[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 184 (Tuesday, December 4, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14719-S14728]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
UNITED STATES-PERU TRADE PROMOTION AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT--
Continued
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote that
was scheduled for 2:15 occur at 2:30, and the 15 minutes between now
and 2:30 be equally divided in the usual fashion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise in opposition of the Peru Trade
Promotion Agreement. While the Peru Trade Promotion Agreement includes
important labor and environmental provisions, I do not believe that it
represents a large enough departure from the failed NAFTA-style free
trade model to merit my support.
Instead of fast-tracking new trade agreements through Congress, we
need to take a deep breath and assess the impact of our failed trade
policies and take the country and our economy in a better direction.
We should focus on fixing the problems created by NAFTA and other
trade agreements, extending trade adjustment assistance for displaced
workers, reinvigorating our domestic economy, and creating jobs for
hard-working Americans.
The inclusion of labor and environmental protections in the Peru deal
is an important and positive development, but without an administration
willing to enforce these provisions, the promises ring hollow.
The Bush administration has an abysmal record when it comes to
enforcing trade regulations, and it is not a stretch of the imagination
to assume that their unwillingness to enforce regulations will extend
to Peru.
Without strong enforcement of these important labor and environmental
provisions, they are nothing more than words on a piece of paper.
Already we are seeing the Peruvian government backtrack on the spirit
of the environmental provisions included in the agreement.
International environmental groups have documented a number of recent
actions taken by Peru's government that provide a serious cause for
alarm.
As an example, in September, a law was proposed to remove half a
million acres from the Bahuaja-Sonene National Park and devote the area
to oil and gas exploration and exploitation. The Superintendent of
Peru's natural protected areas determined that excluding the zone from
the national park would violate both the Peruvian
[[Page S14720]]
Constitution and Peru's trade promotion agreement obligations. The
whistleblower in this situation was immediately fired from his post.
And in July, Peru offered concessions for oil and gas exploration and
exploitation for over a fifth of the Peruvian Amazon rainforest despite
a report by the national ombudsman determining that elements of this
process were illegal
What we are seeing with these recent developments in Peru related to
environmental protections is that despite increased enforcement
mechanisms in the free trade agreement for labor and for the
environment, the NAFTA model perpetuates a ``race to the bottom'' that
has become the unfortunate hallmark of free trade agreements.
When trade agreements are used only as a tool to provide cheap labor
for American companies, everyone loses. The United States can be a
leader in the global economy if we promote fair trade that creates
sustainable markets for American goods and services, protects the
environment and improves wages and standards of living for American and
foreign workers.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as chairman of the Committee on the
Judiciary, which has jurisdiction over our Nation's intellectual
property laws, I feel compelled to comment on the intellectual property
chapter of the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement.
In the Trade Promotion Authority Act of 2002, Congress instructed the
administration to negotiate agreements with other nations that, among
other things, reflect a standard of protection for intellectual
property ``similar to that found in United States law.'' In many
respects, the intellectual property chapter of the Peru Trade Promotion
Agreement meets that goal, for it will require Peru to raise its
standards of protection for our intellectual property.
I am concerned, however, that some aspects of the intellectual
property chapter prescribe the rules for protection so specifically
that Congress will be hampered from making constructive policy changes
in the future. The art of drafting the chapter is in raising
intellectual property protections to a standard similar to ours,
without limiting Congress's ability to make appropriate refinements to
the intellectual property law in the future. The flexibility necessary
for the proper balance is found in many provisions of the intellectual
property chapter, for which I commend the U.S. Trade Representative.
Other provisions, however, are too fixed and rigid, and may have the
perverse effect of restricting the Congress's ability to make
legitimate changes in United States law, while keeping our
international commitments. I expect that in the future, with improved
consultation between the Committee on the Judiciary and the Office of
the United States Trade Representative, we can avoid these concerns.
Our trade promotion law also instructed the administration to
negotiate agreements that provide strong protection for new and
emerging technologies and new methods of transmitting and distributing
products embodying intellectual property. This, too, is an objective I
support. Under our laws, many such new technologies and consumer
devices rely, at least in part, on fair use and other limitations and
exceptions to the copyright laws. Our trade agreements should promote
similar fair use concepts, in order not to stifle the ability of
industries relying on emerging technologies to flourish.
Finally, a longstanding priority of mine has been the promotion of
affordable, lifesaving medicines to address the public health problems
afflicting many, primarily developing Nations--particularly those
resulting from HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and other epidemics. The
United States made such a commitment in the 2001 Doha Declaration; I
was pleased that the U.S. Trade Representative reaffirmed this
commitment in May and that Peru's rights to promote access to medicines
is preserved in this agreement.
There is much in the intellectual property chapter of this free trade
agreement that I support. I look forward to the Judiciary Committee's
being consulted by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative earlier,
and more frequently, in the future, so that we can continue to improve
on these issues.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, when voters gave Democrats control of
Congress, they wanted a new direction on trade policy. They wanted
trade agreements that would hold our trading partners to the same labor
and environmental standards expected of U.S. companies. And they wanted
trade agreements that would level the playing field for U.S.
businesses. Democrats listened.
I am supporting the Peru FTA because it is a new model for trade
agreements that includes enforceable labor and environmental
protections. For the first time, the U.S. will have the right to hold a
trading partner accountable if labor or environmental issues become a
problem.
The Peru FTA benefits Wisconsin companies and workers. Wisconsin
exports to Peru have increased from $9.3 million in 2002 to $43.5
million in 2006. This agreement will help trade between the U.S. and
Peru flourish and keep businesses and jobs in Wisconsin, something I
couldn't say about several previous trade agreements. Further, the Peru
FTA eliminates the current 10 percent tariff on U.S. goods entering
Peru. This will remove barriers to Wisconsin exports and make Wisconsin
businesses even more competitive.
The Peru FTA is the first step in a new direction for trade policy
that will enforce labor and environmental standards and help U.S.
businesses gain access to new markets.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss H.R. 3688, the
United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement. Washington State is
extremely trade dependent, and this agreement will have direct impacts
to my constituents at home, particularly farmers growing asparagus. In
addition, I am concerned about existing labor practices for miners in
Peru.
The domestic asparagus industry has been economically injured by the
Andean Trade Preference Act's, ATPA, extended duty-free status to
imports of fresh Peruvian asparagus. There has been a 2000-percent
increase in Peruvian asparagus imports into the U.S. since ATPA was
enacted. The asparagus industry suffered the greatest negative impact
from the ATPA, according to the U.S. International Trade Commission's
analysis of the agreement. The effects of the agreement to Washington
State's asparagus industry were dramatic.
Prior to the ATPA, there were over 55 million pounds of asparagus
canned in Washington State, roughly two-thirds of the industry. By
2007, all three asparagus canners in Washington relocated to Peru. As
asparagus production fell, I fought to provide assistance for these
hard-working men and women whose industry had been devastated.
