[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 22]
[House]
[Pages 30404-30435]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    UNITED STATES-PERU TRADE PROMOTION AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 801, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 3688) to implement the United States-Peru Trade 
Promotion Agreement, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 3688

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``United 
     States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Purposes.
Sec. 3. Definitions.

TITLE I--APPROVAL OF, AND GENERAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO, THE AGREEMENT

Sec. 101. Approval and entry into force of the Agreement.
Sec. 102. Relationship of the Agreement to United States and State law.
Sec. 103. Implementing actions in anticipation of entry into force and 
              initial regulations.
Sec. 104. Consultation and layover provisions for, and effective date 
              of, proclaimed actions.
Sec. 105. Administration of dispute settlement proceedings.
Sec. 106. Arbitration of claims.
Sec. 107. Effective dates; effect of termination.

                      TITLE II--CUSTOMS PROVISIONS

Sec. 201. Tariff modifications.
Sec. 202. Additional duties on certain agricultural goods.
Sec. 203. Rules of origin.
Sec. 204. Customs user fees.
Sec. 205. Disclosure of incorrect information; false certifications of 
              origin; denial of preferential tariff treatment.
Sec. 206. Reliquidation of entries.
Sec. 207. Recordkeeping requirements.
Sec. 208. Enforcement relating to trade in textile or apparel goods.
Sec. 209. Regulations.

                     TITLE III--RELIEF FROM IMPORTS

Sec. 301. Definitions.

     Subtitle A--Relief From Imports Benefiting From the Agreement

Sec. 311. Commencing of action for relief.
Sec. 312. Commission action on petition.
Sec. 313. Provision of relief.
Sec. 314. Termination of relief authority.
Sec. 315. Compensation authority.
Sec. 316. Confidential business information.

           Subtitle B--Textile and Apparel Safeguard Measures

Sec. 321. Commencement of action for relief.
Sec. 322. Determination and provision of relief.
Sec. 323. Period of relief.
Sec. 324. Articles exempt from relief.
Sec. 325. Rate after termination of import relief.
Sec. 326. Termination of relief authority.
Sec. 327. Compensation authority.
Sec. 328. Confidential business information.

       Subtitle C--Cases Under Title II of the Trade Act of 1974

Sec. 331. Findings and action on goods of Peru.

                         TITLE IV--PROCUREMENT

Sec. 401. Eligible products.

               TITLE V--TRADE IN TIMBER PRODUCTS OF PERU

Sec. 501. Enforcement relating to trade in timber products of Peru.
Sec. 502. Report to Congress.

                           TITLE VI--OFFSETS

Sec. 601. Customs user fees.
Sec. 602. Time for payment of corporate estimated taxes.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to approve and implement the free trade agreement 
     between the United States and Peru entered into under the 
     authority of section 2103(b) of the Bipartisan Trade 
     Promotion Authority Act of 2002 (19 U.S.C. 3803(b));
       (2) to strengthen and develop economic relations between 
     the United States and Peru for their mutual benefit;
       (3) to establish free trade between the United States and 
     Peru through the reduction and elimination of barriers to 
     trade in goods and services and to investment; and
       (4) to lay the foundation for further cooperation to expand 
     and enhance the benefits of the Agreement.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Agreement.--The term ``Agreement'' means the United 
     States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement approved by Congress 
     under section 101(a)(1).
       (2) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the United 
     States International Trade Commission.
       (3) HTS.--The term ``HTS'' means the Harmonized Tariff 
     Schedule of the United States.
       (4) Textile or apparel good.--The term ``textile or apparel 
     good'' means a good listed in the Annex to the Agreement on 
     Textiles and Clothing referred to in section 101(d)(4) of the 
     Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3511(d)(4)), other 
     than a good listed in Annex 3-C of the Agreement.

TITLE I--APPROVAL OF, AND GENERAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO, THE AGREEMENT

     SEC. 101. APPROVAL AND ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THE AGREEMENT.

       (a) Approval of Agreement and Statement of Administrative 
     Action.--Pursuant to section 2105 of the Bipartisan Trade 
     Promotion Authority Act of 2002 (19 U.S.C. 3805) and section 
     151 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2191), Congress 
     approves--
       (1) the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement 
     entered into on April 12, 2006, with the Government of Peru, 
     as amended on June 24 and June 25, 2007, respectively, by the 
     United States and Peru, and submitted to Congress on 
     September 27, 2007; and
       (2) the statement of administrative action proposed to 
     implement the Agreement that was submitted to Congress on 
     September 27, 2007.
       (b) Conditions for Entry Into Force of the Agreement.--At 
     such time as the President determines that Peru has taken 
     measures necessary to comply with those provisions of the 
     Agreement that are to take effect on the date on which the 
     Agreement enters into force, the President is authorized to 
     exchange notes with the Government of Peru providing for the 
     entry into force, on or after January 1, 2008, of the 
     Agreement with respect to the United States.

     SEC. 102. RELATIONSHIP OF THE AGREEMENT TO UNITED STATES AND 
                   STATE LAW.

       (a) Relationship of Agreement to United States Law.--
       (1) United states law to prevail in conflict.--No provision 
     of the Agreement, nor the application of any such provision 
     to any person or circumstance, which is inconsistent with any 
     law of the United States shall have effect.
       (2) Construction.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed--
       (A) to amend or modify any law of the United States, or
       (B) to limit any authority conferred under any law of the 
     United States,
     unless specifically provided for in this Act.
       (b) Relationship of Agreement to State Law.--
       (1) Legal challenge.--No State law, or the application 
     thereof, may be declared invalid as to any person or 
     circumstance on the ground that the provision or application 
     is inconsistent with the Agreement, except in an action 
     brought by the United States for the purpose of declaring 
     such law or application invalid.
       (2) Definition of state law.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, the term ``State law'' includes--
       (A) any law of a political subdivision of a State; and
       (B) any State law regulating or taxing the business of 
     insurance.
       (c) Effect of Agreement With Respect to Private Remedies.--
     No person other than the United States--
       (1) shall have any cause of action or defense under the 
     Agreement or by virtue of congressional approval thereof; or
       (2) may challenge, in any action brought under any 
     provision of law, any action or inaction by any department, 
     agency, or other instrumentality of the United States, any 
     State, or any political subdivision of a State, on the ground 
     that such action or inaction is inconsistent with the 
     Agreement.

     SEC. 103. IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS IN ANTICIPATION OF ENTRY INTO 
                   FORCE AND INITIAL REGULATIONS.

       (a) Implementing Actions.--
       (1) Proclamation authority.--After the date of the 
     enactment of this Act--
       (A) the President may proclaim such actions, and
       (B) other appropriate officers of the United States 
     Government may issue such regulations,

     as may be necessary to ensure that any provision of this Act, 
     or amendment made by

[[Page 30405]]

     this Act, that takes effect on the date on which the 
     Agreement enters into force is appropriately implemented on 
     such date, but no such proclamation or regulation may have an 
     effective date earlier than the date on which the Agreement 
     enters into force.
       (2) Effective date of certain proclaimed actions.--Any 
     action proclaimed by the President under the authority of 
     this Act that is not subject to the consultation and layover 
     provisions under section 104 may not take effect before the 
     15th day after the date on which the text of the proclamation 
     is published in the Federal Register.
       (3) Waiver of 15-day restriction.--The 15-day restriction 
     contained in paragraph (2) on the taking effect of proclaimed 
     actions is waived to the extent that the application of such 
     restriction would prevent the taking effect on the date the 
     Agreement enters into force of any action proclaimed under 
     this section.
       (b) Initial Regulations.--Initial regulations necessary or 
     appropriate to carry out the actions required by or 
     authorized under this Act or proposed in the statement of 
     administrative action submitted under section 101(a)(2) to 
     implement the Agreement shall, to the maximum extent 
     feasible, be issued within 1 year after the date on which the 
     Agreement enters into force. In the case of any implementing 
     action that takes effect on a date after the date on which 
     the Agreement enters into force, initial regulations to carry 
     out that action shall, to the maximum extent feasible, be 
     issued within 1 year after such effective date.

     SEC. 104. CONSULTATION AND LAYOVER PROVISIONS FOR, AND 
                   EFFECTIVE DATE OF, PROCLAIMED ACTIONS.

       If a provision of this Act provides that the implementation 
     of an action by the President by proclamation is subject to 
     the consultation and layover requirements of this section, 
     such action may be proclaimed only if--
       (1) the President has obtained advice regarding the 
     proposed action from--
       (A) the appropriate advisory committees established under 
     section 135 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2155); and
       (B) the Commission;
       (2) the President has submitted to the Committee on Finance 
     of the Senate and the Committee on Ways and Means of the 
     House of Representatives a report that sets forth--
       (A) the action proposed to be proclaimed and the reasons 
     therefor; and
       (B) the advice obtained under paragraph (1);
       (3) a period of 60 calendar days, beginning on the first 
     day on which the requirements set forth in paragraphs (1) and 
     (2) have been met, has expired; and
       (4) the President has consulted with the committees 
     referred to in paragraph (2) regarding the proposed action 
     during the period referred to in paragraph (3).

     SEC. 105. ADMINISTRATION OF DISPUTE SETTLEMENT PROCEEDINGS.

       (a) Establishment or Designation of Office.--The President 
     is authorized to establish or designate within the Department 
     of Commerce an office that shall be responsible for providing 
     administrative assistance to panels established under chapter 
     21 of the Agreement. The office shall not be considered to be 
     an agency for purposes of section 552 of title 5, United 
     States Code.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated for each fiscal year after fiscal year 
     2007 to the Department of Commerce such sums as may be 
     necessary for the establishment and operations of the office 
     established or designated under subsection (a) and for the 
     payment of the United States share of the expenses of panels 
     established under chapter 21 of the Agreement.

     SEC. 106. ARBITRATION OF CLAIMS.

       The United States is authorized to resolve any claim 
     against the United States covered by article 10.16.1(a)(i)(C) 
     or article 10.16.1(b)(i)(C) of the Agreement, pursuant to the 
     Investor-State Dispute Settlement procedures set forth in 
     section B of chapter 10 of the Agreement.

     SEC. 107. EFFECTIVE DATES; EFFECT OF TERMINATION.

       (a) Effective Dates.--Except as provided in subsection (b), 
     this Act and the amendments made by this Act take effect on 
     the date on which the Agreement enters into force.
       (b) Exceptions.--Sections 1 through 3 and this title take 
     effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (c) Termination of the Agreement.--On the date on which the 
     Agreement terminates, this Act (other than this subsection) 
     and the amendments made by this Act shall cease to have 
     effect.

                      TITLE II--CUSTOMS PROVISIONS

     SEC. 201. TARIFF MODIFICATIONS.

       (a) Tariff Modifications Provided for in the Agreement.--
       (1) Proclamation authority.--The President may proclaim--
       (A) such modifications or continuation of any duty,
       (B) such continuation of duty-free or excise treatment, or
       (C) such additional duties,

     as the President determines to be necessary or appropriate to 
     carry out or apply articles 2.3, 2.5, 2.6, 3.3.13, and Annex 
     2.3 of the Agreement.
       (2) Effect on gsp status.--Notwithstanding section 
     502(a)(1) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2462(a)(1)), 
     the President shall, on the date on which the Agreement 
     enters into force, terminate the designation of Peru as a 
     beneficiary developing country for purposes of title V of the 
     Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2461 et seq.).
       (b) Other Tariff Modifications.--Subject to the 
     consultation and layover provisions of section 104, the 
     President may proclaim--
       (1) such modifications or continuation of any duty,
       (2) such modifications as the United States may agree to 
     with Peru regarding the staging of any duty treatment set 
     forth in Annex 2.3 of the Agreement,
       (3) such continuation of duty-free or excise treatment, or
       (4) such additional duties,

     as the President determines to be necessary or appropriate to 
     maintain the general level of reciprocal and mutually 
     advantageous concessions with respect to Peru provided for by 
     the Agreement.
       (c) Conversion to Ad Valorem Rates.--For purposes of 
     subsections (a) and (b), with respect to any good for which 
     the base rate in the Schedule of the United States to Annex 
     2.3 of the Agreement is a specific or compound rate of duty, 
     the President may substitute for the base rate an ad valorem 
     rate that the President determines to be equivalent to the 
     base rate.
       (d) Tariff Rate Quotas.--In implementing the tariff rate 
     quotas set forth in Appendix I to the Schedule of the United 
     States to Annex 2.3 of the Agreement, the President shall 
     take such action as may be necessary to ensure that imports 
     of agricultural goods do not disrupt the orderly marketing of 
     commodities in the United States.

     SEC. 202. ADDITIONAL DUTIES ON CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL GOODS.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Applicable ntr (mfn) rate of duty.--The term 
     ``applicable NTR (MFN) rate of duty'' means, with respect to 
     a safeguard good, a rate of duty equal to the lowest of--
       (A) the base rate in the Schedule of the United States to 
     Annex 2.3 of the Agreement;
       (B) the column 1 general rate of duty that would, on the 
     day before the date on which the Agreement enters into force, 
     apply to a good classifiable in the same 8-digit subheading 
     of the HTS as the safeguard good; or
       (C) the column 1 general rate of duty that would, at the 
     time the additional duty is imposed under subsection (b), 
     apply to a good classifiable in the same 8-digit subheading 
     of the HTS as the safeguard good.
       (2) Schedule rate of duty.--The term ``schedule rate of 
     duty'' means, with respect to a safeguard good, the rate of 
     duty for that good that is set forth in the Schedule of the 
     United States to Annex 2.3 of the Agreement.
       (3) Safeguard good.--The term ``safeguard good'' means a 
     good--
       (A) that is included in the Schedule of the United States 
     to Annex 2.18 of the Agreement;
       (B) that qualifies as an originating good under section 
     203, except that operations performed in or material obtained 
     from the United States shall be considered as if the 
     operations were performed in, and the material was obtained 
     from, a country that is not a party to the Agreement; and
       (C) for which a claim for preferential tariff treatment 
     under the Agreement has been made.
       (b) Additional Duties on Safeguard Goods.--
       (1) In general.--In addition to any duty proclaimed under 
     subsection (a) or (b) of section 201, the Secretary of the 
     Treasury shall assess a duty, in the amount determined under 
     paragraph (2), on a safeguard good imported into the United 
     States in a calendar year if the Secretary determines that, 
     prior to such importation, the total volume of that safeguard 
     good that is imported into the United States in that calendar 
     year exceeds 130 percent of the volume that is provided for 
     that safeguard good in the corresponding year in the 
     applicable table contained in Appendix I of the General Notes 
     to the Schedule of the United States to Annex 2.3 of the 
     Agreement. For purposes of this subsection, year 1 in that 
     table corresponds to the calendar year in which the Agreement 
     enters into force.
       (2) Calculation of additional duty.--The additional duty on 
     a safeguard good under this subsection shall be--
       (A) in years 1 through 12, an amount equal to 100 percent 
     of the excess of the applicable NTR (MFN) rate of duty over 
     the schedule rate of duty; and
       (B) in years 13 through 16, an amount equal to 50 percent 
     of the excess of the applicable NTR (MFN) rate of duty over 
     the schedule rate of duty.
       (3) Notice.--Not later than 60 days after the Secretary of 
     the Treasury first assesses an additional duty in a calendar 
     year on a good under this subsection, the Secretary shall 
     notify the Government of Peru in writing of such action and 
     shall provide to that Government data supporting the 
     assessment of the additional duty.
       (c) Exceptions.--No additional duty shall be assessed on a 
     good under subsection (b) if, at the time of entry, the good 
     is subject to import relief under--

[[Page 30406]]

       (1) subtitle A of title III of this Act; or
       (2) chapter 1 of title II of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 
     U.S.C. 2251 et seq.).
       (d) Termination.--The assessment of an additional duty on a 
     good under subsection (b) shall cease to apply to that good 
     on the date on which duty-free treatment must be provided to 
     that good under the Schedule of the United States to Annex 
     2.3 of the Agreement.

     SEC. 203. RULES OF ORIGIN.

       (a) Application and Interpretation.--In this section:
       (1) Tariff classification.--The basis for any tariff 
     classification is the HTS.
       (2) Reference to hts.--Whenever in this section there is a 
     reference to a chapter, heading, or subheading, such 
     reference shall be a reference to a chapter, heading, or 
     subheading of the HTS.
       (3) Cost or value.--Any cost or value referred to in this 
     section shall be recorded and maintained in accordance with 
     the generally accepted accounting principles applicable in 
     the territory of the country in which the good is produced 
     (whether Peru or the United States).
       (b) Originating Goods.--For purposes of this Act and for 
     purposes of implementing the preferential tariff treatment 
     provided for under the Agreement, except as otherwise 
     provided in this section, a good is an originating good if--
       (1) the good is a good wholly obtained or produced entirely 
     in the territory of Peru, the United States, or both;
       (2) the good--
       (A) is produced entirely in the territory of Peru, the 
     United States, or both, and--
       (i) each of the nonoriginating materials used in the 
     production of the good undergoes an applicable change in 
     tariff classification specified in Annex 3-A or Annex 4.1 of 
     the Agreement; or
       (ii) the good otherwise satisfies any applicable regional 
     value-content or other requirements specified in Annex 3-A or 
     Annex 4.1 of the Agreement; and
       (B) satisfies all other applicable requirements of this 
     section; or
       (3) the good is produced entirely in the territory of Peru, 
     the United States, or both, exclusively from materials 
     described in paragraph (1) or (2).
       (c) Regional Value-Content.--
       (1) In general.--For purposes of subsection (b)(2), the 
     regional value-content of a good referred to in Annex 4.1 of 
     the Agreement, except for goods to which paragraph (4) 
     applies, shall be calculated by the importer, exporter, or 
     producer of the good, on the basis of the build-down method 
     described in paragraph (2) or the build-up method described 
     in paragraph (3).
       (2) Build-down method.--
       (A) In general.--The regional value-content of a good may 
     be calculated on the basis of the following build-down 
     method:

                                av - vnm

                           rvc = -------- 100

                                   av

       (B) Definitions.--In subparagraph (A):
       (i) RVC.--The term ``RVC'' means the regional value-content 
     of the good, expressed as a percentage.
       (ii) AV.--The term ``AV'' means the adjusted value of the 
     good.
       (iii) VNM.--The term ``VNM'' means the value of 
     nonoriginating materials that are acquired and used by the 
     producer in the production of the good, but does not include 
     the value of a material that is self-produced.
       (3) Build-up method.--
       (A) In general.--The regional value-content of a good may 
     be calculated on the basis of the following build-up method:

                                  vom

                           rvc = -------- 100

                                   av

       (B) Definitions.--In subparagraph (A):
       (i) RVC.--The term ``RVC'' means the regional value-content 
     of the good, expressed as a percentage.
       (ii) AV.--The term ``AV'' means the adjusted value of the 
     good.
       (iii) VOM.--The term ``VOM'' means the value of originating 
     materials that are acquired or self-produced, and used by the 
     producer in the production of the good.
       (4) Special rule for certain automotive goods.--
       (A) In general.--For purposes of subsection (b)(2), the 
     regional value-content of an automotive good referred to in 
     Annex 4.1 of the Agreement shall be calculated by the 
     importer, exporter, or producer of the good, on the basis of 
     the following net cost method:

                                nc - vnm

                           rvc = -------- 100

                                   nc

       (B) Definitions.--In subparagraph (A):
       (i) Automotive good.--The term ``automotive good'' means a 
     good provided for in any of subheadings 8407.31 through 
     8407.34, subheading 8408.20, heading 8409, or any of headings 
     8701 through 8708.
       (ii) RVC.--The term ``RVC'' means the regional value-
     content of the automotive good, expressed as a percentage.
       (iii) NC.--The term ``NC'' means the net cost of the 
     automotive good.
       (iv) VNM.--The term ``VNM'' means the value of 
     nonoriginating materials that are acquired and used by the 
     producer in the production of the automotive good, but does 
     not include the value of a material that is self-produced.
       (C) Motor vehicles.--
       (i) Basis of calculation.--For purposes of determining the 
     regional value-content under subparagraph (A) for an 
     automotive good that is a motor vehicle provided for in any 
     of headings 8701 through 8705, an importer, exporter, or 
     producer may average the amounts calculated under the formula 
     contained in subparagraph (A), over the producer's fiscal 
     year--

       (I) with respect to all motor vehicles in any one of the 
     categories described in clause (ii); or
       (II) with respect to all motor vehicles in any such 
     category that are exported to the territory of the United 
     States or Peru.

       (ii) Categories.--A category is described in this clause if 
     it--

       (I) is the same model line of motor vehicles, is in the 
     same class of motor vehicles, and is produced in the same 
     plant in the territory of Peru or the United States, as the 
     good described in clause (i) for which regional value-content 
     is being calculated;
       (II) is the same class of motor vehicles, and is produced 
     in the same plant in the territory of Peru or the United 
     States, as the good described in clause (i) for which 
     regional value-content is being calculated; or
       (III) is the same model line of motor vehicles produced in 
     the territory of Peru or the United States as the good 
     described in clause (i) for which regional value-content is 
     being calculated.

