Posted on 05/27/2005 5:52:33 PM PDT by bayourod
The Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) voted 14-1 Tuesday night to oppose the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), with four Texans abstaining and one voting against the position.
The four who abstained — Democratic Reps. Charles Gonzalez, Ruben Hinojosa, Solomon Ortiz and Silvestre Reyes — are all publicly undecided about the sweeping trade agreement, but pro-CAFTA forces have said they believe they have secured the support of Ortiz and Reyes. keri rasmussen Rep. Charles Gonzalez was one of four Texas Democrats to abstain.
The CHC will circulate its opposition statement this morning and make it public later in the afternoon, according to several sources.
“We said that, whatever the vote was, we could continue with our positions,” said Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), who opposed the caucus stance.
“I abstained because I haven’t made up my mind yet,” Gonzalez said.
“The way I look at it is we’ve taken a position. It’s not a secret,” he said, adding, “We have a good-faith difference” within the caucus.
CHC Chairwoman Grace Napolitano (D-Calif.) declined an opportunity to discuss the matter. “No, I don’t want to talk to the press, thank you,” she said.
A CHC spokeswoman did not respond to a request for comment.
Not every member of the caucus was present, but Tuesday night’s meeting satisfied the group’s majority quorum requirements.
Cuellar, one of four House Democrats to back CAFTA publicly, has begun to couch his support for the agreement with five Central American countries and the Dominican Republic as a way to improve the quality of life for Hispanics in the hemisphere. That echoes an argument made by leaders of the affected countries when they lobbied on the Hill last week for congressional passage.
“We tend to forget about the civil unrest in the 1980s in Central America, so it’s important that we build up democracies,” Cuellar said.
He also cited the need to stem illegal immigration as another reason for supporting CAFTA. “I talk to my border patrol all the time, and the largest increase among aliens is OTMs — other than Mexicans,” he said. “If we want to address immigration, we need to create jobs down there.”
However, official opposition from the 21-member group could blunt Cuellar’s pan-Hispanic argument and opened up a clear divide in the caucus on how free-trade agreements affect both their districts and the native countries of many of their constituents.
Hinojosa’s press secretary, Ciaran Clayton, said: “He’s essentially undecided on the issue. Our district has a lot of cotton and sugar interests as well as some manufacturing, and we’re meeting with all sides.”
Meanwhile, Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez was on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, meeting with House Republican leaders on how to win passage, as well as with undecided Democratic lawmakers. But opponents, such as Oxfam, were canvassing the Hill as well, and also met with undecided lawmakers.
Some Republicans privately said that the White House was not working hard enough to pass the trade measure.
“A lot more needs to be done to get CAFTA passed on Capitol Hill than an op-ed in The Washington Post,” a GOP leadership aide said, referring to an opinion piece written by Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick.
“It needs to get done from the top down. It needs to be the president of the United States and his Cabinet pushing for this if they want to get it done,” the aide continued.
The CHC will join the New Democrat Coalition in opposing CAFTA, although a sprinkling of members of that group are supporting the measure.
The Congressional Black Caucus has not taken an official position on CAFTA at this time, a CBC spokesman said.
The four House Democrats publicly supporting CAFTA are Cuellar and Reps. William Jefferson (La.), Jim Moran (Va.) and Norm Dicks (Wash.). Business organizations and Republicans say they will need roughly 20 Democrats to pass the measure.
Is this what it's all about or am I missing something?
I'll bet alot of these dems are against it because it would hurt Hugo Chavez
"Is this what it's all about or am I missing something?"
He can be bought out just like any politician.
The bigger news is the vote eviserates the elitist view that Hispanic Americans would vote against the interests of Americans just because some bill would arguably (doubtful) help their supposed ethnic brethren in other countries. It's a white elitist view, both on Repub. and Dem. sides, thinking they know how minorities in this country think and what is best for them. they're Chiracesque.
That said, the arrogance about how Hispanic Americans should think about CAFTA or illegal immigration pales in front of the stupidity of the Social Security "privatization" supporters without shame announcing Blacks should support it because they die "earlier." Stupid White People indeed (sorry to borrow a Moore-ism)
they're on the wrong side of this.
no cafta will cost mexicans working in america jobs.
Good.
I suspect Cuellar would switch parties if he thought he could hold his seat running as a Republican (his seat was carried by Bush in 2004). Republican Hispanics have a great future in Texas, if they can demonstrate that they can cut into the Hispanic vote ala Bush.
yeah, but it will cost you too.
you being americans.
one advantage for americans of cafta is to open markets in central america where there are high import fees.
another is to lessen the influence of china.
I happen to agree with the view of those that say that Soc. Security privatization would be a LOT more fair to blacks than the system we have now...
As far as Hispanics and Cafta---isn't it nice to see a minority caucus that doesn't vote lockstep either with one party or with each other...refreshing, I would say.
But isn't this caucus a strong supporter of NAFTA?
Perhaps. We shall see.
No jobs for illegal aliens is a good thing. A very good thing.
The Hispanic caucus is sensitive to Mexican concerns, not central American ones, for obvious reasons.
the most powerful resistance to cafta is coming from the sugar industry in the u.s.
u.s. sugar is VERY over-priced. so over-priced that some candy manufacturers have moved overseas and to canada, costing us jobs.
some of the hispanics are surrogates of the u.s. sugar industry, since immigrants work in the u.s. sugar industry primarily in florida.
it's lose some immigrant u.s. sugar jobs vs. gain a lot of exports for the united states with access to central america.
Clearly, there are white Republicans who represent significant populations of both groups. If these caucuses are not simply racist thug hang outs, what purpose do they serve. Why are they allowed to exist?
It would be nice to get Coca-Cola made with real sugar, but the corn growing Senators might not find that too tasty.
Yeah, I get the same uplifted feeling when black Democrats vote against voucher programs and economic opportunity for inner city blacks. Choose your party over your people! Woo-hoo! Idealism wins!
Thought you might be interested.
Thanks for the ping Just.
Cafta evil twin of Nafta.
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.