To mitigate the impacts to growers, I tried to get them trade
adjustment assistance. I have secured funding over the past several
years to conduct research on a mechanical harvester to make this labor-
intensive crop less costly to produce. Most recently, I helped secure
$15 million in the farm bill for a market loss assistance program for
asparagus growers. This funding will help farmers who have continued to
grow asparagus despite the challenges ATPA has presented. I am hopeful
that this program will help growers continue to invest in asparagus.
Many of our asparagus growers have turned to other crops, and this
Peru trade bill will help them, along with many other farmers in
Washington State. While I have serious concerns about the continued
effects on the asparagus industry in the U.S. and in Washington State,
overall this bill will have a positive impact for agriculture in
Washington State.
I would also like to note my concern about labor practices for miners
in Peru and the unintended negative impact that this agreement may have
on them.
A report by the Congressional Research Service indicates that while
Peru endorses the International Labor Organization's core labor
standards in the PTPA, concerns remain about their compliance with and
the enforcement of these standards. I was discouraged to learn that
while Congress was considering the PTPA, the Peruvian Government
stalled in its efforts to secure statutory protections for miners and
declared it illegal for metal miners to continue striking in support of
stronger labor laws.
[[Page S14721]]
As chair of the Senate HELP Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace
Safety and an advocate for labor rights and workplace protections, I am
concerned that the Peruvian Government's most recent actions do not
convey a good-faith effort to reform its labor laws. I have worked
tirelessly to ensure that miners in our own country have the safety
protections on the job that they deserve. In light of the tragic mine
disasters in West Virginia, I was proud to help write and pass the
landmark MINER's Act last year. Miners put their lives on the line
every day to provide for their families, and we must work to ensure
they have a respected voice at the table and that their rights are
protected.
While I believe this agreement will ultimately do more good than
harm, I hope my colleagues will join me in encouraging the Peruvian
President, Congress, and Labor Minister to fulfill their promise and
pass much needed labor reform legislation without hesitation.
As you may know, Washington State is the most trade dependent State
in the Nation. From apples to potatoes to Microsoft and Boeing, we rely
heavily on international trade. This trade agreement, when taken as a
whole, will do more to bolster the economy of my State and the Nation,
and thus merits support.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, in my view, the United States has pursued
failed trade policies for the past 20 years or more. This failed trade
policy is reflected in our record trade deficits with the world. This
failed trade policy has led us to accept a one-way street in trade
where we allow too many countries access to our markets without
insisting that they give us reciprocal access to theirs.
I have opposed trade agreements when they were in the same failed
mold as our past trade policy, when they clearly were not requiring a
more level playing field for U.S. manufacturers, farmers, and service
sector employees, and when they failed to insist on basic
internationally recognized labor and environmental standards. However,
I have supported trade agreements that leveled the playing field and
that did include strong and enforceable internationally recognized
labor and environmental standards.
I particularly commend the work of my brother, Representative Sander
Levin, chairman of the House Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee, and
others, for substantially improving the Peru Free Trade Agreement by
reopening this agreement to incorporate enforceable worker rights and
environmental standards in the body of the agreement. This is something
Democrats have been working to include in trade agreements for over a
decade. I agree with my brother who has characterized this
groundbreaking achievement as, ``an historic breakthrough on trade by
amending pending U.S. free trade agreements to incorporate a fully
enforceable commitment that countries adopt and enforce the five basic
international labor standards, subject to the same dispute settlement
mechanism and remedies as other FTA obligations.''
This breakthrough is surely of critical importance. For the first
time in any FTA, the labor chapter requires both the United States and
Peru to adopt and maintain domestic laws to implement the five core
standards incorporated in the 1998 ILO Declaration on Fundamental
Principles and Rights at Work. These include, one the right to
organize; two, the right to bargain collectively; three, prohibitions
on forced labor; four, protections for child labor; and five, freedom
from employment discrimination.
The agreement also requires for the first time that the United States
and Peru adopt and maintain domestic laws to implement the obligations
in the seven multilateral environmental agreements that both the United
States and Peru are party to. All of these added obligations are
subject to the same dispute settlement mechanism that applies to all
other FTA obligations.
Peru is a small economy and makes up less than 1 percent of overall
U.S. trade, and in 2006 was only our 43rd largest export market.
Furthermore, 98 percent of U.S. imports from Peru already enter the
United States duty free under the Andean Trade Preferences Act and the
General System of Preferences. The Peru FTA will at least give American
exports a more level playing field in Peru by allowing them to enter
Peru duty free, which is currently not the case, although Peruvian
products already enter the U.S. duty free.
As a rule, I do not like the idea of trade agreements coming up under
fast-track procedures because it limits Members of Congress to an up-
or-down vote with no chance to amend or improve it. Thankfully, we did
not extend fast- track authority. In this case, my brother, Sandy
Levin, and others successfully amended this agreement through an
historic bipartisan agreement which vastly improved the agreement. The
changes that were made represent an important break with the failed and
flawed trade policies of the past and signify a better approach to
trade that supports American workers and protects the environment. For
all of these reasons I will vote for the Peru Free Trade Agreement
implementing legislation.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the Senate will soon be voting on the
first measure to implement a trade deal since the announcement last
spring by the administration and some Members of Congress of an
agreement to facilitate the consideration of trade legislation.
The centerpiece of that agreement was to be the inclusion in future
trade agreements of meaningful labor standards. In fact, because last
spring's announced agreement was only a set of principles, and not
actual language, the Peru Trade Promotion Agreement bill before the
Senate is the first opportunity to review the details of that
agreement.
I will touch on the new labor provisions included in the Peru
agreement shortly, but the agreement is far more than just provisions
overseeing labor standards. And in those areas, the trade agreement
with Peru comes up short. In fact, the agreement looks just like the
provisions in other trade agreements that have been stamped out over
the past decade and more by the NAFTA template--a failed model of trade
that has helped ship millions of family-supporting American jobs
overseas, while too often failing to produce the promised enhanced
standard of living for the families of our trading partners.
Like those previous trade agreements based on the NAFTA model, the
Peru agreement contains language identical to the devastating foreign
investor rights provisions of NAFTA that undermine federal, state, and
local protections for the environment, health, and public safety.
Like those previous trade agreements based on the NAFTA model, the
Peru agreement renders meaningless our longstanding common sense
government procurement policies, including the Buy America law which
requires that taxpayer dollars be used by the federal government to
purchase American made goods and services when they are a reasonable
option.
Like those previous trade agreements based on the NAFTA model, the
Peru agreement undercuts pro-environmental policies such as recycled
content requirements, and undermines our ability to require imported
food to meet our safety standards. As the consumer advocacy group
Public Citizen has noted, the Peru trade agreement includes NAFTA
provisions that require the United States ``to treat imported food the
same as U.S.-produced food, even though more intensive inspection is
needed to compensate for Peru's weak domestic regulatory system.''
And like those previous trade agreements based on the NAFTA model,
the Peru agreement includes NAFTA provisions that undermine the right
to affordable medicines for poorer countries established in the World
Trade Organization's Doha Declaration.
With all of this NAFTA baggage included in the Peru agreement, one
might ask if there is any reason to believe this agreement won't just
reproduce the same disastrous results we have seen from failed trade
policies over the past two decades.
