Posted on 07/27/2005 9:14:44 PM PDT by RWR8189
WASHINGTON - The House narrowly approved the Central American Free Trade Agreement early Thursday, a personal triumph for President Bush, who campaigned aggressively for the accord he said would foster prosperity and democracy in the hemisphere.
The 217-215 vote just after midnight adds six Latin American countries to the growing lists of nations with free trade agreements with the United States and averts what could have been a major political embarrassment for the Bush administration.
It was an uphill effort to win a majority, with Bush traveling to Capitol Hill earlier in the day to appeal to wavering Republicans to support a deal he said was critical to U.S. national security.
Lobbying continued right up to the vote, with Vice President Dick Cheney, U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman (news, bio, voting record) and Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez tracking undecided lawmakers.
The United States signed the accord, known as CAFTA, a year ago with Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic, and the Senate approved it last month. It now goes to the president for his signature.
To capture a majority, supporters had to overcome what some have called free trade fatigue, a growing sentiment that free trade deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement with Mexico and Canada have contributed to a loss of well-paying American jobs and the soaring trade deficit.
Democrats, who were overwhelmingly against CAFTA, also argued that its labor rights provisions were weak and would result in exploitation of workers in Central America.
But supporters pointed out that CAFTA would over time eliminate tariffs and other trade barriers that impede U.S. sales to the region, correcting the current situation in which 80 percent of Central American goods enter the United States duty-free but Americans must pay heavy tariffs.
The agreement would also strengthen intellectual property protections and make it easier for Americans to invest in the region.
"This is a test of American leadership in a changing world," said Rep. Kevin Brady (news, bio, voting record), R-Texas, a leading proponent of the agreement. "We cannot claim to be fighting for American jobs and yet turn our backs on 44 million new customers in Central America.
If your posting by the fas.usda are correct, why have farm subsidies increase over 10% since its inception? On other "non-union" web sites they specifically cite the USDA statistics and say that the USDA does not give the whole picture. We have become a net importer of agricultural products now. While our exports to China may have increased by 9.5 billion dollars, our net agricultural imports from other nations have increased from 32 billion in 1996 to 46 billion in 2003. That would mean a 14 billion dollar loss of trade to offset our 9.5 billion increase you cited; and that was since 2003.
You blythly quote the fas.usda as if it was the gospel and ignore the plight of the others who were hurt by this legislation. NAFTA was not well thought out and CAFTA will be more of the same. We have run pell-mell into an idiotic competition with the European union to create some sort of "American Continental trading union" with tremendous upheaval to industries, our borders, and our sovereignty. A lot of people may be getting rich with NAFTA, GATT, and now CAFTA but it won't be you or me.
"When Bush signs what?"
CAFTA-DR was approved by the senate, then the house, then the Pres. signs it and it becomes law.
Some farmers produced more. Those in competing agribusiness, like sugar took it on the nose. Yes we exported more, but we imported more than we exported. Our agricultural balance of trade is negative, not positive. In the pursuit of increased trade, we have massively disrupted our own agribusiness. If farmers are doing so great, why have farm subsidies increase more than 10%?
Years ago people could say stuff like that in passing and no one would say a thing. This is an internet forum and everyone can read the CAFTA themselves and find out that Article 10.16.3 is:
3. Provided that six months have elapsed since the events giving rise to the claim, a claimant may submit a claim referred to in paragraph 1:10-12
(a) under the ICSID Convention and the ICSID Rules of Procedures for Arbitration Proceedings, provided that both the respondent and the Party of the claimant are parties to the ICSID Convention;
(b) under the ICSID Additional Facility Rules, provided that either the respondent or the Party of the claimant is a party to the ICSID Convention; or
(c) under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules.
Maybe CAFTA has little print and not enough pictures, but as far as gov't docs go I've seen worse. It's real easy to download (the final text here) and do a search for say "black helicopters" if you want. FWIW, it ain't in there. One thing that really is in there is that it lowers my taxes.
When did CAFTA become a treaty?
As a matter of fact, yes.
