Thread: House Floor Vote on Peru FTA Planned for the Week of Nov. 5

This flyer is from a labor-oriented organization, but its main points are valid for all of domestic manufacturing in the U.S. The Peru Free Trade Agreement is scheduled to be voted on this week. Domestic manufacturers should call their Member of Congress, ask for the staffer that handles trade legislation, and let them know they should vote against the Peru Free Trade Agreement this week. While Peru is not a heavy industrial exporter, Korea is a huge exporter to the U.S. And prospects for the passage of free trade agreements with Korea and Colombia, which are waiting in the wings to see how the House Floor vote for the Peru Free Trade agreement goes, will be improved with the passage of the Peru free trade agreement. Also you can be sure that Peru will be another loophole for Chinese transshipments to get duty-free, quota-free for treatment for their exports to the U.S.



Every one of our free trade agreements has been a net negative development for domestic manufacturing. Passage of these free trade agreements has been an essential precondition for the promotion of off-shoring of U.S. manufacturing to that country and the resulting decline of the U.S. manufacturing base. No more free trade agreements should be passed until there has been a thorough assessment of the effects of existing free trade agreements and a new model for trade agreements is developed that ensures future agreements do no further harm to our domestic manufacturing base.



Public opinion polls show heavy public disapproval of free trade agreements. But powerful lobbies of investors, importers, off-shorers, retailers and food exporters have up until now been able to push these free trade agreements through. But the vote has been getting tougher and passage of free trade agreements are increasingly controversial. Please do what you can with your local Member of Congress to let them or their trade legislation staffer know how unpopular these free trade agreements are in their Districts. And ask them to vote NO to the Peru free trade agreement this week. You can usually get the telephone number of your Congressman by going to the website – http://www.(family name of your Congressman).house.gov


Tell Congress to Vote 'NO' to the
Peru Free Trade Agreement



Few days remain to take action against the Peru Free Trade Agreement. The House Ways and Means Committee passed the FTA implementing legislation on October 31, and a House floor vote is planned for the week of November 5. A Senate vote will follow shortly thereafter. Contact your Representative and Senators immediately to urge them to oppose the Peru Free Trade Agreement.

An agreement between House Democrats and the Bush administration resulted in some improvement to the labor, environmental, and access to medicines provisions in the Peru FTA. That said, major problems of the NAFTA/CAFTA model were replicated in the Peru FTA, and remain unaddressed:

Stop the Peru Free Trade Agreement!



(And please join CTC
to help fight for a just
global economy)



* The Peru FTA contains a NAFTA/CAFTA-style foreign investor chapter that promotes off-shoring and subjects our domestic environmental, zoning, health and other public interest policies to challenge directly by foreign investors in foreign tribunals. It allows challenges by foreign investors in foreign tribunals of to challenge timber, mining, construction and other concession contracts with the U.S. federal government, and affords foreign investors greater rights than those enjoyed by U.S. investors.

* The Peru FTA's procurement rules subject many common federal and state procurement policies to challenge in trade tribunals, continue the NAFTA/CAFTA ban on anti-off-shoring and Buy America policies, and expose U.S. renewable energy, recycled content and other requirements to challenge.

* The Peru FTA's agriculture trade rules undermine U.S. producers' ability to earn a fair price for their crops at home and in the global market place. They favor multinational grain trading and food processing companies while farmers on both ends will be hurt. The Peru FTA is projected to increase hunger, illicit drug cultivation, and undocumented migration, while continuing the race to the bottom for commodity prices. This pits farmer against farmer and country against country to see who can produce food the cheapest, regardless of labor, environmental or food safety standards.

* While the amended text of the Peru FTA removes the most egregious, CAFTA-based, provisions limiting the access to affordable medicines, it still includes NAFTA-style provisions that undermine the right to affordable medicines for poorer countries.

* The Peru FTA, like NAFTA and CAFTA, still contains language requiring the United States to accept imported food that does not meet our safety standards.



The United States should not adopt any new trade agreements until there has been a thorough assessment of the effects of existing FTAs. Based on that, a new model for trade agreements should be developed that ensures future agreements do no further harm to working families and the environment. The Peru Free Trade Agreement does not meet these criteria. Please tell your Representative and Senators to oppose the Peru Free Trade Agreement.



(And consider becoming a member of Citizens Trade Campaign)

Duncan Hunter would like to bring all free trade agreements back to the table for revision. He believes in fair trade, not free trade.

Excerpt:

He proposes to bring other countries back to the table for fair trade. He believes that the American Manufacturer is actually taxed twice. He also believes that China cheats by devaluing their currency by 40%. He would negotiate fair trade deals with other countries. He also wants to eliminate all taxes for companies who stay in the United States and this way jobs would stay in this country and it would give manufactures opportunities to expand for a strong industry.

http://news.aol.com/elections-blog/2007 ... an-hunter/

IMHO, Hunter would attempt to revise or repeal NAFTA. He has doesn't support NAFTA, CAFTA, or the WTO. I strongly believe Hunter is our best chance at bringing our outsourced manufacturing jobs back home - he has a plan.

