[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 165 (Monday, October 29, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H12138-H12139]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       PERU FREE TRADE AGREEMENT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ) is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Tonight 
I rise to address the House and the American people regarding the U.S. 
Peru Free Trade Agreement and its effect on working families. But 
before I launch into my remarks, I want to be clear. I am committed to 
trade. I believe trade is an essential component to the development and 
strengthening of our economy.

[[Page H12139]]

  Done the right way, trade can increase our access to raw material for 
production and create American jobs. It can open foreign markets to our 
goods and services and bring new and unique products into the United 
States. Done the right way, trade can not only contribute to the 
economic prosperity of America and its working families, it can also 
strengthen the economic and political stability of our trading 
partners. It is because I believe in the many positive impacts that 
trade can bring when done the right way that I have been fighting for a 
new trade model.
  The NAFTA-style trade free trade agreements negotiated by the Bush 
administration are the wrong way to do trade. They bring nothing more 
than empty promises and harm to the American working class. My support 
for smart trade agreements that work for working people means that I 
cannot support the U.S.-Peru FTA. It is based on the North American 
Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, which has resulted in job losses in 
America, pushed small farmers off the land in Mexico, and jeopardized 
public health and safety policies in the U.S., Mexico, and Canada.
  When the administration announced its new policy on trade earlier 
this year, I, along with the rest of my colleagues in the House Trade 
Working Group were hopeful that the administration had taken bold steps 
to improve its trade policy. Unfortunately, it soon became clear that 
the Peru FTA, along with the rest of the pending trade agreements, 
retain the basic structure of NAFTA and CAFTA. The bold promises of new 
protections for workers turned out to be nice promises that had little 
chance of being enforced.
  The American people are fed up with trade agreements that only 
benefits the ``haves'' while making it harder for the ``have-nots'' to 
get ahead. A recent Wall Street Journal survey identified the declining 
public confidence in the NAFTA-style trade model. According to the 
survey, 60 percent of conservative Americans, those who would have been 
most apt to support the expansion of free trade, now believe that free 
trade is harmful to the U.S. economy.
  The promises of U.S. job creation and an increased standard of living 
for the working class have not been fulfilled. Instead, we continue to 
see the rich get richer and the rest, the middle and working class, get 
left behind. The administration asserts that the new additions to the 
Peru agreement will add long-sought labor and environmental 
protections; however, a careful analysis reveals that there are few 
changes from the basic NAFTA-CAFTA text. And even when there are 
changes, the new provisions offer few new protections.
  If the Peru FTA is so great, where is all the union support for it? 
Why do so many environmental groups oppose it? NAFTA-CAFTA provisions 
that have caused downward pressure on wages, the export of U.S. jobs 
and an import of unsafe products and food have saved little. This so-
called new deal is a bad deal. It is an old clunker with a new coat of 
paint. But even if this new deal contained the most stringent labor and 
environmental protections in the world, it would be dependent on the 
executive branch for enforcement. And enforcement of labor and 
environmental standards is something the current administration is 
unlikely to do. Let's be honest. The Bush administration has a 
consistent record of nonenforcement.
  We need a real new deal, not another NAFTA clone. Simply put, the 
NAFTA model doesn't work. It has failed to bring the jobs and 
prosperity that we were promised. Remember when we were promised that 
NAFTA would create jobs in Mexico and stem the flow of immigration? 
Remember when we were promised that NAFTA would ensure our trading 
partners would uphold the same strong labor and environmental standards 
that we have here in the U.S.? And now, this administration is asking 
us to believe its promise that the labor and environmental provisions 
of the Peru agreement will be stringently enforced.
  Well, if the experience of the last 10 years hasn't convinced you, I 
have some swamp land in Florida that I would like to sell you. So long 
as we have to rely on this administration to protect the rights and 
safety of working men and women, we will continue to be disappointed. 
This administration's track record does not reflect a real commitment 
to the working families of America. The truth of the matter is that the 
NAFTA model heavily favors the wealthiest few leaving small businesses 
to fend for themselves on an unequal playing field. The Peru Free Trade 
Agreement has been advertised as the new model for trade deals. This 
sounds eerily familiar to what we were told when CAFTA was being 
pushed. CAFTA was supposed to include bold new wage protections for 
workers. But those protections were disappointingly weak allowing 
countries to downgrade their own labor laws.
  Minor adjustments in NAFTA-style deals such as the U.S. Peru FTA are 
not good enough. We need to reject the Peru FTA agreement, and I urge 
all my colleagues to oppose it.

                          ____________________