[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 184 (Tuesday, December 4, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14716-S14719]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
UNITED STATES-PERU TRADE PROMOTION AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 3688, which the clerk will
report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 3688) to implement the United States-Peru
Trade Promotion Agreement.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there
will be 90 minutes of debate equally divided.
The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I wish to say a few words as to why I am
strongly opposed to the Peru Free Trade Agreement. Some of the points I
made last night, but I think they need reiteration. The untold story of
the economy in the United States is that the middle class is shrinking,
poverty is increasing, and the gap between the rich and the poor is
growing much wider. I am not going to stand here and tell you trade is
the only reason the middle class is shrinking, but I am going to tell
you it is a major reason, and it is an issue we have to deal with.
Mr. President, since George W. Bush has been in office, 5 million
Americans have slipped out of the middle class and into poverty, 8\1/2\
million Americans have lost their health insurance, median household
income for working-age families has gone down by nearly $2,500, over 3
million good-paying manufacturing jobs have been lost, 3 million
Americans have lost their pensions, wages and salaries are now at their
lowest share of GDP since 1929, and we are in a situation now where the
wealthiest 1 percent of Americans earn far more income than the bottom
50 percent.
In the last number of years, technology has exploded and worker
productivity has increased. Yet in the midst of all of that, the middle
class is struggling desperately to keep their heads above water, and
poverty is increasing.
I think the question this Senate should be spending a lot of time on
answering is why that is happening. Why is it that everything being
equal, our kids will have, for the first time in the modern history of
the United States, a lower standard of living than we do? Why is it
that a two-income family today has less disposable income than a one-
income family did 30 years ago? In the midst of all this globalization,
all of the explosion of technology, all of the increase in worker
productivity, there is more and more economic desperation in the United
States, and the only people who are doing very well are the wealthiest
1 or 2 percent of the population.
Now, I think there is a real problem when you have unfettered free-
trade agreements which essentially allow corporate America to throw
American workers out on the street, move to China, move to other low-
wage countries, pay people their 50 cents an hour, $1 an hour, and then
bring their products back into this country. One of the great crises we
are facing is we are not building manufacturing plants in the United
States and putting people to work at good wages with good benefits. Not
only are we losing blue-collar jobs, we are losing white-collar
information technology jobs. And millions of parents all over this
country are wondering what kind of jobs are going to be available for
their kids.
The fact is, these free-trade agreements have not worked. I don't
know how many times and what people need to understand that. Just take
a look at NAFTA. I remember, because I was a Member of the House during
that debate, that the supporters of unfettered free trade told us over
and over that NAFTA would increase jobs in the United States. But
according to the Economic Policy Institute, NAFTA has led to the
elimination of over 1 million American jobs.
Now, why would you want to follow a paradigm, a trade policy approach
which has failed in the past? If it has failed time and time again, why
would you keep doing the same thing? A manager of a baseball team who
has losing records year after year gets fired. That is what happens.
The team changes its approach.
Right now, we have a huge trade deficit. It is a growing trade
deficit. We are losing good-paying jobs. Pressure on wages is to push
them down into a race to the bottom. That is a failed trade policy.
Supporters of unfettered free trade told us that NAFTA would
significantly reduce the flow of illegal immigration into this country
because the standard of living in Mexico would increase. Well, guess
what. They were wrong. It didn't happen. As a result of NAFTA, severe
poverty in Mexico increased. It didn't go down, it increased, and 1.3
million small farmers in that country have been displaced, with real
wages for the majority of Mexicans having gone down. All of this has
led to a 60-percent annual increase in illegal immigration from Mexico
during the first 6 years of NAFTA alone.
What is happening in Mexico and in the United States and in many
other countries today because of unfettered free trade is we are seeing
a huge increase in the gap between the people on top and everybody
else. I will give just one example. In Mexico today, a poor country, a
gentleman named Carlos Slim has just surpassed Bill Gates as the
wealthiest person in the world, worth over $60 billion, in a poor
country. Incredibly, because of unfettered free trade and near liberal
type of economic policy, Mr. Slim is worth more than the poorest 45
million Mexicans combined. One man has more wealth than the bottom 45
percent, which happens to be 45 million Mexicans. That is one of the
manifestations of unfettered free trade.
