[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 147 (Monday, October 1, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H11048-H11049]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1930
                       PERU FREE TRADE AGREEMENT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hare) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HARE. Madam Speaker, I rise this evening in strong opposition to 
the pending Peru Free Trade Agreement. NAFTA promised Americans 200,000 
new NAFTA jobs, higher wages and an increasing U.S. trade surplus with 
Mexico, just to name a few. Now, nearly 15 years later, the evidence 
shows that NAFTA has failed to make good on its promises.
  In fact, in many areas in which benefits were promised, conditions 
are worse than before NAFTA went into effect. For example, in direct 
contradiction to the promises of NAFTA, nearly 1 million jobs were 
destroyed directly by the NAFTA free trade deal.
  My district, in particular, has suffered the loss of 1,600 jobs; and 
NAFTA forced Maytag to leave Galesburg, Illinois, for Sonora, Mexico. 
And just last week, it was announced that Carrhart Manufacturing, a 
clothing company, will cease production and move to Mexico at the end 
of December.
  Every aspect of the city of Galesburg is hurting. The economy, the 
schools, the small businesses that feed into these plants, and the 
citizens have lost their spirit. Now Galesburg is trying to rebuild its 
identity, but I fear that the Peru FTA promises more of the same.
  The proposed Peru FTA would replicate, and in some instances expand, 
on many of the most devastating provisions of the flawed NAFTA-CAFTA 
model. First, the Peru FTA preserves many of the CAFTA terms providing 
extreme foreign investor rights. The provisions in the Peru FTA allow 
foreign investors to skirt U.S. courts and laws and give foreign 
investors the authority to sue the United States Government in foreign 
tribunals for violating their FTA-granted rights.
  Second, the Peru Free Trade Agreement includes the NAFTA-CAFTA 
procurement chapters on Buy America and anti-offshoring policies. The 
FTA requires foreign firms be treated the same as American firms 
seeking government contracts, challenging our right to invest tax 
dollars into American jobs and businesses.
  Several groups have publicly opposed the Peru FTA for those very 
reasons, including the two largest trade unions in Peru.
  The September 17 Change to Win Coalition letter states: ``Chapters of 
the Bush-negotiated FTA that literally replicate job-killing aspects of 
the core NAFTA-CAFTA model have not been addressed. Not one word was 
changed from the Bush-negotiated text.''
  In addition, the Interfaith Working Group on Trade and Investment 
released a statement saying: ``Based on our experience with NAFTA and 
CAFTA, the U.S.-Peru FTA will cause lost livelihoods in rural 
communities, reduce access to life-saving medication and perpetuate the 
global `race to the bottom' for workers and environmental protection.''
  But to make matters worse, no one seems to have faith in this 
President to

[[Page H11049]]

enforce the labor standards negotiated in the May 10 agreement. This 
administration cannot and will not enforce American worker safety right 
here in the United States.
  In a statement released on May 11, AFL-CIO President, John Sweeney, 
reminded us of the Bush administration's past failures by saying: ``The 
Bush violations against nations like Jordan and China remind us there 
is no guarantee the executive branch will enforce any new rights 
workers may gain through these negotiations.''
  The machinists labor union echoed Mr. Sweeney's statement in a letter 
to Congress dated August 2. It states: ``We are well aware of this 
administration's dismal record when it comes to workers' rights. For 
example, it has refused to issue a trade complaint against China for 
workers' rights violations described fully in AFL-CIO submissions. 
Given its past record, we fear that this administration will simply 
ignore even the most egregious labor violations.''
  Recently, I received a letter from two Peruvian labor federations 
concerned about the labor provisions in the pending FTA.
  Madam Speaker, our trade policies must start to serve the interests 
of America's working families and workers around the globe. We can do 
better. We need to overhaul our trade readjustment program. We need to 
calculate the loss of American jobs when this bill goes into effect, 
and we need to remember that our majority is here because working men 
and women demanded that we look out for them and their families.
  Let's slow down, vote ``no'' on this trade deal, and stand up to 
those people who stood up for us. That, Madam Speaker, is the very 
least that we can do. I urge my colleagues to please vote ``no'' on the 
Peru agreement.

                          ____________________