CAFTA, CAFTA, CAFTA ....Don't ignore it

Armstead

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-27-05 11:36 AM
Original message

CAFTA, CAFTA, CAFTA ....Don't ignore it

Edited on Wed Jul-27-05 11:40 AM by Armstead

The media is ignoring it. But we shouldn't.

The issue of CAFTA is likely to come to a head today, with the vote in the House. It has been a close call, because enough Republicans have been critical or opposed to bolster a majority of House Democrats in opposition. Bush and the Corporate Masters have been pushing hard for this.

So this could be a case where every vote counts. If your Rep has any chance of voting against it, there is the need to hear from constituients.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/27/bush.cafta.ap/

House vote on CAFTA likely to be close
Bush lobbies for support with rare Capitol Hill visit

Wednesday, July 27, 2005; Posted: 11:20 a.m. EDT (15:20 GMT)

(AP) -- In a rare piece of lobbying on Capitol Hill, President Bush appealed personally to fellow Republicans Wednesday to close ranks behind a free trade agreement with Central America that faces a very close floor vote.

The House was beginning debate on the Central American Free Trade Agreement later in the day, with a vote coming as early as Wednesday night.

With Democrats strongly against it, passage depends on keeping Republican defections to a minimum.

The president reminded Republicans that while some might oppose CAFTA for parochial interests "we are here not only to represent our districts but to represent the nation," House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, said after the meeting that lasted more than an hour.

DeLay predicted a tough vote, but "we will pass CAFTA tonight."

DeLay said the president may have won over one unidentified Republican when he noted that Central American countries have contributed troops in the war against terrorism.

Bush, who has invested considerable time and effort to winning approval of CAFTA, was accompanied by Vice President Dick Cheney and U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman at the closed meeting of House Republicans. It isn't unusual for presidents to press their agendas with members of their own party or the opposition party, but they usually do it at the White House......

Here's some info (admittedly biased against it)

http://www.stopcafta.org/

http://www.oaklandinstitute.org/?q=node/view/182
---------------

Also
http://www.citizen.org/trade/cafta/

http://www.citizen.org/trade/cafta/opposition/index.cfm?ID=12488&relatedpages=1&catID=125&secID=2231

State Legislators From 21 States Launch Anti-CAFTA Effort

Legislators Send Letter to Congress Highlighting How CAFTA’s Foreign Investor Protections Would UndermineStateAuthority

WASHINGTON, D.C. – State legislators from Tennessee and California today sent a letter to Congress signed by legislators from 21 states urging opposition to the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). On a telephone press conference, the legislators explained their objections to CAFTA’s foreign investor protection provisions. CAFTA, under its Chapter 10 provisions, would expand on similar provisions in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) that provide foreign investors operating within the United States property rights that extend beyond U.S. Constitutional dictates and permit foreign investors to sue the U.S. government in international tribunals to obtain compensation for policies that undermine these new rights.

Tennessee state Rep. Mike Kernell of Memphis and California state Sen. Liz Figueroa talked about the dire threat CAFTA would pose to the U.S. system of federalism and said they are currently lobbying their congressional delegation to oppose the deal. CAFTA’s Article 104 requires that the federal government force states to adopt the 1,000 pages of CAFTA international law, to which both the U.S. government and states would be bound.

“It is incredible that CAFTA, as proposed by the Bush administration, would enable foreign corporations to sue the U.S. for cash compensation over federal, state and local policies designed to safeguard public health and safety in instances when Americans or U.S. businesses would have no such right,” said Kernell, senior member of the Tennessee House Environment and Conservation committee. “As a state legislator, I find this to be an unacceptable threat to our sovereignty and democracy.”

“NAFTA’s investor rules are already having a chilling effect on our ability to address the concerns of our constituents. In addition to the direct challenges brought by private Canadian corporations against two California laws protecting public health and the environment, last year Gov. Schwarzenegger vetoed bipartisan legislation for fear of a NAFTA trade dispute,” said Sen. Figueroa, referring to a bill that aimed to recycle used tires for paving California roadways. “I fully support trade. However, trade should not be valued above our hard-won and long cherished, self-governing freedoms. Extending the provisions of the NAFTA model through CAFTA has drastic implications for California, its residents and its representative government. I urge Congress to reject this flawed agreement.”

NAFTA’s investment chapter, or Chapter 11 as it is known, has been widely criticized for undermining basic public interest protections provided by state and local governments and these governments’ ability to conduct day-to-day functions. NAFTA has done this by extending a set of rights to foreign investors operating in the U.S. to attack domestic policies and demand compensation.

In February, Public Citizen released an analysis of the 42 known NAFTA Chapter 11 cases and found that in 11 cases decided, approximately $35 million in public funds had been paid; in pending cases, claims reach into the billions. U.S. defense of just one pending case has cost more than $3 million. Corporate investors also have used NAFTA’s investor vs. government enforcement system to challenge domestic court rulings, local and state environmental policies, municipal contracts, tax policy, federal controlled substances regulations, federal and state anti-gambling policies, a federal government’s alleged failure to provide water rights, and the provision of public postal services

“An enormous difference between the current debate over CAFTA and the NAFTA debate from 12 years ago is the active objections state lawmakers and officials now have to the NAFTA-style rights given to corporations, which have proven to disable state initiatives that promote public health and environmental policies,” said Chris Slevin, deputy director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch.