[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 172 (Wednesday, November 7, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H13263-H13294]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
UNITED STATES-PERU TRADE PROMOTION AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 801, I call up
the bill (H.R. 3688) to implement the United States-Peru Trade
Promotion Agreement, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 3688
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
[[Page H13264]]
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``United
States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Purposes.
Sec. 3. Definitions.
TITLE I--APPROVAL OF, AND GENERAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO, THE AGREEMENT
Sec. 101. Approval and entry into force of the Agreement.
Sec. 102. Relationship of the Agreement to United States and State law.
Sec. 103. Implementing actions in anticipation of entry into force and
initial regulations.
Sec. 104. Consultation and layover provisions for, and effective date
of, proclaimed actions.
Sec. 105. Administration of dispute settlement proceedings.
Sec. 106. Arbitration of claims.
Sec. 107. Effective dates; effect of termination.
TITLE II--CUSTOMS PROVISIONS
Sec. 201. Tariff modifications.
Sec. 202. Additional duties on certain agricultural goods.
Sec. 203. Rules of origin.
Sec. 204. Customs user fees.
Sec. 205. Disclosure of incorrect information; false certifications of
origin; denial of preferential tariff treatment.
Sec. 206. Reliquidation of entries.
Sec. 207. Recordkeeping requirements.
Sec. 208. Enforcement relating to trade in textile or apparel goods.
Sec. 209. Regulations.
TITLE III--RELIEF FROM IMPORTS
Sec. 301. Definitions.
Subtitle A--Relief From Imports Benefiting From the Agreement
Sec. 311. Commencing of action for relief.
Sec. 312. Commission action on petition.
Sec. 313. Provision of relief.
Sec. 314. Termination of relief authority.
Sec. 315. Compensation authority.
Sec. 316. Confidential business information.
Subtitle B--Textile and Apparel Safeguard Measures
Sec. 321. Commencement of action for relief.
Sec. 322. Determination and provision of relief.
Sec. 323. Period of relief.
Sec. 324. Articles exempt from relief.
Sec. 325. Rate after termination of import relief.
Sec. 326. Termination of relief authority.
Sec. 327. Compensation authority.
Sec. 328. Confidential business information.
Subtitle C--Cases Under Title II of the Trade Act of 1974
Sec. 331. Findings and action on goods of Peru.
TITLE IV--PROCUREMENT
Sec. 401. Eligible products.
TITLE V--TRADE IN TIMBER PRODUCTS OF PERU
Sec. 501. Enforcement relating to trade in timber products of Peru.
Sec. 502. Report to Congress.
TITLE VI--OFFSETS
Sec. 601. Customs user fees.
Sec. 602. Time for payment of corporate estimated taxes.
SEC. 2. PURPOSES.
The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to approve and implement the free trade agreement
between the United States and Peru entered into under the
authority of section 2103(b) of the Bipartisan Trade
Promotion Authority Act of 2002 (19 U.S.C. 3803(b));
(2) to strengthen and develop economic relations between
the United States and Peru for their mutual benefit;
(3) to establish free trade between the United States and
Peru through the reduction and elimination of barriers to
trade in goods and services and to investment; and
(4) to lay the foundation for further cooperation to expand
and enhance the benefits of the Agreement.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Agreement.--The term ``Agreement'' means the United
States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement approved by Congress
under section 101(a)(1).
(2) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the United
States International Trade Commission.
(3) HTS.--The term ``HTS'' means the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States.
(4) Textile or apparel good.--The term ``textile or apparel
good'' means a good listed in the Annex to the Agreement on
Textiles and Clothing referred to in section 101(d)(4) of the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3511(d)(4)), other
than a good listed in Annex 3-C of the Agreement.
TITLE I--APPROVAL OF, AND GENERAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO, THE AGREEMENT
SEC. 101. APPROVAL AND ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THE AGREEMENT.
(a) Approval of Agreement and Statement of Administrative
Action.--Pursuant to section 2105 of the Bipartisan Trade
Promotion Authority Act of 2002 (19 U.S.C. 3805) and section
151 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2191), Congress
approves--
(1) the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement
entered into on April 12, 2006, with the Government of Peru,
as amended on June 24 and June 25, 2007, respectively, by the
United States and Peru, and submitted to Congress on
September 27, 2007; and
(2) the statement of administrative action proposed to
implement the Agreement that was submitted to Congress on
September 27, 2007.
(b) Conditions for Entry Into Force of the Agreement.--At
such time as the President determines that Peru has taken
measures necessary to comply with those provisions of the
Agreement that are to take effect on the date on which the
Agreement enters into force, the President is authorized to
exchange notes with the Government of Peru providing for the
entry into force, on or after January 1, 2008, of the
Agreement with respect to the United States.
SEC. 102. RELATIONSHIP OF THE AGREEMENT TO UNITED STATES AND
STATE LAW.
(a) Relationship of Agreement to United States Law.--
(1) United states law to prevail in conflict.--No provision
of the Agreement, nor the application of any such provision
to any person or circumstance, which is inconsistent with any
law of the United States shall have effect.
(2) Construction.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed--
(A) to amend or modify any law of the United States, or
(B) to limit any authority conferred under any law of the
United States,
unless specifically provided for in this Act.
(b) Relationship of Agreement to State Law.--
(1) Legal challenge.--No State law, or the application
thereof, may be declared invalid as to any person or
circumstance on the ground that the provision or application
is inconsistent with the Agreement, except in an action
brought by the United States for the purpose of declaring
such law or application invalid.
(2) Definition of state law.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term ``State law'' includes--
(A) any law of a political subdivision of a State; and
(B) any State law regulating or taxing the business of
insurance.
(c) Effect of Agreement With Respect to Private Remedies.--
No person other than the United States--
(1) shall have any cause of action or defense under the
Agreement or by virtue of congressional approval thereof; or
(2) may challenge, in any action brought under any
provision of law, any action or inaction by any department,
agency, or other instrumentality of the United States, any
State, or any political subdivision of a State, on the ground
that such action or inaction is inconsistent with the
Agreement.
SEC. 103. IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS IN ANTICIPATION OF ENTRY INTO
FORCE AND INITIAL REGULATIONS.
(a) Implementing Actions.--
(1) Proclamation authority.--After the date of the
enactment of this Act--
(A) the President may proclaim such actions, and
(B) other appropriate officers of the United States
Government may issue such regulations,
as may be necessary to ensure that any provision of this Act,
or amendment made by this Act, that takes effect on the date
on which the Agreement enters into force is appropriately
implemented on such date, but no such proclamation or
regulation may have an effective date earlier than the date
on which the Agreement enters into force.
(2) Effective date of certain proclaimed actions.--Any
action proclaimed by the President under the authority of
this Act that is not subject to the consultation and layover
provisions under section 104 may not take effect before the
15th day after the date on which the text of the proclamation
is published in the Federal Register.
(3) Waiver of 15-day restriction.--The 15-day restriction
contained in paragraph (2) on the taking effect of proclaimed
actions is waived to the extent that the application of such
restriction would prevent the taking effect on the date the
Agreement enters into force of any action proclaimed under
this section.
(b) Initial Regulations.--Initial regulations necessary or
appropriate to carry out the actions required by or
authorized under this Act or proposed in the statement of
administrative action submitted under section 101(a)(2) to
implement the Agreement shall, to the maximum extent
feasible, be issued within 1 year after the date on which the
Agreement enters into force. In the case of any implementing
action that takes effect on a date after the date on which
the Agreement enters into force, initial regulations to carry
out that action shall, to the maximum extent feasible, be
issued within 1 year after such effective date.
SEC. 104. CONSULTATION AND LAYOVER PROVISIONS FOR, AND
EFFECTIVE DATE OF, PROCLAIMED ACTIONS.
If a provision of this Act provides that the implementation
of an action by the President by proclamation is subject to
the consultation and layover requirements of this section,
such action may be proclaimed only if--
(1) the President has obtained advice regarding the
proposed action from--
[[Page H13265]]
(A) the appropriate advisory committees established under
section 135 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2155); and
(B) the Commission;
(2) the President has submitted to the Committee on Finance
of the Senate and the Committee on Ways and Means of the
House of Representatives a report that sets forth--
(A) the action proposed to be proclaimed and the reasons
therefor; and
(B) the advice obtained under paragraph (1);
(3) a period of 60 calendar days, beginning on the first
day on which the requirements set forth in paragraphs (1) and
(2) have been met, has expired; and
(4) the President has consulted with the committees
referred to in paragraph (2) regarding the proposed action
during the period referred to in paragraph (3).
SEC. 105. ADMINISTRATION OF DISPUTE SETTLEMENT PROCEEDINGS.
(a) Establishment or Designation of Office.--The President
is authorized to establish or designate within the Department
of Commerce an office that shall be responsible for providing
administrative assistance to panels established under chapter
21 of the Agreement. The office shall not be considered to be
an agency for purposes of section 552 of title 5, United
States Code.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated for each fiscal year after fiscal year
2007 to the Department of Commerce such sums as may be
necessary for the establishment and operations of the office
established or designated under subsection (a) and for the
payment of the United States share of the expenses of panels
established under chapter 21 of the Agreement.
SEC. 106. ARBITRATION OF CLAIMS.
The United States is authorized to resolve any claim
against the United States covered by article 10.16.1(a)(i)(C)
or article 10.16.1(b)(i)(C) of the Agreement, pursuant to the
Investor-State Dispute Settlement procedures set forth in
section B of chapter 10 of the Agreement.
SEC. 107. EFFECTIVE DATES; EFFECT OF TERMINATION.
(a) Effective Dates.--Except as provided in subsection (b),
this Act and the amendments made by this Act take effect on
the date on which the Agreement enters into force.
(b) Exceptions.--Sections 1 through 3 and this title take
effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
(c) Termination of the Agreement.--On the date on which the
Agreement terminates, this Act (other than this subsection)
and the amendments made by this Act shall cease to have
effect.
TITLE II--CUSTOMS PROVISIONS
SEC. 201. TARIFF MODIFICATIONS.
(a) Tariff Modifications Provided for in the Agreement.--
(1) Proclamation authority.--The President may proclaim--
(A) such modifications or continuation of any duty,
(B) such continuation of duty-free or excise treatment, or
(C) such additional duties,
as the President determines to be necessary or appropriate to
carry out or apply articles 2.3, 2.5, 2.6, 3.3.13, and Annex
2.3 of the Agreement.
(2) Effect on gsp status.--Notwithstanding section
502(a)(1) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2462(a)(1)),
the President shall, on the date on which the Agreement
enters into force, terminate the designation of Peru as a
beneficiary developing country for purposes of title V of the
Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2461 et seq.).
(b) Other Tariff Modifications.--Subject to the
consultation and layover provisions of section 104, the
President may proclaim--
(1) such modifications or continuation of any duty,
(2) such modifications as the United States may agree to
with Peru regarding the staging of any duty treatment set
forth in Annex 2.3 of the Agreement,
(3) such continuation of duty-free or excise treatment, or
(4) such additional duties,
as the President determines to be necessary or appropriate to
maintain the general level of reciprocal and mutually
advantageous concessions with respect to Peru provided for by
the Agreement.
(c) Conversion to Ad Valorem Rates.--For purposes of
subsections (a) and (b), with respect to any good for which
the base rate in the Schedule of the United States to Annex
2.3 of the Agreement is a specific or compound rate of duty,
the President may substitute for the base rate an ad valorem
rate that the President determines to be equivalent to the
base rate.
(d) Tariff Rate Quotas.--In implementing the tariff rate
quotas set forth in Appendix I to the Schedule of the United
States to Annex 2.3 of the Agreement, the President shall
take such action as may be necessary to ensure that imports
of agricultural goods do not disrupt the orderly marketing of
commodities in the United States.
SEC. 202. ADDITIONAL DUTIES ON CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL GOODS.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Applicable ntr (mfn) rate of duty.--The term
``applicable NTR (MFN) rate of duty'' means, with respect to
a safeguard good, a rate of duty equal to the lowest of--
(A) the base rate in the Schedule of the United States to
Annex 2.3 of the Agreement;
(B) the column 1 general rate of duty that would, on the
day before the date on which the Agreement enters into force,
apply to a good classifiable in the same 8-digit subheading
of the HTS as the safeguard good; or
(C) the column 1 general rate of duty that would, at the
time the additional duty is imposed under subsection (b),
apply to a good classifiable in the same 8-digit subheading
of the HTS as the safeguard good.
(2) Schedule rate of duty.--The term ``schedule rate of
duty'' means, with respect to a safeguard good, the rate of
duty for that good that is set forth in the Schedule of the
United States to Annex 2.3 of the Agreement.
(3) Safeguard good.--The term ``safeguard good'' means a
good--
(A) that is included in the Schedule of the United States
to Annex 2.18 of the Agreement;
(B) that qualifies as an originating good under section
203, except that operations performed in or material obtained
from the United States shall be considered as if the
operations were performed in, and the material was obtained
from, a country that is not a party to the Agreement; and
(C) for which a claim for preferential tariff treatment
under the Agreement has been made.
(b) Additional Duties on Safeguard Goods.--
(1) In general.--In addition to any duty proclaimed under
subsection (a) or (b) of section 201, the Secretary of the
Treasury shall assess a duty, in the amount determined under
paragraph (2), on a safeguard good imported into the United
States in a calendar year if the Secretary determines that,
prior to such importation, the total volume of that safeguard
good that is imported into the United States in that calendar
year exceeds 130 percent of the volume that is provided for
that safeguard good in the corresponding year in the
applicable table contained in Appendix I of the General Notes
to the Schedule of the United States to Annex 2.3 of the
Agreement. For purposes of this subsection, year 1 in that
table corresponds to the calendar year in which the Agreement
enters into force.
(2) Calculation of additional duty.--The additional duty on
a safeguard good under this subsection shall be--
(A) in years 1 through 12, an amount equal to 100 percent
of the excess of the applicable NTR (MFN) rate of duty over
the schedule rate of duty; and
(B) in years 13 through 16, an amount equal to 50 percent
of the excess of the applicable NTR (MFN) rate of duty over
the schedule rate of duty.
(3) Notice.--Not later than 60 days after the Secretary of
the Treasury first assesses an additional duty in a calendar
year on a good under this subsection, the Secretary shall
notify the Government of Peru in writing of such action and
shall provide to that Government data supporting the
assessment of the additional duty.
(c) Exceptions.--No additional duty shall be assessed on a
good under subsection (b) if, at the time of entry, the good
is subject to import relief under--
(1) subtitle A of title III of this Act; or
(2) chapter 1 of title II of the Trade Act of 1974 (19
U.S.C. 2251 et seq.).
(d) Termination.--The assessment of an additional duty on a
good under subsection (b) shall cease to apply to that good
on the date on which duty-free treatment must be provided to
that good under the Schedule of the United States to Annex
2.3 of the Agreement.
SEC. 203. RULES OF ORIGIN.
(a) Application and Interpretation.--In this section:
(1) Tariff classification.--The basis for any tariff
classification is the HTS.
(2) Reference to hts.--Whenever in this section there is a
reference to a chapter, heading, or subheading, such
reference shall be a reference to a chapter, heading, or
subheading of the HTS.
(3) Cost or value.--Any cost or value referred to in this
section shall be recorded and maintained in accordance with
the generally accepted accounting principles applicable in
the territory of the country in which the good is produced
(whether Peru or the United States).
(b) Originating Goods.--For purposes of this Act and for
purposes of implementing the preferential tariff treatment
provided for under the Agreement, except as otherwise
provided in this section, a good is an originating good if--
(1) the good is a good wholly obtained or produced entirely
in the territory of Peru, the United States, or both;
(2) the good--
(A) is produced entirely in the territory of Peru, the
United States, or both, and--
(i) each of the nonoriginating materials used in the
production of the good undergoes an applicable change in
tariff classification specified in Annex 3-A or Annex 4.1 of
the Agreement; or
(ii) the good otherwise satisfies any applicable regional
value-content or other requirements specified in Annex 3-A or
Annex 4.1 of the Agreement; and
(B) satisfies all other applicable requirements of this
section; or
(3) the good is produced entirely in the territory of Peru,
the United States, or both, exclusively from materials
described in paragraph (1) or (2).
(c) Regional Value-Content.--
(1) In general.--For purposes of subsection (b)(2), the
regional value-content of a good
[[Page H13266]]
referred to in Annex 4.1 of the Agreement, except for goods
to which paragraph (4) applies, shall be calculated by the
importer, exporter, or producer of the good, on the basis of
the build-down method described in paragraph (2) or the
build-up method described in paragraph (3).
(2) Build-down method.--
(A) In general.--The regional value-content of a good may
be calculated on the basis of the following build-down
method:
av - vnm
rvc = -------- 100
av
(B) Definitions.--In subparagraph (A):
(i) RVC.--The term ``RVC'' means the regional value-content
of the good, expressed as a percentage.
(ii) AV.--The term ``AV'' means the adjusted value of the
good.
(iii) VNM.--The term ``VNM'' means the value of
nonoriginating materials that are acquired and used by the
producer in the production of the good, but does not include
the value of a material that is self-produced.
(3) Build-up method.--
(A) In general.--The regional value-content of a good may
be calculated on the basis of the following build-up method:
vom
rvc = -------- 100
av
(B) Definitions.--In subparagraph (A):
(i) RVC.--The term ``RVC'' means the regional value-content
of the good, expressed as a percentage.
(ii) AV.--The term ``AV'' means the adjusted value of the
good.
(iii) VOM.--The term ``VOM'' means the value of originating
materials that are acquired or self-produced, and used by the
producer in the production of the good.
(4) Special rule for certain automotive goods.--
(A) In general.--For purposes of subsection (b)(2), the
regional value-content of an automotive good referred to in
Annex 4.1 of the Agreement shall be calculated by the
importer, exporter, or producer of the good, on the basis of
the following net cost method:
nc - vnm
rvc = -------- 100
nc
(B) Definitions.--In subparagraph (A):
(i) Automotive good.--The term ``automotive good'' means a
good provided for in any of subheadings 8407.31 through
8407.34, subheading 8408.20, heading 8409, or any of headings
8701 through 8708.
(ii) RVC.--The term ``RVC'' means the regional value-
content of the automotive good, expressed as a percentage.
(iii) NC.--The term ``NC'' means the net cost of the
automotive good.
(iv) VNM.--The term ``VNM'' means the value of
nonoriginating materials that are acquired and used by the
producer in the production of the automotive good, but does
not include the value of a material that is self-produced.
(C) Motor vehicles.--
(i) Basis of calculation.--For purposes of determining the
regional value-content under subparagraph (A) for an
automotive good that is a motor vehicle provided for in any
of headings 8701 through 8705, an importer, exporter, or
producer may average the amounts calculated under the formula
contained in subparagraph (A), over the producer's fiscal
year--
(I) with respect to all motor vehicles in any one of the
categories described in clause (ii); or
(II) with respect to all motor vehicles in any such
category that are exported to the territory of the United
States or Peru.
(ii) Categories.--A category is described in this clause if
it--
(I) is the same model line of motor vehicles, is in the
same class of motor vehicles, and is produced in the same
plant in the territory of Peru or the United States, as the
good described in clause (i) for which regional value-content
is being calculated;
(II) is the same class of motor vehicles, and is produced
in the same plant in the territory of Peru or the United
States, as the good described in clause (i) for which
regional value-content is being calculated; or
(III) is the same model line of motor vehicles produced in
the territory of Peru or the United States as the good
described in clause (i) for which regional value-content is
being calculated.
(D) Other automotive goods.--For purposes of determining
the regional value-content under subparagraph (A) for
automotive materials provided for in any of subheadings
8407.31 through 8407.34, in subheading 8408.20, or in heading
8409, 8706, 8707, or 8708, that are produced in the same
plant, an importer, exporter, or producer may--
(i) average the amounts calculated under the formula
contained in subparagraph (A) over--
(I) the fiscal year of the motor vehicle producer to whom
the automotive goods are sold,
(II) any quarter or month, or
(III) the fiscal year of the producer of such goods,
if the goods were produced during the fiscal year, quarter,
or month that is the basis for the calculation;
(ii) determine the average referred to in clause (i)
separately for such goods sold to 1 or more motor vehicle
producers; or
(iii) make a separate determination under clause (i) or
(ii) for such goods that are exported to the territory of
Peru or the United States.
(E) Calculating net cost.--The importer, exporter, or
producer of an automotive good shall, consistent with the
provisions regarding allocation of costs provided for in
generally accepted accounting principles, determine the net
cost of the automotive good under subparagraph (B) by--
(i) calculating the total cost incurred with respect to all
goods produced by the producer of the automotive good,
subtracting any sales promotion, marketing, and after-sales
service costs, royalties, shipping and packing costs, and
nonallowable interest costs that are included in the total
cost of all such goods, and then reasonably allocating the
resulting net cost of those goods to the automotive good;
(ii) calculating the total cost incurred with respect to
all goods produced by that producer, reasonably allocating
the total cost to the automotive good, and then subtracting
any sales promotion, marketing, and after-sales service
costs, royalties, shipping and packing costs, and
nonallowable interest costs that are included in the portion
of the total cost allocated to the automotive good; or
(iii) reasonably allocating each cost that forms part of
the total cost incurred with respect to the automotive good
so that the aggregate of these costs does not include any
sales promotion, marketing, and after-sales service costs,
royalties, shipping and packing costs, or nonallowable
interest costs.
(d) Value of Materials.--
(1) In general.--For the purpose of calculating the
regional value-content of a good under subsection (c), and
for purposes of applying the de minimis rules under
subsection (f), the value of a material is--
(A) in the case of a material that is imported by the
producer of the good, the adjusted value of the material;
(B) in the case of a material acquired in the territory in
which the good is produced, the value, determined in
accordance with Articles 1 through 8, Article 15, and the
corresponding interpretive notes, of the Agreement on
Implementation of Article VII of the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade 1994 referred to in section 101(d)(8) of
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3511(d)(8)), as
set forth in regulations promulgated by the Secretary of the
Treasury providing for the application of such Articles in
the absence of an importation by the producer; or
(C) in the case of a material that is self-produced, the
sum of--
(i) all expenses incurred in the production of the
material, including general expenses; and
(ii) an amount for profit equivalent to the profit added in
the normal course of trade.
(2) Further adjustments to the value of materials.--
(A) Originating material.--The following expenses, if not
included in the value of an originating material calculated
under paragraph (1), may be added to the value of the
originating material:
(i) The costs of freight, insurance, packing, and all other
costs incurred in transporting the material within or between
the territory of Peru, the United States, or both, to the
location of the producer.
(ii) Duties, taxes, and customs brokerage fees on the
material paid in the territory of Peru, the United States, or
both, other than duties or taxes that are waived, refunded,
refundable, or otherwise recoverable, including credit
against duty or tax paid or payable.
(iii) The cost of waste and spoilage resulting from the use
of the material in the production of the good, less the value
of renewable scrap or byproducts.
(B) Nonoriginating material.--The following expenses, if
included in the value of a nonoriginating material calculated
under paragraph (1), may be deducted from the value of the
nonoriginating material:
(i) The costs of freight, insurance, packing, and all other
costs incurred in transporting the material within or between
the territory of Peru, the United States, or both, to the
location of the producer.
(ii) Duties, taxes, and customs brokerage fees on the
material paid in the territory of Peru, the United States, or
both, other than duties or taxes that are waived, refunded,
refundable, or otherwise recoverable, including credit
against duty or tax paid or payable.
(iii) The cost of waste and spoilage resulting from the use
of the material in the production of the good, less the value
of renewable scrap or byproducts.
(iv) The cost of originating materials used in the
production of the nonoriginating material in the territory of
Peru, the United States, or both.
(e) Accumulation.--
(1) Originating materials used in production of goods of
another country.--Originating materials from the territory of
Peru or the United States that are used in the production of
a good in the territory of the other country shall be
considered to originate in the territory of such other
country.
(2) Multiple producers.--A good that is produced in the
territory of Peru, the United States, or both, by 1 or more
producers, is an originating good if the good satisfies the
requirements of subsection (b) and all other applicable
requirements of this section.
(f) De Minimis Amounts of Nonoriginating Materials.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and
(3), a good that does not
[[Page H13267]]
undergo a change in tariff classification pursuant to Annex
4.1 of the Agreement is an originating good if--
(A)(i) the value of all nonoriginating materials that--
(I) are used in the production of the good, and
(II) do not undergo the applicable change in tariff
classification (set forth in Annex 4.1 of the Agreement),
does not exceed 10 percent of the adjusted value of the good;
(ii) the good meets all other applicable requirements of
this section; and
(iii) the value of such nonoriginating materials is
included in the value of nonoriginating materials for any
applicable regional value-content requirement for the good;
or
(B) the good meets the requirements set forth in paragraph
2 of Annex 4.6 of the Agreement.
(2) Exceptions.--Paragraph (1) does not apply to the
following:
(A) A nonoriginating material provided for in chapter 4, or
a nonoriginating dairy preparation containing over 10 percent
by weight of milk solids provided for in subheading 1901.90
or 2106.90, that is used in the production of a good provided
for in chapter 4.
(B) A nonoriginating material provided for in chapter 4, or
a nonoriginating dairy preparation containing over 10 percent
by weight of milk solids provided for in subheading 1901.90,
that is used in the production of any of the following goods:
(i) Infant preparations containing over 10 percent by
weight of milk solids provided for in subheading 1901.10.
(ii) Mixes and doughs, containing over 25 percent by weight
of butterfat, not put up for retail sale, provided for in
subheading 1901.20.
(iii) Dairy preparations containing over 10 percent by
weight of milk solids provided for in subheading 1901.90 or
2106.90.
(iv) Goods provided for in heading 2105.
(v) Beverages containing milk provided for in subheading
2202.90.
(vi) Animal feeds containing over 10 percent by weight of
milk solids provided for in subheading 2309.90.
(C) A nonoriginating material provided for in heading 0805,
or any of subheadings 2009.11 through 2009.39, that is used
in the production of a good provided for in any of
subheadings 2009.11 through 2009.39, or in fruit or vegetable
juice of any single fruit or vegetable, fortified with
minerals or vitamins, concentrated or unconcentrated,
provided for in subheading 2106.90 or 2202.90.
(D) A nonoriginating material provided for in heading 0901
or 2101 that is used in the production of a good provided for
in heading 0901 or 2101.
