Posted on 07/25/2005 4:03:34 PM PDT by Happy2BMe
Gutknecht hints he'll vote against CAFTA
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change our U.S. laws to comply with these free trade agreements," Gutknecht said, citing an export subsidy law Congress rescinded after it was ruled illegal by the World Trade Organization.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.
Nope. I meant to include ignorant isolationists in my link since they are in bed with the commies and global socialists on this one. I just forgot to do it.
A better question would be, how do you feel about being aligned with the Castro communists (CISPES) ,SEPA, The Freedom Socialist Party, Progressive Democrats of America, Public Citizen, The Social Welfare Action Committee and La Raza?
Schlafly is rock solid on family issues but she has joined the right wing wacko fringe on CAFTA and seems paranoid in her assessment of CFR.
I've read some of the CFR report and found that they are saying that the three countries have lots of common interests, especially border security and economic development. To address these common concerns that all three countries share, they should work together. That means that when someone on a watch list enters Mexico, the US government gets alerted. That means that the Three work together to patrol the borders of the continent, rather than the US ineffectively stopping terrorists from crossing into the US. I haven't seen what Schlafly is describing and believe she is taking great license with her interpretation of their wording.
Of course, others will disagree and that's just fine. The CFR is not a government agency, it's an independent committee. It has no power. This is a work group, independent even from the CFR, that the CFR commissioned to study these problems and to make recommendations. Its not policy, and its still entirely up to the government and the people to enact any of their suggestions.
To accomplish what the tin-foilers are claiming, our government would have to amend the Constitution. Bush is struggling just to get CAFTA passed by congress and you guys think that the U.S. is imminently going to change our Constitution in favor of becoming the Union of North America! How do you sleep at night with all those monsters under your bed?
The Republican Liberty Caucus, which is endorsed by Free Republic opposes CAFTA. Are you saying that we are an "extreme right wing" forum?
As I pointed out to Dane, CAFTA is opposed by the Republican Liberty Caucus, which is endorsed by FR and is allowed to host their forum on their servers. I would hardly consider FR to be an extremist "bircher" site.
Conservatives are divided on CAFTA and so is this forum.
Fair enough. I would not consider every freeper who opposes this to be a "Bircher" though. There is room within mainstream conservatism to debate the merits of CAFTA IMO.
Thanks for the informative article. Actuallly, the Bush administration is citing the same BS that we had about NAFTA. IIRC, I think we pumped in over a half million dollars into Mexico from the American taxpayers in 2004. This is after 12 years of a failed policy. This year they will probably cost us much more with the promises of HUD, the EPA, etc.
The free traders scream about subsidizing American farmers but you don't hear a peep out of them on subsidizing Mexico.
Are you sure about that? According to this link the National RLC supports CAFTA. I'm a member of the Florida Republican Liberty Caucus and this is what they said about CAFTA:
RLCFL Stands Up for Freer Trade, Privacy
The RLC of Florida weighed in on two national issues in June, advocating the passage of the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) currently under consideration in the U.S. Congress, and protesting the Real ID Act, which received Congressional approval in May.
"In both of these issues, the RLC of Florida is standing up for individual liberty and reducing federal government intervention in people’s lives,” said RLCFL chair Al Gutierrez. “Americans should not pay hefty government tolls to engage in peaceful, voluntary trade with individuals and firms of other nations. Americans should not be tracked by internal passports.”
In both cases the RLC of Florida is echoing efforts of the national RLC earlier this year.
In the case of CAFTA,the national board of the RLC officially endorsed CAFTA at its monthly meeting in May (see story below). In mid-June, the RLC of Florida sent a copy of the RLC’s CAFTA resolution to every Republican member of Florida’s Congressional delegation, urging them to vote for the measure. A vote is imminent.
