Opposition to trade pact growing

WASHINGTON -- Opposition to the Central American Free Trade Agreement appears to be solidifying in Congress, with a smattering of Republicans joining nearly united Democrats in urging its rejection, even as President Bush intensifies lobbying for his top trade priority.

CAFTA, signed by Bush in May 2004, would eliminate most tariffs and import restrictions between the United States and five Central American nations -- Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua -- in addition to the Dominican Republic.

Republican senators from farm states had harsh criticism for CAFTA at a hearing yesterday, and the agreement currently lacks majority support in the House and the Senate, according to lawmakers on both sides of the issue. Since Congress must approve or reject the agreement without making changes, such opposition would doom the measure, though Bush and other CAFTA supporters are still seeking to persuade undecided lawmakers.

''If the Republicans had the votes, they would have put this on the floor a long time ago," said Representative Xavier Becerra, a California Democrat opposed to the trade pact. ''The panic buttons are being pushed by those who want to push this thing through."

A defeat would be a major setback for the Bush administration. The president sought to rally support for the agreement Monday in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., pressing Congress to approve a measure he said would foster economic growth in the United States and across the Western Hemisphere.

''CAFTA is more than just a trade agreement," Bush said in a speech to the Organization of American States. ''It is a signal of the US commitment to democracy and prosperity for our neighbors, and I urge the United States Congress to pass it."

The congressional opposition that has developed is reminiscent of the debate over the North American Free Trade Agreement -- between the United States, Canada, and Mexico -- which was championed by President Bill Clinton. NAFTA also faced strong opposition, particularly from Clinton's fellow Democrats, but Congress ultimately endorsed the deal in 1994 as a way to open American products to new markets.

Now, NAFTA is being blamed for a ballooning trade deficit, the loss of manufacturing jobs, and the persistence of low wages and workplace standards in nations that compete with the United States. The Central America pact, modeled on NAFTA, is coming under fire in part because of lingering disappointment about its predecessor.

Representative Stephen F. Lynch, a South Boston Democrat who opposes the pact, said the relatively small buying power of the Central American market is not worth the potential loss of hundreds of thousands of American jobs.

''We're competing for a market the size of New Haven, Conn., and we're risking quite a bit," Lynch said. ''On the merits, this bill is not going to convince enough people to take that chance."

Studies have suggested that NAFTA has cost the United States between 500,000 and 900,000 jobs -- mainly in manufacturing -- and has not caused Mexican wages to rise. But the pact's supporters point to increased sales of US goods in Mexico as evidence that NAFTA has worked, and contend that the jobs would have been outsourced to other countries even if NAFTA had never been approved.

By comparison, CAFTA's impact would be relatively small: When fully implemented, it is expected to add $1.9 billion to the $16 billion-a-year Latin American market for US goods. But Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns warned yesterday that a defeat of CAFTA would hurt the United States in the current round of world trade talks.

Republican leaders in Congress have delayed a vote because of the threat of defeat. But congressional leaders have vowed to complete action by the end of next month, and committee hearings in the coming weeks are expected to add some momentum.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley, a CAFTA supporter, said the vote will be ''very, very close" when his panel considers the agreement next week. He said it has been unfairly criticized because of concerns about job outsourcing, the trade deficit, and US debt held by foreign interests.

''It's an opportunity for people to vent frustration about these other issues," said Grassley, an Iowa Republican. ''I tell people all the time, there's not any job that can be lost to Central American countries that couldn't get there whether we've got CAFTA or not."

Backers say CAFTA would boost US sales of everything from apples to DVDs to shampoo. Bush has also touted the ability of free trade to raise living standards in Central American nations and strengthen democracy in the region.

Bush has not been able to count on support from centrist Democrats, as he could in other recent trade agreements. The New Democrat Coalition, House members who generally favor free trade, has called on Bush to bargain for more labor standards and guaranteed workers' rights in Central America.

Some Republicans are also distancing themselves from the president over CAFTA, reflecting concerns in the agriculture industry over cheap imports and the potential for jobs heading south.

Republican lawmakers opposed to CAFTA include Senator Conrad Burns of Montana and Senator C. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee. Several other Republicans remain undecided.

The pact is opposed by labor unions, textile manufacturers, and environmental groups. But Representative Kevin Brady, a Texas Republican who is leading efforts in the House to pass CAFTA, said he senses momentum shifting in favor of it as the president steps up his efforts.

''We still have a fight on our hands, no question, but things are moving in the right direction," said Brady.

Rick Klein can be reached at rklein@globe.com.