(E) A nonoriginating material provided for in chapter 15
that is used in the production of a good provided for in any
of headings 1501 through 1508, or any of headings 1511
through 1515.
(F) A nonoriginating material provided for in heading 1701
that is used in the production of a good provided for in any
of headings 1701 through 1703.
(G) A nonoriginating material provided for in chapter 17
that is used in the production of a good provided for in
subheading 1806.10.
(H) Except as provided in subparagraphs (A) through (G) and
Annex 4.1 of the Agreement, a nonoriginating material used in
the production of a good provided for in any of chapters 1
through 24, unless the nonoriginating material is provided
for in a different subheading than the good for which origin
is being determined under this section.
(I) A nonoriginating material that is a textile or apparel
good.
(3) Textile or apparel goods.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), a
textile or apparel good that is not an originating good
because certain fibers or yarns used in the production of the
component of the good that determines the tariff
classification of the good do not undergo an applicable
change in tariff classification, set forth in Annex 3-A of
the Agreement, shall be considered to be an originating good
if--
(i) the total weight of all such fibers or yarns in that
component is not more than 10 percent of the total weight of
that component; or
(ii) the yarns are those described in section
204(b)(3)(B)(vi)(IV) of the Andean Trade Preference Act (19
U.S.C. 3203(b)(3)(B)(vi)(IV)) (as in effect on the date of
the enactment of this Act).
(B) Certain textile or apparel goods.--A textile or apparel
good containing elastomeric yarns in the component of the
good that determines the tariff classification of the good
shall be considered to be an originating good only if such
yarns are wholly formed in the territory of Peru, the United
States, or both.
(C) Yarn, fabric, or fiber.--For purposes of this
paragraph, in the case of a good that is a yarn, fabric, or
fiber, the term ``component of the good that determines the
tariff classification of the good'' means all of the fibers
in the good.
(g) Fungible Goods and Materials.--
(1) In general.--
(A) Claim for preferential tariff treatment.--A person
claiming that a fungible good or fungible material is an
originating good may base the claim either on the physical
segregation of the fungible good or fungible material or by
using an inventory management method with respect to the
fungible good or fungible material.
(B) Inventory management method.--In this subsection, the
term ``inventory management method'' means--
(i) averaging;
(ii) ``last-in, first-out'';
(iii) ``first-in, first-out''; or
(iv) any other method--
(I) recognized in the generally accepted accounting
principles of the country in which the production is
performed (whether Peru or the United States); or
(II) otherwise accepted by that country.
(2) Election of inventory method.--A person selecting an
inventory management method under paragraph (1) for a
particular fungible good or fungible material shall continue
to use that method for that fungible good or fungible
material throughout the fiscal year of such person.
(h) Accessories, Spare Parts, or Tools.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3),
accessories, spare parts, or tools delivered with a good that
form part of the good's standard accessories, spare parts, or
tools shall--
(A) be treated as originating goods if the good is an
originating good; and
(B) be disregarded in determining whether all the
nonoriginating materials used in the production of the good
undergo the applicable change in tariff classification set
forth in Annex 4.1 of the Agreement.
(2) Conditions.--Paragraph (1) shall apply only if--
(A) the accessories, spare parts, or tools are classified
with and not invoiced separately from the good, regardless of
whether such accessories, spare parts, or tools are specified
or are separately identified in the invoice for the good; and
(B) the quantities and value of the accessories, spare
parts, or tools are customary for the good.
(3) Regional value-content.--If the good is subject to a
regional value-content requirement, the value of the
accessories, spare parts, or tools shall be taken into
account as originating or nonoriginating materials, as the
case may be, in calculating the regional value-content of the
good.
(i) Packaging Materials and Containers for Retail Sale.--
Packaging materials and containers in which a good is
packaged for retail sale, if classified with the good, shall
be disregarded in determining whether all the nonoriginating
materials used in the production of the good undergo the
applicable change in tariff classification set forth in Annex
3-A or Annex 4.1 of the Agreement, and, if the good is
subject to a regional value-content requirement, the value of
such packaging materials and containers shall be taken into
account as originating or nonoriginating materials, as the
case may be, in calculating the regional value-content of the
good.
(j) Packing Materials and Containers for Shipment.--Packing
materials and containers for shipment shall be disregarded in
determining whether a good is an originating good.
(k) Indirect Materials.--An indirect material shall be
treated as an originating material without regard to where it
is produced.
(l) Transit and Transhipment.--A good that has undergone
production necessary to qualify as an originating good under
subsection (b) shall not be considered to be an originating
good if, subsequent to that production, the good--
(1) undergoes further production or any other operation
outside the territory of Peru or the United States, other
than unloading, reloading, or any other operation necessary
to preserve the good in good condition or to transport the
good to the territory of Peru or the United States; or
(2) does not remain under the control of customs
authorities in the territory of a country other than Peru or
the United States.
(m) Goods Classifiable as Goods Put Up in Sets.--
Notwithstanding the rules set forth in Annex 3-A and Annex
4.1 of the Agreement, goods classifiable as goods put up in
sets for retail sale as provided for in General Rule of
Interpretation 3 of the HTS shall not be considered to be
originating goods unless--
(1) each of the goods in the set is an originating good; or
(2) the total value of the nonoriginating goods in the set
does not exceed--
(A) in the case of textile or apparel goods, 10 percent of
the adjusted value of the set; or
(B) in the case of a good, other than a textile or apparel
good, 15 percent of the adjusted value of the set.
(n) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Adjusted value.--The term ``adjusted value'' means the
value determined in accordance with Articles 1 through 8,
Article 15, and the corresponding interpretive notes, of the
Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 referred to in section
101(d)(8) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C.
3511(d)(8)), adjusted, if necessary, to exclude any costs,
charges, or expenses incurred for transportation, insurance,
and related services incident to the international shipment
of the merchandise from the country of exportation to the
place of importation.
(2) Class of motor vehicles.--The term ``class of motor
vehicles'' means any one of the following categories of motor
vehicles:
(A) Motor vehicles provided for in subheading 8701.20,
8704.10, 8704.22, 8704.23, 8704.32, or 8704.90, or heading
8705 or 8706, or motor vehicles for the transport of 16 or
more persons provided for in subheading 8702.10 or 8702.90.
[[Page H13268]]
(B) Motor vehicles provided for in subheading 8701.10 or
any of subheadings 8701.30 through 8701.90.
(C) Motor vehicles for the transport of 15 or fewer persons
provided for in subheading 8702.10 or 8702.90, or motor
vehicles provided for in subheading 8704.21 or 8704.31.
(D) Motor vehicles provided for in any of subheadings
8703.21 through 8703.90.
(3) Fungible good or fungible material.--The term
``fungible good'' or ``fungible material'' means a good or
material, as the case may be, that is interchangeable with
another good or material for commercial purposes and the
properties of which are essentially identical to such other
good or material.
(4) Generally accepted accounting principles.--The term
``generally accepted accounting principles'' means the
recognized consensus or substantial authoritative support in
the territory of Peru or the United States, as the case may
be, with respect to the recording of revenues, expenses,
costs, assets, and liabilities, the disclosure of
information, and the preparation of financial statements. The
principles may encompass broad guidelines of general
application as well as detailed standards, practices, and
procedures.
(5) Good wholly obtained or produced entirely in the
territory of peru, the united states, or both.--The term
``good wholly obtained or produced entirely in the territory
of Peru, the United States, or both'' means any of the
following:
(A) Plants and plant products harvested or gathered in the
territory of Peru, the United States, or both.
(B) Live animals born and raised in the territory of Peru,
the United States, or both.
(C) Goods obtained in the territory of Peru, the United
States, or both from live animals.
(D) Goods obtained from hunting, trapping, fishing, or
aquaculture conducted in the territory of Peru, the United
States, or both.
(E) Minerals and other natural resources not included in
subparagraphs (A) through (D) that are extracted or taken
from the territory of Peru, the United States, or both.
(F) Fish, shellfish, and other marine life taken from the
sea, seabed, or subsoil outside the territory of Peru or the
United States by--
(i) a vessel that is registered or recorded with Peru and
flying the flag of Peru; or
(ii) a vessel that is documented under the laws of the
United States.
(G) Goods produced on board a factory ship from goods
referred to in subparagraph (F), if such factory ship--
(i) is registered or recorded with Peru and flies the flag
of Peru; or
(ii) is a vessel that is documented under the laws of the
United States.
(H)(i) Goods taken by Peru or a person of Peru from the
seabed or subsoil outside the territorial waters of Peru, if
Peru has rights to exploit such seabed or subsoil.
(ii) Goods taken by the United States or a person of the
United States from the seabed or subsoil outside the
territorial waters of the United States, if the United States
has rights to exploit such seabed or subsoil.
(I) Goods taken from outer space, if the goods are obtained
by Peru or the United States or a person of Peru or the
United States and not processed in the territory of a country
other than Peru or the United States.
(J) Waste and scrap derived from--
(i) manufacturing or processing operations in the territory
of Peru, the United States, or both; or
(ii) used goods collected in the territory of Peru, the
United States, or both, if such goods are fit only for the
recovery of raw materials.
(K) Recovered goods derived in the territory of Peru, the
United States, or both, from used goods, and used in the
territory of Peru, the United States, or both, in the
production of remanufactured goods.
(L) Goods, at any stage of production, produced in the
territory of Peru, the United States, or both, exclusively
from--
(i) goods referred to in any of subparagraphs (A) through
(J), or
(ii) the derivatives of goods referred to in clause (i).
(6) Identical goods.--The term ``identical goods'' means
goods that are the same in all respects relevant to the rule
of origin that qualifies the goods as originating goods.
(7) Indirect material.--The term ``indirect material''
means a good used in the production, testing, or inspection
of another good but not physically incorporated into that
other good, or a good used in the maintenance of buildings or
the operation of equipment associated with the production of
another good, including--
(A) fuel and energy;
(B) tools, dies, and molds;
(C) spare parts and materials used in the maintenance of
equipment or buildings;
(D) lubricants, greases, compounding materials, and other
materials used in production or used to operate equipment or
buildings;
(E) gloves, glasses, footwear, clothing, safety equipment,
and supplies;
(F) equipment, devices, and supplies used for testing or
inspecting the good;
(G) catalysts and solvents; and
(H) any other goods that are not incorporated into the
other good but the use of which in the production of the
other good can reasonably be demonstrated to be a part of
that production.
(8) Material.--The term ``material'' means a good that is
used in the production of another good, including a part or
an ingredient.
(9) Material that is self-produced.--The term ``material
that is self-produced'' means an originating material that is
produced by a producer of a good and used in the production
of that good.
(10) Model line of motor vehicles.--The term ``model line
of motor vehicles'' means a group of motor vehicles having
the same platform or model name.
(11) Net cost.--The term ``net cost'' means total cost
minus sales promotion, marketing, and after-sales service
costs, royalties, shipping and packing costs, and non-
allowable interest costs that are included in the total cost.
(12) Nonallowable interest costs.--The term ``nonallowable
interest costs'' means interest costs incurred by a producer
that exceed 700 basis points above the applicable official
interest rate for comparable maturities of the country in
which the producer is located.
(13) Nonoriginating good or nonoriginating material.--The
terms ``nonoriginating good'' and ``nonoriginating material''
mean a good or material, as the case may be, that does not
qualify as originating under this section.
(14) Packing materials and containers for shipment.--The
term ``packing materials and containers for shipment'' means
goods used to protect another good during its transportation
and does not include the packaging materials and containers
in which the other good is packaged for retail sale.
(15) Preferential tariff treatment.--The term
``preferential tariff treatment'' means the customs duty
rate, and the treatment under article 2.10.4 of the
Agreement, that are applicable to an originating good
pursuant to the Agreement.
(16) Producer.--The term ``producer'' means a person who
engages in the production of a good in the territory of Peru
or the United States.
(17) Production.--The term ``production'' means growing,
mining, harvesting, fishing, raising, trapping, hunting,
manufacturing, processing, assembling, or disassembling a
good.
(18) Reasonably allocate.--The term ``reasonably allocate''
means to apportion in a manner that would be appropriate
under generally accepted accounting principles.
(19) Recovered goods.--The term ``recovered goods'' means
materials in the form of individual parts that are the result
of--
(A) the disassembly of used goods into individual parts;
and
(B) the cleaning, inspecting, testing, or other processing
that is necessary for improvement to sound working condition
of such individual parts.
(20) Remanufactured good.--The term ``remanufactured good''
means an industrial good assembled in the territory of Peru
or the United States, or both, that is classified under
chapter 84, 85, 87, or 90 or heading 9402, other than a good
classified under heading 8418 or 8516, and that--
(A) is entirely or partially comprised of recovered goods;
and
(B) has a similar life expectancy and enjoys a factory
warranty similar to such a good that is new.
(21) Total cost.--
(A) In general.--The term ``total cost''--
(i) means all product costs, period costs, and other costs
for a good incurred in the territory of Peru, the United
States, or both; and
(ii) does not include profits that are earned by the
producer, regardless of whether they are retained by the
producer or paid out to other persons as dividends, or taxes
paid on those profits, including capital gains taxes.
(B) Other definitions.--In this paragraph:
(i) Product costs.--The term ``product costs'' means costs
that are associated with the production of a good and include
the value of materials, direct labor costs, and direct
overhead.
(ii) Period costs.--The term ``period costs'' means costs,
other than product costs, that are expensed in the period in
which they are incurred, such as selling expenses and
general and administrative expenses.
(iii) Other costs.--The term ``other costs'' means all
costs recorded on the books of the producer that are not
product costs or period costs, such as interest.
(22) Used.--The term ``used'' means utilized or consumed in
the production of goods.
(o) Presidential Proclamation Authority.--
(1) In general.--The President is authorized to proclaim,
as part of the HTS--
(A) the provisions set forth in Annex 3-A and Annex 4.1 of
the Agreement; and
(B) any additional subordinate category that is necessary
to carry out this title consistent with the Agreement.
(2) Fabrics and yarns not available in commercial
quantities in the united states.--The President is authorized
to proclaim that a fabric or yarn is added to the list in
Annex 3-B of the Agreement in an unrestricted quantity, as
provided in article 3.3.5(e) of the Agreement.
(3) Modifications.--
(A) In general.--Subject to the consultation and layover
provisions of section 104, the President may proclaim
modifications to the provisions proclaimed under the
authority of paragraph (1)(A), other than provisions of
chapters 50 through 63 (as included in Annex 3-A of the
Agreement).
[[Page H13269]]
(B) Additional proclamations.--Notwithstanding subparagraph
(A), and subject to the consultation and layover provisions
of section 104, the President may proclaim before the end of
the 1-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of
this Act, modifications to correct any typographical,
clerical, or other nonsubstantive technical error regarding
the provisions of chapters 50 through 63 (as included in
Annex 3-A of the Agreement).
(4) Fabrics, yarns, or fibers not available in commercial
quantities in peru and the united states.--
(A) In general.--Notwithstanding paragraph (3)(A), the list
of fabrics, yarns, and fibers set forth in Annex 3-B of the
Agreement may be modified as provided for in this paragraph.
(B) Definitions.--In this paragraph:
(i) The term ``interested entity'' means the Government of
Peru, a potential or actual purchaser of a textile or apparel
good, or a potential or actual supplier of a textile or
apparel good.
(ii) All references to ``day'' and ``days'' exclude
Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays observed by the
Government of the United States.
(C) Requests to add fabrics, yarns, or fibers.--(i) An
interested entity may request the President to determine that
a fabric, yarn, or fiber is not available in commercial
quantities in a timely manner in Peru and the United States
and to add that fabric, yarn, or fiber to the list in Annex
3-B of the Agreement in a restricted or unrestricted
quantity.
(ii) After receiving a request under clause (i), the
President may determine whether--
(I) the fabric, yarn, or fiber is available in commercial
quantities in a timely manner in Peru or the United States;
or
(II) any interested entity objects to the request.
(iii) The President may, within the time periods specified
in clause (iv), proclaim that the fabric, yarn, or fiber that
is the subject of the request is added to the list in Annex
3-B of the Agreement in an unrestricted quantity, or in any
restricted quantity that the President may establish, if the
President has determined under clause (ii) that--
(I) the fabric, yarn, or fiber is not available in
commercial quantities in a timely manner in Peru and the
United States; or
(II) no interested entity has objected to the request.
(iv) The time periods within which the President may issue
a proclamation under clause (iii) are--
(I) not later than 30 days after the date on which a
request is submitted under clause (i); or
(II) not later than 44 days after the request is submitted,
if the President determines, within 30 days after the date on
which the request is submitted, that the President does not
have sufficient information to make a determination under
clause (ii).
(v) Notwithstanding section 103(a)(2), a proclamation made
under clause (iii) shall take effect on the date on which the
text of the proclamation is published in the Federal
Register.
(vi) Not later than 6 months after proclaiming under clause
(iii) that a fabric, yarn, or fiber is added to the list in
Annex 3-B of the Agreement in a restricted quantity, the
President may eliminate the restriction if the President
determines that the fabric, yarn, or fiber is not available
in commercial quantities in a timely manner in Peru and the
United States.
(D) Deemed approval of request.--If, after an interested
entity submits a request under subparagraph (C)(i), the
President does not, within the applicable time period
specified in subparagraph (C)(iv), make a determination under
subparagraph (C)(ii) regarding the request, the fabric, yarn,
or fiber that is the subject of the request shall be
considered to be added, in an unrestricted quantity, to the
list in Annex 3-B of the Agreement beginning--
(i) 45 days after the date on which the request was
submitted; or
(ii) 60 days after the date on which the request was
submitted, if the President made a determination under
subparagraph (C)(iv)(II).
(E) Requests to restrict or remove fabrics, yarns, or
fibers.--(i) Subject to clause (ii), an interested entity may
request the President to restrict the quantity of, or remove
from the list in Annex 3-B of the Agreement, any fabric,
yarn, or fiber--
(I) that has been added to that list in an unrestricted
quantity pursuant to paragraph (2) or subparagraph (C)(iii)
or (D) of this paragraph; or
(II) with respect to which the President has eliminated a
restriction under subparagraph (C)(vi).
(ii) An interested entity may submit a request under clause
(i) at any time beginning 6 months after the date of the
action described in subclause (I) or (II) of that clause.
(iii) Not later than 30 days after the date on which a
request under clause (i) is submitted, the President may
proclaim an action provided for under clause (i) if the
President determines that the fabric, yarn, or fiber that is
the subject of the request is available in commercial
quantities in a timely manner in Peru or the United States.
(iv) A proclamation under clause (iii) shall take effect no
earlier than the date that is 6 months after the date on
which the text of the proclamation is published in the
Federal Register.
(F) Procedures.--The President shall establish procedures--
(i) governing the submission of a request under
subparagraphs (C) and (E); and
(ii) providing an opportunity for interested entities to
submit comments and supporting evidence before the President
makes a determination under subparagraph (C) (ii) or (vi) or
(E)(iii).
SEC. 204. CUSTOMS USER FEES.
Section 13031(b) of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c(b)) is amended by
adding after paragraph (17) the following:
``(18) No fee may be charged under subsection (a) (9) or
(10) with respect to goods that qualify as originating goods
under section 203 of the United States-Peru Trade Promotion
Agreement Implementation Act. Any service for which an
exemption from such fee is provided by reason of this
paragraph may not be funded with money contained in the
Customs User Fee Account.''.
SEC. 205. DISCLOSURE OF INCORRECT INFORMATION; FALSE
CERTIFICATIONS OF ORIGIN; DENIAL OF
PREFERENTIAL TARIFF TREATMENT.
(a) Disclosure of Incorrect Information.--Section 592 of
the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1592) is amended--
(1) in subsection (c)--
(A) by redesignating paragraph (10) as paragraph (11); and
(B) by inserting after paragraph (9) the following new
paragraph:
``(10) Prior disclosure regarding claims under the united
states-peru trade promotion agreement.--An importer shall not
be subject to penalties under subsection (a) for making an
incorrect claim that a good qualifies as an originating good
under section 203 of the United States-Peru Trade Promotion
Agreement Implementation Act if the importer, in accordance
with regulations issued by the Secretary of the Treasury,
promptly and voluntarily makes a corrected declaration and
pays any duties owing with respect to that good.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(i) False Certifications of Origin Under the United
States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), it is unlawful
for any person to certify falsely, by fraud, gross
negligence, or negligence, in a PTPA certification of origin
(as defined in section 508(h)(1)(B) of this Act) that a good
exported from the United States qualifies as an originating
good under the rules of origin provided for in section 203 of
the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement
Implementation Act. The procedures and penalties of this
section that apply to a violation of subsection (a) also
apply to a violation of this subsection.
``(2) Prompt and voluntary disclosure of incorrect
information.--No penalty shall be imposed under this
subsection if, promptly after an exporter or producer that
issued a PTPA certification of origin has reason to believe
that such certification contains or is based on incorrect
information, the exporter or producer voluntarily provides
written notice of such incorrect information to every person
to whom the certification was issued.
``(3) Exception.--A person shall not be considered to have
violated paragraph (1) if--
``(A) the information was correct at the time it was
provided in a PTPA certification of origin but was later
rendered incorrect due to a change in circumstances; and
``(B) the person promptly and voluntarily provides written
notice of the change in circumstances to all persons to whom
the person provided the certification.''.
(b) Denial of Preferential Tariff Treatment.--Section 514
of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1514) is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(i) Denial of Preferential Tariff Treatment Under the
United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement.--If U.S.
Customs and Border Protection or U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement of the Department of Homeland Security finds
indications of a pattern of conduct by an importer, exporter,
or producer of false or unsupported representations that
goods qualify under the rules of origin provided for in
section 203 of the United States-Peru Trade Promotion
Agreement Implementation Act, U.S. Customs and Border
Protection, in accordance with regulations issued by the
Secretary of the Treasury, may suspend preferential tariff
treatment under the United States-Peru Trade Promotion
Agreement to entries of identical goods covered by subsequent
representations by that importer, exporter, or producer until
U.S. Customs and Border Protection determines that
representations of that person are in conformity with such
section 203.''.
SEC. 206. RELIQUIDATION OF ENTRIES.
Subsection (d) of section 520 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19
U.S.C. 1520(d)) is amended in the matter preceding paragraph
(1)--
(1) by striking ``or''; and
(2) by striking ``for which'' and inserting ``, or section
203 of the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement
Implementation Act for which''.
SEC. 207. RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS.
Section 508 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1508) is
amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (h) as subsection (i);
(2) by inserting after subsection (g) the following new
subsection:
``(h) Certifications of Origin for Goods Exported Under the
United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement.--
[[Page H13270]]
``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
``(A) Records and supporting documents.--The term `records
and supporting documents' means, with respect to an exported
good under paragraph (2), records and documents related to
the origin of the good, including--
``(i) the purchase, cost, and value of, and payment for,
the good;
``(ii) the purchase, cost, and value of, and payment for,
all materials, including indirect materials, used in the
production of the good; and
``(iii) the production of the good in the form in which it
was exported.
``(B) PTPA certification of origin.--The term `PTPA
certification of origin' means the certification established
under article 4.15 of the United States-Peru Trade Promotion
Agreement that a good qualifies as an originating good under
such Agreement.
``(2) Exports to peru.--Any person who completes and issues
a PTPA certification of origin for a good exported from the
United States shall make, keep, and, pursuant to rules and
regulations promulgated by the Secretary of the Treasury,
render for examination and inspection all records and
supporting documents related to the origin of the good
(including the certification or copies thereof).
``(3) Retention period.--The person who issues a PTPA
certification of origin shall keep the records and supporting
documents relating to that certification of origin for a
period of at least 5 years after the date on which the
certification is issued.''; and
(3) in subsection (i), as so redesignated--
(A) by striking ``(f) or (g)'' and inserting ``(f), (g), or
(h)''; and
(B) by striking ``either such subsection'' and inserting
``any such subsection''.
SEC. 208. ENFORCEMENT RELATING TO TRADE IN TEXTILE OR APPAREL
GOODS.
(a) Action During Verification.--
(1) In general.--If the Secretary of the Treasury requests
the Government of Peru to conduct a verification pursuant to
article 3.2 of the Agreement for purposes of making a
determination under paragraph (2), the President may direct
the Secretary to take appropriate action described in
subsection (b) while the verification is being conducted.
(2) Determination.--A determination under this paragraph is
a determination of the Secretary that--
(A) an exporter or producer in Peru is complying with
applicable customs laws, regulations, and procedures
regarding trade in textile or apparel goods; or
(B) a claim that a textile or apparel good exported or
produced by such exporter or producer--
(i) qualifies as an originating good under section 203, or
(ii) is a good of Peru,
is accurate.
(b) Appropriate Action Described.--Appropriate action under
subsection (a)(1) includes--
(1) suspension of preferential tariff treatment under the
Agreement with respect to--
(A) any textile or apparel good exported or produced by the
person that is the subject of a verification under subsection
(a)(1) regarding compliance described in subsection
(a)(2)(A), if the Secretary determines that there is
insufficient information to support any claim for
preferential tariff treatment that has been made with respect
to any such good; or
(B) the textile or apparel good for which a claim of
preferential tariff treatment has been made that is the
subject of a verification under subsection (a)(1) regarding a
claim described in subsection (a)(2)(B), if the Secretary
determines that there is insufficient information to support
that claim;
(2) denial of preferential tariff treatment under the
Agreement with respect to--
(A) any textile or apparel good exported or produced by the
person that is the subject of a verification under subsection
(a)(1) regarding compliance described in subsection
(a)(2)(A), if the Secretary determines that the person has
provided incorrect information to support any claim for
preferential tariff treatment that has been made with respect
to any such good; or
(B) the textile or apparel good for which a claim of
preferential tariff treatment has been made that is the
subject of a verification under subsection (a)(1) regarding a
claim described in subsection (a)(2)(B), if the Secretary
determines that a person has provided incorrect information
to support that claim;
(3) detention of any textile or apparel good exported or
produced by the person that is the subject of a verification
under subsection (a)(1) regarding compliance described in
subsection (a)(2)(A) or a claim described in subsection
(a)(2)(B), if the Secretary determines that there is
insufficient information to determine the country of origin
of any such good; and
(4) denial of entry into the United States of any textile
or apparel good exported or produced by the person that is
the subject of a verification under subsection (a)(1)
regarding compliance described in subsection (a)(2)(A) or a
claim described in subsection (a)(2)(B), if the Secretary
determines that the person has provided incorrect information
as to the country of origin of any such good.
