CODEX -- an opportunity to sway the vote....

[Guest guest]

CAFTA is fairly harmless. It commits the US to continue its present

duty-free import policy for the products of nearby poor countries.

It also commits those countries to admit US exports duty-free, which

most of them now mostly don't (typical tariffs about 20%-40%.) It

has very little to do with product regulation. If it's like NAFTA,

it will have clauses where each country solemnly promises to enforce

its own laws on stuff like pollution and labor standards, but places

like Guatemala and the Dominican Republic will go right on not

complying. If you think a sub-sub-sub-clause in a treaty could

result in taking billions of dollars worth of nutraceuticals off the

market, well...I don't think so. The makers of the cheap stuff don't

have as much money as Big Pharma, but they can afford a lease option

on a couple of Congressmen anyway.

 

John Evans

[Guest guest]

Ron -

 

I'll make sure to fax my congressman and both senators (all Dems)

 

Even though I'm libertarian at heart, and a free trader, there is no

push-back at the moment for the middle income person. Global power is

dividing into rulers and slaves: the US middle class and the European

middle class is the only push back.

 

Has anyone read any of George Soros's books on economics, freedom and

world politics? His insight is quite good.

 

 

Helen

 

 

On Jun 26, 2005, at 11:28 AM, marangneng wrote:

 

> They're going to bring CAFTA to the floor of the House just prior to

> the July 4th recess. The Washington Post and the Food and Drug Law

> Institute are telling us (see below) that it could pass by a margin

> as tight as a _SINGLE VOTE_ (!!!)

> All day I've been calling key people and organizations so that our

> movement can FLOOD Congress with phonecalls, emails and faxes ALL

> WEEK- next week and everyone is pitching in, so please do YOUR part!

>

> When you call your Congressmen via 202-225-3121 (Capital

> Switchboard),

> ask to speak with your Congressman (give your zipcode if you don't

> know their names) and tell them you oppose CAFTA due to

> harmonization language contained in the trade agreement which would

> adversely impact your access to dietary supplements.

>

> If they want to know more, you can read off the form letter on either

> of the websites below which you can send in with just one

> mouseclick. Please FORWARD THIS and read on for more details

> including todays Washington Post article which shows you just how

> CLOSE this vote is going to be! Our movement could make a REAL

> DIFFERENCE in KILLING this horrible trade agreement which not only

> threatens to kill your access to supplements- it also threatens to

> continue the failed economic policy of NAFTA which has caused our

> $617 Billion dollar trade deficit

> which threatens to destroy the dollar and our country with it....

>

> Please help IAHF, and the Coalition for Health Freedom to sound an

> alarm about this. see http://capwiz.com/lef/mail/oneclick_compose/?

> alertid=7739691

> see http://www.coalitionforhealthfreedom.org/action.html

>

> If Codex is set back to step 5 in Rome, it will only be because

> China,

> Venezuela, and Australia want language changes- see

> http://www.nutraingredients.com/news/printNewsBis.asp?id=60764

>

> Our movement doesn't have any leverage to set things back because our

> political reality is that we have no leverage over Scarbrough, or

> over any other national delegate. Only South Africa firmly opposes

> ratification.

>

> We can't assume they won't ratify the standard, and if they do, and

> CAFTA goes thru, we'll be set up like bowling pins via Article 3 of

> the SPS Agreement which is in CAFTA and FTAA and which states: " To

> harmonize sanitary and phytosanitary measures on as wide a basis as

> possible, Members SHALL base their food safety measures on

> nternational standards, guidelines or recommendations. "

>

> Even if they don't ratify Codex in July, its only a matter of time

> before they do and we have no leverage to stop them- but we DO have

> leverage to stop CAFTA/FTAA- but only if we act NOW in large enough

> numbers- our movement can actually make a DIFFERENCE here, but only

> if enough people help sound the alarm!!!

>

>

>

> FOOD AND DRUG LAW INSTITUTE SMART BRIEF

> CAFTA-DR politicking may sway wavering legislators Congressional

> Democrats are almost universal in their opposition to the Central

> American-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement, but some concede

> the

> Bush administration may be able to cut deals with enough wavering

> Republicans to eke out a victory, possibly by a single vote.

> Representatives from sugar-producing states have presented a list of

> demands to protect the U.S. sugar industry, including government

> promises to purchase excess sugar and exclude sugar from future

> free trade agreements. Washington Post, The (6/22)

>

> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-

> dyn/content/article/2005/06/21/AR2005062101446.\

> html?nav=rss_business

>

> For CAFTA, Party Pressure and Pork

>

> By Jonathan Weisman

> Washington Post Staff Writer

> Wednesday, June 22, 2005; Page D01

>

> Earlier this month, at a closed-door meeting of Democrats, House

> Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) was blunt: Any Democrat who

> votes for the Central American Free Trade Agreement will allow an

> embattled Republican to squirm off the hook and vote no. A vote for

> CAFTA, she said, was a vote to keep the GOP in the majority.

>

> It was a speech that was tough enough to make the party's free-

> traders

> cringe, said Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.), but both parties are

> treating the coming showdown over CAFTA like a political donnybrook.

> Democratic leaders are leaning hard on members to keep defections to

> a tiny minority, while the Bush administration considers major

> concessions on sugar crop subsidies and China trade.