And the situation is the same with China. I remember the debate about
China--we have a great market in China. If we open permanent normal
trade relations with China, it will create all kinds of jobs. Nobody
believes that is true. We have a huge trade deficit with China, a trade
deficit that is growing. People today are doing Christmas shopping.
When they go to the stores, the products they will find from A to Z are
made in China, not made in the United States. I can tell you that in my
small State of Vermont, we have lost 25 percent of our manufacturing
jobs in the last 6 years--not just due to trade, but trade has played
an important role.
All over this country, people are wondering why corporate America is
not reinvesting in Pennsylvania or Vermont or the rest of the country.
Well, you know why. They are investing billions and billions of dollars
in China, hiring people there at pennies an hour, and then they bring
their products back into this country. And people are wondering: How do
you become a great economy? How do you lead the world? How do you have
good jobs for your kids if we are not producing the goods that our
people purchase?
You will remember, Mr. President, that 20, 25 years ago, the largest
employer in the United States was General Motors. They produced
automobiles. They paid people good wages, they had good benefits, and
there was a strong union. Today, the largest employer in the United
States is Wal-Mart, with low wages, minimal benefits, and vehemently
antiunion.
What I also don't understand, in terms of this trade debate, is who
the
[[Page S14717]]
Congress thinks it is representing. You go out in my State and all over
this country, and people say: We do not like unfettered free trade. If
you want to be a political opportunist, and you don't care about the
issue, you should vote against the Peru trade agreement. That is what
the people want you to do. In fact, according to a recent Wall Street
Journal NBC news poll, 59 percent of Republicans--of Republicans--
believe unfettered free trade has been bad for the U.S. economy. And a
majority of Democrats feel the same way. So I think maybe the Congress
has got to start saying to the large corporation CEOs, who in fact do
very well by unfettered free trade, that our job is not just to
represent them but to represent the working families of this country.
This agreement will simply continue a failed trade policy. And, Mr.
President, you know, because you are a new Senator as well, that during
the last campaign, many of us raised this issue about unfettered free
trade. What we heard from constituents was that they wanted a change in
trade policy. They wanted companies to start investing in America, not
in China. They are worried about the future.
So the bottom line is, we have a failed trade policy, and before we
pass any more trade agreements, I think we need to take a hard look at
what past trade agreements have done. I think we need a moratorium on
them, and we need to develop new trade agreements. Trade is a good
thing, but we need new trade agreements that represent the working
families of this country so that we can see our wages and our incomes
going up, not going down; our health care benefits going up, not going
down; so that we are not engaged in a race to the bottom; so that we
are helping poor countries improve their standard of living, while our
standard of living is going up and not bringing everybody down.
I hope Members of the Senate will give serious consideration to
rethinking our trade policies and voting this Peru trade agreement
down.
Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of
the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement. Peru is no ordinary
country, and the Peru agreement is no ordinary free-trade agreement.
Peru is a vibrant country. It is marked by the diversity of its
dramatic and varied landscapes, abundant and rich wildlife, and strong
people. Peru provides a home to more than 170 million acres of forest
and 84 of the 103 existing ecosystems on the planet. And it is the
birthplace of the Inca civilization, the builders of the incomparable
Machu Picchu complex in the Andean highlands. Their descendants live on
today in Peru's thriving indigenous communities. This remarkable
diversity of landscape, wildlife, and people deserves to be protected,
and the strong labor and environmental provisions of the Peru agreement
ensure that it will.
Since 1958, when the United States entered into a free-trade
agreement with Israel, we have entered into bilateral or regional free-
trade agreements with no fewer than 15 additional countries, and since
then Democrats have sought to make labor and environmental issues a
greater priority in trade agreements. We have had limited success until
now.
The Peru agreement is in fact a groundbreaking achievement. Months of
complex negotiations involving numerous parties and difficult
compromises on all sides resulted in a landmark deal between Congress
and the administration. Believe me, this is a very significant and
unexpected breakthrough that was achieved not too long ago. We agreed
to include strong labor and environmental provisions in all our pending
trade agreements beginning with the Peru Free Trade Agreement. That was
the understanding, all agreements beginning with Peru--truly a
remarkable accomplishment, and we should be proud of what we have
achieved. For the first time, the Peru agreement requires the parties
to implement the five core International Labor Organization standards.
