[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
History See other History Articles Title: Congress CritterS who voted for GATT AND NAFTA House Passes NAFTA, 234-200 : Clinton Hails Vote as Decision 'Not to Retreat' : Congress: Sometimes bitter debate over the trade pact reflects hard-fought battle among divided Democrats. Rapid approval is expected in the Senate. November 18, 1993|JAMES GERSTENZANG and MICHAEL ROSS | TIMES STAFF WRITER WASHINGTON — A painfully divided House of Representatives approved the North American Free Trade Agreement by an unexpectedly large margin Wednesday night, ending a hard-fought battle that grew into a referendum on the fundamental changes sweeping the American economy. The vote was 234 to 200, 16 more than the 218 needed for passage. The Senate is expected to act on the measure within days. Passage there is not in doubt. In a brief appearance in the White House grand foyer less than an hour after the vote, a beaming President Clinton savored the come-from-behind victory and declared: "Tonight's vote is a defining moment. At a time when many of our people are hurting . . . we chose to compete and not to retreat." The strongest support in the House came from Republicans, who cast 132 votes for the trade plan and 43 against it. Among Democrats, 102 voted for the agreement and 156 opposed it. The one independent in Congress voted against the plan. "It is not a perfect agreement," said House Speaker Thomas S. Foley (D-Wash.) in an address to his colleagues. "But this is, for the moment, an opportunity to expand our trade, to reach out beyond our borders . . . to seize the future." "Is it good for America or not? I believe passionately it is good for America," he said. Reflecting the division that the plan has generated, his two most senior deputies, House Majority Leader Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri and House Majority Whip David E. Bonior of Michigan, opposed the agreement. "It will cost jobs. It will drive down our standard of living. It will lock in place a Mexican system that exploits its own people and denies them the most basic political and economic rights," Bonior said. Expanding on a 5-year-old, U.S.-Canadian free-trade pact, the agreement would eliminate most tariffs, quotas and other barriers to unrestrained commerce among the United States, Mexico and Canada over a 15-year period, beginning Jan. 1, 1994. The agreement would remove most tariffs now levied on Mexican goods entering the United States, such as the 15% surcharge slapped on electronic components manufactured south of the border. As a result, U.S. companies and their workers will be forced to compete with Mexican firms paying wages that in some cases are as little as one-tenth those paid here. On the other side of the equation, most Mexican tariffs assessed on U.S. products would be eliminated. For example, U.S. chemical manufacturers, which now pay similar tariffs when they ship their goods to Mexico, say they expect sales to expand well beyond last year's $3 billion once the pact takes effect, giving them a competitive edge over overseas chemical concerns. U.S. firms that make other products now subject to Mexican tariffs anticipate similar benefits. The Clinton Administration has argued that the net effect of such trade-offs, with tariffs disappearing on thousands of products, will help lift Mexico out of the economic rut in which it has been stuck for generations. The jobs created by an expanding Mexican economy, in turn, will fuel the growth of a booming consumer market anxious to purchase the products of U.S. factories, the Administration contends. Despite the emotion that has enveloped the issue across the nation, much of the debate on Wednesday--save for the final arguments--contained little passion. The debate began at 9 a.m. and continued for approximately 13 hours. All told, 245 representatives--an astoundingly high number--trooped to the well of the House to speak. But with the results not in doubt, they spoke not so much to influence their colleagues as to explain their votes to political supporters at home. The House vote was widely regarded as a key test of Clinton's legislative acumen. A loss would have cast doubt on his ability to shepherd other Administration initiatives through Congress and weakened his hand in dealings with foreign leaders. The victory gives new momentum to his ambitious domestic agenda and pending trade talks with other nations. Perhaps more important, the verdict is expected to send a strong signal of U.S. willingness to continue exercising leadership in world affairs. Some supporters argued that a rejection would have heralded a dangerous new era of isolation and protectionism. "A vote against NAFTA is a vote for economic surrender," declared House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dan Rostenkowski (D-Ill.), one of the Administration's key allies in the congressional leadership. If the emotion of the debate was dissipated, it was replaced by a palpable bitterness as dejected opponents angrily accused colleagues of selling their votes in exchange for promises of political support or pork-barrel