And that brings us to the new language included in the Peru agreement
stemming from the deal announced last spring between a number of
Members of Congress and the administration.
Regrettably, and perhaps predictably, that new language does not live
[[Page S14722]]
up to the billing it received at the time of the announcement. In fact,
according to an analysis done by Professor Mark Barenberg of Columbia
University, the new labor provisions are actually weaker than current
law. Professor Barenberg compared the proposed new labor provisions
with those of trade deals already in effect, and found that the Peru
agreement undermines existing trade laws, which Barenberg states are
already ``weak, unreliable, and inadequate to the task.''
For example, the Barenberg report notes that under current law, ``if
Peru fails to comply with internationally recognized labor rights, then
the United States can impose unlimited sanctions against Peru, can
provide benefits to Peru in any area of foreign relations, or can
withdraw special trade benefits in whole or in part, to ensure that
Peru comes into compliance. The U.S. can target specific sectors,
products, or actors. The U.S. can impose sanctions or withhold benefits
until those specified actors comply.''
But under the U.S.-Peru agreement, ``if Peru fails to comply with the
vague labor ``principles'' or with Peru's domestic labor law, Peru can
choose to pay the United States only half the monetary value of the
trade benefits that accrue to Peru as a result of the violations--
creating a cost-benefit incentive for Peru to commit violations. If
Peru chooses this monetary penalty, then the sanction is not targeted
on any sector or any actor. The Agreement establishes no system of
positive benefits (carrots) to Peru for compliance.''
The Barenberg report gives another example. Under existing law, ``if
Peru fails to comply with internationally recognized labor rights, then
private parties in the United States, such as workers and labor unions,
have the right to petition the President to impose sanctions or take
other measures against Peru to ensure compliance.''
But, while private parties, including trade unions are allowed under
section 301 of the Trade Act to file petitions with the President,
alleging that a trading partner has violated a trade agreement, under
the U.S.-Peru Agreement, private parties are given ``no right to
directly initiate complaints against Peru for violating its obligation
to enforce the vague labor ``principles'' or domestic labor law. Only
the President may bring such complaints--and, in fact, the President
has never filed a complaint under the labor-rights provisions of any
bilateral trade agreement.''
Here is still another example. Under existing law, ``if the President
decides that Peru is failing to comply with internationally recognized
labor rights, he can impose sanctions. He need not gain the approval of
another decision-maker.''
By contrast, under the U.S.-Peru agreement, ``if the President
decides that Peru is failing to comply with vague labor ``principles''
or domestic labor law, he cannot impose sanctions. He can only file a
complaint that may lead to international arbitration to determine
whether Peru stands in violation. Hence, the decision to impose
sanctions must be taken by two decision-makers, rather than one--the
President and a panel of international arbitrators. And international
arbitrators will apply international law, which holds that an
obligation to adhere to the vague labor principles does not entail an
obligation to adhere to actual labor rights, let alone adhere to any
concrete performance measures or indicators.''
As others have noted, Professor Barenberg's report may explain why no
major labor, environmental, human rights, or consumer protection groups
have endorsed the Peru agreement.
Our trade policies of the past two decades have been disastrous. They
have contributed to the loss of several million family-supporting jobs
in this country. They have left communities across my State devastated,
and I know the same is true in communities around this country.
Our trade deficit is still out of control, as we send more and more
of our wealth overseas, much of it in the form of factories that
provided entire communities with decent, good-paying jobs. I hold
listening sessions in each of Wisconsin's 72 counties every year. This
is my 15th year holding those listening sessions, listening to tens of
thousands of people from all over Wisconsin. I completed my 1000th of
those sessions just about a year ago, and I can tell you that there is
nearly universal frustration and anger with the trade policies we have
pursued since the late 1980s. Even among those who would have called
themselves traditional free-traders, it is increasingly obvious that
the so-called NAFTA model of trade has been a tragic failure.
I voted against NAFTA, GATT, and permanent most favored nation status
for China, in great part because I felt they were bad deals for
Wisconsin businesses and Wisconsin workers. At the time I voted against
those agreements, I thought they would result in lost jobs for my
State. But, as I have noted before, even as an opponent of those trade
agreements, I had no idea just how bad things would get.
Nor does the problem end with the loss of businesses and jobs. The
model on which our recent trade agreements have been based
fundamentally undermines our democratic institutions. It replaces the
judgment of the people, as reflected in the laws and standards set
forth by their elected representatives, with rules written by
organizations dominated by multinational corporations. Food,
environmental, and safety standards set by our democratic institutions
are subject to challenge if they conflict with those approved by
unelected international trade bureaucracies. Even laws that require the
government to use our tax dollars to buy goods made here, rather than
overseas, can be challenged.
We cannot live in isolation. We are in a global economy, and it makes
good sense to have reasonable trade agreements with those who want to
trade with us--trade agreements that have broad-based support and that
will provide broad-based economic benefits to all sectors of our
economy and the economies of our trading partners. That is not what we
have now, and we shouldn't pass another bill to implement one of these
flawed agreements until we can straighten out the twisted trade model
that has done so much damage to the personal economies of thousands of
families across the country.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the U.S.-Peru Free
Trade Agreement, FTA. As my colleagues are aware, I am a strong
proponent of free trade, having voted for every trade agreement that
has been negotiated during my 31 years in this body.
Despite that fact, I have concerns over some recent changes to the
Peruvian agreement and, more specifically, the deal that was struck
between the administration and the congressional Democrats on May 10.
Specifically, the changes to the intellectual property rights, IPR, and
labor chapters of this agreement will, I believe, become more relevant
when we as a nation begin to negotiate future free-trade agreements
with deserving nations.
It is my sincere hope that I am wrong and that we will not in the
near future face serious challenges to our national labor laws as a
result of this agreement. Unfortunately, we will not have to wait,
however, to realize the devastating effects that the new trade deal
will have on our IPR concerns.
The labor chapter of the U.S.-Peru Free Trade Agreement could put
U.S. Federal and State labor laws at significant risk. Several
provisions of the labor chapter of the U.S.-Peru trade agreement create
an unacceptable risk that the United States will be required to change
important provisions of U.S. Federal and state labor law or be subject
to trade sanctions. Given that the purpose of the May 10 agreement was
to ensure that Peru adopted strong labor provisions, not the United
States, Congress's implementation of this agreement should provide an
explicit safe harbor for U.S. labor law.
Peru FTA requirement to adopt ``fundamental labor rights'' puts
right-to-work, freedom of association and other major U.S. labor
provisions at significant risk. Article 17.2 of the Peru FTA requires
both Peru and the United States to ``adopt and maintain in its statutes
and regulations, and practices there under, the following rights as
stated in the International Labor Organization ILO Declaration on
Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its Follow-up (1998) (ILO
Declaration) where it affects trade between the
[[Page S14723]]
countries. These rights are freedom of association, recognition of
collective bargaining, elimination of forced/compulsory labor,
effective abolition of child labor, prohibition of worst forms of child
labor, and elimination of employment discrimination.
