Congressional Record, Volume 153 Issue 172 (Wednesday, November 7, 2007)

[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.

____________________