Eyes on Trade is a blog by the staff of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch (GTW) division. GTW aims to promote democracy by challenging corporate globalization, arguing that the current globalization model is neither a random inevitability nor "free trade." Eyes on Trade is a space for interested parties to share information about globalization and trade issues, and in particular for us to share our watchdogging insights with you! GTW director Lori Wallach's initial post explains it all.
NAFTA Peru Expansion Didn't Solve Peruvian Forestry Problems, I
The results are pouring in: when Congress voted to pass last year's NAFTA expansion to Peru, they effectively gave up leverage over a government determined to rip apart the Amazon and its biological occupants.
The FTA negotiations began in 2004. At that time, there was exploration contracts with multinational extraction companies for eight oil blocks. Then, in 2006, as negotiations were wrapping up, that number jumped again; slowed down while Congress was considering the FTA in 2007; and now has jumped up by another eight, bringing to total to 40 blocks. Another 14 are slated to be signed by 2009. According to ENS:
"Oil and gas blocks now blanket nearly 75 percent of the
Peruvian Amazon," said Dr. Matt Finer, staff ecologist at Save
America's Forests in Washington, DC, who is now in Peru. "That is over
123 million acres of megadiverse rainforest, roughly the size of
California and Maine combined."...
"Hydrocarbon blocks now overlap 20 protected areas," said Cesar Gamboa,
president of the Peruvian nongovernmental organization Derecho,
Ambiente y Recursos Naturales.
"Thirteen of these protected areas preceded creation of the oil blocks
and the overlap is illegal due to the lack of compatibility studies
required in the Protected Areas Law," Gamboa said...
An analysis by Save America's Forests indicates that 58 of the 64
blocks overlay titled indigenous lands and 15 overlap the territories
of indigenous peoples in voluntary isolation.
Then, Peruvian President Alan Garcia unilaterally modified the institutional structure that slowed down destruction of the rainforest, only months after Congress approved the trade deal. According to IPS:
Legislative decree 1,015, approved by García on
May 20, makes it possible for indigenous communities in the country’s
highland and jungle regions to authorise the sale or lease of communal
land to private investors with the votes of just 50 percent plus one of
the members of the community assemblies.
The new law modifies legislation on private investment that
required the consent of two-thirds of the qualified members of the
village assembly to sell or lease land.
Now the votes of only a simple majority in village assemblies, who no longer must be duly qualified members, are needed...
The entry of private investment has come hand in hand with the formal
land titling and break-up of communal property, and many indigenous
peasants in the coastal regions have been forced to pawn their land
titles to obtain loans, given the lack of state support for improving
the productivity of their farms, said [one activist]...
Some warn that the decree opens the door to manipulation of communal assemblies.
"The common practice of many companies has been to foment the creation
of communal organisations parallel to the official ones, and to co-opt
some of the local leaders, which has enabled them, in many cases, to
destroy the social fabric and impose their own decisions," said lawyer
Javier Jahncke with the non-governmental Ecumenical Foundation for
Development and Peace (FEDEPAZ).
Indeed, the action by the nominally socialist Garcia has brought together the left, the right, and indigenous groups in Peru to oppose the presidential power grab, and the multinational land grab. We'll look at more of this story today and next week.
There has been a series of news items over the last few months that suggest that the presidential candidates are softening their trade positions just because they don't have a No to NAFTA symbol tattooed on their forehead. Here is one example from a few days ago, but there have been others that we've written about.
Here's a quote from the recent article:
Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama have been largely silent on the
issue of free trade agreements as the primary season is set to end
Tuesday in Montana and South Dakota, where agriculture and exports
reign supreme.
The article then references the support of Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) and some corporate ranchers for trade deals as evidence that these states are in love with the status quo.
Politically, it's boneheaded analysis as well. Baucus gets unbelievable heat for his dogged attachment to the status quo, as when the Montana legislature gave him a smackdown last year over his support for Fast Track for Bush. And Democrat Jon Tester unseated Republican Conrad Burns last year with this message:
Recent trade agreements put our jobs and the viability of family farms
and ranches across Montana in jeopardy by handing off trade advantage
to foreign interests. Jon Tester will fight for Montana priorities in
the U.S. Senate by standing firmly opposed to unfair trade agreements
that hurt our communities and way of life. While Sen. Burns voted for
tax giveaways to companies that outsource American jobs, Tester will
protect American jobs in the U.S. Senate.
Tester stayed true to his promise by voting against the NAFTA expansion to Peru last year.
And you can bet that Daschle's spotty record on fair trade didn't help him any when the GOP ran a "social conservative" against him. If you want to set the record straight, check out on the real deal in Montana and elsewhere, check out our election report here.
The Oregon Fair Trade Campaign rallies outside of the office of Rep. Darlene Hooley (D-Ore.), who has yet to take a position the Death Free Trade Agreement (aka Colombia FTA).
Inside US Trade from Friday also had a number of heart attacks. Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) said:
“My goal is to get a robust TAA signed by the president and once that occurs I think we will be in a much better position on Colombia. ... Taking on these issues can clear the way I think for the pending trade agreements.”... Baucus admonished both labor unions and business groups in the speech. ... But AFL-CIO Policy Director Thea Lee... said that if President Bush introduces the Colombia FTA bill over the objection of the congressional leadership, it will be defeated for a number of reasons: the economy is in recession, it is an election year and there is a Democratic majority in the House and the Senate. In addition, the last election in the House saw 27 free trade representatives replaced with fair traders, she pointed out."
Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.), the House Dem Whip, also had some strange things to say. From IUT again:
According to Clyburn, Hoyer is “very supportive” of the agreement, but he is “not so sure that we got it at the point where we can get the full leadership to endorse it.” Everyone in the Democratic leadership voted for the Peru FTA, he pointed out. A Hoyer spokeswoman said Hoyer remains undecided on the Colombia FTA and said Clyburn did not accurately describe Hoyer’s position, however.
Clyburn said he would work with other Democratic leaders between through next week in order to get the Colombia FTA “in shape” for a possible vote, explaining that he expects the administration to submit the implementing bill next week in order to have the maximum number of legislative days for a vote this year.
He acknowledged that a vote on a controversial piece of legislation could be made more acceptable by linking it to another important bill. “A lot of times you cobble together coalitions to get things passed and people swallow on one end in order to get what they want on the other,” he said. “Whether or not that would be an approach we would take, I don’t know.”
He said White House cooperation on a new Trade Adjustment Assistance bill might help with the passage of the Colombia FTA and said this was a “big part” of Rangel’s “concerns.”
UPDATE AT 11:50 AM - BUSH JUST SIGNED THE LETTER TO DROP THE FTA IN CONGRESS. WE'LL TRY TO FIND THE VIDEO... FUNNIEST PRONUNCIATION OF "URIBE" EVER.
But what I refuse to accept is that we have to sign trade deals like
the South Korea Agreement that are bad for American workers. What I
oppose - and what I have always opposed - are trade deals that put the
interests of multinational corporations ahead of the interests of
Americans workers - like NAFTA, and CAFTA, and permanent normal trade
relations with China.
And I'll also oppose the Colombia Free Trade Agreement if President
Bush insists on sending it to Congress because the violence against
unions in Colombia would make a mockery of the very labor protections
that we have insisted be included in these kinds of agreements. So you
can trust me when I say that whatever trade deals we negotiate when I'm
President will be good for American workers, and that they'll have
strong labor and environmental protections that we'll enforce.