The Peru FTA does not provide any definition of these fundamental
rights, leaving the interpretation of what constitutes ``freedom of
association'' or ``collective bargaining'' to a dispute settlement
panel appointed by the U.S. and Peruvian Governments.
Given the agreement's reference to the ILO declaration, it is widely
expected that such a dispute settlement panel would in fact look at and
rely at least partially on the standards of the relevant ILO core
conventions associated with these rights, much as the ILO does each
year in its followup reports required by the ILO declaration. The
recent push by House Democrats to have Peru enact very detailed changes
to its treatment of--contract laborers as part of its implementation of
the agreement an issue not specifically addressed in the Peru FTA--
confirms the wide range of issues subject to this chapter.
The United States, which has only ratified two of the eight ILO core
conventions, faces substantial risk that a panel will find that U.S.
labor law violates the Peru FTA, requiring the U.S. to change its law
or face trade sanctions. Key U.S. laws subject to that risk include:
State right-to-work rules, which standard labor market analysis and
several other countries, such as Canada, find imposes an improper
restraint on the ability of workers to bargain collectively or to
strike, as nonunion workers have the authority to vote on whether to
strike;
U.S. prohibitions on the admission to unions of persons connected
with the Communist Party or the Klu Klux Klan given that ILO standards
require the admission of all applicants;
U.S. prohibitions in the National Labor Relations Act, NLRA, on the
inclusion of supervisors in union, which is required by ILO
conventions;
Exclusive bargaining rights provided under the NLRA, which are in
conflict with ILO standards requiring minority unions be allowed to
function;
Various Federal and State laws that place reasonable and balanced
limits on the right to strike, which are in conflict with the ILO
conventions' prohibition on virtually all restrictions on the right to
strike;
U.S. laws permitting the permanent replacement of striking workers,
which the ILO has indicated may pose a risk to the effective
enforcement of the right of collective bargaining when it occurs on an
extensive basis;
Fair Labor Standards Act minimum age of 14 and state laws where there
are no minimum ages for children working in agriculture contravenes the
ILO minimum age convention; and
Lack of equal remuneration or comparable worth rules.
The Peru FTA is likely to require State labor law changes as well. By
requiring the adoption of these rights at the Federal level, the Peru
FTA in combination with the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause,
Article VI, section 2, is also expected to require any changes made at
the Federal level to preempt conflicting State law. As a result, State
right-to-work rules or lower minimum age standards would face
significant risk of being overturned by dispute settlement panels.
The Peru FTA requires parties to promote migrant worker rights. Annex
17.6 requires the United States and Peru to engage in a wide range of
capacity building work. While much of it could be useful, its
obligation to promote migrant rights, without regard to the legal
status of a migrant, creates a troubling requirement that the United
States would be promoting rights for illegal immigrants at odds with
Congress's direction. For years, I have been a steadfast supporter of
fair intellectual property laws that are appropriately enforced. The
Constitution itself provides for the creation of intellectual property,
and it has been the process used by brilliant U.S. innovators to
develop, market, and sale groundbreaking new products for years. In the
sea of red trade deficits we have faced for so many years now, IP and
the innovative U.S. products that use its protection have been one of
the few areas where the U.S. has a trade surplus.
Traditionally, trade agreements have strengthened American innovation
abroad. However, with the newly renegotiated text found within the
U.S.-Peru FTA's IPR chapter, we see that we have walked back from the
rigorous IPR protections found in previous agreements in favor of
weakened provisions. These changes mainly affect one of America's most
productive industries, that of pharmaceuticals.
The U.S.-Peru FTA weakens IP protection in three ways:
First, the agreement does away with patent linkage. Linkage requires
a country, before it approves a generic medicine for sale, to ensure
that the brand-name medicine is no longer under patent. Without
linkage, governments can help facilitate patent infringement. Linkage
doesn't hinder access to medicines, and it is not about compulsory
licensing. It is about protection of basic patent rights. The proposed
changes replace this simple enforcement procedure with a complex one. I
don't see what that accomplishes.
Second, the changes shorten the period of data exclusivity for
innovative medicines, authorizing a shorter period than we require here
in the United States. This change is not only unfair to U.S. innovators
but devalues the incentive for launching new drugs in developing
countries. Here is why. In developing countries, it is often difficult
to enforce patent rights. But data protection is effective and
relatively easy to administer. It often provides the only real
protection biopharmaceutical companies have when they invest
significant resources to launch new products. You take away the
protection and you take away the incentive to launch. It is hard enough
to get companies to launch medicines quickly in these countries because
the markets are so small. If you shrink data protection, you
effectively shrink the market even further.
Finally, the new template no longer requires countries to add time to
patent terms for pharmaceuticals to make up for undue delays in
marketing approval or patent grant. We require patent restoration here
in the United States, so why not abroad? Because, critics argue, patent
terms are long enough as they are. But without patent term restoration,
we actually go the other direction. Without patent term restoration,
the effective patent term could actually shrink significantly.
From what I understand, the Democrats insisted on the changes to the
IPR chapter in order to grant greater access to medicines for
developing nations. What is ironic to me is that these changes will do
just the opposite.
All of these changes were ostensibly part of an effort to promote
access to medicines to poor people. A noble goal. But what is so absurd
about this is that the changes may actually have the opposite effect
and harm U.S. competitiveness in the process.
Why would we backtrack on IPR? Some may say that we are rich enough
so that we can afford to give away the fruits of our ingenuity. But
that is like saying we are rich enough to voluntarily close down our
factories so that our competitors can have a chance. We don't have that
luxury.
Some say backtracking on IPR is necessary to help the poor and sick.
That, too, is wrong. IPR is all about incentives. If you protect IPR,
then people will have a stronger incentive to develop new and
innovative products and bring them to market faster. If you don't
protect IPR, then those incentives are greatly diminished. Here is what
we might expect with weak IPR protection:
There would be less incentive to launch products early in developing
countries. Innovative companies would have less reason to show up when
their technology could immediately be copied and sold by others who
made no contribution to the R&D.
If there were fewer brand-name launches, there would be fewer
generics. As brand-name medicines go off patent, generic medicine
companies can rely on the safety approvals and market secured by the
research-based companies, making more generics available to more
people. Without the brand-name company securing the safety approvals
and creating the market, fewer generics can enter the marketplace, and
fewer people will get the medicines they need.
[[Page S14724]]
As a result, the poor would not have access to the newest and most
effective medicines.
It is easy and convenient to use IPR as a scapegoat for poor health
care systems. The reality is that access to medicines is helped, not
hindered, by strong IPR protections. Problems in access to medicines
are most often due to other factors, such as poor infrastructure,
taxes, tariffs, an ineffective health care system, and different
government funding priorities. By pointing at IPR, we divert attention
from these much more critical problems. In sum, the changes we have
foisted upon Peru are harmful not only to U.S. interests, but also to
the very interests they purport to serve.
I applaud the USTR and her staff on their hard work in negotiating
this agreement, especially in the area of intellectual property rights.
