LaTourette voted on CAFTA before getting tariff report

Yes, he urged Rep. Steve LaTourette to support the controversial Central American Free Trade Agreement. And LaTourette in the end did, voting with colleagues in the middle of the night and surprising scores of people who had believed him when he said he intended to vote no.

But U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman apparently is touchy about how people see his role in a matter that has blown up in LaTourette's face. And as the week ended, he let people know it.

A Plain Dealer examination last week showed that the Lake County Republican's explanation for his July 28 vote was built upon a set of phony reasons.

LaTourette had said he voted for CAFTA in order to eliminate plywood tariffs that were squeezing KraftMaid, the Middlefield- based kitchen cabinet maker. Without some relief, LaTourette said, KraftMaid might have to move jobs out of the United States.

LaTourette's office said the congressman based this belief not only on a conversation with KraftMaid president Tom Chieffe the afternoon before the vote, but also on a document listing base tariffs, provided by Portman's office after the Chieffe conversation.

That document made it appear as if KraftMaid and others are indeed paying 8 percent tariffs on the plywood they import from Central America.

But The Plain Dealer documented that due to other trade regulations, Central American plywood already is exempt from tariffs due; that no company is getting dinged, let along squeezed, by such purported tariffs, and that those who relied on lists of base tariffs from Port man's office would be mistaken.

And so Portman, who lives in Cincinnati when not in Washington or traveling, on Friday called into "The Whistleblower," a widely read Cincinnati-based Web log, according to Jim Schifrin, the blog publisher.

Portman apparently wanted it known that he had not "arm- twisted" LaTourette, as the blog suggested Thursday when mentioning The Plain Dealer story. The blog is widely disseminated by e-mail.

In fact, according to Schifrin, Portman told him that it was not until well after the CAFTA vote that Portman's office sent LaTourette the document that listed base tariffs.

Portman's press secretary, Neena Moorjani, confirmed the same to The Plain Dealer, and said the document wasn't sent until Aug. 5 - eight days after the CAFTA vote.

That's a far cry from LaTourette's staff-written statement that said LaTourette asked Portman about the issue before the vote and that Portman's office "provided the congressman with a document . . ." The statement failed to mention that LaTourette's office asked for the document more than a week after the fact.

LaTourette's district director, Dino DiSanto, late Friday acknowledged that LaTourette did not have the document from Portman at the time of the vote. But he said LaTourette had basically the same information because his office had looked it up on the trade representative's Web site.

"I think getting information from the Web site is what we did," DiSanto said. He acknowledged the office only sought the hard document from Portman's office after The Plain Dealer started asking about the tariff issue.

This all might appear nit-picky - whether a Web site or a hard document, it's all data - but it apparently matters to Portman. The Whistleblower, after all, is read by a lot of people in his hometown.

Portman's point, says Schifrin, was that if the information on tariffs was sent after the vote, "how could it have been made to influence the vote"

That doesn't mean, however, that Portman didn't try to twist LaTourette's arm some other way. LaTourette said in an interview after the CAFTA vote that Portman's office had called to ask if LaTourette wanted anything, implying that perhaps a bridge or construction project might be available for his district. LaTourette insisted his vote was not for sale.

Whether he ultimately will get something - or whether he gave away his vote - is one of the many questions surrounding the matter. So far LaTourette has avoided making a personal comment, having been in Alaska on a congressional trip and then going on vacation last week. KraftMaid's Chieffe, for two weeks, has declined through a spokeswoman a request for an interview or comment. Chieffe's boss at parent company Masco Corp., Richard Manoogian, a major Republican Party donor, also will not comment.

Told the tale of the document, Chris Slevin, a critic of the LaTourette vote, maintained that Portman and his office still were not absolved for LaTourette's faulty information, because "it's clear the information they provided was misleading," even if it was provided later.

"But," added Slevin, deputy director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, "I think the responsibility still lies with the congressman to research the facts before casting a vote."

. CAFTA contains over 1,000 pages of international law, establishing property rights for foreign corporations.

. Chapter 10 of CAFTA outlines a tribunal system under which foreign corporations, operating in the United States, are granted greater property rights than U.S. law provides for U.S. citizens.

. CAFTA empowers foreign corporations to go to the United Nations, and World Bank tribunals to challenge both state laws, and U.S. federal policies.