Obama touched on two themes that are obvious but rarely spoken in polite political circles: one, there is a severe imbalance in our trade policy against the public interest in favor of corporations; two, that it's a mockery of human dignity to even consider signing a trade deal with a country that is the union murder capital of the world.
The bold statement didn't win him any friends in Colombia's right-wing government, which has attached its hellish political sails to the outgoing Bush administration. According to the AP:
Colombia's president sharply criticized U.S. presidential contender
Barack Obama on Wednesday for opposing a trade deal with his country,
calling the Democrat out of touch with the realities of the South
American nation.
The White House is urging Congress to approve
the agreement, which would remove most tariffs on American exports and
cement Colombia's preferential trade status with the United States.
But Illinois Sen. Obama said Wednesday he would oppose the deal.
"I
deplore the fact that Senator Obama, aspiring to be president of the
United States, should be unaware of Colombia's efforts," President
Alvaro Uribe said in a statement. "I think it is for political
calculations that he is making a statement that does not correspond to
Colombia's reality."
Okay, I realize that the news that was trying to be reported here was the Uribe and Obama spat. But to describe the monstrous (what is it about Barack that makes people use that word?!) 600-plus page FTA does far more (and far more harm) that the innocuous-sounding summary "would remove most tariffs on American exports and
cement Colombia's preferential trade status with the United States."
For folks covering the campaign, this short blurbs are a great opportunity to move past the horse race and dig a touch deeper on the issue. Here's just a few thoughts for things to insert:
What's up with this narrative - paid for by the super-expensive Uribe lobbying outfits - that the Colombia FTA would help our foreign policy initiatives? If voters across Latin America are electing candidates that reject our failed trade model, how is our Latin America policy helped by shoving NAFTA-style trade policy on the one outlier government in the region, and one that doesn't seem to mind playing favorites in our domestic electoral processes? Doesn't sound like much of a foreign policy to me.
“The claims in this case arise from Defendants’ wrongful actions in connection with their production, bottling and distribution of Coke products in Colombia. With respect to their business operations in Colombia, the Defendants hired, contracted with or otherwise directed paramilitary security forces that utilized extreme violence and murdered, tortured, unlawfully detained or otherwise silenced trade union leaders of the Union representing workers at Defendants’ facilities. The individual Plaintiffs have been subjected to serious human rights abuses, including murder, extrajudicial killing, kidnapping, unlawful detention, and torture in violation of the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA), 28 U.S.C. §1350, the Torture Victims Protection Act (TVPA), international human rights law, and the common tort law of the state of Florida. Further, Defendants, their alter egos and/or their agents engaged in a conspiracy to cause physical and mental harm to Plaintiffs in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq.”
This is the same Coke, ahem, pushing the Colombia FTA. How is doling out legislative victories to corporations that have provoked such animosity abroad helping the long-term interests of Americans? What do the candidates have to say about these crucial issues?
(Disclosure: Global Trade Watch has no preference among the candidates.)
Wow. This week, I'm happy to be a blogger-researcher and not a lobbyist. Today's Inside U.S. Trade talked about the high level of wheeling and dealing that is being talked up in the halls of Congress on the trade deal with unionist murder capital Colombia. Apparently, some Democrats
"believe now they they can extract significant concessions from the White House for passing the FTA. A Democratic lobbyist said these members have made it clear the concession has to be “enormous” to offset the negative fallout from passing the Colombia FTA, and the lobbyist said their demands have been further prompted by President Bush’s rejection of programs that were a priority for Democrats, such as the State Children’s Health Insurance (SCHIP) bill."
Sources are suggesting that TAA is not enough to cut a deal, and that it looks like Bush doesn't support the better TAA bills anyway. According to Congress Now:
"I don't think dealing with the dislocation that comes from trade gets you one additional vote for a trade deal that is flawed," said Bill Samuel, legislative director for the AFL-CIO, a fierce opponent of free trade agreements. "The problem with Colombia - overlay the economic concerns with the human rights issue, the murders, the death squads, the lack of prosecutions. TAA doesn't address any of that."
Unfortunately, Baucus and Grassley are reportedly watering down their TAA proposals as we speak, so that service workers are not covered. Other Dems are wheeling and dealing, but shooting a little higher. From IUT:
According to [a Democratic] aide, a more reasonable trade-off for the Colombia FTA could involve a second economic stimulus package focusing on the middle class, mortgage relief for home owners threatened by foreclosure due to the sub-prime mortgage crisis, increased federal funding for education and the passage of an SCHIP bill... [but] union sources also said they have been assured by the speaker’s staff that no deal is being struck that would allow the FTA to come forward.
While all this air time is getting sucked up by the Colombia FTA - a policy not yet in place - the negative impact of current policy realities like our China trade deficit is not being addressed. But that doesn't mean fair traders aren't having to play whack-a-mole on these other issues as well. According to IUT, AFL-CIO Industrial Union Council Executive Director Bob Baugh "ruled out that administration action on China would make the House leadership more inclined to let the U.S.-Colombia free trade agreement come up for a vote. “We had assurances from leadership that trying to make linkages [to advance the Colombia FTA] is a false start,” he said."
Afro-Colombians reiterate opposition to Colombia FTA
Marino Córdoba, founder of the Association of Internally Displaced Afro-Colombians (AFRODES), has a nice guest blog post at The Hill entitled "Why Afro-Colombians Oppose the Colombia FTA." The whole post is worth a read, but the juicy tidbits include:
...At the end of 2007, angered by the strong opposition of the majority of Afro-Colombian communities to the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement (FTA,) Uribe created a new Commission in Colombia that directly challenges our legal governance structure.
Cynically dubbed the Commission for the Advancement of Afro-Colombian People, it would undermine our communities’ ability to advance development strategies chosen by our people that comport with our needs and that help even the economic playing field... President George Bush and other U.S. Uribe allies, such as Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY), and the vast array of lobbying firms hired by the Uribe government are now trying to tout this outrageous Commission as evidence that Afro- Colombian concerns are being addressed as they push to pass the FTA.
Córdoba says that thanks to a vibrant civil society movement in the 1980s, Afro-Colombians enjoy full legal recognition of their cultural rights and collective ownership of their lands (he specifically mentions Law 70 of 1993 (PDF), a rather remarkable piece of progressive legislation that I'd encourage anyone to read). Yet this recognition has been undermined by paramilitary organizations forcing Afro-Colombians off of their land: "Tens of thousands of us have been forced to flee... clear[ing] the way for the entry of oil palm plantations, logging operations, and mining projects advanced by allies of the Uribe Administration."
The Colombia FTA's Chapter 10 contains the same poisonous investor rights provisions as NAFTA, CAFTA and the Peru FTA. If the FTA is implemented, these provisions will only exacerbate the situation, empowering foreign companies to engage in resource extraction made possible by the illegal and often violent forcing of Afro-Colombians off of their land — land supposedly guaranteed to them by Law 70.
Today, at an event at the Council of the Americas, a corporate organization, I was introduced to a delegation of corporate CEOs from Colombia: David Bojanini of South American Insurance, Manuel Carvajal of the Carvajal Corp., Antonio Celia of Promigas and Francisco Diaz of the Corona Organization.
