The clock is ticking...
Notice Notice of Intention to Enter Into a Free Trade Agreement
102 words
20 February 2004
White House Press Releases And Documents
English
Copyright (c) 2004 Federal Information & News Dispatch, Inc.
White House Press Releases
FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
WITH COSTA RICA, EL SALVADOR, HONDURAS, GUATEMALA,
AND NICARAGUA (THE "CAFTA COUNTRIES")
Consistent with section 2105(a)(1)(A) of the Trade Act of 2002, I have notified the Congress of my intention to enter into a Free Trade Agreement with the Governments of the CAFTA countries.
Consistent with section 2105(a)(1)(A) of that Act, this notice shall be published in the Federal Register.
GEORGE W. BUSH
THE WHITE HOUSE,
February 20, 2004.
Office of White House Press Secretary, 202-456-2100
President Bush endorses pending free-trade measure
JENALIA MORENO
387 words
21 February 2004
Houston Chronicle
English
Copyright 2004 Houston Chronicle
President Bush notified Congress on Friday that he plans to sign off on the Central American Free Trade Agreement.
This moves the measure, called CAFTA, a step closer to a battle on Capitol Hill.
Trade negotiations with Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua were recently completed after several rounds of talks, including one in Houston.
Bush can sign the agreement no earlier than May 21, giving U.S. trade officials time to issue reports about the effects of the agreement on the United States and the five partner countries. Although trade officials are still in negotiations to include the Dominican Republic in the Central American agreement, a report about that nation will be issued, as well.
Congress could approve the trade deal 30 days after the president signs off.
However, many groups oppose the deal, and its approval could be delayed to keep it from getting caught up in election-year politics.
On Friday, about 60 local union workers protested in front of a Houston area Wal-Mart store to demonstrate their opposition to the retailer's purchases of goods manufactured abroad. Trade pacts, like the proposed Central American agreement, will continue to drive manufacturing out of the United States, they said.
"CAFTA is just going to continue to bleed jobs," said Richard Shaw, secretary/treasurer of the Harris County AFL-CIO
The United States has already lost 2.6 million manufacturing jobs in the last four years, he said. He attributed some of those losses to the North American Free Trade Agreement, which went into effect in 1994 and partnered the United States with Canada and Mexico.
Also opposing the agreement are sugar growers, including the Rio Grande Valley Sugar Growers. They fear increased imports allowed by the agreement will lower sugar prices.
Rep. Kevin Brady, R-The Woodlands, who is trying to gather congressional support for the agreement, has said it will benefit Houston-based companies, including the many engaged in international trade. More than $611 million in Central American cargo moves across the Port of Houston docks, and $49 million in airborne cargo moves through Houston's airports, Brady said.
"This agreement will help level the playing field for U.S. businesses competing to sell in Central America," Brady wrote in a release.
Bush notifies Congress will sign CAFTA pact.
By Doug Palmer
439 words
20 February 2004
19:49
Reuters News <_javascript_:NewWindow(%20'FIISrcDetails','?from=article&ids=lba');void(0);>
English
(c) 2004 Reuters Limited
WASHINGTON, Feb 20 (Reuters) - President George W. Bush notified Congress on Friday that he intends to sign a new free trade agreement with five Central American countries, but did not say whether he would seek a potentially divisive vote on the pact ahead of this year's elections.
U.S. law requires Bush to give lawmakers 90 days notice before entering into any trade agreement. The United States wrapped up free trade negotiations with El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras and Guatemala in December and resolved remaining issues with Costa Rica last month.
In a letter to Congress, Bush said his administration was continuing talks aimed at including the Dominican Republic in the agreement and hopes to work with Congress on legislation to enact the pact. He did not say whether he would seek a vote on the agreement this year.
Democratic presidential front-runner Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, who won the endorsement of the 13-million member AFL-CIO labor coalition on Thursday, has announced his opposition to the agreement unless it is renegotiated to beef up protections for workers and the environment.
Kerry has been criticized by his lead Democratic rival, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, for voting in favor of the North American Free Trade Agreement between the United States, Mexico and Canada in 1993.
