Gutknecht hints he'll vote against CAFTA

DuluthSuperior ^

[Happy2BMe]

Gutknecht hints he'll vote against CAFTA

FREDERIC J. FROMMER
Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Rep. Gil Gutknecht, the last remaining undecided Minnesota lawmaker on the proposed Central American Free Trade Agreement, is hinting he'll vote against the deal when it comes up in the House later this week.

Gutknecht has declined recent interview requests on the vote, but in a weekly letter to constituents last Friday, he wrote, "If I were to vote on CAFTA today, I would vote no."

Gutknecht, a Republican from Rochester who generally supports free trade but often bucks his own party, said he agreed with critics that the deal needs to be fixed.

"Unfortunately, we can't amend it here in the House," he said on his radio show on Friday. "We have to either vote for it or it has to be defeated. Now if it's defeated, I think it can be fixed relatively quickly, on about three fronts."

Gutknecht said those fronts were immigration, sovereignty and farm policy.

In the constituent letter, Gutknecht said he was worried about language in the proposed deal that would allow international companies to take the United States to a trade tribunal over alleged "unnecessary barriers to trade in services."

"So, preventing a company from bringing in foreign workers could prompt a foreign company to file a trade dispute claim against the United States," he said.

"Another problem is that we are being forced to change our U.S. laws to comply with these free trade agreements," Gutknecht said, citing an export subsidy law Congress rescinded after it was ruled illegal by the World Trade Organization.

He also expressed concern that the deal would let in more sugar than called for in the farm bill. The Bush administration has agreed to offset those increases by either compensating exporting countries for not sending sugar here, or converting the excess sugar into ethanol. But the American sugar industry has remained opposed to the deal, noting the concessions apply only until the end of 2007, when the farm bill expires.

"I don't have a lot of sugar beet growers in my district, but those I do know are just regular folk," Gutknecht said. "They are not the big, bad sugar farmers they are being made out to be. Many have mortgaged their farms to invest in sugar refinery co-ops. They are scared to death that they will lose their farms because of CAFTA."

Gutknecht declined an interview request on Monday.

Phillip Hayes, a spokesman for the American Sugar Alliance, which is leading the effort to derail the deal, said he was happy about Gutknecht's statements.

"Representative Gutknecht recognizes the harm that CAFTA would cause the 46,000 sugar workers and farmers in the Red River Valley," he said. Minnesota is the nation's largest producer of sugar beets.

Officials with the U.S. Trade Representative's office, which is promoting the deal for the Bush administration, and the House Ways and Means Committee, which passed the deal in the House, declined to comment Monday on Gutknecht's statements.

CAFTA would bring six Latin American countries - El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and the Dominican Republic - into the open U.S. market that now includes Mexico and Canada.

The Senate approved the deal last month, with Minnesota Sen. Norm Coleman, a Republican, voting yes and Minnesota Sen. Mark Dayton, a Democrat, voting no. In the House, all four Democrats from Minnesota are opposed, while the three Republicans besides Gutknecht are in favor. The vote this week in the House is expected to be close.

[Happy2BMe]

Cracks are appearing in the dam . .

[Happy2BMe]

CAFTA may not hafta shaftus afta all . .

(Genuine Republicans to the rescue?)

==================================

Gutknecht has declined recent interview requests on the vote, but in a weekly letter to constituents last Friday, he wrote, "If I were to vote on CAFTA today, I would vote no."

Gutknecht said those fronts were immigration, sovereignty and farm policy.

[Dog Gone]

Yeah, we gotta protect those welfare queens growing sugar beets from the real world. Can't have them switching to carrots or something.

[international american]

BTTT

[hedgetrimmer]

I just got a phone call from the Hispanic Business Alliance. They are trying to drum up support for the CAFTA.

They must be fairly desperate.

[Happy2BMe]

And getting moreso by the moment . .

==================================

Arizona Republican Assembly Votes Unanimously to Censure Senator McCain (July, 2005)

[hedgetrimmer]

welfare queens

The truly gargantuan welfare queens are the "least developed countries" who are getting welfare through "trade capacity building" paid for out of the taxes withheld from the paychecks of the average working Americans.

What right does our government have to take money from working Americans to give to these countries with their corrupt governments?