The event was introduced as a discussion of whether the "free trade agreement" would help improve Colombia, but amongst the diverse panel made up entirely of CEOs of Colombia's corporations (but from different geographic regions, perhaps? Though not even sure about that...), no one said that the FTA would be a bad idea, omitting the perspective of most civil society groups in Colombia and not leading to much of a discussion.
Each businessman outlined their commitment to improving life in Colombia. Antonio Celia said, "we provide jobs...hoping that they [workers] will be compensated with commitment and personal reward." (I'm sure most Colombians would prefer a living wage)
They also said that as opposed to Mexico pre-NAFTA, Colombia's corporations have a real sense of social responsibility and the problems were different in Mexico. (a reminder that drugs were one of the major issues during the NAFTA debate and last I heard most of our cocaine still comes from Colombia...?)
Bojanini said that he is "very concerned about the well-being of our employees. We have deep respect for our labor unions - many of our companies have unions. We support free association." (and still the most dangerous country for unionists in the world)
After going on about all the contributions of what they admitted was not a representative sample of Colombian CEOs, Francisco Diaz strained to say, "we're trying to tie this into the FTA..."
There was also the obligatory exchange about Venezuela and Chavez (that "purveyor of false populism" Bush mentioned last night in the State of the Union). The CEOs cited that the #1 market for Colombia corporations is the U.S. and #2 is Venezuela. The businessmen also said that the private sector has no control over this and will continue to send the "wrong signal" by exporting to Venezuela, but the government can't send the "wrong signal" by rejecting the trade agreement, because the top two exporters might switch places and then the world will end!!! ahhh!! This was an especially interesting statement given the frame of this forum as about Corporate Social Responsibility, but I guess by this point they had forgotten the corporate responsibility part...
The CEOs were also excited to announce that they were adopting a few
conventions of a Human Rights Code of Conduct that they had written. I
would think that since they wrote it they would sign up for all of it, but
apparently some of the private-sector written Human Rights Conduct just
went too far in supporting human rights.
And then they assured the people around the table including a few reporters that this forum and this trip was in fact "not a PR effort." (Well, at least with only the two reporters who showed up and the arguments full of holes, it wasn't a very successful PR effort.)
Just before the break, Inside U.S. Trade reported that the Bush administration is internally debating whether to submit the Colombia FTA to Congress without the consent of the Democratic leadership. Rep. Wally Herger (R-Calif.), who is a likely candidate to be the GOP's top rep on Ways and Means once Rep. Jim McCrery (R-La.) retires this year, said the prospect "is continually being debated at the White House.”
However, Herger added that submitting the FTA to Congress in such a manner is a “last option.” It is “obviously our first choice” to make the case for the FTA and generate adequate Democratic support for the agreement to have the leadership back the submission of the implementing bill, he said.
Under fast-track rules, Congress is obligated to consider fast-track trade bills in a fixed time frame once they are formally submitted, regardless of the leadership’s position on the bills. However, no administration has yet presented a fast-track trade bill without close consultation with the leadership.
Separately, Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.), one of the "CAFTA 15" Dems who voted for the NAFTA expansion to Central America said he will try to get some labor groups to take a “neutral” position on the Colombia FTA. And...
[Rep. Sander] Levin said that if the Administration tries to send the final implementing legislation for the Colombia FTA to Congress without a green light from House Democratic leadership, it would be “very negative” and counterproductive.
Martin Vaughan in Congress Daily had more on this possibility.
lobbyists and administration officials have discussed the option of just sending the Colombia deal up and forcing Democrats to vote on it, if congressional leaders won't take it up willingly. But Democratic aides and opponents of the deal said House leaders might also hold a secret trump card, an "emergency brake" that could short-circuit the fast-track process.
In the event that the White House sent the agreement up, House Speaker Pelosi could write a rule that would make a vote on the agreement subject to the call of the chair. Even though the trade negotiating authority has tools to prevent an agreement from being bottled up in committee, the speaker could, through such a rule change, delay a House floor vote indefinitely. But Democratic aides downplayed that scenario, saying it is unlikely that the Bush administration would risk being repudiated on the Colombia deal by sending it up without the acceptance of Democratic congressional leaders.
If Pelosi wanted, she could face down Bush if he tried to pull this stunt. Normally Fast Track requires a House vote on final passage a maximum of 60 days after the president introduces implementing legislation, with the Senate having 30 additional days to vote. This feature of Fast Track thus forces final action at the latest 90 days after implementing legislation is dropped. However, the 2002 Trade Promotion Authority 2105(c) makes clear that this requirement, as well as Fast Track’s ban on amendments and 20-hour limit on debate,
"are enacted by the Congress—
(1)as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the
House of Representatives and the Senate, respectively, and as such are
deemed a part of the rules of each House, respectively, and such
procedures supersede other rules only to the extent that they are
inconsistent with such other rules; and
(2)with the full recognition of the constitutional
right of either House to change the rules (so far as relating to the
procedures of that House) at any time, in the same manner, and to the
same extent as any other rule of that House."
Although this [Fast Track] statute is permanent law, it has been enacted as an exercise of the rulemaking power of either House and can be changed by either House, with respect to its own procedure, at any time, in the same manner and to the same extent as any other rule of that House.
So, will Bush attempt to use Fast Track to slip the Colombia FTA past Congress? If he does, will the Dem leadership block the move by changing the rule on Fast Track? Or will the Dems fold their opposition on this NAFTA expansion before the show-down happens? Corporations are celebrating Democrats' caving in on Peru as creating momentum for Colombia FTA, after all. Stay tuned.
InPeru 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 toPeru
Statement of Lori M. Wallach, Director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch Division
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.
5:13 pm: The Hill has a story that highlights Sen. Harry Reid's (D-Nev.) opposition:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) was one of 16 Democrats voting against the deal.
“It
is very unfortunate that the Bush administration’s only policy towards
Latin America has been to negotiate free trade agreements,” Reid said.
He added that he “reluctantly” opposes the Peru deal because it
“reflects major improvements from the previous model.”
“But I still see many holes in U.S. trade policy that need to be filled,” Reid added.
3:29 pm: Full analysis forthcoming, but the majority of leadership and freshmen opposed (minus not surprisingly Ben Cardin from Maryland and VERY surprisingly, Jim Webb of Virginia, hitherto MISTER Inequality). None of the candidates for president even voted, including Clinton, Obama and McCain, who were for; and Biden and Dodd, who were against.
2:54 PM: Passes 77-18.
1:22 pm: There is a bit of life here at the liveblog. There's an agreement to not have more debate and just come in for a vote at 2:15 pm. So we'll know within the hour.
11:42 am: Yeah, we're asleep at the wheel, sorry. Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) just said "Peru is no ordinary country, and the Peru FTA is no ordinary trade agreement." Given Baucus' relentless advocacy for expanding NAFTA to additional countries in opposition to his party's base, Max Baucus is no ordinary senator.
So, we didn't miss much from the Senate debate, as it turns out, which will begin anew shortly after 10 am, and the vote is still scheduled for 2:15 pm.
Sen. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), who voted right on CAFTA and wrong on the Oman FTA, argued that: "coca production, a major concern of ours with respect to Peru, has
decreased dramatically, thanks in large part to the eradication,
interdiction, and other efforts to develop economic opportunities for
the Peruvian people." He appears to be talking about in relation to the 1990s, but as this estimate by the Department of Justice shows, "Coca cultivation in Bolivia and Peru has the potential to increase significantly and to replace
some of the decreased cultivation in Colombia: Cocaine production in Bolivia and Peru is at a
much lower level than in Colombia. However, illegal coca cultivation has increased to its highest
level in 5 years." And as the Economist reported, social movements in Peru are mobilizing to promote even further coca cultivation.
