[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 19]
[House]
[Page 26062]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  OPPOSE THE PERU FREE TRADE AGREEMENT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MICHAUD. Madam Speaker, many of the newly elected freshmen 
campaigned on a platform of ensuring a significant change of course 
from the Bush trade policy.
  The Peru Free Trade Agreement is based on the same flawed NAFTA-CAFTA 
model that has been so devastating to industries all across our Nation.
  While I campaigned for this seat 5 years ago, the cornerstone of my 
campaign also was to fix our broken trade policies. I've seen firsthand 
what they have done to the State of Maine.
  I firmly believe that in order to address our trade imbalance, we 
have to change the trade model. The Peru Free Trade Agreement is the 
same old model with a little lipstick.
  There is overwhelming opposition to the agreement by unions, 
environmental, consumer and small business groups. They're all asking 
Congress to oppose the Peru FTA. Who supports the bill? The large 
multinational corporations, Big Business, does.
  When Tom Donahue, president of the United States Chamber of Commerce, 
states that he is ``encouraged by assurance that the labor provisions 
cannot be read to require compliance with ILO conventions,'' we should 
be more than skeptical.
  While we have all heard that the Peru trade agreement text improves 
labor and environmental standards, we fail to hear that they were added 
on top of the same old NAFTA and CAFTA text. The bottom line: this is 
another Bush NAFTA expansion.
  Key unions are worried about the labor provisions. The new provisions 
require countries to adopt, maintain, and enforce only the terms of the 
ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work.
  The new FTA language does not require signatories to meet the ILO 
conventions. That's the binding standards. The declaration is a 
nonbinding statement.
  It is highly likely that changes to the environment and labor 
provisions will have no real effect on the ground.
  We all know that the Bush administration has a long record of not 
enforcing the standards of past trade agreements. Why should they start 
now?
  And there are so many problems with the Peru Free Trade Agreement, 
whether it's the privatization of Social Security, ban on anti-
offshoring, or failure to protect our intellectual property rights. 
There are more than enough reasons to oppose the Peru FTA. Not to 
mention if you look at NAFTA, NAFTA has caused a worse problem here in 
the United States with illegal immigration. The Peru Free Trade 
Agreement will do the same thing, cause the illegal immigration problem 
to get worse.
  I could go on and on about the Peru FTA. I ask my colleagues to 
really listen to what America is saying about these free trade 
agreements. I'm asking Members to vote their conscience. Oppose the 
Peru FTA.

                          ____________________