[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 19]
[House]
[Pages 27167-27168]
[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 
gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, in the coming days Congress will consider 
the Peru Free Trade Agreement. I rise tonight to ask why are we in such 
a rush to approve a flawed and misguided trade policy.
  The Peru Free Trade Agreement doesn't enjoy the support of any of the 
constituencies which it's supposed to benefit. No labor unions vocally 
are out supporting this agreement. Why would they? The labor standards 
are unenforceable. It doesn't protect ``buy America.'' It promotes off-
shoring of our industries.
  The Peru Free Trade Agreement is just like the NAFTA-CAFTA framework. 
NAFTA has cost Maine over 23 percent of our manufacturing base. The new 
labor environmental language will do nothing to improve the situation.
  The Bush administration claims that the agreement will improve labor 
standards in Peru and, in the next breath, Tom Donahue, president of 
the United States Chamber of Commerce states that he is ``encouraged by 
assurances that the labor provisions cannot be read to require 
compliance with the ILO conventions.''
  So why are we rushing to approve such a toothless measure?
  Why is Congress moving so fast to approve a trade policy which has 
not been subject to a full hearing since the deal was announced? The 
last hearing on the Peru Free Trade Agreement in the Ways and Means 
Committee was

[[Page 27168]]

held in 2006. There are no environmental groups that are rallying 
support for the unenforceable environmental protections. That includes 
the Sierra Club and Friends of the Earth.
  So why are we not taking the time to consider the impact the Peru FTA 
will have on our environment, our intellectual property or 
privatization of Social Security?
  Even the labor leaders of major Peruvian labor organizations oppose 
this agreement. They urge Congress to vote ``no,'' claiming that it 
will weaken labor standards, encourage illegal immigration to the 
United States, and increase the rates of drug trafficking and violence.
  So who supports this agreement? Big Business. It's the large 
multinational companies who seek to profit off the backs of working men 
and women in our country.
  Remember back on May 10 when we heard about the new trade model? 
Well, if it's so new and great, then why aren't we hearing from all 
sides on the trade debate asking us to support it? There is a reason: 
there is not much new about it. It's the same old model with a little 
fancy title.
  I ask my colleagues to take a step back and consider this agreement 
carefully, demand the enforcement of the labor standards that conform 
with the ILO Conventions and environmental protection that might 
actually protect the environment.
  I ask my colleagues to consider the impact of this agreement and to 
question why we are moving so quickly to box ourselves into a corner. 
And I'm asking Members to listen to their constituents.
  All across this country, the American citizens are opposed to these 
bad, flawed trade deals. This is more of the same. We must have a new 
trade model. We have to start thinking globally of how we're going to 
deal with the globalization in this world today. So I encourage my 
colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Peru trade deal.

                          ____________________