(c) Action on Completion of a Verification.--On completion
of a verification under subsection (a), the President may
direct the Secretary to take appropriate action described in
subsection (d) until such time as the Secretary receives
information sufficient to make the determination under
subsection (a)(2) or until such earlier date as the President
may direct.
(d) Appropriate Action Described.--Appropriate action under
subsection (c) includes--
(1) denial of preferential tariff treatment under the
Agreement with respect to--
(A) any textile or apparel good exported or produced by the
person that is the subject of a verification under subsection
(a)(1) regarding compliance described in subsection
(a)(2)(A), if the Secretary determines that there is
insufficient information to support, or that the person has
provided incorrect information to support, any claim for
preferential tariff treatment that has been made with respect
to any such good; or
(B) the textile or apparel good for which a claim of
preferential tariff treatment has been made that is the
subject of a verification under subsection (a)(1) regarding a
claim described in subsection (a)(2)(B), if the Secretary
determines that there is insufficient information to support,
or that a person has provided incorrect information to
support, that claim; and
(2) denial of entry into the United States of any textile
or apparel good exported or produced by the person that is
the subject of a verification under subsection (a)(1)
regarding compliance described in subsection (a)(2)(A) or a
claim described in subsection (a)(2)(B), if the Secretary
determines that there is insufficient information to
determine, or that the person has provided incorrect
information as to, the country of origin of any such good.
(e) Publication of Name of Person.--In accordance with
article 3.2.6 of the Agreement, the Secretary may publish the
name of any person that the Secretary has determined--
(1) is engaged in circumvention of applicable laws,
regulations, or procedures affecting trade in textile or
apparel goods; or
(2) has failed to demonstrate that it produces, or is
capable of producing, textile or apparel goods.
SEC. 209. REGULATIONS.
The Secretary of the Treasury shall prescribe such
regulations as may be necessary to carry out--
(1) subsections (a) through (n) of section 203;
(2) the amendment made by section 204; and
(3) any proclamation issued under section 203(o).
TITLE III--RELIEF FROM IMPORTS
SEC. 301. DEFINITIONS.
In this title:
(1) Peruvian article.--The term ``Peruvian article'' means
an article that qualifies as an originating good under
section 203(b).
(2) Peruvian textile or apparel article.--The term
``Peruvian textile or apparel article'' means a textile or
apparel good (as defined in section 3(4)) that is a Peruvian
article.
Subtitle A--Relief From Imports Benefiting From the Agreement
SEC. 311. COMMENCING OF ACTION FOR RELIEF.
(a) Filing of Petition.--A petition requesting action under
this subtitle for the purpose of adjusting to the obligations
of the United States under the Agreement may be filed with
the Commission by an entity, including a trade association,
firm, certified or recognized union, or group of workers,
that is representative of an industry. The Commission shall
transmit a copy of any petition filed under this subsection
to the United States Trade Representative.
(b) Investigation and Determination.--Upon the filing of a
petition under subsection (a), the Commission, unless
subsection (d) applies, shall promptly initiate an
investigation to determine whether, as a result of the
reduction or elimination of a duty provided for under the
Agreement, a Peruvian article is being imported into the
United States in such increased quantities, in absolute terms
or relative to domestic production, and under such conditions
that imports of the Peruvian article constitute a substantial
cause of serious injury or threat thereof to the domestic
industry producing an article that is like, or directly
competitive with, the imported article.
(c) Applicable Provisions.--The following provisions of
section 202 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2252) apply
with respect to any investigation initiated under subsection
(b):
(1) Paragraphs (1)(B) and (3) of subsection (b).
(2) Subsection (c).
(3) Subsection (i).
(d) Articles Exempt From Investigation.--No investigation
may be initiated under this section with respect to any
Peruvian article if, after the date on which the Agreement
enters into force, import relief has been provided with
respect to that Peruvian article under this subtitle.
SEC. 312. COMMISSION ACTION ON PETITION.
(a) Determination.--Not later than 120 days after the date
on which an investigation is initiated under section 311(b)
with respect to a petition, the Commission shall make the
determination required under that section.
(b) Applicable Provisions.--For purposes of this subtitle,
the provisions of paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of section
330(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1330(d) (1), (2),
and (3)) shall be applied with respect to determinations and
findings made under this section as if such determinations
and findings were made under section 202 of the Trade Act of
1974 (19 U.S.C. 2252).
(c) Additional Finding and Recommendation if Determination
Affirmative.--
[[Page H13271]]
(1) In general.--If the determination made by the
Commission under subsection (a) with respect to imports of an
article is affirmative, or if the President may consider a
determination of the Commission to be an affirmative
determination as provided for under paragraph (1) of section
330(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1330(d)), the
Commission shall find, and recommend to the President in the
report required under subsection (d), the amount of import
relief that is necessary to remedy or prevent the injury
found by the Commission in the determination and to
facilitate the efforts of the domestic industry to make a
positive adjustment to import competition.
(2) Limitation on relief.--The import relief recommended by
the Commission under this subsection shall be limited to the
relief described in section 313(c).
(3) Voting; separate views.--Only those members of the
Commission who voted in the affirmative under subsection (a)
are eligible to vote on the proposed action to remedy or
prevent the injury found by the Commission. Members of the
Commission who did not vote in the affirmative may submit, in
the report required under subsection (d), separate views
regarding what action, if any, should be taken to remedy or
prevent the injury.
(d) Report to President.--Not later than the date that is
30 days after the date on which a determination is made under
subsection (a) with respect to an investigation, the
Commission shall submit to the President a report that
includes--
(1) the determination made under subsection (a) and an
explanation of the basis for the determination;
(2) if the determination under subsection (a) is
affirmative, any findings and recommendations for import
relief made under subsection (c) and an explanation of the
basis for each recommendation; and
(3) any dissenting or separate views by members of the
Commission regarding the determination referred to in
paragraph (1) and any finding or recommendation referred to
in paragraph (2).
(e) Public Notice.--Upon submitting a report to the
President under subsection (d), the Commission shall promptly
make public the report (with the exception of information
which the Commission determines to be confidential) and shall
publish a summary of the report in the Federal Register.
SEC. 313. PROVISION OF RELIEF.
(a) In General.--Not later than the date that is 30 days
after the date on which the President receives the report of
the Commission in which the Commission's determination under
section 312(a) is affirmative, or which contains a
determination under section 312(a) that the President
considers to be affirmative under paragraph (1) of section
330(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1330(d)(1)), the
President, subject to subsection (b), shall provide relief
from imports of the article that is the subject of such
determination to the extent that the President determines
necessary to remedy or prevent the injury found by the
Commission and to facilitate the efforts of the domestic
industry to make a positive adjustment to import competition.
(b) Exception.--The President is not required to provide
import relief under this section if the President determines
that the provision of the import relief will not provide
greater economic and social benefits than costs.
(c) Nature of Relief.--
(1) In general.--The import relief that the President is
authorized to provide under this section with respect to
imports of an article is as follows:
(A) The suspension of any further reduction provided for
under Annex 2.3 of the Agreement in the duty imposed on the
article.
(B) An increase in the rate of duty imposed on the article
to a level that does not exceed the lesser of--
(i) the column 1 general rate of duty imposed under the HTS
on like articles at the time the import relief is provided;
or
(ii) the column 1 general rate of duty imposed under the
HTS on like articles on the day before the date on which the
Agreement enters into force.
(2) Progressive liberalization.--If the period for which
import relief is provided under this section is greater than
1 year, the President shall provide for the progressive
liberalization (described in article 8.2.2 of the Agreement)
of such relief at regular intervals during the period of its
application.
(d) Period of Relief.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), any import
relief that the President provides under this section may not
be in effect for more than 2 years.
(2) Extension.--
(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (C), the
President, after receiving a determination from the
Commission under subparagraph (B) that is affirmative, or
which the President considers to be affirmative under
paragraph (1) of section 330(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19
U.S.C. 1330(d)(1)), may extend the effective period of any
import relief provided under this section by up to 2 years,
if the President determines that--
(i) the import relief continues to be necessary to remedy
or prevent serious injury and to facilitate adjustment by the
domestic industry to import competition; and
(ii) there is evidence that the industry is making a
positive adjustment to import competition.
(B) Action by commission.--
(i) Investigation.--Upon a petition on behalf of the
industry concerned that is filed with the Commission not
earlier than the date that is 9 months, and not later than
the date that is 6 months, before the date on which any
action taken under subsection (a) is to terminate, the
Commission shall conduct an investigation to determine
whether action under this section continues to be necessary
to remedy or prevent serious injury and whether there is
evidence that the industry is making a positive adjustment to
import competition.
(ii) Notice and hearing.--The Commission shall publish
notice of the commencement of any proceeding under this
subparagraph in the Federal Register and shall, within a
reasonable time thereafter, hold a public hearing at which
the Commission shall afford interested parties and consumers
an opportunity to be present, to present evidence, and to
respond to the presentations of other parties and consumers,
and otherwise to be heard.
(iii) Report.--The Commission shall submit to the President
a report on its investigation and determination under this
subparagraph not later than 60 days before the action under
subsection (a) is to terminate, unless the President
specifies a different date.
(C) Period of import relief.--Any import relief provided
under this section, including any extensions thereof, may
not, in the aggregate, be in effect for more than 4 years.
(e) Rate After Termination of Import Relief.--When import
relief under this section is terminated with respect to an
article--
(1) the rate of duty on that article after such termination
and on or before December 31 of the year in which such
termination occurs shall be the rate that, according to the
Schedule of the United States to Annex 2.3 of the Agreement,
would have been in effect 1 year after the provision of
relief under subsection (a); and
(2) the rate of duty for that article after December 31 of
the year in which such termination occurs shall be, at the
discretion of the President, either--
(A) the applicable rate of duty for that article set forth
in the Schedule of the United States to Annex 2.3 of the
Agreement; or
(B) the rate of duty resulting from the elimination of the
tariff in equal annual stages ending on the date set forth in
the Schedule of the United States to Annex 2.3 of the
Agreement for the elimination of the tariff.
(f) Articles Exempt From Relief.--No import relief may be
provided under this section on--
(1) any article that is subject to import relief under--
(A) subtitle B; or
(B) chapter 1 of title II of the Trade Act of 1974 (19
U.S.C. 2251 et seq.); or
(2) any article on which an additional duty assessed under
section 202(b) is in effect.
SEC. 314. TERMINATION OF RELIEF AUTHORITY.
(a) General Rule.--Subject to subsection (b), no import
relief may be provided under this subtitle after the date
that is 10 years after the date on which the Agreement enters
into force.
(b) Exception.--If an article for which relief is provided
under this subtitle is an article for which the period for
tariff elimination, set forth in the Schedule of the United
States to Annex 2.3 of the Agreement, is greater than 10
years, no relief under this subtitle may be provided for that
article after the date on which that period ends.
SEC. 315. COMPENSATION AUTHORITY.
For purposes of section 123 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19
U.S.C. 2133), any import relief provided by the President
under section 313 shall be treated as action taken under
chapter 1 of title II of such Act (19 U.S.C. 2251 et seq.).
SEC. 316. CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION.
Section 202(a)(8) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C.
2252(a)(8)) is amended in the first sentence--
(1) by striking ``and''; and
(2) by inserting before the period at the end ``, and title
III of the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement
Implementation Act''.
Subtitle B--Textile and Apparel Safeguard Measures
SEC. 321. COMMENCEMENT OF ACTION FOR RELIEF.
(a) In General.--A request for action under this subtitle
for the purpose of adjusting to the obligations of the United
States under the Agreement may be filed with the President by
an interested party. Upon the filing of a request, the
President shall review the request to determine, from
information presented in the request, whether to commence
consideration of the request.
(b) Publication of Request.--If the President determines
that the request under subsection (a) provides the
information necessary for the request to be considered, the
President shall publish in the Federal Register a notice of
commencement of consideration of the request, and notice
seeking public comments regarding the request. The notice
shall include a summary of the request and the dates by which
comments and rebuttals must be received.
SEC. 322. DETERMINATION AND PROVISION OF RELIEF.
(a) Determination.--
(1) In general.--If a positive determination is made under
section 321(b), the President shall determine whether, as a
result of
[[Page H13272]]
the elimination of a duty under the Agreement, a Peruvian
textile or apparel article is being imported into the United
States in such increased quantities, in absolute terms or
relative to the domestic market for that article, and under
such conditions as to cause serious damage, or actual threat
thereof, to a domestic industry producing an article that is
like, or directly competitive with, the imported article.
(2) Serious damage.--In making a determination under
paragraph (1), the President--
(A) shall examine the effect of increased imports on the
domestic industry, as reflected in changes in such relevant
economic factors as output, productivity, utilization of
capacity, inventories, market share, exports, wages,
employment, domestic prices, profits and losses, and
investment, no one of which is necessarily decisive; and
(B) shall not consider changes in consumer preference or
changes in technology in the United States as factors
supporting a determination of serious damage or actual threat
thereof.
(b) Provision of Relief.--
(1) In general.--If a determination under subsection (a) is
affirmative, the President may provide relief from imports of
the article that is the subject of such determination, as
provided in paragraph (2), to the extent that the President
determines necessary to remedy or prevent the serious damage
and to facilitate adjustment by the domestic industry.
(2) Nature of relief.--The relief that the President is
authorized to provide under this subsection with respect to
imports of an article is an increase in the rate of duty
imposed on the article to a level that does not exceed the
lesser of--
(A) the column 1 general rate of duty imposed under the HTS
on like articles at the time the import relief is provided;
or
(B) the column 1 general rate of duty imposed under the HTS
on like articles on the day before the date on which the
Agreement enters into force.
SEC. 323. PERIOD OF RELIEF.
(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), the import
relief that the President provides under section 322(b) may
not be in effect for more than 2 years.
(b) Extension.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the President
may extend the effective period of any import relief provided
under this subtitle for a period of not more than 1 year, if
the President determines that--
(A) the import relief continues to be necessary to remedy
or prevent serious damage and to facilitate adjustment by the
domestic industry to import competition; and
(B) there is evidence that the industry is making a
positive adjustment to import competition.
(2) Limitation.--Any relief provided under this subtitle,
including any extensions thereof, may not, in the aggregate,
be in effect for more than 3 years.
SEC. 324. ARTICLES EXEMPT FROM RELIEF.
The President may not provide import relief under this
subtitle with respect to an article if--
(1) import relief previously has been provided under this
subtitle with respect to that article; or
(2) the article is subject to import relief under--
(A) subtitle A; or
(B) chapter 1 of title II of the Trade Act of 1974 (19
U.S.C. 2251 et seq.).
SEC. 325. RATE AFTER TERMINATION OF IMPORT RELIEF.
On the date on which import relief under this subtitle is
terminated with respect to an article, the rate of duty on
that article shall be the rate that would have been in
effect, but for the provision of such relief.
SEC. 326. TERMINATION OF RELIEF AUTHORITY.
No import relief may be provided under this subtitle with
respect to any article after the date that is 5 years after
the date on which the Agreement enters into force.
SEC. 327. COMPENSATION AUTHORITY.
For purposes of section 123 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19
U.S.C. 2133), any import relief provided by the President
under this subtitle shall be treated as action taken under
chapter 1 of title II of such Act (19 U.S.C. 2251 et seq.).
SEC. 328. CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION.
The President may not release information received in
connection with an investigation or determination under this
subtitle which the President considers to be confidential
business information unless the party submitting the
confidential business information had notice, at the time of
submission, that such information would be released by the
President, or such party subsequently consents to the release
of the information. To the extent a party submits
confidential business information, the party shall also
provide a nonconfidential version of the information in which
the confidential business information is summarized or, if
necessary, deleted.
Subtitle C--Cases Under Title II of the Trade Act of 1974
SEC. 331. FINDINGS AND ACTION ON GOODS OF PERU.
(a) Effect of Imports.--If, in any investigation initiated
under chapter 1 of title II of the Trade Act of 1974 (19
U.S.C. 2251 et seq.), the Commission makes an affirmative
determination (or a determination which the President may
treat as an affirmative determination under such chapter by
reason of section 330(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930), the
Commission shall also find (and report to the President at
the time such injury determination is submitted to the
President) whether imports of the article of Peru that
qualify as originating goods under section 203(b) are a
substantial cause of serious injury or threat thereof.
(b) Presidential Determination Regarding Imports of Peru.--
In determining the nature and extent of action to be taken
under chapter 1 of title II of the Trade Act of 1974 (19
U.S.C. 2251 et seq.), the President may exclude from the
action goods of Peru with respect to which the Commission has
made a negative finding under subsection (a).
TITLE IV--PROCUREMENT
SEC. 401. ELIGIBLE PRODUCTS.
Section 308(4)(A) of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (19
U.S.C. 2518(4)(A)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (v);
(2) by striking the period at the end of clause (vi) and
inserting ``; or''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new clause:
``(vii) a party to the United States-Peru Trade Promotion
Agreement, a product or service of that country or
instrumentality which is covered under that agreement for
procurement by the United States.''.
TITLE V--TRADE IN TIMBER PRODUCTS OF PERU
SEC. 501. ENFORCEMENT RELATING TO TRADE IN TIMBER PRODUCTS OF
PERU.
(a) Establishment of Interagency Committee.--Not later than
90 days after the date on which the Agreement enters into
force, the President shall establish an Interagency Committee
(in this section referred to as the ``Committee''). The
Committee shall be responsible for overseeing the
implementation of Annex 18.3.4 of the Agreement, including by
undertaking such actions and making such determinations
provided for in this section that are not otherwise
authorized under law.
(b) Audit.--The Committee may request that the Government
of Peru conduct an audit, pursuant to paragraph 6(b) of Annex
18.3.4 of the Agreement, to determine whether a particular
producer or exporter in Peru is complying with all applicable
laws, regulations, and other measures of Peru governing the
harvest of, and trade in, timber products.
(c) Verification.--
(1) In general.--The Committee may request the Government
of Peru to conduct a verification, pursuant to paragraph 7 of
Annex 18.3.4 of the Agreement, for the purpose of determining
whether, with respect to a particular shipment of timber
products from Peru to the United States, the producer or
exporter of the products has complied with applicable laws,
regulations, and other measures of Peru governing the harvest
of, and trade in, the products.
(2) Actions of committee.--If the Committee requests a
verification under paragraph (1), the Committee shall--
(A) to the extent authorized under law, provide the
Government of Peru with trade and transit documents and other
information to assist Peru in conducting the verification;
and
(B) direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to take any
appropriate action described in paragraph (4).
(3) Request to participate in verification visit.--The
Committee may request the Government of Peru to permit
officials of any agency represented on the Committee to
participate in any visit conducted by Peru of the premises of
a person that is the subject of the verification requested
under paragraph (1) (in this section referred to as a
``verification visit''). Such request shall be submitted in
writing not later than 10 days before any scheduled
verification visit and shall identify the names and titles of
the officials intending to participate.
(4) Appropriate action pending the results of
verification.--While the results of a verification requested
under paragraph (1) are pending, the Committee may direct
U.S. Customs and Border Protection to--
(A) detain the shipment that is the subject of the
verification; or
(B) if the Committee has requested under paragraph (3) to
have an official of any agency represented on the Committee
participate in the verification visit and the Government of
Peru has denied the request, deny entry to the shipment that
is the subject of the verification.
(5) Determination upon receipt of report.--
(A) In general.--Within a reasonable time after the
Government of Peru provides a report to the Committee
describing the results of a verification requested under
paragraph (1), the Committee shall determine whether any
action is appropriate.
(B) Determination of appropriate action.--In determining
the appropriate action to take and the duration of the
action, the Committee shall consider any relevant factors,
including--
(i) the verification report issued by the Government of
Peru;
(ii) any information that officials of the United States
have obtained regarding the shipment or person that is the
subject of the verification; and
(iii) any information that officials of the United States
have obtained during a verification visit.
[[Page H13273]]
(6) Notification.--Before directing that action be taken
under paragraph (7), the Committee shall notify the
Government of Peru in writing of the action that will be
taken and the duration of the action.
(7) Appropriate action.--If the Committee makes an
affirmative determination under paragraph (5), it may take
any action with respect to the shipment that was the subject
of the verification, or the products of the relevant producer
or exporter, that the Committee considers appropriate,
including directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection to--
(A) deny entry to the shipment;
(B) if a determination has been made that a producer or
exporter has knowingly provided false information to
officials of Peru or the United States regarding a shipment,
deny entry to products of that producer or exporter derived
from any tree species listed in Appendices to the Convention
on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna
and Flora, done at Washington March 3, 1973 (27 UST 1087;
TIAS 8249); or
(C) take any other action the Committee determines to be
appropriate.
(8) Termination of appropriate action.--Any action under
paragraph (7)(B) shall terminate not later than the later
of--
(A) the end of the period specified in the written
notification pursuant to paragraph (6); or
(B) 15 days after the date on which the Government of Peru
submits to the United States the results of an audit under
paragraph 6 of Annex 18.3.4 of the Agreement that concludes
that the person has complied with all applicable laws,
regulations, and other measures of Peru governing the harvest
of, and trade in, timber products.
(9) Failure to provide verification report.--If the
Committee determines that the Government of Peru has failed
to provide a verification report, as required by paragraph 12
of Annex 18.3.4 of the Agreement, the Committee may take such
action with respect to the relevant exporter's timber
products as the Committee considers appropriate, including
any action described in paragraph (7).
(d) Confidentiality of Information.--The Committee and any
agency represented on the Committee shall not disclose to the
public, except with the specific permission of the Government
of Peru, any documents or information received in the course
of an audit under subsection (b) or in the course of a
verification under subsection (c).
(e) Publicly Available Information.--The Committee shall
make any information exchanged with Peru under paragraph 17
of Annex 18.3.4 of the Agreement publicly available in a
timely manner, in accordance with paragraph 18 of Annex
18.3.4 of the Agreement.
(f) Coordination With Other Laws.--
(1) Endangered species act; lacey act.--In implementing
this section, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of
the Interior, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the
Secretary of the Treasury shall provide for appropriate
coordination with the administration of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and the Lacey
Act Amendments of 1981 (16 U.S.C. 3371 et seq.).
(2) Other laws.--Nothing in this section supersedes or
limits in any manner the functions or authority of the
Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of the Interior, the
Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Secretary of the
Treasury under any other law, including laws relating to
prohibited or restricted importations or possession of
animals, plants, or other articles.
(3) Effect of determination.--No determination under this
section shall preclude any proceeding or be considered
determinative of any issue of fact or law in any proceeding
under any law administered by the Secretary of Agriculture,
the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Homeland
Security, or the Secretary of the Treasury.
(g) Further Implementation.--The Secretary of Agriculture,
the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Homeland
Security, and the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation
with the Committee, shall prescribe such regulations as are
necessary to carry out this section.
(h) Resources for Implementation.--Not later than 90 days
after the date on which the Agreement enters into force, and
as appropriate thereafter, the President shall consult with
the Committee on Finance of the Senate and the Committee on
Ways and Means of the House of Representatives on the
resources, including staffing, needed to implement Annex
18.3.4 of the Agreement.
SEC. 502. REPORT TO CONGRESS.
(a) In General.--The United States Trade Representative, in
consultation with the appropriate agencies, including U.S.
Customs and Border Protection, the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service, the Forest Service, and the Department of State,
shall report to the Committee on Finance of the Senate and
the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of
Representatives on--
(1) steps the United States and Peru have taken to carry
out Annex 18.3.4 of the Agreement; and
(2) activities related to forest sector governance carried
out under the Environmental Cooperation Agreement entered
into between the United States and Peru on July 24, 2006.
(b) Timing of Report.--The United States Trade
Representative shall report to the Committee on Finance of
the Senate and the Committee on Ways and Means of the House
of Representatives under subsection (a)--
(1) not later than 1 year after the date on which the
Agreement enters into force;
(2) not later than 2 years after the date on which the
Agreement enters into force; and
(3) periodically thereafter.
TITLE VI--OFFSETS
SEC. 601. CUSTOMS USER FEES.
(a) Section 13031(j)(3)(A) of the Consolidated Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c(j)(3)(A)) is
amended by striking ``October 21, 2014'' and inserting
``December 13, 2014''.
(b) Section 13031(j)(3)(B)(i) of the Consolidated Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c(j)(3)(B)(i))
is amended by striking ``October 7, 2014'' and inserting
``December 13, 2014''.
SEC. 602. TIME FOR PAYMENT OF CORPORATE ESTIMATED TAXES.
Subparagraph (B) of section 401(1) of the Tax Increase
Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 (26 U.S.C. 6655
note) is amended by striking ``115 percent'' and inserting
``115.75 percent''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 801, the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from Louisiana
(Mr. McCrery), or their designees, each will control 45 minutes in
favor of the bill; and the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud) and the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), or their designees, each will
control 45 minutes in opposition to the bill.
The Chair understands that the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery)
also is the designee of Mr. Boehner. As such, Mr. McCrery controls a
total of 90 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this historic, indeed, piece of
legislation, and soon I would ask unanimous consent that you allow me
to yield the balance of this time to Mr. Levin, who may not be able to
be here the remainder of the night, and then I will come back to manage
the rest of the time.
But I really want to thank Speaker Pelosi for having the broad
understanding that this great Nation of ours cannot afford the luxury
of having a Republican or Democratic trade policy.
What makes this Nation great is that people perceive us as being a
country that will speak when we have any trade agreement, and that when
the Democrats took the majority, we certainly did not want a Democratic
trade bill. It was so embarrassing to have foreign trade ministers talk
to Republicans and talk with the Democrats and saw we're a divided
Nation.
She authorized those of us to work with the administration to see
whether or not we can bring something that sounded as though it was the
United States Congress speaking and being directed to allow them to be
the delegations and negotiators.
I can tell you that Jim McCrery played such an important role, along
with Wally Herger, and of course, I can't say enough about Sandy Levin
being able to work with me and the staffs for the first time in over a
decade. And on this issue, as so many other issues, you could not find
a difference as we found the Republican staff and the Democratic staff
in working not just during the day but working at night, working with
the Peruvians and even going over there with some of us, with Mr. Levin
and Ms. Schwartz, went to talk with President Garcia and to see the
respect and admiration they had with this great country, that they
wanted to show their friendship and to have exchanges and to have us a
stronger country.
