Posted on 07/27/2005 10:42:51 AM PDT by Happy2BMe
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush urged Republican hold outs on Wednesday to back a controversial free trade agreement with Central America, and party leaders predicted he would win but only after a tough fight for votes.
"The president reminded us that we come here not only to represent our district but to represent the nation," House of Representatives Majority Leader Tom DeLay told reporters after a Capitol Hill meeting between Bush and House Republicans, many of whom have opposed it on the grounds that it will hurt industries in their regions. "It will be a tough vote but we'll pass CAFTA tonight," the Texas Republican said. "We will honor our commitments to the south, we will protect our national security and will do it all with very few Democrats."
The long-awaited vote would end months of uncertainty about the fate of the U.S.-Central American Free Trade Agreement, or CAFTA, which lowers trade barriers between the United States, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic.
The White House has a harder time rounding up votes for CAFTA than for any other recent trade pact because of stiff opposition from many Republicans in textile and sugar-producing states who fear it will cause job losses.
In addition, most Democrats oppose CAFTA on the grounds that its labor provisions are not tough enough for a region with a poor record on workers' rights. The White House says the labor provisions are stronger than any previous trade agreement and consistent with guidelines Congress set in 2002.
Bush appealed to House Republicans to put aside any "parochial interests" they might have about CAFTA and look at the broader benefits of the pact to the United States and the six other countries, DeLay said.
"It is good for our national security in supporting these fledging democracies at our back door. It is good in our effort against illegal immigration. It is good for our economy," DeLay said.
DeLay said Republicans would gavel the CAFTA vote to a close "when we get 218," the number of votes needed for approval. Republican leaders have angered Democrats in the past by holding votes open until they finally pressure enough party members to vote the way the leadership wants.
CHINA TRADE VOTE
Several Republicans from the textile states of South Carolina, Alabama and Georgia are expected to support CAFTA after reaching a deal with Republican leaders and U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman to address specific concerns.
However, many Republicans from North Carolina -- which has experienced heavy textile job losses -- have remained opposed.
The Bush administration also has made promises aimed at reducing sugar industry opposition to the pact, but many Republicans from sugar-producing states such as Louisiana, Florida, Montana and Idaho continue to have concerns.
The vote on CAFTA will be proceeded by a vote on Republican bill aimed at addressing a number of trade issues with China. House leaders expect to pick up the support of some Republicans in industrial states like Pennsylvania with that bill.
Only six Democrats have publicly announced their support for CAFTA. Portman told Reuters he remained hopeful that many more would vote for it in the end, but declined to give any estimate.
Portman said he had just come from a meeting with three undecided Democrats and they had refused to tell him on they planned to vote on CAFTA.
Just heard an interesting analysis of CAFTA by a former trade official/lawyer now with Public Citizen. She said it's a thousand pages of laws, of which forty pages deal with the substance of trade between the US and Central America, the rest is all international gobbledygook, including the fact that domestically produced goods/deals will have to abide by international laws, and goodbye sovereignty. If you liked NAFTA, you'll love CAFTA. We saw a modest trade surplus plunge into hideous deficits, thanks to NAFTA, and Mexican farmers were ruined by the influx of US vegetables, etc.. It made the illegal alien problem far worse, displacing so many Mexican peasants who were unable to make a living thanks to NAFTA, and they all headed North. Now we'll do it to Central America.
All sources are biased in one way or another. Having said that, the numbers speak for themselves. Any think tank that supports the free market seems to be more open and honest than let's say the AFL-CIO "think" tank.
Yes but - Clinton gave us NAFTA, and Bush is about to give us CAFTA. Who wants to join me in a phone campaign to ask Virgil Goode REP VA(former Democrat) to start a new party for the American worker. Virgil is now a Repug but is totally against this bill.
Well the founders could not foresee the rapid transformations in the world, now could they? Or maybe you view the founders's words as immutable...kinda like religious universals...I keep my Bible and the "founders' writings on economic matters separate thank you.
Try the Heritage Foundation too - lots of important info there.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/TradeandForeignAid/hl872.cfm
Could you be just a little more vague and simplistic about all these alleged benefits we've rec'd from NAFTA?
The CAFTA proponents insist this will create huge trade markets with South America by opening up these markets to U.S. commerce - among which U.S. Agriculture would be one of the largest benefactors.
That is the theory. That was also the theory and justification for NAFTA.
It is VOODOO on steroids laced with LSD and heroin.
Then by what authority do you consider opposition to so called free trade agreements 'un-American'? I'm interested in your thought process here.
From what I see it sounds like an excellent approach tp development...seems to foster better and more open government and less corruption. Certainly lots better than what we have now.
http://www.ustr.gov/Document_Library/Fact_Sheets/2003/Highlights_of_Trade_Capacity_Building_Initiatives_in_Support_of_U.S.-CAFTA_Negotiations.html
The heritage foundation just parrots the Council on Foreign Relations. They are internationalists throught and through.
You are so right and this is the third reason why Bush has lost my confidence and trust.
The opposition to CAFTA as a form of discussion is not unAmerican. However the drive to build walls and retire into a shell is.
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.