       (D) Other automotive goods.--For purposes of determining 
     the regional value-content under subparagraph (A) for 
     automotive materials provided for in any of subheadings 
     8407.31 through 8407.34, in subheading 8408.20, or in heading 
     8409, 8706, 8707, or 8708, that are produced in the same 
     plant, an importer, exporter, or producer may--
       (i) average the amounts calculated under the formula 
     contained in subparagraph (A) over--

       (I) the fiscal year of the motor vehicle producer to whom 
     the automotive goods are sold,
       (II) any quarter or month, or
       (III) the fiscal year of the producer of such goods,

     if the goods were produced during the fiscal year, quarter, 
     or month that is the basis for the calculation;
       (ii) determine the average referred to in clause (i) 
     separately for such goods sold to 1 or more motor vehicle 
     producers; or
       (iii) make a separate determination under clause (i) or 
     (ii) for such goods that are exported to the territory of 
     Peru or the United States.
       (E) Calculating net cost.--The importer, exporter, or 
     producer of an automotive good shall, consistent with the 
     provisions regarding allocation of costs provided for in 
     generally accepted accounting principles, determine the net 
     cost of the automotive good under subparagraph (B) by--
       (i) calculating the total cost incurred with respect to all 
     goods produced by the producer of the automotive good, 
     subtracting any sales promotion, marketing, and after-sales 
     service costs, royalties, shipping and packing costs, and 
     nonallowable interest costs that are included in the total 
     cost of all such goods, and then reasonably allocating the 
     resulting net cost of those goods to the automotive good;
       (ii) calculating the total cost incurred with respect to 
     all goods produced by that producer, reasonably allocating 
     the total cost to the automotive good, and then subtracting 
     any sales promotion, marketing, and after-sales service 
     costs, royalties, shipping and packing costs, and 
     nonallowable interest costs that are included in the portion 
     of the total cost allocated to the automotive good; or
       (iii) reasonably allocating each cost that forms part of 
     the total cost incurred with respect to the automotive good 
     so that the aggregate of these costs does not include any 
     sales promotion, marketing, and after-sales service costs, 
     royalties, shipping and packing costs, or nonallowable 
     interest costs.
       (d) Value of Materials.--
       (1) In general.--For the purpose of calculating the 
     regional value-content of a good under subsection (c), and 
     for purposes of applying the de minimis rules under 
     subsection (f), the value of a material is--
       (A) in the case of a material that is imported by the 
     producer of the good, the adjusted value of the material;
       (B) in the case of a material acquired in the territory in 
     which the good is produced, the value, determined in 
     accordance with Articles 1 through 8, Article 15, and the 
     corresponding interpretive notes, of the Agreement on 
     Implementation of Article VII of the General Agreement on 
     Tariffs and Trade 1994 referred to in section 101(d)(8) of 
     the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3511(d)(8)), as 
     set forth in regulations promulgated by the Secretary of the 
     Treasury providing for the application of such Articles in 
     the absence of an importation by the producer; or
       (C) in the case of a material that is self-produced, the 
     sum of--

[[Page 30407]]

       (i) all expenses incurred in the production of the 
     material, including general expenses; and
       (ii) an amount for profit equivalent to the profit added in 
     the normal course of trade.
       (2) Further adjustments to the value of materials.--
       (A) Originating material.--The following expenses, if not 
     included in the value of an originating material calculated 
     under paragraph (1), may be added to the value of the 
     originating material:
       (i) The costs of freight, insurance, packing, and all other 
     costs incurred in transporting the material within or between 
     the territory of Peru, the United States, or both, to the 
     location of the producer.
       (ii) Duties, taxes, and customs brokerage fees on the 
     material paid in the territory of Peru, the United States, or 
     both, other than duties or taxes that are waived, refunded, 
     refundable, or otherwise recoverable, including credit 
     against duty or tax paid or payable.
       (iii) The cost of waste and spoilage resulting from the use 
     of the material in the production of the good, less the value 
     of renewable scrap or byproducts.
       (B) Nonoriginating material.--The following expenses, if 
     included in the value of a nonoriginating material calculated 
     under paragraph (1), may be deducted from the value of the 
     nonoriginating material:
       (i) The costs of freight, insurance, packing, and all other 
     costs incurred in transporting the material within or between 
     the territory of Peru, the United States, or both, to the 
     location of the producer.
       (ii) Duties, taxes, and customs brokerage fees on the 
     material paid in the territory of Peru, the United States, or 
     both, other than duties or taxes that are waived, refunded, 
     refundable, or otherwise recoverable, including credit 
     against duty or tax paid or payable.
       (iii) The cost of waste and spoilage resulting from the use 
     of the material in the production of the good, less the value 
     of renewable scrap or byproducts.
       (iv) The cost of originating materials used in the 
     production of the nonoriginating material in the territory of 
     Peru, the United States, or both.
       (e) Accumulation.--
       (1) Originating materials used in production of goods of 
     another country.--Originating materials from the territory of 
     Peru or the United States that are used in the production of 
     a good in the territory of the other country shall be 
     considered to originate in the territory of such other 
     country.
       (2) Multiple producers.--A good that is produced in the 
     territory of Peru, the United States, or both, by 1 or more 
     producers, is an originating good if the good satisfies the 
     requirements of subsection (b) and all other applicable 
     requirements of this section.
       (f) De Minimis Amounts of Nonoriginating Materials.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and 
     (3), a good that does not undergo a change in tariff 
     classification pursuant to Annex 4.1 of the Agreement is an 
     originating good if--
       (A)(i) the value of all nonoriginating materials that--
       (I) are used in the production of the good, and
       (II) do not undergo the applicable change in tariff 
     classification (set forth in Annex 4.1 of the Agreement),
     does not exceed 10 percent of the adjusted value of the good;
       (ii) the good meets all other applicable requirements of 
     this section; and
       (iii) the value of such nonoriginating materials is 
     included in the value of nonoriginating materials for any 
     applicable regional value-content requirement for the good; 
     or
       (B) the good meets the requirements set forth in paragraph 
     2 of Annex 4.6 of the Agreement.
       (2) Exceptions.--Paragraph (1) does not apply to the 
     following:
       (A) A nonoriginating material provided for in chapter 4, or 
     a nonoriginating dairy preparation containing over 10 percent 
     by weight of milk solids provided for in subheading 1901.90 
     or 2106.90, that is used in the production of a good provided 
     for in chapter 4.
       (B) A nonoriginating material provided for in chapter 4, or 
     a nonoriginating dairy preparation containing over 10 percent 
     by weight of milk solids provided for in subheading 1901.90, 
     that is used in the production of any of the following goods:
       (i) Infant preparations containing over 10 percent by 
     weight of milk solids provided for in subheading 1901.10.
       (ii) Mixes and doughs, containing over 25 percent by weight 
     of butterfat, not put up for retail sale, provided for in 
     subheading 1901.20.
       (iii) Dairy preparations containing over 10 percent by 
     weight of milk solids provided for in subheading 1901.90 or 
     2106.90.
       (iv) Goods provided for in heading 2105.
       (v) Beverages containing milk provided for in subheading 
     2202.90.
       (vi) Animal feeds containing over 10 percent by weight of 
     milk solids provided for in subheading 2309.90.
       (C) A nonoriginating material provided for in heading 0805, 
     or any of subheadings 2009.11 through 2009.39, that is used 
     in the production of a good provided for in any of 
     subheadings 2009.11 through 2009.39, or in fruit or vegetable 
     juice of any single fruit or vegetable, fortified with 
     minerals or vitamins, concentrated or unconcentrated, 
     provided for in subheading 2106.90 or 2202.90.
       (D) A nonoriginating material provided for in heading 0901 
     or 2101 that is used in the production of a good provided for 
     in heading 0901 or 2101.
       (E) A nonoriginating material provided for in chapter 15 
     that is used in the production of a good provided for in any 
     of headings 1501 through 1508, or any of headings 1511 
     through 1515.
       (F) A nonoriginating material provided for in heading 1701 
     that is used in the production of a good provided for in any 
     of headings 1701 through 1703.
       (G) A nonoriginating material provided for in chapter 17 
     that is used in the production of a good provided for in 
     subheading 1806.10.
       (H) Except as provided in subparagraphs (A) through (G) and 
     Annex 4.1 of the Agreement, a nonoriginating material used in 
     the production of a good provided for in any of chapters 1 
     through 24, unless the nonoriginating material is provided 
     for in a different subheading than the good for which origin 
     is being determined under this section.
       (I) A nonoriginating material that is a textile or apparel 
     good.
       (3) Textile or apparel goods.--
       (A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), a 
     textile or apparel good that is not an originating good 
     because certain fibers or yarns used in the production of the 
     component of the good that determines the tariff 
     classification of the good do not undergo an applicable 
     change in tariff classification, set forth in Annex 3-A of 
     the Agreement, shall be considered to be an originating good 
     if--
       (i) the total weight of all such fibers or yarns in that 
     component is not more than 10 percent of the total weight of 
     that component; or
       (ii) the yarns are those described in section 
     204(b)(3)(B)(vi)(IV) of the Andean Trade Preference Act (19 
     U.S.C. 3203(b)(3)(B)(vi)(IV)) (as in effect on the date of 
     the enactment of this Act).
       (B) Certain textile or apparel goods.--A textile or apparel 
     good containing elastomeric yarns in the component of the 
     good that determines the tariff classification of the good 
     shall be considered to be an originating good only if such 
     yarns are wholly formed in the territory of Peru, the United 
     States, or both.
       (C) Yarn, fabric, or fiber.--For purposes of this 
     paragraph, in the case of a good that is a yarn, fabric, or 
     fiber, the term ``component of the good that determines the 
     tariff classification of the good'' means all of the fibers 
     in the good.
       (g) Fungible Goods and Materials.--
       (1) In general.--
       (A) Claim for preferential tariff treatment.--A person 
     claiming that a fungible good or fungible material is an 
     originating good may base the claim either on the physical 
     segregation of the fungible good or fungible material or by 
     using an inventory management method with respect to the 
     fungible good or fungible material.
       (B) Inventory management method.--In this subsection, the 
     term ``inventory management method'' means--
       (i) averaging;
       (ii) ``last-in, first-out'';
       (iii) ``first-in, first-out''; or
       (iv) any other method--

       (I) recognized in the generally accepted accounting 
     principles of the country in which the production is 
     performed (whether Peru or the United States); or
       (II) otherwise accepted by that country.

       (2) Election of inventory method.--A person selecting an 
     inventory management method under paragraph (1) for a 
     particular fungible good or fungible material shall continue 
     to use that method for that fungible good or fungible 
     material throughout the fiscal year of such person.
       (h) Accessories, Spare Parts, or Tools.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), 
     accessories, spare parts, or tools delivered with a good that 
     form part of the good's standard accessories, spare parts, or 
     tools shall--
       (A) be treated as originating goods if the good is an 
     originating good; and
       (B) be disregarded in determining whether all the 
     nonoriginating materials used in the production of the good 
     undergo the applicable change in tariff classification set 
     forth in Annex 4.1 of the Agreement.
       (2) Conditions.--Paragraph (1) shall apply only if--
       (A) the accessories, spare parts, or tools are classified 
     with and not invoiced separately from the good, regardless of 
     whether such accessories, spare parts, or tools are specified 
     or are separately identified in the invoice for the good; and
       (B) the quantities and value of the accessories, spare 
     parts, or tools are customary for the good.
       (3) Regional value-content.--If the good is subject to a 
     regional value-content requirement, the value of the 
     accessories, spare parts, or tools shall be taken into 
     account as originating or nonoriginating materials, as the 
     case may be, in calculating the regional value-content of the 
     good.
       (i) Packaging Materials and Containers for Retail Sale.--
     Packaging materials and containers in which a good is 
     packaged for retail sale, if classified with the good, shall 
     be disregarded in determining whether all

[[Page 30408]]

     the nonoriginating materials used in the production of the 
     good undergo the applicable change in tariff classification 
     set forth in Annex 3-A or Annex 4.1 of the Agreement, and, if 
     the good is subject to a regional value-content requirement, 
     the value of such packaging materials and containers shall be 
     taken into account as originating or nonoriginating 
     materials, as the case may be, in calculating the regional 
     value-content of the good.
       (j) Packing Materials and Containers for Shipment.--Packing 
     materials and containers for shipment shall be disregarded in 
     determining whether a good is an originating good.
       (k) Indirect Materials.--An indirect material shall be 
     treated as an originating material without regard to where it 
     is produced.
       (l) Transit and Transhipment.--A good that has undergone 
     production necessary to qualify as an originating good under 
     subsection (b) shall not be considered to be an originating 
     good if, subsequent to that production, the good--
       (1) undergoes further production or any other operation 
     outside the territory of Peru or the United States, other 
     than unloading, reloading, or any other operation necessary 
     to preserve the good in good condition or to transport the 
     good to the territory of Peru or the United States; or
       (2) does not remain under the control of customs 
     authorities in the territory of a country other than Peru or 
     the United States.
       (m) Goods Classifiable as Goods Put Up in Sets.--
     Notwithstanding the rules set forth in Annex 3-A and Annex 
     4.1 of the Agreement, goods classifiable as goods put up in 
     sets for retail sale as provided for in General Rule of 
     Interpretation 3 of the HTS shall not be considered to be 
     originating goods unless--
       (1) each of the goods in the set is an originating good; or
       (2) the total value of the nonoriginating goods in the set 
     does not exceed--
       (A) in the case of textile or apparel goods, 10 percent of 
     the adjusted value of the set; or
       (B) in the case of a good, other than a textile or apparel 
     good, 15 percent of the adjusted value of the set.
       (n) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Adjusted value.--The term ``adjusted value'' means the 
     value determined in accordance with Articles 1 through 8, 
     Article 15, and the corresponding interpretive notes, of the 
     Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of the General 
     Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 referred to in section 
     101(d)(8) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 
     3511(d)(8)), adjusted, if necessary, to exclude any costs, 
     charges, or expenses incurred for transportation, insurance, 
     and related services incident to the international shipment 
     of the merchandise from the country of exportation to the 
     place of importation.
       (2) Class of motor vehicles.--The term ``class of motor 
     vehicles'' means any one of the following categories of motor 
     vehicles:
       (A) Motor vehicles provided for in subheading 8701.20, 
     8704.10, 8704.22, 8704.23, 8704.32, or 8704.90, or heading 
     8705 or 8706, or motor vehicles for the transport of 16 or 
     more persons provided for in subheading 8702.10 or 8702.90.
       (B) Motor vehicles provided for in subheading 8701.10 or 
     any of subheadings 8701.30 through 8701.90.
       (C) Motor vehicles for the transport of 15 or fewer persons 
     provided for in subheading 8702.10 or 8702.90, or motor 
     vehicles provided for in subheading 8704.21 or 8704.31.
       (D) Motor vehicles provided for in any of subheadings 
     8703.21 through 8703.90.
       (3) Fungible good or fungible material.--The term 
     ``fungible good'' or ``fungible material'' means a good or 
     material, as the case may be, that is interchangeable with 
     another good or material for commercial purposes and the 
     properties of which are essentially identical to such other 
     good or material.
       (4) Generally accepted accounting principles.--The term 
     ``generally accepted accounting principles'' means the 
     recognized consensus or substantial authoritative support in 
     the territory of Peru or the United States, as the case may 
     be, with respect to the recording of revenues, expenses, 
     costs, assets, and liabilities, the disclosure of 
     information, and the preparation of financial statements. The 
     principles may encompass broad guidelines of general 
     application as well as detailed standards, practices, and 
     procedures.
       (5) Good wholly obtained or produced entirely in the 
     territory of peru, the united states, or both.--The term 
     ``good wholly obtained or produced entirely in the territory 
     of Peru, the United States, or both'' means any of the 
     following:
       (A) Plants and plant products harvested or gathered in the 
     territory of Peru, the United States, or both.
       (B) Live animals born and raised in the territory of Peru, 
     the United States, or both.
       (C) Goods obtained in the territory of Peru, the United 
     States, or both from live animals.
       (D) Goods obtained from hunting, trapping, fishing, or 
     aquaculture conducted in the territory of Peru, the United 
     States, or both.
       (E) Minerals and other natural resources not included in 
     subparagraphs (A) through (D) that are extracted or taken 
     from the territory of Peru, the United States, or both.
       (F) Fish, shellfish, and other marine life taken from the 
     sea, seabed, or subsoil outside the territory of Peru or the 
     United States by--
       (i) a vessel that is registered or recorded with Peru and 
     flying the flag of Peru; or
       (ii) a vessel that is documented under the laws of the 
     United States.
       (G) Goods produced on board a factory ship from goods 
     referred to in subparagraph (F), if such factory ship--
       (i) is registered or recorded with Peru and flies the flag 
     of Peru; or
       (ii) is a vessel that is documented under the laws of the 
     United States.
       (H)(i) Goods taken by Peru or a person of Peru from the 
     seabed or subsoil outside the territorial waters of Peru, if 
     Peru has rights to exploit such seabed or subsoil.
       (ii) Goods taken by the United States or a person of the 
     United States from the seabed or subsoil outside the 
     territorial waters of the United States, if the United States 
     has rights to exploit such seabed or subsoil.
       (I) Goods taken from outer space, if the goods are obtained 
     by Peru or the United States or a person of Peru or the 
     United States and not processed in the territory of a country 
     other than Peru or the United States.
       (J) Waste and scrap derived from--
       (i) manufacturing or processing operations in the territory 
     of Peru, the United States, or both; or
       (ii) used goods collected in the territory of Peru, the 
     United States, or both, if such goods are fit only for the 
     recovery of raw materials.
       (K) Recovered goods derived in the territory of Peru, the 
     United States, or both, from used goods, and used in the 
     territory of Peru, the United States, or both, in the 
     production of remanufactured goods.
       (L) Goods, at any stage of production, produced in the 
     territory of Peru, the United States, or both, exclusively 
     from--
       (i) goods referred to in any of subparagraphs (A) through 
     (J), or
       (ii) the derivatives of goods referred to in clause (i).
       (6) Identical goods.--The term ``identical goods'' means 
     goods that are the same in all respects relevant to the rule 
     of origin that qualifies the goods as originating goods.
       (7) Indirect material.--The term ``indirect material'' 
     means a good used in the production, testing, or inspection 
     of another good but not physically incorporated into that 
     other good, or a good used in the maintenance of buildings or 
     the operation of equipment associated with the production of 
     another good, including--
       (A) fuel and energy;
       (B) tools, dies, and molds;
       (C) spare parts and materials used in the maintenance of 
     equipment or buildings;
       (D) lubricants, greases, compounding materials, and other 
     materials used in production or used to operate equipment or 
     buildings;
       (E) gloves, glasses, footwear, clothing, safety equipment, 
     and supplies;
       (F) equipment, devices, and supplies used for testing or 
     inspecting the good;
       (G) catalysts and solvents; and
       (H) any other goods that are not incorporated into the 
     other good but the use of which in the production of the 
     other good can reasonably be demonstrated to be a part of 
     that production.
       (8) Material.--The term ``material'' means a good that is 
     used in the production of another good, including a part or 
     an ingredient.
       (9) Material that is self-produced.--The term ``material 
     that is self-produced'' means an originating material that is 
     produced by a producer of a good and used in the production 
     of that good.
       (10) Model line of motor vehicles.--The term ``model line 
     of motor vehicles'' means a group of motor vehicles having 
     the same platform or model name.
       (11) Net cost.--The term ``net cost'' means total cost 
     minus sales promotion, marketing, and after-sales service 
     costs, royalties, shipping and packing costs, and non-
     allowable interest costs that are included in the total cost.
       (12) Nonallowable interest costs.--The term ``nonallowable 
     interest costs'' means interest costs incurred by a producer 
     that exceed 700 basis points above the applicable official 
     interest rate for comparable maturities of the country in 
     which the producer is located.
       (13) Nonoriginating good or nonoriginating material.--The 
     terms ``nonoriginating good'' and ``nonoriginating material'' 
     mean a good or material, as the case may be, that does not 
     qualify as originating under this section.
       (14) Packing materials and containers for shipment.--The 
     term ``packing materials and containers for shipment'' means 
     goods used to protect another good during its transportation 
     and does not include the packaging materials and containers 
     in which the other good is packaged for retail sale.
       (15) Preferential tariff treatment.--The term 
     ``preferential tariff treatment'' means the customs duty 
     rate, and the treatment under article 2.10.4 of the 
     Agreement, that are applicable to an originating good 
     pursuant to the Agreement.