MW: Yes, I know that and appreciate that position D:

I'm glad he knows and isn't afraid to say, that:

"Free Trade" <> "Fair Trade"

People are easily duped into believing these agreements are more legitimate than they actually are [eg. NAFTA, CAFTA, etc] - they are agreements, not treaties. What they really are, is: a cover to excuse and legitimize the wholesale disinvestment in the US economy. I can understand such behavior from non-US based companies (although, I do not like it of course). I do not understand that behavior from US companies. If they are going to trash the nation that allowed their success in the first place, I think, they should potentially sacrifice the privilege of doing business here.

PhredE wrote:

I can understand such behavior from non-US based companies (although, I do not like it of course). I do not understand that behavior from US companies. If they are going to trash the nation that allowed their success in the first place, I think, they should potentially sacrifice the privilege of doing business here.

Boy ain't that the truth!

To date Hunter has been the most outspoken candidate on issues involving the problems associated with our free trade agreements. Here's how the Cato Institute (pro free trade organization) evaluates the candidates that most folks on ALIPAC have chosen to support:

Hunter: Rated 24% by CATO, indicating a pro-fair trade voting record.

Tancredo: Rated 61% by CATO, indicating a mixed record on trade issues.

Paul: Rated 76% by CATO, indicating a pro-free trade voting record.


Believe it or not, there are actually some Democrat presidential candidates that grade out as more pro-fair trade than Hunter. However, they all support amnesty!

Hunter's position on fair-trade should resonate with many liberal voters. Hey, that's may be one of the reasons you like Hunter, PhredE! You did say you were a Democrat prior to switching over to Independent, didn't you? Hunter is not your typical Republican where trade issues are concerned.

The candidates on free trade issue:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Free_Trade.htm

Ron Paul IS AGAINST THIS WAR A HE WANTS TO BRING BACK OUR TROOPS THE OPPOSIT OF DUNCAN WHO WANTS US IN THIS WAR FOR GREED FOR MORE YEARS JUST LIKE SENOR BOOSH.

minnie wrote:

Ron Paul IS AGAINST THIS WAR A HE WANTS TO BRING BACK OUR TROOPS THE OPPOSIT OF DUNCAN WHO WANTS US IN THIS WAR FOR GREED FOR MORE YEARS JUST LIKE SENOR BOOSH

What does your opinion have to do with the trade issues we're discussing? You are right about one thing though - Duncan Hunter is not among the cut and run, redeploy, or whatever you guys are calling it now, candidates. Now, perhaps we can resume discussing trade policy.

CAFTA: More Bureaucracy, Less Free Trade by Rep. Ron Paul, MD
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul254.html

Ron Paul on Free Trade
Republican Representative (TX-14)


Voted NO on implementing CAFTA, Central America Free Trade.
To implement the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement. A vote of YES would:

* Progressively eliminate customs duties on all originating goods traded among the participating nations
* Preserve U.S. duties on imports of sugar goods over a certain quota
* Remove duties on textile and apparel goods traded among participating nations
* Prohibit export subsidies for agricultural goods traded among participating nations
* Provide for cooperation among participating nations on customs laws and import licensing procedures
* Encourage each participating nation to adopt and enforce laws ensuring high levels of sanitation and environmental protection
* Recommend that each participating nation uphold the International Labor Organization Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work
* Urge each participating nation to obey various international agreements regarding intellectual property rights

Reference: CAFTA Implementation Bill; Bill HR 3045 ; vote number 2005-443 on Jul 28, 2005

Voted NO on implementing US-Australia Free Trade Agreement.
United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act: implementing free trade with protections for the domestic textile and apparel industries.
Reference: Bill sponsored by Rep Tom DeLay [R, TX-22]; Bill H.R.4759 ; vote number 2004-375 on Jul 14, 2004

Voted NO on implementing US-Singapore free trade agreement.
Vote to pass a bill that would put into effect a trade agreement between the United States and Singapore. The trade agreement would reduce tariffs and trade barriers between the United States and Singapore. The agreement would remove tariffs on goods and duties on textiles, and open markets for services The agreement would also establish intellectual property, environmental and labor standards.
Reference: US-Singapore Free Trade Agreement; Bill HR 2739 ; vote number 2003-432 on Jul 24, 2003

Voted NO on implementing free trade agreement with Chile.
United States-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act: Vote to pass a bill that would put into effect a trade agreement between the US and Chile. The agreement would reduce tariffs and trade barriers between the US and Chile. The trade pact would decrease duties and tariffs on agricultural and textile products. It would also open markets for services. The trade pact would establish intellectual property safeguards and would call for enforcement of environmental and labor standards.
Reference: Bill sponsored by DeLay, R-TX; Bill HR 2738 ; vote number 2003-436 on Jul 24, 2003