{time} 2030
I know that, politically speaking, there are some people that find it
very difficult to talk about supporting trade. They made commitments to
a lot of people. Therefore, they have to do what they think is best.
It's absolutely ridiculous to believe that we can create jobs without
trade. If we just are able to consume everything we manufacture, all
the food that we grow, and not be able to have markets abroad, then
this is not the great Nation that she is or hopes ever to be. So what
we are talking about now is what's good for the country. We have to
admit that we have done a terrible job in not recognizing the needs of
people who have lost their jobs, lost their families, lost their
industry, lost their community, lost their pride.
Mr. McCrery and I, we think that we have been able to convince the
administration, as we go before the Business
[[Page H13274]]
Roundtable and say our multinationals can't do just what's good for
their shareholders, they have to do what's good for America. And if
globalization and technology have hurt some of these communities and
destroyed their will to want to be able to say that in this great
country they have opportunities for themselves or their children, well,
treat us just as good as you treat the developing countries. Bring your
ideas, bring the technology and the Ways and Means Committee will
provide the incentives to make certain that we can get back, and these
communities may not be doing the same thing, but God knows they would
be able to do something.
Here we have a bill that you don't have to be a trade specialist to
know that if people are manufacturing and growing in the United States,
and we are dealing with a developing country, and they are not only our
friends, but they want to work with us, then we have an opportunity to
tear down the trade barriers and to be able to get into their markets
as they are able to get into our markets so easily.
And so there are those people that cannot vote for it, but I think
that because our great Speaker and the Republican leadership allowed
Mr. McCrery and I and Sandy and Wally Herger to negotiate something, it
doesn't mean that every trade agreement is going to be one that
everyone can agree to. What it does mean is that in every trade
agreement, America's trade policy is going to be a part of it. How do
you treat human beings? How do you treat child labor? How do you treat
American investors? And how do you treat the environment? That's a
great step forward.
I would hope, as the Speaker said, that as people are listening to
who is calling in, remember the world is calling in. The world is
watching how we treat friends, and people all over this country would
not want us to believe that we are anti-fair trade and trade that
creates jobs.
Some people thought I was being personal when I said don't say this
trade agreement loses jobs, this is the only place that people are
doing anything, growing anything, can work with people who want to do
business with us. It's a great, historic opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, I do hope that people would want to be a part of this
changing thing, where once again people would know that when you do
business with the people of the United States, you're not doing
business with Democrats because we control the House and Senate, and
you're not doing business with Republicans, you're doing business with
Americans who want to do the best for them, the best for this great
country, to improve our quality of life. We can't do it by party, but
we can do it by principle.
I thank you for this opportunity and I would ask consent to yield the
balance of this time to Mr. Levin to be able to control until such time
as he has to leave.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman reserves the balance of his
time.
Without objection, the gentleman from Michigan will control the time.
There was no objection.
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself so much time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I first want to endorse the remarks of my colleague, the
chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Rangel.
Indeed, had it not been for his efforts and Chairman Levin's efforts,
we would not be here on the floor about to pass the Peru Free Trade
Agreement. There is no reason why this country should not have a
bipartisan trade policy that is endorsed by both the executive branch
and the legislative branch of government.
For too long, for whatever reasons, we have avoided trying to create
that agreement that a majority of both major political parties in this
country could stand behind and promote breaking down barriers to trade
around the world.
I am hopeful that through the chairman's work and through Chairman
Levin's work with the administration, we have at least gotten to first
base on creating a policy that will allow us to move forward as one
Nation trying to create a freer flow of goods and services around the
world for the betterment, not just of this country, but for all the
world.
I want to echo the words of Chairman Rangel and say that I couldn't
agree more with his words or his sentiment.
I also want to express my appreciation for the majority staff and the
minority staff of the Trade Subcommittee of the Ways and Means
Committee for lending their considerable talents to this effort. I
think it's safe to say that without their efforts, without their
cooperation, we wouldn't be here today. We wouldn't have the bipartisan
framework that we announced back in May to allow us to get this far. I
want to thank the staff for their hard work.
Needless to say, I rise in very strong support of this free trade
agreement. I am glad we are here. I wish we had been here sooner, but
we are here today, and it's a great day for that reason.
On May 10, precisely, Congress and the administration established
that framework for advancing the four free trade agreements the United
States has negotiated, Peru, Colombia, Panama and Korea. The Peru Free
Trade Agreement is the first of those four trade agreements that
Congress is considering.
As the Speaker said earlier, at least we have that framework in place
that can allow us to look at free trade agreements that have been
negotiated. Then each one, yes, of course, must be considered on its
own merits. At least we have that framework in place, and that will
allow us to, I am very hopeful, consider later in this Congress the
Colombia FTA, the Panama FTA and the Korea FTA.
Trade is often blamed for the loss of jobs in this country, and
certainly we know that there are losses of some jobs directly related
to trade. But the truth is that trade creates a great many jobs in this
country, and those jobs generally are high-paying jobs.
Trade also significantly increases the standard of living for
Americans, as well as the peoples of other nations around the world by
providing us with a wide variety of affordable goods, goods that are
not only affordable but available.
Anybody who appreciates fresh produce in the winter or coffee with
their breakfast should be a fan of free trade. Too often trade is
portrayed as only having negative consequences for the United States'
economy. But the facts are clear that today, more than ever, trade is
the engine of economic growth in the United States.
As a senior economist at Goldman Sachs was saying last week, ``Trade
is the only thing holding up manufacturing.'' This is why passing this
legislation, and then, I hope, moving expeditiously to pass the free
trade agreements with Colombia, Panama and Korea is so critical to the
economic well-being of the United States.
By the same token, we should also make sure that any workers
adversely affected by trade have access to training and support. I am
hopeful we will move in this Congress a bipartisan trade adjustment
assistance reauthorization.
In light of the significance of trade to the United States' economy,
Congress should promote our continued economic growth by passing the
United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement. Today, virtually all
imports from Peru come into the United States duty-free, while United
States exports of goods and services to Peru face significant barriers,
tariffs in Peru. It's a one-way street in favor of Peru today because
of the trade preferences that are in effect.
This legislation before the House today will create a two-way street
so that our goods and services can go to Peru with the same
preferences, no tariffs, or very low tariffs that Peru goods and
services come today to the United States. Not passing this agreement
would perpetuate the competitive disadvantage faced by United States
exporters into Peru.
Therefore, the impact of passing this bill should be crystal clear.
This trade agreement will result in increased United States exports and
an improvement in the United States trade balance with Peru.
I had the opportunity to travel to Peru recently with several of my
colleagues and Secretary of Commerce Gutierrez earlier this fall. I saw
firsthand how important this agreement is to Peru and to the entire
region and how this agreement will strengthen an important ally of ours
in that region.
[[Page H13275]]
Peru is resisting the efforts of Venezuela's authoritarian President
Hugo Chavez to wage a war of words and ideas in Latin America against
the United States. In fact, Chavez blatantly intervened in Peru's
democratic elections, espousing sentiments against the United States
and the principles for which America stands, democracy, free markets,
liberty. On June 4, 2006, Peruvian voters decisively rejected Chavez's
candidate in Peru and instead chose Alan Garcia to be their next
president. The election was a sign of support from Peru that they
reject Chavez's fiery populism and instead continue supporting Peru's
current policies of economic engagement with the United States and
market reform.
Congress should acknowledge the support of the people of Peru and
pass this legislation by a strong margin. We should then turn to the
remaining FTAs that have been negotiated.
I hope that the bipartisan spirit that resulted in the May 10
framework and the imminent passage of this legislation can help us make
clear to all Americans that trade is a benefit for this country and
that we must continue to pursue trade agreements that open markets for
United States exports or risk letting our companies and workers being
left behind in the global economy.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to a
gentleman who has been a strong advocate for fair trade deals, Mr. Wu
of Oregon.
Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my great respect to Chairman
Levin and Chairman Rangel and deep appreciation for the improvements
that they have achieved in this bill compared to past trade bills. I
came to Congress, ran for a Federal office, substantially to promote
democracy, human rights and the rule of law, both at home and abroad.
Trade agreements are one of the few, one of the key levers to promote
democracy, human rights and the rule of law abroad.
So I regret that I cannot vote for this bill tonight because it does
not put human rights on an equal footing with environmental and labor
protections. But I do hope to work with the chairman and people on both
sides of the aisle of goodwill to reach a day, some day, when human
rights will be included in trade deliberations on an equal footing with
environmental and labor protections.
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Weller.
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Let me begin by congratulating the chairman
of this committee, Mr. Rangel, and the chairman of the Trade
Subcommittee, Mr. Levin, as well as the two ranking Republicans, Mr.
McCrery and Mr. Herger, for their leadership in bringing this important
trade agreement to the floor. I also want to congratulate Ambassador
Susan Schwab, our trade negotiator, as well as her predecessor, Rob
Portman, in their good work and frankly also congratulate the
leadership of Peru, particularly President Garcia and former President
Toledo and their administrations.
Mr. Speaker, trade is important to my State of Illinois. One out of
five jobs in Illinois is dependent on exports, and 40 percent of the
agricultural products in the State of Illinois are dependent on
exports.
{time} 2045
In fact, 17,000 Illinois companies export. And trade agreements are
working for Illinois. My State benefits, my district benefits. In fact,
if you look at the nations that we have free trade agreements with,
they represent almost half of all our exports today, even though they
represent only 7 percent of all the nations. And free trade, in the
last 10, 12 years has created 16 million jobs nationwide, thousands in
my own State. And this trade agreement here is good for Illinois
manufacturers; it's good for Illinois farmers.
You know, my friend Mr. McCrery pointed out that the current status
quo, which was renewed recently by this Congress, gives Peru a pretty
good deal. Their manufactured goods, their farm products come into the
United States duty free. But our products made in Illinois,
manufactured goods and farm products, face tariffs going into Peru.
Well, this trade agreement makes trade with Peru a two-way street. On
day one of this trade agreement going into effect, 80 percent of the
tariffs on manufactured products from Illinois are eliminated.
Now, I have 8,000 workers, 8,000 union workers who make yellow
construction equipment, well-recognized household name, in my district.
And half of the product they produce is exported. This agreement's good
for them.
But under the current status quo, those mining trucks, those off-road
construction equipment that are produced in Joliet and Decatur, they
face a 12 percent tariff. And that equipment's a $1 million piece of
equipment. That's $120,000 tariff tax imposed on that yellow piece of
equipment when it's exported to Peru today.
And under this trade agreement, that tariff is eliminated on day one,
allowing U.S.-made, Illinois-made construction equipment to be more
competitive with their Japanese and Asian competition. It means jobs in
Illinois.
And I would note, if you care about agriculture in Illinois, farmers
will tell you that the Peru and Colombia trade agreements are the best
ever for agriculture. This agreement deserves bipartisan support.
Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 2 minutes to our caucus Chair, and a member of
the Ways and Means Committee, the very distinguished Member from
Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank both the chairman of
the Ways and Means Committee, also Congressman Levin, as well as the
minority leader, Congressman McCrery, for their leadership on this
issue.
This bill picks up exactly where the last trade agreement with
Singapore and Jordan was, where we were putting a human face on
globalization; that is, having labor environmental standards inside
those trade agreements. The last 6 years we walked away from that
bipartisan agreement. This restores that bipartisan agreement and again
returns America to where, when it comes to opening markets around the
world to American products, we stand together for that opportunity.
But make no mistake about it. While that is one piece of an overall
economic strategy, this is a good piece, it's an important piece,
opening markets to American-made products.
But, in addition to this, we must have an economic strategy that
deals with people's retirement insecurities, their health care
insecurities as it relates to their costs and opportunities, as well as
educational opportunities for their children. If you don't have that as
part of this strategy, we only have one piece of that economic
strategy. This is an important piece, and it continues, I think, the
responsibility we have to open markets across the world to American-
made products.
But we must finish our effort on dealing with globalization as it
relates to the opportunity, not just the opportunities abroad, but the
challenges here at home to make sure people and more and more Americans
have an opportunity to be winners in this globalization rather than see
globalization as a threat to their own economic security.
So, although I do support this, and I support this aggressively
because this is a good deal, it returns us to the bipartisanship, and
most importantly, in my view, this begins to once again put a human
face on globalization and allows the American employees and workers who
are struggling every day to see this as globalization, not as a threat
to their economic security, but as an opportunity. If we do that,
globalization and more people will be winners.
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota, a valued member of the Ways and Means Committee (Mr.
Ramstad).
Mr. RAMSTAD. I thank the ranking member for yielding. And I, too,
want to applaud Chairman Rangel, Chairman Levin, and Ranking Member
McCrery for the new spirit of bipartisanship and collaboration on the
committee, which has resulted in this agreement getting here this
evening, remarkable accomplishment. The Ways and Means Committee voted
this out on a unanimous vote, unanimous bipartisan vote.
And, Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3688, the U.S.-
Peru Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act. I've long been an
ardent supporter of trade expansion.
[[Page H13276]]
Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is jobs. Fully 95 percent of the world's
population lives outside the United States. The global economy's
projected to grow at three times the rate of the United States economy.
So, it doesn't take a mathematician to figure that we must take steps
to make sure American farmers, manufacturers and service providers
remain competitive in the international marketplace.
We also must make sure our products have fair access to foreign
markets. Job creation depends upon both factors.
But this agreement is about more than expanding markets for U.S.
goods and services. In fact, it's about more than job creation. It will
also have a significant geopolitical impact.
As we all know, and as has been said on the floor tonight, South
America's on the precipice of choosing between the free market,
democratic West and the autocratic, dictatorial model being peddled by
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.
Chavez continues to lure Latin American countries into his fold
through false promises and blatant, unabashed bribery. This agreement
that we're debating here tonight offers a legitimate alternative for
Peru, an alternative to make significant economic strides and alleviate
poverty, while providing increased market opportunities for both
countries, U.S. businesses as well as Peruvian businesses, because, you
see, Mr. Speaker, as most people in this body understand, trade is a
win-win proposition. Both win when we expand trade, both countries.
The empirical data, Mr. Speaker, clearly shows the benefits to both
countries, both economies. And as a Member who has a personal history
with the Peruvian people, who's gone on several missions with our
mission group from home, I urge Members not to ignore the humanitarian
benefits as well as the geopolitical benefits that come along with
passage of this agreement.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to send my sincere thanks and gratitude
to our Peruvian counterparts who worked so hard to make this agreement
a reality. Former President Toledo and former Ambassador Ferraro worked
tirelessly to address the concerns of many of us here in this body,
especially on the Ways and Means Committee, came and met with us at
least three times. Many of us went over to Peru to meet with them. Also
President Garcia and Ambassador Ortiz.
Mr. Speaker, let's do the right thing for American workers and vote
``yes'' on this trade agreement.
Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I now would yield to a gentleman who has
been in this body for a number of years, who has seen firsthand the
devastation of bad trade deals such as Peru, the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Kildee) for 3 minutes.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, all trade agreements suffer from the same
fundamental flaw: They are not self-enforcing. Trade agreements depend
upon vigorous enforcement, which requires official complaints be made
when violations occur.
None of the six Presidents with whom I have served here in the
Congress have shown any eagerness to file complaints when agreements
are violated. I certainly have no faith in President Bush to show any
enthusiasm to enforce this agreement.
Congress should not hand this administration yet another trade
agreement because past agreements have been more efficient at exporting
jobs than goods and services.
My city of Flint, Michigan, has dropped in population from 190,000 to
118,000. Much of this loss is due to trade agreements. If you want to
put the human face on trade, come and look at the sad faces in Flint,
Michigan.
Mr. Speaker, shortly after NAFTA was passed, workers at Delphi in
Flint were ordered to package up manufacturing machinery for transport
to Mexico. They were actually exporting their jobs to another country
in packing crates.
And to add insult to injury, the following year, the U.S. Department
of Commerce was reporting the increase of exports to Mexico, and they
included that machinery from Flint, Michigan. They included that
exportation of jobs as progress. This was the United States Department
of Commerce. This was not the Mexican Department of Commerce bragging
how jobs had been exported to Mexico.
I appeal to all Members of Congress to vote ``no'' on this. But I
appeal especially to my fellow Democrats not to turn their backs on
those American workers who suffer from the export of their jobs. They
want a paycheck in Flint, Michigan, not a TAA unemployment check. And
the chance of TAA becoming law is far from certain.
I urge you, particularly on this side of the aisle, to stop the
exportation of American jobs and vote ``no'' on this free trade
agreement.
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would yield 5 minutes to the
distinguished minority whip, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank
him for his hard work, the hard work of my good friend, the chairman of
the committee, Mr. Levin, of Mr. Herger, for working to bring this
important bill to the floor.
Americans can and do compete all over the world. They can and do
compete successfully all over the world. And it's particularly
important that we compete in our own neighborhood.
Many of us, over the last several years, have begun to look at what's
happened in the last two decades to our neighbors to the south and
their relationships with us, and we saw those relationships drifting
away. One way to strengthen those relationships is to strengthen this
opportunity to work together, this opportunity to trade together, this
opportunity to have legal systems that encourage investment and trade.
And we can do that.
The point's been made already by speakers on both sides of the aisle
that for some time now, Peru, Colombia, Panama, the CAFTA countries
that are now moving in and have moved into a permanent trade
relationship with us, for some time now they've been able to ship all
of the things into our market without duties that they could possibly
ship into our market.
In fact, as we've discussed these trade bills in the past, I've had
Members on both sides of aisle ask me, well, if they can send
everything in here they want to send in, why would they even want this
arrangement?
Of course, the reason is not the immediate economics to them, because
the immediate economics to them are already very good. The reason is
the long-term tie and relationship of their economy to our economy, the
strength it gives them in this hemisphere to be a partner, a trading
partner with the United States. And we see that happen.
The projection on this opportunity alone is that U.S. exports to Peru
will increase by over $1 billion a year; not much projection on
increase early on from Peru, because, remember, they're already sending
everything here that they want to without tariffs. This removes the
barriers not for them; they've already been removed. This removes the
barriers for us.
And our neighborhood's important. Our hemisphere is important. The
United States has been blessed in many, many ways. And as we see the
opportunities grow for people in all of the Americas, that's actually
good for us. One billion dollars in exports means $1 billion in
manufactured goods from this country, some services from this country
going to Peru. And I think that Peru should only be the beginning of
what we do over the next few months.
Following on CAFTA, Peru, Panama, Colombia, all of which have, at
this moment, the access to our markets they would have after the
agreement, we need access to their markets.
{time} 2100
We need that permanence of relationship. We need that reaching out to
say that we are in this hemisphere together, we are in a global
economy, and the part of that economy that we should all benefit from
the most is the economy closest to us. And Mr. McCrery and Mr. Rangel
have worked hard to establish a framework here that's the framework for
the work we do tonight and tomorrow but also is the framework for what
we do in the rest of this Congress.
I urge my colleagues to look not just at the economic impact of these
agreements but also the geopolitical impact, the impact in our
neighborhood, the impact in our hemisphere, the opportunity of these
countries to work to
[[Page H13277]]
eliminate illegal trade and particularly to eliminate illegal drug
trade, the opportunity in these countries to open their markets to us
as we have opened our markets to them. I urge my colleagues to give
support to this agreement as we look at the future of other agreements
and other opportunities.
Americans can compete. Americans are competing. And this agreement
will prove the American ability to compete in yet one more country.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to another distinguished
member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Tanner.
(Mr. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, trade is not a political issue; trade is an
economic issue. The economics of this agreement are such that Peru, if
you voted for the Andean trade preference, already has access to our
markets without regard to tariffs and duty. This is the other side of
the coin and will allow us to immediately export into Peru cotton,
soybeans, soybean meal, crude soybean oil, beef, wheat, sorghum,
peanuts. This is the other side of the Andean Trade Preference Act. So
if you believe, as I do, that in this country we can grow more food
than we can consume, we can make more stuff than we can buy and sell to
each other, then it's not a political argument; it's an economic fact
of capitalism that whoever is engaged in that excess production is
going to lose their job because we cannot eat all the food we can grow
and we can't buy and sell to each other all the stuff we make.
So how do we save jobs in this country? By exporting manufactured
goods and agricultural products that we can grow and that we can make.
This allows us to do better than current law.
Now, if you want to vote ``no,'' what do you get? You get status quo.
I thought that's what we were trying to change. We don't like status
quo. We want more jobs in America. How do you get more jobs? You get
more jobs by allowing people who are engaged in excess production to
sell it to somebody else out of this country. That's what it's about.
There is one more aspect that I would like to touch on briefly, the
national security aspect. South America is going to go one way or the
other. I was just in Colombia, South America this last weekend. Chavez
and Venezuela is against this. Are you with Chavez or are you with
America? That really is basically what I am trying to talk about.
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to a distinguished member
of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
English).
Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, I have seen this FTA evolve and I have
watched it, representing as I do an area of the country where we have
seen both the positives and the negatives of globalization and of
trade, and I watched this FTA fully prepared to be skeptical.
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to rise in strong support of
this free trade agreement on the strength of the fact that it clearly
will further advance America's economic as well as political and
foreign policy interests.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, since 1991 our country's commercial
partnership with Peru has been driven by unilateral preferences
extended to Peru under the Andean Trade Preference Act. Over the past
16 years, Peru clearly has demonstrated its commitment to that
agreement in both terms of political and institutional resources. After
making significant strides in shifting away from production and
shipment of illegal drugs, Peru has become a proven ally and has
established itself as a steadfast partner in combating narcotics
trafficking, countering regional terror groups, and helping to supply
America's energy needs. Approval of this trade agreement will be a
critical signal to the Peruvian people and not only help to promote
closer ties but to open the door to a new era of trade for our country.
We recognize that the Peruvian economy is roughly the size of the
State of Louisiana that the distinguished ranking member represents. It
is roughly the size of Louisiana as of 2005. While Peru is not an
enormous market, it is still a significant opportunity for U.S.
exports.
In 2006, 98 percent of Peruvian exports entered the United States
duty-free under the Andean trade pact. The U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion
Agreement levels the playing field by moving beyond one-way preferences
to full partnership and reciprocal commitments under which U.S. exports
also benefit from duty-free treatment. Under this agreement, 80 percent
of U.S. exports would become duty-free from day one and other tariffs
on exports would be phased out.
The International Trade Commission has estimated that U.S. exports to
Peru will grow by $1.1 billion, or more than double the estimated
growth of imports from Peru. Additionally, the ITC estimates that the
big winners in the U.S. economy will be value-added products,
especially in the machinery and equipment sector. The largest import
gains from Peru, the ITC estimates, will be inputs, such as basic
metals as gold and copper.
In addition to being economically complementary, this agreement will
provide substantial new opportunities for American farmers'
agricultural exports, break down barriers facing U.S. service
providers, and strengthen protections for workers. In fact, the U.S.-
Peru Trade Promotion Agreement marks a significant milestone with its
inclusion of the most advanced labor obligations of any bilateral or
regional trade agreement.
Specifically, this trade pact will require Peru to adopt and maintain
fundamental labor rights, as stated in the International Labor
Organization Declaration Principles and Rights at Work. This includes
freedom of association, collective bargaining rights, the abolition of
child labor, among others. Mr. Speaker, these standards are an
enforceable part of the agreement, and that is in itself a seminal
reform.
Mr. Speaker, there are additional components that I think make this
FTA particularly compelling, including enforceable environmental
standards. This is a high standard agreement that furthers the
commercial and foreign interests of the United States of America.
What this is not, and I emphasize this to my constituents, this is
not another NAFTA. This is not a threat to our manufacturing base. I
think this is precisely the kind of agreement that many of us have
argued for for years.
Isn't it time, if we want a stronger trade policy, that we take
``yes'' for an answer? If we embrace this free trade agreement, we have
an opportunity to use it as a model for future trade agreements, and
that in turn will strengthen the hand and level the playing field for
American companies and American workers.
For all of my colleagues who share that goal, please vote for this
FTA. Please send that message.
Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I now would yield 3 minutes to a gentleman
who is very outspoken about fair trade deals, the gentleman from Ohio,
Congressman Kucinich.
Mr. KUCINICH. I thank the gentleman from Maine for his own
leadership.
The U.S.-Peru Free Trade Agreement continues the destructive trade
policies that spur the exodus of good-paying jobs and undermine the
ability of working people to protect their living standards.
Our workers and our communities have been hurt by the devastating
impacts of our flawed trade policies. Since 2001, over 3 million
valuable manufacturing jobs have been lost by U.S. workers due to the
unsound NAFTA model of trade analogous to the U.S.-Peru Free Trade
Agreement we are considering tonight. Yet the Bush administration
insists on continuing to implement the same policies that have off-
shored jobs and left hardworking Americans in precarious circumstances.
Common sense suggests that our trade policies must continue to
promote and expand Buy American practices that support American
competitiveness. Instead, this agreement undermines Buy American
programs.
This destructive trade bill requires that all firms in Peru, Peruvian
or otherwise, be granted equivalent access to outsourced U.S.
Government work and Buy American program contracts as our own U.S.
firms. Suggesting that Buy American should include Peruvian
[[Page H13278]]
businesses indicates that the multinational corporations are the real
beneficiaries of the free trade agreement.
This body successfully fended off the Bush administration's attempts
to privatize our Social Security system in 2005. It should follow that
this body would hold firm on this principle for other nations as well.
However, there are provisions in the Peru FTA that would allow U.S.
firms to exact compensation if the Peruvian Government reverses the
partial privatization of their own social security system. Citibank
would reap a windfall if Peru did what the U.S. Congress has voted to
do, roll back the privatization of Social Security.
Furthermore, the U.S.-Peru FTA threatens the citizens and workers of
Peru. The two main labor federations of Peru have expressed opposition
to the agreement over concerns for the workers of both of our nations.
As corporations cut U.S. jobs and relocate in search of lower labor
costs, the U.S.-Peru FTA threatens to expand sweatshop labor in Peru
and casts doubt on the adequate enforcement of worker protections. In a
country already fraught by high poverty levels and a growing gap
between the wealthy and the poor, the U.S.-Peru FTA will further
exacerbate Peru's difficulties with provisions that ultimately promote
privatization and deregulation of basic necessities such as water and
electricity.