However, I know there are several Senators in this body who represent
States that contain numerous innovative companies that benefit from
strong intellectual property laws and enforcement. While the overall
agreement strengthens American IPR, it does so in a way that is not as
vigorous as agreements in the past.
Millions of jobs across the country depend on these laws.
I know firsthand that many countries around the world would like
nothing more than to see the U.S. intellectual property laws and
enforcement diminished. Why? Because they want to exploit us.
They want to be able to steal our inventions.
They want to be able to ripoff our best and brightest ideas. They
want our taxpayers to fund billions of dollars of extremely important
research and then take it from us for free.
I have been assured by the administration that the issues that I have
raised today will never become a problem for the United States. While I
am confident that my concerns remain valid, I am unwilling to stand in
the way of the President's trade agenda. The Peruvian trade agreement
will provide needed trade benefits to many Utah businesses that
exported $7.7 million worth of goods in 2006, not to mention the
overall benefit of the agreement to the U.S. economy as a whole.
Therefore, I will reluctantly vote for the U.S.-Peru FTA before us
today. However, I will not give up on improving future trade agreements
in the critical areas of labor and intellectual property rights.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I have never opposed a free trade agreement,
FTA, although I have sometimes had reservations or concerns about
different elements of the agreements.
I believe free trade encourages economic growth, improves living
standards by making a wider variety of goods and services available at
more affordable prices, and creates good-paying jobs. In fact, exports
from the U.S. account for more than 10 percent of our annual gross
domestic product and one in six manufacturing jobs are related to
exported products.
I also understand that the benefits of trade accrue not only to
Americans, but also to workers in other countries; but this is also to
our benefit. The more free trade encourages economic growth and job
creation around the world, the more demand there will be for high-value
American products and services. Trade fosters closer economic relations
with other countries and those economic ties generally lead to improved
political relations, which benefits our national security.
For these reasons, I have been a strong, consistent, and vocal
supporter of free trade. And for these reasons, I take my vote against
the Peru FTA today extremely seriously. I have decided to oppose the
Peru FTA not because I have any quarrel with Peru or because I am in
any way opposed to expanding our bilateral trade relations with Peru.
In fact, I strongly support the original Peru FTA.
My opposition to the Peru FTA is rooted entirely in the agreement
reached by the U.S. Trade Representative, USTR, with Members of the
other body in May of this year. That agreement forced the U.S. to
renegotiate the Peru, Panama, and Colombia FTAs to add new requirements
for labor and environmental protections and weakened traditional trade
agreement protections for certain U.S. intellectual property, IP,
related to pharmaceutical products.
I am concerned about the labor and environment provisions, but I am
simply puzzled by the intellectual property changes. I am not sure what
my colleagues hoped to gain by weakening standard protections for U.S.
intellectual property through this trade agreement. I see no reason why
U.S. legislators would want to weaken the ordinary protections that are
normally accorded to pharmaceutical intellectual property in our
bilateral trade agreements. Peru did not, in the course of
negotiations, ask us to weaken the IP requirements. Peru was perfectly
willing to abide by the greater protections of the original FTA.
If the goal of these changes was to provide better access to
lifesaving medicines in Peru, I worry that their effect could have the
exact opposite result. Countries with weaker IP protections will have a
difficult time encouraging U.S. companies to do business there. Respect
for private property--including intellectual property--is essential to
encouraging innovation. Without assurances that new and creative
products and services will not be stolen by unscrupulous competitors or
forcibly devalued by governments, there is a reduced incentive to take
the economic risks that are necessary to achieve groundbreaking
inventions.
And why should we expect that those who want to weaken protections
for U.S.-owned intellectual property will stop at pharmaceuticals? Are
computers, movies, music, and other products that involve valuable U.S.
intellectual property next? U.S. intellectual property is one of our
most valuable exports; it is not in the national interest of the United
States to unilaterally weaken protections for it.
I would like to share some statistics that underscore my concern for
protecting U.S. intellectual property. First, IP-related industries
provide some of the highest quality jobs in the U.S. According to some
studies, IP-related jobs pay as much as 40 to 50 percent more than jobs
that are not dependent upon intellectual property. That means that
devaluing U.S. intellectual property will hurt U.S. workers. Further,
economists estimate that over 50 percent of U.S. exports depend upon
intellectual property protection of some sort, up from below 10 percent
50 years ago. My colleagues know that theft of U.S. intellectual
property is rampant overseas, costing U.S. companies many billions of
dollars annually and costing the U.S. economy high-paying jobs. We
should use FTAs to enhance protection for U.S. intellectual property,
not weaken it.
Finally, I want to explain to my colleagues that I made my concerns
known to the USTR on several occasions. When I first began hearing that
the USTR might renegotiate the various Latin American FTAs to secure
support in the other body, I made sure the USTR knew of my strong
concerns about weakening IP protections. As the discussions progressed,
six members of the Finance Committee wrote a letter to the USTR in May
of this year outlining our very serious concerns with all of the areas
under renegotiation: labor, environment, and intellectual property.
Finally, when the USTR, Ambassador Schwab, came to meet with members of
the Finance Committee this fall I again expressed my concerns about
weakening the standard protections that had been traditionally accorded
to IP in our other FTAs. Because the administration apparently made no
attempt to address our concerns or to assure us that other actions
could be taken to enhance protections for valuable U.S. intellectual
property, I am compelled to oppose the Peru FTA.
I urge my colleagues to give additional thought to whether it is wise
to unilaterally weaken the intellectual property protections we
normally include in FTAs. These provisions better not be included in
future FTAs or I will work for their defeat.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to support the legislation
to implement the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement. The
agreement promises to significantly strengthen our commercial and
noncommercial ties with Peru and represents a new era for U.S. free
trade agreements.
This agreement will significantly increase our goods trade balance
with Peru. As a result of U.S. unilateral preference programs, about 98
percent
[[Page S14725]]
of imports from Peru presently benefit from duty-free treatment. The
agreement will move beyond one-way preferences to reciprocal
commitments. Immediately, 80 percent of the consumer and industrial
products our firms export to Peru will be duty free; remaining Peruvian
tariffs will phase out over 10 years. The International Trade
Commission estimates that, upon the agreement's full implementation,
U.S. exports to Peru will increase by $1.1 billion, while U.S. imports
from Peru will increase by $439 million. Exporters across our country
depend on world markets. In my home State of Connecticut, this
agreement will open an important new market for our manufactures of
transportation equipment, machinery, and electronics, among other
products.
The gains are likely to be even more significant for America's
service industries. Take, for instance, the insurance industry, which
has played a vital role in Connecticut's economy. The agreement will
enable U.S. insurance companies to establish a presence in Peru while
ensuring strong regulatory transparency, including license approval
within 120 days. Similarly, Connecticut's vibrant financial services
industry stands to benefit from the agreement's robust financial
services chapter. Among other benefits, the chapter's provisions will
enable U.S. asset managers to provide cross-border portfolio management
services, even without establishing a physical presence in Peru.
But the agreement's implications transcend commercial boundaries. It
will strengthen our alliance with Peru, a key ally in Latin America,
contribute significantly to Peru's economic development, and extend our
commitment to transparency and rule of law in Latin America.
