[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 137 (Monday, September 17, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H10413-H10414]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  2000
            OPPOSE PERU AND PANAMANIAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hare) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HARE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the pending Peru 
and Panama free trade agreements. Over 3 million American manufacturing 
jobs, one out of every six jobs, have been lost during the fast-track 
era. How many more manufacturing jobs will be lost with the passage of 
these two trade deals? How many more?
  My district in particular has suffered the loss of 1,600 jobs when 
NAFTA forced Maytag to leave Galesburg, Illinois, for Sonora, Mexico. 
Every aspect of that town was hurt: its spirit, the

[[Page H10414]]

economy, the schools, and the small businesses that supplied goods to 
Maytag.
  Now Galesburg is trying to rebuild its identity.
  The November 2006 election showed that most Americans understand our 
past trade policies, which gave us NAFTA and the WTO, have failed; yet 
President Bush continues to bring more flawed trade agreements to this 
Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, on May 10, Chairman Rangel of the Ways and Means 
Committee reached a landmark deal with the Bush administration to 
include labor and environmental protection in free trade agreements. 
The deal requires our trading partners to adopt, maintain and enforce 
in their laws and practice the five basic international labor 
standards: freedom of association, right to collective bargaining, 
elimination of forced labor, abolition of child labor, and elimination 
of discrimination.
  As positive as this deal was, I have absolutely no faith that this 
President will enforce any labor provisions included in any trade deal. 
In a statement released on May 11, AFL-CIO president John Sweeney 
reminded us of the Bush administration's enforcement failure in past 
agreements by saying, ``The Bush administration's consistent 
unwillingness to enforce trade violations against nations like Jordan 
and China reminds us that there is no guarantee that this executive 
branch will enforce any new rights workers may gain through these 
negotiations.''
  This administration can't even enforce OSHA regulations here at home. 
How can we expect this President and this administration to enforce 
laws in these two countries? Recently, I received a letter from two 
Peruvian labor federations concerned about the labor provisions in the 
pending FTA between the United States and Peru. In reference to the May 
10 announcement, the letter states, ``These changes are important. 
Nevertheless, in order for there to be real progress that does not only 
exist on paper, it is necessary that the administrations of President 
Bush and Garcia adopt significant change that they do not appear 
willing to do.''
  Mr. Speaker, no one seems to have faith in this President or the 
Peruvian Government to enforce the law. The problem is that those who 
support the FTA in Peru are the same people that oppose labor reform in 
Peru.
  Mr. Speaker, our trade policies must start to serve the interests of 
American working families and workers around the globe. I urge all of 
my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats alike, to say ``no'' to 
President Bush's trade agreement with Peru. We have a moral 
responsibility to save the manufacturing jobs that this Nation has lost 
and to try to regain those jobs that we have outsourced.

                          ____________________