In fact, trade policies are never going to substitute for a development or anti-drug policy. As the New York Times reported in 2004 on U.S. efforts to use trade policy to undermine coca production, '
After 55 years of packing Eastern Washington asparagus, the Del
Monte Foods factory here moved operations to Peru last year,
eliminating 365 jobs. The company said it could get asparagus cheaper
and year-round there.
As the global economy churns, nearly
every sector has a story about American jobs landing on cheaper shores.
But what happened to the American asparagus industry is rare, the
farmers here say, because it became a casualty of the government's war
on drugs.
To reduce the flow of cocaine into this country by
encouraging farmers in Peru to grow food instead of coca, the United
States in the early 1990's started to subsidize a year-round Peruvian
asparagus industry, and since then American processing plants have
closed and hundreds of farmers have gone out of business.
One
result is that Americans are eating more asparagus, because it is
available fresh at all times. But the growth has been in Peruvian
asparagus supported by American taxpayers...
'The irony is that they didn't plow under the coke to plant asparagus
in Peru,'' said John Bakker, executive director of the Michigan
Asparagus Advisory Board. ''If you look at that industry in Peru and
where it's growing, it has nothing to do with coca leaf growers
becoming normal farmers. Coca leaf is grown in the highlands. The
asparagus is near sea level.''
It's not for nuttin that the Washington Office on Latin America and our office argued that the coca-trade connection is the opposite of the one Salazar argued on the floor yesterday: NAFTA-style trade policies lead to RURAL DISPLACEMENT, which means immigration or pursuit of illegal drug cultivation.
These and other arguments (about food safety and ag policy more generally) are made forcefully by a letter sent yesterday by family farm groups to the Senate on the Peru FTA.
5:14 pm: "If you like NAFTA, you'll love the Peru FTA. Most people in America don't like NAFTA."
5:10 pm: Once you've been in DC a few years, it really is amazing how rarely you hear members talk about class and inequality in America - something that, after getting back from Chicago where my brother lives, most people in America are comfortable talking about. Sanders is not afraid of going there. Now, he's citing IIE and CEPR studies that document the inequality...
5:06 pm: Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), fair trade champion, bringing the pain on Peru FTA, leading off with unsafe imports
5:01 pm: By way of a little advance warning, I am probably going to head home within the next hour (got stuck overnight in Chicago last night, am fighting a cold... did I mention that airport contracted illnesses skyrocketed after NAFTA??!! We need a change in this trade model!), but if people want to liveblog it post 5:30 pm or so in the comment section, you can follow the awesome display of senatorial argumentation at C-Span 2 at this link.
4:50 pm: Grassley is taking on the argument that the Peru FTA will worsen our food safety laws... we wrote a report on this. He argues that there hasn't yet been a challenge of U.S. food safety laws. This is a complex debate, but the WTO challenge of EU's food safety regime is case one that it could happen. If we ever GET some good food safety laws, you can bet this could happen to us under the WTO, NAFTA and Peru FTA laws. The Peru FTA opens up our current food safety laws - low as they are - to claims for compenstation from corporations.
4:43 pm: Okay, we don't work on Venezuela here, but the stuff that gets said about the country is ridiculous. If possible, the media misrepresentations of what goes on there rival or exceed what is said about trade policy. In particular, the proposal to have MORE elections, institute gay rights and other measures is commonly described as some sort of attempt to abolish democracy. Well, that measure was voted down democratically today, and the government is respecting the result. For more on that situation, check out an insightful and funny blog at www.BoRev.Net. A more academic take is here. Nevetheless, as we argue here, the best way to avoid more Chavez's - if that's the goal - is to avoid contributing to economic misery and displacement abroad. Last time I checked, that's how populism succeeds...
4:40 pm: Grassley admits that the FTA will lock-in policies in Peru that current neo-liberal governments passed but which future governments will be bound to.
4:29 pm: Grassley cites the USITC report as justification for passing the Peru FTA. Keep in mind that this report, the official U.S. government assessment, shows our global trade deficit will increase with the Peru FTA.
4:26 pm: Despite the fact that you can't make an economic argument in favor, Grassley and Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) try to by saying Peruvians will buy tons of our exports.
4:23 pm: Grassley admits that there is no economic justification for the Peru FTA, and it's all geopolitical. But iIn the words of Archbishop Pedro Barreto, the President of the Episcopal Commission for Social Action of the Catholic Church in Peru, “We are certain that the trade agreement will increase the cultivation of coca, which brings along with it a series of negative consequences including drug trafficking, terrorism and violence.”
4:22 pm: My feed went out for a while. Apologies. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), ranking member of the Finance Committee, endorsing the Peru FTA as expected.
3:49 pm: Dorgan: Despite new labor rights, neither Bush nor the Chamber plan on enforcing them or want them to be enforced, as evidenced by their rejection last year of the proposal by then-Peruvian president Toledo to include ILO conventions themselves in the core text of the agreement. The Jordan FTA shows that paper labor rights are not enough...
3:46 pm: Dorgan: "This agreement will not harm the economic interests of the United States. I don't argue that. But it's an extension of a failed model."
3:40 pm: Dorgan reminding people of the radical, demogoguery of the claim that there is a connection between a net trade deficit and job loss in tradable sectors... sadly, this is still not widely conceded by the pro-NAFTA side, despite hundreds of years of economic theory.
3:30 pm: Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) speaking about Bush's NAFTA expansion to Peru, and called for benchmarks in FTAs so that trade balance is maintained, job creation in tradable sectors prioritized...
3:19 pm: Debate is beginning. Vote will happen at 2:15 pm tomorrow.
We'll be liveblogging the Peru FTA Senate vote, momentarily.
So with some very sophisticated calculations (ignored non-votes, found percentage per sign opposing), it looks like Pisces are the most fair trade inclined with 43% of Pisces voting against the Peru NAFTA expansion.
This is not surprising since according to AstrologyZone.com, Pisces "urge to relieve suffering in others is as strong as the life force and it is the single most important element of her nature to understand."
And which sign are the biggest NAFTA supporters? Gemini has it with only 20% of Gemini House members opposing the Peru deal.
Also not surprising. According to Astrology-Online.com, Gemini "is dual-natured, elusive, complex and contradictory. On the one hand it produces the virtue of versatility, and on the other the vices of two-facedness and flightiness." This about sums it up. Many of those who voted for the Peru NAFTA expansion did so despite earlier statements condemning the overreaching investor protections, NAFTA's agricultural rules and other NAFTA provisions that appear exactly as they did in NAFTA in the Peru agreement.
So in the future, when we ask what your sign is, what we mean is are you more likely a NAFTA supporter or a fair trader?
NOTE: Senate tally not yet in. Will of course revise this important report after the Senate vote, which is likely to happen the second week of December.
Late November is the time of year when we try to digest the food we've been shoveling in our traps for days, and also try to make some sense of the goings-on of the year. But the Washington Post had a story that is not helping my physical and psychological recovery any. There's a lot of scary stuff in there about how politics happens in this town (together with Rahm's questionable dating advice), but there are some quotes of note within (my emphases):
So this spring the Democrats, in concert with union leaders such as
Sweeney, crafted a long list of requirements for any trade deal with
the administration. The list included requiring other nations to
"adopt, maintain and enforce basic international labor standards in
their domestic laws and practices" and to implement and enforce
multilateral environmental agreements; ensuring that foreign investors
do not enjoy greater investment protections than U.S. citizens; and
providing guarantees of access to affordable prescription drugs...
