Washington – The House narrowly approved the Central American Free Trade Agreement early today, a triumph for President Bush, who campaigned aggressively for the accord he said would foster prosperity and democracy in the hemisphere.
The 217-215 vote just after midnight, Eastern time, adds six Latin American countries to the growing lists of nations with free-trade agreements with the U.S. and averts what could have been a political embarrassment for the Bush administration.
It was an uphill effort to win a majority, with Bush traveling to Capitol Hill earlier in the day to appeal to wavering Republicans to support a deal he said was critical to U.S. national security.
The vote, supposed to take 15 minutes, dragged on for an hour as negotiations swirled around the floor. In the end, 27 Republicans – including Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado – voted against CAFTA, while 15 Democrats supported it.
Bush hailed the vote.
“CAFTA helps ensure that free trade is fair trade,” he said in a statement issued by the White House. “By lowering trade barriers to American goods in Central American markets to a level now enjoyed by their goods in the U.S., this agreement will level the playing field and help American workers, farmers and small businesses.”
The United States signed the accord, known as CAFTA, a year ago with Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic, and the Senate approved it last month. It now goes to the president for his signature.
To capture a majority, supporters had to overcome what some have called free-trade fatigue, a growing sentiment that free- trade deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement with Mexico and Canada have contributed to a loss of well-paying American jobs and the soaring trade deficit.
Democrats, who were overwhelmingly against CAFTA, also argued that its labor-rights provisions were weak and would result in exploitation of workers in Central America.
But supporters pointed out that CAFTA would over time eliminate tariffs and other trade barriers that impede U.S. sales to the region.
In the end, it was the national security argument – that rejection of the deal would further impoverish the region, undermine their democracies and exacerbate the flow of illegal immigrants into the United States – that appeared to persuade some wavering members.
