Troubling trade pact

Congress will be making a tragic mistake by approving the Central American Free Trade Agreement.

During congressional hearings to discuss this so-called free trade agreement, acting U.S. Trade Representative Peter Allgeier painted a rosy economic picture for post-CAFTA America. Allgeier told members of Congress that CAFTA would also help consolidate "democratic and free-market gains" throughout Central America and the Dominican Republic, thereby reinforcing the region's "progress toward economic, political and social reform."

During the hearings, Allegeier focused on exports of U.S.-made goods, which he said would be helped by the elimination of import duties by the CAFTA nations.

"Add up the six CAFTA economies and you get a market the size of New Haven, Connecticut," points out trade analyst Alan Tonelson of the U.S. Business and Industry Council. Tonelson concludes that CAFTA is a "classic outsourcing agreement" -- an arrangement in which the only significant U.S. export would be manufacturing jobs to poor, low-wage nations.

If CAFTA is intended to be a free trade agreement, why does it handicap U.S. farmers and give an artificial advantage to Central American farmers? And why do many of its supporters describe it as a foreign aid program for Central American governments? Now is the time to let Congress know that we are not about to let them trade away American jobs and our nation's economic independence.

Bernard J. Kunkel

Walton