[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 172 (Wednesday, November 7, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H13254-H13263]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3688, UNITED STATES-PERU TRADE 
                 PROMOTION AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT

  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 801 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 801

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     3688) to implement the United States-Peru Trade Promotion 
     Agreement. All points of order against consideration of the 
     bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of 
     rule XXI. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of 
     order against provisions of the bill are waived. The bill 
     shall be debatable for three hours, with 45 minutes in favor 
     of the bill controlled by Representative Rangel of New York 
     or his designee, 45 minutes in favor of the bill controlled 
     by Representative McCrery of Louisiana or his designee, 45 
     minutes in opposition to the bill controlled by 
     Representative Michaud of Maine or his designee, and 45 
     minutes in opposition to the bill controlled by the Minority 
     Leader or his designee. Pursuant to section 151(f)(2) of the 
     Trade Act of 1974, the previous question shall be considered 
     as ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening 
     motion.
       Sec. 2.  During consideration of H.R. 3688 pursuant to this 
     resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous 
     question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the 
     bill to such time as may be designated by the Speaker.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). All 
time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Ms. MATSUI. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 
legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and 
insert extraneous materials into the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. MATSUI. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 801 provides for consideration of H.R. 
3688, the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation 
Act, under the closed rule required by the fast track law. The rule 
provides for a total of 3 hours of debate, equally divided by 
proponents and opponents of the underlying bill.
  I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying legislation, 
H.R. 3688, the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement 
Implementation Act. I want to congratulate Chairman Rangel, Chairman 
Levin and members of the Ways and Means Committee on bringing this 
trade agreement before us today.
  Mr. Speaker, last week we passed legislation to help strengthen our 
current trade adjustment assistance program to protect American 
workers. Our country faces increased pressure as a result of 
globalization, and we must continue to reaffirm our commitment to the 
American workforce. It is evident that we need to change our current 
trade strategy.
  At the same time, we must also acknowledge the positive impact that 
international trade has had on our economy. International trade 
currently accounts for a quarter of our gross domestic product.
  Competition has proven to spur innovation and create new jobs. In my 
home State of California, we know that our IT companies need exports of 
semiconductor chips. Our farmers need the markets of Europe, Asia and 
Latin America. And our entertainment industry, financial services and 
telecom companies need to sell their services to grow and create jobs.
  But it also affects industry in America. We know that, and that is 
why we have a balanced approach to our trade agreements.
  Mr. Speaker, the trade agreement before us today is part of the broad 
context in which we should consider trade policy. It will establish an 
important precedent for how we craft future trade agreements.
  Under the new Democratic Congress, free trade agreements must provide 
strong labor and environmental protections. They are essential to 
promoting healthy workplaces and competition for American employees and 
around the world.
  Congress must consider each agreement on its merits. In some cases, 
these agreements will meet increased access for American producers and 
service providers. In other cases, these agreements could mean more 
competition and would significantly impact our workers and communities.
  I understand that many of my colleagues have strong views on trade, 
but one thing we can all agree on and be proud of is the fact that our 
leadership worked vigorously to ensure that democratic principles were 
included in the Peru agreement.
  In previous free trade agreements, these principles were noticeably 
absent. The initial Peru Free Trade Agreement draft reflected the 
``business as usual'' approach that this administration has based its 
trade policies on. Democratic leadership went to Peru, met with the 
Peruvian president and prominent members of its Congress and developed 
a new free trade agreement, one that includes the strongest labor and 
environmental chapters in any of the world's over 300 bilateral free 
trade agreements.
  It is not CAFTA. This is the first free trade agreement of its kind. 
It is a new free trade agreement, one that incorporates fully 
enforceable internationally recognized labor standards; that also 
promotes international environmental standards, including combating 
illegal logging, protecting the ozone layer, and our oceans; and an 
agreement that will provide Peruvians with lifesaving medicines. All 
three provisions are unprecedented in any free trade agreement and all 
three are core democratic principles that we should all be proud of.
  This agreement is also about leveling the playing field for U.S. 
companies to compete in the Peruvian market. The Andean Trade 
Preference Act passed in 1991 and expanded in 2001 allowed Peruvian 
companies to benefit from duty-free trade with the United States. 
Meanwhile, U.S. goods exported to Peru continued to face tariffs as 
high as 12 percent.
  The agreement before us today will give U.S. businesses immediate, 
duty-free access for more than 80 percent of U.S. consumer and 
industrial goods. This agreement will also allow us to forge a closer 
alliance and relationship with one of our southern neighbors. It is no 
secret that other countries are investing heavily in that part of the 
world. This agreement will send a strong message to our southern 
neighbors that the United States is here to help promote openness in 
their government and their economy.
  In closing, I urge my colleagues to look at each free trade agreement 
based on its merits. It is easy to promote or oppose free trade 
unequivocally and not look at the facts of each agreement. I am 
confident that this agreement will benefit our Nation, benefit our 
workers, and benefit our businesses. This agreement will serve as a 
model free trade agreement for years to come.

[[Page H13255]]

  Once again, I want to congratulate Mr. Rangel and Mr. Levin for their 
hard work.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I 
express my appreciation to my colleague from Sacramento for yielding me 
the customary 30 minutes.
  I have to begin by saying that as I saw my friend from Sacramento 
stand up, I couldn't help but think about the many years in the early 
1990s that I worked very closely with her late husband, Bob Matsui, on 
trade agreements. We worked very closely on the North American Free 
Trade Agreement and a wide range of other agreements. I would just like 
to say that I know that he would be very proud to see his wife, Doris, 
here participating and working very hard on this agreement.
  I also have to say that I am very pleased to see so many of my 
colleagues and for us to, as the gentlewoman from Sacramento just said, 
working in a bipartisan way on this. We have the distinguished chairman 
of the Committee on Ways and Means, my very good friend from New York 
(Mr. Rangel), talking to Jerry Weller from Illinois, who has been a 
great champion of free trade for a long period of time.
  I am particularly glad to see people like the distinguished chairman 
of the Trade Subcommittee, Mr. Levin, with whom I have, over the past 
several decades actually, engaged in a rigorous discussion and exchange 
on a lot of trade issues. We have had a different perspective in the 
past.
  While I am not in complete agreement with every single aspect of 
this, I am very proud to be joining in support of his initiative here. 
Of course, I see Mr. Crowley who has worked hard.
  On our side sitting right here, Mr. Speaker, we have our 
distinguished friends from Florida, the Diaz-Balart brothers, 
sandwiching our great friend, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, as they have 
demonstrated a very strong commitment to security and economic 
development within this hemisphere.
  So I will say that we are at this moment beginning a debate on what I 
truly believe is one of the most important national security issues as 
well as economic growth issues for the United States of America, the 
U.S.-Peru trade agreement.
  The vote on this implementing bill has been a long time in coming, as 
my colleague from Sacramento said. We have pending trade agreements 
with three Latin American countries, Colombia and Panama, in addition 
to this Peru agreement. And I hope very much, Mr. Speaker, since from 
my perspective, and I know not everyone agrees with me, but I believe 
very passionately, as I know my colleagues sitting here with me on the 
second row agree, that these three trade agreements are very, very 
important and the arguments in behalf of their passage are, in fact, 
very, very similar. As I said, we begin today with Peru, and I believe 
we will pass this bill with a large bipartisan majority.
  I want to again commend my great friend, Charlie Rangel, and our 
ranking member, Jim McCrery, with whom Mr. Rangel has worked very 
closely on these trade agreements. I congratulate both of them for 
having worked so hard on this. They have worked to restore what I 
believe is so critically important, and that is the bipartisan 
tradition of trade.
  I failed to mention Mr. Neal. I do, of course, recognize my friend 
from Massachusetts, who is obviously working on and has got to be 
supportive of this since he is sitting next to the chairman of the Ways 
and Means Committee. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we are now restoring 
this great bipartisanship when it comes to trade and I think it's a 
great day for this institution.
  The Peru agreement is an excellent place to begin to renew that 
support for open trade as an institution, because the economic benefits 
will be largely focused on the one thing we all seem to agree on. What 
is the one thing that every single American agrees on when it comes to 
the issue of trade? That is exports.
  We all agree that we want to open up new markets. I don't believe 
that a single one of my colleagues would consider arguing that 
exporting goods and services from the United States of America is a bad 
thing.