>

>

> Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) pressured Democrats to vote no on CAFTA.

> (Terry Ashe - AP)

>

> If those don't work, administration officials may have to resort to

> old-fashioned political pork. " With the Democrats almost united, we

> have to deal with the most protectionist Republicans in Congress,

> and that means [dealing with] textiles, sugar and whoever else comes

> along, " said one U.S. trade official, who spoke on condition of

> anonymity because negotiations are ongoing. " If you take 170

> Democrats off the playing field, it means we're going to have to cut

> some deals. "

>

> " An awful lot is stake here, and control of Congress is the grand

> prize, " said Moran, one of only five Democrats who have publicly

> pledged to vote for the treaty. " The stakes are very, very high. "

>

>> From an economic standpoint, the Central American Free Trade

> Agreement

> appears to be a relatively minor treaty. The accord would extend

> NAFTA-like trading preferences to El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras,

> Nicaragua, Costa Rica and the Dominican Republic, six countries

> whose combined economies -- at $85 billion in 2003 -- are smaller

> than the Czech Republic's.

>

> But with a growing backlash against free trade, the treaty has grown

> in

> political importance. Republican Rep. Bob Inglis, whose upstate South

> Carolina district includes much of the nation's decimated textile

> industry, said he has received more than 1,000 inquiries on CAFTA,

> making it the hottest issue since he returned to Congress this year.

>

> In past trade agreements, dozens of Democrats have joined Republican

> majorities to help secure passage. But this time, as few as 10 may

> vote for it. That means Republicans from hard-hit districts

> representing textile mills, machine-tool manufacturers and sugar

> growers will have to vote yes if President Bush is to avoid a major

> political defeat.

>

> " What's different is how much this has become a party-line issue for

> the Democrats, which has really raised the pressure on Republicans, "

> said Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.).

>

> Administration officials had hoped to win passage of the treaty

> before

> Congress's July 4 recess, but they acknowledge they do not have the

> votes -- yet. Indeed, Rep. Walter B. Jones Jr. (R-N.C.) said between

> 20 and 23 House Republicans are solidly against the treaty.

>

> But the White House is working hard to chip away at the opposition

> on both sides of the aisle. On June 15, in a letter to 14 members of

> the House Democratic Hispanic Caucus, Commerce Secretary Carlos M.

> Gutierrez tried to answer concerns over the enforcement of labor

> laws in the CAFTA countries, offering " a long-term, sustained

> commitment to labor capacity-building " in Central America as well as

> an international donors conference before the end of July to win aid

> to the countries' labor ministries and labor courts.

>

> A U.S. trade official, speaking on condition of anonymity because

> negotiations are ongoing, said the White House has secured $20

> million to beef up enforcement of labor and environmental laws in

> the CAFTA countries.

>

> Sugar-state lawmakers late last week presented the White House with a

> series of demands drafted by the sugar industry to assuage concerns

> that the treaty would undermine the U.S. system of sugar price

> supports. They include government purchases of surplus U.S. sugar to

> make up for new imports from Central America and assurances that

> sugar will be excluded from future trade deals.

>

> And yesterday, Bush invited 14 wavering House members to the White

> House to listen to their demands. Inglis told Bush he could vote for

> the treaty only if a separate, binding agreement is reached with

> each of the signatories to ensure that cheap Chinese textiles could

> not be brought into Central America, then shipped duty-free to the

> United States. Rep. Steven C. LaTourette (R-Ohio) said Bush is

> unlikely to win him over, but he wanted to hear how far the White

> House is willing to go to force China to float its currency.

>

> Such overtures have some leading Democrats convinced CAFTA will

> ultimately pass, perhaps by a single vote. Rep. Charles B. Rangel

> (N.Y.), the ranking Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee,

> which has jurisdiction over trade, said he has not been swayed by a

> personal visit from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and an

> audience with the president. But, he said, others probably will be.

>

> " I always had thought it would be impossible to pass this thing

> because of the hemorrhaging of Republican votes, " he said, " but that

> was before I saw what they were doing to get Democratic votes. If

> there's no limit to what they'll pay, they've got to win. "

>

> So far, trade officials concede such talks have yielded only limited

> results. After one conversation with Bush and three with Gutierrez,

> Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Tex.) said he has been won over.

>

> " I am interested in doing the right thing, not in making one

> political

> party look bad, " Cuellar said. " We cannot politicize this type of

> agreement. "

>

> But Democratic leaders aren't about to bend. House Democratic Caucus

> Chairman Robert Menendez (N.J.) said the White House cannot cut

> development assistance to Latin America and allow congressional

> Republicans to pass anti-immigrant measures, such as the recent

> clampdown on driver's license issuances, then come to Latino

> lawmakers promising aid in exchange for their votes.

>

> " I make of it all to be hollow promises, too little, too late and, to

> be honest with you, incredibly offensive, " he said.

>

>

> For Health Freedom,

> John C. Hammell, President

> International Advocates for Health Freedom

> 556 Boundary Bay Road

> Point Roberts, WA 98281-8702 USA

> http://www.iahf.com

> jham

> 800-333-2553 N.America

> 360-945-0352 World

>

>