The most recent free trade agreement this Chamber considered was with
Oman in 2006. Consistent with my longstanding record of supporting
trade as good for America's economy, and economic development in Arab
and Muslim countries as important for peace in the world, I voted in
favor of legislation to implement the Oman FTA. But during
consideration, I voiced my concerns about the Oman FTA's labor
provisions, announcing in this Chamber that: ``I will not continue to
support future free trade agreements unless the Administration becomes
serious about negotiating labor and other improvements. . . .'' By
including basic worker rights recognized by the International Labor
Organization, with full enforceability equal to all other provisions, I
am satisfied that the Peru FTA addresses my concerns.
The inclusion of strong labor provisions, as well as unprecedented
inclusion of multilateral environmental agreements, means this
agreement's significance will extend beyond Peru. Indeed, this FTA
represents a strong standard for our future bilateral free trade
agreements. I applaud House Ways and Means Chairman Rangel and House
Trade Subcommittee Chairman Levin for achieving consensus with the
administration to address these key issues.
I have high hopes for expanding our trading relationship with Peru
and for continuing to responsibly open markets across national borders.
And I look forward to working with my Senate colleagues to enact
legislation implementing FTAs that the administration has already
signed with Colombia and Korea.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I strongly support H.R. 3688, the United
States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act, PTPA.
The agreement before this Chamber today stands as another important
milestone in the development of our relationship with Peru. The pending
trade bill will help level the commercial playing field and solidify a
genuine bilateral partnership based on free and fair trade that
benefits not only Peruvians, but also U.S. workers and businesses.
Ratification will also demonstrate to the people of Peru that we stand
by them as an important democratic ally in a strategically vital region
of the world.
As it currently stands, 98 percent of goods imported from Peru
already enter the United States duty-free. If this agreement is passed
and fully implemented, 80 percent of U.S. exports of consumer and
industrial goods and over two-thirds of agricultural exports will gain
duty-free access to the Peruvian market of some 29 million citizens.
The agreement also contains provisions that address intellectual
property rights, electronic commerce, customs and trade facilitation,
and these provisions will reduce barriers on investment. The U.S.
currently exports nearly $2 billion in goods to Peru, a figure certain
to grow as a result of increased access to this vibrant South American
market.
While the economic benefits we will enjoy as a result of passing the
PTPA are important, we must not ignore the political benefits as well.
Peru stands as a shining example of the potential for democracy and
open markets in South America. Following free and fair elections in
2006, Peru's economy continues to grow at an impressive rate of 8
percent annually, and its poverty rate has been on the decline since
2001. It is also important to recognize the assistance the Peruvian
government has provided the United States in combating drug
trafficking, countering regional security threats, and providing for
our energy needs. Implementation of this agreement will lead to greater
prosperity and development for the Peruvian people, helping to
strengthen their nation and our relationship with them.
I have long advocated for economic freedom and open markets. Free
trade has long served to promote economic growth, generate jobs, raise
wages and lower prices for American workers and consumers. I believe in
the ingenuity and resilience of the American worker and am not afraid
of their ability to compete successfully in the global marketplace.
America is home to the best and the brightest, and should have the
opportunity to play a significant role in an increasingly globalized
marketplace. By passing this agreement, we will reaffirm our commitment
to nations that share our interest in open markets, economic freedom,
and democracy.
I urge my colleagues to support swift passage of this important
agreement.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I would like to briefly address H.R.
3688, the Peru Trade Promotion Act. While this agreement stands to
provide significant benefits to our country's agricultural industry, it
comes with unfortunate consequences for our country's asparagus
growers. My home State of Washington is one of the top asparagus
producing States in the country. However, since the passage of the
Andean Trade Preferences Act, Washington has lost 21,000 of its 30,000
acres dedicated to asparagus and all three of Washington's asparagus
canning facilities have now moved to Peru. This is the reason that I
worked so hard to include a $15 million Market Loss Program dedicated
to asparagus growers in the Senate's version of the 2007 farm bill.
This program will support domestic asparagus producers, helping them
plant and harvest more efficiently and remain competitive in the
international market. In the past 17 years, the $200 million Washington
asparagus industry has been reduced to a $75 million industry. To say
that I am concerned about this trade agreement's effect on Washington's
asparagus farmers would be an understatement. I implore the Senate, as
it continues negotiations on the farm bill to support these hard
working individuals remain competitive in our international economy.
With that said, the Peru Trade Promotion Act stands to significantly
benefit the majority of farmers both in Washington and throughout our
Nation. Under this agreement, Washington businesses will increase their
exports to Peru by an estimated 45-62 percent and will immediately
eliminate significant tariffs on many key goods. For example,
Washington leads the Nation in potato exports and the current tariffs,
now reaching up to 25 percent, will be eliminated immediately on most
potato products. Washington's wheat farmers, whose exports are
currently valued at over $314 million, will benefit greatly by the
elimination of the 17-percent tariff on wheat. Washington's third
largest industry, beef, has much to gain from the elimination of the
25-percent duty on beef. Dairy, our second largest farm industry will
benefit from the elimination of a tariff system that has reached as
high as 68 percent for dairy products being exported to Peru. Perhaps
the most significant impact for Washington, however, will be for our
[[Page S14726]]
fruit growers. Washington ranks as the second largest fruit exporter in
the Nation, bringing in $833 million for the State. Duties on fruit
exported to Peru are currently 25 percent and would be immediately
eliminated under the PTPA--a huge win for Washington and its fruit
growers. Peru is a new growth market for Washington's fruit industry
and the elimination of these tariffs will make our fruit much more
competitive in the export market.
Given the significant benefits the vast majority of farmers in my
State stand to reap from the Peru Trade Promotion Act, I will vote in
favor of it, despite my grave concern for its effect on our asparagus
industry. As PTPA is implemented, I will continue to fight to support
asparagus growers through the Market Loss Program included in the
Senate farm bill or any other means available to me and I strongly urge
this body to do the same. The PTPA will benefit many, but it is up to
us to assist those whose livelihoods are affected in the process of its
implementation.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my support and will
vote for the Peru Free Trade Agreement.
On November 18, 2003, the administration formally notified Congress
of its intent to initiate negotiations for a Free Trade Agreement, FTA,
with Peru. The United States and Peru announced a bilateral deal on an
FTA on December 7, 2005, after resolving certain agriculture and
intellectual property rights issues, as was signed April 12, 2006. The
Peruvian Congress approved FTA legislation on June 28, 2006 by a vote
of 79-14. Legislation to implement the Peru FTA was submitted by
President Bush on September 27, 2007 and this legislation was approved
by the Senate Finance Committee by voice vote on October 4. On October
31, the House Ways and Means Committee approved implementing
legislation (H.R. 3688) by a vote of 39-0. The full House voted to
approve the Peru FTA by a vote of 285-132 on November 9, 2007.
