[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 17]
[House]
[Page 24385]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       PERU FREE TRADE AGREEMENT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow on Mr. Hare's remarks 
this evening and also oppose the pending Peru Free Trade Agreement, 
which we think is scheduled to come up on this floor in early October.
  My question really is: With the United States trade deficit galloping 
out of control, this year it is likely to hit a trillion dollars in the 
red, as we continue to outsource jobs across this country. Recently, 
Ford Mazda in Monroe, Michigan, just north of our district, announced 
another 2,000 to 3,000 jobs gone. Those are not counting all the 
supplier jobs outsourced. So why would we be considering another NAFTA-
like trade agreement here in this Congress?
  The trade deficit with Mexico after NAFTA's passage has gotten worse 
every single year, going deeper and deeper and deeper into debt, more 
of our jobs outsourced to that country. Right before NAFTA's passage, 
there was a positive balance and they tried to make it look good to 
convince Congress it is getting better. Then we fell into heavy deficit 
every single year.
  We are already in deficit with Peru. In fact, every year it has been 
getting worse and worse and worse with that nation. So we are even in 
worse shape with Peru than we were with NAFTA when that was signed. Why 
would we want more of the same based on that trade model?
  Now, one can ask what is happening down there that we have to do this 
now, with the communities across this country, some of them like my own 
with over 8 percent unemployment, and why should we sacrifice more U.S. 
jobs to these flawed trade agreements.
  I think I put my finger on it with Peru. There is something called 
the Camisea Natural Gas Project. In 2004, that country started 
exporting through this mega gas project exports to our country and 
other places in the world. Two pipelines started to deliver natural gas 
from the Amazon River basin at that time. One of the problems with this 
project is the number of spills and the environmental degradation that 
is occurring in that region due to this pipeline.
  With America so energy dependent, rather than using our power to 
become energy independent here at home, we are getting ourselves 
involved in these trade agreements to try to bring more and import more 
power to this country rather than investing those dollars here. The 
price of that import of power is a loss of more of our jobs. That is 
not a trade-off this Member is willing to make.
  In addition to that, the Peru Trade Agreement, as we understand it, 
has several really terrible provisions in it. First of all, the 
privatization of social security. In Peru, under their system, the 
agreement would allow private companies like Citibank or other U.S. 
investors to sue Peruvian taxpayers if Peru itself tries to reverse the 
partial privatization of the social security system that occurred in 
that country in the last decade. What a terrible, terrible provision to 
have for the people of Peru. We believe in the integrity of our Social 
Security system. Why should we impact theirs?
  In addition to that, the Peru agreement as proposed would affect the 
access to generic medicines to people who live in a very impoverished 
country like Peru where over half of the people are poor. A number of 
nongovernmental organizations based in the United States and Latin 
America have confirmed that this agreement would reduce access to 
essential medicines by the poor population of Peru and that the 
agreement's provisions far exceed international standards established 
by the WTO. Why would we want to do that to the people of Peru?
  Moving on to food safety, why would we want to harm the people of our 
country, because the agreement does not address serious food safety 
issues that currently plague our relationship with Peru. Indeed, it is 
one of the 20 top exporters of shrimp to the United States market, and 
FDA inspectors have consistently rejected seafood from Peru for 
numerous reasons, including filth, adulteration, misbranding, and 
presence of various dangerous food pathogens.
  There has been poisonous swordfish, salmonella in shrimp, dangerous 
histamines in mahi-mahi. Shipment after shipment of dried, canned, 
frozen and fresh fish products from Peru have proven to be damaged. Why 
would we want to encourage more of that?
  Let me also say one of my concerns about this Peru agreement, as with 
Mexico, it has no adjustment policies for the poorest of the poor. In 
other words, the Peru Free Trade Agreement does not take into account 
many farmers in Peru who are going to be displaced because, as other 
First World agricultural products flood in there, there are no 
provisions in the agreement to take care of the poor farmers who will 
be displaced. Why would we do this to our continent?
  Mr. Speaker, there are many other reasons to oppose the Peru Free 
Trade Agreement which I will put in the Record and come to the floor in 
future days to discuss.

                          ____________________