Sweeney was meeting with foreign labor leaders in Berlin when the
deal was struck on May 10, but both Rangel and Pelosi called to inform
him of the news. At about midnight Berlin time, Sweeney spoke to the
speaker on the phone. "This is a historic agreement," he told her.
But
moments later, as Pelosi walked into the Speaker's Dining Room to hold
a news conference with Schwab and Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson
Jr., she found herself facing hostile Democrats. A handful of lawmakers
opposed to the trade pact with Peru -- including several Democratic
freshmen who had campaigned on the issue -- had squeezed themselves
into the tiny room on the Capitol's first floor and stared stony-faced
at the speaker.
"We're not against trade. We just want a trade system that works," said Rep. Betty Sutton (D-Ohio), a former labor lawyer who listened skeptically as the bipartisan group outlined its achievement.
Many
of Sweeney's fellow union leaders delivered even harsher assessments of
the new trade accord. Change to Win, the six-million member federation
that now ranks as the AFL-CIO's main rival, issued a news release on
May 25 saying that the agreement "does not represent the basis for the
type of new U.S. trade policy that this nation desperately needs."
Even
some leaders of the AFL-CIO's own affiliates rejected the agreement,
saying they do not trust President Bush with the enforcement of its
labor provisions...
It is a dilemma that leaves Rep. Xavier Becerra
(D-Calif.), a Ways and Means Committee member, wondering whether, in
incorporating provisions on environmental and labor standards in the
deal, his party has proven that it can deliver benefits to the working
men and women who helped return it to power.
"Trade has to be
sold as something that's good for us. This deal goes partway towards
addressing that. Whether it goes all the way . . .," the congressman
said, his voice trailing off.
Corporate and political elites have been trying to expand the WTO unsuccessfully for over a decade. One of the main components of their plan is to subject the U.S. higher education sector to WTO coverage, something that would be very bad from the perspective of domestic policy innovation. See here for more. But in the wake of the Bush lovefest on the NAFTA expansion to Peru, it seems that there might be some more rumors of slippage on the slippery slopes, ranging from more Fast Track for Bush to actually considering expanding the WTO. From today's Congress Daily PM:
U.S. Trade Representative Schwab said "there is every reason to expect" that a Doha agreement on world trade can occur before President Bush leaves office, according to a transcript of remarks she made Monday in Singapore. She also said Democratic congressional leaders have indicated a willingness to move ahead on presidential trade negotiating authority if negotiators come up with a framework for a Doha deal...
A spokesman for Speaker Pelosi said Democrats would "want to see what agreement is negotiated," but did not rule out action on trade negotiating authority if the Doha deal is good enough to appease Democrats. A spokesman for Senate Finance Chairman Baucus said that if a Doha deal is negotiated, Baucus will confer with Schwab, House Ways and Means Chairman Rangel and others "to determine the appropriate next steps." the aide said.
No indication yet on how real any of this is, or if just bluster on all sides. We'll stay tuned...
Musing on strategic pauses and the non-slippery slopes...
We heard a lot over the last year from a lot of clever Washingtonians about how if we just stopped "squawking" about the NAFTA expansion to Peru and gave Dems a pass to vote for this one, then we would avoid the "much scarier and totally different" NAFTA expansions to big, huge, giant, monstruous countries like Colombia and South Korea.
As the argument seemed to go, "principle?! who needs principles, especially when your policy stance is so easy to understand! First, spend 25% more on labor monitoring, but lower your auto tariffs by a formula equal to the logarithim of the increased labor spending, and then multiply that by the number fewer of murdered workers in non-tradable sectors over the number of increased cut flower imports. Then, while covering your eyes with a Made in China American flag blindfold, throw a dart on a spinning Made in Mexico globe, and the small country 36 degrees due west is the country where it is OK to have a NAFTA-style trade agreement."
Huh? What? As we argued previously, "what determines the effects of a trade agreement is not mainly the
economic size of the country involved but instead the scope of the
extraordinary corporate rights established under the agreement - rights
that undermine U.S. domestic and foreign policy goals." josh Holland and David Sirota argue something similar here. Peru and Panama may not be huge, but they're big enough for a lot of corporations to think it was very important to extend NAFTA to them. I guess you don't need too much space to set up Halliburton Peru and then use the FTA's corporate rights to undermine Peruvian and U.S. laws. Or whatev' you want to do.
And if matters of principle don't get your blood racing and hips shaking, then the political argument alone should be compelling. Let's say that 20% of members of Congress are firmly with fair traders on principle, while 30% are firmly against. (As it turns out, these are the percentages of House members that vote fair trade at least 80% and 0% of the time, respectively). That leaves about 218 members - of 50% of the House - that are picking and choosing their positions on fair trade depending on the bill, and are looking to outside pressure groups to define where the lines in the sand are. Elected officials don't necessarily have a long memory, but long enough to know that a model for one country should be just as good/bad for any other country. Or let's just say, I would love to be in on the lobby meeting where someone tries to convince a member otherwise. Like Twister, expect with tainted Peruvian ceviche and Colombian murderers on the red and blue dots.
In any case, the so-called Peru-passage-for-Korea-opposition deal that clever Washingtonians were so confident about appears to be fraying apart, as America's Ways and Means chairman announces from the SquawkBox. Check out this video at about 5:54 minutes in, or read this transcript and reporting from the Bureau of National Affairs:
Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) said Nov. 16 he is optimistic that Congress will consider the pending U.S. free trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea next year but cautioned that it is still not a sure bet. Rangel, who chairs the House Ways and Means Committee, said that problems remain with all three agreements that will need to be resolved.
He said that the agreement with Colombia would not be approved if it were brought before Congress for a vote today, calling the situation in the country "pretty heavy in terms of the violence against a whole lot of teachers and labor leaders." "We just don't have the votes," Rangel said.
With respect to Panama, Rangel said that the fate of the pending FTA with that Central American nation may be in the hands of the State Department, following the election this fall as president of the National Assembly of a Panamanian legislator under indictment in the United States for the murder of an American soldier. Rangel called the legislator--Pedro Miguel Gonazalez-Pinzon--"a big elephant in the living room...so how we handle that may be up to the State Department."...
Rangel, speaking in an interview on CNBC's "Squawk Box," said that, with respect to the FTA with South Korea, it is "being negotiated by the Executive Branch [which] is trying to get some relief for our beef exports."
But in the end, he said, he is optimistic that Congress will take up all three agreements next year, which some observers, however, have argued may be impossible because it will a presidential election year. "I'm optimistic [that] next year we'll take a look at all of these things," Rangel said, "and maybe the situation might change."
This makes sense. After all, once you've forced tons of members of the caucus to vote
for a flawed trade deal with one country, why would anyone think twice
about voting for the exact same trade deal with another country? I'm not necessarily a member of the USTR fan club, but I think the fine team over there could probably bring some pressure to bear to reshuffle some Panamanian officials, Colombian statistical methods on assassinations, and Korean tariffs. Maybe that would be enough of a template for a new trade policy for some observers, but I don't think that such little tweaks are what really make the difference when we're facing a massive bleeding of high-paying jobs ever further up the skill and income ladder.
