[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 21]
[House]
[Pages 29644-29645]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             ``NO'' ON PERU

  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, this week the new Congress, the Democratic 
Congress, will consider its first bilateral trade agreement during this 
session: the Bush-negotiated free trade agreement with Peru. This week, 
this Democratic Congress has an opportunity, an opportunity to prove 
that we are different from previous Congresses. We have an opportunity 
to demonstrate we have heard from America's voters who are fed up with 
job losses, trade deficits, and race-to-the-bottom wages for our middle 
class.
  The American people expect us to reflect their concerns. Yet this 
bill is merely another godchild of NAFTA.
  What is the public telling us? In a March 2007 poll by the Wall 
Street Journal/NBC before the recent scandals involving tainted food 
and toy imports, 54 percent of Democratic voters said free trade 
agreements have hurt the United States compared with 21 percent who 
said they have helped.
  Then the Wall Street Journal in an October 4 front-page article 
stated that by a poll they had done, by a nearly 2 to 1 margin, 
Republican voters believe free trade is bad for the U.S. economy, a 
shift in opinion that mirrors Democratic views and suggests trade deals 
could face high hurdles under a new President.

[[Page 29645]]

  And then a Democratic pollster found that 67 percent, two-thirds, of 
Americans believe unfair trade agreements are making it harder for 
Americans to keep good jobs. Thus, defeating the Peru free trade 
agreement isn't just about politics. It is about what Democrats stand 
for in terms of policy.
  Why should we defeat this bill? We should defeat the free trade 
agreement that the Bush administration negotiated on behalf of Peru 
first to protect America's farmers and America's workers. With a $3 
billion trade deficit with Peru already, we have lost knit-wear jobs, 
we have lost agricultural jobs in onions and asparagus, and the list 
grows longer. We will only lose more jobs as we did with NAFTA unless 
you fix the innards of the agreements to stem the outsourcing in the 
first place.
  We should defeat the Peru trade agreement to stand up for the 3 
million soon-to-be displaced Peruvian small farmers who will fall 
victim to the flood of cheap South American imports that will come from 
adjoining countries because there are no readjustment provisions in the 
measure, just as there were no readjustment provisions under NAFTA and 
2 million Mexican farmers got displaced, many of them fleeing to our 
country. Where are those 3 million Peruvian farmers supposed to go with 
no transition provisions in the agreement?
  We should defeat the Peru agreement because it does not contain 
support ``Buy America'' policies in it. We should defeat the Peru trade 
agreement because we know the Bush administration cannot be trusted to 
enforce it. They haven't balanced any trade agreement. There are no 
accounts that are positive in these trade agreements that have been 
signed. In fact, this country this year will rack up close to a $1 
trillion trade deficit with the world. The American people are saying 
stop, fix what is wrong before you do anything more.
  Why would we adopt an agreement that will ruin the rain forest and 
put indigenous peoples at risk? Why would we do that to the Third World 
when we see demonstrations against the United States already all over 
Latin America. Wouldn't you think we would stand up for safe foods and 
safe imports? We know salmonella and other tainted foods are coming our 
way from Peru because so much of the seafood comes in here. Why don't 
we fix the inspection procedures before we adopt another free trade 
agreement that is not free in the end?
  Why won't we adopt trade agreements that would ensure that Peruvians 
will still have access to medicines they need, despite the demands of a 
large pharmaceutical company? Why don't we stand up for the average 
person in these agreements?
  Why would we support an agreement that is going to cause such 
hollowing out of Peruvian agriculture that they're going to have to 
displace that production with increasing coca production and illegal 
drugs? Why would we support an agreement like that?
  We have to stop the perpetuation of the NAFTA model that leaves 
poverty and imbalance in its wake while failing to fulfill any promises 
of benefits to the middle class in either country.
  Mr. Speaker, the New Direction Congress must take a new direction on 
trade, and I urge my colleagues to reject the Bush NAFTA expansion to 
Peru and support a new trade model that puts the peoples of the 
Americas first.

                          ____________________