Bush Signals Intent to Force Vote in Congress This Year on Colombian Trade Deal

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration signaled Wednesday that it would defy the wishes of Congressional Democrats and force a vote this year on a free trade agreement with Colombia, hinting that it would try to gain support for the pact by stoking fears of anti-American sentiment in the region.

“The Colombia agreement is pivotal to America’s national security and economic interests right now, and it is too important to be held up by politics,�? President Bush told an audience of Hispanic business leaders here. “There needs to be a vote on Colombia this year.�?

By itself, the Colombia pact would not have a major impact on trade, but it has become one of the administration’s international economic priorities, along with other deals with Panama and South Korea. But all these accords have stalled amid skepticism in Congress and among many other Americans.

In his talk to the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Bush cited recent disputes with President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela, whom the United States and Colombia accuse of aiding insurgents and narcotics traffickers in Colombia. Passing the deal will support “freedom and peace�? in the area, he said.

The Colombia agreement was negotiated in 2006 but never formally submitted to Congress. Once it is submitted, Congress has 90 business days to vote it up or down. The administration says that it must submit the deal soon for a vote to take place this year.

But Democrats in Congress say there are not enough votes to pass the pact, in part because of opposition by labor and environmental groups. Both Democratic presidential candidates, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois, oppose the deal.

The trade pact would open new markets for American farm goods, machinery, organic chemicals and plastics. Trade between the United States and Colombia came to $18 billion in 2007. The United States imports grains, cotton and soybeans from Colombia, much of it duty-free under temporary accords.

Critics worry that the deal would lead to more American companies’ transferring their manufacturing to Colombia and the loss of jobs at home.

The administration has flown dozens of lawmakers, including many Democrats, to Latin America in recent months and made some headway in gaining support. An effort has also been made to win over Democratic mayors and governors whose constituents might benefit from more exports to Latin America.

But Democrats in Congress say that the administration should not try for a vote without first working out a package of aid to Americans thrown out of work by the influx of imports. Neither side rules out the possibility of such a “trade adjustment assistance�? package in coming months, despite the partisan election-year atmosphere.

The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, warned Mr. Bush on Wednesday not to submit the Colombia deal without a trade adjustment package or signs of further progress in cracking down on violence against labor organizers in Colombia.

“The Colombia agreement is controversial on its merits,�? Ms. Pelosi said. “Forcing the agreement on Congress, without the consent of the leadership, will only make it more so.�?

Administration officials say that if the Colombia deal is to be passed this year, they cannot afford to wait for a consensus before submitting it. They hope that actually submitting the deal and starting the 90-day clock will compel both sides to reach an agreement.

“We’re telling the Democrats that we’re still going to work with you, but if you back us up against the wall, we have no choice but to submit the agreement to Congress,�? said an administration official, speaking anonymously in order to discuss tactics candidly.

Trade has become a hot issue in the presidential campaigns, with Senator John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican nominee, attacking Senators Obama and Clinton for their skepticism about, and outright opposition to, current and future trade deals.

Both Democrats have called for a renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement with Mexico and Canada, approved in the 1990s with the support of President Clinton. Mr. Bush offered a jibe at the Democrats, warning that any such renegotiation would bring new demands on the United States that could shut down trade.

Mr. Bush specifically criticized Senator Clinton, though not by name, for calling for a “timeout�? on future trade accords.

“You know, they toss out the word ‘timeout’ from trade,�? he said. “It’s got this kind of catchy little title to it.�? But he said a pause would lead to “a timeout from growth, a timeout from jobs and a timeout from good results.�?
________________________

“The Colombia agreement is pivotal to America’s national security and economic interests right now, and it is too important to be held up by politics,�? President Bush told an audience of Hispanic business leaders here. “There needs to be a vote on Colombia this year.�? - typical BUSH BULLSHIT!

What does Colombia offer the US national security besides, NOTHING!

By Medellin Traveler on Mar 12, 2008, 19:16 in Friendly Talkzone.

miamimike says on Mar 12, 2008, 19:46:

Bush is a Lame Duck, he won't be getting anything funded anymore,,,

"Wait a minute. What did you just say? You're predicting $4-a-gallon gas? That's interesting. I hadn't heard that." -- Feb. 28, 2008 --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C.

rocinante says on Mar 12, 2008, 21:38:

Good, because this deal kinda screws Colombia. There have been many posts in the past few months in regards to this.

NO TLC!

