In Bush Win, House Narrowly Approves CAFTA

Associated Press ^ | July 27, 2005 | JIM ABRAMS

[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.

[antisocial]

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/krikorian200507281117.asp

80% of the imports from these countries are duty free.
in my opinion all should be.

The article above explains more reasons for being against CAFTA.

[expat_panama]

"When did CAFTA become a treaty?"

FWIW, some say CAFTA is technically not a 'treaty' per se, but rather an 'agreement'-- which means (probably) just that there's no ratification by the Senate.  Check out post 274 of 322 by Paul Ross.

See Paul-- I am able learn something new once in a while.

[Toddsterpatriot]

If there is one lesson to be learned from NAFTA it is that free-trade agreements must be accompanied by muscular immigration controls, especially if they are reached with countries that are nearby or already send a lot of immigrants here.

No argument here. So, stop crying about CAFTA and push for more immigration controls. I'll be right there with you.

[Nachum]

Do you know why?

Yes, because third world countries can dump child and dollar-per-day labor produced products on our markets. This allows American business to abandon hard earned labor laws by merely crossing the border into Latin America.

More variety and lower prices for consumers is bad because....?

I didn't say it was bad. I said that abandoning all control of the industry at our border is bad. I said that the trade-off of the massive disruption in industry, our middle class, and the destabilization of Mexican labor was not worth the lower prices the consumers gained. I said that the middle class would pay dearly for those lower prices.

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."

And I will make it clearer for you. Between 1996 and 2003 our agricultural imports increased from 33 billion to 46 billion. And- you can be sure that our agri imports exceed that projected 60.5 billion.

will CAFTA increase exports of American agricultural products or not?

I believe that CAFTA will increase some exports and allow much more imports- not to mention disrupt those countries economies just like Mexico's.

Finally, why is running a trade deficit bad?

A trade deficit in itself is not a bad thing. Inducing a trade deficit and disrupting our country in the manner that GATT, NAFTA, and the WTO have done has hurt many unnecessarily.

Trade tarriffs are not the devil. We have used them for a variety of reasons since Thomas Jefferson. Germany and Japan's economies were completely destroyed after WWII. We have had a "slight" advantage of winning the war and an intact manufacturing base to build our wealth on. It is apples and oranges to compare us and them. Somehow we had tariffs on their products in the 20th century and our economy was just fine.

[snowrip]

Riiiiiiight... have you missed the news about our trade deficits, loss of manufacturing jobs, and other "real" economic concerns? Artificially inflating real wages by increasing the minimum wage doesn't benefit anyone. Neither deoes 21 million new jobs at Wendy's, Macdonald's, and Home Depot.

[moehoward]

In other words, go ahead with the what most likely cause the influx without doing preemptive work first.

The only saving grace I see is that Mexico is fairly diligent about guarding it's southern border.

[moehoward]

Keep reading, it gets better.

[oceanview]

all this "free trade is great", economy is booming, etc.

Bush has the lowest ratings of his presidency on economic issues right now. Why? Gas prices, and the fear americans have because they see what is happening to their jobs because of globalization. you need only look as far as the article about HP this week - layoffs, offshoring, stripping of pension and medical benefits. the new jobs being created simply don't measure up in terms of wages and compensation. and personal debt level are at record highs, things like interest only mortgages are becoming the norm for younger people (the ones who aren't living in their parent's basements into their 30s).

our party is going to be in big trouble at the polls unless it gets a real economic message. CAFTA, free trade with China, and the coming FTAA, isn't it.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Expat is correct; the Article in question says no such thing. (As Expat has already posted it here, in this thread, I won't "dogpile" by doing so again.)

Here's what IS specifically stated: Annex 8.3 states, under the subsection "Evidence of Injury and Causation," that any "petitions or complaints" lodged against the United States WILL BE ARBITRATED by "a competent investigating authority."

Pay attention now, kids. Annex 8.7, "Country-Specific Definitions," SPECIFICALLY STATES: "... in the case of the United States," the competent investigating authority is "the U.S. International Trade Commission."