For the first time, the Peru agreement requires the parties to
implement seven core environmental treaties. And, for the first time,
the Peru agreement makes these labor and environmental provisions fully
enforceable by subjecting them to the same dispute settlement mechanism
that applies to all other obligations.
Some may criticize the agreement as not going far enough, but these
provisions are in fact exactly what many of us in Congress in the labor
and environmental movements have been seeking to include in trade
agreements for decades. They will benefit workers, they will encourage
environmentally sustainable development, and they will ensure the Peru
agreement helps to export our fundamental values abroad at the same
time that it helps to export our products and services abroad.
The agreement also strengthens our ties with a stalwart ally in an
increasingly troubled part of the world. It is an agreement with a
leading reformer in our hemisphere, it is an agreement with one of the
fastest growing economies in Latin America, and it is an agreement with
solid commercial benefits for the United States. Mr. President, 98
percent of Peruvian exports to the United States already receive duty-
free treatment under various United States preference programs. This
agreement levels the playing field and allows our exports to enjoy the
same benefits in Peru.
To cite one example, more than two-thirds of current United States
farm exports to Peru, including delicious Montana beef, I might add,
and wheat, will receive immediate duty-free access to Peru under the
agreement. All remaining tariffs on Montana and other U.S. agricultural
goods will be eliminated within 17 years.
For Peru, this agreement means better conditions for its workers,
strengthened protection for its amazingly diverse environment, and
greater integration into the world economy. Our neighbors to the south
can hope it will represent a first step toward increased prosperity,
transparency, and stability for the Latin American region as a whole.
This agreement demonstrates what Congress and the administration can
achieve when we work together. I hope we can build on the success of
this agreement to heal the wounds of previous battles and I hope we can
begin to recreate a consensus for trade liberalization going forward.
But the Peru agreement is only one step in this process. Enactment of
a robust and modernized trade adjustment assistance program should be
our next focus, certainly before this Congress considers additional
free trade agreements. We cannot express support for trade agreements
unless we fulfill our responsibility to ensure that trade-displaced
workers, whether in manufacturing or the services sector, are able to
retrain and retool for the 21st century economy. I look forward to
working with my colleagues and with the administration on trade
adjustment assistance reauthorization very soon.
For all these reasons, I am pleased to support the United States Peru
Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act and I urge my colleagues
to support it as well.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous
consent the time be charged equally against both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I rise this morning to speak on the
proposed free trade agreement with our friend and neighbor to the
south, the country of Peru. This is, I believe, a critical piece of
legislation. The approval of this agreement would do wonders to advance
United States interests in the region. This is a treaty that should be
approved because it is good for our bilateral relations with this very
important country, it is good for our overall relations with the
region, but most of all we should approve this treaty because it is
good for the United States
[[Page S14718]]
economy and it is good for Florida's economy, it is good for bilateral
relations, and it is good for our overall security posture in the
region.
The legislation will make trade with Peru a two-way street, will
benefit small and medium-size businesses, and will reduce barriers to
services and to investments.
Over two-thirds of total U.S. exports are manufactured goods, so
agreements that remove tariff and nontariff barriers in foreign
countries benefit all American manufacturers, large and small.
Implementation of this agreement would raise a total of U.S.
merchandise exports to Peru by over $1 billion in the first year. This
agreement will add over $2 billion per year to the U.S. gross domestic
product. Further, this agreement contains groundbreaking enforceable
core labor and environmental provisions. I know these are important.
It is not just is it good for business, but is this something that is
going to also speak about our core values when it comes to labor
standards? Is it something that we believe will further the condition
of the world as it relates to the environment?
This agreement includes provisions that will enhance both of those.
For the first time, future administrations will have the right to take
dispute action if labor or environmental issues become a problem. So
this will have enforcement mechanisms built in. Never has this been the
case with any of our previous trade agreements.
So we have made maybe a marker, maybe a breakthrough in a way that we
can have more of these trade agreements come to pass that are good for
our country, that are good for our economy and that of our neighbors,
but yet give people the sense of assurance that environmental and labor
rights are going to be protected.
The first year of implementation will boost Florida's total economic
output by $140 million, create more than 900 jobs in the State I
represent, and increase workers' earnings by $35 million.