Agricultural provisions of this agreement threaten the well-being of
Peru's peasant farmers. These provisions are expected to cause
displacement of farmers and increased hunger. Peru has over 7 million
citizens living in rural communities, with agriculture helping to
sustain one-third of its population. It is estimated that over 4.5
million Peruvians are malnourished and without much-needed income.
I urge the defeat of this trade agreement and standing up for the
American worker.
Coca cultivation requires minimal technology, produces four yields
annually and is profitable. Because the Peru FTA includes provisions
requiring Peru to reduce tariffs on U.S. agricultural products it is
predicted that many Peruvian farmers will turn to the illicit
cultivation of coca to earn a living.
Experts predict that these agricultural provisions of this NAFTA
style deal threaten an increase of undocumented migration into the U.S.
This has implications for our immigration system, a system that is
already badly in need of humane reform.
Terms in the U.S.-Peru FTA for drug makers will harm Peruvian
patients who need lifesaving medications. The provisions ensure that
patients in Peru will struggle to afford necessary drugs.
Corporations will be able to challenge domestic environmental and
public health laws in international tribunals. This gives corporations
the ability to circumvent accountability and undermine laws that exist
to protect people and the environment.
Failed trade policies that threaten natural resources and our
environment have been the status quo for too long and will only
continue under the U.S.-Peru FTA.
Like prior trade agreements, the U.S.-Peru FTA will not bring global
prosperity and well-being, but will instead bolster powerful
corporations. I urge my colleagues to oppose the U.S.-Peru FTA.
Mr. LEVIN. How much time is there?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Snyder). The gentleman from Michigan has
29\1/2\ minutes remaining tonight. The gentleman from Louisiana has
56\1/2\ minutes remaining tonight. The gentleman from Maine has 33\1/2\
minutes remaining tonight.
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman
from California (Mr. Herger), the ranking member of the Trade
Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee, be allowed to allocate
the remainder of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Louisiana?
There was no objection.
{time} 2115
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina, Mr. Robin Hayes.
Mr. HAYES. I want to thank Chairman Rangel, Chairman Herger and
Chairman McCrery for their great work. Unfortunately, I must rise today
in opposition to H.R. 3688, the U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement.
My opposition to this agreement stems from what the American
Manufacturing Trade Action Coalition calls a continuation of a flawed
trade policy of trade deficits, offshoring and job losses.
Auggie Tantillo, the executive director of AMTAC goes on to state,
``Congress spending the entire year focusing on an unpopular Peru FTA
instead of passing a strong anticurrency manipulation bill is an
enormous disappointment to U.S. manufacturers desperate for relief from
China's predatory trade practices.'' Folks, I could not agree more. I
don't see where this particular legislation helps combat the largest
threat to our Nation's manufacturing base, China.
As many of you know, manufacturing, the textile industry in
particular, has taken a massive hit in both loss of jobs in businesses
due directly to unfair trade practices by China and their fixed
currency. Without a level playing field for our textile workers,
businesses, and the manufacturing sector in general, the demise of our
manufacturing industry will continue to take place all over the
country.
I'm a cosponsor and strong supporter of the Currency Reform for Fair
Trade Act, which was sponsored by Congressmen Duncan Hunter and Tim
Ryan. This important piece of legislation will level the playing field
for American companies by stipulating that countervailing trade cases
targeting government subsidies can be brought against nonmarket
economies such as China, and it does it in a WTO-compliant manner.
Another issue I'm concerned with is the lack of enforcement of our
current trade laws, in particular with textile enforcement. Textile
enforcement is vital to the future of the U.S. textile industry and its
workforce. The U.S. textile and apparel industry is critical to the
economic national security of our Nation.
The industry contributes almost $120 billion to our Nation's GDP.
However, we are putting this industry and its workforce in harm's way
if Customs does not continue to utilize all enforcement tools, such as
seizures, detentions and special operations to help our Nation's
industrial base.
Folks, we need to get our priorities right here. We need to focus on
preserving American jobs and American businesses. We have lost too many
jobs. Too many companies have been hurt because of unfair Chinese trade
practices and lack of proper enforcement. It's time to start fighting
back.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield to the gentlelady from New York for a unanimous
consent.
(Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I congratulate the dean of our delegation for his leadership on this
important agreement, and I rise in strong support.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the U.S.-Peru Free Trade Agreement.
This agreement represents a new direction for trade agreements.
This agreement will provide greater market access for and remove
tariffs on American goods with a country that already enjoys the export
of a number of goods to the United States duty-free.
Working off the historic agreement negotiated by Democrats in May of
this year, this agreement has been negotiated to include critical labor
and environmental provisions and will help ensure the economic and
national security of the region.
It was the lack of these environmental and labor standards that led
me to vote against the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and
the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA).
Among the labor standards negotiated in this agreement are worker
rights and protections for which we have fought these many years.
As a result of the May 10 agreement negotiated by House Democrats,
the labor chapter of the Peru FTA includes a fully enforceable
commitment that countries adopt and enforce the five basic
international labor standards.
In addition, this agreement also includes commitments to enforce a
sixth set of rights--those pertaining to acceptable conditions of work
with respect to minimum wages, hours of work and occupational safety
and health.
This agreement includes critical new environmental provisions.
It requires Peru to adopt, maintain, and enforce obligations under
seven common multilateral environmental agreements; specify numerous
concrete steps that Peru must take to curb illegal logging and impose a
clear schedule for doing so; and it gives the United States
[[Page H13279]]
an unprecedented set of enforcement tools to ensure that Peru meets its
environmental commitments.
These provisions are a far cry from the ``enforce your own laws'' of
NAFTA and CAFTA.
Beyond the labor and environmental standards negotiated in this
agreement, I believe this agreement is a vital instrument towards
economic and political security.
Having a strong and stable ally in Latin America will allow aid to
the United States in our continued battle against narcotic trafficking.
Again, I support this agreement and I urge its passage.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
I just want to say to our distinguished colleague from Ohio (Mr.
Kucinich), who raised the Social Security issue, it's simply not
accurate. If you look at the language within the FTA, there is no basis
for these claims regarding the inability of Peru to unprivatize its
Social Security system.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Ohio.
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
To the Chair of the committee, Mr. Rangel, Ranking Member McCrery,
the subcommittee Chair of this trade agreement, I come from the same
community as Dennis Kucinich, and I've seen the loss of jobs in Ohio,
in northeast Ohio and across Ohio, from CAFTA and NAFTA. But it's my
belief, having served on this committee for the past 4 years, and
having had an opportunity to travel to Peru, that this is a good
agreement.
My newspaper used to say, Well, Stephanie, why do you travel so much?
Why do you go places? What impact does it have on your voting? I said,
Well, how can I make a decision on international issues if I don't
travel to the country to see what's going on? And I had the opportunity
to travel to Peru about 2 years ago under the leadership of Chairman
Thomas, and at the time, President Toledo was the President of Peru.
Ambassador Ferraro was the ambassador, and he gave me the opportunity
to sit down and have a discussion with farmers, with union people and
others with regard to what this agreement would do for Peru. I also
happened to have a staffer whose name was Jorge Castro who was from
Peru, and I had a chance also to speak with his father who was employed
in that country.
This is an opportunity for us to step away from the tradition, to
look at a trade agreement that focuses on environmental issues, to look
at a trade agreement that focuses on labor standards, and to step back
and say, well, maybe this is our opportunity to say, well, here we can,
once again, try and not only lift up the people of America, but to lift
up the people of another country, to have a chance to talk to those
farmers about growing and having something other to do than being
involved in the drug trade, to have an opportunity to say to the people
of Peru, it's time for a difference, and that the United States will
give them an opportunity to do something different.
All of my colleagues have talked about the change in labor standards,
the change in environmental agreements, but I stand here, as some of my
other colleagues have said, to put a face on these agreements, because
it's very easy for us to step back and say, well, these jobs were lost
by this. We haven't lost jobs by the Andean Trade Agreement with Peru.
We have an opportunity to open doors for them and open doors for us.
And I encourage my colleagues, who I have stood with, I am a 100
percent labor voter, but I stand here this evening to say, let's give
them a chance, let's give them an opportunity, get broader and change
our piece.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, ranking member of
the Budget Committee, Mr. Ryan.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I thank the distinguished ranking member of
the subcommittee for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, if you're not going to vote for this trade agreement,
you're probably not going to vote for any trade agreement that's before
us.
This trade agreement is a no-brainer. This trade agreement is a
bipartisan agreement. This trade agreement shows what you can get
accomplished when we all work together.
This trade agreement recognizes the fact that we have one-way trade
right now with Peru, and with this agreement we have two-way trade.
Ninety-seven percent of all of Peru's exports come into the U.S. duty
free; only 2.8 percent of our goods go to Peru duty free. This lets us
send our stuff there duty free. This gives us the same opportunity to
send our exports as we already give the Peruvians.
Now, what we hear often on the floor about why trade agreements are
so bad, it's usually the trade deficit. Well, here is one interesting
statistic, Mr. Speaker; 85 percent of the trade deficit comes from
countries we don't have trade agreements with. You see, when we get
trade agreements, we get good agreements for our country. We get the
rule of law. We get enforceable contracts. We get access to their
markets. Why is that important? It's important to get access to other
markets because 97 percent of the world's consumers are not here in
America; they're overseas. Ninety-seven percent of the world's
consumers are elsewhere outside of this country.
We are a mature country, a fast economy, a mature economy. We have a
high standard of living relative to the rest of the world. And if we
want to enjoy that high standard of living, if we want to build on that
high standard of living, if we want to fulfill the American Dream,
which our parents and grandparents always taught us, which is, in
America, you leave the next generation better off than your generation,
you've got to find more markets and more consumers for our products.
We cannot possibly consume all that we make and all that we do
because only 3 percent of the world's consumers are here. That's why we
have to open markets; that's why we have to have access.
This is a good agreement for foreign policy reasons. This is saying
to the reformers in Latin America, we're with you. This is saying to
the human rights movement, to individual rights, to democracy, we are
with you. America stands with you. That is so important at a time when
you have a threat knocking on the door from people like Chavez next
door in Venezuela.
Let me just read a few statistics of some of the recent successes of
some of our recent free trade agreements with respect to our exports,
which creates jobs, and how this has helped grow America's standard of
living.
Since we've had free trade agreements with these countries, here is
the success: Our exports to Jordan, up 92 percent; our exports to
Chile, up 150 percent; our exports to Singapore, up 49 percent; our
exports to Australia, up 25 percent; our exports to Morocco, up 67
percent; our exports to Bahrain, up 40 percent. Our exports are up 15
percent this year alone. That's one of the reasons why our economy grew
at an astounding rate of 3.9 percent last quarter alone, because of
exports. And we all know, the statistics are very clear, that exports
produce good-paying jobs.
So, Mr. Speaker, this is a chance to strike a blow for enforceable
contracts, for the rule of law, for worker rights in Latin America, and
for jobs here in America.
Again, as I mentioned in the start, this is a no-brainer. I want to
thank the chairman of the Ways and Means, Mr. Rangel, for his work on
this. I want to thank our ranking member, Mr. McCrery, for his work on
this. And I also want to thank the people who really sweat this thing
out at the negotiating table, the people at the USTR, and our
Ambassador, Susan Schwab, for all of the hard work they put into this.
This is one step in the right direction. Panama and Colombia are two
more steps in the right direction.
I urge adoption of this.
Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts, Representative Lynch.
(Mr. LYNCH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LYNCH. I don't know what it means when someone calls something a
no-brainer and then he takes credit for it, but I rise in opposition.
First of all, I want to say that I have enormous respect for the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Levin), and Mr. Neal, who is also part of this, Mr. McCrery, Mr.
Herger. Look, while
[[Page H13280]]
I commend my friends for their work in incorporating the International
Labor Standards in this agreement, and that is an accomplishment, and I
concede that, I must say that, for the record, Peru has already adopted
the eight core International Labor Standards in their country already,
and yet the record also indicates that, number one, based on the ILO
reports, that we've got 2 million children working right now in Peru.
It also indicates, the same reports, that 33,000 people are currently
subject to forced labor in the Amazon region. Our own State Department
reports that there is extensive noncompliance with the minimum wage
guidelines, and that more than half of the population in Peru earns the
minimum wage. You know what the minimum wage in Peru is? $3.60 a day.
There was a gentleman up here earlier tonight who said that Peru's
economy was the size of Louisiana. I just beg to differ on that point.
The World Factbook indicates it's less than half. But these conditions
are far from free trade.
Here's what it boils down to. And I appreciate the work that's been
done here today, but I work with a lot of the financial services
companies in the United States in an effort to try to get fair
treatment of our financial service companies around the world. I fly
into places like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Jordan and Turkey to try to get
those central bankers in those countries to treat our financial
institutions, our banks and our investors fairly. We asked them to
specifically adopt world standards that are reliable, adopt
transparency standards that are reliable, and we force them, we compel,
through our economic strength, to meet that standard. But here, when it
comes to requiring free trade and fair treatment of American workers,
we have a general statement here. We have no real tough enforceability
and accountability standards like we require of people who deal with
our financial services companies around the world, and I think that is
a big mistake.
We don't export democracy through the Defense Department. We do it
through these trade agreements. And we've got to fight for the American
worker like we fight for these multinational corporations.
{time} 2130
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield now 4 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this agreement
and thank the gentleman for yielding.
Foreign trade is vital to the United States economy and to my home
State of New Jersey. Since 1945, the world's markets have become
progressively more open thanks in large part to leadership exhibited by
our own country. Our Nation's citizens have benefited. Ambassador Susan
Schwab, our United States Trade Representative, indicates that U.S.
annual incomes are $1 trillion higher because of these trade promotion
agreements, which equates to $9,000 per year for the average American
family. In just the last decade, such free trade agreements have helped
raise our Nation's gross domestic product by nearly 40 percent and add
more than 16 million jobs.
Additionally, trade creates more and better jobs. Manufactured
exports support over one in six manufacturing jobs, an estimated 5.2
million jobs in the United States. Agricultural exports are responsible
for 926,000 jobs. Interestingly enough, U.S. jobs supported by exports
pay American workers more, an estimated 13 to 18 percent above the
national average.
In my home State, international trade is a driving force in our
economy. In 2006, merchandise exports from New Jersey were valued at
$27 billion, which places us ninth among all 50 States and represents a
$10 billion increase since 2002. Such increases benefit not just New
Jersey's manufacturing sector, but also positively impact
transportation, logistics and warehouse activity across our State. It
is also worth noting that in 2006, New Jersey exported $53 million in
goods to Peru.
Indeed, a recent report presented to the New Jersey Commerce and
Economic Growth Commission states, ``New Jersey has the greatest
opportunity of any State to prosper in the new global age due to its
location within the global and continental grid and its systems-wide
resources.''
Beyond the economic benefits, trade builds important international
partnerships that encourage security and prosperity abroad. This
agreement, while relatively small in comparison to others, as well as
other pending agreements with Colombia and Panama, present vital
opportunities to expand our economic freedom, fight narco-terrorism,
expand export opportunities, and build strategic alliances with key
allies in the Americas.
In addition, this agreement would eliminate tariffs for U.S.
companies, expand trade in areas such as textiles and agriculture and
give our own financial services companies more market access. Failure
to execute this pact and others like it would not bode well for our
ability to take advantage of vast global markets. Indeed, as others
have said, over 95 percent of the world's consumers are outside the
United States.
But more importantly, limiting foreign trade counters America's long-
held belief in free enterprise and open markets. We can compete as a
nation in the global marketplace if we reject protectionism and
continue to remove barriers to free and fair trade with countries
around the world. If not, we will only have our own politics and
shortsightedness to blame for the outcome.
I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this agreement.
Mr. LEVIN. It is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy as I appreciate
his leadership.
Mr. Speaker, I have dedicated over 30 years to environmental efforts.
As a Member of this Congress, I successfully fought to enhance
environmental provisions in the Singapore Free Trade Agreement. I have
carried these arguments and opportunities in China, Indonesia and
Vietnam. I didn't support CAFTA because President Bush and the partisan
Republican leadership abandoned efforts to work in a bipartisan fashion
and rebuffed our efforts at environmental protection.
I can't express my appreciation to our chairman, Mr. Rangel, and to
the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Levin, for empowering members to
work with the environmental community to make sure that their voices
were heard. And we have been able to enshrine in this agreement
enforceable, multilateral environmental agreements in the FTA for the
first time in history. Absolutely unprecedented.
We have already been able to use the force of these agreements to
clarify the protections of threatened Peruvian forest wilderness using
the leverage we have already got even before it was enacted. This is
not remotely NAFTA. We have all learned from that experience. It is not
CAFTA, which I didn't support. We have given the critics what they said
they wanted within labor protection and within the environment.
I urge in the strongest possible terms that we vote a new beginning
in trade. Adopting these stringent labor and environmental protections
in the agreement will serve as a foundation for United States trade
policy from this point forward, and I urge its adoption.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Kline).
Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for
his leadership on this issue and so many others.
Mr. Speaker, a number of my colleagues have come to the floor today
to argue passionately, as we have just heard, about the principles of
free trade and whether we should pass the trade agreement between the
United States and Peru. This is a historic moment for U.S.-Andean
relations. The United States and Peru have agreed to formalize this
mutually beneficial economic relationship with this ground-breaking
U.S.-Peru trade promotion agreement.
This agreement opens new markets for U.S. businesses and provides
strong protections for U.S. workers and companies. Additionally, it
furthers the Peruvian market-oriented policies and advances the agenda
that has made Peru one of the fastest growing emerging economies.
Mr. Speaker, this stands in sharp contrast to the policies of
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. We are at the beginning of a new day
in the Andean
[[Page H13281]]
region, and this trade agreement is the first step in a successful
campaign to spread democracy, expand free trade, and stabilize the
region while also taking a stand against poverty and crime.
For our part, this agreement builds on Peru's many strengths and
solidifies an important economic relationship between our two nations,
presenting new market access for U.S. businesses, farmers, ranchers and
consumers. U.S. exporters currently face Peruvian tariffs while
Peruvian exporters are not generally subjected to any tariffs. This
point has been raised many times but cannot be raised enough. We are
working in a one-way street that has been working against us. This is
the time to fix that and make this trade fair.
In my home State of Minnesota, we exported over $24 million worth of
goods to Peru in 2006. These exports cut across all industries, from
high tech computer manufacturers to our local farmers. Passage of this
agreement would provide immediate elimination of tariffs on nearly 90
percent of current U.S. exports to Peru. This would allow producers and
exporters the opportunity to not only preserve but to increase market
share in Peru. As our market share increases, it naturally follows that
prices and income increase and jobs.
A vote in favor of this bill supports job growth, sustains small- and
medium-sized businesses and enhances agricultural competitiveness.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that my colleagues here today join me in
support of this important legislation and vote in favor of America's
workers, America's farmers and American businesses.
Mr. MICHAUD. I am pleased to recognize the gentleman from California,
Congressman Sherman, for 3 minutes.
Mr. SHERMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I have heard a lot of folks talk about the substance of this
agreement. They started reading the agreement at the front. They saw
the substance. They see the labor and the environmental standards. I
think they are reading it in the wrong way. With an agreement like
this, you need to start reading it from the back where the enforcement
provisions are supposed to be.
So let us test the enforcement mechanisms in this agreement. Let me
put forth an extreme possibility, an extreme example. Let's say there
is a military coup in Peru. Let's say the junta is rounding up labor
leaders. Let's say they start executing those labor leaders, God
forbid. Let's say they televise those executions and they are being
conducted by the head of the junta himself. What enforcement is there
in this agreement? Only so much as George Bush decides to have. If he
chooses to do nothing, then no action by any court of this country, no
private action, no act by this Congress will be of any effect.
In contrast, importers will have an absolute right to enforce their
rights to low tariffs on the Peruvian goods they bring into this
country because if the tariff is lower, no customs agent of the United
States could try to collect a higher amount. President Bush has never
inconvenienced a multinational corporation. When in Guatemala, labor
leaders like Marco Ramirez and Pedro Zamora were killed, President Bush
did nothing. When dozens and more, scores of labor leaders in Colombia
are killed, President Bush tells us we should have a free trade
agreement.
The only provisions in this agreement that provide for enforcement
can be nullified at the whim of a man who has no intention of enforcing
this agreement. If you vote for this agreement, it's because you have
faith in George Bush to enforce it.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).
Mr. JONES of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman from California.
Like others before me, I want to say to Mr. Rangel and to Mr. Levin,
to Mr. McCrery and others on our side, thank you for working on this
trade agreement. Absolutely I am opposed to it. I have been here for 14
years and for 14 years I have seen the American worker become less than
a middle-class person and just trying to pay the bills. I don't know
how with this Peru Free Trade Agreement that we can believe we are
going to do a whole lot to help with the trade deficit of this nation,
with the lost jobs of so many Americans.
The United States has lost more than 3.1 million jobs since 2001. The
United States is projected to run a trade deficit of over $200 billion
with China. We even have a trade deficit with Mexico.
Where in the world is this country going? I said yesterday to a
friend of mine, ``I'm afraid we are in the last days of a great nation.
When the basic Judeo-Christian values begin to crumble, the economy
begins to fall apart, where is America going?''
This is not the right trade bill. We could have the right trade bill,
just like we should have had with CAFTA. We almost defeated CAFTA on
this floor but lost it by five or six votes. Peru has less than one-
tenth of the U.S. population, and more than 50 percent of all Peruvians
live in poverty.
Mr. Speaker, it is absurd to expect Peru to become a major consumer
of U.S. finished products. If we really want to do something for
America, why don't we do what is necessary and say to China, stop
manipulating your currency to combat the predatory practices of trading
partners like China; pass legislation to eliminate the $379 billion
disadvantage to U.S. producers and service providers caused by foreign
VAT taxes. That is something we should be working on. Ensure the safety
of foreign-made products sold to the United States from toys to food.
We really need to do those kind of things before we start passing these
trade agreements that some fat cat somewhere is going to make big bucks
while the workers of America continue to go downhill and worry about
paying their utility bills, paying for their children to go to school,
paying the gasoline prices.
Mr. Speaker, one other point and then I am going to close. I am a
conservative Republican. I have believed for so long that we could come
together and we could work together for the good of the American
people, that we are losing the middle class in America. And a lot of
that loss is simply because of good-paying jobs.
Mr. Speaker, I know we will not defeat this, but I pray to God that
we will not forgot America's strength, and America's strength is the
workers of this country.
{time} 2145
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), and I would ask unanimous consent that our very
distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Committee control the rest
of the time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized
for 2 minutes.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this Peruvian Trade
Agreement. We know that it has been increasingly difficult to pass
measures out of this Congress in a bipartisan fashion, and it is
unfortunate. I still believe that this Congress functions best when you
can work in a bipartisan manner.
The vote tomorrow on the Peruvian Trade Agreement will be different.
It will be different because we are embarking upon a new historic
template on these trade agreements, one that embodies core
international labor standards and environmental standards for the very
first time in these trade agreements, fully enforceable, like any other
provision in the agreements.
This debate tonight isn't about whether the United States of America
should remain positively engaged with other countries around the world,
whether we should be trading. We are less than 4 percent of the world's
population. Of course we have to trade.
Rather, the debate is what the rules of trade should be, and will we
do everything we can to begin elevating standards upwards across the
globe or to continue to see this race to the bottom for the lowest
common denominator. With core labor standards and environmental
standards in the body of the agreement, we are, for the first time,
leveling the playing field for our workers so they can successfully
compete in the global marketplace.
[[Page H13282]]
But I also believe that trade is more than just goods and products
and services crossing borders. It is an important part of our
diplomatic arsenal, because when goods and products do cross borders, I
believe armies don't.
I commend the leadership of our committee, the leadership of our
respective parties, and also the President and Susan Schwab, our USTR,
for coming to agreement on this historic trade measure.
But there is one cautionary note I would give to the current
administration and future administrations, and it is the best argument
that the opposition has here tonight, and that is if administrations
refuse to enforce these provisions, it will prove increasingly more
difficult to pass future trade agreements out of this body and we will
continue to lose the confidence of the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support the agreement.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Nebraska (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Herger and
the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee for leading, I think, a
terrific bipartisan effort.
I rise today in support of expanding our Nation's export markets by
passing the bipartisan Peru Trade Promotion Agreement. The agreement
will create significant new opportunities for American farmers,
ranchers, businesses and certainly consumers by opening new markets and
reducing trade barriers, leveling that playing field.
More than two-thirds of current U.S. farm exports to Peru will become
duty free immediately. This trade agreement gives U.S. farmers an
advantage over competitors. For example, U.S. exporters of wheat and
white corn currently pay a 17 percent tariff in Peru, while Argentina
pays only 3.4 percent and controls two-thirds of Peru's market.
You eliminate the 17 percent tariff and give U.S. grain exporters a
leg up. According to the American Farm Bureau Federation, U.S.
agriculture exports could exceed $705 million, an increase of over
1,000 percent from current levels. In addition, Peru has committed to
recognize the U.S. meat inspection system as the equivalent to its own,
thereby allowing imports from facilities approved by our own USDA. Peru
has committed to specific sanitary and phytosanitary terms, removing
barriers to imports of U.S. beef, pork, poultry and rice.
Opening export markets has long been a priority of mine. Earlier this
year I hosted an export seminar which drew forward-thinking individuals
from across my district. They recognized just how vitally important
access to foreign markets can be to our economy.
In 2006, Nebraska's agriculture exports worldwide were around $3.3
billion. A total of 1,125 companies exported goods from Nebraska in
2005. Of those, 877 were businesses with fewer than 500 employees.
Despite high tariffs and other barriers on most agriculture products,
including beef, corn and soybeans, U.S. exporters shipped more than
$209 million in agriculture products to Peru.
Nebraska would benefit from this free trade agreement which provides
U.S. suppliers with access to foreign markets and levels the playing
field with our competitors. As the Omaha World Herald newspaper put it
in today's edition, ``Greater trade opportunities hold clear benefit
for the Midlands. In terms of Nebraska's economic interests alone,
tariffs would be sharply reduced on the State's primary exports to
Peru: chemical manufactures, machinery, and processed foods.''
But more than just economic interests, this agreement builds trust
between two countries. By opening the doors for our exports, we also
open lines of communication. We help improve lives. We foster a sense
of community.