[[Page 30409]]

       (16) Producer.--The term ``producer'' means a person who 
     engages in the production of a good in the territory of Peru 
     or the United States.
       (17) Production.--The term ``production'' means growing, 
     mining, harvesting, fishing, raising, trapping, hunting, 
     manufacturing, processing, assembling, or disassembling a 
     good.
       (18) Reasonably allocate.--The term ``reasonably allocate'' 
     means to apportion in a manner that would be appropriate 
     under generally accepted accounting principles.
       (19) Recovered goods.--The term ``recovered goods'' means 
     materials in the form of individual parts that are the result 
     of--
       (A) the disassembly of used goods into individual parts; 
     and
       (B) the cleaning, inspecting, testing, or other processing 
     that is necessary for improvement to sound working condition 
     of such individual parts.
       (20) Remanufactured good.--The term ``remanufactured good'' 
     means an industrial good assembled in the territory of Peru 
     or the United States, or both, that is classified under 
     chapter 84, 85, 87, or 90 or heading 9402, other than a good 
     classified under heading 8418 or 8516, and that--
       (A) is entirely or partially comprised of recovered goods; 
     and
       (B) has a similar life expectancy and enjoys a factory 
     warranty similar to such a good that is new.
       (21) Total cost.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``total cost''--
       (i) means all product costs, period costs, and other costs 
     for a good incurred in the territory of Peru, the United 
     States, or both; and
       (ii) does not include profits that are earned by the 
     producer, regardless of whether they are retained by the 
     producer or paid out to other persons as dividends, or taxes 
     paid on those profits, including capital gains taxes.
       (B) Other definitions.--In this paragraph:
       (i) Product costs.--The term ``product costs'' means costs 
     that are associated with the production of a good and include 
     the value of materials, direct labor costs, and direct 
     overhead.
       (ii) Period costs.--The term ``period costs'' means costs, 
     other than product costs, that are expensed in the period in 
     which they are incurred, such as selling expenses and general 
     and administrative expenses.
       (iii) Other costs.--The term ``other costs'' means all 
     costs recorded on the books of the producer that are not 
     product costs or period costs, such as interest.
       (22) Used.--The term ``used'' means utilized or consumed in 
     the production of goods.
       (o) Presidential Proclamation Authority.--
       (1) In general.--The President is authorized to proclaim, 
     as part of the HTS--
       (A) the provisions set forth in Annex 3-A and Annex 4.1 of 
     the Agreement; and
       (B) any additional subordinate category that is necessary 
     to carry out this title consistent with the Agreement.
       (2) Fabrics and yarns not available in commercial 
     quantities in the united states.--The President is authorized 
     to proclaim that a fabric or yarn is added to the list in 
     Annex 3-B of the Agreement in an unrestricted quantity, as 
     provided in article 3.3.5(e) of the Agreement.
       (3) Modifications.--
       (A) In general.--Subject to the consultation and layover 
     provisions of section 104, the President may proclaim 
     modifications to the provisions proclaimed under the 
     authority of paragraph (1)(A), other than provisions of 
     chapters 50 through 63 (as included in Annex 3-A of the 
     Agreement).
       (B) Additional proclamations.--Notwithstanding subparagraph 
     (A), and subject to the consultation and layover provisions 
     of section 104, the President may proclaim before the end of 
     the 1-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, modifications to correct any typographical, 
     clerical, or other nonsubstantive technical error regarding 
     the provisions of chapters 50 through 63 (as included in 
     Annex 3-A of the Agreement).
       (4) Fabrics, yarns, or fibers not available in commercial 
     quantities in peru and the united states.--
       (A) In general.--Notwithstanding paragraph (3)(A), the list 
     of fabrics, yarns, and fibers set forth in Annex 3-B of the 
     Agreement may be modified as provided for in this paragraph.
       (B) Definitions.--In this paragraph:
       (i) The term ``interested entity'' means the Government of 
     Peru, a potential or actual purchaser of a textile or apparel 
     good, or a potential or actual supplier of a textile or 
     apparel good.
       (ii) All references to ``day'' and ``days'' exclude 
     Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays observed by the 
     Government of the United States.
       (C) Requests to add fabrics, yarns, or fibers.--(i) An 
     interested entity may request the President to determine that 
     a fabric, yarn, or fiber is not available in commercial 
     quantities in a timely manner in Peru and the United States 
     and to add that fabric, yarn, or fiber to the list in Annex 
     3-B of the Agreement in a restricted or unrestricted 
     quantity.
       (ii) After receiving a request under clause (i), the 
     President may determine whether--
       (I) the fabric, yarn, or fiber is available in commercial 
     quantities in a timely manner in Peru or the United States; 
     or
       (II) any interested entity objects to the request.
       (iii) The President may, within the time periods specified 
     in clause (iv), proclaim that the fabric, yarn, or fiber that 
     is the subject of the request is added to the list in Annex 
     3-B of the Agreement in an unrestricted quantity, or in any 
     restricted quantity that the President may establish, if the 
     President has determined under clause (ii) that--
       (I) the fabric, yarn, or fiber is not available in 
     commercial quantities in a timely manner in Peru and the 
     United States; or
       (II) no interested entity has objected to the request.
       (iv) The time periods within which the President may issue 
     a proclamation under clause (iii) are--
       (I) not later than 30 days after the date on which a 
     request is submitted under clause (i); or
       (II) not later than 44 days after the request is submitted, 
     if the President determines, within 30 days after the date on 
     which the request is submitted, that the President does not 
     have sufficient information to make a determination under 
     clause (ii).
       (v) Notwithstanding section 103(a)(2), a proclamation made 
     under clause (iii) shall take effect on the date on which the 
     text of the proclamation is published in the Federal 
     Register.
       (vi) Not later than 6 months after proclaiming under clause 
     (iii) that a fabric, yarn, or fiber is added to the list in 
     Annex 3-B of the Agreement in a restricted quantity, the 
     President may eliminate the restriction if the President 
     determines that the fabric, yarn, or fiber is not available 
     in commercial quantities in a timely manner in Peru and the 
     United States.
       (D) Deemed approval of request.--If, after an interested 
     entity submits a request under subparagraph (C)(i), the 
     President does not, within the applicable time period 
     specified in subparagraph (C)(iv), make a determination under 
     subparagraph (C)(ii) regarding the request, the fabric, yarn, 
     or fiber that is the subject of the request shall be 
     considered to be added, in an unrestricted quantity, to the 
     list in Annex 3-B of the Agreement beginning--
       (i) 45 days after the date on which the request was 
     submitted; or
       (ii) 60 days after the date on which the request was 
     submitted, if the President made a determination under 
     subparagraph (C)(iv)(II).
       (E) Requests to restrict or remove fabrics, yarns, or 
     fibers.--(i) Subject to clause (ii), an interested entity may 
     request the President to restrict the quantity of, or remove 
     from the list in Annex 3-B of the Agreement, any fabric, 
     yarn, or fiber--
       (I) that has been added to that list in an unrestricted 
     quantity pursuant to paragraph (2) or subparagraph (C)(iii) 
     or (D) of this paragraph; or
       (II) with respect to which the President has eliminated a 
     restriction under subparagraph (C)(vi).
       (ii) An interested entity may submit a request under clause 
     (i) at any time beginning 6 months after the date of the 
     action described in subclause (I) or (II) of that clause.
       (iii) Not later than 30 days after the date on which a 
     request under clause (i) is submitted, the President may 
     proclaim an action provided for under clause (i) if the 
     President determines that the fabric, yarn, or fiber that is 
     the subject of the request is available in commercial 
     quantities in a timely manner in Peru or the United States.
       (iv) A proclamation under clause (iii) shall take effect no 
     earlier than the date that is 6 months after the date on 
     which the text of the proclamation is published in the 
     Federal Register.
       (F) Procedures.--The President shall establish procedures--
       (i) governing the submission of a request under 
     subparagraphs (C) and (E); and
       (ii) providing an opportunity for interested entities to 
     submit comments and supporting evidence before the President 
     makes a determination under subparagraph (C) (ii) or (vi) or 
     (E)(iii).

     SEC. 204. CUSTOMS USER FEES.

       Section 13031(b) of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget 
     Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c(b)) is amended by 
     adding after paragraph (17) the following:
       ``(18) No fee may be charged under subsection (a) (9) or 
     (10) with respect to goods that qualify as originating goods 
     under section 203 of the United States-Peru Trade Promotion 
     Agreement Implementation Act. Any service for which an 
     exemption from such fee is provided by reason of this 
     paragraph may not be funded with money contained in the 
     Customs User Fee Account.''.

     SEC. 205. DISCLOSURE OF INCORRECT INFORMATION; FALSE 
                   CERTIFICATIONS OF ORIGIN; DENIAL OF 
                   PREFERENTIAL TARIFF TREATMENT.

       (a) Disclosure of Incorrect Information.--Section 592 of 
     the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1592) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c)--
       (A) by redesignating paragraph (10) as paragraph (11); and
       (B) by inserting after paragraph (9) the following new 
     paragraph:

[[Page 30410]]

       ``(10) Prior disclosure regarding claims under the united 
     states-peru trade promotion agreement.--An importer shall not 
     be subject to penalties under subsection (a) for making an 
     incorrect claim that a good qualifies as an originating good 
     under section 203 of the United States-Peru Trade Promotion 
     Agreement Implementation Act if the importer, in accordance 
     with regulations issued by the Secretary of the Treasury, 
     promptly and voluntarily makes a corrected declaration and 
     pays any duties owing with respect to that good.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(i) False Certifications of Origin Under the United 
     States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), it is unlawful 
     for any person to certify falsely, by fraud, gross 
     negligence, or negligence, in a PTPA certification of origin 
     (as defined in section 508(h)(1)(B) of this Act) that a good 
     exported from the United States qualifies as an originating 
     good under the rules of origin provided for in section 203 of 
     the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement 
     Implementation Act. The procedures and penalties of this 
     section that apply to a violation of subsection (a) also 
     apply to a violation of this subsection.
       ``(2) Prompt and voluntary disclosure of incorrect 
     information.--No penalty shall be imposed under this 
     subsection if, promptly after an exporter or producer that 
     issued a PTPA certification of origin has reason to believe 
     that such certification contains or is based on incorrect 
     information, the exporter or producer voluntarily provides 
     written notice of such incorrect information to every person 
     to whom the certification was issued.
       ``(3) Exception.--A person shall not be considered to have 
     violated paragraph (1) if--
       ``(A) the information was correct at the time it was 
     provided in a PTPA certification of origin but was later 
     rendered incorrect due to a change in circumstances; and
       ``(B) the person promptly and voluntarily provides written 
     notice of the change in circumstances to all persons to whom 
     the person provided the certification.''.
       (b) Denial of Preferential Tariff Treatment.--Section 514 
     of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1514) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(i) Denial of Preferential Tariff Treatment Under the 
     United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement.--If U.S. 
     Customs and Border Protection or U.S. Immigration and Customs 
     Enforcement of the Department of Homeland Security finds 
     indications of a pattern of conduct by an importer, exporter, 
     or producer of false or unsupported representations that 
     goods qualify under the rules of origin provided for in 
     section 203 of the United States-Peru Trade Promotion 
     Agreement Implementation Act, U.S. Customs and Border 
     Protection, in accordance with regulations issued by the 
     Secretary of the Treasury, may suspend preferential tariff 
     treatment under the United States-Peru Trade Promotion 
     Agreement to entries of identical goods covered by subsequent 
     representations by that importer, exporter, or producer until 
     U.S. Customs and Border Protection determines that 
     representations of that person are in conformity with such 
     section 203.''.

     SEC. 206. RELIQUIDATION OF ENTRIES.

       Subsection (d) of section 520 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 
     U.S.C. 1520(d)) is amended in the matter preceding paragraph 
     (1)--
       (1) by striking ``or''; and
       (2) by striking ``for which'' and inserting ``, or section 
     203 of the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement 
     Implementation Act for which''.

     SEC. 207. RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS.

       Section 508 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1508) is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (h) as subsection (i);
       (2) by inserting after subsection (g) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(h) Certifications of Origin for Goods Exported Under the 
     United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement.--
       ``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       ``(A) Records and supporting documents.--The term `records 
     and supporting documents' means, with respect to an exported 
     good under paragraph (2), records and documents related to 
     the origin of the good, including--
       ``(i) the purchase, cost, and value of, and payment for, 
     the good;
       ``(ii) the purchase, cost, and value of, and payment for, 
     all materials, including indirect materials, used in the 
     production of the good; and
       ``(iii) the production of the good in the form in which it 
     was exported.
       ``(B) PTPA certification of origin.--The term `PTPA 
     certification of origin' means the certification established 
     under article 4.15 of the United States-Peru Trade Promotion 
     Agreement that a good qualifies as an originating good under 
     such Agreement.
       ``(2) Exports to peru.--Any person who completes and issues 
     a PTPA certification of origin for a good exported from the 
     United States shall make, keep, and, pursuant to rules and 
     regulations promulgated by the Secretary of the Treasury, 
     render for examination and inspection all records and 
     supporting documents related to the origin of the good 
     (including the certification or copies thereof).
       ``(3) Retention period.--The person who issues a PTPA 
     certification of origin shall keep the records and supporting 
     documents relating to that certification of origin for a 
     period of at least 5 years after the date on which the 
     certification is issued.''; and
       (3) in subsection (i), as so redesignated--
       (A) by striking ``(f) or (g)'' and inserting ``(f), (g), or 
     (h)''; and
       (B) by striking ``either such subsection'' and inserting 
     ``any such subsection''.

     SEC. 208. ENFORCEMENT RELATING TO TRADE IN TEXTILE OR APPAREL 
                   GOODS.

       (a) Action During Verification.--
       (1) In general.--If the Secretary of the Treasury requests 
     the Government of Peru to conduct a verification pursuant to 
     article 3.2 of the Agreement for purposes of making a 
     determination under paragraph (2), the President may direct 
     the Secretary to take appropriate action described in 
     subsection (b) while the verification is being conducted.
       (2) Determination.--A determination under this paragraph is 
     a determination of the Secretary that--
       (A) an exporter or producer in Peru is complying with 
     applicable customs laws, regulations, and procedures 
     regarding trade in textile or apparel goods; or
       (B) a claim that a textile or apparel good exported or 
     produced by such exporter or producer--
       (i) qualifies as an originating good under section 203, or
       (ii) is a good of Peru,

     is accurate.
       (b) Appropriate Action Described.--Appropriate action under 
     subsection (a)(1) includes--
       (1) suspension of preferential tariff treatment under the 
     Agreement with respect to--
       (A) any textile or apparel good exported or produced by the 
     person that is the subject of a verification under subsection 
     (a)(1) regarding compliance described in subsection 
     (a)(2)(A), if the Secretary determines that there is 
     insufficient information to support any claim for 
     preferential tariff treatment that has been made with respect 
     to any such good; or
       (B) the textile or apparel good for which a claim of 
     preferential tariff treatment has been made that is the 
     subject of a verification under subsection (a)(1) regarding a 
     claim described in subsection (a)(2)(B), if the Secretary 
     determines that there is insufficient information to support 
     that claim;
       (2) denial of preferential tariff treatment under the 
     Agreement with respect to--
       (A) any textile or apparel good exported or produced by the 
     person that is the subject of a verification under subsection 
     (a)(1) regarding compliance described in subsection 
     (a)(2)(A), if the Secretary determines that the person has 
     provided incorrect information to support any claim for 
     preferential tariff treatment that has been made with respect 
     to any such good; or
       (B) the textile or apparel good for which a claim of 
     preferential tariff treatment has been made that is the 
     subject of a verification under subsection (a)(1) regarding a 
     claim described in subsection (a)(2)(B), if the Secretary 
     determines that a person has provided incorrect information 
     to support that claim;
       (3) detention of any textile or apparel good exported or 
     produced by the person that is the subject of a verification 
     under subsection (a)(1) regarding compliance described in 
     subsection (a)(2)(A) or a claim described in subsection 
     (a)(2)(B), if the Secretary determines that there is 
     insufficient information to determine the country of origin 
     of any such good; and
       (4) denial of entry into the United States of any textile 
     or apparel good exported or produced by the person that is 
     the subject of a verification under subsection (a)(1) 
     regarding compliance described in subsection (a)(2)(A) or a 
     claim described in subsection (a)(2)(B), if the Secretary 
     determines that the person has provided incorrect information 
     as to the country of origin of any such good.
       (c) Action on Completion of a Verification.--On completion 
     of a verification under subsection (a), the President may 
     direct the Secretary to take appropriate action described in 
     subsection (d) until such time as the Secretary receives 
     information sufficient to make the determination under 
     subsection (a)(2) or until such earlier date as the President 
     may direct.
       (d) Appropriate Action Described.--Appropriate action under 
     subsection (c) includes--
       (1) denial of preferential tariff treatment under the 
     Agreement with respect to--
       (A) any textile or apparel good exported or produced by the 
     person that is the subject of a verification under subsection 
     (a)(1) regarding compliance described in subsection 
     (a)(2)(A), if the Secretary determines that there is 
     insufficient information to support, or that the person has 
     provided incorrect information to support, any claim for 
     preferential tariff treatment that has been made with respect 
     to any such good; or
       (B) the textile or apparel good for which a claim of 
     preferential tariff treatment has been made that is the 
     subject of a verification under subsection (a)(1) regarding a 
     claim described in subsection (a)(2)(B), if

[[Page 30411]]

     the Secretary determines that there is insufficient 
     information to support, or that a person has provided 
     incorrect information to support, that claim; and
       (2) denial of entry into the United States of any textile 
     or apparel good exported or produced by the person that is 
     the subject of a verification under subsection (a)(1) 
     regarding compliance described in subsection (a)(2)(A) or a 
     claim described in subsection (a)(2)(B), if the Secretary 
     determines that there is insufficient information to 
     determine, or that the person has provided incorrect 
     information as to, the country of origin of any such good.
       (e) Publication of Name of Person.--In accordance with 
     article 3.2.6 of the Agreement, the Secretary may publish the 
     name of any person that the Secretary has determined--
       (1) is engaged in circumvention of applicable laws, 
     regulations, or procedures affecting trade in textile or 
     apparel goods; or
       (2) has failed to demonstrate that it produces, or is 
     capable of producing, textile or apparel goods.

     SEC. 209. REGULATIONS.

       The Secretary of the Treasury shall prescribe such 
     regulations as may be necessary to carry out--
       (1) subsections (a) through (n) of section 203;
       (2) the amendment made by section 204; and
       (3) any proclamation issued under section 203(o).

                     TITLE III--RELIEF FROM IMPORTS

     SEC. 301. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Peruvian article.--The term ``Peruvian article'' means 
     an article that qualifies as an originating good under 
     section 203(b).
       (2) Peruvian textile or apparel article.--The term 
     ``Peruvian textile or apparel article'' means a textile or 
     apparel good (as defined in section 3(4)) that is a Peruvian 
     article.

     Subtitle A--Relief From Imports Benefiting From the Agreement

     SEC. 311. COMMENCING OF ACTION FOR RELIEF.

       (a) Filing of Petition.--A petition requesting action under 
     this subtitle for the purpose of adjusting to the obligations 
     of the United States under the Agreement may be filed with 
     the Commission by an entity, including a trade association, 
     firm, certified or recognized union, or group of workers, 
     that is representative of an industry. The Commission shall 
     transmit a copy of any petition filed under this subsection 
     to the United States Trade Representative.
       (b) Investigation and Determination.--Upon the filing of a 
     petition under subsection (a), the Commission, unless 
     subsection (d) applies, shall promptly initiate an 
     investigation to determine whether, as a result of the 
     reduction or elimination of a duty provided for under the 
     Agreement, a Peruvian article is being imported into the 
     United States in such increased quantities, in absolute terms 
     or relative to domestic production, and under such conditions 
     that imports of the Peruvian article constitute a substantial 
     cause of serious injury or threat thereof to the domestic 
     industry producing an article that is like, or directly 
     competitive with, the imported article.
       (c) Applicable Provisions.--The following provisions of 
     section 202 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2252) apply 
     with respect to any investigation initiated under subsection 
     (b):
       (1) Paragraphs (1)(B) and (3) of subsection (b).
       (2) Subsection (c).
       (3) Subsection (i).
       (d) Articles Exempt From Investigation.--No investigation 
     may be initiated under this section with respect to any 
     Peruvian article if, after the date on which the Agreement 
     enters into force, import relief has been provided with 
     respect to that Peruvian article under this subtitle.

     SEC. 312. COMMISSION ACTION ON PETITION.

       (a) Determination.--Not later than 120 days after the date 
     on which an investigation is initiated under section 311(b) 
     with respect to a petition, the Commission shall make the 
     determination required under that section.
       (b) Applicable Provisions.--For purposes of this subtitle, 
     the provisions of paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of section 
     330(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1330(d) (1), (2), 
     and (3)) shall be applied with respect to determinations and 
     findings made under this section as if such determinations 
     and findings were made under section 202 of the Trade Act of 
     1974 (19 U.S.C. 2252).
       (c) Additional Finding and Recommendation if Determination 
     Affirmative.--
       (1) In general.--If the determination made by the 
     Commission under subsection (a) with respect to imports of an 
     article is affirmative, or if the President may consider a 
     determination of the Commission to be an affirmative 
     determination as provided for under paragraph (1) of section 
     330(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1330(d)), the 
     Commission shall find, and recommend to the President in the 
     report required under subsection (d), the amount of import 
     relief that is necessary to remedy or prevent the injury 
     found by the Commission in the determination and to 
     facilitate the efforts of the domestic industry to make a 
     positive adjustment to import competition.
       (2) Limitation on relief.--The import relief recommended by 
     the Commission under this subsection shall be limited to the 
     relief described in section 313(c).
       (3) Voting; separate views.--Only those members of the 
     Commission who voted in the affirmative under subsection (a) 
     are eligible to vote on the proposed action to remedy or 
     prevent the injury found by the Commission. Members of the 
     Commission who did not vote in the affirmative may submit, in 
     the report required under subsection (d), separate views 
     regarding what action, if any, should be taken to remedy or 
     prevent the injury.
       (d) Report to President.--Not later than the date that is 
     30 days after the date on which a determination is made under 
     subsection (a) with respect to an investigation, the 
     Commission shall submit to the President a report that 
     includes--
       (1) the determination made under subsection (a) and an 
     explanation of the basis for the determination;
       (2) if the determination under subsection (a) is 
     affirmative, any findings and recommendations for import 
     relief made under subsection (c) and an explanation of the 
     basis for each recommendation; and
       (3) any dissenting or separate views by members of the 
     Commission regarding the determination referred to in 
     paragraph (1) and any finding or recommendation referred to 
     in paragraph (2).
       (e) Public Notice.--Upon submitting a report to the 
     President under subsection (d), the Commission shall promptly 
     make public the report (with the exception of information 
     which the Commission determines to be confidential) and shall 
     publish a summary of the report in the Federal Register.

     SEC. 313. PROVISION OF RELIEF.

