Yup. Here’s the WSJ take:
House Narrowly Approves Cafta
Accord Was Tough Sell
For Bush Administration
Amid Globalization Fears
By GREG HITT and NEIL KING JR.
Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
July 28, 2005; Page A2
WASHINGTON – The Republican-controlled House, voting 217-215, approved the U.S. trade pact with Central America, ending a drawn-out debate that proved much tougher and more passionate than the White House expected.
The Bush administration’s difficulty in selling the Central American Free Trade Agreement – a deal with six countries that collectively export to the U.S. in a year roughly what Mexico exports every five weeks – reflected not just Democratic opposition but broader trepidation about globalization among politicians and their constituents.
With President Bush and Vice President Cheney appealing personally to individual members, the House debated the pact, known as Cafta, late into last night. The agreement is aimed at reducing trade barriers among the U.S. and Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic. Cafta, which already has been approved by the Senate, now returns to that chamber for a final vote that is expected to be a formality.
Cafta has stirred partisan opposition from House Democrats, though it is puny compared with the magnitude of the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico. More than 100 House Democrats supported President Clinton and voted for Nafta; fewer than 20 backed President Bush on Cafta. Ahead of the vote, Rep. William Jefferson, a Louisiana Democrat, broke ranks with his party and urged lawmakers to consider the U.S.'s unique role in the Western Hemisphere. “At our door stand our neighbors from Central America, literally pleading with us to approve this agreement,” he said. “Instead of turning a deaf ear to them, we ought to heed them.”
The White House also has had difficulty rallying some Republicans to back free trade at a time when China has emerged as a strong economic competitor, the World Trade Organization is pressing Congress to alter laws it has passed, the U.S. trade deficit is on pace to set a new high, workers are worried about outsourcing and wages are stagnant for many despite an expanding economy.
Fierce opposition from organized labor, which cited concern about weak labor-rights protections in Central America, played a role, giving Democrats a reason to rally against the pact beyond simply opposing the initiative because it came from Mr. Bush.
Textile and sugar producers, two powerful domestic industries with particular interests in Central America, also contributed, portraying the pact as a threat to them and draining support among House Republicans.
U.S. textile companies fear increased competition. Supporters countered that the pact would lock in existing relationships that ensure a market for U.S. textile producers. Under the pact, apparel produced in Central America could be shipped to the U.S. duty free if it is fashioned with U.S.-made fabric and yarn.
The pact also allows a modest increase in sugar imports from the region, a provision that had U.S. sugar producers fearing a precedent that would open the door to further competition.
More broadly, opponents tapped into a deeper set of concerns about whether U.S. workers and manufacturers are truly reaping benefits of global markets and more open trade. “This is symbolic of the trade agenda, and America’s role in the global economy,” said Dan Griswold, director of trade studies at the Cato Institute, a Washington think tank that supports free trade.
Indeed, while the economies at issue were small, both proponents and opponents saw the Cafta fight as a referendum on Mr. Bush’s ambitions to further liberalize global trade, a longstanding plank of the Republican Party, as well as an indicator of prospects for continuing talks on a global trade deal, which began in Doha, Qatar, in 2001.
Backers pitched Cafta as a way to build demand for U.S. exports such as pharmaceuticals, grain and construction equipment. But a big part of the White House case also focused on the need to support economic and democratic reforms that have taken root in Central America, a region dominated not long ago by dictators and made unstable by militant insurgencies. In a day of high-level lobbying, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made the rounds to argue that Cafta would help heal old divisions in the region and foster stability. Late last night, Mr. Cheney camped out in an office just off the House floor, and Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez worked the halls.
The president’s unusual appearance on Capitol Hill, followed up with private telephone calls to wavering members, underscored his personal stake in the fight. More effective in the end-game maneuvering was deal-cutting by Bush aides and Republican leaders. Highway projects were dangled before undecided lawmakers, as well as assignments on top-shelf committees.
“If they voted their conscience, Cafta would fail by 50 votes in the House,” claimed Augustine Tantillo, lobbyist for American Manufacturing Trade Action Coalition, a Cafta foe.
Republican leaders secured at least five votes for Cafta by agreeing to bring separate legislation to the floor that would allow the U.S. to impose duties on exports from China and others designated as nonmarket economies by the Commerce Department. The measure, approved yesterday in the House by a 255-168 vote, was castigated as “a sham” by Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada and faces uncertain prospects in the Senate.
Another five votes, and perhaps more, came after the administration cut deals to assuage textile-industry concerns, such as fears that the pact would create incentives for Central American producers to use inexpensive Asian-made yarn and fabric instead of U.S.-made materials. Even with the changes, opposition remained among lawmakers from textile-producing states.