                              {time}  1845

  We're all in agreement increasing our exports to foreign markets is 
very positive for American workers, producers and our economy at large. 
And the reality is that exports are central to the issue of trade with 
Peru. Why? Because we have long had an open door to products coming 
from Peru into the United States. Congress created and extended a 
system of trade preferences for Peru, Colombia and other countries as 
well, which allows their goods to enter the U.S. market. So the U.S. 
consumer can have access to those tariff free. These preferences have 
enjoyed overwhelming bipartisan support, overwhelming bipartisan 
support for these preferences that allow Peruvian, Colombian, 
Panamanian goods and services to come into this country duty free. 
That's existed and, again, that has enjoyed bipartisan support.
  What we need to do now is we need to make sure that we take the step, 
having opened up our markets to them, to make sure that we open up 
their markets for U.S. goods and services.
  That's what all three of these agreements, Mr. Speaker, are all 
about. We unilaterally extended duty-free access to our market because 
we wanted to help create real opportunities for workers and producers 
in this region to enter the worldwide marketplace.
  Now, these preferences have been very successful. They've boosted 
exports to the United States and gave workers in those countries, 
Colombia, Peru and Panama, they gave these workers an alternative to 
the drug trade and other illicit industries. They've helped to usher in 
a new peaceful, prosperous era for all three of these countries, Peru, 
Colombia and Panama, where poverty is diminishing and, as well all 
know, democracy is solidifying.
  Now it's time to make this a reciprocal arrangement. U.S. exports, 
things made by Americans, our workers, should get the same treatment in 
their markets as Panamanian, Peruvian and Colombian workers get with 
access to our markets. With this Peru Free Trade Agreement, we will 
begin to level the playing field for American workers.
  I happen to believe that comprehensive, broad-based liberalization 
brings about the greatest economic benefits. I know some in this body 
might disagree. But as I've said, we all recognize the benefits of 
increased exports. Having opened the door on imports, we now must give 
our own exports equal footing.
  Those who would oppose this agreement today should recognize that 
they oppose nothing less than the promotion of American exports, the 
promotion of products made by U.S. workers.
  A vote, Mr. Speaker, against the Peru Free Trade Agreement is not a 
vote against free trade. It is a vote against giving Americans, 
American workers, a fair shot.
  But the significance of this agreement reaches far beyond economics, 
as I said at the outset. Just as our system of trade preferences was 
rooted in foreign policy, so is this agreement; our system of trade 
preferences dealing with the drug problem that Mr. Rangel's been 
involved in for decades, and I've enjoyed working with him in that 
battle. Just as that is, this also is very similar in that it is 
dealing with a foreign policy objective of ours.
  We have come to realize that one of the greatest challenges of the 
21st century is the promotion and strengthening of democratic 
institutions throughout the globe.
  This is a battle for hearts and minds. It is a struggle to ensure 
that liberty and the rule of law prevail over tyranny. And we heard 
that stated so eloquently right in this Chamber at 11 o'clock this 
morning when we had that spectacular speech delivered by Nicolas 
Sarkozy, France's new President. It is a struggle to ensure that 
opportunity and prosperity prevail over hopelessness that turns into 
extremism.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a challenge that has risen in the far corners of 
the globe, but it also exists right here in our own backyard. Today, 
Latin America, as we all know, is at a crossroads. Where armed 
conflict, drug wars, poverty and stagnation were the norm just a few 
years ago, a quiet revolution of economic and political liberalization 
has begun to transform a continent. Slow, steady reform has put much of 
this hemisphere on the right path.

[[Page H13256]]