Agriculture markets are tremendously important to my district and the
Nation as a whole, and I hope to help Nebraska's products continue to
compete in the global marketplace. But I also want to help America
remain the greatest Nation in the world. We can do so by opening the
lines of trade and communications to trading partners across the globe.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this bipartisan measure.
Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I only
wish we could have had these moments before the Ways and Means
Committee itself, the respect Members should be afforded when their
State's lost over 200,000 jobs and our Nation millions of jobs to these
trade agreements. At least we have earned the respect. I am sorry that
we only get 5 minutes on the floor. So many people are depending on us.
We know that every time this country signs a free trade agreement
with a developing country we end up outsourcing more wealth and middle-
class jobs. U.S. companies are shuttering faster than we can count. If
these trade agreements were working, America's trade deficit would not
be ringing in at over $800 billion this year, and for every billion,
20,000 more jobs lost in this country. What an unprecedented wipeout of
productive wealth and of jobs and of lives. The sliding value of the
dollar proves it, our staggering debt levels prove it, and the growing
stock market instability proves it.
If we put it in perspective, we were told that when NAFTA passed, and
I voted against that in 1993, our Speaker voted for it, our majority
leader voted for it, I remember that vote very clearly, we were told
that though we had a surplus with Mexico, it would grow. What happened?
We have fallen into deeper and deeper deficit with Mexico every year.
And over 2 million Mexican peasants were upended from their farmland,
creating an endless flow of illegal immigration to this country,
because we were not allowed to offer amendments to provide adjustment
provisions in those agreements for the people of the Third World. Shame
on us.
Then we were told, well, let's move to China. When the China PNTR was
signed, we weren't in trade balance with China; we were actually in
trade deficit. But after PNTR was signed, the deficit doubled and
tripled. The Speaker talked about that tonight. It didn't get any
better; it just got worse. And now we are getting all of the tainted
food and the toys with lead and so forth.
The Jordan Free Trade Agreement had environmental and labor
provisions. They said, that is the dawn of a new decade. Just what they
are saying tonight. Guess what? No enforcement. We know that. They
don't intend to do that. They never did.
Now tonight we look at Peru. Now, with Peru we are already in
deficit; in fact, over $3 billion in deficit with Peru. I hope the Ways
and Means Committee staffer is adding this up, because, you see, the
numbers are in the wrong direction. That is why the value of the dollar
is terrible.
What is interesting about Peru, though, what is the largest export
from Peru to the United States? Gold. Gold. How convenient. And Peru is
the largest silver producing country in the world.
Look at the commodities markets. In whose interest would it be to
bring in more of that here? And we have heard that Caterpillar now
wants to move its production to serve those mines down in Peru. They
are not going to send tractors from Illinois to Peru. They are going to
move the production to Peru and pay those workers nothing. We have seen
the pattern before. Now, please, don't take us to be idiots.
We think about Del Monte and Green Giant. They used to manufacture.
They had all of their product processed in Watsonville, California. I
have been there. My uncles used to work there. Guess what? It is gone
down there.
Do you think they pay these farmers anything? No. We are going to
lose 3 million Peruvian farmers. They are going to be upended just like
the Mexican campesinos were. Have we no heart? Some people have no
heart. We have heart. We are down here tonight. We can't forget them.
I remember Congressman Kucinich was talking about Citigroup.
Citigroup. They just wrote off $11 billion Sunday night, in the wee
hours of the night so maybe nobody would notice. Citigroup has got a
little problem with subprime mortgages, so they want to manage now the
pensions of the world.
They can't manage Social Security yet, so guess where they are going?
[[Page H13283]]
They are going to Peru. They want to manage those dollars, and lots of
other pension funds in this country. They are in trouble. They made
mistakes. They robbed the American people, and I sure hope they don't
come to this Congress for help, because we shouldn't be paying to bail
them out. They are going to go to Peru, and under this agreement, it
makes it easier for them to do that.
Tonight I genuflect, not before the Ways and Means Committee, but
before the mine workers of Peru who are on strike. They went on strike
Monday because these gold exporting firms are making billions. They
doubled their dividends in companies like Newmont, which just happens
to be an American company that owns the biggest gold mine in Peru, in
South America. Actually, it is the second largest gold mine in the
world.
I genuflect before those mine workers because here is what they have
been told. Though the company has doubled its dividends to its
shareholders, they won't give the workers anything. That is one of the
most dangerous jobs in the world. Do you think they care? They are
cleaning up on Wall Street selling that gold. Go to New York. Watch how
that happens. Will they help those workers? No. What the company has
told them, what the government has told them, the government said, Go
back to work or you lose your job in 3 days. You are fired.
That is who we are doing business with, my friends?
I am an old-line Democrat. I came here to represent the majority of
people in this country who are being dispossessed by Wall Street,
dispossessed by the global corporations that think they are worth
nothing. And we had best have a majority of a majority here tomorrow
stand for the workers of this continent who still believe that we are
the beacon of freedom and that they matter.
God bless this country, and God bless our workers.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of U.S.-Peru Free Trade
Agreement. I regret that heretofore the 110th Congress has been a
decisively antitrade Congress, and that is why I want to thank Majority
Leader Hoyer and Chairman Rangel for at least bringing this free trade
agreement to the floor for a vote. It represents a modest step in the
right direction.
One thing is very clear tonight when you look at the facts, and that
is if a Member will not support the U.S.-Peru Free Trade Agreement,
they will support no trade agreement. And as long as I have been a
Member of Congress, I guess I never cease to be amazed, and I certainly
have not been amazed that trade, still for some reason, seems to be
controversial.
We have over 200 years of history teaching us that free trade
delivers a greater choice of goods and services to our American
consumers, and those greater choices mean more competition. More
competition has helped lower prices, and this allows American families
to buy more using less of their hard-earned paychecks. It means more
money to make a down payment on a home. It means more money to send a
child to college. It means more money to help a parent with long-term
care.
According to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, increased trade
since World War II has helped boost U.S. annual incomes by over $10,000
per household; yet the forces of protectionism want to take that away
from the hard-working American family. He goes on further to say that
eliminating all remaining trade barriers could raise U.S. incomes
anywhere from $4,000 to $12,000 a year. Another opportunity for hard-
working American families being denied by the forces of protectionism.
Let's specifically look at the trade agreement before us. In 2006, 98
percent of Peru's exports to the U.S. came into our markets duty free.
Let me repeat that just in case somebody didn't hear; 98 percent of
Peru's exports to the U.S. came into our markets duty free. But U.S.
exports to Peru still face high tariffs.
Under the free trade agreement before us, 80 percent of U.S. exports
of consumer and industrial goods will now enter Peru tariff free
immediately, with the remaining tariffs to be phased out over the next
10 years.
I take particular note, representing the Fifth Congressional District
of Texas, that this agreement is particularly good for American
agriculture, whose success is heavily dependent upon the export market.
Currently, 99 percent of Peruvian agricultural exports enter the U.S.
duty free, again, 99 percent, while U.S. agricultural exports currently
face an average tariff in excess of 16 percent.
Under this trade agreement, two-thirds of American agricultural
exports will immediately enter Peru duty free, including beef, cotton,
wheat and soybeans. And beef is particularly important to many of my
constituents in the 5th Congressional District of Texas.
{time} 2200
I simply don't understand the argument that claims that this trade
agreement is somehow unfair. What's unfair is the status quo. That's
what is unfair. The U.S.-Peru Free Trade Agreement turns what is
currently a one-way trade street into a two-way street. And let's
remember again, 98 percent of their goods already come to our country
duty-free.
Mr. Speaker, competition works. Trade works. We have over 200 years
of history to prove it. But beyond all of the obvious economic benefits
of free trade, we must recognize that fundamentally this is an issue of
personal freedom. Nations don't trade with nations, people trade with
people. And with the exception of national security considerations,
every American ought to have the right to determine the origin of the
goods and services they want to purchase, and that includes a sweater
made in Peru. Who in this Chamber is going to go tell a hardworking
schoolteacher in Mesquite, Texas: No, you can't buy that $15 sweater
from Peru, you have to buy that $31 sweater that is made in Oklahoma.
That is the sweater you have to buy. And if you can't afford it, I'm
sorry, but your little child is just going to have to do without that
sweater.
Mr. Speaker, maybe this institution has the power to do that, but
does it have the right? I don't think so, Mr. Speaker. This is the land
of the free. Countless generations have fought and sacrificed for the
blessings of liberty, and that includes the liberty of trade. To be
anti-trade is to be anti-freedom. It's that simple.
Mr. Speaker, we have 200 years of history to show that America has
benefited from free trade. We need to support this trade agreement.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) who is not only one of the best informed
members on the Ways and Means Committee on trade, but he has done a
heck of a job around this country explaining why this particular free
trade agreement is good for America and good for our trading partners,
for 3\1/2\ minutes.
(Mr. PASCRELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, this is a great day. Tomorrow will be a
great day, also. I have finally found a trade agreement I could agree
with. And the reason why, for the first time, Members from both sides
of the aisle have had a say in what that is. Article I, section 8 is
alive and well.
I want to tell my friend from Texas, I'm sorry he left the floor,
this is the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation
Act. This is not the United States-Peru free trade. See, that got us
into trouble. I want to just correct him that we have the right title
because free trade is what got us into trouble. We need fair trade.
That's what this legislation is all about.
So I rise in strong support of H.R. 3688. This is a bipartisan bill.
This is a carefully crafted measure that deserves broad support.
There is not a single group that I have dealt with recently who
hasn't said, and I have sat with all of them, at the very least that
real progress has been made in the Peru deal. Even the most vociferous
opponents, who may be in this room right now, of this trade deal state
clearly that noticeable achievements have, indeed, occurred.
The new provisions on workers rights and the environment represents
significant accomplishments in crucial areas. And for that, Mr. Rangel
and Mr. Levin, Democratic leadership should be commended, and I salute
you both.
[[Page H13284]]
You don't protect good-paying American jobs by freezing trade. You
don't do it that way. You don't correct the imbalances in trade by
stopping trade. For the first time in a trade agreement, we finally
have fully enforceable obligations that require both FTA parties to
adopt and effectively enforce core labor rights as stated in the 1998
ILO declaration.
By the way, my friends who oppose this legislation, take a look and
put this in context. Since 1934, both parties have gone back and forth
as to who believes in free trade more. Both parties. Neither party is
privy to virtue on this issue of trade. Let's get that straight.
If you look back into the 1960s and 1970s, the same situation.
Democrats were on this floor pointing fingers at the opposition saying:
We need free trade. We need trade that is unbridled.
Check the record. Check the record.
And then we had just the opposite happen after Jimmy Carter became
President. I believe that trade can yield broad benefits to many if
done right. My belief is that trade agreements have been ill-conceived
and crafted clearly not with the best interests of working families. I
have voted against all of them. But this is a good one.
This trade agreement marks a significant step forward. The enemy of
the good is the perfect. And while this trade agreement may not be
perfect, and by the way no one on this floor is, no bill is. This is a
good piece of legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I salute you. Mr. Ranking Member, I salute you. You've
done a great job.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Hunter).
Mr. HUNTER. I want to thank my great colleague for yielding to me.
And let me just say, Mr. Speaker, that I am unalterably against this
deal because I think it doesn't fix the basic defect that we have seen
in every trade deal that we have made in recent years. That defect is,
as most of my colleagues know and understand, that the competitors to
American businesses get their value-added taxes rebated to them by
their home governments and they in turn charge us what effectively is a
tariff in the same amount as that value-added tax when our products go
to their country, and we didn't change this in this Peru Free Trade
Agreement. It's not really free trade, it's only free coming in one
direction, and that's our direction.
Let me explain that very simply. If this podium costs $100 and it is
made in Peru and it is going to be shipped to the United States, their
value-added tax is 19 percent. That means that as they build this
podium in Peru, as they add wood and metal and labor, they pay their
government 19 percent value-added tax. That is how they pay their tax
burden. We have a direct tax burden known as an income tax and a
corporate tax.
When they take this particular podium down to the docks to be shipped
to the United States, the Government of Peru will give them their money
back. They will rebate their taxes to them. Effectively that company
will be working tax-free.
Now, if you made the other podium in the United States and we shipped
it to them under this deal, when that podium gets to Peru to be sold on
their showroom floors, the American manufacturer will face a 19 percent
fee or tariff. So the Government of Peru under this deal will be
allowed to subsidize their guys to the tune of 19 percent and penalize
our guys to the tune of 19 percent.
Let me just say this is an unfair deal. This is the reason why
America has massive trade deficits even to countries that have higher
labor rates than the United States. Until we fix that basic defect, all
these trade deals are bad deals and they accrue to the detriment of the
American worker and the American businessman.
Vote ``no'' on this. And I regret I will not be here tomorrow. I have
to be away from the floor. I wish the vote could have been held
tonight. This is a bad deal.
Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RANGEL. I would like to yield 2 minutes to Mr. Becerra, an
outstanding member of the House leadership as well as an outstanding
member of the Ways and Means Committee, and I thank him for all the
fine work he has done.
Mr. BECERRA. I thank the chairman and also the ranking member, Mr.
McCrery, and Mr. Herger, the ranking member of the subcommittee, as
well as Mr. Levin for the work that they have done to put before us a
bill that we can support in a bipartisan fashion.
I think the gentleman from New Jersey said it best: There is nothing
in life that is free. The longer we continue to talk about trade
agreements as if they are free, we miss the mark. It is not about a
free trade deal, it is having a deal that is good for both sides of
that agreement.
And in this deal, while it is not perfect, we find improvements were
made that for the first time in the history of this Congress will give
us a chance to vote on something that says that we will treat workers
as well as we treat widgets. We will treat people as well as we treat
products. We will protect our workers as well as we protect these
widgets. That is something we have never done before on the floor of
this House. For me, that makes this deal worth voting for because while
we would like to do much better, the perfect should not get in the way
of making progress. Here what we have is a bipartisan deal that will
move us forward.
It is difficult to believe, but in my first 14 years in this
Congress, I saw us have a policy and debate on trade descend to the
point where it became a partisan tool that made it very difficult for
all of us as Americans who represent 300 million other Americans to
come forward together.
This is a chance for us to work together not as Republicans, not as
Democrats, but as Americans to move forward an agenda for the people
who work in this country who produce so many of those goods, for the
people who produce all of those phenomenal products that make this a
great Nation. It is our chance to prove that trade is an American
agenda, not a political agenda, not a partisan agenda.
I am looking forward to the chance to move forward even better trade
deals that recognize that we have to protect and promote the rights of
workers.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. RANGEL. I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to Mr. Crowley who
makes our New York State proud and makes the Ways and Means Committee
proud and is a great Member of this great Congress.
Mr. CROWLEY. I thank my good friend and colleague and the Chair of
the Ways and Means Committee which I so proudly serve on.
I want to thank all those involved in this debate this evening. This
has been a very good debate and one that I think has been fairly
conducted.
I think, though, it is important to look back on the historic nature
of this particular agreement. I say that coming to you as one who has
not been a purist on this. I have not been blind in voting for or
against free trade agreements. I have looked at free trade agreements
and I have weighed them and I have balanced them.
I want to remind my colleagues, some of whom are new and don't know
who I am and what I am about, I did not support WTO for China. I did
not support PNT for China. I did not support a number of the free trade
agreements in the past. But when you look at this free trade agreement
as I have, I support this fair trade agreement, this fair trade
agreement, because it is the right thing to do.
This is a good agreement. It is worthy of the support of every Member
of this House. On May 10 of this year, the chairman of this committee
and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade, along with our Speaker,
reached agreement on a new template moving trade forward in this
Congress. You have to remember that the agreement with Peru was reached
in the last Congress. The Peruvian government agreed to that agreement.
We had a change in government. We adopted a new template. The Peruvian
government took that template, reopened their agreement and passed it
again this year.
They adopted the labor standards and the environmental standards. The
[[Page H13285]]
labor standards include freedom of association, the right to
collectively bargain, elimination of forced and compulsory labor,
abolition of child labor, and elimination of employment discrimination,
not to mention the advancements we have made in environmental
protection. They are not just environmental and labor rights, they are
part and parcel with human rights.
{time} 2215
They are part of their rights and the values of our country that we'd
like to have.
Now, just briefly on Peru. Peru has been a country that has been
developing, and this is an opportunity for them to develop a middle
class, a stronger middle class that will want more of our U.S.
products.
As we mentioned earlier, they already have duty-free and quarter-free
access to the United States. This is about opening up their borders to
what we make.
Once again I want to thank the chairman for your hard work, Mr. Levin
as well, the Speaker and the other side of the aisle for this joint
effort that's been made in a bipartisan way. I wholeheartedly support
this agreement.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I have six speakers and it just seems to me
that if other people are reserving their time, then I yield 2 minutes
to the gentlelady from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz), who not only served
well on the committee but was a part of the team that went to Peru with
Congressman Levin to make certain that we were able to convince the
President, the corporate leaders and the Congress that America was
their friend and wanted to do the right things. It is with great pride
that I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady.
Ms. SCHWARTZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his kind words.
I rise in strong support of the Peru Free Trade Agreement which
passed the Ways and Means Committee with an impressive unanimous vote.
This agreement represents a new direction for trade policy in the
United States.
For the first time, the trade agreement before us includes fully
enforceable labor and environmental standards. The lack of these
standards was exactly why many Democrats, including myself, opposed the
Central American Free Trade Agreement in 2005.
Inclusion of such standards is a significant achievement and will
mean better working conditions for Peruvian workers, a cleaner
environment in Peru, and expanded economic opportunity for both of our
countries.
That is why so many organizations who were previously opposed to
bilateral trade agreements have praised the Peru FTA. For instance, the
AFL-CIO called the Peru FTA, ``an important step toward a trade model
that will benefit working people.''
The United Auto Workers said the agreement represents, ``substantial
progresses in achieving this long-standing objective of the labor
movement.''
Chairman Rangel and Chairman Levin did remarkable work to advance a
new kind of trade agreement. I'm proud of what we were able to
accomplish to further this agreement when the three of us traveled to
Peru in August and met with Peruvian President Alan Garcia.
President Garcia is a true friend of the United States. Building a
strong economic relationship with Peru will also build a stronger
political and diplomatic relationship with this important ally in Latin
America.
Every Member who votes for this agreement can feel proud that they've
supported a trade agreement that represents the interests of Americans.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on this agreement. It's pro-worker, it's pro-
business development, and it's pro-environment. It is a new kind of
trade agreement for the United States. Vote for the trade agreement
with Peru.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire how much time each side has.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Herger)
has 29\1/2\ minutes left tonight. The gentleman from New York (Mr.
Rangel) has 12\1/4\ minutes left this evening. The gentleman from Maine
(Mr. Michaud) has 22 minutes left this evening. I deducted 5 minutes, 5
minutes and 10 minutes to get to those numbers.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve.
Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentlelady from
California 5 minutes, I'll take 20 seconds to make very clear, there's
not one labor organization that has sent a letter out saying that they
support this trade deal. They don't support this trade deal, and to
cherry-pick some of the language in the letter that they've sent I
think is not correct.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Ms.
Linda T. Sanchez).
Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong
opposition to H.R. 3688, which would implement the U.S.-Peru Trade
Promotion Agreement.
This is not a choice between trade and protectionism. It's a choice
between fair trade, which can benefit working families across the
Nation, and unfair trade, which benefits the wealthiest few at the
expense of the rest of us.
While there are some welcome, but minor, improvements to the Peru
FTA, as compared to NAFTA and CAFTA, the agreement essentially is not
good enough. I feel like I'm at a used car lot and the dealer is trying
to sell me a beat-up old NAFTA lemon with a brand new paint job and
trying to tell me that it's a great car.
Well, we learned with NAFTA that there are no refunds for the
American people when they're sold a bad bill of goods. Let's learn from
our mistakes and reject this Peru FTA junker.
To serve the American people, we must work for real trade reform, not
just put a Band-Aid on a trade model that has been bleeding jobs from
this country since 1994.
Supporting this new deal requires us to believe in two things: one,
the actual benefits of the NAFTA free trade model; and two, the
promises of the Bush administration.
Considering the first question, the actual benefits of the NAFTA
model are about as real as the tooth fairy. NAFTA was supposed to solve
illegal immigration by developing a robust economy in Mexico that would
give hardworking people the opportunity to provide for their families
without having to leave their homeland behind. That didn't work.
Instead, undocumented immigration has actually increased. Subsidized
crops from the U.S. pushed millions of farmers off their land, and many
of those displaced farmers ended up emigrating to the United States,
whether or not they had proper documentation, just so they could find
work to support their families.
CAFTA, another so-called improvement on the NAFTA model, was supposed
to include bold new safety and wage protections for workers. But these
protections are disappointingly weak, allowing countries to downgrade
their own labor laws.
We've learned that the NAFTA free trade model is designed to favor
the wealthiest few and corporate bottom line, at the expense of small
businesses, workers, families and our communities.
As to the second question, I think this administration has made it
pretty clear that it has no interest in enforcing labor laws.
The BP Texas City explosion, the Sago and Crandall Canyon mine
disasters, and the failure to protect 9/11 first responders and cleanup
workers who have developed serious breathing ailments, these are just a
few of the more notorious examples of this administration's dereliction
of duty to provide even the most basic protection to workers: the right
to work in a safe environment.
So long as we have to rely on this administration to protect the
rights and safety of working men and women, we will continue to be
disappointed.
To some in this House, the only redeeming value of this trade
agreement seems to be that it's not as bad as the deals with Colombia
and Korea. But that argument misses the point. When they say ``not that
bad,'' we have to stand up for the American people and say ``not good
enough.''
Finally, the Peru FTA offers inadequate protection for numerous
endangered species that live in the forest of Peru, like the giant
river otter and the jaguar. If it's such a great agreement, why has no
environmental group gone
[[Page H13286]]
on record as supporting or embracing this agreement. I ask my
colleagues that and I don't think they have an answer.
Let me just remind my colleagues that I've heard over and over on the
floor tonight that the enemy of the good is the perfect. Well, from
where I sit, the enemy of the good is the bad, and this is a bad
agreement.
We now have a choice before us. We should choose to vote ``no'' to a
nondemocratic process, ``no'' to benefiting big business at the expense
of the little guy, ``no'' to ignoring the will of the American people,
and ``no'' on the Peru FTA.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Davis), an outstanding member of the Ways and Means
Committee and thank him for the support that he's given to us on all of
our issues.
Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, let me make two points, if I can,
about this agreement tonight.
Almost everyone on the Democratic side of this Chamber has at some
point in time in the last 7 years had some point to decry the Bush
administration's tendencies toward unilateralism. Almost everyone on
the Democratic side has had some occasion to say that we wish the Bush
administration would abandon its tendency to go it alone in this world.
If we take that rhetoric seriously, Mr. Speaker, if we take seriously
the idea that we cannot dig ourselves into a barricade and isolate
ourselves when it comes to national security, the same logic has to
apply when it comes to economics.
I fundamentally disagree with Mr. Jones's point earlier that the U.S.
is in decline. We're not in decline. There's nothing wrong in this
country that better policies in the White House would not fix. Because
we're not in decline, because of our underlying strength and underlying
robustness, we ought to be using the economic power that we have to
lift up workers here and to see what we can do to lift up workers
around the world, and that vision is exactly what this agreement is
about.
Second point, Mr. Speaker, the template for this agreement was not
written by this President or this USTR. It was written by Charlie
Rangel, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee; co-signed by
Sandy Levin, one of the strongest supporters of labor in this Chamber;
and co-signed by the Speaker of the House who yields to no one in her
support of organized labor. This is the template and the vision that
the Democratic Caucus constructed.
And I hear some of my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle who
say, well, we don't count on enforcement from the Bush administration.
I don't. I count on the fact that beginning January 20, 2009, there's
going to be a new sheriff in town.
I close, Mr. Speaker, by saying this. This agreement will be enforced
by a new Democratic President of the United States. It will reflect
Democratic values and sometimes, Mr. Speaker, principled leadership
requires taking ``yes'' for an answer.
This agreement and the foundations around it are what this Democratic
Caucus has been seeking for 5 years. Sometimes you have to take ``yes''
for an answer.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I reserve.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
Member from the State of Washington (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, in this debate tonight, it's
almost like we're having two conversations. There's the conversation
about the trade agreement and there is the conversation about larger
economic issues, from environment to jobs to a whole lot of other
issues.
On the Peru Free Trade Agreement, Mr. Rangel and the Ways and Means
Committee have done a great job of putting together a good agreement.
It negotiates a reduction in tariffs and nontariff barriers to help us
economically, and they've also added in labor protection, which we
never got. I voted personally against CAFTA because they hadn't been
included. As Mr. Davis just said, those agreements are exactly what
those of us in the Democratic side of the aisle have been asking for
for a long time.
But the issues that are raised tonight are about the economic
challenges in this country, about jobs lost and transitions. And I
totally agree with the people who raised those issues, that those are
important issues and incredibly difficult challenges for middle-class
workers in this country and for the working poor that we have not
addressed.
Where I disagree with them is the convenient take of simply blaming
trade agreements for that. Trade agreements simply reduce tariffs and
nontariff barriers so that the cost of doing business goes down.
Now, if we have made any mistake on the pro-trade side of the aisle,
it's overselling that. It's presenting it as a panacea that will grow
the economy and benefit everyone and cause no pain. They can't solve
that problem. The trade agreement can't solve all of the challenges
that are presented for poor workers throughout the world. It's a step
forward.
We have lost jobs in this country because of global competition and
technology primarily, not because of trade. The rest of the world
stepped up and decided to participate in the economy. China, the former
Soviet Union, countries that were never there before, now they're
there. They're competing and we're losing jobs.
But it is a mistake both to blame trade and to not focus on the
issues that could actually help: health care, a fairer tax policy,
issues I know that the chairman is working on, issues that would
actually help workers in this country instead of laying it all at the
feet of the Peru Free Trade Agreement, an agreement that simply reduces
tariff and nontariff barriers to free up the flow of goods and help
grow the economy.
It's a good agreement, and we should support it.
{time} 2230
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
Member from Utah (Mr. Matheson).
Mr. MATHESON. I thank the chairman for yielding and I also commend
Chairman Rangel for his work on this agreement. I think it represents a
great step forward on the trade agenda.