. Through international tribunals, foreign owned corporations can demand compensation, (funded by American taxpayer dollars) for the losses caused by complying with the policies and regulations that apply to all U.S. citizens and businesses.

-That's not encouraging free trade....that's giving away our national sovereignty.

. CAFTA contains over 1,000 pages of international law, establishing property rights for foreign corporations.

God, I hope so. I can't wait for those Central American powerhouses go up against the likes of Proctor & Gamble and General Electric.

. Chapter 10 of CAFTA outlines a tribunal system under which foreign corporations, operating in the United States, are granted greater property rights than U.S. law provides for U.S. citizens.

Oh, really? Care to provide the section of Chapter 10 where that is the case?

. CAFTA empowers foreign corporations to go to the United Nations, and World Bank tribunals to challenge both state laws, and U.S. federal policies.

Bzzt. There is a dispute process outlined in the Agreement, but nothing like the one "you" [I'm placing the quotation marks simply because I suspect you cut & pasted from some raving moonbat website] describe.

. Through international tribunals, foreign owned corporations can demand compensation, (funded by American taxpayer dollars) for the losses caused by complying with the policies and regulations that apply to all U.S. citizens and businesses.

I simply have to see this.

>"God, I hope so. I can't wait for those Central American powerhouses go up against the likes of Proctor & Gamble and General Electric."<

Glad you mentioned General Electric.
GE and several other "American" corporations have been doing business in Iran and Syria. Two countries well known to be involved in Islamic terrorism. Syria may well have taken in Saddams WOD's. But GE apparently, doesn't give a damn.

Is that in the best interests of America? I don't believe so. I'm not saying that all corporations are that bad, but they aren't neccessarlily concerned with the best interests of the American people, either. If an American corporation like GE has that little concern for our country, then how much less concern would foreign corporations have? I believe it's a legitimate question.

lightislife, I appreciate your comment, and it's a reasonable one. It's nice to have a polite and civil conversation about this. 1rudeboy; your nic is appropriate.

1rudeboy:>"I simply have to see this."<

I believe it's Annex 10-C
I believe Annex 10-F addresses appeals.

http://www.sice.oas.org/TPCStudies/USCAFTAChl_e/Matrix10.htm#Annex_10-FDRCAFTA

DR-CAFTA (Annex 10-F) states that within three months of the date of entry into force of the Agreement, the Commission shall establish a Negotiating Group to develop an appellate body or similar mechanism to review awards rendered by tribunals under the Investment Chapter. Such appellate body or similar mechanism shall be designed to provide coherence to the interpretation of investment provisions in the Agreement.

The Commission shall direct the Negotiating Group to take into account the following issues, among others: the nature and composition of an appellate body or similar mechanism; the applicable scope and standard of review; transparency of proceedings of an appellate body or similar mechanism; the effect of decisions by an appellate body or similar mechanism; the relationship of review by an appellate body or similar mechanism to the arbitral rules that may be selected; and the relationship of review by an appellate body or similar mechanism to existing domestic laws and international law on the enforcement of arbitral awards. The Commission shall direct the Negotiating Group to provide to the Commission, within one year of establishment of the Negotiating Group, a draft amendment to the Agreement that establishes an appellate body or similar mechanism.

Your reply says nothing of "compensation," or "property rights," and only marginally relates to the mechansim for dispute resolution contained in CAFTA. In other words, regardless of how rude you believe I am you have failed to respond, as I suspected you would. Perhaps it would have been easier to simply call your assertions false, but politely?

As for GE doing business with a terror-sponsoring state, that is a matter of U.S. foreign policy. GE is not an individual, it is an "it." It will do business where it feels it can make a profit, until it is told otherwise.

You can attempt to place public pressure on GE to divest, much like Nike was pressured about sweat-shops, but you will likely find few recruits here, and your energy would best be directed at the Legislative and Executive branches of government. In any case, I am more concerned with your notion that GE will be placed at some sort of a competitive disadvantage by the passage of CAFTA. On this thread at least, I prefer to discuss economics.

