From the
DPC, chaired by Dorgan:
Major Issues
Some Democrats support the PTPA Act because of the May 10th Agreement, which led to amendments to the PTPA that, for the first time in any FTA, will require, 1) the parties to adopt, maintain, and enforce five basic international labor standards;<1> 2) the parties to adopt, maintain, and enforce the obligations of seven multilateral environmental agreements; 3) Peru to take specific steps to address illegal logging; 4) modifications to the intellectual property chapter to balance promoting access to medicines and protecting pharmaceutical innovation; 5) modifications to the government procurement chapter that will allow the parties to condition government contracts on adherence to basic and minimum labor standards; 6) clarification that, where there are national security concerns, the United States can prevent foreign companies from supplying certain services at U.S. ports; and 7) clarification that foreign investors in the United States would have no greater substantive rights than U.S. investors in the United States. Democratic supporters of the PTPA also point to the economic benefits that the PTPA offers. Ninety-eight percent of Peruvian exports to the United States already receive duty-free treatment under various U.S. preference programs. Supporters argue that the PTPA levels the playing field and allows U.S. exports to enjoy the same benefits in Peru, while at the same time providing expanded access for U.S. services providers and increased protections for U.S. investors and intellectual property right holders.
Some Democrats oppose the PTPA Act because they argue that, while the labor provisions in the PTPA are stronger than those contained in past FTAs, they have little meaning in practice because the PTPA dispute settlement procedures are limited to actions brought by the party governments and only for violations that affect trade or investment between the parties. The current Administration has given little indication that it would be willing to seek enforcement of any Peruvian labor violations. The real question is whether the next Administration would be willing to do so, given that the PTPA almost certainly will not enter into force until late 2008 or early 2009. Democratic opponents are also concerned that the PTPA is an extension of a problematic trade model established by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) that has produced job losses, an increased trade deficit, and the erosion of U.S. competitiveness. Moreover, in light of the small size of Peru’s economy (0.4 percent of the world’s economy when measured by GDP and only 0.3 percent of U.S. total trade in 2006), the FTA will do nothing to address the overall U.S. trade deficit. In addition, opponents of the PTPA note that the PTPA’s investment provisions could disincentivize Peru from reversing the privatization of its social security system.
(emphasis added)
Reid:
<...>
“I support engagement with Latin America; I strongly support being a better neighbor, but I do not support this narrow policy tool that the Bush Administration has fixated on. The Peru Free Trade Agreement is the first agreement that incorporates the new provisions on labor rights, the environment, and access to medicines from the May 10 Agreement with Speaker Pelosi, Congressmen Rangel and Levin, and Chairman Baucus. These changes are significant. For the first time ever, a trade agreement will include an enforceable obligation for each country to respect core, internationally-recognized labor standards. I hope that this new provision will have a dramatic impact over time.
“If they are faithfully enforced, they can help to reduce inequality and establish broader middle classes in the developing countries with which we have free trade agreements. I applaud these and other changes that were part of that May 10 Agreement. While the May 10 Agreement is very important, I have generally opposed free trade agreements for several reasons. First and foremost, I think that for many years now, U.S. trade policy has been one dimensional – we have had one agreement after another, yet so many other aspects of economic policy have been absolutely neglected. While we’ve approved new FTAs with 12 different countries since 2001, we still do not have an adequate trade adjustment assistance program. Studies show that those workers who lose their job due to trade on average see a substantial cut in wages in their next job. We need to do a better job of ensuring that these workers do not get left behind before we move forward with more and more agreements.
“While we’ve approved all of those new FTAs, the Bush Administration has absolutely fallen down on the job when it comes to enforcement of trade agreements.
The Clinton Administration brought on average 11 cases per year against foreign trade barriers at the WTO. The Bush Administration has brought only a few more than 11 cases TOTAL over the last 7 years.
The Clinton Administration was very aggressive in using other tools of trade policy to fight against unfair trade and unjustifiable trade barriers. The Bush Administration has taken numerous measures to weaken U.S. fair trade laws.
The Bush Administration has been impotent in responding to China’s currency manipulation. The continued inaction on this critical issue has led to a situation that could de-stabilize global financial markets and economic prospects.