  But there has been a resurgence in antiliberalization forces that 
does threaten this reform. We all know that Hugo Chavez in Venezuela is 
systematically dismantling the institutions of democracy and free 
markets in his own country and exporting his authoritarian agenda to 
his neighbors. We all know that all we need to do is look at his 
circle, his close circle of friends: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Fidel Castro, 
Daniel Ortega. That demonstrates the level of tyranny to which he 
aspires. He has already drawn Evo Morales in Bolivia and Rafael Correa 
in Ecuador into his orbit. Hugo Chavez and his assault on free 
government and free markets is a direct threat to the American ideals 
and the ideals, again, that were outlined so eloquently by President 
Sarkozy this morning, those ideals of liberty and prosperity. We want 
them prevailed throughout the world and we certainly want to take every 
step that we can to ensure that those principles of freedom and liberty 
and prosperity thrive right here in this hemisphere.
  And yet there are bulwarks for these American ideals in the region, 
and Peru is a key example. Peruvian President Alan Garcia himself 
embodies the struggle between these two visions. He first served as 
President of Peru in the 1980s, governing with antiliberalization 
philosophy. He presided over a withering economy that offered very 
little hope to Peruvians. And he said to us when we, in a delegation, 
visited with him when we were with our great Commerce Secretary, Carlos 
Gutierrez, that the statist populace vision of the past has failed. At 
that point, Mr. Speaker, he presided over that withering economy that 
offers, as I said, very, very little hope to Peruvians. But unlike most 
of us in politics, President Garcia is today getting a second chance. 
Nearly two decades after his first term, he has returned to the 
presidency and he has learned from his mistakes. He's been a champion 
of this agreement and our goal of solidifying the economic and 
political reform that has taken place. He is part of the anti-Chavez 
vision for Latin America, and he is joined by other allies in reform 
like President Uribe in Colombia, like President Torrijos in Panama.
  We have a very clear choice today, Mr. Speaker. We can strengthen the 
hand of Hugo Chavez, or we can strengthen the hand of the liberalizers 
and proponents of democracy and free markets. This is the battle for 
hearts and minds, and it's taking place right here in the Western 
Hemisphere. We know who our good friends are, and Peru, Colombia and 
Panama lead the pack. It's no coincidence that we embarked on trade 
negotiations with all three of these very important allies of ours.
  I would have liked to have had a vote on each of these critical 
agreements today. I very much wish that we could be voting on all of 
them today. But I'm pleased to at least begin with Peru. And I will say 
again that I very much look forward to our voting, I hope just as soon 
as possible, on the agreements with Colombia and Panama, because the 
exact same arguments that I have propounded are similarly applied to 
Colombia and Panama, the arguments I've made for Peru. All three share 
the same benefits and all three pose the same risks if we fail to 
implement them. All three extend our trade system, our trade preference 
system to American workers and producers, and all three are critical to 
our quest to strengthen and solidify political and economic freedom 
throughout Latin America.
  I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying trade 
agreement. And I urge the Democratic leadership, Mr. Speaker, to move 
as quickly as possible to bring forward the pending agreements with 
Colombia and Panama. And I urge them not to let politics undermine 
liberty in our hemisphere.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter).
  Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I'm really not sure why we're under 
this great rush to make these agreements, especially with a couple of 
countries that were named that do not have good human relations records 
and are not bastions of freedom. I don't understand, and I think most 
Americans don't understand, why we are so anxious to cut some kind of a 
deal, when we know that Americans are losing jobs.
  I walk through my own community and I see empty factories. I look 
around the State of New Hampshire and I see people have lost jobs, and 
people shrug and say to me, the jobs have gone overseas. They may not 
understand exactly what the trade agreement was, but they know they 
lost their jobs.
  And in December, once again, we'll see a factory close in New 
Hampshire. This is a great tragedy. We may discount 20 jobs, 100 jobs, 
200 jobs here and there, but ultimately what we're saying to Americans 
is we're sending your jobs overseas, and we hope that you'll be 
retrained, and we hope that you'll be able to finance your home and 
finance your car and educate your children. But really, this 
globalization effort is in your best interest. And you know, sometimes 
it is.
  Democrats are not against free trade. But what we are for is fair 
trade and making sure that our own people can maintain their lifestyle 
and that they'll have worker benefits and that they'll be able to 
retire, just like the generation before.
  I'm holding in my hand an article from The Washington Post from 
today, and Harold Meyerson wrote, and he's so right, ``Why the 
Democratic rush on trade? Globalization does pose real challenges to 
working and middle-class Americans. Democrats should wait until they're 
in a position, say, in 2009, to begin to restore some security to 
Americans' economic lives before they return to cutting trade deals. 
Their electoral prospects, and the Nation's economic prospects, demand 
no less.''
  I'm a freshman here, and I came in with a lot of other freshmen who 
heard across their districts the worries of middle-class, working-class 
Americans worried about their futures. We share that worry, and that's 
what's made us stand here tonight.
  Why can't we have a moratorium? Why rush? Why take the chance?
  Moving to other nations for cheaper labor is not fair to Americans 
and, in the end, will hurt our own country.
  So I urge my colleagues to say ``no'' to these deals.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I'm very happy to yield 3 
minutes to my good friend and hardworking colleague on the Rules 
Committee, the gentleman from Miami (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart), a great 
champion of freedom.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I thank my friend and I thank 
you, Mr. Speaker.
  The goal, Mr. Speaker, of our trade policy should be free trade among 
free peoples. And this agreement that we bring to the floor today, I 
think, is so important for many ways. If there is a nation that not 
only is a friend, but that has withstood extraordinary challenges, 
including violence, terrorism, extraordinary attacks to its free 
institutions, it is our neighbor and our friend, Peru. And they have, 
the prior administration with President Toledo, now the administration 
of President Alan Garcia, they have repeatedly demonstrated that they 
wish to deepen their relations with the United States, that they wish 
to tie their economic future to the United States. And tonight is our 
opportunity to respond and say to our friend, Peru, we recognize the 
steps you have made. We recognize not only the good-faith efforts that 
you've made to come to this agreement and to, by the way, renegotiate 
it after the political dynamic change. The situation changed here a 
year ago, and a renegotiation was required by the new leadership in 
this Congress of President Garcia.

                              {time}  1900

  And the Peruvian Government demonstrated once again good faith and 
walked the extra mile to come to this agreement. This agreement is in 
the interest of the United States, of the workers in the United States, 
and it's in the interest of Peru.
  When I say ``free trade among free peoples,'' Mr. Speaker, I think 
it's important to realize that peoples throughout the world should have 
an opportunity to raise their voices, to be heard, to form civil 
society, environmental groups, labor groups, to fight for their rights, 
to fight for their human rights, for their legal rights. In Peru, 
despite extraordinary challenges, there is freedom, and people can 
organize, as they can in the United States,

[[Page H13257]]

in civil society, in environmental organizations and labor 
organizations and others to demand their rights and speak up when their 
rights are violated. That's the great difference when we, for example, 
trade with a democracy with great challenges like India or a tyranny 
like, for example, Communist China. I always like to point out the 
difference. Free trade with free peoples.
  Tonight we enter into an agreement with a free people that is, in 
addition to being free, a great friend of the United States. So it is 
my privilege tonight to ask for our colleagues to support this rule and 
the underlying legislation.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, my 
friend (Mr. Rangel).
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I'm going to be extremely brief because I 
expect to be speaking at a later time on the bill. But I could not 
resist coming to the floor to protect the integrity of the Speaker and 
the members of the Ways and Means Committee, both Republican and 
Democrat.
  There may be, as a matter of conscience, that people feel that they 
have to oppose this bill or oppose trade or commitments they have made 
to other people. But to suggest that the leader of this House and those 
Republicans and Democrats who worked on the Ways and Means Committee 
and passed this out with a recorded vote without a vote against it were 
trying to have Americans lose their jobs here is not only unfounded, 
but it's unfair.
  And if anyone really just wants to count the numbers, then ask our 
farmers, ask our machine people, ask our television or electronic 
people how much they are going to export to Peru because of the removal 
of tariffs and how much is coming into this country.
  So you can be against trade. You can be against the agreement. It may 
not go far enough. It may not be everything you want. But I think it is 
wrong and unfair to suggest that we are deliberately trying to have 
people here, hardworking people, many who have suffered because of loss 
of jobs, and perhaps it has been because of trade or the indifference 
of people to invest in these families or in these communities, but this 
bill does not cause Americans to lose jobs. It's abundantly clear that 
the balance is on America's side in terms of removal of the tariffs. 
And for those of you who come from agricultural communities, ask your 
farmers. For those of you who come from machines that remove 
communities and mining materials, ask those manufacturers. And ask the 
people that would create the jobs whether or not it's good for them and 
good for the community.
  So you can be against trade. You can be against South America. You 
can be against anything. But to suggest that those that do support this 
bill will cause Americans to lose their jobs is untrue and unfair.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I'm happy to yield 3\1/2\ 
minutes to my very good friend from Miami (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), ranking 
member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I thank the gentleman from California for the time.
  I am extremely pleased, Mr. Speaker, that we are considering the Peru 
Free Trade Agreement tonight. The decision to move forward with 
legislation that expands our commercial relations with Peru signals the 
importance that this agreement holds for U.S. economic and security 
interests in the Andean region and, in fact, in Latin America as a 
whole. The benefits to both of our countries are significant.
  By removing barriers on our exports to Peru, this agreement will add 
$2.1 billion per year to our U.S. economy. The positive impact will be 
felt across the country. With almost one-fifth of the total bilateral 
merchandise trade between the U.S. and Peru moving through my home 
State of Florida, I know firsthand the importance of this agreement for 
our home State economies and our constituents.
  Within the first year of the agreement's implementation, Florida's 
total economic output is estimated to rise by $143 million and total 
earnings for Florida's workers are estimated to be $35 million higher 
than in the absence of this free trade agreement. The benefits that 
Peru currently enjoys under the Andean Trade Promotion and Drug 
Eradication Act only stand to multiply under passage of this FTA. By 
enhancing these opportunities for economic growth via the free trade 
agreement, the U.S. is strengthening legal economies that provide 
viable alternatives to illicit drug production. More than mere trade 
deals, these agreements are a major factor in defining the future of 
U.S. interests in the Western Hemisphere and our commitment to a 
strong, stable, democratic neighbor.
  Therefore, although we are focused tonight, Mr. Speaker, on the 
agreement with Peru, we cannot lose sight of its importance within the 
broader regional context of the pending agreements with Colombia and 
Panama. For example, recent studies show that if the Colombian Free 
Trade Agreement is not approved and those with Peru and Panama are, 
Colombia's GDP will be hurt by over 2 percent. Reinforcing Colombia's 
economy is a prerequisite to its ability to continue to fight the drug 
lords and the FARC terrorists. President Uribe of Colombia has 
committed himself and his country to the principles of a secure, more 
democratic society amidst a growing tide of authoritarian regimes in 
the region. And there will be a significant cost to the American 
economy from the failure to approve the Colombian Free Trade Agreement. 
Over 600,000 jobs in the United States are estimated to depend on 
exports to Colombia, jobs that will be put at risk if that trade 
agreement is not approved.
  Each of the trade agreements is an important element in our twin 
goals of ensuring our continued economic growth and reinforcing our 
allies in the region.
  I strongly support passage of this bipartisan agreement, and I urge 
my colleagues to do as well.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Baca).
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the Peru Free Trade 
Agreement.
  This Peru Free Trade Agreement does not guarantee American jobs will 
stay right here in the United States. That is the bottom line: jobs 
that need to stay right here in the United States.
  American families have lost jobs because past trade agreements did 
not lead to the creation of jobs right here at home. American families 
are earning less now than they did before. Three million jobs have been 
lost, and we have an $800 billion trade deficit.
  We need to create jobs here. We need to help hardworking families who 
are struggling. Many of these American families that are struggling 
today to make it, we need to help them. American workers deserve it. 
Americans at home deserve to benefit from the global economy. We need 
to protect jobs, and I state we need to protect jobs from further 
offshoring caused by unfair trade agreements, and we have seen what has 
happened.
  Now is not the time to rush ahead with more of the same damaging 
NAFTA-CAFTA style trade policies that have proven to hurt the American 
workers, and we have seen how it has hurt the American workers and the 
livelihoods of many, that will benefit all and not just the wealthiest 
few.
  Vote for American workers and not for the Peru Free Trade Agreement.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas who serves on the Ways and Means Committee (Mr. 
Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, today we take an important step forward in 
developing a comprehensive 21st century trade policy, recognizing that 
the benefits of trade cannot be measured solely in the volume of 
commerce that crosses international borders. A modern trade policy 
considers the impact of trade on workers and the environment, and this 
pact does that. Yet we have not fully achieved the goal of effective 
safeguards, and I believe that we are taking a step in the right 
direction; we're just not quite to the final destination. I believe it 
is better to approve this agreement as a step of genuine progress than 
to reject it.
  This agreement includes unprecedented action to prevent illegal 
logging that is decimating rainforests in South America. For the first 
time in this agreement, environmental infractions can be enforced with 
something that is