       (a) In General.--Not later than the date that is 30 days 
     after the date on which the President receives the report of 
     the Commission in which the Commission's determination under 
     section 312(a) is affirmative, or which contains a 
     determination under section 312(a) that the President 
     considers to be affirmative under paragraph (1) of section 
     330(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1330(d)(1)), the 
     President, subject to subsection (b), shall provide relief 
     from imports of the article that is the subject of such 
     determination to the extent that the President determines 
     necessary to remedy or prevent the injury found by the 
     Commission and to facilitate the efforts of the domestic 
     industry to make a positive adjustment to import competition.
       (b) Exception.--The President is not required to provide 
     import relief under this section if the President determines 
     that the provision of the import relief will not provide 
     greater economic and social benefits than costs.
       (c) Nature of Relief.--
       (1) In general.--The import relief that the President is 
     authorized to provide under this section with respect to 
     imports of an article is as follows:
       (A) The suspension of any further reduction provided for 
     under Annex 2.3 of the Agreement in the duty imposed on the 
     article.
       (B) An increase in the rate of duty imposed on the article 
     to a level that does not exceed the lesser of--
       (i) the column 1 general rate of duty imposed under the HTS 
     on like articles at the time the import relief is provided; 
     or
       (ii) the column 1 general rate of duty imposed under the 
     HTS on like articles on the day before the date on which the 
     Agreement enters into force.
       (2) Progressive liberalization.--If the period for which 
     import relief is provided under this section is greater than 
     1 year, the President shall provide for the progressive 
     liberalization (described in article 8.2.2 of the Agreement) 
     of such relief at regular intervals during the period of its 
     application.
       (d) Period of Relief.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), any import 
     relief that the President provides under this section may not 
     be in effect for more than 2 years.
       (2) Extension.--
       (A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (C), the 
     President, after receiving a determination from the 
     Commission under subparagraph (B) that is affirmative, or 
     which the President considers to be affirmative under 
     paragraph (1) of section 330(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 
     U.S.C. 1330(d)(1)), may extend the effective period of any 
     import relief provided under this section by up to 2 years, 
     if the President determines that--
       (i) the import relief continues to be necessary to remedy 
     or prevent serious injury and to facilitate adjustment by the 
     domestic industry to import competition; and
       (ii) there is evidence that the industry is making a 
     positive adjustment to import competition.
       (B) Action by commission.--
       (i) Investigation.--Upon a petition on behalf of the 
     industry concerned that is filed with the Commission not 
     earlier than the date that is 9 months, and not later than 
     the date that is 6 months, before the date on which any 
     action taken under subsection (a) is to terminate, the 
     Commission shall conduct an investigation to determine 
     whether action under this section continues to be

[[Page 30412]]

     necessary to remedy or prevent serious injury and whether 
     there is evidence that the industry is making a positive 
     adjustment to import competition.
       (ii) Notice and hearing.--The Commission shall publish 
     notice of the commencement of any proceeding under this 
     subparagraph in the Federal Register and shall, within a 
     reasonable time thereafter, hold a public hearing at which 
     the Commission shall afford interested parties and consumers 
     an opportunity to be present, to present evidence, and to 
     respond to the presentations of other parties and consumers, 
     and otherwise to be heard.
       (iii) Report.--The Commission shall submit to the President 
     a report on its investigation and determination under this 
     subparagraph not later than 60 days before the action under 
     subsection (a) is to terminate, unless the President 
     specifies a different date.
       (C) Period of import relief.--Any import relief provided 
     under this section, including any extensions thereof, may 
     not, in the aggregate, be in effect for more than 4 years.
       (e) Rate After Termination of Import Relief.--When import 
     relief under this section is terminated with respect to an 
     article--
       (1) the rate of duty on that article after such termination 
     and on or before December 31 of the year in which such 
     termination occurs shall be the rate that, according to the 
     Schedule of the United States to Annex 2.3 of the Agreement, 
     would have been in effect 1 year after the provision of 
     relief under subsection (a); and
       (2) the rate of duty for that article after December 31 of 
     the year in which such termination occurs shall be, at the 
     discretion of the President, either--
       (A) the applicable rate of duty for that article set forth 
     in the Schedule of the United States to Annex 2.3 of the 
     Agreement; or
       (B) the rate of duty resulting from the elimination of the 
     tariff in equal annual stages ending on the date set forth in 
     the Schedule of the United States to Annex 2.3 of the 
     Agreement for the elimination of the tariff.
       (f) Articles Exempt From Relief.--No import relief may be 
     provided under this section on--
       (1) any article that is subject to import relief under--
       (A) subtitle B; or
       (B) chapter 1 of title II of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 
     U.S.C. 2251 et seq.); or
       (2) any article on which an additional duty assessed under 
     section 202(b) is in effect.

     SEC. 314. TERMINATION OF RELIEF AUTHORITY.

       (a) General Rule.--Subject to subsection (b), no import 
     relief may be provided under this subtitle after the date 
     that is 10 years after the date on which the Agreement enters 
     into force.
       (b) Exception.--If an article for which relief is provided 
     under this subtitle is an article for which the period for 
     tariff elimination, set forth in the Schedule of the United 
     States to Annex 2.3 of the Agreement, is greater than 10 
     years, no relief under this subtitle may be provided for that 
     article after the date on which that period ends.

     SEC. 315. COMPENSATION AUTHORITY.

       For purposes of section 123 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 
     U.S.C. 2133), any import relief provided by the President 
     under section 313 shall be treated as action taken under 
     chapter 1 of title II of such Act (19 U.S.C. 2251 et seq.).

     SEC. 316. CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION.

       Section 202(a)(8) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
     2252(a)(8)) is amended in the first sentence--
       (1) by striking ``and''; and
       (2) by inserting before the period at the end ``, and title 
     III of the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement 
     Implementation Act''.

           Subtitle B--Textile and Apparel Safeguard Measures

     SEC. 321. COMMENCEMENT OF ACTION FOR RELIEF.

       (a) In General.--A request for action under this subtitle 
     for the purpose of adjusting to the obligations of the United 
     States under the Agreement may be filed with the President by 
     an interested party. Upon the filing of a request, the 
     President shall review the request to determine, from 
     information presented in the request, whether to commence 
     consideration of the request.
       (b) Publication of Request.--If the President determines 
     that the request under subsection (a) provides the 
     information necessary for the request to be considered, the 
     President shall publish in the Federal Register a notice of 
     commencement of consideration of the request, and notice 
     seeking public comments regarding the request. The notice 
     shall include a summary of the request and the dates by which 
     comments and rebuttals must be received.

     SEC. 322. DETERMINATION AND PROVISION OF RELIEF.

       (a) Determination.--
       (1) In general.--If a positive determination is made under 
     section 321(b), the President shall determine whether, as a 
     result of the elimination of a duty under the Agreement, a 
     Peruvian textile or apparel article is being imported into 
     the United States in such increased quantities, in absolute 
     terms or relative to the domestic market for that article, 
     and under such conditions as to cause serious damage, or 
     actual threat thereof, to a domestic industry producing an 
     article that is like, or directly competitive with, the 
     imported article.
       (2) Serious damage.--In making a determination under 
     paragraph (1), the President--
       (A) shall examine the effect of increased imports on the 
     domestic industry, as reflected in changes in such relevant 
     economic factors as output, productivity, utilization of 
     capacity, inventories, market share, exports, wages, 
     employment, domestic prices, profits and losses, and 
     investment, no one of which is necessarily decisive; and
       (B) shall not consider changes in consumer preference or 
     changes in technology in the United States as factors 
     supporting a determination of serious damage or actual threat 
     thereof.
       (b) Provision of Relief.--
       (1) In general.--If a determination under subsection (a) is 
     affirmative, the President may provide relief from imports of 
     the article that is the subject of such determination, as 
     provided in paragraph (2), to the extent that the President 
     determines necessary to remedy or prevent the serious damage 
     and to facilitate adjustment by the domestic industry.
       (2) Nature of relief.--The relief that the President is 
     authorized to provide under this subsection with respect to 
     imports of an article is an increase in the rate of duty 
     imposed on the article to a level that does not exceed the 
     lesser of--
       (A) the column 1 general rate of duty imposed under the HTS 
     on like articles at the time the import relief is provided; 
     or
       (B) the column 1 general rate of duty imposed under the HTS 
     on like articles on the day before the date on which the 
     Agreement enters into force.

     SEC. 323. PERIOD OF RELIEF.

       (a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), the import 
     relief that the President provides under section 322(b) may 
     not be in effect for more than 2 years.
       (b) Extension.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the President 
     may extend the effective period of any import relief provided 
     under this subtitle for a period of not more than 1 year, if 
     the President determines that--
       (A) the import relief continues to be necessary to remedy 
     or prevent serious damage and to facilitate adjustment by the 
     domestic industry to import competition; and
       (B) there is evidence that the industry is making a 
     positive adjustment to import competition.
       (2) Limitation.--Any relief provided under this subtitle, 
     including any extensions thereof, may not, in the aggregate, 
     be in effect for more than 3 years.

     SEC. 324. ARTICLES EXEMPT FROM RELIEF.

       The President may not provide import relief under this 
     subtitle with respect to an article if--
       (1) import relief previously has been provided under this 
     subtitle with respect to that article; or
       (2) the article is subject to import relief under--
       (A) subtitle A; or
       (B) chapter 1 of title II of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 
     U.S.C. 2251 et seq.).

     SEC. 325. RATE AFTER TERMINATION OF IMPORT RELIEF.

       On the date on which import relief under this subtitle is 
     terminated with respect to an article, the rate of duty on 
     that article shall be the rate that would have been in 
     effect, but for the provision of such relief.

     SEC. 326. TERMINATION OF RELIEF AUTHORITY.

       No import relief may be provided under this subtitle with 
     respect to any article after the date that is 5 years after 
     the date on which the Agreement enters into force.

     SEC. 327. COMPENSATION AUTHORITY.

       For purposes of section 123 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 
     U.S.C. 2133), any import relief provided by the President 
     under this subtitle shall be treated as action taken under 
     chapter 1 of title II of such Act (19 U.S.C. 2251 et seq.).

     SEC. 328. CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION.

       The President may not release information received in 
     connection with an investigation or determination under this 
     subtitle which the President considers to be confidential 
     business information unless the party submitting the 
     confidential business information had notice, at the time of 
     submission, that such information would be released by the 
     President, or such party subsequently consents to the release 
     of the information. To the extent a party submits 
     confidential business information, the party shall also 
     provide a nonconfidential version of the information in which 
     the confidential business information is summarized or, if 
     necessary, deleted.

       Subtitle C--Cases Under Title II of the Trade Act of 1974

     SEC. 331. FINDINGS AND ACTION ON GOODS OF PERU.

       (a) Effect of Imports.--If, in any investigation initiated 
     under chapter 1 of title II of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 
     U.S.C. 2251 et seq.), the Commission makes an affirmative

[[Page 30413]]

     determination (or a determination which the President may 
     treat as an affirmative determination under such chapter by 
     reason of section 330(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930), the 
     Commission shall also find (and report to the President at 
     the time such injury determination is submitted to the 
     President) whether imports of the article of Peru that 
     qualify as originating goods under section 203(b) are a 
     substantial cause of serious injury or threat thereof.
       (b) Presidential Determination Regarding Imports of Peru.--
     In determining the nature and extent of action to be taken 
     under chapter 1 of title II of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 
     U.S.C. 2251 et seq.), the President may exclude from the 
     action goods of Peru with respect to which the Commission has 
     made a negative finding under subsection (a).

                         TITLE IV--PROCUREMENT

     SEC. 401. ELIGIBLE PRODUCTS.

       Section 308(4)(A) of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (19 
     U.S.C. 2518(4)(A)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (v);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of clause (vi) and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``(vii) a party to the United States-Peru Trade Promotion 
     Agreement, a product or service of that country or 
     instrumentality which is covered under that agreement for 
     procurement by the United States.''.

               TITLE V--TRADE IN TIMBER PRODUCTS OF PERU

     SEC. 501. ENFORCEMENT RELATING TO TRADE IN TIMBER PRODUCTS OF 
                   PERU.

       (a) Establishment of Interagency Committee.--Not later than 
     90 days after the date on which the Agreement enters into 
     force, the President shall establish an Interagency Committee 
     (in this section referred to as the ``Committee''). The 
     Committee shall be responsible for overseeing the 
     implementation of Annex 18.3.4 of the Agreement, including by 
     undertaking such actions and making such determinations 
     provided for in this section that are not otherwise 
     authorized under law.
       (b) Audit.--The Committee may request that the Government 
     of Peru conduct an audit, pursuant to paragraph 6(b) of Annex 
     18.3.4 of the Agreement, to determine whether a particular 
     producer or exporter in Peru is complying with all applicable 
     laws, regulations, and other measures of Peru governing the 
     harvest of, and trade in, timber products.
       (c) Verification.--
       (1) In general.--The Committee may request the Government 
     of Peru to conduct a verification, pursuant to paragraph 7 of 
     Annex 18.3.4 of the Agreement, for the purpose of determining 
     whether, with respect to a particular shipment of timber 
     products from Peru to the United States, the producer or 
     exporter of the products has complied with applicable laws, 
     regulations, and other measures of Peru governing the harvest 
     of, and trade in, the products.
       (2) Actions of committee.--If the Committee requests a 
     verification under paragraph (1), the Committee shall--
       (A) to the extent authorized under law, provide the 
     Government of Peru with trade and transit documents and other 
     information to assist Peru in conducting the verification; 
     and
       (B) direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to take any 
     appropriate action described in paragraph (4).
       (3) Request to participate in verification visit.--The 
     Committee may request the Government of Peru to permit 
     officials of any agency represented on the Committee to 
     participate in any visit conducted by Peru of the premises of 
     a person that is the subject of the verification requested 
     under paragraph (1) (in this section referred to as a 
     ``verification visit''). Such request shall be submitted in 
     writing not later than 10 days before any scheduled 
     verification visit and shall identify the names and titles of 
     the officials intending to participate.
       (4) Appropriate action pending the results of 
     verification.--While the results of a verification requested 
     under paragraph (1) are pending, the Committee may direct 
     U.S. Customs and Border Protection to--
       (A) detain the shipment that is the subject of the 
     verification; or
       (B) if the Committee has requested under paragraph (3) to 
     have an official of any agency represented on the Committee 
     participate in the verification visit and the Government of 
     Peru has denied the request, deny entry to the shipment that 
     is the subject of the verification.
       (5) Determination upon receipt of report.--
       (A) In general.--Within a reasonable time after the 
     Government of Peru provides a report to the Committee 
     describing the results of a verification requested under 
     paragraph (1), the Committee shall determine whether any 
     action is appropriate.
       (B) Determination of appropriate action.--In determining 
     the appropriate action to take and the duration of the 
     action, the Committee shall consider any relevant factors, 
     including--
       (i) the verification report issued by the Government of 
     Peru;
       (ii) any information that officials of the United States 
     have obtained regarding the shipment or person that is the 
     subject of the verification; and
       (iii) any information that officials of the United States 
     have obtained during a verification visit.
       (6) Notification.--Before directing that action be taken 
     under paragraph (7), the Committee shall notify the 
     Government of Peru in writing of the action that will be 
     taken and the duration of the action.
       (7) Appropriate action.--If the Committee makes an 
     affirmative determination under paragraph (5), it may take 
     any action with respect to the shipment that was the subject 
     of the verification, or the products of the relevant producer 
     or exporter, that the Committee considers appropriate, 
     including directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection to--
       (A) deny entry to the shipment;
       (B) if a determination has been made that a producer or 
     exporter has knowingly provided false information to 
     officials of Peru or the United States regarding a shipment, 
     deny entry to products of that producer or exporter derived 
     from any tree species listed in Appendices to the Convention 
     on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna 
     and Flora, done at Washington March 3, 1973 (27 UST 1087; 
     TIAS 8249); or
       (C) take any other action the Committee determines to be 
     appropriate.
       (8) Termination of appropriate action.--Any action under 
     paragraph (7)(B) shall terminate not later than the later 
     of--
       (A) the end of the period specified in the written 
     notification pursuant to paragraph (6); or
       (B) 15 days after the date on which the Government of Peru 
     submits to the United States the results of an audit under 
     paragraph 6 of Annex 18.3.4 of the Agreement that concludes 
     that the person has complied with all applicable laws, 
     regulations, and other measures of Peru governing the harvest 
     of, and trade in, timber products.
       (9) Failure to provide verification report.--If the 
     Committee determines that the Government of Peru has failed 
     to provide a verification report, as required by paragraph 12 
     of Annex 18.3.4 of the Agreement, the Committee may take such 
     action with respect to the relevant exporter's timber 
     products as the Committee considers appropriate, including 
     any action described in paragraph (7).
       (d) Confidentiality of Information.--The Committee and any 
     agency represented on the Committee shall not disclose to the 
     public, except with the specific permission of the Government 
     of Peru, any documents or information received in the course 
     of an audit under subsection (b) or in the course of a 
     verification under subsection (c).
       (e) Publicly Available Information.--The Committee shall 
     make any information exchanged with Peru under paragraph 17 
     of Annex 18.3.4 of the Agreement publicly available in a 
     timely manner, in accordance with paragraph 18 of Annex 
     18.3.4 of the Agreement.
       (f) Coordination With Other Laws.--
       (1) Endangered species act; lacey act.--In implementing 
     this section, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of 
     the Interior, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the 
     Secretary of the Treasury shall provide for appropriate 
     coordination with the administration of the Endangered 
     Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and the Lacey 
     Act Amendments of 1981 (16 U.S.C. 3371 et seq.).
       (2) Other laws.--Nothing in this section supersedes or 
     limits in any manner the functions or authority of the 
     Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of the Interior, the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Secretary of the 
     Treasury under any other law, including laws relating to 
     prohibited or restricted importations or possession of 
     animals, plants, or other articles.
       (3) Effect of determination.--No determination under this 
     section shall preclude any proceeding or be considered 
     determinative of any issue of fact or law in any proceeding 
     under any law administered by the Secretary of Agriculture, 
     the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security, or the Secretary of the Treasury.
       (g) Further Implementation.--The Secretary of Agriculture, 
     the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security, and the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation 
     with the Committee, shall prescribe such regulations as are 
     necessary to carry out this section.
       (h) Resources for Implementation.--Not later than 90 days 
     after the date on which the Agreement enters into force, and 
     as appropriate thereafter, the President shall consult with 
     the Committee on Finance of the Senate and the Committee on 
     Ways and Means of the House of Representatives on the 
     resources, including staffing, needed to implement Annex 
     18.3.4 of the Agreement.

     SEC. 502. REPORT TO CONGRESS.

       (a) In General.--The United States Trade Representative, in 
     consultation with the appropriate agencies, including U.S. 
     Customs and Border Protection, the United States Fish and 
     Wildlife Service, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
     Service, the Forest Service, and the Department of State, 
     shall report to the Committee on Finance of the Senate and 
     the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of 
     Representatives on--

[[Page 30414]]

       (1) steps the United States and Peru have taken to carry 
     out Annex 18.3.4 of the Agreement; and
       (2) activities related to forest sector governance carried 
     out under the Environmental Cooperation Agreement entered 
     into between the United States and Peru on July 24, 2006.
       (b) Timing of Report.--The United States Trade 
     Representative shall report to the Committee on Finance of 
     the Senate and the Committee on Ways and Means of the House 
     of Representatives under subsection (a)--
       (1) not later than 1 year after the date on which the 
     Agreement enters into force;
       (2) not later than 2 years after the date on which the 
     Agreement enters into force; and
       (3) periodically thereafter.

                           TITLE VI--OFFSETS

     SEC. 601. CUSTOMS USER FEES.

       (a) Section 13031(j)(3)(A) of the Consolidated Omnibus 
     Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c(j)(3)(A)) is 
     amended by striking ``October 21, 2014'' and inserting 
     ``December 13, 2014''.
       (b) Section 13031(j)(3)(B)(i) of the Consolidated Omnibus 
     Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c(j)(3)(B)(i)) 
     is amended by striking ``October 7, 2014'' and inserting 
     ``December 13, 2014''.

     SEC. 602. TIME FOR PAYMENT OF CORPORATE ESTIMATED TAXES.

       Subparagraph (B) of section 401(1) of the Tax Increase 
     Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 (26 U.S.C. 6655 
     note) is amended by striking ``115 percent'' and inserting 
     ``115.75 percent''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 801, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from Louisiana 
(Mr. McCrery), or their designees, each will control 45 minutes in 
favor of the bill; and the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud) and the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), or their designees, each will 
control 45 minutes in opposition to the bill.
  The Chair understands that the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery) 
also is the designee of Mr. Boehner. As such, Mr. McCrery controls a 
total of 90 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this historic, indeed, piece of 
legislation, and soon I would ask unanimous consent that you allow me 
to yield the balance of this time to Mr. Levin, who may not be able to 
be here the remainder of the night, and then I will come back to manage 
the rest of the time.
  But I really want to thank Speaker Pelosi for having the broad 
understanding that this great Nation of ours cannot afford the luxury 
of having a Republican or Democratic trade policy.
  What makes this Nation great is that people perceive us as being a 
country that will speak when we have any trade agreement, and that when 
the Democrats took the majority, we certainly did not want a Democratic 
trade bill. It was so embarrassing to have foreign trade ministers talk 
to Republicans and talk with the Democrats and saw we're a divided 
Nation.
  She authorized those of us to work with the administration to see 
whether or not we can bring something that sounded as though it was the 
United States Congress speaking and being directed to allow them to be 
the delegations and negotiators.
  I can tell you that Jim McCrery played such an important role, along 
with Wally Herger, and of course, I can't say enough about Sandy Levin 
being able to work with me and the staffs for the first time in over a 
decade. And on this issue, as so many other issues, you could not find 
a difference as we found the Republican staff and the Democratic staff 
in working not just during the day but working at night, working with 
the Peruvians and even going over there with some of us, with Mr. Levin 
and Ms. Schwartz, went to talk with President Garcia and to see the 
respect and admiration they had with this great country, that they 
wanted to show their friendship and to have exchanges and to have us a 
stronger country.