"World economic indicators point to a democrat winning 2008. It will surely be Obama. Peso 1400 by November" Feb 5, 2008

RAAAY says on Mar 12, 2008, 21:44:

Roc................The positive aspects outweigh the negative................................but it is still not going to happen this year......................Bush is huffing and puffing for a reason.................nothing to do with the TA.........................

.........Its useless to argue with ignorance

ColombianoGringo says on Mar 12, 2008, 21:50:

This thing needs to be renegotiated. The negatives are absolute deal killers. The generic drug provisions alone justify renegotiating. I read earlier that Colombian government lawyers think that some portions could be unconstitutional. Who knows what, if any weight that opinion would have when it comes to implementing the treaty.

miamimike says on Mar 12, 2008, 22:00:

It won't be renogoitated by the Outgoing Bush and the Congress in place anytime soon. Maybe 2009 or 2010,,,

"Wait a minute. What did you just say? You're predicting $4-a-gallon gas? That's interesting. I hadn't heard that." -- Feb. 28, 2008 --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C.

Medellin Traveler says on Mar 13, 2008, 03:22:

"Bush Says Colombia Trade Agreement Vital to Security" - I wonder what's in it for the Bush family and friends.

Security my ASS!

The Colombian government should ask Mexico how well NAFTA's worked out for them before they agree to anything.

Medellin es una chimba! www.medellintraveler.com

Medellin Traveler says on Mar 13, 2008, 03:28:

A beautiful example of US companies doing businesss around the world........

MEXICO CITY -- Relatives of five U.S. missionaries slain in the 1990s by Colombian rebels filed a federal lawsuit against Chiquita Brands International Inc. yesterday that accuses the banana company of contributing to their deaths by secretly financing the rebel group.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, is the latest legal battle for the Cincinnati company since it admitted to paying protection money to armies fighting a guerrilla war in Colombia, where one of Chiquita's most- profitable subsidiaries operated. The payments were illegal because the groups Chiquita paid are on the U.S. State Department's list of terrorist organizations. Last year, Chiquita agreed to pay a $25 million fine to resolve Justice Department charges related to the matter.

The Justice Department lawsuit has fueled several other lawsuits by Colombian citizens who claim Chiquita is liable for actions taken by guerrillas. The company says it made payments under duress from the guerrillas and was being extorted.

"Our actions were always motivated to protect the lives of our employees and their families," company spokesman Ed Loyd said. "We are contesting the suits vigorously and believe we have a strong defense."

As part of the Justice Department investigation, Chiquita admitted to making protection payments in the early 1990s to the left-wing Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, known in Spanish as the FARC. The FARC was pushed out of the region in 1997 by a right-wing group, called the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia, which began collecting similar protection payments from Chiquita.

The wrongful-death lawsuit filed yesterday alleges that Chiquita's payments to the FARC were a "contributing factor" in the deaths of the five missionaries because they financed the group's operations during the period that the men were kidnapped and killed. The lawsuit alleges that Chiquita provided weapons and some logistical support to the FARC. It seeks unspecified damages to be assessed at a jury trial. The case was filed in Florida because the majority of the plaintiffs are Florida residents.

"The monetary instruments and weapons which Chiquita knowingly, or with conscious avoidance, provided to FARC, substantially aided FARC's acts of terrorism," the lawsuit alleges.

According to the claim, the missionaries, all members of the evangelical New Tribes Mission, were abducted by the FARC from two small towns -- one in Colombia and the other over the border in Panama -- where they were working with their families in 1993-94. They were later believed to have been killed after the Sanford, Fla., missionary group failed to come up with a multimillion-dollar ransom sought by the FARC.

Chiquita, formerly known as the United Fruit Company, has a long and contentious history in Latin America. Critics said the company often had too much influence on the "banana republics" where it operated. In the 1950s, Chiquita lobbied the U.S. government against Guatemala's democratically elected president Jacobo Arbenz, who was later overthrown in a CIA-backed military coup.

Medellin es una chimba! www.medellintraveler.com

tejasmarcos says on Mar 13, 2008, 04:20:

"What does Colombia offer the US national security besides, NOTHING!"

- massive amounts of undiscovered oil reserves. the industrial military complex is in need of another oil friendly exporter at this time. the bush boys have an oil fetish as it has made them and their cronies lots and lots of money....

trying to walk a straight line on sour mash and cheap wine...

Chriscan says on Mar 14, 2008, 03:48:

any free trade deal with the US is bad. it means you have to play by their rules but they can break them any time they want. signing a free trade deal usually means that american laws override the invaded countries laws.
bad bad bad

************* WARNING ************* my words often come from my ass