Supporters of the U.S.-Central American Free Trade Agreement, or CAFTA, argue its labor and environmental provisions meet the guidelines Congress set for the administration as part of a "trade promotion authority" bill in 2002. But critics say the region requires a tougher approach because of its poor labor record.
Earlier this week, a senior U.S. business official conceded that supporters did not yet have the 218 votes needed for approval of CAFTA in the House of Representatives.
The AFL-CIO and a coalition of environmental, consumer and human rights groups have set their sights on defeating the pact, which they fear could become a model for a larger trade agreement covering every country in the Americas except Cuba.
U.S. sugar and textile interests also oppose the pact, but many other business and farm groups have endorsed it, giving supporters confidence they can gather enough votes to put the measure through Congress.
"My own view is there's a sweet spot for voting on trade agreements" between the spring congressional primary season and the August congressional recess, said Scott Miller, Washington representative for Procter and Gamble, a CAFTA supporter.
Miller said the pact would open up new U.S. export and business opportunities in a variety of sectors.
February 23, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Theory vs. Reality
By BOB HERBERT
Welcome to the 21st century. The landscape has changed. We're in a new hypercompetitive worldwide economy, driven by breathtaking advances in technology. Men and women are being added to the global work force by the hundreds of millions.
In this dynamic, potentially very treacherous labor market, few people are looking out for the interests of the American worker. The very concept of the traditional high-paid American job, with its generous health and pension benefits and paid vacations, is at risk.
Senator Charles Schumer of New York sees the economic changes as a paradigm shift. In an era of high-bandwith communications and the free flow of capital, most goods and services can be produced or performed anywhere in the world. And with highly educated workers in countries like China and India ready and able to perform sophisticated tasks at a fraction of the pay earned by Americans, there are fewer and fewer reasons for those American jobs not to take flight.
In light of these changes, said Senator Schumer, we should at least be asking some tough questions about the real-world effects of free trade as we've known it.
Referring to David Ricardo, the 19th-century British economist whose theory of comparative advantage became the basis of free trade, Mr. Schumer said: "Ricardo set up a model that served very, very well for a very long time. But now there are new facts on the ground."
The biggest and most ominous new fact for American workers is the dreadful employment environment of the current economic expansion. In terms of job creation, it's the worst expansion on record. The job growth since the recession officially ended in November 2001 has been primarily in low-paying sectors. These are not the upwardly mobile jobs long associated with entry into the American middle class.
And they are not the kinds of jobs that free-trade advocates were promising in the 1990's, when they were hustling American factory workers, assuring them that the transfer of their jobs to low-wage countries overseas was a good thing. Globalization will be wonderful, the advocates said. There will be more jobs. Better jobs. Higher-paying jobs.
The multinational corporations, which have had by far the biggest say in the development of America's trade policies, are thriving in the new environment. Workers are the big losers, and the losses are only beginning. We now know that offshoring or outsourcing - whatever the term of the moment is for dumping American workers in favor of cheaper workers elsewhere - was never going to be limited to factory jobs.
Outsourcing is not the only reason for the employment squeeze in the U.S. But it's a significant reason. And while it's getting a lot of attention lately, it's not getting the kind of close scrutiny such a powerful economic force deserves.
One of the great achievements of the United States has been the high standard of living of the average American worker. This was the result of many long years of struggle to obtain higher wages, shorter work weeks, health and pension benefits, paid vacations, safe working conditions, a measure of job security and so on.
It is not an advance to move to a situation in which all of that can vanish with the flick of a computerized switch. High-quality employment is the cornerstone of the economic well-being of America's vast middle class.
Among the questions we should be asking about the real-world effects of unrestrained trade is what happens to the U.S. economy after we've shipped so many jobs from so many sectors overseas that American families no longer have the disposable income to buy all the products and services they need to buy to keep the consumer economy going.
That's not supposed to happen. In theory. But American workers are filled with anxiety because they understand that disaster can result when theory comes face to face with reality. One of the things that sank with the Titanic was the theory that it was unsinkable.
In a recent column I wrote incorrectly that Bechtel had received no-bid contracts for work in Iraq. The company is operating under contracts won after limited bidding.
<<...OLE_Obj...>>
