[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 21]
[House]
[Page 29646]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                PERU FTA

  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, I rise in strong opposition to the Peru 
free trade agreement. I can't figure out why Congress is taking up this 
agreement now, especially when the Bush administration has had such a 
bad track record of enforcing any of our trade agreements.
  President Bush has given little or nothing to our workers these last 
few years other than a pink slip. So why give them another vehicle for 
job losses?
  Last week, the House passed a trade adjustment assistance overhaul 
bill. This legislation would provide our workers much-needed relief, 
but we wouldn't need more trade adjustment assistance legislation if we 
had better trade agreements.
  Even before the TAA bill passed the House, we heard that the 
President would veto it. So what would the House Democrats be doing by 
taking up the Peru free trade agreement without a TAA bill?
  And just last week we heard from the House leadership that there will 
be no China currency manipulation bill this year either. So let's 
review what we are getting out of our new trade deal: no additional 
relief for our workers, no China currency manipulation bill, no value 
added tax bill, no enforcement of existing trade policy.
  This is what we do get. We get another NAFTA-style trade deal. What 
do workers get? The same old direction on trade.
  The biggest supporter of the agreement is big multinational 
corporations. As a matter of fact, the President will be meeting with 
them tomorrow to get them to lobby for the passage of the Peru trade 
deal. It's the large multinational companies who seek to profit off the 
backs of working men and women in our country.
  The Bush administration claims that the agreement will improve labor 
standards in Peru, and in the very next breath, Tom Donohue, who's 
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 ILO Conventions.''
  These multinational companies like Peru, they love these free trade 
agreements because it's not enforceable.
  While some may think that there has been progress made on the 
environment and labor provisions by the Peru FTA, all you need to do is 
look at who's supporting these trade deals. Not one union supports this 
trade deal, not one union, environmental, consumer, small business, 
faith, family farm group supports the modified Bush Peru NAFTA-style 
trade deal.
  Even the 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 rates of drug trafficking as well.
  By voting ``no'' to the Peru FTA, you're asking for a new direction 
on trade. I ask my colleagues to join me and vote ``no'' on the Peru 
free trade deal. It's a bad deal for America. It's a bad deal for Peru. 
It's the same old, same old NAFTA-style trade deal that we're dealing 
with.

                          ____________________