[[Page H13258]]

more than a mere parking ticket. That's what was done in prior 
agreements where governments wrote fines to themselves no matter how 
great the environmental degradation. And today, finally, we have 
recognition in this trade agreement of the importance of multilateral 
environmental agreements that have been totally disregarded in previous 
trade pacts.
  So this is real progress. But I am pleased that our chairman and the 
Trade Subcommittee chairman have recognized that there is more work 
that we can do and there are plans to conduct hearings, the first ever 
hearings in the Ways and Means Committee, on the environmental effects 
of trade as well as on the investor-state provisions.
  While our legislative intent is unequivocal regarding the agreement's 
preamble that ``no foreign investors have greater rights than do 
American citizens,'' the potential harm to our health, our worker 
safety, and our environmental laws from abuse of investor-state 
provisions demand the removal of outmoded and flawed language that 
keeps cropping up in these agreements and should not appear in future 
agreements.
  Acknowledging that we are making real progress with this agreement is 
really a recognition of just how far behind we have been. After years 
of total indifference to the concerns of workers and the environment, 
this agreement addresses those concerns, and almost any change 
represents progress. Today we move forward, and eventually together I 
believe that our ultimate goals will be fulfilled.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to my new 
colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, like many of my colleagues, I am for fair 
trade, not simply free trade. And I would associate myself with 
comments already made today, ``free trade for free people.'' Yet 
already reported recently, miners in Peru are facing having their 
strike declared illegal and shut down. That doesn't sound very free to 
me.
  This Peru FTA, I will acknowledge I am happy to see the positive 
developments in the labor and environmental standards. For me, however, 
they don't go quite far enough. I believe that the Congress has a 
constitutional role and responsibility to be able to amend these trade 
agreements no matter whom they are with or how large or small they may 
be.

                              {time}  1915

  Trade negotiations have successfully passed before without fast track 
authority or closed rule type of treatment, and I think that should be 
the case today.
  The Peru agreement, as currently structured, to me is symptomatic of 
the larger problem: allowing an unelected trade representative, and not 
the duly elected representative of the American people, to decide what 
is best in our trade policy.
  The current agreement does not provide for enforceable environmental 
protections, especially with regard to the lumber industry in sensitive 
areas of Peru's environment. The agreement, as currently written, would 
help force the privatization of Peru's Social Security system. The 
agreement would devastate Peru's already faltering rural agricultural 
economy.
  Congress forced the trade representative to include minimal 
standards, in my opinion, and these things have been called a 
breakthrough. I think there should be credit where credit is due, and 
they have been an improvement. But at the end of the day, if we are to 
rely on the trade representative and the Bush administration to enforce 
the trade agreement, I don't think that's an enforceable agreement.
  I tried to offer an amendment which would allow for a private right 
of action to allow American citizens to enforce the provisions of the 
trade agreement to be carried out and enforce those labor and 
environmental provisions to be fully fulfilled. But, however, due to 
the nature of this debate, no such amendment was allowed, and I think 
that's to the detriment of us all.
  I believe that we must work to return to a time when Congress and the 
elected representatives of the people were allowed to amend our trade 
agreements. Organized, negotiated and fair trade amongst nations is one 
of the most important issues facing our Nation, indeed, our world. Its 
great importance demands that it be given the attention that such an 
issue deserves.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and the 
United States-Peru Free Trade Act.
  In the past few weeks, I have heard time and time again from many of 
my colleagues that the Peru Free Trade Agreement is a groundbreaking 
agreement crafted by the Ways and Means Committee and the Bush 
administration. I've been told that this agreement incorporates 
enforceable obligations that require Peru to adopt and enforce labor 
standards and uphold international environmental standards. That is a 
start. But I ask my colleagues, who will enforce the labor standards? 
Who will enforce the environmental standards? The Bush administration? 
I don't think so. This administration has a disgraceful record of 
enforcing trade agreements and trade laws. We cannot assume this 
administration will now start to enforce trade agreements. Furthermore, 
this agreement doesn't provide the administration any funding to 
enforce the free trade agreement if they wanted to. Most importantly, 
the Peru Free Trade Agreement fails to address food safety, toy safety 
and drug safety concerns facing our constituents.
  As chairman of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, I have 
conducted numerous hearings and investigations on drug and food safety. 
Our committee found that products are entering our country every minute 
without appropriate inspection. We found that importers don't know how 
the product was made and whether the imports are safe. Why do we 
Americans allow countries to bring their inferior, unsafe toys, food 
and drugs into our country?
  The Peru agreement includes the WTO Sanitary and Phytosanitary 
Agreement. By incorporating the WTO's Sanitary Agreement, the U.S. will 
be giving up the ability to increase inspection of imports to ensure 
safety.
  The goal of the WTO Sanitary Agreement is to allow free passage of 
food. This means our food can move freely between the two countries 
without proper inspection and without proper regulation on how the food 
is grown, processed, stored or shipped here to the United States.
  At a time when we're questioning the ability of the Consumer Product 
Safety Commission and the FDA to protect the health and well-being of 
our children, our seniors and, indeed, all Americans, I don't think we 
should be allowing Peru ``free passage'' of food and drugs into the 
United States.
  We simply cannot afford to pass another harmful trade agreement that 
fails to protect our families from contaminated foods and drugs and 
toys.
  The changes the proponents of the Peru Free Trade Agreement keep 
touting are minimal at best, and are inadequate to assure a level 
playing field for American businesses, American jobs and the American 
economy but most importantly it does not protect the American people.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against the Peru Free Trade 
Agreement.
  Protect the American consumer.
  Vote no on the final passage.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I'm happy to yield 4 minutes 
to a very hardworking and thoughtful member of the Trade Subcommittee 
of Ways and Means, a great champion of economic and democratic 
liberalization in this hemisphere, my friend from Morris, Illinois (Mr. 
Weller).
  Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule 
as well as this trade agreement.
  You know, exports are pretty important to the State that I represent. 
We have jobs at stake that are dependent on exports in Illinois. In 
fact, for manufacturing, one out of five manufacturing jobs in Illinois 
depend on exports. 17,000 Illinois companies depend on exports. And 
when it comes to agriculture, 40 percent of all the corn and soybeans 
and farm products produced in Illinois depend on exports. So trade 
makes a big difference, and trade agreements are important.
  We win with trade agreements. You look at the record; since 2002, we 
have nine countries that we have free trade agreements with. In those 
countries,