                              {time}  2030

  I know that, politically speaking, there are some people that find it 
very difficult to talk about supporting trade. They made commitments to 
a lot of people. Therefore, they have to do what they think is best.
  It's absolutely ridiculous to believe that we can create jobs without 
trade. If we just are able to consume everything we manufacture, all 
the food that we grow, and not be able to have markets abroad, then 
this is not the great Nation that she is or hopes ever to be. So what 
we are talking about now is what's good for the country. We have to 
admit that we have done a terrible job in not recognizing the needs of 
people who have lost their jobs, lost their families, lost their 
industry, lost their community, lost their pride.
  Mr. McCrery and I, we think that we have been able to convince the 
administration, as we go before the Business Roundtable and say our 
multinationals can't do just what's good for their shareholders, they 
have to do what's good for America. And if globalization and technology 
have hurt some of these communities and destroyed their will to want to 
be able to say that in this great country they have opportunities for 
themselves or their children, well, treat us just as good as you treat 
the developing countries. Bring your ideas, bring the technology and 
the Ways and Means Committee will provide the incentives to make 
certain that we can get back, and these communities may not be doing 
the same thing, but God knows they would be able to do something.
  Here we have a bill that you don't have to be a trade specialist to 
know that if people are manufacturing and growing in the United States, 
and we are dealing with a developing country, and they are not only our 
friends, but they want to work with us, then we have an opportunity to 
tear down the trade barriers and to be able to get into their markets 
as they are able to get into our markets so easily.
  And so there are those people that cannot vote for it, but I think 
that because our great Speaker and the Republican leadership allowed 
Mr. McCrery and I and Sandy and Wally Herger to negotiate something, it 
doesn't mean that every trade agreement is going to be one that 
everyone can agree to. What it does mean is that in every trade 
agreement, America's trade policy is going to be a part of it. How do 
you treat human beings? How do you treat child labor? How do you treat 
American investors? And how do you treat the environment? That's a 
great step forward.
  I would hope, as the Speaker said, that as people are listening to 
who is calling in, remember the world is calling in. The world is 
watching how we treat friends, and people all over this country would 
not want us to believe that we are anti-fair trade and trade that 
creates jobs.
  Some people thought I was being personal when I said don't say this 
trade agreement loses jobs, this is the only place that people are 
doing anything, growing anything, can work with people who want to do 
business with us. It's a great, historic opportunity.
  Mr. Speaker, I do hope that people would want to be a part of this 
changing thing, where once again people would know that when you do 
business with the people of the United States, you're not doing 
business with Democrats because we control the House and Senate, and 
you're not doing business with Republicans, you're doing business with 
Americans who want to do the best for them, the best for this great 
country, to improve our quality of life. We can't do it by party, but 
we can do it by principle.
  I thank you for this opportunity and I would ask consent to yield the 
balance of this time to Mr. Levin to be able to control until such time 
as he has to leave.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman reserves the balance of his 
time.
  Without objection, the gentleman from Michigan will control the time.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself so much time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I first want to endorse the remarks of my colleague, the 
chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Rangel.
  Indeed, had it not been for his efforts and Chairman Levin's efforts, 
we would not be here on the floor about to pass the Peru Free Trade 
Agreement. There

[[Page 30415]]

is no reason why this country should not have a bipartisan trade policy 
that is endorsed by both the executive branch and the legislative 
branch of government.
  For too long, for whatever reasons, we have avoided trying to create 
that agreement that a majority of both major political parties in this 
country could stand behind and promote breaking down barriers to trade 
around the world.
  I am hopeful that through the chairman's work and through Chairman 
Levin's work with the administration, we have at least gotten to first 
base on creating a policy that will allow us to move forward as one 
Nation trying to create a freer flow of goods and services around the 
world for the betterment, not just of this country, but for all the 
world.
  I want to echo the words of Chairman Rangel and say that I couldn't 
agree more with his words or his sentiment.
  I also want to express my appreciation for the majority staff and the 
minority staff of the Trade Subcommittee of the Ways and Means 
Committee for lending their considerable talents to this effort. I 
think it's safe to say that without their efforts, without their 
cooperation, we wouldn't be here today. We wouldn't have the bipartisan 
framework that we announced back in May to allow us to get this far. I 
want to thank the staff for their hard work.
  Needless to say, I rise in very strong support of this free trade 
agreement. I am glad we are here. I wish we had been here sooner, but 
we are here today, and it's a great day for that reason.
  On May 10, precisely, Congress and the administration established 
that framework for advancing the four free trade agreements the United 
States has negotiated, Peru, Colombia, Panama and Korea. The Peru Free 
Trade Agreement is the first of those four trade agreements that 
Congress is considering.
  As the Speaker said earlier, at least we have that framework in place 
that can allow us to look at free trade agreements that have been 
negotiated. Then each one, yes, of course, must be considered on its 
own merits. At least we have that framework in place, and that will 
allow us to, I am very hopeful, consider later in this Congress the 
Colombia FTA, the Panama FTA and the Korea FTA.
  Trade is often blamed for the loss of jobs in this country, and 
certainly we know that there are losses of some jobs directly related 
to trade. But the truth is that trade creates a great many jobs in this 
country, and those jobs generally are high-paying jobs.
  Trade also significantly increases the standard of living for 
Americans, as well as the peoples of other nations around the world by 
providing us with a wide variety of affordable goods, goods that are 
not only affordable but available.
  Anybody who appreciates fresh produce in the winter or coffee with 
their breakfast should be a fan of free trade. Too often trade is 
portrayed as only having negative consequences for the United States' 
economy. But the facts are clear that today, more than ever, trade is 
the engine of economic growth in the United States.
  As a senior economist at Goldman Sachs was saying last week, ``Trade 
is the only thing holding up manufacturing.'' This is why passing this 
legislation, and then, I hope, moving expeditiously to pass the free 
trade agreements with Colombia, Panama and Korea is so critical to the 
economic well-being of the United States.
  By the same token, we should also make sure that any workers 
adversely affected by trade have access to training and support. I am 
hopeful we will move in this Congress a bipartisan trade adjustment 
assistance reauthorization.
  In light of the significance of trade to the United States' economy, 
Congress should promote our continued economic growth by passing the 
United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement. Today, virtually all 
imports from Peru come into the United States duty-free, while United 
States exports of goods and services to Peru face significant barriers, 
tariffs in Peru. It's a one-way street in favor of Peru today because 
of the trade preferences that are in effect.
  This legislation before the House today will create a two-way street 
so that our goods and services can go to Peru with the same 
preferences, no tariffs, or very low tariffs that Peru goods and 
services come today to the United States. Not passing this agreement 
would perpetuate the competitive disadvantage faced by United States 
exporters into Peru.
  Therefore, the impact of passing this bill should be crystal clear. 
This trade agreement will result in increased United States exports and 
an improvement in the United States trade balance with Peru.
  I had the opportunity to travel to Peru recently with several of my 
colleagues and Secretary of Commerce Gutierrez earlier this fall. I saw 
firsthand how important this agreement is to Peru and to the entire 
region and how this agreement will strengthen an important ally of ours 
in that region.
  Peru is resisting the efforts of Venezuela's authoritarian President 
Hugo Chavez to wage a war of words and ideas in Latin America against 
the United States. In fact, Chavez blatantly intervened in Peru's 
democratic elections, espousing sentiments against the United States 
and the principles for which America stands, democracy, free markets, 
liberty. On June 4, 2006, Peruvian voters decisively rejected Chavez's 
candidate in Peru and instead chose Alan Garcia to be their next 
president. The election was a sign of support from Peru that they 
reject Chavez's fiery populism and instead continue supporting Peru's 
current policies of economic engagement with the United States and 
market reform.
  Congress should acknowledge the support of the people of Peru and 
pass this legislation by a strong margin. We should then turn to the 
remaining FTAs that have been negotiated.
  I hope that the bipartisan spirit that resulted in the May 10 
framework and the imminent passage of this legislation can help us make 
clear to all Americans that trade is a benefit for this country and 
that we must continue to pursue trade agreements that open markets for 
United States exports or risk letting our companies and workers being 
left behind in the global economy.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to a 
gentleman who has been a strong advocate for fair trade deals, Mr. Wu 
of Oregon.
  Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my great respect to Chairman 
Levin and Chairman Rangel and deep appreciation for the improvements 
that they have achieved in this bill compared to past trade bills. I 
came to Congress, ran for a Federal office, substantially to promote 
democracy, human rights and the rule of law, both at home and abroad. 
Trade agreements are one of the few, one of the key levers to promote 
democracy, human rights and the rule of law abroad.
  So I regret that I cannot vote for this bill tonight because it does 
not put human rights on an equal footing with environmental and labor 
protections. But I do hope to work with the chairman and people on both 
sides of the aisle of goodwill to reach a day, some day, when human 
rights will be included in trade deliberations on an equal footing with 
environmental and labor protections.
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Weller.
  Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Let me begin by congratulating the chairman 
of this committee, Mr. Rangel, and the chairman of the Trade 
Subcommittee, Mr. Levin, as well as the two ranking Republicans, Mr. 
McCrery and Mr. Herger, for their leadership in bringing this important 
trade agreement to the floor. I also want to congratulate Ambassador 
Susan Schwab, our trade negotiator, as well as her predecessor, Rob 
Portman, in their good work and frankly also congratulate the 
leadership of Peru, particularly President Garcia and former President 
Toledo and their administrations.
  Mr. Speaker, trade is important to my State of Illinois. One out of 
five

[[Page 30416]]

jobs in Illinois is dependent on exports, and 40 percent of the 
agricultural products in the State of Illinois are dependent on 
exports.

                              {time}  2045

  In fact, 17,000 Illinois companies export. And trade agreements are 
working for Illinois. My State benefits, my district benefits. In fact, 
if you look at the nations that we have free trade agreements with, 
they represent almost half of all our exports today, even though they 
represent only 7 percent of all the nations. And free trade, in the 
last 10, 12 years has created 16 million jobs nationwide, thousands in 
my own State. And this trade agreement here is good for Illinois 
manufacturers; it's good for Illinois farmers.
  You know, my friend Mr. McCrery pointed out that the current status 
quo, which was renewed recently by this Congress, gives Peru a pretty 
good deal. Their manufactured goods, their farm products come into the 
United States duty free. But our products made in Illinois, 
manufactured goods and farm products, face tariffs going into Peru.
  Well, this trade agreement makes trade with Peru a two-way street. On 
day one of this trade agreement going into effect, 80 percent of the 
tariffs on manufactured products from Illinois are eliminated.
  Now, I have 8,000 workers, 8,000 union workers who make yellow 
construction equipment, well-recognized household name, in my district. 
And half of the product they produce is exported. This agreement's good 
for them.
  But under the current status quo, those mining trucks, those off-road 
construction equipment that are produced in Joliet and Decatur, they 
face a 12 percent tariff. And that equipment's a $1 million piece of 
equipment. That's $120,000 tariff tax imposed on that yellow piece of 
equipment when it's exported to Peru today.
  And under this trade agreement, that tariff is eliminated on day one, 
allowing U.S.-made, Illinois-made construction equipment to be more 
competitive with their Japanese and Asian competition. It means jobs in 
Illinois.
  And I would note, if you care about agriculture in Illinois, farmers 
will tell you that the Peru and Colombia trade agreements are the best 
ever for agriculture. This agreement deserves bipartisan support.
  Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 2 minutes to our caucus Chair, and a member of 
the Ways and Means Committee, the very distinguished Member from 
Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank both the chairman of 
the Ways and Means Committee, also Congressman Levin, as well as the 
minority leader, Congressman McCrery, for their leadership on this 
issue.
  This bill picks up exactly where the last trade agreement with 
Singapore and Jordan was, where we were putting a human face on 
globalization; that is, having labor environmental standards inside 
those trade agreements. The last 6 years we walked away from that 
bipartisan agreement. This restores that bipartisan agreement and again 
returns America to where, when it comes to opening markets around the 
world to American products, we stand together for that opportunity.
  But make no mistake about it. While that is one piece of an overall 
economic strategy, this is a good piece, it's an important piece, 
opening markets to American-made products.
  But, in addition to this, we must have an economic strategy that 
deals with people's retirement insecurities, their health care 
insecurities as it relates to their costs and opportunities, as well as 
educational opportunities for their children. If you don't have that as 
part of this strategy, we only have one piece of that economic 
strategy. This is an important piece, and it continues, I think, the 
responsibility we have to open markets across the world to American-
made products.
  But we must finish our effort on dealing with globalization as it 
relates to the opportunity, not just the opportunities abroad, but the 
challenges here at home to make sure people and more and more Americans 
have an opportunity to be winners in this globalization rather than see 
globalization as a threat to their own economic security.
  So, although I do support this, and I support this aggressively 
because this is a good deal, it returns us to the bipartisanship, and 
most importantly, in my view, this begins to once again put a human 
face on globalization and allows the American employees and workers who 
are struggling every day to see this as globalization, not as a threat 
to their economic security, but as an opportunity. If we do that, 
globalization and more people will be winners.
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota, a valued member of the Ways and Means Committee (Mr. 
Ramstad).
  Mr. RAMSTAD. I thank the ranking member for yielding. And I, too, 
want to applaud Chairman Rangel, Chairman Levin, and Ranking Member 
McCrery for the new spirit of bipartisanship and collaboration on the 
committee, which has resulted in this agreement getting here this 
evening, remarkable accomplishment. The Ways and Means Committee voted 
this out on a unanimous vote, unanimous bipartisan vote.
  And, Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3688, the U.S.-
Peru Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act. I've long been an 
ardent supporter of trade expansion.
  Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is jobs. Fully 95 percent of the world's 
population lives outside the United States. The global economy's 
projected to grow at three times the rate of the United States economy. 
So, it doesn't take a mathematician to figure that we must take steps 
to make sure American farmers, manufacturers and service providers 
remain competitive in the international marketplace.
  We also must make sure our products have fair access to foreign 
markets. Job creation depends upon both factors.
  But this agreement is about more than expanding markets for U.S. 
goods and services. In fact, it's about more than job creation. It will 
also have a significant geopolitical impact.
  As we all know, and as has been said on the floor tonight, South 
America's on the precipice of choosing between the free market, 
democratic West and the autocratic, dictatorial model being peddled by 
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.
  Chavez continues to lure Latin American countries into his fold 
through false promises and blatant, unabashed bribery. This agreement 
that we're debating here tonight offers a legitimate alternative for 
Peru, an alternative to make significant economic strides and alleviate 
poverty, while providing increased market opportunities for both 
countries, U.S. businesses as well as Peruvian businesses, because, you 
see, Mr. Speaker, as most people in this body understand, trade is a 
win-win proposition. Both win when we expand trade, both countries.
  The empirical data, Mr. Speaker, clearly shows the benefits to both 
countries, both economies. And as a Member who has a personal history 
with the Peruvian people, who's gone on several missions with our 
mission group from home, I urge Members not to ignore the humanitarian 
benefits as well as the geopolitical benefits that come along with 
passage of this agreement.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to send my sincere thanks and gratitude 
to our Peruvian counterparts who worked so hard to make this agreement 
a reality. Former President Toledo and former Ambassador Ferraro worked 
tirelessly to address the concerns of many of us here in this body, 
especially on the Ways and Means Committee, came and met with us at 
least three times. Many of us went over to Peru to meet with them. Also 
President Garcia and Ambassador Ortiz.
  Mr. Speaker, let's do the right thing for American workers and vote 
``yes'' on this trade agreement.
  Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I now would yield to a gentleman who has 
been in this body for a number of years, who has seen firsthand the 
devastation of bad trade deals such as Peru, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Kildee) for 3 minutes.

[[Page 30417]]


  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, all trade agreements suffer from the same 
fundamental flaw: They are not self-enforcing. Trade agreements depend 
upon vigorous enforcement, which requires official complaints be made 
when violations occur.
  None of the six Presidents with whom I have served here in the 
Congress have shown any eagerness to file complaints when agreements 
are violated. I certainly have no faith in President Bush to show any 
enthusiasm to enforce this agreement.
  Congress should not hand this administration yet another trade 
agreement because past agreements have been more efficient at exporting 
jobs than goods and services.
  My city of Flint, Michigan, has dropped in population from 190,000 to 
118,000. Much of this loss is due to trade agreements. If you want to 
put the human face on trade, come and look at the sad faces in Flint, 
Michigan.
  Mr. Speaker, shortly after NAFTA was passed, workers at Delphi in 
Flint were ordered to package up manufacturing machinery for transport 
to Mexico. They were actually exporting their jobs to another country 
in packing crates.
  And to add insult to injury, the following year, the U.S. Department 
of Commerce was reporting the increase of exports to Mexico, and they 
included that machinery from Flint, Michigan. They included that 
exportation of jobs as progress. This was the United States Department 
of Commerce. This was not the Mexican Department of Commerce bragging 
how jobs had been exported to Mexico.
  I appeal to all Members of Congress to vote ``no'' on this. But I 
appeal especially to my fellow Democrats not to turn their backs on 
those American workers who suffer from the export of their jobs. They 
want a paycheck in Flint, Michigan, not a TAA unemployment check. And 
the chance of TAA becoming law is far from certain.
  I urge you, particularly on this side of the aisle, to stop the 
exportation of American jobs and vote ``no'' on this free trade 
agreement.
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would yield 5 minutes to the 
distinguished minority whip, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank 
him for his hard work, the hard work of my good friend, the chairman of 
the committee, Mr. Levin, of Mr. Herger, for working to bring this 
important bill to the floor.
  Americans can and do compete all over the world. They can and do 
compete successfully all over the world. And it's particularly 
important that we compete in our own neighborhood.
  Many of us, over the last several years, have begun to look at what's 
happened in the last two decades to our neighbors to the south and 
their relationships with us, and we saw those relationships drifting 
away. One way to strengthen those relationships is to strengthen this 
opportunity to work together, this opportunity to trade together, this 
opportunity to have legal systems that encourage investment and trade. 
And we can do that.
  The point's been made already by speakers on both sides of the aisle 
that for some time now, Peru, Colombia, Panama, the CAFTA countries 
that are now moving in and have moved into a permanent trade 
relationship with us, for some time now they've been able to ship all 
of the things into our market without duties that they could possibly 
ship into our market.
  In fact, as we've discussed these trade bills in the past, I've had 
Members on both sides of aisle ask me, well, if they can send 
everything in here they want to send in, why would they even want this 
arrangement?
  Of course, the reason is not the immediate economics to them, because 
the immediate economics to them are already very good. The reason is 
the long-term tie and relationship of their economy to our economy, the 
strength it gives them in this hemisphere to be a partner, a trading 
partner with the United States. And we see that happen.
  The projection on this opportunity alone is that U.S. exports to Peru 
will increase by over $1 billion a year; not much projection on 
increase early on from Peru, because, remember, they're already sending 
everything here that they want to without tariffs. This removes the 
barriers not for them; they've already been removed. This removes the 
barriers for us.
  And our neighborhood's important. Our hemisphere is important. The 
United States has been blessed in many, many ways. And as we see the 
opportunities grow for people in all of the Americas, that's actually 
good for us. One billion dollars in exports means $1 billion in 
manufactured goods from this country, some services from this country 
going to Peru. And I think that Peru should only be the beginning of 
what we do over the next few months.
  Following on CAFTA, Peru, Panama, Colombia, all of which have, at 
this moment, the access to our markets they would have after the 
agreement, we need access to their markets.

                              {time}  2100

  We need that permanence of relationship. We need that reaching out to 
say that we are in this hemisphere together, we are in a global 
economy, and the part of that economy that we should all benefit from 
the most is the economy closest to us. And Mr. McCrery and Mr. Rangel 
have worked hard to establish a framework here that's the framework for 
the work we do tonight and tomorrow but also is the framework for what 
we do in the rest of this Congress.
  I urge my colleagues to look not just at the economic impact of these 
agreements but also the geopolitical impact, the impact in our 
neighborhood, the impact in our hemisphere, the opportunity of these 
countries to work to eliminate illegal trade and particularly to 
eliminate illegal drug trade, the opportunity in these countries to 
open their markets to us as we have opened our markets to them. I urge 
my colleagues to give support to this agreement as we look at the 
future of other agreements and other opportunities.
  Americans can compete. Americans are competing. And this agreement 
will prove the American ability to compete in yet one more country.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to another distinguished 
member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Tanner.
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, trade is not a political issue; trade is an 
economic issue. The economics of this agreement are such that Peru, if 
you voted for the Andean trade preference, already has access to our 
markets without regard to tariffs and duty. This is the other side of 
the coin and will allow us to immediately export into Peru cotton, 
soybeans, soybean meal, crude soybean oil, beef, wheat, sorghum, 
peanuts. This is the other side of the Andean Trade Preference Act. So 
if you believe, as I do, that in this country we can grow more food 
than we can consume, we can make more stuff than we can buy and sell to 
each other, then it's not a political argument; it's an economic fact 
of capitalism that whoever is engaged in that excess production is 
going to lose their job because we cannot eat all the food we can grow 
and we can't buy and sell to each other all the stuff we make.
  So how do we save jobs in this country? By exporting manufactured 
goods and agricultural products that we can grow and that we can make. 
This allows us to do better than current law.
  Now, if you want to vote ``no,'' what do you get? You get status quo. 
I thought that's what we were trying to change. We don't like status 
quo. We want more jobs in America. How do you get more jobs? You get 
more jobs by allowing people who are engaged in excess production to 
sell it to somebody else out of this country. That's what it's about.
  There is one more aspect that I would like to touch on briefly, the 
national security aspect. South America is going to go one way or the 
other. I was just in Colombia, South America this last weekend. Chavez 
and Venezuela is against this. Are you with Chavez or are you with 
America? That really is basically what I am trying to talk about.
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to a distinguished member 
of

