[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 148 (Tuesday, October 2, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H11134-H11135]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        NAFTA EXPANSION TO PERU

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, the proposed Bush NAFTA expansion to Peru 
provides no path to job growth in the United States or to correcting 
the growing U.S. trade deficit with Peru. The Bush proposal will yield 
the same result: more outsourced U.S. jobs, growing trade deficits, 
more landless Peruvian farmers, rising coca production, more illegal 
immigration, continued decline in the quality of life on both 
continents, and enrichment for a narrow band of political and 
multinational elites.
  The proposed Peru agreement keeps intact some of the most offensive 
NAFTA-CAFTA provisions, such as prohibiting Congress from passing 
legislation to promote ``buy American'' or to prevent the offshoring of 
more of our jobs. We keep asking ourselves: If you keep getting the 
same bad result, why keep enacting more of the same kinds of laws?
  The agreement even amplifies the CAFTA provisions regarding foreign 
investors being able to procure government contracts and settle 
disputes outside of U.S. courts. I find it unacceptable that the 
agreement handcuffs this Congress as it attempts to protect the 
interests of the people who send us to represent them. That's supposed 
to be our job.
  On a number of fronts, the Peru Free Trade Agreement stands to cause 
more harm than good. Take worker rights. The agreement merely commits 
Peru to hortatory, nonbinding language in the preamble to the ILO 
convention, and it does nothing to assure enforcement through the 
actual body of the conventions that provide the real protection for 
workers. There are no worker protections in this draft.
  In addition, the environmental provisions are equally inferior. All 
of the major environmental groups oppose the agreement, but for a 
couple who receive heavy corporate contributions. Would this have 
anything to do with the fact that the Andalusian pipeline that will 
bring more oil and gas out of Latin America might have something to do 
with this agreement?
  Importantly, in agriculture, as Oxfam points out, ``the agreement 
will harm many thousands of Peru's farmers,'' just as in Mexico 
millions of farmers have been harmed who then flock to the United 
States to find any kind of sustenance. Though some American farmers 
think they will stand to benefit from the zeroed-out tariffs, many 
don't understand that the MERCOSUR customs agreement between Peru and 
its neighbors will allow pork to flow in there from Argentinean and 
Brazilian imports. So I would think that our pork producers should be 
very skeptical that they're going to claim the largest share of that 
market.
  Now, where are these displaced Peruvian farmers supposed to turn? 
Perhaps, in their desperation for a profitable crop, they will help 
Peru reclaim its title as the world's number one coca producer. Or 
perhaps they will follow the same path as Mexico's abandoned corn and 
bean farmers and migrate to the overcrowded cities of the United 
States, legally or not.
  President Bush's Peru deal continues the bad trade policies that 
leave our consumers vulnerable to food safety catastrophes. Peru places 
second to China in its fisheries, and plenty of Peruvian seafood 
imports to our country are rejected due to filth, salmonella and 
equally disturbing criteria. Indeed, 27 percent, a third of all 
Peruvian antibiotic lines imported to this country already are found to 
be tainted and rejected. Why would we want more?
  Until now, Democrats have stood united against President Bush's plan 
to privatize Social Security in the United States; yet the proposed 
Peruvian agreement effectively endorses and solidifies Peru's 
privileged and privatized and severely flawed system. Giant 
multinational banks such as Citibank that invest in these private 
investor accounts would, under the Peru agreement, be entitled to 
compensation if privatization were reversed.
  Despite all of these concerns, instead of holding a formal hearing on 
such far-reaching legislation for a country

[[Page H11135]]

of 28.7 million people, half of whom live below the severe poverty 
line, the Ways and Means Committee instead held what's called a mock 
markup session last week. There were no recorded votes. It was a mock 
session. No recorded votes. No Member outside of the committee was 
invited to testify or comment, and they kept the old fast track 
procedure where they're going to bring it up here and not allow any 
amendments. It's another inside deal, because if you really had a full 
deal, a square deal, a fair deal, the majority of Members of this 
Congress would not vote for it, so they have to put handcuffs on 
everybody in order to try to maneuver it through here.
  Had I been allowed to submit testimony on the record at the hearing, 
I would have voiced my strong opposition to this NAFTA-style agreement 
that is destined to further exploit the struggling working classes in 
Peru and the United States. Unless it results in new jobs for our 
country and growing trade balances, rather than more deficits, no 
Member should support it. Any trade agreement that passes here should 
have mutually beneficial approaches which yield trade balances and jobs 
in our country.
  I'd ask my colleagues to defeat this exploitative NAFTA expansion 
model for Peru.

                          ____________________