Mr. Speaker, I think that it's human nature to have difficulty
accepting change. Change can be traumatic, and we are in a world that's
changing. In a globalized world where technology is taking us to new
places, this flatter world that Tom Friedman talked about in his book,
that's a change. The question is, do you stick your head in the sand
and ignore change, or do you embrace change and try to take advantage
of it?
That's the fundamental issue I think we ought to be talking about in
terms of engaging the rest of the world, engaging the rest of the world
in economic opportunity in a changing world. Mind you, globalization is
a mixed bag, and there are positives and negatives that come out of it,
but the question is, as a country, do we want to try to embrace that
opportunity?
This agreement represents a wonderful step in embracing that type of
opportunity for this country. Beyond the economic benefits, which a lot
of speakers have talked about today, there are also the benefits of
relationships with these other countries. The eight living former
Secretaries of State have all encouraged Congress, in fact, urged
Congress to move ahead with this agreement, to build better ties with
the country of Peru, a good democratic friend in a region of the world
where there are some unsettled countries. This is good policy in terms
of how we have those relationships in South America.
I encourage my colleagues to step away a bit from some of the
rhetoric, as with many issues, that comes out that is not necessarily
accurate. I encourage my colleagues to look at the substance of this
agreement and see how Chairman Rangel has made such progress in coming
up with a responsible new agenda for trade with this Democratic
majority.
As I started, I will close the same way, I commend the chairman, he
has stepped up to the plate in a substantive way. He is moving forward.
[[Page H13287]]
I urge passage of the Peru FTA.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RANGEL. I yield 2 minutes to the outstanding gentlelady from
Illinois (Ms. Bean).
Ms. BEAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this agreement.
I commend Chairman Rangel and Chairman Levin as well as Ranking
Members McCrery and Herger for their important leadership on this
issue.
I am encouraged to see bipartisan support of the U.S.-Peru Trade
Promotion Agreement which recognizes the opportunity to expand
potential to 5,000 small and medium U.S. companies that export almost
$800 million of goods and services to Peru. These small and medium
businesses represent 80 percent of U.S. exports to Peru. They will have
an even greater opportunity with this agreement to compete on a more
level playing field.
The current Andean trade preference allows Peruvian exporters access
to our markets without tariffs while our own exporters are
competitively disadvantaged by tariffs. Americans need not fear
competition. When we remove barriers, we will innovate, we will adapt,
we will compete, and we will succeed in the global market. For those
who are rightfully concerned about jobs, we should remember that our
small and medium businesses, these same businesses that export to
countries like Peru, are creating 80 percent of our domestic job
growth.
American employers will now have the ability to fairly compete to
expand and enter new markets and, in the process, further strengthen
our local and our national economies. I urge my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle to support this agreement.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MICHAUD. I would like to recognize for 5 minutes a very
outspoken, hardworking, freshman Member, Congressman Hare from
Illinois.
Mr. HARE. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, I think tonight on three occasions or maybe four, we
have heard, we need to put a face on trade. I encourage all the
Members, here is the face. It is the face of a refrigerator in
Galesburg, Illinois, manufactured by 1,600 machinists, signed on the
last day before their jobs were exported to Sonora, Mexico, thanks to a
trade agreement that didn't work.
This, my colleagues, is the face of people. This trade deal, while I
commend the framework of it, puts the sheriff, as we have been hearing,
the President of the United States, in charge of it. I sit on the
Education and Labor Committee of the House. We have had three mine
disasters. The President won't do a single thing to protect our miners.
He won't sign the Employee Free Choice Act to give people a right to
collective bargain for it. He will not stand up for America's workers.
He has had to be sued by our own government for one OSHA standard.
Tonight we stand here ready to give this President oversight on this
trade deal. I have been told, well, we'll just subpoena him. We're
trying that. We're trying that with the legal counsel for this
President and Josh Bolten. We'll see how far that gets us.
I take offense, to be honest with you, when people say you won't vote
for any trade deal if you can't vote for this one. Let me say I'll vote
for every trade deal, as long as it's fair, as long as it works for
American workers, as well as the people that we seek to trade with.
How much longer are we going to continue to do this? Fifty-four
percent of Republicans polled don't support this agreement. Almost 70
percent of Democrats don't support it, and 60 percent of Americans
don't.
I ran on this issue. I am the product of a person whose dad lost
their home, not because he did anything wrong, but because he lost his
job. He made me promise two things, take care of your sisters and your
mother, this is shortly before he died, and do not, whatever you do,
Phil, for a living, do not allow this to happen to another family.
I may only be in this Chamber for one term. I don't know. I ran on
this issue. I stand on this issue. I'm proud of my voting record with
this Democratic Caucus. I take a back seat to no one in party loyalty.
But my first loyalty comes to the people who signed this refrigerator.
I have no loyalty to the President of the United States when he has no
loyalty to the people whose jobs he outsourced.
I tried to get an amendment before the Rules Committee that would say
if you can get a free trade agreement, fine, but let's get the safety
net for workers, one this Chamber passed that Mr. Rangel worked so hard
on, whom I give him a ton of credit for.
Let me tell you what happens. The next day he says he's going to veto
it. He won't insure 10 million children, he won't sign a safety net for
workers, and we are going to pass tomorrow a trade agreement and expect
this President to enforce it. Let me ask you all tonight not to be
looking at us as though we are naysayers. We're not.
I would love to put my card in tomorrow and hit the green button, but
I will not, because if I do, I will not come to back to this Chamber. I
don't deserve to come back to this Chamber.
I ran to support these people. I have heard the term
``protectionism'' used this evening. If all of us, Democrats,
Republicans, left, center and right are not going to stand up for the
very people who sent us here, who are we going to stand up for? What
are we as Members of Congress?
I ask you, tomorrow is a very big day. I guess I'm voting ``no.'' I
don't guess, and I told two people today, I do so proudly. I wish I
didn't have to. But I will remember Dave Bedard, who has been
unemployed now after two wage concessions, no health care, a wife who
has cancer.
One Member who is supporting this deal told me that I should go back
to Dave Bedard. And when I said, what should I say to him, that Member
said, You should talk about currency manipulation with him.
I should need a football helmet. He's going to punch me in the nose
if I try.
Vote ``no'' on this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Peru Free Trade
Agreement and the implementing legislation before us today.
Mr. Speaker, my fight against the Peru FTA is a personal one.
Districts like mine represent the very worst of unfair trade--jobs
lost, economies devastated, and lives shattered. In 2004, the Galesburg
Maytag Refrigeration plant relocated to Sonora, Mexico, leaving behind
1,600 unemployed workers--all innocent victims of bad trade policies.
On their last day, all the workers who were laid off signed the final
refrigerator to roll off the assembly line. The inscription on the
fridge reads, ``The last top mount refrigerator produced in Galesburg,
Illinois with pride by the members of IAM Local 2063, September 14,
2004.'' Although devastated, the pride and spirit of these workers
remained strong--a testament to the incredible workers we have in this
country.
This year marks the 5th anniversary of Maytag's announcement that it
would be closing its Galesburg plant. Five years later, the city of
Galesburg is still recovering from the loss of Maytag and many of the
workers are still unemployed.
Unfortunately, the economic nightmare Galesburg has endured is not
unique. NAFTA outsourced a total of 1 million U.S. jobs nationwide with
casualties in every state.
Mr. Speaker, unfair trade is not just a Midwest issue, it is a
national crisis.
Weary of more bad trade deals, last November voters swept fair trade
Democrats into office--sending a clear mandate for a new direction on
trade.
And yet here we are. Voting on another one-sided, so called ``free
trade'' agreement crafted by the Bush administration under fast track
authority.
President Bush's use of fast track has been nothing but a blatant
abuse of power. It has allowed him to force through 4 trade deals built
on the flawed NAFTA-CAFTA model, one of them being the Peru FTA we are
currently debating.
And we all remember what was left behind from NAFTA: the decimation
of the U.S. manufacturing industry and the loss of high paying jobs.
One must look no further than Galesburg to see what the future holds
for American jobs if the Peru FTA is passed.
We can also expect the Peru FTA to benefit big business, similar to
NAFTA. If this agreement is passed, one thing is certain, the rich will
continue to get richer at the expense of the average, hard-working
American.
Some who support the agreement will say that the Peru FTA is not
NAFTA. They will say that the inclusion of labor and environmental
standards set it apart from all former trade deals. Not so fast.
With President Bush's poor track record of enforcing labor rights, it
remains to be seen
[[Page H13288]]
whether these improvements will have any affect at all. In fact, the
President of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has said that he is
``encouraged by assurances that the labor provisions in the [Peru
agreement] cannot be read to require compliance with ILO Conventions.''
We should be more than skeptical.
Moreover, just today the Peruvian government declared a strike by
national miners illegal. So much for real reform.
In short, without the threat of enforcement, our trading partners,
including Peru, have no incentive to uphold international labor
standards.
Mr. Speaker, the truth is that the proposed Peru FTA would
replicate--and in some instances expand on--many of the most
devastating provisions of the flawed NAFTA-CAFTA model.
Despite ``fixes,'' the Peru FTA is nothing but a wolf in sheep's
clothing.
The choice is crystal clear.
Today, Congress can choose to roll the dice when it comes to the loss
of American jobs or we can choose to demand an agreement that bans off
shoring.
Today, we can choose to entrust President Bush with enforcing labor
and environmental standards as we did with the Jordan FTA or we can
choose to accept that these standards will likely be ignored in Peru,
just as they are in Jordan.
Today, we can choose to give big business another win or we can
choose to stand with American middle class families.
Today, Congress can choose to expand the failed NAFTA-CAFTA model to
Peru or we can choose to pursue a new trade policy.
I for one cannot go back to my district and explain that I voted for
another bad trade deal that in all likelihood will result in more job
loss.
I cannot in good conscience face the 1600 Maytag workers who lost
their job and tell them that I voted to continue the hemorrhaging.
I came to Congress because I believe in fair trade that creates jobs
and raises the standard of living for middle class families. I believe
in keeping America competitive. But in my opinion, the Peru FTA does
not pass the test.
For the sake of all workers, I will be voting NO on the Peru FTA. I
urge my colleagues to do the same.
It is time that our trade policy starts serving the interests of
America's working families.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, a very distinguished
and active member of the Trade Subcommittee, Mr. Brady.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I see faces of trade myself. I
recently did a tour of our manufacturing plants. We have over 300 of
them in the Eighth Congressional District of Texas from steel mills to
paper mills. I watched the workers on those lines working every day to
produce those products. Between one-third and one-half of those
products are made for sales overseas.
What they find is that when they try to compete around the world,
they aren't allowed to compete. America is so open for every product
from every country. But when we try to sell our products and our goods,
what we see are America need-not-apply signs all throughout this world.
Our trade policy is to tear down those signs, to give those workers
in my plants a chance to sell their products around the world. There is
a principle applied to the trade that we deal with today. The principle
is, if you or I build a better mousetrap, we should be free to sell it
throughout the world without government interference. If someone else
builds a better mousetrap, we should be free to buy it for our family
or for our business, again without government interference. That
freedom to buy, to sell and to compete our products and our skills is
an important economic freedom.
This trade agreement opens Peru's market, gives us the freedom to
sell our products and goods into that country, for our agriculture
community, for our manufacturing workers, and for our service
community. As importantly, it reaffirms America's long-term commitment
to both growth and prosperity here and at home in Latin America.
This agreement is important because for the first time in a long
time, America is speaking as one voice on trade. Republicans and
Democrats, this Congress and the White House are speaking as one voice
to level the playing field for our farmers and our workers around the
world. We are going from one-way trade to two-way trade.
These free trade agreements that we have with 14 to 15 countries are
working. Today, they are only a small part of the world market, yet
they buy nearly half of what my workers and America's workers export
around the world. We are seeing growth in sales, growth in services,
growth in products, and good-paying jobs in America.
One of the key points today is Peru is a great trading partner and
they have been for 16 years. They have one of the most dynamic emerging
economies in the Americas. They have instituted democratic reforms,
they have decreased poverty, and they have improved their labor and
environmental standards significantly. Why would we turn our back on a
country and a partner like Peru?
It is time to go from a limited partnership of preferences to a full
partnership of free trade with the country of Peru. Tonight I heard
people say, well, the Peruvians don't support this. The workers don't
support this.
How arrogant. The Peruvian Congress has twice voted overwhelmingly to
ratify this agreement. They elected a President based on his support of
this trade agreement. Their leading lawmaker's party ran on supporting
this agreement. How arrogant it is for us to talk about Peru when their
own elected leaders support this agreement.
It is important, not just about jobs for America, not just about jobs
in Peru, it is important we remain engaged in Latin America. There is a
reason why eight of our living Secretaries of State have implored this
Congress to stay engaged. Now is not the time to build walls to Latin
America. Now is the time to build bridges.
Now is the time to continue to stay engaged as countries like Peru
reject the influence of Hugo Chavez and embrace democracy and free
speech and the rule of law and labor rights and human rights. They are
doing the right thing. We ought to be reaching out and responding more
to them.
I will make this point. America does create jobs through trade. In
1995, when NAFTA first took effect, our economy was less than $7
trillion. Today it is more than $13 trillion. Back then we had 115
million people working in America. Today we have over 140 million
people working in America.
Trade creates jobs, and look at the top 10 trade States whose jobs
are dependent upon our sales: Texas, California, New York, Washington,
Illinois, Michigan, Florida, Ohio, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, all the
top 10 States whose jobs are directly related to exports. Then we have
the heartland States of agriculture and the high tech States throughout
the country, all of which depend upon us opening new markets, tearing
down that sign, and creating jobs. This is an agreement worth our
support.
Mr. RANGEL. I would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar).
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to encourage my colleagues to
support the Peru Trade Agreement. But first I want to thank Chairman
Rangel for the leadership, for providing a very balanced approach to
trade here in the United States. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The objectives of the Peru Trade Agreement are two. One is to provide
a substantial access for U.S. exports, and number two is to promote
political stability in the western hemisphere and to strengthen U.S.
national security.
Let's look at the purpose of a free trade agreement. The purpose of a
free trade agreement is to lower tariffs.
{time} 2245
But let's look at the current situation we're in. Right now,
currently, 98 percent of the U.S. imports from Peru enter into the
United States duty free under the most favored nation tariff rates and
various preferences programs, including the Andean Trade Preference
Act, the Generalized System of Preferences, GSP, and the Caribbean
Basis Initiative. It is a one-way street where those imports come into
the United States.
Upon implementation of this Peru trade agreement, 80 percent of all
U.S. goods entering Peru will be immediately duty free, and the
remaining 20 percent of goods will have the tariffs removed over the
next 10 years. So what we're doing by this trade agreement is to make
it into fair trade, into a two-way street. It's a one-way street coming
in the United States, and what we want to do is make it two ways so
[[Page H13289]]
we can also have more exports and, therefore, make sure that we have a
trade surplus with Peru.
The passage of this agreement will continue to remove barriers of
trade of the Andean region and send a clear message to other nations
that the establishment of democratic rights, the removal of restrictive
tariffs, and the opening of markets to free trade will net positive
results.
Peru is a market of almost 30 million people, and this presents
opportunities for the U.S. businesses that they currently do not have
at this time.
Although comprising 7.5 percent of the global, this will open up
trade.
And I thank again, Mr. Speaker, the chairman for providing this
legislation.
Mr. HERGER. I reserve.
Mr. MICHAUD. I reserve.
Mr. RANGEL. How much time do I have, Mr. Speaker?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. You have a total, Mr. Rangel, of 7\1/4\
minutes, which means to preserve your 5 minutes for tomorrow you have
2\1/4\ minutes left this evening.
Mr. RANGEL. Well, I am the last speaker, so whatever they want to do
they can do. I may have to ask my friend on the other side for a minute
or two to close, but I may not. So why don't I reserve and see what
happens.
Mr. HERGER. I reserve my time to close as well on our side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. And so, as I understand this current
situation, Mr. Rangel will use his 2\1/4\ minutes to get down to 5
minutes. Reserve 5 minutes.
You will close and then yield all your time back except for 10
minutes for tomorrow.
And it now falls to you, the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud).
Mr. MICHAUD. So if I understand you correctly, for debate purposes
this evening, the gentleman from New York has 2\1/4\ minutes.
The gentleman, how much time does he have this evening?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. He has a total of 34\1/2\ minutes left, and
take off 10 minutes, so he has 24\1/2\ minutes left this evening.
Mr. MICHAUD. 24\1/2\ minutes.
Do you have any additional speakers?
Mr. HERGER. Just myself to close on our side.
Mr. MICHAUD. Okay. Well, I would now recognize an outstanding
freshman Member in the 110th Congress, the gentlelady from Ohio (Ms.
Sutton), who's done a great job on trade issues. I yield her 6 minutes.
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, just over 11 months ago I arrived in these
hallowed Halls as a Congresswoman representing the people of Ohio's
13th Congressional district.
During my campaign, and now as a Member of Congress, I have spoken
with workers and their families in Akron and Lorain and other
communities throughout northeast Ohio. And let me tell you about these
proud, hardworking people who I am so honored to represent. All they
really want is a government that works with them, not against them.
They want a good job that will allow them to care for their families,
put food on the table, and help them send their children to college.
And one of the many things that they understand very clearly is that
our global trading system is broken, and our workers, and our
businesses, our farmers, and our communities are being left at a
devastating disadvantage.
In Ohio, we have lost over 200,000 manufacturing jobs since 2001, and
that means a lot of families are suffering. And last November, my
constituents and the American people across this country, they cast
their ballots seeking a new direction on trade. And that's why it is so
important that this Congress understand the connection between what we
do here today and the impact that will have not only on people's
livelihoods, but on their beliefs and on their ideas about what we
stand for.
Mr. Speaker, people seldom look very hard for things they don't want
to find. But Members of this esteemed body should not be so blinded by
their yearning to support trade to not recognize the realities of its
harmful effects on our families and communities.
Mr. Speaker, it may be easy to say that our current trade policies
are working when you've not talked to families in Akron, looked into
the eyes of their children, or walked down the streets in Lorain.
It may be easy to think that our broken system is benefiting our
Nation's businesses when you ignore the voices of small businesses in
Barberton and Elyria. And it may be easy to think we should continue
down a crumbling path when you drown out the concerns of workers in
Brunswick and Strongsville and Cuyahoga Falls.
But I learned, as we all do when we're young, that if something is
broken, you fix it. You really fix it. If something no longer works,
develop a new product that fits your needs and allows you to move
forward. That's what we need to do with our trade policies. But,
unfortunately, that's not what is happening here.
Mr. Speaker, the same promises that have been used over and over and
over to justify passage of free trade agreement after free trade
agreement are being heard here again tonight. Some are pleading that
this is an historic breakthrough, and oh, how I wish that that were so.
But it is not. And saying it is does not make it so.
It's clear that our current trade policies are not working, despite
the same past promises made. We see this in the reality of a nearly $1
trillion trade deficit, tainted imported food and products, currency
manipulation, illegal subsidies, offshore jobs, and devastated families
and communities.
Mr. Speaker, we could develop a new model that addresses these issues
and puts American workers and businesses in a position to compete on a
level playing field and truly raises the standard of living for those
in other nations, but, unfortunately, the Peru FTA fails to do this. It
locks in problems with food safety, procurement, Social Security
privatization, among others. And most importantly, we know very clearly
it will not be enforced.
Just look at one of the agreement's strongest supporters, the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce. They were very encouraged that the labor
provisions in the bill could not be read to ``require compliance.'' And
today, in The Washington Post, we learned from the Columbia law
professor, Mark Barenberg, that the Peru FTA actually imposes lighter
sanctions for labor standard violations than current trade law
requires. Now, proponents will say that's not true. But that's what
Columbia Law Professor Mark Barenberg says. The Peru FTA actually
imposes lighter sanctions for labor standard violations than current
trade law requires.
So, Mr. Speaker, what are we going to do today for my constituents
and those who elected us to move in a new direction on trade?
What will be the true legacy of this historic Congress? Will it be
our legacy to pass more harmful trade policies and trade agreements
like the one before us? Or will it be a different course, one of
fairness, one of justice, one that will allow our workers and business
a truly fair playing field?
I urge a ``no'' vote on the agreement.
Mr. HERGER. I yield myself so much time as I may consume.
I'd like to begin by just mentioning the last speaker, the gentlelady
from Ohio, the Independent International Trade Commission estimates
that Ohio's exports to Peru will grow by some 38 percent. And that 38
percent is in such areas as machinery equipment, chemical products,
transportation equipment, computer and electronic equipment and plastic
and rubber products.
Mr. Speaker and Members, I wish to express my strong support for H.R.
3688, the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation
Act. The Peru TPA will eliminate or significantly reduce Peruvian
tariffs and address other trade barriers to U.S. goods. That Peru TPA
also is an important means to promote democracy and stability in Peru
and will further strengthen our relations with this strong partner of
ours.
Today, nearly 6 months after reaching the May 10 bipartisan trade
deal, we consider the Peru TPA on the House floor. I'm pleased for our
farmers, ranchers, businesses, workers and consumers that this long-
promised day is now a reality.
The Peru TPA will provide significant reciprocal market access
benefits for these constituent groups. The International Trade
Commission estimates that the Peru TPA will increase
[[Page H13290]]
U.S. exports to Peru by $1.1 billion. But U.S. imports from Peru will
only increase by less than half that, or $439 million.
The ITC also estimates that the Peru TPA will add $2.1 billion per
year to the U.S. gross domestic product. According to the Office of the
U.S. Trade Representative, the Peru TPA's many benefits include the
following: 80 percent of U.S. exports of consumer and industrial goods
will be duty free immediately, and all remaining tariffs eliminated
within 10 years.
More than two-thirds of U.S. farm exports to Peru will become duty
free immediately, including beef, wheat, soybeans, tree nuts, such as
almonds, and various fruits and vegetables, such as peaches.
U.S. services firms will have substantial market access across Peru's
service sectors, with very few exceptions. Almost all U.S. exports of
information technology products will be duty free immediately, and
there will be important protections for U.S. investors, intellectual
property rights, worker rights and environment.
In my home State of California, the Peru TPA will offer tremendous
market opportunities for our exporters. In 2006, California's farmers
and businesses exported roughly 180 million in goods to Peru, including
computers and electronic machinery, metal products and agricultural
products. The elimination of tariffs and other trade barriers will help
support the nearly 20 percent of manufacturing jobs and roughly 135,000
agricultural-related jobs in California alone that depend on exports.
The Peru TPA will also lead to a more substantial and reciprocal
trading relationship between Peru and the United States. The current
Andean trade preferences given by the United States to Peru have been
important to its economic development and stability, but they provide
little benefit to the U.S. exporters.
Today, for example, 97 percent of Peru's exports to the United States
are already duty free. But only 2.8 percent of Peru's tariff lines are
duty free for U.S. exporters.
{time} 2300
The Peru TPA will level this uneven playing field. Given the
importance of the Peru TPA as well as the pending free trade agreements
with Panama and Colombia, I was pleased to participate in a recent
bipartisan fact-finding trip to the region led by U.S. Commerce
Secretary Carlos Gutierrez. This trip underscored to me that the Peru
TPA will move our economic relationship to a new level and help make us
even closer strategic allies.
I want to close by reminding my colleagues that our work is not done
today. The May 10 bipartisan trade deal was designed to pave the way
for a new bipartisan approach to trade policy and consideration of all
four pending FTAs, not just the Peru TPA. In fact, the May 10 deal
amended all four pending FTAs, not just the Peru TPA. I urge the
majority to now act on the commitments made with the May 10 deal and
move the three pending free trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and
Korea.
We must not let this unique moment pass us by, especially when the
E.U., China, and other countries are strengthening their trade ties in
Latin America and Asia and threaten to pull ahead.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to my good
friend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). I want to thank the
chairman, Mr. Rangel, for your strong work and your leadership along
with Chairman Levin of the Trade Subcommittee and the Democrat members
on your side for working to have this bill come through the Ways and
Means Committee with a unanimous ``aye'' vote. I commend you and for
your many years of working in this area of fair trade.
With that, with the addition of the 3 minutes I yield, I yield back
my time for this evening.
Mr. RANGEL. Let me thank my friend Mr. Herger for the great work that
he has done.
Mr. Speaker, as we wrap up this debate, I think that we have had
tremendous success in what we have done because, regardless of which
way the votes have come, isn't it wonderful, Mr. Herger, that we do
have a bill on the floor, that Republicans and Democrats are discussing
it, and we broke this barrier that because of party label, people could
decide how we felt about something?
And I have decided that we have a bigger job to do really than just
talk about trade. I really think if the multinationals and the trade
ambassadors and the Congress spent more time in feeling the pain of
those people who were not the beneficiaries of trade, where people who
worked hard for generations and life was always better for their kids
and their grandkids, and how depressing it is to see all of that lost
and the multinationals not bringing that technology and that innovation
to our communities and our towns so that people could get their dignity
restored. We have got to do a better job. And whether it's related to
trade or whether it's not, when you're out of work and you've lost your
dignity, what difference does it make?
And when you hear people say that they campaigned against trade, they
campaigned against the indifference of our government to care about
working people. They were campaigning against the spear because how
could you possibly campaign against trade? You can't campaign against
trade. You can't say everything we grow and everything that we
manufacture, that we don't want someone to buy it. And you can't say
that America can be as stable as it is. Somebody's working. Someone's
doing well. But the people who campaign against trade are communities
of people who are not doing well, and this country has not done well by
them.
So we have got to make an appeal to the multinationals and to our
government that they have to not sell trade where it's working; they
have to sell trade where it is not working. Because, realistically, no
one could have campaigned against the Peruvian agreement. It hadn't
been decided. And if you campaign against trade, it's not realistic.
But if you campaigned against making America strong and making certain
that when you stamp an agreement, you see dignity in that agreement,
you see a care for the environment, a care for workers, and you see a
concern for those people who are going to be disadvantaged by that
agreement. And if they are disadvantaged by anything even other than
the agreement, which, as Mr. McCrery said, when we were told by the
United States Trade Representative and she said, Mr. Chairman, you
know, a lot of people are complaining about loss of jobs. It has
nothing to do with trade. And Mr. McCrery said, What difference does it
make? As long as they think it is, it's going to be very difficult to
sell the question of trade.
