Editorial comment: 
Please note that this bill was introduced to the House Floor by Rep Tom DeLay (the representative from TEXAS that we are all beginning to understand and dislike).  Introduced on Jun 23, 2005 and passed into LAW on Jul 28, 2005 - a little over one month later and not very much time for Americans to learn the real story behind the bill.  However, by the provided link below it is obvious that Congressman Miller has joined forces with congressional idiots that would work on selling our country out to the highest  bidder.  Some of these central american countries are the very same countries that other members of congress are trying to legitimize their illegal citizen invasion into OUR country, by allowing them to become citizens by the mere stroke of the President's pen. 

It seems to us at the Santa Rosa News that the individual that used to be OUR Congressman has sold out or is working on selling out to the highest bidder(s).  Also Congressman Miller appears to be taking ventriloquist lessons so that he can improve how he talks out of both sides of his mouth at the same time.

Due to Mr Miller's actions, we will be reminded of his vote for decades to come, long after he is defeated at the polls for selling us out. 
Final comment - Question:  Just who is Jeff Miller representing ? 
____________________________________
32. H.R.3045 : To implement the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement.
Sponsor: Rep DeLay, Tom [TX-22] (introduced 6/23/2005)      Cosponsors (1)
Committees: House Ways and Means
House Reports: 109-182
Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-53 [GPO: Text, PDF]

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 443
(Republicans in roman; Democrats in italic; Independents underlined)

      H R 3045      RECORDED VOTE      28-Jul-2005      12:03 AM
      QUESTION:  On Passage
      BILL TITLE: Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

The following link provides the complete AYES vote in favor of House Bill 3045, now Public Law  No: 109-53.
In order to reduce the length of this editorial,  all names with the exception of Congressman Miller (Florida) have been deleted.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll443.xml

Republican 202 27   2
Democratic 15 187  
Independent   1  
TOTALS 217 215 2

---- AYES    217 ---

Miller (FL)

__________________________________________

The below letter was recently forwarded to a constituent from  Congressman Miller.  The date, recipient name and address of this public records document have been witheld from this posting.

Dear .................

Thank you for contacting me regarding the Central American Free Trade Agreement CAFTA).  I appreciate knowing your view about the issued affecting Northwest Florida and our nation.

Let me be clear.  I support free and fair trade.  My voting record demonstrates that I am not an isolationist, and I do not oppose commerce with other nations.  But trade agreements must be beneficial to the people of my district and to Florida, and our trade partner nations must be of economic and political postures to support entering into trade agreements with the United States.  I do not believe CAFTA is good for Florida, and I don't believe these Central American nations come to the table fitting these criteria. 

I'm concerned that there is not a Central American market for U.S. Exports.  The six countries of CAFTA - Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic - have the collective gross domestic product (GDP of $85 billion.  By contrast, the Tampa-St Petersburg area alone has a GDP of $87.5 billion.  How, then, can these nations' economies be important markets for U.S. exports and growth engines for the $12 trillion U.S. economy ? What's more, Nicaragua, Honduras, and Costa Rica are already under International Monetary Fund (IMF) austerity agreements as a result of their large foreign debt and deep poverty.  And the Dominican Republic has $7.6 billion in foreign debt, a poverty rate of 67 % and in 2002l, inflation topped 43 percent.

CAFTA is an outsourcing agreement.  The six countries cannot be compared to Brazil or Australia, for instance, in terms of their market for U.S. exports.  Instead, CAFTA will be a market for " turnaround  " exports - products shipped south for assembly and then final sale in the U.S. - particularly textiles and semiconductors.  Fabric will be sent to the region, stitched into final apparel and home furnishings products, and shipped right back to the United States.  That's not traditional job creating exports at all.  Rather than serving new foreign markets, these4 " exports " serve the same domestic market U.S. - based factories once supplied.  The only difference: American workers are removed from the equation.  Due to Central American turnaround trade that currently exists, the U.S. trade deficit with the CAFTA-6 countries rose nearly 60 percent from 1997-2004.

I believe that CAFTA wasn't negotiated as it should have.  As of 2001, 70 percent of U.S. industrial exports had zero-duty access to the Central American market.  75% of Central exports to the U.S. are duty-free, including 99.9 percent of food and agricultural products.  CAFTA will only increase that percentage to 80 percent. 

Also disturbing is the fact that CAFTA allows China textile-trans-shipments.  CAFTA contains major rule-of-origin loopholes, which determines the criteria for gaining duty-free treatment under the agreement.  CAFTA'S rule-of-origin requires only the " essential " fabric of the garment be produced in the U.S.  CAFTA contains Tariff Preference Levels (TPLs) and cumulation provisions that are an exception to the rules of origin, allow for a specific amount of trade without having to use U.S. or regional yarns and fabrics.  According to the Mexican Textile Chamber of Commerce, 58 percent of all clothing sold in Mexico is smuggled in from China.  China is not a party to CAFTA and has given up nothing, yet stands to gain substantially from the agreement.  Additionally, CAFTA's cumulation provisions also give preferential treatment to Mexico and Canada.  Still further, at a time when the U.S. is rapidly outsourcing both its service and manufacturing jobs, CAFTA will make it illegal for any state or federal agency to adopt a " Buy American " policy. 

But closer to home, I've met with representatives of Florida agriculture and other interests, and its clear that we have real reason to worry about this agreement.  CAFTA offers no real value to Florida's producers of perishable commodities seeking to sell products in Central American markets.  It's fair to say that Florida fruit and vegetable growers did not fare well after NAFTA passed.  Mexico devalued the peso and imports of fresh vegetables from Mexico increased dramatically.  The U.S. tomato industry worked with the Commerce Department to file a dumping petition against the Mexican tomato industry in the mid 1990s  to stem the flood of tomatoes from Mexico into the US market.  The case resulted in a suspension agreement that has been renewed and remains in effect for policing the volume of tomatoes crossing the border.  The Florid Tomato Committee, the marketing order for tomatoes grown in Florida, had around 200 members pre-NAFTA.  That membership is down 60 percent, as several growers and packinghouses  went out of business or had to merge following NAFTA. 

The NAFTA experience has left growers reluctant to embrace new trade deals, and they're asking me what safeguards are built in that are designed for seasonal markets or perishable products.  If a grower's season is  only a few weeks long,  his or her opportunity to recoup losses is long over by the time any safeguards are triggered.  Because countries covered under CAFTA have not been demonstrated to have the buying power to purchase Florida grown perishables, Florida fruit and vegetable producers don't see a tangible benefit to the accord.  Labor regulatory compliance costs in CAFTA nations are much lower than here, so they can compete with our growers on many of the same products. 

These are just some of what remain as concerns about CAFTA.  I appreciate you contacting me about this important issue, and I will consider your views as I continue to monitor the agreement's movement from the Ways and Means Committee to the House floor.  Again, thank you for contacting.  If you would like to receive further information on issues of importance to you, please log on to my website at http:www.house.gov/jeffmiller. As always, please feel free to contact my office if you have any further concerns. 

With warm personal regards, I am

Sincerely,

/s/ Jeff Miller

Jeff Miller
Member of Congress

JM/eg