[[Page H13259]]

our exports grew by 19 percent, which is 50 percent faster than the 
overall growth in exports. Morocco grew 67 percent, Bahrain grew 40 
percent, Chile grew 30 percent. We have free trade agreements with 7 
percent of the world's countries, representing 14 percent of the gross 
domestic product of the globe, but those free trade agreements 
represent half of the exports from America. And free trade in the last 
dozen or so years has created 16 million new jobs.
  We've got a good trade agreement before us tonight. Peru is a strong 
ally and friend of the United States. We have an agreement before us 
that's good for Illinois and it's good for America. On day one, 80 
percent of our exports of consumer and industrial products become duty 
free immediately. Illinois already exports $198 million in exports to 
Peru. And it's predicted that exports from key industries will rise as 
much as 57 percent as a result of this agreement. That's not just the 
big companies. Small and medium-size enterprises also benefit from 
tariff elimination. My biggest manufacturer is Caterpillar. They make 
the yellow construction equipment; 8,000 workers in my district 
dependent on Caterpillar for their jobs. Today, they face a 12 percent 
tariff on the equipment that they want to export to Peru. On a million 
dollar mining truck, that's $120,000 tariff tax. It goes away on day 
one.
  And those union workers at Caterpillar, and I would note, 8,000 
workers, half of the production in Joliet, the biggest city in my 
district, is exported today. So they depend on trade.
  So, the Peru agreement creates jobs in Illinois. Illinois 
manufacturers are expecting to see a 51 percent increase in exports. 
And I would note that Peruvian products coming into Illinois today face 
no tariffs, but Illinois products going to Peru do.
  And the Peru Trade Agreement is also good for Illinois farmers. 
Soybeans become duty free immediately; many new markets for Illinois 
farmers. And before this agreement, Illinois pork and corn were at a 
competitive disadvantage with our competition in South America, Chile 
and Argentina, who don't face the high tariffs we do, and so they 
undercut us on prices, hurting our farmers. This agreement helps 
Illinois pork, corn, soybean, and other agricultural producers. In 
fact, farm organizations will tell you, those representing producers 
will tell you that the Peru and Colombian agreements are the best ever 
negotiated to break down barriers for American farm products. It is 
estimated that agriculture alone will see a $700 million increase in 
exports as a result of the Peru Free Trade Agreement.
  This trade agreement also has broader implications. As you know, 
there are some negative forces threatening democracy in Latin America 
today, and Peru is a shining example of a working democracy with strong 
leadership. And President Toledo and President Garcia, his successor, 
are making a difference. Poverty is being reduced; real jobs are being 
created.
  Peru is an economic success story. You don't see Peru resorting to 
anti-American rhetoric and populist rhetoric. You see Peru being a 
responsible partner with its neighbors. This trade agreement is part of 
their strategy to reduce poverty.
  Let's vote for this agreement.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, today we're voting on a 
historic trade agreement with Peru. Let me thank Charlie Rangel and 
Sandy Levin for the diligence they demonstrated in negotiating with the 
administration.
  This trade deal is about exports. Make no mistake about it, Mr. 
Speaker, the labor and environmental provisions in the Peru FTA are big 
steps towards a more progressive trade policy where trade benefits are 
spread more broadly in a global economy.
  Regarding labor, the FTA includes a fully enforceable commitment that 
Peru adopt and maintain the five basic international labor standards. 
Peruvian President Garcia has already implemented changes to Peru's 
legal framework to allow compliance with international labor standards. 
A key provision allows the United States to challenge any violation of 
Peru's commitments to labor standards. Like the labor provision, the 
environmental provisions in the Peru FTA are also unprecedented. This 
legislation before us not only makes significant steps in the right 
direction, but it also moves aggressively in stopping illegal logging.
  In addition to the significant reductions in tariff and nontariff 
barriers to U.S. exports, again, it's about exports, the agreement also 
includes important provisions relating to generic medicines, government 
procurement, and investment protections.
  Mr. Speaker, the importance in progress associated with the Peru FTA 
will allow a lot of Democrats tonight for the first time to vote for an 
FTA. I know the decision is not easy, but it's a testament to the new 
and improved course that American trade policy has undertaken, which 
reflects the best of American values.
  Mr. Speaker, the legally binding labor and environmental standards in 
the Peru FTA is a universe apart from CAFTA. This is not CAFTA. This is 
not NAFTA, which only received a handful of Democratic votes. 
Implementation of the FTA will give momentum to other efforts to secure 
forward-thinking FTAs.
  This is the result of Charlie Rangel and Sandy Levin's hard work and 
dedication, and I urge support of this legislation.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentlelady for yielding and rise in 
opposition to the rule, which should be open.
  Every time we sign a free trade agreement with a developing country, 
we end up outsourcing more wealth and middle-class jobs. If these 
agreements were working, America wouldn't have an $800 billion trade 
deficit, with 20,000 jobs lost for every billion dollars of that 
deficit. What an unprecedented wipe out of jobs and productive wealth 
in this country. The sliding value of the dollar proves it, our 
staggering debt levels prove it, and the growing stock market 
instability proves it.
  Let me give you some history. When they said we had to pass NAFTA 
back in the 1990s, we had a trade surplus with Mexico. Since NAFTA's 
unfortunate passage, every single year we have fallen into greater and 
greater debt with Mexico. A million of our jobs are outsourced. We 
didn't create a million jobs. And 2 million Mexicans were thrown off 
their farms and created an unending flow of illegal immigration to this 
country.
  Then they told us, well, sign China PNTR; that will make a big 
difference. We were already in debt with China when PNTR was signed, 
and guess what? It only got worse. We have an historic trade deficit 
with China now, and we're getting from them contaminated dog food and 
toys with lead and all of the rest. And now they tell us, well, Peru is 
next. We've already got a trade deficit with Peru. Del Monte and Green 
Giant have opened up production facilities in Peru to absorb some of 
the 2 million Peruvian farmers that are going to be upended by this 
agreement, just as what happened with Mexico's campesinos under NAFTA.
  Jordan, they said, was a breakthrough agreement, had environmental 
provisions, labor provisions; So, what's happened, even the Jordanians 
admit, it's not enforced.
  You know, in considering another free trade agreement today, this New 
Direction Congress offers up more of the same, again, out of step with 
the American people.
  The environmental and labor provisions are nonbinding; they're in the 
general preamble. This is like saying you support the preamble to our 
Constitution but not the Bill of Rights and all the case law that 
supports it. That's why no labor unions are supporting this in the 
United States or Peru. In fact, a major Peru miners' union is on strike 
right now, and they were told by the Government of Peru today that the 
strike was illegal and said if the workers don't return to work, they 
will be terminated in 3 days.
  So I ask, why are no U.S. or Peruvian trade unions supporting the 
agreement?
  Could it be because the agreement does not require the Parties to 
comply with core labor ``rights'', but rather with vague and 
unenforceable labor ``principles, which are then cleverly placed in the 
Preamble or Declaration of the agreement, not in the enforceable and 
binding core standards as do the International Labor Organization 
Convention?

