House Approves Peru Free Trade Agreement

The U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday approved a free trade agreement with Peru, the first under a Democratic majority in Congress that has declared that labor rights and the environment must be central parts of all such pacts.

The vote was 285-132, a comfortable margin of victory in the House. Trade deals have always been a hard sell among House members, mainly Democrats who have equated them with job losses and soaring trade deficits.

"I'm from Michigan. I've seen firsthand the dislocation from globalization," said Rep. Sander Levin, Democratic chairman of the Ways and Means trade subcommittee. "That's why we've been fighting for a new trade policy."

"This is not remotely NAFTA," Rep. Earl Blumenauer, a Democrat, said of the 1994 trade agreement with Mexico and Canada that has strong detractors. "We've all learned from that experience."

Not all Democrats were convinced, with 116 out of the 225 voting Thursday opposing the bill implementing the agreement. The United States has lost 3 million manufacturing jobs since NAFTA, said Rep. Michael Michaud, a Democrat. "We have all seen the ugly face of trade agreements that don't live up to the promises."

President George W. Bush celebrated the vote and said he hoped that approval of other pending free-trade deals would follow.

"By strengthening our trading relationships with important neighbors - including through our trade agreements with Colombia and Panama - we will significantly advance both our economic and national security interests," he said in a statement. "We should embrace the strong commitment to economic freedom of countries in our region."

Congressional action is pending on deals with Panama, Colombia and South Korea, but votes are unlikely to occur this year.

The accord with Peru would eliminate duties immediately on some 80 percent of U.S. industrial exports and two-thirds of farm exports. It could increase American exports by $1 billion a year. A Senate vote, which could come in the next several weeks, would allow the accord to go into effect.

Supporters said it could also boost U.S. standing in Latin America as a counter to the anti-American policies of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

"This is a battle for hearts and minds; it is a struggle to ensure that liberty and the rule of law prevail over tyranny," said Rep. David Dreier, a Republican and a leading free trader. "Latin America is at a crossroads."

Democrats generally have resisted free trade deals they blame for job losses and trade deficits, and their rise to power in January was seemingly a blow to the Bush administration's aggressive free trade agenda. But the situation changed in May when the administration agreed to Democratic demands that labor rights and the environment be core elements of any future agreements.

The leader of the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, said she had long opposed trade deals with China and others that had led to huge trade imbalances while doing little to open up those countries politically. But, she said, "when I saw an opportunity for us to have labor and environmental standards as a core part of our trade agreements, it marked a drastic difference from what even a Democratic president was willing to give on that score."

Pelosi noted that the House had also just passed legislation to extend help for American workers displaced by trade. "I don't want this party to be viewed as an anti-trade party," she said.

Opponents noted that on the day of the House debate Wednesday, the Peruvian government had decreed a miners strike illegal and threatened to fire miners who do not return to work in three days.

The agreement requires the parties to abide by International Labor Organization standards. The pact also commits the parties to enforce their own environmental standards, participate in international environmental accords and not weaken or reduce environmental laws to attract trade or investment.

Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, said that despite the gesture toward labor and environmental rights, Democrats have yet to address problems with foreign investor privileges, incentives for U.S. companies to move offshore or issues of food import safety.

The White House has been a strong supporter of the agreement. U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab welcomed the vote, saying "American farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, service providers and their employees will have preferential access to this growing market."

[toolmangler-2009]

Is Congress comletely trying to sell out America or what?

Posted by lochlan at 04:19 PM : Nov 08, 2007


The answer is YES!!!!! NWO is fast approaching.

[toolmangler-2009]

SlipSter01 Posted:

Ron Paul voted against the Do-Not-Call Registry
Ron Paul voted against extending Unemployment Compensation Act
Ron Paul voted against the Supplemental Appropriations Act for Further Recovery From and Response to Terrorist Attacks
Ron Paul voted against stricter penalties for sexual predators
Ron Paul voted aginst the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act
Ron Paul voted against the Child Custody Protection Act
Ron Paul voted against the Internet Freedom and Broadband Deployment Act
Ron Paul refused to recognize A Resolution Honoring the Contributions of Catholic Schools
Ron Paul regularly votes against funding the military (year after year)
Ron Paul voted against the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Response Act
Ron Paul voted against Expressing Solidarity With Israel in the Fight Against Terrorism
Ron Paul voted against the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act
Ron Paul was the only vote against the Federal Long-Term Care Insurance Amendments Act
Ron Paul was the only vote against the Financial Anti-Terrorism Act
Ron Paul voted against deterring and punishing terrorist acts in the United States and around the world
Ron Paul voted against Urging the Secretary of Energy to Fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve
Ron Paul was the only vote against the Military Construction Appropriations
Ron Paul was the only vote against the resolution To Promote Freedom and Democracy in Viet Nam

[logicanada]

Patriot75. . . .spent a lot of time in Venezuela. Plan on moving there in the near future. Chavez''s message has already reached almost all of South America and most countries have agreed to go along with the South American trading bloc. Brazil and Venezuela will keep them energy self sufficient and then some. Unlike the middle east they have watched and learned about American Interests and are not willing to welcome foreigners who will exploit their one chance at prosperity. Chavez is a smart man and is doing what is right for his own people. Universal health care etc. Peru is still wrapped up in inner turmoil and there is Shining Path to deal with. Even without Peru, which is geographically isolated from the rest, they have formed a formidable trading area. The future lies there.

