Earlier today A.M. Mora y Leon posted an entry on the necessity of passing CAFTA, and I wanted to add to that. Today the Wall Street Journal published an article which described the kind of negotiating going on in the House of Representatives over this trade pact, and in doing so illustrated the short-sightedness which seems to perpetually dominate that august institution (see “White House Barters for Trade Pact Votes;” A4, subscription required):

As the House moves toward a vote this week on President Bush’s Central American trade pact, the White House is trying to cut deals to shore up support.

An administration team scouring the House for votes has been showing more willingness to entertain lawmakers’ requests for special breaks. One deal under consideration would protect shipments of U.S.-made denim to Nicaragua, a move that could secure the votes of perhaps half a dozen lawmakers from textile-producing areas in the Deep South.

“All politics is local, and I have to make sure the people at home feel their jobs are as secure as they can be,” says Rep. Phil Gingrey, a Georgia Republican whose vote is tied to the Nicaraguan deal. Mr. Gingrey fears major Georgia employers, such as Mount Vernon Mills Inc. and Avondale Mills Inc., will lose business unless the protections are added to the Central American Free Trade Agreement, or Cafta. “The administration is trying to get it right,” the congressman says, underscoring his leverage in the fight. “They’re listening to us. They know our concerns. And, of course, they need our votes.”

The bargaining spotlights the intensity of the fight for passage of Cafta. The deal would bind the U.S. economy to five countries in Central America, as well as the Dominican Republic, creating the second-largest U.S. trading bloc in Latin America, after Mexico.

The measure cleared the Senate on a 54-45 vote in June, after the administration cut a handful of side deals — such as a pledge to New Mexico Democrat Jeff Bingaman to boost spending on labor-rights enforcement — to help ease passage. But support lags significantly in the House, with informal counts suggesting it falls about 25 votes short of what is needed to ensure passage…

Rep. Bill Thomas, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, has made the most visible contribution in the vote-getting effort. The California Republican pledged to move legislation that would expose China to a new range of trade sanctions, and in return secured the support of Republican Rep. Phil English, a trade critic from Pennsylvania, and perhaps six to eight lawmakers for whom cracking down on China is the deciding issue. Among them is Rep. Todd Platts, a Pennsylvania Republican who says he is now “probably leaning yes”…

The response to arguments that CAFTA might hurt this or that local industry is straightforward: the United States has a broad national interest in promoting free trade in the Western Hemisphere and globally which includes economic as well as security concerns, and that overriding national interest should not be impeded by the narrow interests a couple of industries. To be specific:

• The United States cannot expect other countries to open up their economies if we are not prepared to do the same. Thus one industry may face difficulties while another gets a boost from free trade. Furthermore, even where one industry loses ground, the U.S. economy gains as cheaper products cut inflation, thus holding down interest rates, which in turn spurs economic growth across the board.
• There is an important national security dimension here, as the countries of Central America are struggling to maintain any kind of stability in the face of challenges from drug cartels and petty gangs on the one hand and Marxist militias on the other. Helping to build a stable middle class in these countries would also help U.S. security interests along our southern border.
• America’s position as leader of the free world has been hindered in recent years by the administration’s trade tariffs and the continued maintenance of agricultural subsidies to farmers which hold down farmers in poor countries, as well as by the collapse of global trade talks (partially but not entirely caused by these same policies). Passing CAFTA, along with Congressional approval of the administration’s recent decision to end cotton subsidies, would help out a lot on this front.
• Opponents of CAFTA often cite NAFTA, claiming that the latter was a failure. Yet U.S. exports to Mexico have boomed, and far from resulting in a job flight south of the border, the U.S. unemployment rate, now at 5%, has dropped significantly since NAFTA’s passage in 1994. Mexico has not benefited as much from the deal as at first it appeared because they have lost so much ground to Asian countries, particularly China, but this is a reflection of Mexico’s hyper-statist economy and the relative efficiency of Chinese firms, not any fault in NAFTA.

After having had a poor record on promoting global economic freedom in his first term, President Bush is making a stronger effort now. It would help if he could get some help from leaders in the House.

Contributed by Kirk H. Sowell at Window on the Arab World, and More!