[[Page H13260]]

  Oh, let us grow up.
  So, I have a better idea. Rather than pass another so called ``free 
trade'' agreement with another foreign country, that has weak rule of 
law and masses of poor people, let's negotiate a free trade agreement 
with ourselves! That would be a first. For Congress to pay some 
attention to the American people.
  A free trade agreement with the U.S. might result in jobs from other 
places being returned here to workers who have fallen out of the middle 
class.
  It might mean we would again be a nation that produced something 
rather than just traded in foreign goods.
  Can you imagine--America might again make televisions, electronics, 
shoes, clothing, washing machines and irons, windshield wipers, 
electric wiring harnesses, toys, crayons, dishes, forks and spoons, 
well, the list is endless. Imagine if we had a trade agreement that put 
our workers and communities first. Now there's a novel thought.
  Imagine, if the diminishing middle class believed this Congress 
actually represented them.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this Peru agreement and 
finally begin to develop a new trade model that results in job creation 
in America and balanced global trade accounts. When that happens, 
America's middle class will again begin to grow.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this Peru agreement, and 
submit the following article for the Record:

                [From Dow Jones Newswires, Nov. 7, 2007]

      Update: Peru Declares National Mining Sector Strike Illegal

                           (by Robert Kozak)

       Lima.--Peru's Labor Ministry Wednesday declared a national 
     mining sector strike to be illegal.
       Peru's National Federation of Mining, Metallurgy and Steel 
     Workers Monday started the nationwide strike, aiming to 
     pressure the government to pass laws to give mining sector 
     workers more benefits.
       The ministry said workers had defied a government 
     resolution ordering them back to work and in some cases had 
     blocked highways. Workers now have three days to return to 
     work or face being fired.
       An official with the mining federation said directors are 
     meeting with government officials to see whether advances 
     made in formulating laws giving them more benefits would 
     allow them to lift the strike.
       The government said 6,300 workers were on strike as of 
     Tuesday, some 5.26% of the total work force in the sector.
       The strike hasn't seriously cut production at any of the 
     major mines in Peru, and mining sector activity has returned 
     to a more normal state, a high-level mining sector official 
     said Wednesday.
       ``Today the activities are practically normal at the 
     companies. I think that the workers have come to understand 
     that they don't need to paralyze activities to insist on the 
     platform that the federation has,'' the president of the 
     private-sector National Society of Mining, Petroleum and 
     Energy, Ysaac Cruz, said in a broadcast interview.
       ``The strike has had very little impact, and at some mines 
     only a small group took part,'' Cruz added.
       A spokesman for Minera Yanacochia, Latin America's largest 
     gold mine, said that all workers there were back on the job. 
     That mine is run by Newmont Mining Corp. (NEM), with a 51.35% 
     stake. Compania de Minas Buenaventura SAA (BVN) holds a 
     43.65% share in Yanacocha.
       The mining federation had held a similar strike from April 
     30 to May 4. The government said then that only 10% of 
     workers in the mining sector supported that walk out, 
     although union members said the number was higher.
       The mining federation wants, among other things, to 
     increase the number of workers on staff, to increase worker 
     profit sharing to 10% of profits from 8%, and to eliminate a 
     ceiling on that profit sharing, which limits the extra 
     payments to a total of 18 monthly salaries.
       Peru is the world's largest producer of silver, and among 
     the top five in zinc and copper. It is also a major producer 
     of gold, and produces other minerals such as tin and 
     molybdenum.

                              {time}  1930

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to my 
friend from Ohio with two quick points, and, that is, we do, in fact, 
have tremendous opportunities for Peruvian products to come into the 
United States. This agreement, in fact, responds to that by opening up 
the Peruvian market.
  The second point is that Whirlpool, which is a great company in Ohio, 
will see 9,000 jobs from exports to Peru with a 400 percent increase.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I am happy to yield.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I would just say to the gentleman, Peru's chief export to 
us is gold, gold from the second largest gold mine in the world, and 
those Whirlpool jobs and Maytag jobs are half of what they used to be 
in this country because they shut them down in Galesburg, Illinois and 
in Newton, Iowa. Don't talk to me about washing machine jobs.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members should heed the gavel and get 
additional time when their time has expired.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank you very much for maintaining order 
here in the House.
  At this time I am very happy to yield 3 minutes to my very good 
friend from Miami (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart).
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I stand today to 
express my strong support for the Peru Free Trade Agreement. I am also 
a strong supporter of free trade with free nations. It is important to 
note that we already have a unilateral trade deal with Peru. That deal 
has helped Peru fix and help solve a big part of their poverty problem. 
It has helped stem the violence and the insurgency that were so 
prevalent there in the 1980s.
  In the last decade, Peru has become one of fastest growing economies 
in Latin America, with a GDP growth of 8 percent last year. The United 
States is Peru's number one trading partner. Enacting this bilateral 
trade preference will increase the number of American small- and 
medium-sized businesses that benefit from trade. More trade and more 
exports to this democratic neighbor means more jobs for American 
workers.
  Not only is Peru, Mr. Speaker, a strong trade partner, it has become 
a strong partner fighting narco-trafficking and countering that anti-
democratic sentiment that is fueled in the region by Fidel Castro and 
Hugo Chavez. It is in our national security interest to strengthen our 
ties with this strong democracy, this democratic ally.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, I support free trade with free, democratic 
nations, and I support free trade that is beneficial to American 
businesses and American workers and American jobs. That is why I am 
pleased that we are voting today to enact this vital trade agreement 
with this strong ally in Latin America. I hope that this vote will lead 
to the swift enactment of the already negotiated trade deals with our 
other strong allies in Latin America, and those being Panama and 
Colombia.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to one of the key brokers 
of this agreement, the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Levin).
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. As the Speaker and the majority leader made clear months 
ago, and Mr. Rangel and myself, what we are talking about today is 
about Peru, not Colombia, not Panama, not Korea. We are talking about a 
basic issue, and that is in terms of liberalization, do you try to 
shape its course or let it happen willy-nilly?
  The crucible in terms of that issue has been core labor standards and 
environmental standards. That was the basis of the fight over NAFTA, 
over CAFTA and over the trade bill of 2001. The basic fact is that in 
this agreement, not in the preamble, in this agreement, ILO core labor 
standards are there, enforceable like everything else, and so are 
environmental standards. So it's a question of whether you shape trade 
agreements or just let it happen. And we say shape them.
  Again, the crucible has been initially labor standards and 
environmental standards. So this is the antithesis of CAFTA. This is a 
historic breakthrough. This is the first step towards a new trade 
agreement. We should not turn our back on it. We should build on it.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maine (Mr. Michaud).
  Mr. MICHAUD. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  I am asking Members who are committed to fair trade to vote against 
the Peru Free Trade Agreement. I can think of a million reasons to 
oppose this agreement. Let's start with over 3 million jobs lost 
because of NAFTA.