I think we will go from a $1.5 billion trade deficit to a $30+ billion trade deficit with CAFTA nations as goods we currently export are outsourced there.
FY '04 Trade with CAFTA nations
|
|
Exports To |
Imports From |
Surplus or Deficit |
|
3,305.9 |
3,333.3 |
-27.4 |
|
|
4,358.3 |
4,527.1 |
-168.8 |
|
|
1,867.7 |
2,052.2 |
-184.5 |
|
|
2,551.3 |
3,154.0 |
-602.7 |
|
|
1,021.8 |
1,170.5 |
-148.7 |
|
|
592.4 |
990.3 |
-397.9 |
|
|
Total |
13,697.4 |
15,227.4 |
-1,530.0 |
Texas has really taken it on the chin with NAFTA.
Unrestricted free trade is hurtin the middle class in a great number of ways.
Do you know why?
our net agricultural imports from other nations have increased from 32 billion in 1996 to 46 billion in 2003.
More variety and lower prices for consumers is bad because....?
That would mean a 14 billion dollar loss of trade to offset our 9.5 billion increase you cited; and that was since 2003.
Whatever are you talking about? Did exports of American agricultural products increase between 1994-2005 or decrease? I'll make it easy for you "Between 1994 and 2005, global U.S. agricultural exports have increased from $46.2 billion to a projected $60.5 billion."
While you're at it, will CAFTA increase exports of American agricultural products or not? Remember, our farmers do not currently have access to the member countries markets.
Finally, why is running a trade deficit bad? We've had a trade deficit for 30 years. The last time we had a trade surplus was during a recession. Germany and Japan have trade surpluses. Would you like to excange economies with them?
We could, of course, enact all kinds of protectionist tariffs on imports. The resulting recession might just create a trade surplus.
You might be able to get a clue from this report: "The five CAFTA countries and the Dominican Republic only gain immediate access for an additional tariff-rate quota (TRQ) amount of 109,000 metric tons of sugar." But even if what you said was true, what's so wonderful about foreign taxes on our exports? I mean, why do you want US companies to have to lower their prices to compete in the CAFTA countries?
#446 has complete CAFTA text
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1452108/posts?q=1&&page=1#1
we mustn't let that happen!
We produced less sugar? You have a source?
Yes we exported more, but we imported more than we exported.
You said ag was hurt, yet we produced and exported more than ever.
If farmers are doing so great, why have farm subsidies increase more than 10%?
Cause the government sucks. Big surprise.
"Bush vote in 2004 was such a waste!"
------->
Perhaps you ought to have listened to Gov.Bush. Along with campaigning on planks of lowering taxes, strengthening the military and respect for America, the education and immigration reforms that he's espoused, social security reform, senior drug benefit program, etc., he espoused greater trade with our neighbors. He's doing exactly what he said he would, and my informed vote was well made.
"When did CAFTA become a treaty?"
when congress voted to give Bush "fast track" treaty negotiation authority.
As I recall, Republicans negotiated NAFTA, Republicans passed NAFTA when Clinton finally realized that it would be good for the country. I'll condemn R's when they screw up, but this isn't such a time. The principle of free trade is a clear winner to anyone who thinks with their head instead of somewhere lower down.
"(a) under the ICSID Convention and the ICSID Rules of Procedures for Arbitration Proceedings, provided that both the respondent and the Party of the claimant are parties to the ICSID Convention;"
That is an international tribunal, and most international law is subject to UN arbitration.
Fast Track is about negotiating trade agreements and has nothing to do with treaties.
"Fast track does not dilute the power of Congress to regulate trade:
Under fast-track authority, trade agreements are submitted to Congress for an up or down vote under rules barring committee or floor amendments. Fast track does not give the President a blank check to negotiate trade agreements, nor does it undermine the constitutional prerogatives of Congress, which defines the objectives and limits of the President's negotiating authority in the legislation granting fast track. During any trade talks, the Administration must consult frequently with the House Ways and Means Committee, the Senate Finance Committee, and special advisers designated by Congress. Only Congress has the final say on any trade agreement negotiated by the President.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.