U.S. trade with Peru has doubled over the past 3 years, reaching $8.8
billion in 2006. More than 5,000 U.S. companies export their products
to Peru, and over 80 percent of these are small and medium-sized
companies that stand to benefit significantly from U.S.-Peru Trade
Promotion Agreement, PTPA. According to the American Farm Bureau
Federation, after full implementation of the agreement, U.S.
agricultural exports to Peru will increase by more than $700 million
per year.
According to the Department of Commerce-International Trade
Administration, when the agreement enters into force, U.S. farmers and
ranchers will also become much more competitive by benefiting from
immediate duty-free treatment of 90 percent of current U.S.
agricultural exports. Key U.S. agriculture exports such as cotton,
wheat soybeans, high-quality beef, apples, pears, peaches, cherries,
and almonds will be duty free upon entry into force of the Agreement.
Peru will phase out all other agricultural tariffs within 17 years.
According to the United States Department of Agriculture, USDA,
exports of farm products boost Colorado's farm prices and income. Such
exports support about 10,100 Colorado jobs, both on and off the farm in
food processing, storage, and transportation. Agricultural exports
amounted to $852 million and made an important contribution to
Colorado's farm cash receipts in 2006 that totaled nearly $5.6 billion.
The State of Colorado depends on world markets and exported shipments
of merchandise to 197 foreign destinations in 2006 totaling $8.0
billion. This is an increase of 44 percent over the 2002 level of $5.5
billion.
The USDA further states that as a leading source of farm cash
receipts at nearly $3.3 billion, Colorado's ranchers and beef industry
benefit from exports in a number of ways. For instance, Peru will
immediately eliminate the 25 percent duties on the beef products of
most importance to the U.S. beef industry--Prime and choice cuts. Peru
will provide immediate duty-free access for U.S. exports of standard
quality beef through the establishment of an 800 ton tariff-rate quota.
The dairy industry in Colorado is the second largest source of state
farm cash receipts. Our dairy producers will benefit immensely from the
PTPA. Peru will immediately eliminate its system of variable levies
facing U.S. exporters. Also, Peru will immediately eliminate tariffs on
whey. And, all Peruvian duties on dairy products will be eliminated
within 17 years, with duties on some dairy products eliminated earlier.
The corn producers are Colorado's fourth largest source of farm cash
receipts. Colorado corn producers will benefit under the PTPA by
eliminating its system of variable levies facing U.S. exporters. Under
the current system, tariffs can be as high as the WTO ceiling of 68
percent on some corn products. Moreover, all currently applied duties
on crude corn oil will be phased out over 5 years; and on white corn
and other corn products within 10 years.
The pork producers are Colorado's seventh largest source of farm cash
receipts. Peru will phase out all duties, which are currently as high
as 25 percent, on fresh, chilled, and frozen pork within 5 years.
There are other markets that Colorado will benefit from as this
agreement becomes a reality. The elimination of Peruvian tariffs on
products such as computer and electronic products, machine
manufacturers and chemical manufacturers will provide a competitive
boost to Colorado companies.
This historic agreement will provide a level playing field for
American workers and farmers, ensuring that the United States gets the
full benefit of trade with this dynamic market. In the early 1990s, the
United States unilaterally opened its market to Peru, and nearly
everything imported from Peru enters the U.S. market duty free.
However, when Americans sell their goods to Peru, they face average
tariffs of 11 percent for manufactured goods and 16 percent for
agricultural goods. PTPA is meant to correct this unfair trade
imbalance by eliminating nearly all tariffs on U.S. exports to Peru
within a few years. The U.S. International Trade Commission estimates
this agreement will add $1.1 billion to U.S. exports and $2.1 billion
to U.S. GDP. U.S. farmers and ranchers must continue to find a way to
stay competitive in today's world market.
I urge my colleagues to join me today in supporting passage of the
United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Senate will finish consideration of the
U.S.-Peru Free Trade Agreement today, with a vote this afternoon.
Before getting into the merits of the FTA, I wanted to take a moment to
discuss a broader issue. It is very unfortunate that the Bush
administration's only policy towards Latin America has been to
negotiate free trade agreements.
I just returned from leading a bipartisan delegation to Latin America
and last year I headed a similar delegation to different Latin American
countries, including Peru. What we heard repeatedly there in almost
every country we visited was that the Bush administration had neglected
the region.
And, in fact, they are right. We have cut development assistance,
eliminated programs, and repeatedly overlooked our neighbors to the
south. In the place of a robust and comprehensive policy of engagement,
exchange, aid, and a variety of trade tools, we have a simplistic,
singular policy of free trade agreements.
The Bush administration's narrow approach has been harmful in many
ways. We have left a vacuum of diplomacy and engagement in many areas,
which has allowed unconstructive forces space to expand influence. And
our free trade strategy has been very divisive in many of the
countries--a foreign policy that divides rather than unites.
I support engagement with Latin America; I strongly support being a
better neighbor, but I do not support this narrow policy tool that the
Bush administration has fixated on.
The Peru Free Trade Agreement is the first agreement that
incorporates the new provisions on labor rights, the environment, and
access to medicines from the May 10 agreement with Speaker Pelosi,
Congressmen Rangel and Levin, and Chairman Baucus.
These changes are significant. For the first time ever a trade
agreement will include an enforceable obligation for each country to
respect core, internationally recognized labor standards.
[[Page S14727]]
I hope that this new provision will have a dramatic impact over time.
If they are faithfully enforced, they can help to reduce inequality
and establish broader middle classes in the developing countries with
which we have free trade agreements. I applaud these and other changes
that were part of that May 10 agreement.
While the May 10 agreement is very important, I have generally
opposed free trade agreements for several reasons.
First and foremost, I think that for many years now, U.S. trade
policy has been one dimensional--we have had one agreement after
another, yet so many other aspects of economic policy have been
absolutely neglected.
While we have approved new FTAs with 12 different countries since
2001, we still do not have an adequate trade adjustment assistance
program. Studies show that those workers who lose their job due to
trade on average see a substantial cut in wages in their next job. We
need to do a better job of ensuring that these workers do not get left
behind before we move forward with more and more agreements.
While we have approved all of those new FTAs, the Bush administration
has absolutely fallen down on the job when it comes to enforcement of
trade agreements. The Clinton administration brought on average 11
cases per year against foreign trade barriers at the WTO. The Bush
administration has brought only a few more than 11 cases total over the
last 7 years. The Clinton administration was very aggressive in using
other tools of trade policy to fight against unfair trade and
unjustifiable trade barriers. The Bush administration has taken
numerous measures to weaken U.S. fair trade laws. The Bush
administration has been impotent in responding to China's currency
manipulation. The continued inaction on this critical issue has led to
a situation that could destabilize global financial markets and
economic prospects. While the May 10 agreement includes important new
labor provisions, the Bush administration has repeatedly demonstrated
that it will not enforce them.
It is hard for me to see how I can go home and tell my constituents
that I want to support more and more trade agreements when the present
administration has refused to aggressively support U.S. rights under
our current trade agreements.
Finally, I remain concerned that U.S. free trade agreements have hurt
many American workers and unwittingly caused problems in some of our
free trade partners. The U.S. has lost about 3 million manufacturing
jobs since 2001. Many of these jobs have gone overseas, replaced by
imports from low-wage countries.