While the May 10 Agreement includes important new labor provisions, the Bush Administration has repeatedly demonstrated that it will not enforce them.
“It is hard for me to see how I can go home and tell my constituents that I want to support more and more trade agreements when the present Administration has refused to aggressively support U.S. rights under our current trade agreements.
From Kerry's October 2007 speech on
Bushonomics:
When Democrats took over Congress we said to this President - - “no more trade deals unless you fight for workers’ rights.” We held his feet to the fire in a trade deal with Peru that does protect workers. But it’s not enough to have labor rights written on a piece of paper signed in the Rose Garden. We need countries to start enforcing them—and we need a President who actually wants them enforced.
From Kerry's speech last year on U.S.
Foreign Policy in Latin America (really excellent speech):
Strengthening the economies of Latin America will in turn help strengthen our economy. U.S. exports to Latin America are currently valued at more than $150 billion per year – nearly matching our exports to the European Union. But of that amount, some two-thirds goes to Mexico -- while huge potential markets like Brazil lag far behind. We can do better.
International trade enhances economic opportunity, spurs development and can serve to improve workers= rights. If it is pursued correctly, a successful trade policy will ensure that the citizens of the region experience the advantages of liberalized trade. I have long-supported open trade in the hemisphere. From the ANDEAN Trade Preference Program and Caribbean Basin Initiative to the recently enacted trade agreement with Chile, pursing open markets in the region must be a priority.
But trade without respect is not what our neighbors want. We need to lift up living standards and working conditions for all working men and women in the United States as well as in Latin America. That’s why it is essential that trade agreements include basic worker protections and strong enforcement mechanisms. And our trading partners should be provided technical assistance and capacity building programs to ensure new trade opportunities are shared across all economic sectors and by all citizens.
As I made clear with my vote, the Administration missed the mark with the Central American Free Trade Agreement. They did not provide a balanced agreement that ensured economic opportunity for all. That is why I offered an amendment to CAFTA to improve enforcement of worker rights.
As we look to the future of our trade relationship with Latin America -- including the Free Trade Area of the Americas -- we must be sure to negotiate balanced agreements that provide broad economic benefits, create jobs and include strong protections for labor and the environment.
There is much more to promoting economic development than free trade. Development assistance can also play a greater role in strengthening these economies. While the Millennium Challenge Account provides some funding for development assistance, many countries in Latin America are ineligible for funds. The United States must understand that making additional resources available for development in Latin America works to all of our advantage. Because we all have a stake in each other’s future.
Votes against the PTA, including 1 Repub:
NAYs ---18
Akaka (D-HI)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Casey (D-PA)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Leahy (D-VT)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Casey:
“In the face of pressure from Democrats in Congress, President Bush did, for the first time, include labor and environmental standards. However, based upon the President’s track record, my own conversations with the U.S. Trade Representative, and statements from business leaders who had closed door conversations with the Administration, I did not believe that these standards would be enforced. Without enforcement, the standards are not worth the paper they are printed on and we have nothing but the status quo.”
Whitehouse:
“While the Peru free trade agreement represents progress with respect to labor and environmental standards, these provisions are still not strong enough. When considering future free trade agreements, I will look for provisions that are truly enforceable. I also believe that we should only enter into agreements with countries that permit their citizens the basic democratic rights enjoyed by Americans such as freedom of the press and the right to hold property.”
Biden didn't vote, but issued this
statement:
"I cannot support the Peru Free Trade Agreement because the Bush Administration has not proven that it will effectively enforce labor and environmental provisions, however good they may be. Our economy is slowing down, and Americans don't trust this administration to protect their jobs, or the safety of our imports.
"Americans understand that this Administration does not have a plan to win in the new international economy. This is not the time to endorse its approach to trade deals."
There is consensus that the Democrats negotiated a much stronger bill. Those who voted against/opposed the bill did so because of Bush's enforcement record. Yet as the DPC points out the bill will likely go into effect near or after the end of Bush's term. Also, some of these same Democrats were willing to cave to Bush/Republicans on other issues like MoveOn, Kyl-Lieberman and FISA (ugh!).
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