[[Page 30418]]

the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
English).
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, I have seen this FTA evolve and I have 
watched it, representing as I do an area of the country where we have 
seen both the positives and the negatives of globalization and of 
trade, and I watched this FTA fully prepared to be skeptical.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to rise in strong support of 
this free trade agreement on the strength of the fact that it clearly 
will further advance America's economic as well as political and 
foreign policy interests.
  As you know, Mr. Speaker, since 1991 our country's commercial 
partnership with Peru has been driven by unilateral preferences 
extended to Peru under the Andean Trade Preference Act. Over the past 
16 years, Peru clearly has demonstrated its commitment to that 
agreement in both terms of political and institutional resources. After 
making significant strides in shifting away from production and 
shipment of illegal drugs, Peru has become a proven ally and has 
established itself as a steadfast partner in combating narcotics 
trafficking, countering regional terror groups, and helping to supply 
America's energy needs. Approval of this trade agreement will be a 
critical signal to the Peruvian people and not only help to promote 
closer ties but to open the door to a new era of trade for our country.
  We recognize that the Peruvian economy is roughly the size of the 
State of Louisiana that the distinguished ranking member represents. It 
is roughly the size of Louisiana as of 2005. While Peru is not an 
enormous market, it is still a significant opportunity for U.S. 
exports.
  In 2006, 98 percent of Peruvian exports entered the United States 
duty-free under the Andean trade pact. The U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion 
Agreement levels the playing field by moving beyond one-way preferences 
to full partnership and reciprocal commitments under which U.S. exports 
also benefit from duty-free treatment. Under this agreement, 80 percent 
of U.S. exports would become duty-free from day one and other tariffs 
on exports would be phased out.
  The International Trade Commission has estimated that U.S. exports to 
Peru will grow by $1.1 billion, or more than double the estimated 
growth of imports from Peru. Additionally, the ITC estimates that the 
big winners in the U.S. economy will be value-added products, 
especially in the machinery and equipment sector. The largest import 
gains from Peru, the ITC estimates, will be inputs, such as basic 
metals as gold and copper.
  In addition to being economically complementary, this agreement will 
provide substantial new opportunities for American farmers' 
agricultural exports, break down barriers facing U.S. service 
providers, and strengthen protections for workers. In fact, the U.S.-
Peru Trade Promotion Agreement marks a significant milestone with its 
inclusion of the most advanced labor obligations of any bilateral or 
regional trade agreement.
  Specifically, this trade pact will require Peru to adopt and maintain 
fundamental labor rights, as stated in the International Labor 
Organization Declaration Principles and Rights at Work. This includes 
freedom of association, collective bargaining rights, the abolition of 
child labor, among others. Mr. Speaker, these standards are an 
enforceable part of the agreement, and that is in itself a seminal 
reform.
  Mr. Speaker, there are additional components that I think make this 
FTA particularly compelling, including enforceable environmental 
standards. This is a high standard agreement that furthers the 
commercial and foreign interests of the United States of America.
  What this is not, and I emphasize this to my constituents, this is 
not another NAFTA. This is not a threat to our manufacturing base. I 
think this is precisely the kind of agreement that many of us have 
argued for for years.
  Isn't it time, if we want a stronger trade policy, that we take 
``yes'' for an answer? If we embrace this free trade agreement, we have 
an opportunity to use it as a model for future trade agreements, and 
that in turn will strengthen the hand and level the playing field for 
American companies and American workers.
  For all of my colleagues who share that goal, please vote for this 
FTA. Please send that message.
  Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I now would yield 3 minutes to a gentleman 
who is very outspoken about fair trade deals, the gentleman from Ohio, 
Congressman Kucinich.
  Mr. KUCINICH. I thank the gentleman from Maine for his own 
leadership.
  The U.S.-Peru Free Trade Agreement continues the destructive trade 
policies that spur the exodus of good-paying jobs and undermine the 
ability of working people to protect their living standards.
  Our workers and our communities have been hurt by the devastating 
impacts of our flawed trade policies. Since 2001, over 3 million 
valuable manufacturing jobs have been lost by U.S. workers due to the 
unsound NAFTA model of trade analogous to the U.S.-Peru Free Trade 
Agreement we are considering tonight. Yet the Bush administration 
insists on continuing to implement the same policies that have off-
shored jobs and left hardworking Americans in precarious circumstances.
  Common sense suggests that our trade policies must continue to 
promote and expand Buy American practices that support American 
competitiveness. Instead, this agreement undermines Buy American 
programs.
  This destructive trade bill requires that all firms in Peru, Peruvian 
or otherwise, be granted equivalent access to outsourced U.S. 
Government work and Buy American program contracts as our own U.S. 
firms. Suggesting that Buy American should include Peruvian businesses 
indicates that the multinational corporations are the real 
beneficiaries of the free trade agreement.
  This body successfully fended off the Bush administration's attempts 
to privatize our Social Security system in 2005. It should follow that 
this body would hold firm on this principle for other nations as well.
  However, there are provisions in the Peru FTA that would allow U.S. 
firms to exact compensation if the Peruvian Government reverses the 
partial privatization of their own social security system. Citibank 
would reap a windfall if Peru did what the U.S. Congress has voted to 
do, roll back the privatization of Social Security.
  Furthermore, the U.S.-Peru FTA threatens the citizens and workers of 
Peru. The two main labor federations of Peru have expressed opposition 
to the agreement over concerns for the workers of both of our nations.
  As corporations cut U.S. jobs and relocate in search of lower labor 
costs, the U.S.-Peru FTA threatens to expand sweatshop labor in Peru 
and casts doubt on the adequate enforcement of worker protections. In a 
country already fraught by high poverty levels and a growing gap 
between the wealthy and the poor, the U.S.-Peru FTA will further 
exacerbate Peru's difficulties with provisions that ultimately promote 
privatization and deregulation of basic necessities such as water and 
electricity.
  Agricultural provisions of this agreement threaten the well-being of 
Peru's peasant farmers. These provisions are expected to cause 
displacement of farmers and increased hunger. Peru has over 7 million 
citizens living in rural communities, with agriculture helping to 
sustain one-third of its population. It is estimated that over 4.5 
million Peruvians are malnourished and without much-needed income.
  I urge the defeat of this trade agreement and standing up for the 
American worker.
  Coca cultivation requires minimal technology, produces four yields 
annually and is profitable. Because the Peru FTA includes provisions 
requiring Peru to reduce tariffs on U.S. agricultural products it is 
predicted that many Peruvian farmers will turn to the illicit 
cultivation of coca to earn a living.
  Experts predict that these agricultural provisions of this NAFTA 
style deal threaten an increase of undocumented migration into the

[[Page 30419]]

U.S. This has implications for our immigration system, a system that is 
already badly in need of humane reform.
  Terms in the U.S.-Peru FTA for drug makers will harm Peruvian 
patients who need lifesaving medications. The provisions ensure that 
patients in Peru will struggle to afford necessary drugs.
  Corporations will be able to challenge domestic environmental and 
public health laws in international tribunals. This gives corporations 
the ability to circumvent accountability and undermine laws that exist 
to protect people and the environment.
  Failed trade policies that threaten natural resources and our 
environment have been the status quo for too long and will only 
continue under the U.S.-Peru FTA.
  Like prior trade agreements, the U.S.-Peru FTA will not bring global 
prosperity and well-being, but will instead bolster powerful 
corporations. I urge my colleagues to oppose the U.S.-Peru FTA.
  Mr. LEVIN. How much time is there?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Snyder). The gentleman from Michigan has 
29\1/2\ minutes remaining tonight. The gentleman from Louisiana has 
56\1/2\ minutes remaining tonight. The gentleman from Maine has 33\1/2\ 
minutes remaining tonight.
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Herger), the ranking member of the Trade 
Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee, be allowed to allocate 
the remainder of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Louisiana?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  2115

  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina, Mr. Robin Hayes.
  Mr. HAYES. I want to thank Chairman Rangel, Chairman Herger and 
Chairman McCrery for their great work. Unfortunately, I must rise today 
in opposition to H.R. 3688, the U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement.
  My opposition to this agreement stems from what the American 
Manufacturing Trade Action Coalition calls a continuation of a flawed 
trade policy of trade deficits, offshoring and job losses.
  Auggie Tantillo, the executive director of AMTAC goes on to state, 
``Congress spending the entire year focusing on an unpopular Peru FTA 
instead of passing a strong anticurrency manipulation bill is an 
enormous disappointment to U.S. manufacturers desperate for relief from 
China's predatory trade practices.'' Folks, I could not agree more. I 
don't see where this particular legislation helps combat the largest 
threat to our Nation's manufacturing base, China.
  As many of you know, manufacturing, the textile industry in 
particular, has taken a massive hit in both loss of jobs in businesses 
due directly to unfair trade practices by China and their fixed 
currency. Without a level playing field for our textile workers, 
businesses, and the manufacturing sector in general, the demise of our 
manufacturing industry will continue to take place all over the 
country.
  I'm a cosponsor and strong supporter of the Currency Reform for Fair 
Trade Act, which was sponsored by Congressmen Duncan Hunter and Tim 
Ryan. This important piece of legislation will level the playing field 
for American companies by stipulating that countervailing trade cases 
targeting government subsidies can be brought against nonmarket 
economies such as China, and it does it in a WTO-compliant manner.
  Another issue I'm concerned with is the lack of enforcement of our 
current trade laws, in particular with textile enforcement. Textile 
enforcement is vital to the future of the U.S. textile industry and its 
workforce. The U.S. textile and apparel industry is critical to the 
economic national security of our Nation.
  The industry contributes almost $120 billion to our Nation's GDP. 
However, we are putting this industry and its workforce in harm's way 
if Customs does not continue to utilize all enforcement tools, such as 
seizures, detentions and special operations to help our Nation's 
industrial base.
  Folks, we need to get our priorities right here. We need to focus on 
preserving American jobs and American businesses. We have lost too many 
jobs. Too many companies have been hurt because of unfair Chinese trade 
practices and lack of proper enforcement. It's time to start fighting 
back.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield to the gentlelady from New York for a unanimous 
consent.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I congratulate the dean of our delegation for his leadership on this 
important agreement, and I rise in strong support.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the U.S.-Peru Free Trade Agreement.
  This agreement represents a new direction for trade agreements.
  This agreement will provide greater market access for and remove 
tariffs on American goods with a country that already enjoys the export 
of a number of goods to the United States duty-free.
  Working off the historic agreement negotiated by Democrats in May of 
this year, this agreement has been negotiated to include critical labor 
and environmental provisions and will help ensure the economic and 
national security of the region.
  It was the lack of these environmental and labor standards that led 
me to vote against the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and 
the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA).
  Among the labor standards negotiated in this agreement are worker 
rights and protections for which we have fought these many years.
  As a result of the May 10 agreement negotiated by House Democrats, 
the labor chapter of the Peru FTA includes a fully enforceable 
commitment that countries adopt and enforce the five basic 
international labor standards.
  In addition, this agreement also includes commitments to enforce a 
sixth set of rights--those pertaining to acceptable conditions of work 
with respect to minimum wages, hours of work and occupational safety 
and health.
  This agreement includes critical new environmental provisions.
  It requires Peru to adopt, maintain, and enforce obligations under 
seven common multilateral environmental agreements; specify numerous 
concrete steps that Peru must take to curb illegal logging and impose a 
clear schedule for doing so; and it gives the United States an 
unprecedented set of enforcement tools to ensure that Peru meets its 
environmental commitments.
  These provisions are a far cry from the ``enforce your own laws'' of 
NAFTA and CAFTA.
  Beyond the labor and environmental standards negotiated in this 
agreement, I believe this agreement is a vital instrument towards 
economic and political security.
  Having a strong and stable ally in Latin America will allow aid to 
the United States in our continued battle against narcotic trafficking.
  Again, I support this agreement and I urge its passage.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  I just want to say to our distinguished colleague from Ohio (Mr. 
Kucinich), who raised the Social Security issue, it's simply not 
accurate. If you look at the language within the FTA, there is no basis 
for these claims regarding the inability of Peru to unprivatize its 
Social Security system.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Ohio.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  To the Chair of the committee, Mr. Rangel, Ranking Member McCrery, 
the subcommittee Chair of this trade agreement, I come from the same 
community as Dennis Kucinich, and I've seen the loss of jobs in Ohio, 
in northeast Ohio and across Ohio, from CAFTA and NAFTA. But it's my 
belief, having served on this committee for the past 4 years, and 
having had an opportunity to travel to Peru, that this is a good 
agreement.
  My newspaper used to say, Well, Stephanie, why do you travel so much? 
Why do you go places? What impact does it have on your voting? I said, 
Well, how can I make a decision on international issues if I don't 
travel to the country to see what's going on? And I had the opportunity 
to travel to Peru about 2 years ago under the leadership of Chairman 
Thomas, and at the time, President Toledo was the President of Peru. 
Ambassador Ferraro was the ambassador, and he gave me the opportunity 
to sit down and have a discussion with farmers, with union people and 
others with regard to what this

[[Page 30420]]

agreement would do for Peru. I also happened to have a staffer whose 
name was Jorge Castro who was from Peru, and I had a chance also to 
speak with his father who was employed in that country.
  This is an opportunity for us to step away from the tradition, to 
look at a trade agreement that focuses on environmental issues, to look 
at a trade agreement that focuses on labor standards, and to step back 
and say, well, maybe this is our opportunity to say, well, here we can, 
once again, try and not only lift up the people of America, but to lift 
up the people of another country, to have a chance to talk to those 
farmers about growing and having something other to do than being 
involved in the drug trade, to have an opportunity to say to the people 
of Peru, it's time for a difference, and that the United States will 
give them an opportunity to do something different.
  All of my colleagues have talked about the change in labor standards, 
the change in environmental agreements, but I stand here, as some of my 
other colleagues have said, to put a face on these agreements, because 
it's very easy for us to step back and say, well, these jobs were lost 
by this. We haven't lost jobs by the Andean Trade Agreement with Peru. 
We have an opportunity to open doors for them and open doors for us. 
And I encourage my colleagues, who I have stood with, I am a 100 
percent labor voter, but I stand here this evening to say, let's give 
them a chance, let's give them an opportunity, get broader and change 
our piece.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, ranking member of 
the Budget Committee, Mr. Ryan.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I thank the distinguished ranking member of 
the subcommittee for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, if you're not going to vote for this trade agreement, 
you're probably not going to vote for any trade agreement that's before 
us.
  This trade agreement is a no-brainer. This trade agreement is a 
bipartisan agreement. This trade agreement shows what you can get 
accomplished when we all work together.
  This trade agreement recognizes the fact that we have one-way trade 
right now with Peru, and with this agreement we have two-way trade. 
Ninety-seven percent of all of Peru's exports come into the U.S. duty 
free; only 2.8 percent of our goods go to Peru duty free. This lets us 
send our stuff there duty free. This gives us the same opportunity to 
send our exports as we already give the Peruvians.
  Now, what we hear often on the floor about why trade agreements are 
so bad, it's usually the trade deficit. Well, here is one interesting 
statistic, Mr. Speaker; 85 percent of the trade deficit comes from 
countries we don't have trade agreements with. You see, when we get 
trade agreements, we get good agreements for our country. We get the 
rule of law. We get enforceable contracts. We get access to their 
markets. Why is that important? It's important to get access to other 
markets because 97 percent of the world's consumers are not here in 
America; they're overseas. Ninety-seven percent of the world's 
consumers are elsewhere outside of this country.
  We are a mature country, a fast economy, a mature economy. We have a 
high standard of living relative to the rest of the world. And if we 
want to enjoy that high standard of living, if we want to build on that 
high standard of living, if we want to fulfill the American Dream, 
which our parents and grandparents always taught us, which is, in 
America, you leave the next generation better off than your generation, 
you've got to find more markets and more consumers for our products.
  We cannot possibly consume all that we make and all that we do 
because only 3 percent of the world's consumers are here. That's why we 
have to open markets; that's why we have to have access.
  This is a good agreement for foreign policy reasons. This is saying 
to the reformers in Latin America, we're with you. This is saying to 
the human rights movement, to individual rights, to democracy, we are 
with you. America stands with you. That is so important at a time when 
you have a threat knocking on the door from people like Chavez next 
door in Venezuela.
  Let me just read a few statistics of some of the recent successes of 
some of our recent free trade agreements with respect to our exports, 
which creates jobs, and how this has helped grow America's standard of 
living.
  Since we've had free trade agreements with these countries, here is 
the success: Our exports to Jordan, up 92 percent; our exports to 
Chile, up 150 percent; our exports to Singapore, up 49 percent; our 
exports to Australia, up 25 percent; our exports to Morocco, up 67 
percent; our exports to Bahrain, up 40 percent. Our exports are up 15 
percent this year alone. That's one of the reasons why our economy grew 
at an astounding rate of 3.9 percent last quarter alone, because of 
exports. And we all know, the statistics are very clear, that exports 
produce good-paying jobs.
  So, Mr. Speaker, this is a chance to strike a blow for enforceable 
contracts, for the rule of law, for worker rights in Latin America, and 
for jobs here in America.
  Again, as I mentioned in the start, this is a no-brainer. I want to 
thank the chairman of the Ways and Means, Mr. Rangel, for his work on 
this. I want to thank our ranking member, Mr. McCrery, for his work on 
this. And I also want to thank the people who really sweat this thing 
out at the negotiating table, the people at the USTR, and our 
Ambassador, Susan Schwab, for all of the hard work they put into this. 
This is one step in the right direction. Panama and Colombia are two 
more steps in the right direction.
  I urge adoption of this.
  Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, Representative Lynch.
  Mr. LYNCH. I don't know what it means when someone calls something a 
no-brainer and then he takes credit for it, but I rise in opposition.
  First of all, I want to say that I have enormous respect for the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Levin), and Mr. Neal, who is also part of this, Mr. McCrery, Mr. 
Herger. Look, while I commend my friends for their work in 
incorporating the International Labor Standards in this agreement, and 
that is an accomplishment, and I concede that, I must say that, for the 
record, Peru has already adopted the eight core International Labor 
Standards in their country already, and yet the record also indicates 
that, number one, based on the ILO reports, that we've got 2 million 
children working right now in Peru. It also indicates, the same 
reports, that 33,000 people are currently subject to forced labor in 
the Amazon region. Our own State Department reports that there is 
extensive noncompliance with the minimum wage guidelines, and that more 
than half of the population in Peru earns the minimum wage. You know 
what the minimum wage in Peru is? $3.60 a day. There was a gentleman up 
here earlier tonight who said that Peru's economy was the size of 
Louisiana. I just beg to differ on that point. The World Factbook 
indicates it's less than half. But these conditions are far from free 
trade.
  Here's what it boils down to. And I appreciate the work that's been 
done here today, but I work with a lot of the financial services 
companies in the United States in an effort to try to get fair 
treatment of our financial service companies around the world. I fly 
into places like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Jordan and Turkey to try to get 
those central bankers in those countries to treat our financial 
institutions, our banks and our investors fairly. We asked them to 
specifically adopt world standards that are reliable, adopt 
transparency standards that are reliable, and we force them, we compel, 
through our economic strength, to meet that standard. But here, when it 
comes to requiring free trade and fair treatment of American workers, 
we have a general statement here. We have no real tough enforceability 
and accountability standards like we require of

[[Page 30421]]

people who deal with our financial services companies around the world, 
and I think that is a big mistake.
  We don't export democracy through the Defense Department. We do it 
through these trade agreements. And we've got to fight for the American 
worker like we fight for these multinational corporations.

                              {time}  2130

  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield now 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this agreement 
and thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Foreign trade is vital to the United States economy and to my home 
State of New Jersey. Since 1945, the world's markets have become 
progressively more open thanks in large part to leadership exhibited by 
our own country. Our Nation's citizens have benefited. Ambassador Susan 
Schwab, our United States Trade Representative, indicates that U.S. 
annual incomes are $1 trillion higher because of these trade promotion 
agreements, which equates to $9,000 per year for the average American 
family. In just the last decade, such free trade agreements have helped 
raise our Nation's gross domestic product by nearly 40 percent and add 
more than 16 million jobs.
  Additionally, trade creates more and better jobs. Manufactured 
exports support over one in six manufacturing jobs, an estimated 5.2 
million jobs in the United States. Agricultural exports are responsible 
for 926,000 jobs. Interestingly enough, U.S. jobs supported by exports 
pay American workers more, an estimated 13 to 18 percent above the 
national average.
  In my home State, international trade is a driving force in our 
economy. In 2006, merchandise exports from New Jersey were valued at 
$27 billion, which places us ninth among all 50 States and represents a 
$10 billion increase since 2002. Such increases benefit not just New 
Jersey's manufacturing sector, but also positively impact 
transportation, logistics and warehouse activity across our State. It 
is also worth noting that in 2006, New Jersey exported $53 million in 
goods to Peru.
  Indeed, a recent report presented to the New Jersey Commerce and 
Economic Growth Commission states, ``New Jersey has the greatest 
opportunity of any State to prosper in the new global age due to its 
location within the global and continental grid and its systems-wide 
resources.''
  Beyond the economic benefits, trade builds important international 
partnerships that encourage security and prosperity abroad. This 
agreement, while relatively small in comparison to others, as well as 
other pending agreements with Colombia and Panama, present vital 
opportunities to expand our economic freedom, fight narco-terrorism, 
expand export opportunities, and build strategic alliances with key 
allies in the Americas.
  In addition, this agreement would eliminate tariffs for U.S. 
companies, expand trade in areas such as textiles and agriculture and 
give our own financial services companies more market access. Failure 
to execute this pact and others like it would not bode well for our 
ability to take advantage of vast global markets. Indeed, as others 
have said, over 95 percent of the world's consumers are outside the 
United States.
  But more importantly, limiting foreign trade counters America's long-
held belief in free enterprise and open markets. We can compete as a 
nation in the global marketplace if we reject protectionism and 
continue to remove barriers to free and fair trade with countries 
around the world. If not, we will only have our own politics and 
shortsightedness to blame for the outcome.
  I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this agreement.
  Mr. LEVIN. It is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy as I appreciate 
his leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, I have dedicated over 30 years to environmental efforts. 
As a Member of this Congress, I successfully fought to enhance 
environmental provisions in the Singapore Free Trade Agreement. I have 
carried these arguments and opportunities in China, Indonesia and 
Vietnam. I didn't support CAFTA because President Bush and the partisan 
Republican leadership abandoned efforts to work in a bipartisan fashion 
and rebuffed our efforts at environmental protection.
  I can't express my appreciation to our chairman, Mr. Rangel, and to 
the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Levin, for empowering members to 
work with the environmental community to make sure that their voices 
were heard. And we have been able to enshrine in this agreement 
enforceable, multilateral environmental agreements in the FTA for the 
first time in history. Absolutely unprecedented.
  We have already been able to use the force of these agreements to 
clarify the protections of threatened Peruvian forest wilderness using 
the leverage we have already got even before it was enacted. This is 
not remotely NAFTA. We have all learned from that experience. It is not 
CAFTA, which I didn't support. We have given the critics what they said 
they wanted within labor protection and within the environment.
  I urge in the strongest possible terms that we vote a new beginning 
in trade. Adopting these stringent labor and environmental protections 
in the agreement will serve as a foundation for United States trade 
policy from this point forward, and I urge its adoption.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Kline).
  Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for 
his leadership on this issue and so many others.
  Mr. Speaker, a number of my colleagues have come to the floor today 
to argue passionately, as we have just heard, about the principles of 
free trade and whether we should pass the trade agreement between the 
United States and Peru. This is a historic moment for U.S.-Andean 
relations. The United States and Peru have agreed to formalize this 
mutually beneficial economic relationship with this ground-breaking 
U.S.-Peru trade promotion agreement.
  This agreement opens new markets for U.S. businesses and provides 
strong protections for U.S. workers and companies. Additionally, it 
furthers the Peruvian market-oriented policies and advances the agenda 
that has made Peru one of the fastest growing emerging economies.
  Mr. Speaker, this stands in sharp contrast to the policies of 
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. We are at the beginning of a new day 
in the Andean region, and this trade agreement is the first step in a 
successful campaign to spread democracy, expand free trade, and 
stabilize the region while also taking a stand against poverty and 
crime.
  For our part, this agreement builds on Peru's many strengths and 
solidifies an important economic relationship between our two nations, 
presenting new market access for U.S. businesses, farmers, ranchers and 
consumers. U.S. exporters currently face Peruvian tariffs while 
Peruvian exporters are not generally subjected to any tariffs. This 
point has been raised many times but cannot be raised enough. We are 
working in a one-way street that has been working against us. This is 
the time to fix that and make this trade fair.
  In my home State of Minnesota, we exported over $24 million worth of 
goods to Peru in 2006. These exports cut across all industries, from 
high tech computer manufacturers to our local farmers. Passage of this 
agreement would provide immediate elimination of tariffs on nearly 90 
percent of current U.S. exports to Peru. This would allow producers and 
exporters the opportunity to not only preserve but to increase market 
share in Peru. As our market share increases, it naturally follows that 
prices and income increase and jobs.
  A vote in favor of this bill supports job growth, sustains small- and 
medium-sized businesses and enhances agricultural competitiveness.
  Mr. Speaker, I would ask that my colleagues here today join me in 
support of this important legislation and