"Your reply says nothing of "compensation," or "property rights," and only marginally relates to the mechansim for dispute resolution contained in CAFTA. In other words, regardless of how rude you believe I am you have failed to respond, as I suspected you would. Perhaps it would have been easier to simply call your assertions false, but politely?"

http://www.sice.oas.org/TPCStudies/USCAFTAChl_e/Matrix10.htm

- Well, the establishment of international tribunals is there in the legalese, Chapter 10. I thought that was what you originally challenged me about. There's the link, research it, and refute it if you think it's incorrect:
http://www.sice.oas.org/TPCStudies/USCAFTAChl_e/Matrix10.htm

Several Republican congressman also say authorization for tribunals are in there. You can call them (and me) moonbats, if you so choose.
I suppose doing so, makes it easier to ignore the assertion about tribunals being conducted under the auspices of the U.N.

http://www.sice.oas.org/TPCStudies/USCAFTAChl_e/Matrix10.htm

>"In any case, I am more concerned with your notion that GE will be placed at some sort of a competitive disadvantage by the passage of CAFTA."<

_Perhaps you misunderstand my comments. I don't wish to see our corporations hampered, or forced offshore, by excessive regulation.
I merely used GE as an example, in that; just because a business wants to do something, it doesn't mean that it has the best interests of America, in it's business plans.

It's not in America's best interests to have companies like Loral and Hughes giving supercomputers or satellite launch technology to Communist China....and it's ALSO not in the interests of our country to give foreign corps the power to take our laws to an international tribunal.

If you want to bring business back to America, then support the abolishment of the federal income tax system, including abolishing all corporate tax.

I support the FairTax, and elimination of all corporate tax, which would bring more offshore business back to this country then all the "managed trade agreements" (1.) in the world.

1. (Milton Friedman said that these trade agreements are not "free trade agreements, but "managed trade agreements.)

There's the link, research it, and refute it if you think it's incorrect . . . .

Oh, please. You asserted that foreign corporations are granted greater property rights than U.S. citizens, and are empowered to go to United Nations and World Bank tribunals as a result of the CAFTA Agreement. I'm telling you that is not the case. I do not have to "refute" anything until you take a stab at proving your assertions in the first place. You made them.

"It's in Chapter 10, go look it up." I assert the Earth is flat, go look it up. I don't have to explain how I came to my conclusion, but simply wait for you to refute it. What a joke. ROFLMAO

_____
In order to leap-frog over your rhetorical "process," here is a nice little .pdf from the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative that pretty much blows you out of the water. Need I remind you that this very thread concerns the inability to properly navigate that website?

Allegation: CAFTA would submit the U.S. to the jurisdiction of international tribunals established under the auspices of the United Nations or World Bank, and would allow those UN/World Bank Tribunals to order payment of U.S. taxpayer dollars to foreign investors.
FACT: The United States has never lost a decision or paid a penny under an investor-state arbitration panel under NAFTA or any other international trade or investment agreement. Moreover, if a panel ever did rule against the United States, it would have no authority to order the government to modify any law, regulation or practice. See CAFTA Article 10.26.1 (limiting awards to monetary damages and restitution of property only).
Nevertheless, the Administration took steps in CAFTA and other recent FTAs to improve the investor-state arbitration process. For example, the ability of governments to control the interpretation of the investment provisions has been strengthened by allowing them to review draft decisions (CAFTA Article 10.20.9) and giving them the ability to issue interpretations of the text that are binding on panels (CAFTA Article 10.20.2). New procedures have also been included, based on U.S. court rules, to dismiss frivolous claims (CAFTA Article 10.20.4) and to ensure full transparency of the proceedings by opening briefs and hearings to the public (CAFTA Article 10.21) and allowing amicus submissions (CAFTA Article 10.20.3).
Allegation: CAFTA, like NAFTA, would give more rights to foreign investors operating in the U.S. than American citizens and firms enjoy under our own Constitution.
FACT: In fact, Trade Promotion Authority directs USTR to negotiate investment provisions that do not provide greater substantive rights to foreign investors than are provided under U.S. law to U.S. investors, and existing state laws are specifically carved out of key provisions of the investment chapter. (See, TPA § 2102(b)(3).) This objective was followed in CAFTA, and the Administration has clarified investment provisions since NAFTA. For example, CAFTA provides clearer guidance on what constitutes a compensable indirect expropriation by drawing directly on principles developed by the Supreme Court in interpreting the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. See CAFTA Annex 10-C. The Administration further clarified that the guarantee of fair and equitable treatment includes procedural due process in line with that granted by the principal legal systems of the world, including the United States. See CAFTA Article 10.5.2(a).

