[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 20]
[House]
[Page 28580]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          THE PERU TRADE DEAL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
  The Peru trade deal will also be bad for U.S. agriculture and all 
farmers in our country and, amazingly, in Peru. So both here at home 
and abroad it will result in more harm.
  Let's look at the facts. This current trade deficit chart with Peru 
tells us we are already in the red with Peru, as we are in the red with 
China and in the red with Mexico and in the red with almost every other 
trading country, Japan, et cetera. The U.S. vegetable trade deficit 
with Peru is already a part of this. According to the U.S. Department 
of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service, just the vegetable 
deficit component is already over $200 million in 2006. So America's 
vegetable farmers will lose more market share. They have already lost 
market share, especially those who farm asparagus, onions and peas. 
Their situation will be similar to the plight of America's tomato, bell 
pepper and cucumber farmers who learned well what happened after NAFTA 
was signed. They all lost production as it relocated.
  Several global corporations have already indicated what they are 
going to do. They are already putting their processing plants in Peru. 
Green Giant has done it. Del Monte has done it. The pattern is the 
same, the same as under NAFTA. As was the case with Mexico where 
millions of peasant farmers were upended under NAFTA with no adjustment 
provisions for them, Peru's farmers will also be hurt when these same 
global corporations take over their farming operations and flood their 
markets with rice, corn, and chicken.
  We expect that an additional 3 million Peruvian agricultural workers 
will be directly affected and millions of Peruvian farmers, as Mexico's 
farmers well know, will be upended. This will force increased migration 
of those individuals to cities that are already swelling with large 
numbers of poor, and it is projected expanded illegal drug production 
as people try to stay in their home countries with no crops to sell, 
they turn to those illegal choices.
  Similar to the lack of protection for Mexico's corn and bean farmers 
under NAFTA, which that corn and bean tariff is going to phase out at 
the end of this year, and another 2 million of Mexico's farmers will be 
hurt, we know that what happens is that they either emigrate to 
adjoining cities or to the United States, many of them illegally, or 
they turn to the illegal sector where they literally risk their lives 
in order to survive.
  What kind of a plan is this that would treat the people of developing 
countries with such derision? What kind of a plan is it that would hurt 
our farmers to that extent? Why does it always have to be a negative? 
Why can't trade be a plus plus? Importantly, Peru was the world's top 
coca producer in 1996, and coca production remains a viable alternative 
for farmers forced to give up their legal crops.
  Is anybody listening? Is anybody thinking? It is pretty clear what is 
going to happen because there is nothing in the agreement to help Peru 
adjust. We saw what happened when that didn't occur under NAFTA. There 
were no adjustment provisions for Mexico's farmers. CAFTA, the same 
thing, and now we add Peru on top of the pile. There is nothing in the 
Peruvian agreement for adjustments inside of Peru. The displaced 
farmers have few options. If they do not turn to coca production or 
other illegal industries, they will be forced to move. And we can ask 
where. To the overcrowded cities of Peru, further straining those 
resources? To another country? With the debate raging about illegal 
immigration and with us unable to reach a civil accommodation across 
this continent, wouldn't it be truly cruelly irresponsible to support 
another trade agreement that could result in more devastation to small 
holders?
  Shouldn't we be helping these farmers adjust inside their own 
homelands? That is long overdue inside of Mexico, in order to help 
people earn money in their own countries, rather than wipe out hundreds 
of thousands of people as if their lives and their cultures didn't 
matter. And then we get the added problem of illegal labor trafficking 
into this country, which we can't control.
  The Peru agreement doesn't do anything to address these serious human 
concerns. It does have some of the glossy language like NAFTA and CAFTA 
did that ends up toothless in terms of enforcement.
  Madam Speaker, why would the American people be given more of the 
same out of this Congress? We ought to be changing these trade 
agreements to development agreements and treating people with the 
respect they deserve.

                          ____________________