[[Page 30422]]

vote in favor of America's workers, America's farmers and American 
businesses.
  Mr. MICHAUD. I am pleased to recognize the gentleman from California, 
Congressman Sherman, for 3 minutes.
  Mr. SHERMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I have heard a lot of folks talk about the substance of this 
agreement. They started reading the agreement at the front. They saw 
the substance. They see the labor and the environmental standards. I 
think they are reading it in the wrong way. With an agreement like 
this, you need to start reading it from the back where the enforcement 
provisions are supposed to be.
  So let us test the enforcement mechanisms in this agreement. Let me 
put forth an extreme possibility, an extreme example. Let's say there 
is a military coup in Peru. Let's say the junta is rounding up labor 
leaders. Let's say they start executing those labor leaders, God 
forbid. Let's say they televise those executions and they are being 
conducted by the head of the junta himself. What enforcement is there 
in this agreement? Only so much as George Bush decides to have. If he 
chooses to do nothing, then no action by any court of this country, no 
private action, no act by this Congress will be of any effect.
  In contrast, importers will have an absolute right to enforce their 
rights to low tariffs on the Peruvian goods they bring into this 
country because if the tariff is lower, no customs agent of the United 
States could try to collect a higher amount. President Bush has never 
inconvenienced a multinational corporation. When in Guatemala, labor 
leaders like Marco Ramirez and Pedro Zamora were killed, President Bush 
did nothing. When dozens and more, scores of labor leaders in Colombia 
are killed, President Bush tells us we should have a free trade 
agreement.
  The only provisions in this agreement that provide for enforcement 
can be nullified at the whim of a man who has no intention of enforcing 
this agreement. If you vote for this agreement, it's because you have 
faith in George Bush to enforce it.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).
  Mr. JONES of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman from California.
  Like others before me, I want to say to Mr. Rangel and to Mr. Levin, 
to Mr. McCrery and others on our side, thank you for working on this 
trade agreement. Absolutely I am opposed to it. I have been here for 14 
years and for 14 years I have seen the American worker become less than 
a middle-class person and just trying to pay the bills. I don't know 
how with this Peru Free Trade Agreement that we can believe we are 
going to do a whole lot to help with the trade deficit of this nation, 
with the lost jobs of so many Americans.
  The United States has lost more than 3.1 million jobs since 2001. The 
United States is projected to run a trade deficit of over $200 billion 
with China. We even have a trade deficit with Mexico.
  Where in the world is this country going? I said yesterday to a 
friend of mine, ``I'm afraid we are in the last days of a great nation. 
When the basic Judeo-Christian values begin to crumble, the economy 
begins to fall apart, where is America going?''
  This is not the right trade bill. We could have the right trade bill, 
just like we should have had with CAFTA. We almost defeated CAFTA on 
this floor but lost it by five or six votes. Peru has less than one-
tenth of the U.S. population, and more than 50 percent of all Peruvians 
live in poverty.
  Mr. Speaker, it is absurd to expect Peru to become a major consumer 
of U.S. finished products. If we really want to do something for 
America, why don't we do what is necessary and say to China, stop 
manipulating your currency to combat the predatory practices of trading 
partners like China; pass legislation to eliminate the $379 billion 
disadvantage to U.S. producers and service providers caused by foreign 
VAT taxes. That is something we should be working on. Ensure the safety 
of foreign-made products sold to the United States from toys to food. 
We really need to do those kind of things before we start passing these 
trade agreements that some fat cat somewhere is going to make big bucks 
while the workers of America continue to go downhill and worry about 
paying their utility bills, paying for their children to go to school, 
paying the gasoline prices.
  Mr. Speaker, one other point and then I am going to close. I am a 
conservative Republican. I have believed for so long that we could come 
together and we could work together for the good of the American 
people, that we are losing the middle class in America. And a lot of 
that loss is simply because of good-paying jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, I know we will not defeat this, but I pray to God that 
we will not forgot America's strength, and America's strength is the 
workers of this country.

                              {time}  2145

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), and I would ask unanimous consent that our very 
distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Committee control the rest 
of the time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized 
for 2 minutes.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this Peruvian Trade 
Agreement. We know that it has been increasingly difficult to pass 
measures out of this Congress in a bipartisan fashion, and it is 
unfortunate. I still believe that this Congress functions best when you 
can work in a bipartisan manner.
  The vote tomorrow on the Peruvian Trade Agreement will be different. 
It will be different because we are embarking upon a new historic 
template on these trade agreements, one that embodies core 
international labor standards and environmental standards for the very 
first time in these trade agreements, fully enforceable, like any other 
provision in the agreements.
  This debate tonight isn't about whether the United States of America 
should remain positively engaged with other countries around the world, 
whether we should be trading. We are less than 4 percent of the world's 
population. Of course we have to trade.
  Rather, the debate is what the rules of trade should be, and will we 
do everything we can to begin elevating standards upwards across the 
globe or to continue to see this race to the bottom for the lowest 
common denominator. With core labor standards and environmental 
standards in the body of the agreement, we are, for the first time, 
leveling the playing field for our workers so they can successfully 
compete in the global marketplace.
  But I also believe that trade is more than just goods and products 
and services crossing borders. It is an important part of our 
diplomatic arsenal, because when goods and products do cross borders, I 
believe armies don't.
  I commend the leadership of our committee, the leadership of our 
respective parties, and also the President and Susan Schwab, our USTR, 
for coming to agreement on this historic trade measure.
  But there is one cautionary note I would give to the current 
administration and future administrations, and it is the best argument 
that the opposition has here tonight, and that is if administrations 
refuse to enforce these provisions, it will prove increasingly more 
difficult to pass future trade agreements out of this body and we will 
continue to lose the confidence of the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support the agreement.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Herger and 
the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee for leading, I think, a 
terrific bipartisan effort.
  I rise today in support of expanding our Nation's export markets by 
passing the bipartisan Peru Trade Promotion

[[Page 30423]]

Agreement. The agreement will create significant new opportunities for 
American farmers, ranchers, businesses and certainly consumers by 
opening new markets and reducing trade barriers, leveling that playing 
field.
  More than two-thirds of current U.S. farm exports to Peru will become 
duty free immediately. This trade agreement gives U.S. farmers an 
advantage over competitors. For example, U.S. exporters of wheat and 
white corn currently pay a 17 percent tariff in Peru, while Argentina 
pays only 3.4 percent and controls two-thirds of Peru's market.
  You eliminate the 17 percent tariff and give U.S. grain exporters a 
leg up. According to the American Farm Bureau Federation, U.S. 
agriculture exports could exceed $705 million, an increase of over 
1,000 percent from current levels. In addition, Peru has committed to 
recognize the U.S. meat inspection system as the equivalent to its own, 
thereby allowing imports from facilities approved by our own USDA. Peru 
has committed to specific sanitary and phytosanitary terms, removing 
barriers to imports of U.S. beef, pork, poultry and rice.
  Opening export markets has long been a priority of mine. Earlier this 
year I hosted an export seminar which drew forward-thinking individuals 
from across my district. They recognized just how vitally important 
access to foreign markets can be to our economy.
  In 2006, Nebraska's agriculture exports worldwide were around $3.3 
billion. A total of 1,125 companies exported goods from Nebraska in 
2005. Of those, 877 were businesses with fewer than 500 employees. 
Despite high tariffs and other barriers on most agriculture products, 
including beef, corn and soybeans, U.S. exporters shipped more than 
$209 million in agriculture products to Peru.
  Nebraska would benefit from this free trade agreement which provides 
U.S. suppliers with access to foreign markets and levels the playing 
field with our competitors. As the Omaha World Herald newspaper put it 
in today's edition, ``Greater trade opportunities hold clear benefit 
for the Midlands. In terms of Nebraska's economic interests alone, 
tariffs would be sharply reduced on the State's primary exports to 
Peru: chemical manufactures, machinery, and processed foods.''
  But more than just economic interests, this agreement builds trust 
between two countries. By opening the doors for our exports, we also 
open lines of communication. We help improve lives. We foster a sense 
of community.
  Agriculture markets are tremendously important to my district and the 
Nation as a whole, and I hope to help Nebraska's products continue to 
compete in the global marketplace. But I also want to help America 
remain the greatest Nation in the world. We can do so by opening the 
lines of trade and communications to trading partners across the globe.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this bipartisan measure.
  Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I only 
wish we could have had these moments before the Ways and Means 
Committee itself, the respect Members should be afforded when their 
State's lost over 200,000 jobs and our Nation millions of jobs to these 
trade agreements. At least we have earned the respect. I am sorry that 
we only get 5 minutes on the floor. So many people are depending on us.
  We know that every time this country signs a free trade agreement 
with a developing country we end up outsourcing more wealth and middle-
class jobs. U.S. companies are shuttering faster than we can count. If 
these trade agreements were working, America's trade deficit would not 
be ringing in at over $800 billion this year, and for every billion, 
20,000 more jobs lost in this country. What an unprecedented wipeout of 
productive wealth and of jobs and of lives. The sliding value of the 
dollar proves it, our staggering debt levels prove it, and the growing 
stock market instability proves it.
  If we put it in perspective, we were told that when NAFTA passed, and 
I voted against that in 1993, our Speaker voted for it, our majority 
leader voted for it, I remember that vote very clearly, we were told 
that though we had a surplus with Mexico, it would grow. What happened? 
We have fallen into deeper and deeper deficit with Mexico every year. 
And over 2 million Mexican peasants were upended from their farmland, 
creating an endless flow of illegal immigration to this country, 
because we were not allowed to offer amendments to provide adjustment 
provisions in those agreements for the people of the Third World. Shame 
on us.
  Then we were told, well, let's move to China. When the China PNTR was 
signed, we weren't in trade balance with China; we were actually in 
trade deficit. But after PNTR was signed, the deficit doubled and 
tripled. The Speaker talked about that tonight. It didn't get any 
better; it just got worse. And now we are getting all of the tainted 
food and the toys with lead and so forth.
  The Jordan Free Trade Agreement had environmental and labor 
provisions. They said, that is the dawn of a new decade. Just what they 
are saying tonight. Guess what? No enforcement. We know that. They 
don't intend to do that. They never did.
  Now tonight we look at Peru. Now, with Peru we are already in 
deficit; in fact, over $3 billion in deficit with Peru. I hope the Ways 
and Means Committee staffer is adding this up, because, you see, the 
numbers are in the wrong direction. That is why the value of the dollar 
is terrible.
  What is interesting about Peru, though, what is the largest export 
from Peru to the United States? Gold. Gold. How convenient. And Peru is 
the largest silver producing country in the world.
  Look at the commodities markets. In whose interest would it be to 
bring in more of that here? And we have heard that Caterpillar now 
wants to move its production to serve those mines down in Peru. They 
are not going to send tractors from Illinois to Peru. They are going to 
move the production to Peru and pay those workers nothing. We have seen 
the pattern before. Now, please, don't take us to be idiots.
  We think about Del Monte and Green Giant. They used to manufacture. 
They had all of their product processed in Watsonville, California. I 
have been there. My uncles used to work there. Guess what? It is gone 
down there.
  Do you think they pay these farmers anything? No. We are going to 
lose 3 million Peruvian farmers. They are going to be upended just like 
the Mexican campesinos were. Have we no heart? Some people have no 
heart. We have heart. We are down here tonight. We can't forget them.
  I remember Congressman Kucinich was talking about Citigroup. 
Citigroup. They just wrote off $11 billion Sunday night, in the wee 
hours of the night so maybe nobody would notice. Citigroup has got a 
little problem with subprime mortgages, so they want to manage now the 
pensions of the world.
  They can't manage Social Security yet, so guess where they are going? 
They are going to Peru. They want to manage those dollars, and lots of 
other pension funds in this country. They are in trouble. They made 
mistakes. They robbed the American people, and I sure hope they don't 
come to this Congress for help, because we shouldn't be paying to bail 
them out. They are going to go to Peru, and under this agreement, it 
makes it easier for them to do that.
  Tonight I genuflect, not before the Ways and Means Committee, but 
before the mine workers of Peru who are on strike. They went on strike 
Monday because these gold exporting firms are making billions. They 
doubled their dividends in companies like Newmont, which just happens 
to be an American company that owns the biggest gold mine in Peru, in 
South America. Actually, it is the second largest gold mine in the 
world.
  I genuflect before those mine workers because here is what they have 
been told. Though the company has doubled its dividends to its 
shareholders, they won't give the workers anything. That is one of the 
most dangerous jobs in

[[Page 30424]]

the world. Do you think they care? They are cleaning up on Wall Street 
selling that gold. Go to New York. Watch how that happens. Will they 
help those workers? No. What the company has told them, what the 
government has told them, the government said, Go back to work or you 
lose your job in 3 days. You are fired.
  That is who we are doing business with, my friends?
  I am an old-line Democrat. I came here to represent the majority of 
people in this country who are being dispossessed by Wall Street, 
dispossessed by the global corporations that think they are worth 
nothing. And we had best have a majority of a majority here tomorrow 
stand for the workers of this continent who still believe that we are 
the beacon of freedom and that they matter.
  God bless this country, and God bless our workers.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of U.S.-Peru Free Trade 
Agreement. I regret that heretofore the 110th Congress has been a 
decisively antitrade Congress, and that is why I want to thank Majority 
Leader Hoyer and Chairman Rangel for at least bringing this free trade 
agreement to the floor for a vote. It represents a modest step in the 
right direction.
  One thing is very clear tonight when you look at the facts, and that 
is if a Member will not support the U.S.-Peru Free Trade Agreement, 
they will support no trade agreement. And as long as I have been a 
Member of Congress, I guess I never cease to be amazed, and I certainly 
have not been amazed that trade, still for some reason, seems to be 
controversial.
  We have over 200 years of history teaching us that free trade 
delivers a greater choice of goods and services to our American 
consumers, and those greater choices mean more competition. More 
competition has helped lower prices, and this allows American families 
to buy more using less of their hard-earned paychecks. It means more 
money to make a down payment on a home. It means more money to send a 
child to college. It means more money to help a parent with long-term 
care.
  According to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, increased trade 
since World War II has helped boost U.S. annual incomes by over $10,000 
per household; yet the forces of protectionism want to take that away 
from the hard-working American family. He goes on further to say that 
eliminating all remaining trade barriers could raise U.S. incomes 
anywhere from $4,000 to $12,000 a year. Another opportunity for hard-
working American families being denied by the forces of protectionism.
  Let's specifically look at the trade agreement before us. In 2006, 98 
percent of Peru's exports to the U.S. came into our markets duty free. 
Let me repeat that just in case somebody didn't hear; 98 percent of 
Peru's exports to the U.S. came into our markets duty free. But U.S. 
exports to Peru still face high tariffs.
  Under the free trade agreement before us, 80 percent of U.S. exports 
of consumer and industrial goods will now enter Peru tariff free 
immediately, with the remaining tariffs to be phased out over the next 
10 years.
  I take particular note, representing the Fifth Congressional District 
of Texas, that this agreement is particularly good for American 
agriculture, whose success is heavily dependent upon the export market. 
Currently, 99 percent of Peruvian agricultural exports enter the U.S. 
duty free, again, 99 percent, while U.S. agricultural exports currently 
face an average tariff in excess of 16 percent.
  Under this trade agreement, two-thirds of American agricultural 
exports will immediately enter Peru duty free, including beef, cotton, 
wheat and soybeans. And beef is particularly important to many of my 
constituents in the 5th Congressional District of Texas.

                              {time}  2200

  I simply don't understand the argument that claims that this trade 
agreement is somehow unfair. What's unfair is the status quo. That's 
what is unfair. The U.S.-Peru Free Trade Agreement turns what is 
currently a one-way trade street into a two-way street. And let's 
remember again, 98 percent of their goods already come to our country 
duty-free.
  Mr. Speaker, competition works. Trade works. We have over 200 years 
of history to prove it. But beyond all of the obvious economic benefits 
of free trade, we must recognize that fundamentally this is an issue of 
personal freedom. Nations don't trade with nations, people trade with 
people. And with the exception of national security considerations, 
every American ought to have the right to determine the origin of the 
goods and services they want to purchase, and that includes a sweater 
made in Peru. Who in this Chamber is going to go tell a hardworking 
schoolteacher in Mesquite, Texas: No, you can't buy that $15 sweater 
from Peru, you have to buy that $31 sweater that is made in Oklahoma. 
That is the sweater you have to buy. And if you can't afford it, I'm 
sorry, but your little child is just going to have to do without that 
sweater.
  Mr. Speaker, maybe this institution has the power to do that, but 
does it have the right? I don't think so, Mr. Speaker. This is the land 
of the free. Countless generations have fought and sacrificed for the 
blessings of liberty, and that includes the liberty of trade. To be 
anti-trade is to be anti-freedom. It's that simple.
  Mr. Speaker, we have 200 years of history to show that America has 
benefited from free trade. We need to support this trade agreement.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) who is not only one of the best informed 
members on the Ways and Means Committee on trade, but he has done a 
heck of a job around this country explaining why this particular free 
trade agreement is good for America and good for our trading partners, 
for 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, this is a great day. Tomorrow will be a 
great day, also. I have finally found a trade agreement I could agree 
with. And the reason why, for the first time, Members from both sides 
of the aisle have had a say in what that is. Article I, section 8 is 
alive and well.
  I want to tell my friend from Texas, I'm sorry he left the floor, 
this is the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation 
Act. This is not the United States-Peru free trade. See, that got us 
into trouble. I want to just correct him that we have the right title 
because free trade is what got us into trouble. We need fair trade. 
That's what this legislation is all about.
  So I rise in strong support of H.R. 3688. This is a bipartisan bill. 
This is a carefully crafted measure that deserves broad support.
  There is not a single group that I have dealt with recently who 
hasn't said, and I have sat with all of them, at the very least that 
real progress has been made in the Peru deal. Even the most vociferous 
opponents, who may be in this room right now, of this trade deal state 
clearly that noticeable achievements have, indeed, occurred.
  The new provisions on workers rights and the environment represents 
significant accomplishments in crucial areas. And for that, Mr. Rangel 
and Mr. Levin, Democratic leadership should be commended, and I salute 
you both.
  You don't protect good-paying American jobs by freezing trade. You 
don't do it that way. You don't correct the imbalances in trade by 
stopping trade. For the first time in a trade agreement, we finally 
have fully enforceable obligations that require both FTA parties to 
adopt and effectively enforce core labor rights as stated in the 1998 
ILO declaration.
  By the way, my friends who oppose this legislation, take a look and 
put this in context. Since 1934, both parties have gone back and forth 
as to who believes in free trade more. Both parties. Neither party is 
privy to virtue on this issue of trade. Let's get that straight.
  If you look back into the 1960s and 1970s, the same situation. 
Democrats were on this floor pointing fingers at the opposition saying: 
We need free trade. We need trade that is unbridled.