Look, I gave you the link to the official document, it's in legalese. I'm not a lawyer, and I don't pretend to be, are you? But if several U.S. Congressmen are publicly saying that this "managed trade agreement" authorizes UN tribunals, than I believe they are probably telling the truth.

You say that this document does NOT authorize tribunals, I believe it does. The onus is not entirely on me to prove my point anymore then it is on you to prove yours.

Here's what I see in the official language, if I'm wrong then I apologize, for my misunderstanding the bureaucratic language.

This is from 10:19 of official CAFTA document:

http://www.sice.oas.org/TPCStudies/USCAFTAChl_e/Matrix10.htm

1. Unless the disputing parties otherwise agree, the tribunal shall comprise three arbitrators, one arbitrator appointed by each of the disputing parties and the third, who shall be the presiding arbitrator, appointed by agreement of the disputing parties. 1. Unless the disputing parties otherwise agree, the tribunal shall comprise three arbitrators, one arbitrator appointed by each of the disputing parties and the third, who shall be the presiding arbitrator, appointed by agreement of the disputing parties.
2. The Secretary-General shall serve as appointing authority for an arbitration under this Section. 2. The Secretary-General shall serve as appointing authority for an arbitration under this Section.
3. If a tribunal has not been constituted within 75 days from the date that a claim is submitted to arbitration under this Section, the Secretary-General...

A final note to you.
Your bold highlighting, with emphasis on words like *you*, and etc, indicate you're getting angry. Take a chill pill, FRiend....

I'm not personally attacking you. I'm merely stating what has been brought up by several Republican Congressman, including Rep. Tancredo. I know you don't like him; that's fine. But he has a 100% ACU conservative voting record.

If that so upsets you, then well, let's just discontinue this *conversation*.

Take care

You say that this document does NOT authorize tribunals, I believe it does. The onus is not entirely on me to prove my point anymore then it is on you to prove yours.

I said nothing of the kind. Your opinion that these tribunals will grant foreign corporations some yet-unsubstantiated "super-rights" is flat-out incorrect, regardless of what some politicians say.

As for the "onus" of proof, it is yours, unless you admit that your reply #41 was mere speculation. Let's review it, shall we?

. CAFTA contains over 1,000 pages of international law, establishing property rights for foreign corporations.
You should have stopped right there.
. Chapter 10 of CAFTA outlines a tribunal system under which foreign corporations, operating in the United States, are granted greater property rights than U.S. law provides for U.S. citizens.
False. See my reply #48, specifically the section containing "[CAFTA will] not provide greater substantive rights [to foreign investors]."
. CAFTA empowers foreign corporations to go to the United Nations, and World Bank tribunals to challenge both state laws, and U.S. federal policies.
False. See my reply #48, specifically the section containing "[CAFTA grants] no authority to order the [U.S.] government to modify any law, regulation or practice."
. Through international tribunals, foreign owned corporations can demand compensation, (funded by American taxpayer dollars) for the losses caused by complying with the policies and regulations that apply to all U.S. citizens and businesses.
False. See my reply #48, specifically the section containing "existing state laws are specifically carved out of key provisions of the investment chapter."

1rudeboy:>"FACT: The United States has never lost a decision or paid a penny under an investor-state arbitration panel under NAFTA or any other international trade or investment agreement. Moreover, if a panel ever did rule against the United States, it would have no authority to order the government to modify any law, regulation or practice. See CAFTA Article 10.26.1 (limiting awards to monetary damages and restitution of property only)."<

All right.Thanks for the info, I'll research it.
I'll have to concede this one to you. As I said, I'm not a lawyer, but the legalese info I've read appears to pertain tribunals that will be run by the U.N. It mentions the Secretary General...but some serious questions, and I'm not trying to be facetious:

Are you saying they will NOT be?
And are you saying with absolute certainty, that these tribunals mentioned in Chap 10 will not give foreign investors power to challenge our laws in a UN tribunal?

Do you believe that these Congressman who are saying that these things are lying?
IE Tancrdo's statements here:
"This agreement will allow foreign companies to challenge our immigration policies in international CAFTA tribunals and argue that the laws impede their ability to access the U.S. service sector. That would force Congress to change our immigration laws, or subject our businesses to trade sanctions."