NOT, as has been falsely (and repeatedly) claimed, throughout this thread, the United Nations.

"Game, set and match," as they say.

[snowrip]

This bill is roughly 30% about trade regulation. The other 70% is about creating new government control over industry, and part of that control comes from outside the United States!!!

The Republican party can kiss my family's votes and money goodbye. I am offically a Libertarian.

[Age of Reason]

The freer the markets the freer the people!

What is to prevent all jobs eventually from being done more cheaply overseas?

I see nothing to stop it except a few more technological advances.

If that were to happen, would you still be celebrating?

Can we really be a nation of gas station attendants and waitresses, buying from each other and the world?

[printhead]

Other than jobs, I don't see what we export to Mexico and China in particular. Here in Rochester, NY I have watched 3M
relocate to Mexico, several friends from Kodak go to Mexico for 6 month temporary assignment to train their replacements,
and Delphi and Valeo move operations to Mexico. One of the largest commercial printers in the Notheast, Case-Hoyt has closed its' 5 acre (under 1 roof) printing plant and is now a mail-order warehouse for stuff from China. I think CAFTA is just more NAFTA.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Neither deoes 21 million new jobs at Wendy's, Macdonald's, and Home Depot.

Wow, didn't realize those 3 companies employed so many. You have any facts to prove whatever point you're trying to make? Or did you just have to vent your feelings?

[expat_panama]

"the ICSID Convention...   ...subject to UN arbitration."    -antisocial

"There you go again" -Ronald Reagan

From here:   ICSID is an autonomous international organization. However, it has close links with the World Bank. All of ICSID's members are also members of the Bank."   

From here:  "   Paul Wolfowitz became the tenth president of the World Bank Group on June 1, 2005. The nomination of Mr. Wolfowitz was unanimously approved by the Bank's Board of Directors on March 31."    The president of the US nominated Wolfowitz and the nomination was approved by the US Senate..

[NRA2BFree]

Clemenza 1, NRA2BFree 0

Clemenza -1, Darkwolf377 -1 NRA2BFree +1

When you see that I'm right, I won't say "I told you so." LOL I honestly hope you're right, and I hope I'm wrong. I only want what's best for America, and I'm not ashamed to admit when I'm wrong. ;o)

[Nachum]

I think CAFTA is just more NAFTA.

Bingo.

[Darkwolf377]

I only want what's best for America, and I'm not ashamed to admit when I'm wrong. ;o)

The problem with some on your side, not necessarily you but others on this thread with your position, is that they claim they only want what's best for America without allowing that so do the rest of us. And no, I don't think it's equal on both sides of this issue; the most vitriolic are those opposed, who seem to think they have a copyright on caring for America's interests. They can't seem to grasp that the rest of us care just as much, we merely believe in different means to the same end.

I come here for debate, and when folks start getting on their high horses and bragging that because they believe in Answer A THEY are the ones who care about America, while someone else who doesn't is somehow suspect. Again, I'm not accusing you of that, but those on your side of this issue often project that belief.

I'm sure others see it differently, but I'm not interested in the PC "Everybody does it" thing, I'm interested in calling 'em like I see 'em.

[Age of Reason]

I deem it most important that Americans should have as wide a choice of careers in this country as possible.

American kids should have the opportunity to make a career in science and technology, law--

Or the opportunity to make a career as a factory or other blue collar worker.

That is freedom--the freedom to choose work that you most enjoy doing.

The rest is de facto slavery.

[superiorslots]

Quote: What is to prevent all jobs eventually from being done more cheaply overseas?


A college friend is an architect. He was also a free trader. No longer. Architecture jobs are starting to be sent to india in droves. He said americans are still drawing the outside of the buildings because we know what fits "culturly" in a given local. However the plans are sent to india where they design the inside structure/heating/ HVAC etc. Very easy to download state codes.

[TomasUSMC]

Your chart shows the three biggest drops in wages in the last year of the chart, so in other words wages are starting to fall. I agree.