In the next decade, it is estimated that Florida's total economic
output would increase by more than $760 million per year. Exports to
Peru would support more than 4,900 jobs and increase workers' total
personal income by more than $180 million a year. Fifty-four percent of
all U.S. high-tech goods exported to Peru are made in Florida. Twenty-
three percent of all U.S. exports to Peru are made in Florida. Florida
is the hub for transportation, trade, finance, insurance, and several
other professional services provided to companies from all over the
world doing business in Peru. More than half of all Peruvians visiting
the United States come to Florida.
Peru's democracy has successfully weathered serious security and
political challenges to its institutions over the last decade. But it
is a democratic country, and democracy has proven strong, and it has
proven that it can, in fact, withstand challenges from all sides.
The decision by newly elected President Alan Garcia to support the
United States-Peru TPA marks a turning point in our bilateral relations
and political stability by providing for a secure and predictable
framework for investors, protections for intellectual property rights
and worker rights, and an innovative process for public scrutiny
regarding the enforcement of environmental regulations.
Peru's democracy has successfully weathered serious security and
political challenges to its institutions by the fact that elections are
now repeatedly held and that, in fact, these elections have an outcome
that is honored by all of the citizens of Peru which shows us they are
a country strongly on the path to democratic institution building.
But a great part of this is also economic success. We cannot just
build democratic institutions; the people must believe by following the
faith of democracy, by following the path of trade and partnership with
the United States they can also better their lives; that, in fact, the
false prophets who would preach to the people of Peru that the path to
their better future lies in antagonism to the United States, lies in
the path of socialism, which has been proven to be a failure throughout
the world wherever tried, is to allow them an opportunity to have a
successful future by following the path of trade and partnership with
the world of beliefs in the globalized economy that all of us can
benefit from if it is done right, and if it is done with the right
provisions.
The fact is, at this point in time, we are at a significant
crossroads in our relations with Latin America. It is an area of the
world that as long as things are going fine oftentimes we choose to
ignore. But at the current moment in time, we find that in agreeing to
this proposal for and altering the trade agreement with Peru that we
would be rewarding the democratic institutions that have maintained
Peru over the last decade, but also we would be telling them: We want
to trade with you. We want to do business with you.
As we enhance the job creation in my home State of Florida, as I have
said, as well as in the United States, there is no question that we
will also be enhancing job creation in Peru itself; that those people
in Peru who aspire to a better life, who aspire to an opportunity
perhaps to own their own small business, who aspire to have an
opportunity to maybe have more yield and output from their agricultural
production, those who benefit from the opportunities of trade and
investment will all see the benefits and the fruits of this partnership
with the United States.
Now it is good for Peru. But broadly speaking, trade agreements are
good for America, and they are good for our relations with the region.
So, therefore, I would say we should approve this agreement today, we
should vote in favor of our trade agreement with Peru, but we should
not stop there. We should soon also see progress on our trade agreement
with Panama and our trade agreement with Colombia.
The template of this agreement, while we have additional protections
as well as enforcement methods for labor and environmental rights, is
the template that we should use in moving forward the Panamanian Free
Trade Agreement and the Colombian Free Trade Agreement. We have no
closer friends or neighbors than Panama and Colombia. We have no better
friends in the region than the Government of President Uribe, where in
partnership with now two consecutive administrations, the United States
has taken a bold step forward in saying: We will help you, Colombia, to
get rid of the narcoterrorists in your country. We will help you to
achieve a better life and a more secure future for your own people by
helping you to defeat the people who will sow terror on your streets
and in your highways.
In that we have made tremendous progress. As we have done so, we have
diminished the amount of illicit and illegal drugs from Colombia that
are entering the United States and poisoning our American streets. But
we have done more than that. We have also helped them pacify their
country. Their country is in a huge turnaround. Their country has
tremendous economic growth. The Colombian people can now freely travel
the country. That is a result of the good efforts of the United States
working in partnership with the Colombian Government.
Colombia has a bright and tremendous future. Forty million people are
in the country of Colombia. It is a very diverse country. From the
coast of the Caribbean to the Andes and the interior, it is a country
of resourceful and tremendously ingenious people who would benefit
tremendously from the opportunity of having a free-trade agreement with
the United States.
It is a free-trade agreement that will create jobs in America, that
will also enhance the opportunity for the same kind of economic growth
and job creation that I have talked about with Peru.