The businesses who want to relocate there should pay their own expenses, or maybe their business model isn't so great if they need the US taxpayer to give them an entre into these countries, and to insure them if things go sour.

[DuckFan4ever]

Sounds like a guy waiting until CAFTA has enough votes to pass then he will cast an empty no vote.

[Dog Gone]

Really. Compare and contrast the costs of CAFTA with the farm bill.

By the way, most farmers support CAFTA since it will increase farm exports.

Thought you might be interested in that.

[tickles]

I farm, I don't support CAFTA, I'm one of those who don't. CAFTA will NOT increase our exports, how could it since the countries it is making 'take' our exports don't have the money to pay for them. Doesn't make sense, we buy thiers but to send ours to them, well if they do import our crops it's probably with our money given to their country.

Can't figure out why so many farmers (and free traders) think that CAFTA will improve markets, I have no doubt that any 'developing' country if it did take our crops will default on the loans that were required to pay for them. so we'll pay twice, once to pay them to take them plus the $$ we have to pay to take what they insist through courts that we have to take.

So exactly who is the 'welfare queen'? the US farmer who gets a subsidy, or the 'developing' country who gets 'loans' from our goverment to buy (maybe) our exports and then not 'repay' the 'loan' (subsidy).

[Dog Gone]

I've read through the text of CAFTA and I don't see where it provides for loans to buy our products. Maybe I missed it and you have a cite to the specific provisions.

[hedgetrimmer]

Whatever you think about farm subsidies, there is one HUGE difference between them and CAFTA.

The farm bill supports DOMESTIC production, i.e. US Citizens and our food security.

The CAFTA supports FOREIGN production, FOREIGN farmers and FOREIGN governments.

Since our government was designed to protect the rights of individuals (citizens), the CAFTA is antithetical to the purpose of the federal government.

BTW CAFTA harms individual citizens, workers and landholders in this country, but subsidizes investors with capital that can move from country to country. By this alone, CAFTA harms the domestic economy and should be thrown out because of it.

[hedgetrimmer]

Not loans it gives away money. Look at provisions on "trade capacity building". Not only do we give away money, which is basically ripped out of the paychecks of the American working people to be redistributed, but the CAFTA creates an expensive bureaucracy called the trade council to do it, which is unconstitutional in that it deprives the citizen the right to have access to this governmental agency through elected representation.

But that is why the CAFTA is supported by the transnational corporations. It gets pesky citizens exercising their rights out of the loop of government spending so that they can have all the power to direct our tax money in favor of their businesses.

[Dog Gone]

CAFTA removes the tariffs on our exports.

That makes them more affordable.

CAFTA makes these countries respect out patents on drugs.

CAFTA allows our companies to compete in Central America against what were formerly government monopolies.

None of that sounds like good news to you.

[hedgetrimmer]

None of that sounds like good news to you.

Not when it diminishes our rights as citizens. How can you support something that does that and call yourself an American?

The last couple of generations have done little to protect our rights, and now it appears we have a minority of people who are willing to give away other peoples rights because they think they are going to make money off of it.

Its despicable.

[Dog Gone]

Not one of these trade agreements has diminished one of my rights as a US citizen in the slightest. I can proudly call myself an American because I don't subscribe to a philosophy that tells me what to think.

Your mileage apparently varies.

[texastoo]

Which welfare queens are you talking about? The US sugar growers or the CAFTA country sugar growers. Please explain paragraph 9 in the above article. It looks to me like we will be "subsidizing" other countries not to grow sugar.

I guess that it is OK to subsidize the welfare queens of CAFTA countries.

[tickles]

The money doesn't come through CAFTA, it comes through all the 'loans' and 'grants' that we send to countries in the 'developing' world.

I do know that alot of people refuse to see it the way I see it. So be it. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Gutnecht, my representative. (I'll have to write him and let him know no vote if he votes for this in ANY form)

[hedgetrimmer]

Not one of these trade agreements has diminished one of my rights as a US citizen in the slightest

Yes they do. The more unelected bureaucrats you have distributing your money, the less authority you have. Or don't you care?

[Dog Gone]

Bush is only offering to do that because of the whining American sugar farmers who are already protected from being competitive. It's not part of CAFTA. It's part of a side deal to buy off the welfare queens.