CAFTA Voting Record for Representatives

On Friday, May 28th, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick, together
with the presidents of El Salvador, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras and
Nicaragua signed the final draft of the Central American Free Trade
Agreement (CAFTA). While in December of 2003 the six nations came to
what could be considered a “gentleman’s agreement” on the conditions for
CAFTA, Friday’s signing marked the release of the official legal and
binding terms of CAFTA.

With CAFTA now signed, the Bush administration, and the Central American
presidents, can send the agreement to their respective congresses
whenever they deem most appropriate, e.g., when the think they can
muster the votes. Once sent to Congress in the U.S., the House and
Senate have a maximum of 60 days to review, debate and vote on CAFTA.
Under the Fast Track Trade Promotion Act, the vote will be decided by a
simple majority in a straight up or down vote; no provisions exist for
making adjustments to the existing agreement.

Lacking support in Congress from Democrats and Republicans alike, the
Bush administration acknowledged that a congressional vote on CAFTA
would happen later than they hoped. U.S. officials say that the
earliest CAFTA will be voted on is following the elections, in what is
referred to as the lame-duck congressional session between November and
early January.

The New York Times reported, “Rep. Sander M. Levin of Michigan, the top
Democrat on the House Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee, predicted the
agreement “is on a midnight train to nowhere — in an election year or
any year.”” That said, many predict that following the elections some
Democrats might soften their position on CAFTA, making its passage more
feasible.

Presidential candidate Senator Kerry has said that if elected he will
renegotiate CAFTA to include stronger labor and environmental laws.
Strengthening CAFTA’s dismally weak labor and environmental standards
would be an important first step in creating a just trade agreement
between Central America and the United States. Critics argue, however,
the most damaging norms of the agreement relate to agriculture, public
services and intellectual property rights. While banning child labor is
important, they argue so is assuring that Central American’s living in
the rural sector (over 40%) aren’t expelled in mass by subsidized US
agriculture. Similarly, while slowing deforestation is critical, so is
assuring that public healthcare, education and water are not privatized
and thereby made inaccessible to the poor.