agenda 21 also identified mechanisms that could be used to provide the necessary financial and technical support. The mechanisms identified included:
The multilateral development banks, in particular, the World Bank's International Development Association (IDA); the regional and subregional development banks; and the Global Environment Facility. With regard to IDA, the document states that, among various issues and options that nations will consider in the forthcoming replenishment talks, `special consideration should be given to the statement made by the President of the International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development at the Conference in plenary meeting.' This statement is intended to lend support for--without expressly accepting at this time--Lewis Preston's suggestion in his address in Rio that, in addition to maintaining funding for IDA in real terms, countries should provide an additional `Earth Increment' to help the poorest countries meet the objectives of Agenda 21 . With regard to the GEF, a restructuring is called for that will `ensure a governance that is transparent and democratic in nature,' as well as leave open the possibility that scope of the GEF could be expanded to include global environmental problems in addition to the four that are currently within the GEF's purview.
The relevant specialized agencies, other United Nations bodies and other international organizations;
Multilateral institutions for capacity-building and technical cooperation;
Bilateral assistance programs;
Debt relief;
Private funding;
Investment;
Various forms of new and innovative financing.

[mmercier]

>> And I'm sure they'll think otherwise when their corporation decides to send their job to India or China, or lays them off in favor of a Mexican south of the border.

I worked for Digital Equipment Corp. through the 80's. My manufacturing line went to Mexico, and 600 people were laid off. They also lost their shirt on the deal, who knows who owns that facility today. Layoffs suck, but what should we do, freeze economies and technologies at some point in time that makes us feel happy...?

Mexicans, south of the border are no great deal either, unless corruption, inefficiency and inventory shrinkage are your in your business plan.


>> Maybe they'll also think otherwise when this nation gets involved in another world war, and we are forced to rely on ourselves for manufacturing and other services that we have long ago sent abroad.

I will grant you this point. Our reliance on China for strategic materials like rare earth is distressing. I do however have faith in the people here. After Pearl Harbor America lost access to all natural rubber. Necessity is the mother of invention, we won the war handily, and today we have a synthetics industry that never would have been necessary or considered before WWII. Improvise, adapt and overcome. We do, and we will.

>> We are one World War away from losing our economic and national sovereignty, and it doesn't take a genius to understand that.

A country of 400,000,000 people, with at least 800,000,000 firearms in private hands. The minutemen that fought the revolution were out-gunned 10 to 1. This countries private citizens out-gun our own military 10 to 1. Neither here nor there, as if it comes to this point all is already lost. Nukes and all...

>>>We rely so heavily on China at this point that if a war broke out between us and China, we wouldn't stand a chance.

That statement can stand on its own, though there are a few people in our military that would beg to differ. Before the fall of the Soviet Union, similar things were prophesied should we engage them; two days after their collapse the world found out that their GDP was less than that of Denmark.

>> Yes, our military is good, but that can only last so long, given that we barely have a manufacturing sector anymore.

I think you lack understanding of our military capacity and our ability to rapidly respond to changing circumstances. Our businesses in the US are faster, more adaptable, and more innovative than anywhere on the planet, even the little Asian tiger states.

America is the only country that reasonably has it's chit together on the planet, and things don't seem to be changing up too fast.

>> We also don't have money, but that's another story.

We not only have the money, we are the destination of most foreign capital. This country is vastly wealthy, only our money is dispersed down to the individual level. We also treat capital very friendly here, and therefore attract it like a magnet. This is a safe, fair place to do business, unlike other countries many seem to fear competing with. We could "buy" china, cash down on the table if we so chose.

[mmercier]

Thanks.

For the love of God, I hereby surrender.

They are coming to take me away, granted. I went thought this with NAFTA years ago, only then on your side of the issue. Back then we had a memo found on surplus UN computer hard drives. Some Rockefeller foundation plan to control economies and population levels on a global scale.

CT's are bad for the brain, just pattern recognition gone amok. In any case, "they" should feel free to come and take me away, I eagerly await meeting "them".

[SandyB]

Central america is less of a threat than communist china. Central america will not nuke American cities.

[hedgetrimmer]

What?

[mmercier]

>> What?

This is boring. Agenda 21 is bunk. Even if real it will be obeyed by the mass of people like the speed limits.

Who cares, anyone can say anything. It is the people that actually do things that matter; and currently they need statutory base to engage in a trade relationship on a voluntary basis with potentially willing buyers. Businesses need laws, impartial enforcement, and statute to attract the capital to engage in business.

Because the UN and Communists seek to take us away with the dreaded Agenda 21, vast numbers of American business men should be prohibited from trading on a fair and lea gal basis with willing buyers...? This is about American Business access to a foreign market on terms that require some statutory definition. CAFTA is just the defining documentation.

[Coleus]

Central america is less of a threat than communist china. Central america will not nuke American cities. >>

Right, however, once CAFTA and FTAA are passed central America will provide a conduit to America for illegal drugs and illegal immigrants, and we tend to lose another million jobs as we did after NAFTA was passed.

[SandyB]

Right, however, once CAFTA and FTAA are passed central America will provide a conduit to America for illegal drugs and illegal immigrants, and we tend to lose another million jobs as we did after NAFTA was passed.

If we only lost a million jobs, it would not be such a big deal. We will lost many more times than a million jobs.

[need_a_screen_name]

Bump!

[RoadRanger]

There is nothing "free" or "fair" with CAFTA. The U.S. had FREE trade before NAFTA. These treaties are about control and and about exporting jobs. What on earth can dirt-poor countries do for our economy? Nothing. These countries can, though, provide a cheap labor market. So our economy heads south and we are left with a warm fuzzy feeling that comes from being told we're helping new "democracies."

Anyone who thinks treaties such as CAFTA are good for the U.S. either knows nothing about them or wants our economy and sovereignty to go away.

[RoadRanger]

Anyone who thinks treaties such as NAFTA and CAFTA (and the soon-to-be-touted FTAA) are about trade either knows nothing about them, or wants our sovereignty and economy to go completely away.

They are about imposing international socialism on the United States. Pure and simple. If you want to learn more, go to StopTheFTAA.org.

[RoadRanger]

True, but Central America and bankrupt us and bury us in illegal imigrants.

[Coleus]

Are you confusing Trade issues with defense/national security issues?

Or are you relating to the fact that China owns most of our T-Bills and if redeemed, could cause a major depression in the USA?

[SandyB]

Yes. Yes.