These lost jobs are offset by lower prices, no doubt. But a lost job
has a more profound impact than our statistics account for. A lost job
means a strain on a family. Large concentrations of lost jobs mean
strains on communities and local and State governments.
Also, as we saw in Mexico after NAFTA, these FTAs can be harmful to
communities in our trading partners. More than a million Mexican
farmers lost their land and livelihood after NAFTA. NAFTA was supposed
to end illegal immigration to the U.S.; instead by pushing poor rural
farmers off their land, it helped cause an explosion of illegal
immigration.
So I recognize that this FTA reflects major improvements from the
previous model. But, I still see many holes in U.S. trade policy that
need to be filled. So, reluctantly, I oppose the agreement.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and the
time during the quorum call be equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DOMENICI. 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. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 3 minutes on each side.
Mr. DOMENICI. I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise late in the debate because I know
it is an important issue, and I find myself wanting to say to the
people of Peru that this Senator who comes from the State of New
Mexico, where almost half our people speak Spanish--a commonality
between our two countries--would expect that I show the appropriate
concern for the people whom this treaty will benefit. That is why I am
here. It is entirely proper that the United States show more concern
and more consideration and have more relationships of mutual benefit
with the countries of Central and South America, without a doubt.
I would like to have a few words from this Senator spread on the
record to show that with what I have said, I concur. With this treaty,
be it not the best because those who look at it from the standpoint of
the best find fault here and there, it is as good as we are going to
get and we ought to approve it. My vote will show up in favor, and that
will be because I understand it. I understand what it means, and I am
for the principles and the expected effect of this treaty.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?
Mr. DOMENICI. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. 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. DURBIN. I ask for the yeas and nays on the vote previously
scheduled.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on the third reading of the bill.
The bill was read the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the
question is, Shall the bill pass?
The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden),
the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from Connecticut
(Mr. Dodd), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily
absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Delaware (Mr. Biden) would vote ``nay.''
Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 77, nays 18, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 413 Leg.]
YEAS--77
Alexander
Allard
Barrasso
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Domenici
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feinstein
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Roberts
Rockefeller
Salazar
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Wyden
NAYS--18
Akaka
Boxer
Brown
Byrd
Casey
Dorgan
Feingold
Harkin
Klobuchar
Kyl
Leahy
McCaskill
Reed
Reid
Sanders
Stabenow
Tester
Whitehouse
NOT VOTING--5
Biden
Clinton
Dodd
McCain
Obama
The bill (H.R. 3688) was passed.
Mr. CARDIN. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, with today's passage of the United
States-
[[Page S14728]]
Peru Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act, we have taken a
long-overdue step to strengthen our relationship with Peru, a close
friend and important ally in Latin America. This agreement will result
in new economic opportunities for U.S. farmers, manufacturers, and
service providers, and I am pleased that the Senate has finally voted
in favor of its implementation.
None of this would have been possible without the leadership of two
of our United States Trade Representatives, Susan Schwab and her
predecessor, Rob Portman. I want to thank Ambassador Portman for his
hard work at the negotiating table that resulted in a solid agreement
that will level the playing field for U.S. producers and exporters.
And, I want to thank Ambassador Schwab for her dedication and
perseverance that culminated in the May 10 bipartisan trade compromise,
which set the stage for today's successful vote. Also meriting special
mention for their tireless efforts are the Assistant United States
Trade Representative for the Americas, Everett Eissenstat, and his
predecessor, Regina Vargo.
Here in the Senate, I want to begin by thanking the chairman of the
Finance Committee, Senator Max Baucus. He is a true leader on trade and
on the committee. And he is supported by a strong staff. That starts
with the Democratic staff director on the Finance Committee, Russ
Sullivan, and the deputy staff director, Bill Dauster, who were
critical to the process. I also want to thank his chief international
trade counsel, Demetrios Marantis, as well as the other members of the
Democratic trade staff, Amber Cottle, Janis Lazda, Chelsea Thomas,
Darci Vetter, and Hun Quach, and two individuals serving on detail to
Senator Baucus, Russ Ugone and Ayesha Khanna.
Of course, I am grateful for the outstanding effort of my staff as
well. First, my chief counsel and staff director, Kolan Davis, merits
special mention. His legislative expertise has been instrumental in
moving countless bills and this is no exception. I also want to thank
my chief international trade counsel, Stephen Schaefer, as well as
David Johanson, David Ross, and Claudia Bridgeford Poteet. And, I want
to thank John Kalitka, who is on detail to my office from the U.S.
Department of Commerce.
Finally, I want to thank Polly Craighill and Margaret Roth-Warren of
the Office of the Senate Legislative Counsel for their hard work on
this legislation. As always, Polly's patience and expertise have been
invaluable in producing a top-notch bill. Margaret is a relatively
recent addition to the office and already she is proving herself a very
strong asset to our legislative team.
Today's vote is long overdue. The May 10 compromise was expected to
pave the way for quick consideration of all four of our pending free
trade agreements, as well as the renewal of trade promotion authority.
That hasn't happened as quickly as I would have liked. Still, today's
vote is a critical first step, and I hope we can use this vote to build
momentum toward implementing the next agreement in line, which is our
trade agreement with Colombia. We should move the Colombia trade
agreement as soon as possible, and I will work hard toward that outcome
in the 110th Congress.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today the Senate voted to approve H.R.
3688, the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation
Act. In July of 2006, I opposed this agreement when it came before the
Senate Finance Committee because it lacked enforceable labor
standards--standards that Peru's President Alejandro Toledo indicated a
willingness to support. What a difference a year makes. As a result of
a landmark bipartisan agreement reached in May of this year, and for
the first time ever in a free trade agreement, our agreement with Peru
encompasses meaningful and enforceable labor and environmental
protections.
The labor chapter of the agreement requires both the United States
and Peru to adopt and maintain domestic laws to implement the five core
standards incorporated in the 1998 ILO Declaration on Fundamental
Principles and Rights at Work: (1) the right to organize; (2) the right
to bargain collectively; (3) prohibitions on forced labor; (4)
protections for child labor; and (5) freedom from employment
discrimination. The environmental chapter requires both the United
States and Peru to adopt and maintain domestic laws to implement the
obligations in seven multilateral environmental agreements to which
both the United States and Peru are parties. I have long championed the
inclusion of enforceable labor and environmental standards in free
trade agreements, and I supported the agreement today because of these
chapters. It is imperative that our trading partners be held to high
labor and environmental standards, and I would not stand in support of
this agreement had these provisions not been included.
The Peru Free Trade Agreement is a landmark achievement that makes
these provisions fully enforceable--subjecting these provisions to the
same dispute resolution system that applies to the commercial
provisions of the agreement. I urge the President, along with the
office of the U.S. Trade Representative, to hold Peru's government
accountable to these provisions. By ensuring that these standards are
fully enforced, the President can solidify this agreement with Peru as
a model for dealing with future trading partners.
____________________