[[Page H13261]]

Workers in my State have lost their jobs due to trade. They don't want 
trade adjustment assistance. They want their jobs.
  The bill's supporters claim that enhanced environmental standards in 
this FTA will preserve our natural resources. So where is the strong 
support from the Sierra Club, Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth? 
Supposedly the new labor provisions will improve conditions for workers 
in Peru and create jobs for workers here at home. So where is the 
support from labor? The two largest Peruvian labor unions are asking us 
to oppose this trade deal because it will hurt their workers.
  If this is, in fact, a new direction on trade, don't you think we'd 
hear from the support from these groups? It is time for a trade policy 
that benefits workers and creates jobs, not policy that encourages 
companies to take their investment elsewhere. Yet we are not listening. 
By passing this bill, we are continuing the same disastrous results 
that came under NAFTA and CAFTA.
  I didn't come to Washington so that I could ignore the needs of my 
constituents back home. I came to Washington to give a voice to those 
who need it. So let's start listening to the voices of the people back 
in our districts and take a new direction on trade, to start creating a 
new trade regime that will benefit all of us.
  I ask Members to oppose the Peru Free Trade Agreement. Speaking about 
trade adjustment assistance that passed this body last week, before it 
left this body the President came out and said he was going to veto 
trade adjustment assistance. Is that working in a bipartisan manner? 
No, it is not.
  I encourage Members to oppose the Peru Free Trade Agreement.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield 1 minute to a very 
strong free trader, my friend from Mesa, Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I just want to pay tribute at this time to Mr. Rangel, Mr. McCrery 
and everyone who has put this trade deal together. This is a difficult 
thing to do. It is always easier to see the shuttered business and to 
say that's because of trade rather than to look at the opportunities 
and jobs that are created because of free trade. Free trade lifts our 
standard of living. It lifts the standard of living for those in other 
countries that enjoy its benefits as well.
  This is the best part of Congress, to see on a bipartisan level 
people coming together to do what is best for people everywhere. I just 
want to commend those who put this together. This is a good rule. This 
is a good bill. Let's move forward with this. Let's move forward with 
the other free trade agreements with Panama, Colombia and Korea.
  Mr. DREIER. I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the Speaker of the 
House.
  Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and thank her for 
her excellent work as a member of the Rules Committee in managing this 
important rule to the House.
  Mr. Speaker, I know that this is a difficult issue for Members to 
decide upon because it goes right to the heart of family life in 
America. It's about the job security, the economic security, the health 
security of America's families. And the issue of trade has been one 
that has been controversial, and frankly, I have largely been more on 
the other side of it than I am tonight.
  I rise in support of the Peru Trade Agreement, and I want to tell my 
colleagues why. They will have to make up their own minds. But I want 
to take the opportunity to talk about it in the context of the last, 
say, 20 years. That is how long I have been in Congress.
  For most of that time, I have fought with a Democratic President and 
a Republic an President, starting with President Bush 41, Father Bush, 
and throughout the Clinton administration on the issue of China trade. 
I saw it clearly as a threat to the economic security of America's 
working families. I could see the patterns that were developing there. 
But all along, those powers that be always said, no, this is the 
enlightened course.
  At the time, when we started this debate on China, which was right 
after the massacre in Tiananmen Square, the trade deficit between the 
U.S. and China, the trade deficit we suffered, was around $5 billion a 
year. $5 billion a year. It sounded like all the money in the world to 
us at the time, $5 billion a year. How much leverage could we have to 
open China's markets? To stop them violating our intellectual property? 
To have them free the prisoners arrested in Tiananmen Square? To have 
them stop proliferating weapons of mass destruction? We fought so much 
leverage.
  But Washington, D.C. was very much influenced by the Government of 
the People's Republic of China. And so all of the powers that be told 
us, if only we went down the path that they were recommending, that 
markets would be open to us, that political reform would come, all of 
these things, China would stop proliferating weapons of mass 
destruction to places like Iran and Pakistan, to name a few.
  What happened was none of the above. But strictly on the issue of 
trade, say, 17, 18, years ago, a trade deficit of about $5 billion a 
year. Stick with us, they told us, and great things would happen in 
this relationship. Oh, they did. For China. The trade deficit now with 
China is approximately $5 billion a week. A week. It went from $5 
billion a year to $5 billion a week. And all of the economic 
consequences that go with it, and all of the inferiority of product, 
threatening the food safety, the medicine safety, the toy safety in our 
country. That's what the sophisticated people told us that we should do 
was to go along the course that we have. The violation of intellectual 
property. That piracy is legendary. Of course, nothing has changed 
except we are now in about a $250 billion deficit to China.
  I bring that up because many of us in this room fought that fight. We 
invested a lot into it. And we were always cast aside as Luddites and 
unsophisticated people and Stone Age and didn't understand. But we do 
understand that the American workers paid a price for that. The markets 
didn't open to our products. Even with WTO that didn't happen. And, 
again, the deficit speaks for itself.
  So I say from that level of passion and familiarity with the issue 
and being in the fight for a long time, that when I saw an opportunity 
for us to have labor and environmental standards as a core part of our 
trade agreements, it marked a drastic difference from what even a 
Democratic President was willing to give on that score, even a 
Democratic President. We couldn't get that in the Clinton 
administration.
  So I want to commend Mr. Rangel and Mr. Levin, the two chairmen, for 
the excellent work that they did. I tell you the China story just as a 
background as to how difficult it was before. No matter what the 
evidence, no matter how clear it was, others saw it differently, and 
they saw it wrong.
  So here we are today trying to make some distinctions, trying to make 
some distinctions about trade agreements that are better than others. I 
don't think any of them are perfect on either end. And so my reason for 
supporting this is, as a leader in the Democratic Party, is I certainly 
believe that part of the legacy of our great party is the legacy of 
John F. Kennedy who said that free trade was a part of who we are as a 
country and that international trade would be good for our economy. But 
we want not only free trade, we want fair trade.