And that brings me to my last and final musing of the day, on the argument for a "strategic pause" on trade. Jeff Faux from EPI has been raising this notion for a long time, and it must be a pretty powerful idea because presidential candidates are feeling the need to echo it, and from what I've read and heard, the Corporate Powers That Be within Dem circles are very scared of it.
WASHINGTON — In a rare victory for President Bush since Democrats took control of Congress, the House approved a trade agreement with Peru today in a vote that exposed a rift within the Democratic ranks over the issue...
But 116 Democrats still opposed the agreement, including some freshmen from districts where trade has been blamed for taking away jobs and shuttering work sites.
"Districts like mine represent the very worst of unfair trade -- jobs lost, economies devastated and lives shattered," said Rep. Phil Hare (D-Ill.). "Weary of more bad trade deals, last November voters swept fair-trade Democrats into office -- sending a clear mandate for a new direction on trade. And yet here we are. Voting on another one-sided, so-called free-trade agreement."
Despite intense pressure and lobbying from some Democratic leaders, a massive corporate coalition and the White House, a majority of Democrats in the House of Representatives today opposed Bush's Peru NAFTA expansion agreement, echoing the American public's widespread discontent with the status quo trade policy.
That a majority of Democrats opposed the Peru NAFTA expansion - theoretically the least controversial of Bush's remaining trade deals - will put the final nails in the coffins of any further Bush administration expansions of NAFTA to Panama, Colombia or South Korea.
The opposition from 117 Democrats - including nearly three-fourths of Democratic freshmen and a majority of the party's committee chairs- shows that significant work remains to create a framework for trade agreements that can earn public support nationwide and thus bipartisan support in Congress.
Despite the fact that many more Democrats occupy House seats, the Peru "free trade agreement" (FTA) obtained less Democratic support than the 2004 Australia FTA, the 2004 Morocco FTA, and the 2005 Bahrain FTA. The Peru FTA, because it fell short of approval by the Democratic majority, has proven itself an unacceptable framework for future trade deals.
Hopefully the next trade debate in the Congress will be about how to create a new template for future trade agreements that will benefit the majority of Americans and thereby be able to win the support of the Democratic majority.
In light of the 2006 elections, when Democrats took control of Congress after 37 freshmen successfully campaigned against the Bush trade agenda and replaced 37 anti-fair traders, many Americans likely will wonder how President Bush managed to eke out this rare victory and get a NAFTA expansion agreement through the Democratic-majority Congress. That a Democratic-majority Congress would pass a Bush trade agreement opposed by most Democrats may be especially puzzling since the vote came a week after Bush announced he would veto Democratic legislation to help workers who lose jobs to trade, and after Bush vetoes of Democrats' priorities - children's health insurance and anti-war legislation.
This vote reveals that many in Congress understand that what determines the effects of a trade agreement is not mainly the economic size of the country involved but instead the scope of the extraordinary corporate rights established under the agreement - rights that undermine U.S. domestic and foreign policy goals.
Trade per se was not the issue today. The Peru NAFTA expansion was opposed by so many Democrats because it establishes new corporate rights that promote offshoring of U.S. jobs; expose our environmental, food safety and health laws to challenge in foreign tribunals; empower foreign corporations to skirt Buy America and anti-off-shoring policies; provide Big Pharma with extended patent rights that undermine affordable access to medicine; and empower U.S. firms, such as Citibank, to demand compensation if Peru reverses its disastrous social security privatization.
No U.S. labor, environmental, consumer, faith, family farm or development group supported this agreement, which also is opposed by both of Peru's labor federations, its major indigenous people's organization and its archbishop.
The passage of the Peru NAFTA-expansion, which was overwhelmingly opposed in the United States and Peru, is bad foreign policy, bad domestic policy and egregiously bad politics.
###
Public Citizen is a national, nonprofit consumer advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C. For more information, please visit www.citizen.org .
30 Freshmen Democrats Voting No Peru FTA 1. Arcuri (NY) 2. Altmire (PA) 3. Boyda (KS) 4. Carney (PA) 5. Cohen (TN) 6. Courtney (CT) 7. Donnelley (IN) 8. Ellison (MN) 9. Hall (NY) 10. Hare (IL) 11. Hirono (HI) 12. Hodes (NH) 13. Johnson, Hank (GA) 14. Kagen (WI) 15. Loebsack (IA) 16. McNerney (CA) 17. Murphy C. (CT) 18. Murphy P. (PA) 19. Richardson (CA) 20. Rodriguez (TX) 21. Sarbanes (MD) 22. Shea-Porter (NH) 23. Shuler (NC) 24. Space (OH) 25. Sutton (OH) 26. Tsongas (MA) 27. Walz (MN) 28. Welch (VT) 29. Wilson (OH) 30. Yarmouth (KY) Braley (IA) missed vote, issued news release in opposition
1:47 pm: Word is that there will be one vote switch from a yes to a no, meaning the count will be 117 no, 108 yes, 8 not voting.
11:19 am: A majority of the Dems opposed the Peru FTA - 116 voting no, 109 voting yes, 8 not voting. 50% against, 47% for, 3.4% not voting. Bush's NAFTA expansion makes it through Congress with minority of majority. Roll call up
10;54 am: voting has started...
10:51 am: Rangel is closing out the debate, saying people should vote their conscience, and asking that people not challenge his integrity... not to make it personal or anything...
10:42 am: House Trade Working Group co-chair Rep. Mike Michaud (D-Maine) pointing out that this Peru deal is not about whether Peru has a large economy, but about principle of standing up for Americans and not just for big corporations. "We embrace globalization so long as it lifts us all up." One word: rockstar.
10:38 am: The GOP side is giving up its time to Rangel and Levin...
10:10 am: Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) is from the other side of Oregon, but one that is no less anti Peru FTA. A recent news article highlighted the differences between the two reps.
10:07 am: Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) gave a brilliant one-minute speech on Peru FTA. Peru deal is "by, for and about Wall Street."
"The dollar is dropping like a rock. We're borrowing $2 billion a day from
overseas to buy things that we don't make in America anymore. We've lost 4
million manufacturing jobs nationally, and 40,000 jobs here in Oregon due to
so-called free trade policies. Millions of middle class Americans are seeing
their pay go stagnate or decline. Our current trade policy is a dismal failure.
It's a failed engine for America's economy."
"Now along comes the Peru Free Trade agreement. The advocates say the
burgeoning middle class in Peru are going to be a huge market for the goods that
we don't make in America anymore. They tout the breakthroughs on modest
environmental and labor provisions, but the destructive multi-national
corporate-written chapter 11 core, that lead to the failure of NAFTA, CAFTA, and
other trade agreements, remains at the center of this policy. This agreement is
by, for, and about Wall Street, plain and simple. It's not in the best interest
of American workers, the U.S. economy, or our national security."
"If trade is the engine that drives our economy, we need an overhaul.
Instead, with this bill, we're getting a new hood ornament, some side view
mirrors and a misbegotten cousin of NAFTA as a trade policy."
10: 58 pm: The reps are signing off, and so are we, until around 10 tomorrow morn. Here's a pretty exciting global justice song, by none other than Anti-Flag, to sing you to sleep: "The WTO Kills Farmers." And so does the Peru FTA, dude.