"If this agreement is approved, the 'exclusive' power of Congress to regulate immigration policy will be subjugated to the whim of international tribunals - the same way that Congress ceded its once supreme Constitutional authority to 'regulate commerce with foreign nations' to the WTO."~ Rep Tom Tancredo

Tancredo Blasts CAFTA’s Back Door Immigration Provisions

and as to your comment, Toddsterpatriot:
RE:"And now I'm running away. LOL!!"

I didn't post any smarmy comments to you, or 1rudeboy.
This forum used to be a lot more civil. 1rudeboy did reply with a post of substance (#48)...I'll concede that I need to research this more.

However, Toddsterpatriot: What have you contributed here, that is of any substance, and is worth responding to, FRiend? .
I perused the entire thread, and couldn't find anything.

.>"The next time you post something ridiculous, ping me and I'll be sure to shoot it down. TTFN."<

OK, let's do it.
Here's Chapter 10 of CAFTA:
http://www.sice.oas.org/TPCStudies/USCAFTAChl_e/Matrix10.htm

QUESTION:
Who will run the tribunals for the CAFTA?

The legalese info I've read appears to pertain tribunals that will be run by the U.N.
Are you saying they will NOT be?

Are you absolutly certain, that these tribunals mentioned in Chap 10 will not give foreign investors power to challenge our laws in a U.N. tribunal?

Do you believe that Congressman Tancredo is lying in the statement below?

"This agreement will allow foreign companies to challenge our immigration policies in international CAFTA tribunals and argue that the laws impede their ability to access the U.S. service sector. That would force Congress to change our immigration laws, or subject our businesses to trade sanctions."
"If this agreement is approved, the 'exclusive' power of Congress to regulate immigration policy will be subjugated to the whim of international tribunals - the same way that Congress ceded its once supreme Constitutional authority to 'regulate commerce with foreign nations' to the WTO."~ Rep Tom Tancredo

By the way, your short bio says you are a free trader.
Do you support the elimination of federal income and corporate taxation?

I do.

The legalese info I've read appears to pertain tribunals that will be run by the U.N. Are you saying they will NOT be?

Well, why would the CAFTA nations (and specifically the US) give power to those corrupt kleptocrats?

Are you absolutly certain, that these tribunals mentioned in Chap 10 will not give foreign investors power to challenge our laws in a U.N. tribunal?

Foreign investors can challenge our laws right now. We can, and do ignore their challenges now.

Do you believe that Congressman Tancredo is lying in the statement below?

A politician lying? You must be joking!!

the same way that Congress ceded its once supreme Constitutional authority to 'regulate commerce with foreign nations' to the WTO."~ Rep Tom Tancredo

The WTO does not have Constitutional authority over US commerce.

Do you support the elimination of federal income and corporate taxation?

I'm open minded. A national sales tax has some interesting advantages. Disadvantages too. Don't know if the country would accept it. We can't even get them to understand the benefits of privatizing Social Security.

I'm all for a lower flat tax.

-Thanks for the reply. I regret that we got off to a rocky start, and I apologize for my part in that.

RE:"Well, why would the CAFTA nations (and specifically the US) give power to those corrupt kleptocrats?"

Good question, indeed. Why did we go to the U.N. to get permission to take out Saddam? Why are our National Parks part of the United Nations World Heritage Biodiversity Treaty?

>"A politician lying? You must be joking!!"<

Well yeah! ;^D But that can be the cae on *both sides* of this issue. Or it could be just an oversight, as many pols don't even read the legislation they are signing on to.

Let me share a little on my experience with the Clean Air Act: I was involved with a trade group that was concerned with heating equipment. The Clean Air Act had a tremendous effect on our industry. One passage of the Act stated that:
No solid fuel heating appliance shall be allowed in residential structures, that is not EPA Certified".

Sounds innocuous enough, right? It was going to sail right through Congress with that statement in the bill.

Well, our lobbyist for the WHA informed Congressman on the committee, that with that one sentence...they had just outlawed the construction of masonry fireplaces in new homes.

My point is, when you look at that chapter, it looks suspicious. Maybe I'm paranoid, but I don't trust the idea of a tribunal that is run by the UN, UNCITRAL .

Sooner or later, these tribunals and international courts are going to get teeth...and you can damn well bet: that it will be our "lying politicians" who will give them the teeth.

BTW,
I just finished reading Neil Boortz' book on the FairTax, it's a quick read, and I recommend it.

Take care.

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.