Voted YES on withdrawing from the WTO.
Vote on withdrawing Congressional approval from the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization [WTO].
Reference: Resolution sponsored by Paul, R-TX; Bill H J Res 90 ; vote number 2000-310 on Jun 21, 2000

Voted NO on 'Fast Track' authority for trade agreements.
Vote to establish negotiating objectives for trade agreements between the United States and foreign countries and renew 'fast track' authority for the President.
Reference: Bill introduced by Archer, R-TX.; Bill HR 2621 ; vote number 1998-466 on Sep 25, 1998

No restrictions on import/export; but maintain sovereignty .
Paul adopted the Republican Liberty Caucus Position Statement:

* As adopted by the General Membership of the Republican Liberty Caucus at its Biannual Meeting held December 8, 2000. WHEREAS libertarian Republicans believe in limited government, individual freedom and personal responsibility;
* WHEREAS we believe that government has no money nor power not derived from the consent of the people;
* WHEREAS we believe that people have the right to keep the fruits of their labor; and
* WHEREAS we believe in upholding the US Constitution as the supreme law of the land;

1. BE IT RESOLVED that the Republican Liberty Caucus endorses the following [among its] principles:The US government should inhibit neither the exportation of US goods and services worldwide, nor the importation of goods and services.
2. The United States should not be answerable to any governing body outside the United States for its trade policy.

Source: Republican Liberty Caucus Position Statement 00-RLC9 on Dec 8, 2000

End economic protectionism: let dairy compacts expire .
Paul sponsored the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact resolution:

Declares that the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact should be allowed to expire under its own terms on September 30, 2001. Expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that Article I, section 10 of the United States Constitution should not be used to renew the interstate economic protectionism of our Nation's early history.
Source: House Resolution Sponsorship 01-HR230 on Aug 2, 2001

Rated 76% by CATO, indicating a pro-free trade voting record.
Paul scores 76% by CATO on senior issues

The mission of the Cato Institute Center for Trade Policy Studies is to increase public understanding of the benefits of free trade and the costs of protectionism.

The Cato Trade Center focuses not only on U.S. protectionism, but also on trade barriers around the world. Cato scholars examine how the negotiation of multilateral, regional, and bilateral trade agreements can reduce trade barriers and provide institutional support for open markets. Not all trade agreements, however, lead to genuine liberalization. In this regard, Trade Center studies scrutinize whether purportedly market-opening accords actually seek to dictate marketplace results, or increase bureaucratic interference in the economy as a condition of market access.

Studies by Cato Trade Center scholars show that the United States is most effective in encouraging open markets abroad when it leads by example. The relative openness and consequent strength of the U.S. economy already lend powerful support to the worldwide trend toward embracing open markets. Consistent adherence by the United States to free trade principles would give this trend even greater momentum. Thus, Cato scholars have found that unilateral liberalization supports rather than undermines productive trade negotiations.

Scholars at the Cato Trade Center aim at nothing less than changing the terms of the trade policy debate: away from the current mercantilist preoccupation with trade balances, and toward a recognition that open markets are their own reward.

The following ratings are based on the votes the organization considered most important; the numbers reflect the percentage of time the representative voted the organization's preferred position.
http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul_Free_Trade.htm

Read the whole thing and not just what the CATO Institue says.

jp-48504 wrote:

Read the whole thing and not just what the CATO Institue says

I did read the "whole thing" from the link I provided. What makes you think I didn't?

I provided the CATO grades. If you want to post a follow-up, that's fine. The follow up doesn't make what I posted any less accurate. I guess 76% is a decent grade if you agree with free trade, however, I prefer "fair trade" over "free trade." Whether Paul's grade is good or not depends on where you stand on the free trade issue, I guess.

Bottom line, if you agree more with fair trade, Hunter is the best choice. On the other hand, if you lean more toward free trade, Paul would be your man.

CATO HAS Their Own Agenda

Cato Institute



Cato Board of Directors [abbreviated listing]

· William A. Niskanen [CFR], Chairman, Cato Institute

· Theodore J. Forstmann [CFR], Principal, Forstmann Little & Company

· David H. Koch, Executive Vice President, Koch Industries, Inc.

· Peter Ackerman [CFR], Managing Director, Rockport Financial Ltd

· Rupert Murdoch, Chairman & CEO, The News Corp. Ltd., Zondervan, Family Channel

CFR wants to destroy this country. Ron Paul wants to preserve it so of course they are going to give Ron Paul a low grade. He doesn't support unfair trade.

The Houston obstetrician-gynecologist has been a fierce critic of the Iraq war, calling for withdrawing U.S. troops. He also has said free trade deals and international groups like the World Trade Organization threaten U.S. independence.
http://www.reuters.com/article/politics ... 3320071106

I have all But voted for Ron Paul.. the corruption has to go. I need Hunter andTancredo to pick up the pace or Paul will be my only choice