10:55 pm: Rep. Betty Sutton (D-Ohio), a rockstar, and true heir to now-Sen. Sherrod Brown's (D-Ohio) seat. Representin' Lorain, mos def.
10:47 pm: Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), one of the CAFTA 15, almost got kicked out of office by Rep. Ciro Rodriguez, who challenged his pro-CAFTA vote, and went on to be elected on a fair trade platform in the neighboring district.
10:43 pm: Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas) lectures FTA critics as arrogant for pointing out the Peruvians oppose the deal, because their elected officials support the deal. This is the same government that is today breaking a strike, the same elite that privatized their social security system and marginalized the poor. In the words of Peru's largest indigenous federation when they appealed to the US Congress to oppose the deal,
It is very unfortunate that our own Republic’s Congress approved the signing of such a damaging treaty as the Peru FTA. Our democracy is still weak, due in part to the ongoing history of colonialism and racism that excludes meaningful input from affected indigenous communities who fight against exploitation and marginalization. All this leads us to place our hope in your colleagues and above all in you, the members of the U.S. Congress, to represent the best of democracy in our hemisphere and vote down this shameful Peru FTA.
10:39 pm: Rep. Phil Hare (D-Ill.) brought tears and applause to the room, arguing for the no vote. He said some pro-FTA character told him that he should vote for the deal but then talk to his constituents about currency manipulation. Hare said, "I better wear a football helmet if I try, cuz he's going to try to hit me."
10:32 pm: Rep. Melissa Bean (D-Ill.), one of the CAFTA 15, making her fourth consecutive vote for NAFTA expansion.
10:26 pm: Rep. Artur Davis (D-Ala.) gives some questionable dating advice: "Sometimes, you have to take yes for an answer." Oh wait, no he was just talking about the Peru FTA.
10:20 pm: Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.), one of the cofounders of the House Trade Working Group. Calls the "Peru FTA junker" the same "ol NAFTA lemon." "The actual benefits of NAFTA are about as real as the tooth fairy," mentions the promise that immigration would be reduced, but the opposite happened. "The enemy of the good is the bad," in response to the claim that "The enemy of the good is the perfect."
10:13 pm: Rep. Joe Crowley (D-N.Y.) sez he hasn't "been a purist on trade." That's true: he voted the fair trade position during the Clinton years, and then switched to an anti-fair trade position on 7/9 trade votes during the Bush years. (The two where the political pressure was the highest - CAFTA and Fast Track - he voted the fair trade position.) He's been one of the staunchest advocates of Bush's NAFTA expansion to Peru.
10:08 pm: Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), the presidential candidate who once led the GOP charge against NAFTA, representing the GOP that 2-to-1 think the trade status quo is a bad idea.
10:03 pm: Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.), another very odd vote for the Peru FTA. Says he "voted against all of em" - referring to trade agreements. "This deal isn't perfect, no one this floor is either."
10:01 pm: Gotta love the Texas delegation. Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) is part of the state's delegation that received by far the most corporate money in 2007 from the 13 corporations most interested in pushing the Peru FTA.
9:52 pm: Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) reminds folks that Pelosi and Hoyer voted FOR NAFTA. Reminds folks of how much people were excited about the Jordan FTA, which did not turn out as planned. Points out plenty of benefits for Newmont Mining and Citigroup if the thing passes.
9:41 pm: Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.), an all around GOP leader on trade, "where in the world is this country going?" "Some fat cat somewhere is going to make big bucks," in a great N.C. accent.
9:38 pm: Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) on enforcement: "President Bush has never inconvenienced multinational corporations.... IF you vote for this agreement, it's because you have faith in George Bush."
9:35 pm: Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), for the Peru FTA, possibly the most out of step with his constituents of any of the Dems, who have locked themselves down in civil disobedience at his Portland office.
9:26 pm: Rep. TIm Ryan (R-Wis.) talked about all the brilliant export growth to our FTA nations, failing to mention that our export growth rate to FTA countries as a whole are below that of non-FTA countries.
9:20 pm: Rep. Stephanie Tubbs-Jones (D-Ohio) of Cleveland, very oddly for the Peru FTA. Here's what she had to say about the virtually identical CAFTA:
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. I would like to thank the gentleman from New York for this opportunity to be heard. Mr. Speaker, I rise today against CAFTA because the agreement not only lacks significant labor protections for workers in the CAFTA countries, but also lacks necessary support for American workers. Charity begins at home. Let us not talk about our neighbors' workers. Let us talk about our own workers. With international trade comes economic pain. The United States has lost 2.8 million manufacturing jobs since January 2001. In Ohio, we have lost 200,000 jobs. Past administrations and Congresses have acknowledged a relationship between international trade and domestic job losses by having created the Trade Adjustment Assistance program in 1962 and subsequently expanding it. The program assists workers who have lost their jobs due to international trade by extending unemployment compensation and providing job training. Training is arguably the most important TAA component, as education and learning new skills is essential to finding a new job. During the Ways and Means Committee markup, I introduced an amendment that addressed that problem in order to keep up with worker demand. Unfortunately, that amendment was rejected. Additionally, during CAFTA markup, the Senate Finance Committee adopted an amendment that would have expanded TAA. Unfortunately, that provision was stripped from the CAFTA legislation. So right now there is nothing in TAA or in this final CAFTA legislation to assist American workers that have lost their jobs. Even a provision that Chairman Thomas originally included in the bill is stripped from the legislation. That study would have looked into whether TAA should be expanded as a result of any negative effects of CAFTA. So I ask, where is the commitment to the American worker in the CAFTA bill? NAFTA, CAFTA, SHAFTA for American workers.
For the record, Bush says he'll veto TAA, and "necessary support for American workers" is not in the picture. NAFTA, CAFTA, PUFTA, SHAFTA for American workers.
9:18 pm: Levin, without substantiation, says that the social security issue is without substantiation. But House staff, likely his own, admitted that such a case could be brought.
9:15 pm: Rep. Robin Hayes (R-N.C.), who nearly lost his seat lost year due to his tie-breaking votes on Fast Track and CAFTA, is in opposition. Smart guy! He points out that small business groups are frustrated that scarce congressional resources and time was spent pushing an "unpopular trade deal" with Peru, while ignoring China trade and other issues.
9:10 pm: Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) brings the pain, and bashes Citibank.
9:04 pm: Rep. John Tanner (D-Tenn.), who has voted for EVERY SINGLE EXPANSION OF NAFTA, and the anti fair trade position on 18/19 votes, made us drink twice in our drinking game: "ARE YOU WITH AMERICA, OR YOU WITH HUGO CHAVEZ?!" Not quite as soul stirring as "Mr. Gorbachev, tear this wall down!" but I'm always happy to have an opportunity to drink.
8:56 pm: Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), the CAFTA czar, not surprisingly FOR the expansion of CAFTA and NAFTA to Peru.
8:54 pm: Rep. Dale Kildee (D-Mich.), from Flint, Mich., against the Peru FTA. Points out that not only Bush, but ALL presidents he has worked with from both parties do not bother to enforce trade rules.
8:50 pm: Rep. Jim Ramstad (R-Minn.), who has voted for 19/19 unfair trade votes, not surprisingly for the Peru FTA, and leaving Congress next year.
8:48 pm: Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), the NAFTA czar, not surprisingly FOR the expansion of NAFTA to Peru. He talks about how his part of the party talks about the need for pensions and other economic strategies, but only delivers on trade.