                              {time}  1945

  We are going to be Uncle Sam instead of ``Uncle Sap'' in these trade 
relationships. It had to be fair. It had to be right for our workers.
  As I say, this opportunity came along in a bipartisan way to say that 
unless labor and environmental standards were part of a trade 
agreement, it couldn't even be considered. It didn't mean it would be 
considered, but that was the threshold that all of these agreements had 
to cross. And then they would be judged on their individual merits in 
terms of the agreement between our two countries.
  Recognizing the fear and apprehension and uncertainty that exists in 
many families and homes across America because of their jobs going 
overseas, the businesses closing, their communities having a downturn, 
can't sell their home, all the consequences that go with that, the 
chairman put forth legislation that passed the House last week, which I 
hope that the President

[[Page H13262]]

of the United States will sign. I think it is essential, essential, if 
we are going to accomplish anything on trade, on immigration or 
anything else, that people know that we share the concerns that they 
have and that we are doing something about it. So the trade adjustment 
in terms of training and opportunity and health care and all of those 
things was very, very important.
  That was done in the context of other things to address the needs of 
America's working families. Hopefully we can pass SCHIP to get 10 
million children to have their health insurance, pass legislation to 
make college more affordable, raise the minimum wage, have an 
Innovation Agenda that says if we are going to compete in the world, we 
must innovate. We can't just complain about trade, we must innovate. 
And that innovation begins in the classroom, and it takes us right back 
to our college affordability, our initiatives of K-12, early childhood 
education and the rest.
  So I think we have to certainly be concerned about the impact of 
trade. It is self-evident and it is a challenge for us. But we cannot 
turn our backs on it. And I absolutely refuse to have the Democratic 
Party be viewed, and I say this to my Republican colleagues, I know you 
don't want to be viewed, but I have a responsibility also to my 
Democratic colleagues, I don't want this party to be viewed as an 
antitrade party.
  So, let's make some distinctions. Take every trade agreement on its 
own merit. The Peru Free Trade Agreement rises to the level of 
acceptance. I am not saying it is perfect. It rises to the level of 
acceptance. Labor and environmental principles are in the core of the 
bill. Other changes we wanted to see were made by the Parliament in 
Peru. They passed the laws or they made the changes we said they needed 
to have.
  So if you are ever going to support any trade agreement, I would 
think this would be the easiest one to do. Other trade agreements have 
other obstacles that have to be dealt with. I don't think we should 
shut the door on anything, because that gives nobody any motivation to 
make any change in what we would like to see as a free flow of goods to 
and from these countries.
  It is frustrating, and I respect everything that has been said by my 
colleagues in this debate. I think it is all legitimate. Some, like 
Marcy Kaptur, have been in this fight for a long time. Working families 
in America have no greater champion to advocate for the best possible 
outcome for them.
  But, again, viewing in the context of we want to have an economy that 
is fairer, that we have a progressive economic agenda where many more 
people participate in the economic success of our country, that is why 
we raised the minimum wage and make college more affordable, et cetera, 
and that is why we are promoting our Innovation Agenda for energy 
security and reversing global warming, so we can create many more jobs, 
so America's farmers can fuel America's energy independence, where we 
will send our energy dollars to the Midwest and not to the Middle East. 
This is a bigger picture than the Peru Free Trade Agreement.
  The Peru Free Trade Agreement is not a big deal in terms of trade 
agreements, but it is an important step into saying we can make 
distinctions about trade relationships that are grossly unfair to the 
American worker, greatly oppressive to the workers in their own 
countries and are not making people freer. And to those that are in 
furtherance of growing our own economy while helping to lift other 
economies in the world, I think in this case the Peru Free Trade 
Agreement goes in that direction.
  So, that is why, my colleagues, I am supporting this. It may seem to 
be a departure to some of you from where I have been on other trade 
agreements. But it is a marked difference, a marked difference from 
where we were before, whether it was President Bush I, whether it was 
President Clinton, and where we are now.
  Those many who have been on one side or the other of this all say it 
is an amazing accomplishment to have gotten that done. And for that, 
whatever the outcome of this vote is, for that I want to once again pay 
tribute to Chairman Rangel and Chairman Levin, chairman of the 
subcommittee, for the great leadership and the work they did. I just 
want you to know why I was supporting this bill.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 2\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege for me to rise and 
join my California colleague, Speaker Pelosi, in support of this rule 
and in support of the underlying legislation.
  We began this morning here with a brilliant address delivered by the 
new President of France, Nicolas Sarkozy. In that speech, he talked 
about the need for greater economic liberalization and the move towards 
markets. He talked about a new day in France and the fact that he is 
doing everything that he possibly can to make sure that they create new 
opportunities for economic growth and success in that country.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, we all know that the United States of America, as 
President Sarkozy said, is the strongest, most powerful nation in the 
world, economically, geopolitically and militarily. And, Mr. Speaker, 
this agreement is about making sure that within our hemisphere, we have 
an opportunity, an opportunity to open up new markets for U.S. workers.
  Now, I stumbled through an exchange with my friend from Ohio when I 
was talking about a great Ohio company, Whirlpool. What I was trying to 
say is that Whirlpool has projected that they will have a 400 percent 
increase in their level of exports from Ohio to Peru. And what does 
that mean? Whirlpool projects that it will create 9,000 new jobs for 
workers in Ohio.
  Mr. Speaker, Peru, Colombia, Panama, through trade preferences that 
we have joined together in a bipartisan way in granting, have had 
access to the U.S. consumer. This agreement is not about free trade. It 
is about opening up new opportunities for U.S. workers, and it is about 
the security of this hemisphere.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to support 
the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, the U.S.-Peru Free Trade Agreement represents a new kind 
of policy, a new generation of free trade agreements. Since World War 
II, our international trade policy has been driven by a broad 
commitment to expanding economic opportunity for Americans. Producers 
from across the country must have access to international markets to 
stay competitive in an increasingly global economy.
  However, we must carefully construct each agreement in a way that is 
fair, sound and beneficial to all countries involved. The 
administration's initial agreement with Peru was none of the above. I 
am proud that our leadership took an unprecedented and hands-on 
approach to ensure that this particular agreement incorporated the 
values and principles of the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, this agreement is different than previous agreements. 
The labor and environmental protections in this agreement are stronger 
than any other previous free trade agreement. As our Nation's trade 
policy moves forward, I urge our colleagues to consider each potential 
free trade agreement on its merits. We cannot dwell on past flawed 
agreements. We must look toward the future with full confidence in our 
companies and in our workers and say that American products can compete 
with anyone, anywhere, at any time.
  Mr. Speaker, we must lead by example, and I commend Mr. Rangel and 
Mr. Levin for the diligent work on this agreement.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on 
the resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

[[Page H13263]]

  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 349, 
noes 55, not voting 28, as follows:

                            [Roll No. 1059]

                               AYES--349

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Buchanan
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carter
     Castle
     Castor
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Lincoln
     Deal (GA)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Jordan
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Mitchell
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sali
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                                NOES--55

     Altmire
     Baldwin
     Boyda (KS)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Conyers
     Costello
     Courtney
     Culberson
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Ellison
     Filner
     Goode
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Hayes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hunter
     Jones (NC)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lipinski
     McCotter
     McIntyre
     Michaud
     Mollohan
     Pallone
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Rahall
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Schakowsky
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Taylor
     Tiberi
     Walz (MN)
     Waters
     Whitfield
     Wu

                             NOT VOTING--28

     Bishop (UT)
     Boehner
     Boren
     Boucher
     Braley (IA)
     Buyer
     Carson
     Cubin
     Davis, Tom
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Giffords
     Hinojosa
     Jindal
     LaHood
     Lewis (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, George
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Oberstar
     Paul
     Radanovich
     Stark
     Stearns
     Udall (CO)
     Watson
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there 
are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  2023

  Mr. MOLLOHAN, Mr. GRIJALVA, Ms. WATERS and Mr. PAYNE changed their 
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. WAMP, PETERSON of Pennsylvania, HALL of Texas, and GOHMERT 
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________