Over Hare's opposition, House passes Peru free-trade pact bill

By Mark Gruenberg

WASHINGTON (PAI)--Over the objections of freshman Democrats elected on “fair trade, not free trade” platforms, such as U.S. Rep. Phil Hare of Rock Island, the Democratic-run House passed legislation on Nov. 8 to implement the U.S.-Peru Free Trade Agreement. The vote was 285-132.

Democrats opposed the Peru measure by a 116-109 margin, while Republicans supported it, 176-16. Eight lawmakers from each party did not vote. House presidential hopefuls split three ways: Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) opposed it, Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) supported it and Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) was absent.

The AFL-CIO took a mixed position on the Peru pact. Policy Director Thea Lee praised its insertion of labor rights--even the weak ones from the International Labour Organization--into its text, but said that wasn’t good enough for federation backing.

But she also said the federation is dead set against two other looming “free trade” pacts, with South Korea and Colombia and would lobby hard against them. Its objections to the Peru pact “set a marker” for the future. The Korean pact would hurt U.S. auto workers. The Colombian pact ignores that nation’s murderous--literally--record of assassination of unionists. Neither pact includes labor rights in its text.

And AFL-CIO President John J. Sweeney warned after the House vote that passage of the Peru pact bill “should in no way be read as paving the way for these or any future agreements.” He called the Peru pact “far from perfect,” and criticized many sections--including letting firms that get government contracts export those jobs.

The Peru pact bill is expected to sail through the Senate, Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) said. Anti-worker GOP President George W. Bush negotiated the Peru pact and sent the legislation implementing it to Congress under the old “fast track” rules, barring any changes. But, earlier this year, Democratic leaders convinced Peruvian President Alan Garcia to rework the pact to insert ILO workers’ rights standards into its text. Otherwise, they told him, the Peru pact would fail.

The leaders, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), voted for the bill.

Lee told Baucus’ panel in September that improvements in the Peru pact did not go far enough. Among its many problems: “Private investors should not be granted the right to sue governments over public health, environmental, or labor regulations that might be construed as direct or indirect expropriation, or an action equivalent to expropriation. This… gives individual corporations undue rights with respect to
overturning legitimate actions of elected national governments,” she said.

And the Peru pact bill does not let federal, state and local governments restrict provision of government services to domestic firms. That would let companies that win
government work--such as processing payments--outsource them overseas.

Several freshmen were more outspoken against the Peru pact legislation.

“The proposed Peru FTA would replicate--and in some instances expand on--many of the most devastating provisions of the flawed NAFTA-CAFTA model,” said Hare, a former UNITE HERE shop steward at a clothing plant in Rock Island. “Despite ‘fixes,’ the Peru FTA is nothing but a wolf in sheep’s clothing.”

Both Hare and Rep. Betty Sutton (D-Ohio) predicted Bush would not enforce the pact’s worker protection provisions.

“We can choose to give big business another win or we can choose to stand with middle class families,” Hare continued. “Congress can choose to expand the failed NAFTA-CAFTA model to Peru or we can choose to pursue a new trade policy. I for one cannot go back to my district and explain that I voted for another bad trade deal that in all likelihood will result in more job loss.

“I cannot in good conscience face the 1,600 Maytag workers who lost their jobs” in Galesburg, Ill., when Maytag shut a profitable plant to move to Mexico “and tell them that I voted to continue the hemorrhaging.”

Hare and Sutton voted against the Peru pact.

“If something no longer works, you develop a new product that fits your needs and allows to you move forward,” said Sutton, who represents Akron. “That's what we need to do with our trade policies. But unfortunately, that's not what is happening here.”

“Some are pleading that this is an historic breakthrough and oh, how I wish that that were so,” she continued. “But it is not. And saying it is does not make it so.

“Current trade policies are not working, despite the same past promises made. We see this in the reality of a nearly $1 trillion trade deficit, tainted imported food and products, currency manipulation, illegal subsidies, off-shored jobs and devastated families and communities,” she stated.

And the Peru pact would actually “impose lighter sanctions” for labor law-breaking in the South American country “than current trade law requires,” Sutton said, citing a Columbia University trade law specialist who has worked with the AFL-CIO.

“We could develop a new model that address these issues and puts workers and businesses in a position to compete on a level playing field and truly raises the standard of living for those in other nations. But unfortunately the Peru FTA fails to do this,” Sutton said.