8:45 pm: Why are they making Jerry Weller, family member of dictators, the face of the "yes" vote?
8:43 pm: Rep. David Wu (D-Ore.) rejecting the FTA, saying human rights need to be put in with labor and environment rights.
8:25 pm: Rangel calls it "historic." "It's ridiculous to believe that we can create jobs without trade." "What we're talking about now is what is good for the country."
Just announced by Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) that the bataan death march goes on until tomorrow morning. They'll do most of the debate tonight.
7:38 pm: Speaker Pelosi (D-Calif.) is taking the stand. "I have usually been on the other side of this debate than I am tonight." Tells stories about how she opposed China PNTR, increase in deficit and unsafe food. "When I saw an oporuntity for us to have labor and env standards as a core part of our trade agreement, it marked a difference from what even a Dem president was willilng to do on that score." Says she "hopes that the president of the US" will sign the TAA bill, even though he has said he will veto it. "Hopefully we can pass SCHIP" and other legislation, also things that Bush has also vetoed, as she explains why she is helping Bush out with the Peru FTA. "We cannot turn our backs on it... I don't want our party to be viewed as an anti-trade party." She says the Peru FTA "rises to the level of acceptance." Claims that the parliament of Peru passed the laws that were really passed by decree by the president, who is today crushing a labor strike. "The Peru FTA is not a big deal."
7:36 pm: Rep. Mike Michaud (D-Maine): "I didnt come to Washington to ignore my constituents back home." He is the leader rounding up no votes. Reminds folks that Bush is going to veto TAA.
7:33 pm: Rep. Sander Levin (D-Mich.), one of the architects of the deal that is the reason for why Peru FTA is being voted on, he calls the Peru FTA "the antithesis of CAFTA." But Levin supported agreements exactly like NAFTA and CAFTA with Chile, Singapore, Morocco, Australia, and Bahrain, not to mention his key role in ushering the China PNTR through in 2000 - which arguably has had the largest economic impact on the U.S. economy of any trade deal.
7:28 pm: Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio): "This new direction Congress offers up more of the same... [saying you support the changed preamble language as a reason for supporting the Peru FTA] it's like saying you support the preamble to the Bill of Rights but not the rights themselves." Kaptur is really challenging Drier, who is talking about Whirlpool jobs (Whirlpool is a major Peru FTA pusher). Kaptur notes that this is the same Whirpool that that just offshored all the Maytag jobs in Iowa after buying it up.
7:26 pm: Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.) lauds the "progressive" advances in the Peru FTA, contrasting it with past trade deals. He doesn't mention that he voted against fair trade on 11/19 votes, including many NAFTA-style trade agreements and the WTO.
7:20 pm: Rep. Jerry Weller (R-Ill.) is speaking up as the face of the deal. Remember that he is retiring in part because of questions of his massive conflicts of interest on Latin America trade deals: namely, he has investments that benefit directly from CAFTA, and he is married into the region's leading dictatorial family after Pinochet. It's pretty rich that he is talking about democracy as the reason for passing the deal.
7:15 pm: Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) is expressing skepticism that much is changed with the Peru FTA, since the new labor and environmental provisions leave it up to Bush to decide whether to enforce them. Stupak is also concerned about the WTO food and consumer safety inspection regime that gets locked in with the Peru FTA, which prioritizes "free passage of food" over "proper regulation."
7:14 pm: Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) is speaking, a freshman who ran on this following platform: "I do not support trade deals that do not require fully enforceable protections for workers rights and the environment on par with protections for business. Additionally, I do not support the growing threat in these free trade deals to undermine the ability of our nation and our state to pass and enforce laws and regulations in the public interest. I would have voted against NAFTA, CAFTA, and the range of similar free trade deals that recent administrations have negotiated. Our nation needs an entirely different approach to our engagement with the global economy, a sort of global New Deal that protects jobs and democracy here, and contains specific mechanisms to raise wages and living standards in out trading partner nations. Public pressure for such a change is growing as recent polling has indicated, and I intend to be one of the prime movers in Congress for such a change.” Mentions that the Peru deal is going to help lock-in social security privatization in Peru, and displace rural peasants in Peru. Also mentions we should never have any more Fast Track, and that Congress should get to amend trade pacts.
7:11 pm: Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) says "we have not fully achieved the job" of trade reform. Announces there's going to be a hearing on investor-state issues, and acknowledges that nothing on Peru FTA investor-state was changed by the deal between Bush and some Dems.
7:08 pm: Rep. Joe Baca (D-Calif.) is opposing the bill, arguing a very basic bottom line: is our trade policy creating net manufacturing jobs or not? He says not.
7:03 pm: Chairman Rangel taking the high road from the beginning, suggesting opponents are against trade and against Latin America. Rock and roll.
7:02 pm: Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.) in favor of "free trade with free people," but he opposed NAFTA with Mexico. Also had a great song about it.
6:57 pm: Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (D-N.H.), who in her campaign said, "The Republican leadership has thwarted the will of the American people, traded favors with lobbyists in the halls of our Temple of Democracy, sent our jobs overseas and voted to allow our president to torture." Now, she's on the floor asking why in the heck we're in such a rush to pass these trade deals when factories in her district are closed. She cited today's Meyerson piece that made the same point.
6:51 pm: Wanna play a fun drinking game? How many times will "Hugo Chavez" be mentioned during this debate? Drier has already said it several times. Not mentioned is the fact that Hugo Chavez rose in power in response to the implementation of neo-liberal policies in Venezuela. Message? Drier HEARTS Chavez. Drier also praises "socialist" Alan Garcia, who used to follow "bad" economic policies, but today (on the day of the Peru vote) broke a strike by workers. Not super bright, and not super socialist.
6:48 pm: Rep. David Drier (R-Calif.) is saying people that are against this trade deal are AGAINST U.S. EXPORTS, even though the U.S. International Trade Commission, the bipartisan and official source for trade projections, estimates that the U.S. global trade deficit will go up $100-300 million if the Peru FTA is signed. (A LITTLE MATH: EXPORTS - IMPORTS = TRADE DEFICIT.) He also mentioned that he wants to push forward down the slippery slope to the Colombia FTA, exactly what a lot of Washington insiders said would not happen if we just quietly let the Peru FTA pass.
6:34 pm: Rep. Doris Matsui (D-Calif.) is beginning the one hour debate on the rule, by celebrating the TAA bill passed last week in the House. Didn't mention that Bush will veto it.
We'll be doing liveblogging from the Peru FTA debate-vote
So, get ready. The debate on the long awaited Bush NAFTA expansion to Peru may start as early as 11 am this morning, although it could be closer to or after noon. The Rules Committee has published its rule on the bill, which will allow for 3 hours of hot Rangel-on-McCrery-on-Michaud-on-Ron Paul(?) action. This final proceeding, during which no amendments are allowed, brings to a close the Fast Track Deathclock on Peru. AND THERE'S STILL TIME TO CALL YOUR MEMBER NOW!
The morning papers produced a flurry of commentary on the Peru FTA. (Josh Holland at Alternet has a round-up of commentary in recent days entitled "Do-Nothing Congress about to do something on NAFTA-style deal with Peru"). Today, Harold Meyerson of the Washington Post writes:
The House is set to vote today on a free-trade pact with Peru
. What's not clear is why.
The Bush administration, of course, supports trade deals with just
about anyone, as it has made clear by promoting an accord with