The letter noted the broad support for CAFTA by libertarian organizations, including the Cato Institute, Reason Foundation, Competitive Enterprise Institute, FreedomWorks, National Taxpayers Union, Americans for Tax Reform and the Council of Citizens Against Government Waste. CAFTA has also received support from the national Libertarian Party, the International Society for Individual Liberty, the James Madison Institute, Club for Growth, and the Movimiento Libertario, the libertarian party of Costa Rica.
Like other libertarian organizations, the RLC opposes many individual provisions of the agreement, but recognizes the substantial net benefit in terms of personal and economic freedom for individuals.
If conservatives won't stand up for freedom, who will?
There's room to debate it, but all the previous votes on free trade agreements indicate overwhelming conservative support. If it doesn't pass in the House, it won't be because of the John Birch wing of the party. It will be because of liberals teaming up with Republicans afraid of the sugar farmers.
Sorry to disappoint you but I am not aligned with any of those you mentioned. It seems they have their reasons for opposing CAFTA and I have mine. It is still a free country, isn't it? If aligning people who you "think" and "label" as commies, you lose.
Well, I read your website, so be a big boy and read mine.
Actually, you should be proud of your website.
http://www.ftaa-alca.org Click on the ftaa, then in the left hand corner click on the AZ list. Scroll down to the Santiago summit and click, then read Nuevo Leon.
When ;you finish, we will discuss socialism from the official FTAA website.
I'll have to go back to an e-mail I received a few weeks ago. Perhaps it was another organization. I will let you know.
JMC probably got his cue from Ron Paul, who is against everything and then writes a 30 page mini-novel about his vote.
It's really no disappointment, I just wanted you to know that the communists (Who do you think CISPES is if not communist?) are really against CAFTA. They hate freer trade because it embraces freedom and empowers people resulting in increased per-capita GDP. This hurts their ability to rally the people into believing that Marx, Lenin, Guevara, Castro, Chavez etc. have a better way. You're against CAFTA because you believe it will take power away from the people. Interesting dichotomy, eh?
Actually, you should be proud of your website.
You must have me mistaken for another person. That website listed one-worlder global socialists, communists and ignorant isolationists against CAFTA. It's a sad commentary and nothing to be proud of.
As for your website....
Is it the
Santiago Summit - Declaration of Principals or Plan of Action?
Or
Santiago - 1998 - Declaration of Principals or Plan of Action?
Instead of playing hide and seek, why not be a big boy and link us to the page you think will relieve us of our sovereignty.
Actually, upon further review, the e-mail against CAFTA was from the Liberty Committee. Sorry about the mix-up.
Actually, Ron Paul is the head of the Republican Liberty Caucus which supports CAFTA. I personally don't know enough about it to have an informed opinion as of yet, but I have seen freepers I respect argue for and against it.
I think you'll find that most of 'us' are against corporate welfare of any kind. That is, if we are given a chance to say so. If you are really championing eliminating government waste, your time would be better spent marshaling your forces to oppose increased entitlement spending. But, that's not your agenda here, is it?
Of course, those of us here who have ever been responsible for running a business and making it profitable, understand the difference between investment spending and welfare. One creates a return the other doesn't.
Actually, it exposes you for a fraud when you so flagrantly misrepresent others comments. For someone so sensitive to how others are perceived and labeled, you sure are quick to point the finger and call fellow FReepers Fascists.
You are perfectly willing for the federal government to grow out of its bounds and do things it was never chartered to do in the name of a global socialist trading system
Once again, you misrepresent. I made it clear I am opposed to government spending of this kind. Since when is economic freedom a socialist ideal? You possess a very warped view of economics and what constitutes freedom. Our addiction to entitlements will bring this country down faster than the minuscule amount we spend on trade building which, in the long run, generates additional exports of American goods and services resulting in new jobs, increased per-capita GDP and tax receipts for the government. Businesses should be doing this for themselves but you really have your priorities mixed up.
But you're not really about government spending, are you? I can't decide if you just hold American business in such incredible contempt or if you are really trying to create an issue to provide the impetus for helping to build a viable third-party.
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.