Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

CAFTA vote a blow to U.S. sugar industry

By ANITA KUMAR
Published July 29, 2005

WASHINGTON - After President Bush and the Republican party eked out a victory Thursday on a bitterly fought Central American trade agreement, some wondered if they pacified the sugar industry with some kind of deal.

They didn't.

Instead, Congress' narrow approval of CAFTA marked the biggest defeat in two decades for the powerful sugar industry, which is predicting a serious loss to its business.

"We're disappointed," said Dalton Yancey, a lobbyist at the Florida Sugar Cane League. "We don't like losing. We're in it to win."

Sugar companies and other opponents were surprised that Republican lawmakers from some of the biggest sugar-producing areas in the nation sided with their party. "They made some of those members cast a vote that is going to hurt them badly in their districts," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said. "They voted against the interests of their constituents, and we will make sure their constituents know."

CAFTA, the Central American Free Trade Agreement, will eliminate tariffs and other trade barriers between the United States and six countries and increase protections for investment and intellectual property.

It faced the most intense opposition in Congress of any trade agreement in recent history, and Republicans leaders worked furiously in the final days to cut deals and press lawmakers.

Even Rep. Mark Foley, R-West Palm Beach, whose district is the third-largest sugar-producing area in the nation, voted for the agreement. He had fretted about CAFTA for more than a year, trying to compromise with sugar producers. Foley said he voted for CAFTA after House leaders assured him he would have influence in 2007 when sugar's needs are renegotiated in the farm bill.

"It establishes my credibility with leadership," said Foley, who received $56,500 from the sugar industry during the 2004 election cycle, second-highest in Congress, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

The White House negotiated CAFTA more than a year ago but did not send it to Congress right away because it didn't have the votes to pass the deal. CAFTA allows countries to increase the amount of sugar they send to the United States. It's a small percentage of U.S. consumption, but growers fear it will be enough to lower sugar prices, cost jobs and set a dangerous precedent for future trade agreements.

Yancey said the industry plans to review its U.S. operations, including Florida, and maybe cut back.

The Senate passed CAFTA last month by a vote of 54-45; the House approved the agreement on a 217-215 vote. Both were generally along party lines.

Hours before the Senate began debating CAFTA June 30, some lawmakers announced they had cut a deal on sugar that would allow lawmakers to sign on. But the sugar industry remained staunchly opposed, saying the deal didn't go nearly far enough.

The deal protects the sugar industry from any imports under the previously approved North American Free Trade Agreement and other trade agreements the Bush administration negotiates until 2007.

"We still think it is a short-term fix to a long-term problem," said Phillip Hayes, spokesman for the American Sugar Alliance.

Sugar companies and their employees contributed $3.2-million to candidates in the 2003-04 election cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, an organization that tracks campaign money.

Sugar received most of the attention in Florida, where it was the largest and most influential group opposed. But most of Florida's 25 House members voted along party lines, including Rep. Adam Putnam, a Republican from Bartow with sugar growers in his district who received $12,000 from sugar in two years.

"I did not come to this decision easily," he said. "But with all the information before me, weighing the benefits of free trade and the impact on the affected industries, I believe I made the best choice for Florida and the nation."

Rep. Connie Mack of Fort Myers, who received $36,956 from sugar, was the only Florida Republican who voted against CAFTA, saying he had concerns about cattle ranchers and sugar.

"I had hoped that those concerns would have been successfully resolved and I am disappointed that they were not," he said. "I am hopeful that any future free trade agreements will not ignore Florida's interests."

Times researcher John Martin contributed to this report.

[Last modified July 29, 2005, 00:52:10]