[trueprophet]

All of these trade deals and world governmental organizations that all of the presidential candidates support (except Ron Paul), such as the ICC, NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA, are all major threat to our nation''s sovereignty. They transfer power from our government to unelected foreign elites. The ICC wants to try our soldiers as war criminals. Both the WTO and CAFTA could force Americans to get a prescription to take herbs and vitamins. The WTO has forced Congress to change our laws to meet their needs, and not our own. If anything, the WTO makes trade relations worse by giving foreign competitors a new way to attack U.S. jobs. The NAFTA superhighway, which is currently being built, is just one part of a plan to erase our borders and create the North American Union, a single nation State like the EU, out of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, with a new, unelected bureaucracy and money system. Forget about controlling immigration under the NAU scheme. There won''t be any borders anymore, or a free America. Our limited, constitutional government, will be gone forever. Let''s not forget the UN either. It wants to impose a direct Carbon Tax on us. Ron Paul successfully fought this move in Congress last year, but if we are going to stop ongoing attempts of this world government body to rule over us, we need someone in the White House who knows how to say "No." We must withdraw from any organizations or treaty that infringes upon our nation''s sovereignty. Vote AMERICA FIRST! Vote for Ron Paul.

[trueprophet]

HOPE FOR AMERICA: PRESIDENT RON PAUL

-- No more meddling in other country''s political affairs
-- No more aggressive military actions overseas
-- No more pseudo-wars like the "War on Drugs"
-- No more IRS and unconstitutional income taxes
-- No more Federal Reserve (the group of private banks which owns our government)
-- No more U.N. (one world government) participation
-- No more NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO or GATT
-- No more North American Union
-- No more federal gun control laws
-- No more illegal aliens pouring-in over our country''s borders
-- No more illegal aliens allowed to roam freely in our streets
-- No more federal Laws which are not authorized by The Constitution
-- No more federal erosion of State sovereignty
-- No more all-powerful federal government

They don''t call him "Dr. No" for no reason. The Doctor is in! Join us in this 21st Century political revolution at ronpaul2008.com

[slim1h2o]

Deal With Latin American Country Puts Emphasis On Labor Rights And Environment

And who, prey tell, is protecting out rights here in the USA? Congress, nope they continue to sell out the American worker at every turn.

Forget about Bushitt and Cheney, the sleaze bags are doing everything in their power enrich themselves, and doing a d@mn good job of it, BTW!

[toolmangler-2009]

Except for the USA and Canada, the majority of North and South america speak either Spanish or Portuguese. Now if you look with your eyes open, you may notice that dual language signs (English/Spanish) are becoming the majority and sometime its ''Spanish only''. I do not know if it''s like that in Canada yet, but I''ll bet my last dollar that it soon will be. These two continents are headed for unification whether or not we like it. Globalization is the key factor in this push for NAFTA, CAFTA, AFTA and all the other ''free trade agreements'' that are coming down the ''pike''.
Check it out yourself.


http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2007/300107Immigration.htm

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=15497

[trueprophet]

All of these trade deals and world governmental organizations that all of the presidential candidates support (except Ron Paul), such as the ICC, NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA, are all major threat to our nation''s sovereignty. They transfer power from our government to unelected foreign elites. The ICC wants to try our soldiers as war criminals. Both the WTO and CAFTA could force Americans to get a prescription to take herbs and vitamins. The WTO has forced Congress to change our laws to meet their needs, and not our own. If anything, the WTO makes trade relations worse by giving foreign competitors a new way to attack U.S. jobs. The NAFTA superhighway, which is currently being built, is just one part of a plan to erase our borders and create the North American Union, a single nation State like the EU, out of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, with a new, unelected bureaucracy and money system. Forget about controlling immigration under the NAU scheme. There won''t be any borders anymore, or a free America. Our limited, constitutional government, will be gone forever. Let''s not forget the UN either. It wants to impose a direct Carbon Tax on us. Ron Paul successfully fought this move in Congress last year, but if we are going to stop ongoing attempts of this world government body to rule over us, we need someone in the White House who knows how to say "No." We must withdraw from any organizations or treaty that infringes upon our nation''s sovereignty. Vote AMERICA FIRST! Vote for Ron Paul.

[realpatriot1]

Job losses in Michigan weren''t caused by free trade aggreements they were caused by Detroit making gas guzzling crappy cars and Japan making fuel efficient and more reliable models.

Free trade agreements remove tariffs paid on imported goods both here and abroad, they are beneficial to all consumers.

The jobs that have left the U.S. were leaving before NAFTA and have nothing to do with tarrifs and everything to do with the fact that foreign workers will do the same work for less.

The only protection against that is to penalize the oyutsourcing companies directly.

Protectionist trade policies won''t save jobs, they''ll only make the products we buy and the ones we''re trying to sell more expensive. That doesn''t save jobs it costs jobs.

However, wage protections for foreign workers in trade agreements level the playing field and are a total win-win for domestic and foreign workers alike.

[bwessels]

The motivations and benefits sound good. I hope they are true, and not just a corporate snow-job. How do you enforce fair labor practice and environmental responsibility in another country?