So we've got a big job to do. This is only the beginning. And after
you have said no, no, no to trade, we have to make certain that those
towns come back. And I am not that good at projecting what's going on,
but I was telling my dear friend Joe Crowley, I bet you that those who
feel the strongest against the Peruvian agreement come from communities
who have had a lot of economic pain, and those people who even think it
was a bad trade agreement if they were doing good, they would allow a
Member to make up their mind what they want to do. And so it means that
we have got a long way to go but this is truly a beginning. We now have
people expressing themselves and asking more from their government to
help Americans that deserve better treatment than they have been
getting.
The only thing that bothered me in the debate is the whole idea that
the Speaker of this House and the members, Republican and Democrats, on
this committee would bring forth a bill that they thought that
Americans would suffer. It's one thing to differ with the contents of
the bill; it's another thing to think that we are trying to sell CAFTA
or NAFTA or bills that the Speaker has constantly been against. And
speaker after speaker after speaker said that realistically if you take
a look at Peru, how can it do anything except help us? How can it do
anything that we're going to sell to them now, notwithstanding the
tariff? Imagine how much more we can sell without the tariff? And when
they sell, doesn't it mean that we're making it? If they're buying
food, doesn't it mean we're growing it? And doesn't it mean in the
communities that have it, we'll be doing well?
[[Page H13291]]
So let me thank the minority and let me thank the majority. It's been
a great debate. Let's get on and say that this Peruvian bill is just
the beginning of the cooperation we should expect.
Thank you, Mr. Herger. And thank you, the majority.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maine now has the
opportunity to utilize the rest of his time tonight. He has 6\3/4\
minutes remaining this evening.
The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. MICHAUD. I thank the Speaker.
I urge my colleagues to listen to their conscience and constituents
by voting against this bill.
I worked at Great Northern Paper Company for over 28 years. My father
worked there for 43. My grandfather before him for 40. Three days after
I got sworn in as a Member of Congress, the very mill I worked at
decided to close its doors because of trade.
Trade is not just a policy. It's a face, a name, a job, a family. The
debate is, when will we change the course of trade policy so it can
benefit the American economy, the American workers, the American
families? When will we finally change our direction on trade and adopt
a policy that makes sense for America?
A ``no'' vote on Peru means we want a new direction in trade. A
``no'' vote means we are sick of watching our jobs go overseas. A
``no'' vote means we reject imports made by child and slave labor.
Supporters of this trade agreement claim that strong labor and
environmental protections are included. Then why does labor not support
this bill? Why do the environmental groups not support this bill? And
why does the President of the United States Chamber of Commerce support
this bill? He made it very clear that the labor provisions are
unenforceable. Those are his words.
This agreement is still based upon the same flawed NAFTA-CAFTA model.
The proponents like to say it's not. But if you look at the investment
chapter, the core investment chapter language, there are very little
changes in that chapter in the core investment.
Now is the time for Congress to take a step back and consider what
policies on trade is the best option, not the quickest one or the
easiest one or the most politically expedient one.
In 2006, the American electorate voted overwhelmingly for Congress to
move in a new direction. This is a golden opportunity to create a new
policy, one that will help our workers achieve their highest potential,
one that will protect our environment, one that will increase the
standards of living for all countries involved.
Earlier this year, the Peruvian labor leaders had sent a letter to
the Democratic leadership, and it gets to the point that Congressman
Kucinich made earlier, urging Congress to reject this bad trade deal.
They said if we have to accept it, make one change for us, and that has
to do with privatization of Social Security. I would like to quote from
that letter:
``By rejecting the Peru FTA, the United States Congress and the
Democratic Party in particular can show the world that they can
advocate in not only words but deeds.''
We have failed when it deals with the issue of globalization that was
talked about earlier. We have failed to put on the President's desk the
currency manipulation legislation. We have failed to put on the
President's desk the value-added tax that we heard earlier this
evening. We have failed to put on the President's desk legislation that
will eliminate the tax haven. We have not made the USTR enforce these
labor agreements.
The American people were not fooled about NAFTA. We heard a lot of
the discussions during the NAFTA debate this evening about Peru. Over 3
million jobs have been lost because of NAFTA. Illegal immigration has
increased partly because of NAFTA.
The American people will not be fooled about this trade deal. They
will understand over time what this trade deal will mean to America.
It's important for this Democratic Congress to start looking at trade
in a different light, to make sure that we have a trade policy that is
fair, not only in words but in actions.
And that's why labor does not support this. That's why a lot of the
environmental groups do not support this. But that is why the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce supports this trade deal, because it's good for the
large multinational corporations.
Right now, with this Democratic Congress, we have a chance to embrace
globalization and make it work, to make it work for America, not
against America.
{time} 2315
As you heard earlier this evening from several of my colleagues who
are opposed to this trade deal, it's about human faces. These
individuals are just not numbers; they're human beings. And we, as a
Congress, particularly a Democratic Congress, have to stand up for the
individuals who cannot stand up for themselves.
This is a bad trade deal for America, and it is a bad trade deal for
this Congress.
So, I implore my colleagues to vote against this trade deal tomorrow.
I encourage you to continue to try to work with the Ways and Means
Committee so we can come up with a new trade model that will actually
work for America.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the time and rise
in support of H.R. 3688, the U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement. Peru
has been a longstanding ally in the region with the war against illegal
narcotics and has committed to opening its markets and providing
American businesses, farmers, ranchers and workers the opportunity to
establish economical ties in that country.
Because of globalization and the benefits of growing business,
cultural, and technological connectivity, Peru has become one of the
fastest growing economies in Latin America with an 8 percent GDP growth
in 2006. Our two-way trade with Peru has doubled over the last three
years reaching $8.8 billion in 2006, with U.S. exports reaching $2.9
billion. However, because of the most-favored nation tariff rates and
the various preference programs, including the Andean Trade Preference
Act and the Generalized System of Preferences, 98 percent of Peru's
exports enter the U.S. duty free.
While Peru's number one source of imports comes from the United
States, U.S. products are subject to tariffs as high as 20 percent.
With this agreement, the playing field will even out for U.S.
businesses and move us from a one sided agreement to a full
partnership. Once this agreement enters into force, 80 percent of U.S.
consumer and industrial products will enter Peru duty free, while
remaining tariffs phase out over ten years.
Like our past free trade agreements, Peru will prove to be beneficial
to the U.S. economy. In the last 3 years, we have entered into several
Free Trade Agreements with Chile, Singapore, Australia, Morocco,
Bahrain, Oman, and several Central American nations and the Dominican
Republic under CAFTA. And the results of these agreements have proven
to be beneficial to the U.S. economy, businesses, and workers alike.
Three years after the U.S.-Chile FTA entered into force, our exports
more than doubled reaching nearly $7 billion last year. Likewise, our
exports to Singapore nearly quintupled over the first three years also
reaching $7 billion. In 2006, one year after implementing the CAFTA-DR
FTA, the United States exported $19.6 billion worth of goods, up 16%
from the previous year. In 2005, almost 4,000 companies exported goods
from Virginia of which 82 percent were small and medium-sized
enterprises (SMEs), with fewer than 500 employees.
But free trade agreements are more then just buying or selling
products. They are also about adhering to sets of rules such as respect
for intellectual property rights and with this agreement enforcement of
international labor and environmental protections.
A free trade agreement with Peru will establish greater protection
for Intellectual Property rights, a growing concern for U.S. businesses
and a particular concern for the N. VA technology community. It is
estimated that intellectual property piracy costs the U.S. economy
between $200 and $250 billion per year in lost sales and is responsible
for the loss of 750,000 jobs. This agreement will improve standards for
defending intellectual property by including state-of-the-art
protections for digital products such as U.S. software, music, text,
and video.
Peru is the first free trade agreement that includes fully
enforceable commitments to adopt and maintain fundamental labor rights
as stated in the International Labor Organization's Declaration on
Fundamental Principles and Rights at work. This agreement will also
include critical provisions emphasizing our commitment to our
environmental values by addressing the impacts of illegal logging and
establishing specific and enforceable requirements to prevent the trade
in illegally sourced timber.
Finally, this agreement will emphasize U.S. support for a country
that values democracy,
[[Page H13292]]
economic freedom and growth. Trade with Peru will continue to
significantly increase opportunities for economic growth and help Peru
further develop and modernize its economy. Recently, Peru has
experienced a decline in their poverty rate from 54.3 percent in 2001
to 49.5 percent in 2006.
As a friend of trade and of Peru, it is essential we continue to
cultivate this partnership so our two nations can continue to prosper
and be competitive in this growing global economy. I ask my colleagues
to vote ``yes'' for the U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to a Peru Free Trade
Agreement that is neither free nor fair. Much like the North American
and Central American Free Trade Agreements, this agreement will hurt
both working families and the environment.
Building on the Bush Administration's framework for CAFTA, it
promotes the offshoring of high-wage American manufacturing jobs by
removing many of the risks firms face when relocating to Peru in
pursuit of cheap labor.
Much like NAFTA, it enables foreign companies to challenge--in
foreign courts--American laws that protect occupational health, safety,
and the environment. Already, NAFTA signatories have paid more than $35
million to corporations that have through this provision attacked bans
on the use of toxic chemicals, limits on tobacco production and
marketing, and regulations on deforestation.
In one case that hit particularly close to home, a foreign firm
challenged
California's ban on the use of polluting gasoline additive MTBE. As a
result, American taxpayers were forced to pay more than $3 million in
legal fees before the case was eventually dismissed on technical
grounds.
This agreement also undercuts Congress' authority to ensure American
tax dollars are spent to create jobs in America by enabling President
Bush to waive existing `Buy America' policies. And it enables foreign
firms to challenge American procurement policies designed to promote
recycling and renewable energy.
That's why numerous American labor, environmental, consumer, faith,
family farm, and development groups oppose this agreement. Both of
Peru's labor federations, its major indigenous people's organization,
and a prominent Archbishop in the country oppose this agreement as
well.
To be fair, this agreement does significantly improve upon the flawed
framework provided of the North American and Central American Free
Trade Agreements. For new labor and environmental protections that were
absent from prior trade deals, I want to thank and recognize the hard
work of my colleagues on the Ways and Means Committee.
Making measured alterations to the rules of the same old game,
however, is the wrong approach. Rather than improve on President Bush's
trade agreements at the margins, Democrats can and should set the terms
of the President's negotiating authority in a way that honors our
commitment to America's workers and the environment.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I believe in free and fair trade. Trade
creates jobs in the United States and helps build our relationships
with countries around the world.
But not all trade agreements are created equal.
That is why I evaluate trade agreements on a case-by-case basis. I
voted against NAFTA in the face of enormous pressure from my own party,
and against CAFTA because I felt it suffered from the same flaws as
NAFTA. I stand by those votes and believe that subsequent events have
proven them to be sound.
But on carefully reading the Peru FTA is worth supporting.
This FTA makes real strides in protecting workers and the
environment, and the key is that core ILO standards and adherence to
multilateral environmental agreements are enforceable obligations. For
example, this means that Peru cannot violate the Convention on Marine
Pollution or allow employers to use temporary contractors to substitute
for striking workers. If it does, the United States can bring a case
against Peru, and just like the other provisions of the agreement, the
case could end with Peru being subjected to sanctions. This gives these
provisions real teeth.
Chairman Rangel has secured the protections many in my party have
demanded. I urge us to take ``yes'' for an answer.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, agricultural trade is critical to the state
of Missouri. Exports of farm products boost Missouri's farm prices and
farm income. Such exports support about 17,900 Show-Me State jobs both
on and off the farm in food processing, storage, and transportation. In
2006, Missouri agricultural exports amounted to $1.4 billion and made
an important contribution to Missouri's farm cash receipts that totaled
$5.6 billion that year.
The U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement would provide increased
market access to Missouri's agricultural exports by making agricultural
trade a two-way street. Currently, 98 percent of Peru's agricultural
exports benefit from tariff-free access to the U.S. market. On the
other hand, most U.S. farm and food exports to Peru are subject to high
tariffs and other non-tariff restrictions.
Current tariffs on U.S. agricultural goods exported to Peru average
18 percent. As a result of this agreement, duties on more than 2/3 of
these goods, such as prime and choice cuts of beef, soybeans, soybean
meal, crude soybean oil, cotton, and wheat would be eliminated
immediately. Duties on pork, dairy, corn, and beef varieties would be
phased out over a period of time.
Because the U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement is so beneficial to
American agriculture, it has been endorsed by four former Secretaries
of Agriculture--John Block, Bob Bergland, Dan Glickman, and Clayton
Yeutter.
Additionally, eight former Secretaries of State have endorsed the
U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement because it is in the national
security interest of the United States to maintain and build strong
economic alliances with our Latin American neighbors. These former
Secretaries include Colin Powell, Madeleine Albright, Warren
Christopher, Lawrence Eagleburger, James Baker, George Shultz,
Alexander Haig, and Henry Kissinger.
Over the past twenty years, Peru has transformed from bloody civil
unrest to a democratic nation with freely elected leaders who are
embracing reform and strengthening the rule of law. In that time, trade
has fueled Peru's economic expansion and helped to increase per capita
income levels. Peru has been a strong U.S. ally in our efforts to
eradicate narcotics trafficking and to combat terrorism in the Western
Hemisphere.
Because this agreement will benefit Missouri agriculture and
strengthen our friendship with Peru, I am pleased to support the U.S.-
Peru Trade Promotion Agreement and hope it will be quickly approved and
signed into law.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, it is with great frustration
that I must speak out in opposition to the US-Peru Trade Promotion
Agreement.
I am a strong supporter of fair trade and have voted to support every
trade agreement during my time in Congress. The benefits of these
agreements are clear. They lower barriers and open new markets for
Central Washington farmers, and they create new opportunities for
manufacturers and producers in Washington state and across the nation.
Given a chance to compete fairly and our farmers will lead the world in
exporting high-quality fruits and vegetables.
That is why I deeply regret the totally unfair provisions in this
Peru agreement relating to asparagus. This agreement forces our
American asparagus growers to pay the price for a failed anti-drug
effort in South America that has actually resulted in more cocaine
production.
The Peru Trade Promotion Agreement is preceded by the Andean Trade
Preferences Act of 1991. This Act was a unilateral granting of access
to American markets for the Andean countries of South America. Its
purpose was to allow legal manufacturing and farm exports into our
country in an effort to fight and reduce drug production and shipments
from these countries. It has been an abysmal failure. Since this one-
way trade system was put in place, cocaine production in the Andean
countries is actually higher now than when the agreement was put in
place.
However, since the Andean Act was enacted, imports of fresh asparagus
from Peru went from 4 million pounds a year to over 87 million pounds
in 2006. That's a 2000 percent increase! This flood of US-subsidized
foreign imports cut asparagus production in Washington state from $200
million in 1990 to approximately $75 million today. American growers
were given no transition period. No time to adjust. No consideration
whatsoever.
Corporations have closed asparagus processing facilities in the
United States, only to reopen them in Peru.
What our government's policies have done is magically create an
industry in a foreign country under the flawed logic that Peruvians
would grow asparagus instead of cocaine--when the two crops are grown
in two totally different regions of that country.
When the United States and Peru completed negotiations on this
agreement in December of 2005, I expressed my disappointment with the
trade deal and the treatment of asparagus. This was after months of
meeting with and encouraging American negotiators to fix it.
I regret that in the almost two years since then, the attention of
the Administration to addressing the injustice wrong done to domestic
asparagus growers has been non-existent. It's been up to those few of
us in Congress, both Representatives and Senators, who represent
asparagus producers to work together to try and bring some degree of
fairness.
We are making progress and there is movement in the right direction,
but we are still a long ways from it becoming reality. I hope we
[[Page H13293]]
are successful in our efforts and I would welcome the attention and
assistance of the Administration.
American asparagus growers deserve better than to be ignored and
placed at a competitive disadvantage by their own government. Until
fair treatment and assistance to American asparagus growers is a
reality, I am unable to support this agreement.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R.
3688, the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement, and urge my
colleagues to support this important legislation.
I would like to thank Chairman Rangel and Subcommittee Chairman Levin
for their hard work on the U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement. Through
their leadership, for the first time in U.S. trade policy, the trade
agreement we are considering today incorporates internationally
recognized labor and environmental standards and other key priorities.
This was a major achievement and I am pleased that this new Congress
has pushed forward a trade policy that will expand and shape trade in
ways that spread the benefits of globalization here and abroad by
raising standards. Congress is resuming its proper role as an active
and full participant in the development of U.S. trade policy.
Under these circumstances, a new approach to trade policy--one that
better reflects American values and spreads the benefits of
globalization broadly--is especially critical. This is the kind of
approach that we have long espoused and will begin to implement with
the Peru FTA. Once enacted into law, this FTA will lock in these gains
and give us a basis to build on in the future.
Central among the changes to our current trade policy is a new
bipartisan commitment to the inclusion of a fully enforceable
commitment that countries adopt and enforce the five basic
international labor standards in all future trade agreements. This
includes the freedom of association; right to collective bargaining;
elimination of forced and compulsory labor; abolition of child labor;
and elimination of employment discrimination.
I think it is particularly important to note the importance of what
we have established with this trade agreement by way of a labor
template. The Peru FTA includes basic worker rights, because workers
must be a key part of the trade equation. Accordingly, for the first
time in any U.S. free trade agreement, the Peru FTA includes
protections for the basic rights of workers in its core text. It also
prohibits Peru from lowering its labor standards in the future. It also
makes these labor obligations subject to the same dispute settlement
processes and remedies as all other provisions in the FTA. If Peru
fails to enforce fundamental labor rights, or fails to enforce its
labor laws, the U.S. Government can sue Peru for not complying with the
Agreement. These are the real labor standards that are applied by the
International Labor Organization (ILO)--the exact standards we have
sought for more than a decade. Notably, Peru has already changed its
legal framework to comply with the FTA.
I urge my colleagues in joining me in voting ``yes'' for the U.S.-
Peru Trade Promotion Agreement.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3688, the
United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation, better known as the U.S.-Peru TPA, has
gone through an extensive and thorough legislative process that has
been years in the making. For the first time, we have before us today a
trade bill that contains legally binding worker rights and human rights
provisions that have never before been a meaningful part of free trade
legislation. This is a tremendous victory for American workers and a
tremendous accomplishment of the Democratic Leadership of this
Congress.
The U.S.-Peru TPA will guarantee that legally binding and enforceable
labor and environmental standards be incorporated into this trade
policy. This is a landmark piece of legislation for this reason alone.
Beyond the worker right provisions this bill is good for the people
of Peru. In a region that for years has been plagued with the influence
of the drug trade and political upheavals. A strong trade agreement
with an economic ally such as the United States will help bring
stability to this area through economic growth, increased job
availability, and greater educational opportunities.
This trade agreement will also be a boon for the American worker.
Currently U.S. agricultural imports to Peru face an average tariff of
18 percent. The U.S.-Peru TPA will eliminate all tariffs on U.S.
agricultural and food products entering the Peruvian market and
significantly reduce tariffs on exported goods manufactured and
exported from the U.S. Market.
For my home state of North Carolina, this means significant increases
in the exports from our $2 billion dollar pork industry, as well as our
poultry industry, which ranks in the top five in the Nation. This
legislation will also result in an increase in the exports of the goods
produced in the technology and manufacturing industry in and around the
Research Triangle Park of North Carolina.
Mr. Speaker, this trade agreement is a good and carefully crafted
piece of legislation and I urge my colleagues to support this bill and
vote ``yes'' on H.R. 3688.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3688,
the ``United States-Peru Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.'' I
believe the agreement contains a number of important benefits for the
people of both the United States and Peru.
The agreement will provide each country immediate duty-free access
for most industrial, agricultural and consumer goods. Remaining tariffs
will be phased out gradually. This will bring an improved commercial
relationship between our countries that will benefit a number of
sectors in the U.S. economy, including high technology, machinery and
agriculture.
The U.S.-Peru Free Trade Agreement will improve market access for
information technology goods and service providers. Exports of U.S.
products like computers and communications equipment to Peru will
receive duty-free treatment. This will benefit Colorado because it will
expand markets for our companies, which in 2006 sold more than $4
billion in computers and electronic products worldwide, accounting for
51 percent of the state's total international exports.
Passage of this agreement will also help small businesses in
Colorado. More than 85 percent of the companies that export goods from
our state have fewer than 500 employees. Adoption of this agreement is
critical for these small firms that rely on foreign markets and need
additional international market access to grow.
While expanding markets for businesses and farmers is critical, it
must to be done in a manner that is responsible in the treatment and
protection of workers and the environment. This agreement includes
important provisions to assure this will occur.
President of the AFL-CIO John Sweeney's comments on the agreement are
instructive: ``The new provisions on workers' rights and the
environment represent significant progress in crucial areas that we
have fought together to achieve for many years.''
The inclusion of labor standards in the agreement's main text will
ensure that Peru will adopt, maintain, and enforce its own laws
regarding the freedom of association, the right to collectively
bargain, as well as the elimination of forced or child labor.
I am pleased the agreement provides a fully enforceable commitment
that the U.S. and Peru will adopt, implement, and enforce in their
environmental laws and practices obligations under major multilateral
environmental agreements, including the Convention on International
Trade in Endangered Species and the Montreal Protocol on Ozone
Depleting Substances.
I commend Peruvian President Alan Garcia for the work the Peruvian
government has done to modify domestic law to honor the commitments in
this agreement. I urge the Administration and the United States Trade
Representative (USTR) to ensure these obligations are honored. It is
important that the United States takes step to ensure our trading
partners provide workers with basic labor rights. By including such
requirements we dedicate ourselves to this goal.
I am encouraged that the USTR and the Bush Administration have worked
to resolve concerns raised by members of Congress along with outside
groups and organizations in the course of this agreement negotiation.
It is my hope the same kind of consideration can be given to issues of
concern in future trade agreements.
While this agreement is largely about enhancing the exchange of goods
and services, it is also about enhancing our relationship with an ally
and democratic partner in Peru. Expanding the commercial relationship
between the U.S. and Peru can help expand support in combating illegal
immigration, narcotics trafficking and countering regional terror
groups.
I welcome the beginning of a new chapter in our commercial
partnership with Peru and urge the U.S.-Peru Free Trade Agreement be
passed.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support
for the U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement. This Agreement has a
positive and significant impact on small business. More than 50,000
companies exported goods from California since 2005. This trade
agreement is an important element which contributes to the growth of
the California and American economy.
While the positive aspects of trade far outweigh the negatives,
Congress must be firmly committed to help minimize any harmful effects
that may come from greater trade. Since 2000, southern California has
seen a 40 percent increase in container traffic on roads and rails,
which is causing serious transportation problems for both business and
constituents in my district. Congress must take a closer look
[[Page H13294]]
at infrastructure as it relates to trade. There are many barriers to
trade, but transportation infrastructure should not be one of them.
This Agreement will also level the playing field of trade with Peru.
Under the current trade preferences in place 99 percent of Peru's
imports enjoy duty-free access to the U.S. In contrast, only 2 percent
of U.S. agricultural products enjoy duty-free access to the Peruvian
market. Once the Agreement enters into force, 90 percent of the current
trade in U.S. agricultural products will enjoy duty-free access while
the remaining products will be gradually phased out. California's
exports have grown over 183 percent since the ratification of the U.S.-
Chile Free Trade Agreement and I fully expect the U.S.-Peru Agreement
to bring similar success to the California economy.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the U.S.-Peru Free
Trade Agreement. This has not been an easy decision. This is not an
ideal agreement. But it contains significant improvements negotiated by
the Democratic leadership. And because of these changes the agreement
represents a critical step toward a more progressive trade policy that
raises standards for labor, the environment, and public health.
Under the Bush Administration, U.S. trade policy has gone from bad to
worse. Instead of using trade agreements to raise standards of living,
the U.S. Trade Representative has approached negotiations putting
corporations ahead of consumers and profits ahead of people.
In recent agreements with Central America, Morocco, and others, labor
standards an environmental rules have been made expendable and
unenforceable on paper and in practice. Trade provisions aggressively
pursued on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry have sought to delay
generic competition in developing countries where the absence of
affordable medicine can mean the difference between life and death.
Initially, the Peru FTA was no different. However, this spring the
Democratic congressional leadership successfully negotiated substantial
improvements to the agreement.
On the medicines issue, specifically, the revised FTA restores much
of the flexibility needed to safeguard generic competition and protect
public health. For example, patent extensions are no longer mandatory
in the event of regulatory delays. The agreement directs patent
disputes to be resolved through the court system, instead of forcing
regulatory agencies to link marketing approval to the status of a
drug's patent. Language was also added to make clear that the FTA does
not and should not prevent Peru from taking measures to protect public
health.
The Peru FTA is not perfect. There is a provision that delays the
availability of generics for up to 5 years after a new drug is
approved, even in the absence of a patent. USTR maintains that this
``data exclusivity'' provision is supposed to mirror a provision in
U.S. law intended to incentivize research by allowing drug companies to
recoup the costs associated with producing the clinical test data
necessary for drug approval. But Peru is not a mirror image of the
United States. It is a small developing market where the profitability
for drug makers is minimal and the impact on a large population of poor
and uninsured patients could be severe.
The revised Peru FTA does make clear that Peru can override this
five-year restriction if public health needs demand it. Additionally,
the new FTA has a mechanism for generic medicines to become available
in Peru no later than they are available in the United States. However
even with these key exceptions, I believe data exclusivity is a clear
example of how further changes are necessary in our negotiations with
developing countries.
Another area that needs reevaluation is the ``investor-state''
provisions that permit private investors to use trade tribunals to
bypass regular legal channels in challenging government actions and
regulations. While there have been some improvements to make the
tribunals more transparent, greater reform is necessary to prevent
abusive and unfair efforts by investors to undermine environment,
health, safety and other laws and regulations. I would also like to see
further progress to use trade agreements to strengthen adherence to
core labor standards.
The bottom line is that overall the improvements to the Peru FTA are
a real achievement. Today, we can finally put a stop to the Bush
Administration's ``one size fits all'' approach to trade negotiations.
While it will take more than a revised Peru FTA to overhaul our trade
policy in broader ways, this trade agreement is an important first step
in the right direction. For that reason I will support it today.
Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Snyder). All time has expired for debate
this evening on this bill.
Pursuant to section 2 of House Resolution 801, further proceedings on
the bill will be postponed.
____________________