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.
Chicago, that explains it then.
You say this but show no proof. Did we start to lose these jobs in 1994? 1995? 1996?
Be more specific.
Explains what? Why I prefer more trade to less? Lower tariffs to higher? What exactly does it explain?
You're a lazy lout, who is calling me a liar, because YOU refuse to do your own scut work and don't read enough threads here.
It explains that, being from Chicago, you don't understand the plight of the manufactoring community, particularly those that are losing their jobs. Please refer to the statement from Congressman Howard Coble.
I don't think "open" borders is the right way to describe those who believe in free trade.
Open borders implies there is no control about what or who comes across a border.
Free trade is compatible with security checks for both goods and people coming across, and can designate certain goods and certain people as illegal for entry.
Open borders does not describe my position at all.
Chicago hasn't lost any manufacturing jobs? Chicago recently lost a lot of candy manufacturing jobs because sugar quotas make American sugar 2 to 3 times as expensive as the world price.
When "big lenders" have to mark up their goods and credit card and other interest rates to offset losses from bankruptcy filers, that means AMERICANS like you and me pay more for goods and services.
The only ones stung in a bankruptcy filing are not "big lenders." There are many small business owners and small retired landlords who get stung with uncollectable bills.
And since when is it good for Americans to not learn to be careful with their borrowing, especially the free for fall use of credit cards? Responsibility and accountability are not good values for Americans???
The majority of NC's economy relies on manufactoring, Chicago's does not. My friends and neighbors will feel many more negative effects than yours will. Those candy manufactoring jobs could have been saved by some protective sugar tariffs. Sugar farmers would have appreciated them too.
You should be beat with a stick for wanting to throw many Americans out of work just so you can save a couple of dollars. I'll pay a couple of dollars more so people can have jobs. If you worked in a textile mill here in NC and CAFTA was going to threat your job, I bet you would think differently.
Maybe you should come to NC and I can let you talk to some furniture and textile workers who have lost their jobs or those whose jobs are in jeopardy. I can give you a tour of empty manufactoring plants that have been shut down. Maybe here in NC you can also get a taste of what its like to live as a blue collar working class person. What political party runs Chicago again?
Yeah, with OPM. (A term we use a lot in Chicago).
North Carolinas top manufactured export to the CAFTA-DR group is fabrics: in 2004, the state exported fabrics valued at $361 million. North Carolinas other four leading exports to the CAFTA-DR area in 2004 were apparel ($347 million); fibers, yarns, and threads ($324 million); knit apparel ($189 million); and apparel accessories ($106 million).CAFTA-DR provides regional garment-makersand their U.S. suppliers of fabric and yarna critical advantage in competing with Asia. Garments made in the region will be duty-free and quota-free under the agreement only if they use U.S. fabric and yarn, thereby supporting U.S. exports and jobs. Textile and garment factories in Central America and the Dominican Republic purchase large amounts of fabric and yarn from the United States: the region is the second-largest world market for these U.S. products.
Source (.pdf file)
Now we are going to be exported millions of jobs too!! Please refer to Congressman Howard Coble's remarks. He's a Congressman. I know alot myself. I just graduated from Wake Forest University with a degree in Political Science. I'm sorry you want to starve people to save a couple of bucks.
The feeling is mutual. I'm sorry that you want to starve people to save a couple jobs.
Source?
Those candy manufactoring jobs could have been saved by some protective sugar tariffs.
Actually these jobs were destroyed by sugar tariffs. The tariffs raised the cost of manufacturing here. So they moved.
Sugar farmers would have appreciated them too.
These sugar farmers are charging double or triple the world price of sugar. And only 300,000,000 million Americans are being overcharged.
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.