rewards. "The wounds are pretty deep, and it will take time and work to heal them" House Deputy Whip Bill Richardson (D-N.M.) said after the vote. SOURCE: http://articles.latimes.com/1993-11-18/news/mn-58150_1_trade-pact Senate Rallies Bipartisan Vote to Pass GATT, 76-24 By Helen Dewar The Washington Post WASHINGTON The Senate Thursday gave final congressional approval to American participation in the biggest and most ambitious trade agreement in history. Joining the House in a triumphant bipartisan finale to the debilitating partisan strife of the 103rd Congress, the Senate approved President Clinton's legislation to implement the latest expansion of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) by a vote of 76 to 24. Moments before, the Senate scaled an even more critical procedural hurdle in producing eight more than the required 60 votes to overcome objections that the agreement broke budget rules because revenue lost from tariff cuts was not fully offset by spending reductions. The vote on the budget waiver was 68 to 32. Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., had challenged the agreement on budget grounds, calling it a "budget-buster" that would increase the deficit by $25 billion over the next decade. But GATT supporters argued its costs would be more than offset by revenue from economic growth stimulated by expanded exports. The historic agreement, the product of seven years of negotiations, will create a new framework for trade among 124 nations around the world, lowering tariffs by one-third, bringing down costly subsidies for farm exports, strengthening protection for patents, inventions and recorded entertainment and taking the first steps toward regulating trade in services and investment. It creates a World Trade Organization to resolve disputes and enforce the rules. The agreement will benefit U.S. manufacturers of medical instruments, farm equipment, drugs and electronic products, whose exports will no longer face other nation's tariffs. Some less-efficient smaller farmers and the nation's textile and clothing manufacturers are most at risk from increased imports resulting from the lowering of U.S. trade barriers. "Any way you cut it, we're the big beneficiary," said incoming Senate majority leader Robert J. Dole, R-Kan. Even though both benefits and drawbacks have probably been exaggerated, it is a "net gain for the American people," he added. Approval of the pact "affirms the leadership role of the United States around the world," while its rejection would have constituted a "signal of American weakness," added outgoing Majority Leader George J. Mitchell, D-Maine. But Sen. Ernest F. Hollings, D-S.C., who led opposition to the pact, described the vote as "the gravest mistake the U.S. has ever made on economic policy." On both votes in the Senate, a majority of Democrats and Republicans supported the agreement. On the critical procedural vote, 37 Democrats and 31 Republicans voted yes, while 17 Democrats and 15 Republicans voted no. The House also produced a big bipartisan vote for the agreement Tuesday in approving it, 288 to 146. With the help of business executives and Republican leaders in both houses, Clinton lobbied for the agreement to the end, even after supporters concluded they had enough votes to pass it. Clinton hosted a breakfast Thursday at the White House for wavering senators of both parties and lobbied senators by phone through the rest of the day. At the White House, Clinton hailed the vote and said, "Just like the historic vote on NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) a year ago, this vote for GATT shows once again that our country is moving in the right direction, reaching out to the rest of the world and looking at the best interests of our own people." Joining Clinton in the reflected glory of the vote was Dole, who endorsed the pact after wresting some concessions from Clinton and the put his prestige on the line in trying to assure a big Republican vote for the agreement. The pact's supporters contended that it would produce hundreds of thousands of American jobs by increasing exports generated by lower foreign tariffs and give American consumers access to cheaper goods from abroad. Revenue lost through lower U.S. tariffs will be more than offset by tax revenue from economic growth-up to $3 for every $1 in reduced tariffs, according to U.S. Trade Representative Mickey Kantor.. But opponents argued that it would encourage multinational companies to move jobs to countries that compete unfairly with low wages and widespread use of child labor, leading to job losses rather than gains, and warned that the U.S. would be ceding sovereignty to a new trade bureaucracy over which it has little control. Thirty-six other countries have already ratified the agreement, and Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen has said he anticipates that the rest will follow by Jan. 1. SOURCE: http://tech.mit.edu/V114/N60/gatt.60w.html Poster Comment: Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Itistoolate (#0)
And today, there's nothing left to suck...
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||