[NYTr] Progressive Dems on Peru "Free Trade" Passage iin Senate

[All the News That Doesn't Fit]

sent by Ed Pearl - Dec 5, 2007

Progressive Dems mailing list - Dec 4, 2007
http://mailman.svpal.org/mailman/listinfo/pdla


Peru FTA Passes in Senate

In response to the Senate passing the Peru Free Trade Act (FTA) today,
Lori M. Wallach, Director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch
Division released the following statement today:

In Peru Trade Vote, Senate Democrats Break With Base, Dismiss Widespread
Public Opposition to More-of-the-Same Trade Policy and Join GOP to Vote
for Another Bush NAFTA Expansion Pushed by Corporations

Seven of Nine Senate Freshmen Democrats Oppose Expanding NAFTA to Peru

Although not one U.S. labor, environmental, Latino, consumer, faith or
family farm group supported the Peru free trade agreement (FTA), a
majority of Senate Democrats today broke with their base, dismissed
widespread public opposition to more-of-the-same trade policy and
joined Republicans to deliver another Bush NAFTA expansion to the large
corporations pushing this deal.

The debate in the Senate contrasts with that in the House of
Representatives last month. There was little focus on the Peru NAFTA
expansion deal in the Senate, but in the House an intense, multi-month
debate resulted in a majority of House Democrats, including 12 of 18
House committee chairs, voting against the Peru pact and signaling that
it is not an acceptable model for future trade agreements.

The breakdown of this vote vividly demonstrates two phenomena: the
distance between most senators and the American public on trade issues,
and the depth of the American public's negative opinion about
NAFTA-style trade deals. All but two of nine Democratic freshmen
senators who recently campaigned extensively in their states opposed
the Peru NAFTA expansion today. Most of the Democratic presidential
candidates oppose it, including Sens. Joseph Biden of Delaware and
Chris Dodd of Connecticut.

In contrast to most of the Democratic presidential candidates who
oppose the Peru NAFTA expansion, Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York and
Barack Obama of Illinois support it. Clinton and Obama's support for
the Peru FTA - after both opposed the 2005 Central American Free Trade
Agreement (CAFTA), which contained identical provisions and now
campaign against NAFTA in Iowa, should make voters wonder just what
sort of trade policy Clinton and Obama really support. None of the
senators running for president voted today, although all four have
issued public statements taking positions on the Peru pact.

Clinton's support for the Peru FTA suggests that her recent call for “a
time-out” on trade agreements apparently begins only after she votes
for one more NAFTA-style agreement. The fact that Obama was the first
Democratic presidential candidate to announce his support for the Peru
NAFTA expansion two months ago makes his recent attacks on Clinton
regarding NAFTA bizarre.

Neither Clinton nor Obama has made clear which of the objectionable
NAFTA foreign investor privileges--imported food safety limits, service
sector privatization and deregulation, “Buy America” bans and other
provisions--would be eliminated in potential Clinton or Obama-negotiated
agreements. Voters across the country who have suffered the real-life
damage from NAFTA deserve to know how all this anti-NAFTA talk from
Clinton and Obama would translate if either were elected president.

In key early primary states, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and both Iowa
freshmen Democratic House members opposed the Peru NAFTA expansion, as
did both New Hampshire Democratic House members.

That the Senate passed a NAFTA-style trade agreement by a wide margin
is not unexpected, as even the highly controversial NAFTA had 61 in
favor, including 27 Democrats, in 1994. The Morocco and Bahrain FTAs
were passed by voice vote in 2004; 80 senators voted for the Australia
FTA also in 2004; 83 voted for China permanent normal trade relations
in 2000; the Singapore FTA in 2000 obtained 66 votes; and the Chile FTA
got 65. In 2005, CAFTA, which obtained no votes from numerous
prospective Democratic presidential candidates who had never before
opposed a pact, was the closest Senate trade vote ever at 54-45.

The passage of the Peru FTA, which was overwhelmingly opposed in the
United States and Peru, is bad foreign policy, bad domestic policy and
egregiously bad politics. Both of Peru's labor federations, its major
indigenous people's organization and its archbishop called on the U.S.
Congress to oppose the deal based on the damage it is projected to
cause Peru's small farmers and environment.

The Peru NAFTA expansion replicates many of the CAFTA provisions that
led most Democratic senators to oppose that pact. This includes: foreign
investor privileges that create incentives for U.S. firms to move
offshore and expose basic environmental, health, zoning and other laws
to attack in foreign tribunals; bans on “Buy America” and
anti-offshoring policies; limits on food import safety standards and
inspection rates; and NAFTA-style agriculture rules that are projected
to displace tens of thousands of Peru's Andean farmers and thus
increase coca production and immigration. The pact also contains terms
that could subject Peru to compensation claims for reversing its
unpopular Social Security privatization, the same system Democrats
fought against at home.

Repeated polling shows that the American public, both Democrats and
Republicans, have negative feelings about current U.S. trade policies
and the effects on their lives. Democrats in 2006 gained a majority in
Congress with scores of candidates winning in campaigns focused on
changing the NAFTA trade model.

The message of the midterm elections was loud and clear: Voters want a
new direction on trade. Congress' public approval rating will not be
helped by ignoring this call and passing another Bush NAFTA expansion.

See the roll call vote results at:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00413