The Panama agreement is a much smaller agreement. Panama increasingly
has become the trading hub of the Americas through the Panama Canal.
And we now know that for more than a couple of decades, Panama has been
in charge and has been running its own canal in a very successful way.
Now they are enhancing it by expanding it.
The banking system, from Asia to the Americas, seems to be at a
crossroads through Panama. It is a country with which we should have a
trade agreement. We have one that is there.
[[Page S14719]]
It is teed up. We should move it forward. It should be the next one we
approve, with Colombia coming along not long after. But these are
tremendously important. These countries look to these agreements as a
way forward, as a way of enhancing their partnership with our country,
and rejecting other ideologies.
You know we might as well talk about this. I think it is very
important. On Sunday we had a very startling event occur in the region.
Venezuela held an election in what was a proposal from an increasingly
authoritarian leader, Hugo Chavez, to become essentially President for
life. It was essentially to give him the authority to rule by decree,
to declare a state of emergency and essentially suggest that all of the
institutions of the country be suspended and he would be the sole
ruler.
It also went further, and it said the country would take a socialist
path. Now, this is only the latest excess by a leader who is excessive
in many ways, his rhetoric and his action. But this latest excess was
rejected by the people of Venezuela.
I congratulate the people of Venezuela for taking this bold step in
the direction of not a single authoritarian person in charge of the
government but one who would allow a more democratic future for the
people of Venezuela. The people of Venezuela courageously went to the
streets, courageously demonstrated against tremendous oppression and
repression by the Venezuelan authorities, and continued to insist that
they have a free vote on Sunday, and they did.
They rejected the overreaching of President Chavez. But this ideology
that President Chavez preaches, the failed ideology that was preached
by Fidel Castro that has taken Cuba on the path of destruction,
disaster, and desolation is now trying to be inflicted on the people of
Venezuela, where they are now seeing the same kind of food shortage we
have seen in Cuba for almost a half a century beginning to manifest
itself in a country that is so oil rich it is ridiculous.
The fact is, we see in the path to bilateral trade agreements with
the United States a rejection of these failed ideologies, a rejection
of the Chavez way, and a welcoming of a partnership with the United
States, one that allows independence and democratic institutions to
flourish, while at the same time improving the lives of the people of
the region.
I urge my colleagues to look forward also to the Colombian and
Panamanian trade agreements. They should be coming. We need to proceed
to move those forward. They are tremendously important for these
countries. Let's engage in this friendship, but let's take care of
first things first and today resoundingly approve the free-trade
agreement with Peru that is good for America, good for our Nation, but
also good for Peru, and for our relations with the region.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed
to speak for up to 5 minutes as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to make a very
simple statement; that is, about our food security in America.
For all of my life--as a farmer and a rancher and attorney general--I
have recognized importance of food security for America. On my desk in
my Senate office here in Washington, DC, there is a sign that says:
``No Farms, No Food.''
It is important for all of us in this Chamber to recognize the
importance of the food security of the United States of America by
moving forward with the passage of the 2007 farm bill.
As the Presiding Officer well knows, the Agriculture Committee, under
the leadership of Senator Harkin and Senator Chambliss, worked very
hard--worked for weeks and weeks and months and months--to come up with
what is a very good farm bill. It is a very good farm bill that invests
in the nutritional needs of our country. It is a very good farm bill
that helps us unveil the clean energy future of America and helps us
grow our way to energy independence. It is a very good farm bill that
invests such as no other farm bill ever has in the conservation
opportunities we need to protect our land and our water in America. It
is a very good farm bill in all respects, and it is paid for. It is a
farm bill that is paid for.
We have been on this farm bill now in the Senate for the last several
weeks, since before Thanksgiving, and have not been able to move ahead.
The majority leader, Senator Reid, has propounded a proposal where we
would move forward with a set of discrete amendments, giving the
Republicans 10 amendments, having the Democrats have 5 amendments and 2
additional amendments would be considered. It seems to me that is a
very eminently fair proposal, and I would ask my colleagues, both on
the Democratic side and the Republican side, to stand behind that
procedural framework so we can get onto the farm bill and get this farm
bill across the finish line.
It is my view the people of America deserve no less from this Senate,
and I am very hopeful we will be able to come to that agreement very
soon.
____________________