[[Page 30425]]

  Check the record. Check the record.
  And then we had just the opposite happen after Jimmy Carter became 
President. I believe that trade can yield broad benefits to many if 
done right. My belief is that trade agreements have been ill-conceived 
and crafted clearly not with the best interests of working families. I 
have voted against all of them. But this is a good one.
  This trade agreement marks a significant step forward. The enemy of 
the good is the perfect. And while this trade agreement may not be 
perfect, and by the way no one on this floor is, no bill is. This is a 
good piece of legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I salute you. Mr. Ranking Member, I salute you. You've 
done a great job.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Hunter).
  Mr. HUNTER. I want to thank my great colleague for yielding to me. 
And let me just say, Mr. Speaker, that I am unalterably against this 
deal because I think it doesn't fix the basic defect that we have seen 
in every trade deal that we have made in recent years. That defect is, 
as most of my colleagues know and understand, that the competitors to 
American businesses get their value-added taxes rebated to them by 
their home governments and they in turn charge us what effectively is a 
tariff in the same amount as that value-added tax when our products go 
to their country, and we didn't change this in this Peru Free Trade 
Agreement. It's not really free trade, it's only free coming in one 
direction, and that's our direction.
  Let me explain that very simply. If this podium costs $100 and it is 
made in Peru and it is going to be shipped to the United States, their 
value-added tax is 19 percent. That means that as they build this 
podium in Peru, as they add wood and metal and labor, they pay their 
government 19 percent value-added tax. That is how they pay their tax 
burden. We have a direct tax burden known as an income tax and a 
corporate tax.
  When they take this particular podium down to the docks to be shipped 
to the United States, the Government of Peru will give them their money 
back. They will rebate their taxes to them. Effectively that company 
will be working tax-free.
  Now, if you made the other podium in the United States and we shipped 
it to them under this deal, when that podium gets to Peru to be sold on 
their showroom floors, the American manufacturer will face a 19 percent 
fee or tariff. So the Government of Peru under this deal will be 
allowed to subsidize their guys to the tune of 19 percent and penalize 
our guys to the tune of 19 percent.
  Let me just say this is an unfair deal. This is the reason why 
America has massive trade deficits even to countries that have higher 
labor rates than the United States. Until we fix that basic defect, all 
these trade deals are bad deals and they accrue to the detriment of the 
American worker and the American businessman.
  Vote ``no'' on this. And I regret I will not be here tomorrow. I have 
to be away from the floor. I wish the vote could have been held 
tonight. This is a bad deal.
  Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. I would like to yield 2 minutes to Mr. Becerra, an 
outstanding member of the House leadership as well as an outstanding 
member of the Ways and Means Committee, and I thank him for all the 
fine work he has done.
  Mr. BECERRA. I thank the chairman and also the ranking member, Mr. 
McCrery, and Mr. Herger, the ranking member of the subcommittee, as 
well as Mr. Levin for the work that they have done to put before us a 
bill that we can support in a bipartisan fashion.
  I think the gentleman from New Jersey said it best: There is nothing 
in life that is free. The longer we continue to talk about trade 
agreements as if they are free, we miss the mark. It is not about a 
free trade deal, it is having a deal that is good for both sides of 
that agreement.
  And in this deal, while it is not perfect, we find improvements were 
made that for the first time in the history of this Congress will give 
us a chance to vote on something that says that we will treat workers 
as well as we treat widgets. We will treat people as well as we treat 
products. We will protect our workers as well as we protect these 
widgets. That is something we have never done before on the floor of 
this House. For me, that makes this deal worth voting for because while 
we would like to do much better, the perfect should not get in the way 
of making progress. Here what we have is a bipartisan deal that will 
move us forward.
  It is difficult to believe, but in my first 14 years in this 
Congress, I saw us have a policy and debate on trade descend to the 
point where it became a partisan tool that made it very difficult for 
all of us as Americans who represent 300 million other Americans to 
come forward together.
  This is a chance for us to work together not as Republicans, not as 
Democrats, but as Americans to move forward an agenda for the people 
who work in this country who produce so many of those goods, for the 
people who produce all of those phenomenal products that make this a 
great Nation. It is our chance to prove that trade is an American 
agenda, not a political agenda, not a partisan agenda.
  I am looking forward to the chance to move forward even better trade 
deals that recognize that we have to protect and promote the rights of 
workers.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. RANGEL. I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to Mr. Crowley who 
makes our New York State proud and makes the Ways and Means Committee 
proud and is a great Member of this great Congress.
  Mr. CROWLEY. I thank my good friend and colleague and the Chair of 
the Ways and Means Committee which I so proudly serve on.
  I want to thank all those involved in this debate this evening. This 
has been a very good debate and one that I think has been fairly 
conducted.
  I think, though, it is important to look back on the historic nature 
of this particular agreement. I say that coming to you as one who has 
not been a purist on this. I have not been blind in voting for or 
against free trade agreements. I have looked at free trade agreements 
and I have weighed them and I have balanced them.
  I want to remind my colleagues, some of whom are new and don't know 
who I am and what I am about, I did not support WTO for China. I did 
not support PNT for China. I did not support a number of the free trade 
agreements in the past. But when you look at this free trade agreement 
as I have, I support this fair trade agreement, this fair trade 
agreement, because it is the right thing to do.
  This is a good agreement. It is worthy of the support of every Member 
of this House. On May 10 of this year, the chairman of this committee 
and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade, along with our Speaker, 
reached agreement on a new template moving trade forward in this 
Congress. You have to remember that the agreement with Peru was reached 
in the last Congress. The Peruvian government agreed to that agreement. 
We had a change in government. We adopted a new template. The Peruvian 
government took that template, reopened their agreement and passed it 
again this year.
  They adopted the labor standards and the environmental standards. The 
labor standards include freedom of association, the right to 
collectively bargain, elimination of forced and compulsory labor, 
abolition of child labor, and elimination of employment discrimination, 
not to mention the advancements we have made in environmental 
protection. They are not just environmental and labor rights, they are 
part and parcel with human rights.

                              {time}  2215

  They are part of their rights and the values of our country that we'd 
like to have.

[[Page 30426]]

  Now, just briefly on Peru. Peru has been a country that has been 
developing, and this is an opportunity for them to develop a middle 
class, a stronger middle class that will want more of our U.S. 
products.
  As we mentioned earlier, they already have duty-free and quarter-free 
access to the United States. This is about opening up their borders to 
what we make.
  Once again I want to thank the chairman for your hard work, Mr. Levin 
as well, the Speaker and the other side of the aisle for this joint 
effort that's been made in a bipartisan way. I wholeheartedly support 
this agreement.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I have six speakers and it just seems to me 
that if other people are reserving their time, then I yield 2 minutes 
to the gentlelady from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz), who not only served 
well on the committee but was a part of the team that went to Peru with 
Congressman Levin to make certain that we were able to convince the 
President, the corporate leaders and the Congress that America was 
their friend and wanted to do the right things. It is with great pride 
that I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady.
  Ms. SCHWARTZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his kind words.
  I rise in strong support of the Peru Free Trade Agreement which 
passed the Ways and Means Committee with an impressive unanimous vote. 
This agreement represents a new direction for trade policy in the 
United States.
  For the first time, the trade agreement before us includes fully 
enforceable labor and environmental standards. The lack of these 
standards was exactly why many Democrats, including myself, opposed the 
Central American Free Trade Agreement in 2005.
  Inclusion of such standards is a significant achievement and will 
mean better working conditions for Peruvian workers, a cleaner 
environment in Peru, and expanded economic opportunity for both of our 
countries.
  That is why so many organizations who were previously opposed to 
bilateral trade agreements have praised the Peru FTA. For instance, the 
AFL-CIO called the Peru FTA, ``an important step toward a trade model 
that will benefit working people.''
  The United Auto Workers said the agreement represents, ``substantial 
progresses in achieving this long-standing objective of the labor 
movement.''
  Chairman Rangel and Chairman Levin did remarkable work to advance a 
new kind of trade agreement. I'm proud of what we were able to 
accomplish to further this agreement when the three of us traveled to 
Peru in August and met with Peruvian President Alan Garcia.
  President Garcia is a true friend of the United States. Building a 
strong economic relationship with Peru will also build a stronger 
political and diplomatic relationship with this important ally in Latin 
America.
  Every Member who votes for this agreement can feel proud that they've 
supported a trade agreement that represents the interests of Americans.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on this agreement. It's pro-worker, it's pro-
business development, and it's pro-environment. It is a new kind of 
trade agreement for the United States. Vote for the trade agreement 
with Peru.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire how much time each side has.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) 
has 29\1/2\ minutes left tonight. The gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel) has 12\1/4\ minutes left this evening. The gentleman from Maine 
(Mr. Michaud) has 22 minutes left this evening. I deducted 5 minutes, 5 
minutes and 10 minutes to get to those numbers.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve.
  Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentlelady from 
California 5 minutes, I'll take 20 seconds to make very clear, there's 
not one labor organization that has sent a letter out saying that they 
support this trade deal. They don't support this trade deal, and to 
cherry-pick some of the language in the letter that they've sent I 
think is not correct.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Ms. 
Linda T. Sanchez).
  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong 
opposition to H.R. 3688, which would implement the U.S.-Peru Trade 
Promotion Agreement.
  This is not a choice between trade and protectionism. It's a choice 
between fair trade, which can benefit working families across the 
Nation, and unfair trade, which benefits the wealthiest few at the 
expense of the rest of us.
  While there are some welcome, but minor, improvements to the Peru 
FTA, as compared to NAFTA and CAFTA, the agreement essentially is not 
good enough. I feel like I'm at a used car lot and the dealer is trying 
to sell me a beat-up old NAFTA lemon with a brand new paint job and 
trying to tell me that it's a great car.
  Well, we learned with NAFTA that there are no refunds for the 
American people when they're sold a bad bill of goods. Let's learn from 
our mistakes and reject this Peru FTA junker.
  To serve the American people, we must work for real trade reform, not 
just put a Band-Aid on a trade model that has been bleeding jobs from 
this country since 1994.
  Supporting this new deal requires us to believe in two things: one, 
the actual benefits of the NAFTA free trade model; and two, the 
promises of the Bush administration.
  Considering the first question, the actual benefits of the NAFTA 
model are about as real as the tooth fairy. NAFTA was supposed to solve 
illegal immigration by developing a robust economy in Mexico that would 
give hardworking people the opportunity to provide for their families 
without having to leave their homeland behind. That didn't work.
  Instead, undocumented immigration has actually increased. Subsidized 
crops from the U.S. pushed millions of farmers off their land, and many 
of those displaced farmers ended up emigrating to the United States, 
whether or not they had proper documentation, just so they could find 
work to support their families.
  CAFTA, another so-called improvement on the NAFTA model, was supposed 
to include bold new safety and wage protections for workers. But these 
protections are disappointingly weak, allowing countries to downgrade 
their own labor laws.
  We've learned that the NAFTA free trade model is designed to favor 
the wealthiest few and corporate bottom line, at the expense of small 
businesses, workers, families and our communities.
  As to the second question, I think this administration has made it 
pretty clear that it has no interest in enforcing labor laws.
  The BP Texas City explosion, the Sago and Crandall Canyon mine 
disasters, and the failure to protect 9/11 first responders and cleanup 
workers who have developed serious breathing ailments, these are just a 
few of the more notorious examples of this administration's dereliction 
of duty to provide even the most basic protection to workers: the right 
to work in a safe environment.
  So long as we have to rely on this administration to protect the 
rights and safety of working men and women, we will continue to be 
disappointed.
  To some in this House, the only redeeming value of this trade 
agreement seems to be that it's not as bad as the deals with Colombia 
and Korea. But that argument misses the point. When they say ``not that 
bad,'' we have to stand up for the American people and say ``not good 
enough.''
  Finally, the Peru FTA offers inadequate protection for numerous 
endangered species that live in the forest of Peru, like the giant 
river otter and the jaguar. If it's such a great agreement, why has no 
environmental group gone on record as supporting or embracing this 
agreement. I ask my colleagues that and I don't think they have an 
answer.
  Let me just remind my colleagues that I've heard over and over on the 
floor tonight that the enemy of the

[[Page 30427]]

good is the perfect. Well, from where I sit, the enemy of the good is 
the bad, and this is a bad agreement.
  We now have a choice before us. We should choose to vote ``no'' to a 
nondemocratic process, ``no'' to benefiting big business at the expense 
of the little guy, ``no'' to ignoring the will of the American people, 
and ``no'' on the Peru FTA.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Davis), an outstanding member of the Ways and Means 
Committee and thank him for the support that he's given to us on all of 
our issues.
  Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, let me make two points, if I can, 
about this agreement tonight.
  Almost everyone on the Democratic side of this Chamber has at some 
point in time in the last 7 years had some point to decry the Bush 
administration's tendencies toward unilateralism. Almost everyone on 
the Democratic side has had some occasion to say that we wish the Bush 
administration would abandon its tendency to go it alone in this world.
  If we take that rhetoric seriously, Mr. Speaker, if we take seriously 
the idea that we cannot dig ourselves into a barricade and isolate 
ourselves when it comes to national security, the same logic has to 
apply when it comes to economics.
  I fundamentally disagree with Mr. Jones's point earlier that the U.S. 
is in decline. We're not in decline. There's nothing wrong in this 
country that better policies in the White House would not fix. Because 
we're not in decline, because of our underlying strength and underlying 
robustness, we ought to be using the economic power that we have to 
lift up workers here and to see what we can do to lift up workers 
around the world, and that vision is exactly what this agreement is 
about.
  Second point, Mr. Speaker, the template for this agreement was not 
written by this President or this USTR. It was written by Charlie 
Rangel, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee; co-signed by 
Sandy Levin, one of the strongest supporters of labor in this Chamber; 
and co-signed by the Speaker of the House who yields to no one in her 
support of organized labor. This is the template and the vision that 
the Democratic Caucus constructed.
  And I hear some of my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle who 
say, well, we don't count on enforcement from the Bush administration. 
I don't. I count on the fact that beginning January 20, 2009, there's 
going to be a new sheriff in town.
  I close, Mr. Speaker, by saying this. This agreement will be enforced 
by a new Democratic President of the United States. It will reflect 
Democratic values and sometimes, Mr. Speaker, principled leadership 
requires taking ``yes'' for an answer.
  This agreement and the foundations around it are what this Democratic 
Caucus has been seeking for 5 years. Sometimes you have to take ``yes'' 
for an answer.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I reserve.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
Member from the State of Washington (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, in this debate tonight, it's 
almost like we're having two conversations. There's the conversation 
about the trade agreement and there is the conversation about larger 
economic issues, from environment to jobs to a whole lot of other 
issues.
  On the Peru Free Trade Agreement, Mr. Rangel and the Ways and Means 
Committee have done a great job of putting together a good agreement. 
It negotiates a reduction in tariffs and nontariff barriers to help us 
economically, and they've also added in labor protection, which we 
never got. I voted personally against CAFTA because they hadn't been 
included. As Mr. Davis just said, those agreements are exactly what 
those of us in the Democratic side of the aisle have been asking for 
for a long time.
  But the issues that are raised tonight are about the economic 
challenges in this country, about jobs lost and transitions. And I 
totally agree with the people who raised those issues, that those are 
important issues and incredibly difficult challenges for middle-class 
workers in this country and for the working poor that we have not 
addressed.
  Where I disagree with them is the convenient take of simply blaming 
trade agreements for that. Trade agreements simply reduce tariffs and 
nontariff barriers so that the cost of doing business goes down.
  Now, if we have made any mistake on the pro-trade side of the aisle, 
it's overselling that. It's presenting it as a panacea that will grow 
the economy and benefit everyone and cause no pain. They can't solve 
that problem. The trade agreement can't solve all of the challenges 
that are presented for poor workers throughout the world. It's a step 
forward.
  We have lost jobs in this country because of global competition and 
technology primarily, not because of trade. The rest of the world 
stepped up and decided to participate in the economy. China, the former 
Soviet Union, countries that were never there before, now they're 
there. They're competing and we're losing jobs.
  But it is a mistake both to blame trade and to not focus on the 
issues that could actually help: health care, a fairer tax policy, 
issues I know that the chairman is working on, issues that would 
actually help workers in this country instead of laying it all at the 
feet of the Peru Free Trade Agreement, an agreement that simply reduces 
tariff and nontariff barriers to free up the flow of goods and help 
grow the economy.
  It's a good agreement, and we should support it.

                              {time}  2230

  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
Member from Utah (Mr. Matheson).
  Mr. MATHESON. I thank the chairman for yielding and I also commend 
Chairman Rangel for his work on this agreement. I think it represents a 
great step forward on the trade agenda.
  Mr. Speaker, I think that it's human nature to have difficulty 
accepting change. Change can be traumatic, and we are in a world that's 
changing. In a globalized world where technology is taking us to new 
places, this flatter world that Tom Friedman talked about in his book, 
that's a change. The question is, do you stick your head in the sand 
and ignore change, or do you embrace change and try to take advantage 
of it?
  That's the fundamental issue I think we ought to be talking about in 
terms of engaging the rest of the world, engaging the rest of the world 
in economic opportunity in a changing world. Mind you, globalization is 
a mixed bag, and there are positives and negatives that come out of it, 
but the question is, as a country, do we want to try to embrace that 
opportunity?
  This agreement represents a wonderful step in embracing that type of 
opportunity for this country. Beyond the economic benefits, which a lot 
of speakers have talked about today, there are also the benefits of 
relationships with these other countries. The eight living former 
Secretaries of State have all encouraged Congress, in fact, urged 
Congress to move ahead with this agreement, to build better ties with 
the country of Peru, a good democratic friend in a region of the world 
where there are some unsettled countries. This is good policy in terms 
of how we have those relationships in South America.
  I encourage my colleagues to step away a bit from some of the 
rhetoric, as with many issues, that comes out that is not necessarily 
accurate. I encourage my colleagues to look at the substance of this 
agreement and see how Chairman Rangel has made such progress in coming 
up with a responsible new agenda for trade with this Democratic 
majority.

[[Page 30428]]

  As I started, I will close the same way, I commend the chairman, he 
has stepped up to the plate in a substantive way. He is moving forward.
  I urge passage of the Peru FTA.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. I yield 2 minutes to the outstanding gentlelady from 
Illinois (Ms. Bean).
  Ms. BEAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this agreement.
  I commend Chairman Rangel and Chairman Levin as well as Ranking 
Members McCrery and Herger for their important leadership on this 
issue.
  I am encouraged to see bipartisan support of the U.S.-Peru Trade 
Promotion Agreement which recognizes the opportunity to expand 
potential to 5,000 small and medium U.S. companies that export almost 
$800 million of goods and services to Peru. These small and medium 
businesses represent 80 percent of U.S. exports to Peru. They will have 
an even greater opportunity with this agreement to compete on a more 
level playing field.
  The current Andean trade preference allows Peruvian exporters access 
to our markets without tariffs while our own exporters are 
competitively disadvantaged by tariffs. Americans need not fear 
competition. When we remove barriers, we will innovate, we will adapt, 
we will compete, and we will succeed in the global market. For those 
who are rightfully concerned about jobs, we should remember that our 
small and medium businesses, these same businesses that export to 
countries like Peru, are creating 80 percent of our domestic job 
growth.
  American employers will now have the ability to fairly compete to 
expand and enter new markets and, in the process, further strengthen 
our local and our national economies. I urge my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle to support this agreement.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MICHAUD. I would like to recognize for 5 minutes a very 
outspoken, hardworking, freshman Member, Congressman Hare from 
Illinois.
  Mr. HARE. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I think tonight on three occasions or maybe four, we 
have heard, we need to put a face on trade. I encourage all the 
Members, here is the face. It is the face of a refrigerator in 
Galesburg, Illinois, manufactured by 1,600 machinists, signed on the 
last day before their jobs were exported to Sonora, Mexico, thanks to a 
trade agreement that didn't work.
  This, my colleagues, is the face of people. This trade deal, while I 
commend the framework of it, puts the sheriff, as we have been hearing, 
the President of the United States, in charge of it. I sit on the 
Education and Labor Committee of the House. We have had three mine 
disasters. The President won't do a single thing to protect our miners. 
He won't sign the Employee Free Choice Act to give people a right to 
collective bargain for it. He will not stand up for America's workers. 
He has had to be sued by our own government for one OSHA standard.
  Tonight we stand here ready to give this President oversight on this 
trade deal. I have been told, well, we'll just subpoena him. We're 
trying that. We're trying that with the legal counsel for this 
President and Josh Bolten. We'll see how far that gets us.
  I take offense, to be honest with you, when people say you won't vote 
for any trade deal if you can't vote for this one. Let me say I'll vote 
for every trade deal, as long as it's fair, as long as it works for 
American workers, as well as the people that we seek to trade with.
  How much longer are we going to continue to do this? Fifty-four 
percent of Republicans polled don't support this agreement. Almost 70 
percent of Democrats don't support it, and 60 percent of Americans 
don't.
  I ran on this issue. I am the product of a person whose dad lost 
their home, not because he did anything wrong, but because he lost his 
job. He made me promise two things, take care of your sisters and your 
mother, this is shortly before he died, and do not, whatever you do, 
Phil, for a living, do not allow this to happen to another family.
  I may only be in this Chamber for one term. I don't know. I ran on 
this issue. I stand on this issue. I'm proud of my voting record with 
this Democratic Caucus. I take a back seat to no one in party loyalty. 
But my first loyalty comes to the people who signed this refrigerator. 
I have no loyalty to the President of the United States when he has no 
loyalty to the people whose jobs he outsourced.
  I tried to get an amendment before the Rules Committee that would say 
if you can get a free trade agreement, fine, but let's get the safety 
net for workers, one this Chamber passed that Mr. Rangel worked so hard 
on, whom I give him a ton of credit for.
  Let me tell you what happens. The next day he says he's going to veto 
it. He won't insure 10 million children, he won't sign a safety net for 
workers, and we are going to pass tomorrow a trade agreement and expect 
this President to enforce it. Let me ask you all tonight not to be 
looking at us as though we are naysayers. We're not.
  I would love to put my card in tomorrow and hit the green button, but 
I will not, because if I do, I will not come to back to this Chamber. I 
don't deserve to come back to this Chamber.
  I ran to support these people. I have heard the term 
``protectionism'' used this evening. If all of us, Democrats, 
Republicans, left, center and right are not going to stand up for the 
very people who sent us here, who are we going to stand up for? What 
are we as Members of Congress?
  I ask you, tomorrow is a very big day. I guess I'm voting ``no.'' I 
don't guess, and I told two people today, I do so proudly. I wish I 
didn't have to. But I will remember Dave Bedard, who has been 
unemployed now after two wage concessions, no health care, a wife who 
has cancer.
  One Member who is supporting this deal told me that I should go back 
to Dave Bedard. And when I said, what should I say to him, that Member 
said, You should talk about currency manipulation with him.
  I should need a football helmet. He's going to punch me in the nose 
if I try.
  Vote ``no'' on this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Peru Free Trade 
Agreement and the implementing legislation before us today.
  Mr. Speaker, my fight against the Peru FTA is a personal one. 
Districts like mine represent the very worst of unfair trade--jobs 
lost, economies devastated, and lives shattered. In 2004, the Galesburg 
Maytag Refrigeration plant relocated to Sonora, Mexico, leaving behind 
1,600 unemployed workers--all innocent victims of bad trade policies.
  On their last day, all the workers who were laid off signed the final 
refrigerator to roll off the assembly line. The inscription on the 
fridge reads, ``The last top mount refrigerator produced in Galesburg, 
Illinois with pride by the members of IAM Local 2063, September 14, 
2004.'' Although devastated, the pride and spirit of these workers 
remained strong--a testament to the incredible workers we have in this 
country.
  This year marks the 5th anniversary of Maytag's announcement that it 
would be closing its Galesburg plant. Five years later, the city of 
Galesburg is still recovering from the loss of Maytag and many of the 
workers are still unemployed.
  Unfortunately, the economic nightmare Galesburg has endured is not 
unique. NAFTA outsourced a total of 1 million U.S. jobs nationwide with 
casualties in every state.
  Mr. Speaker, unfair trade is not just a Midwest issue, it is a 
national crisis.
  Weary of more bad trade deals, last November voters swept fair trade 
Democrats into office--sending a clear mandate for a new direction on 
trade.
  And yet here we are. Voting on another one-sided, so called ``free 
trade'' agreement crafted by the Bush administration under fast track 
authority.
  President Bush's use of fast track has been nothing but a blatant 
abuse of power. It has allowed him to force through 4 trade deals built 
on the flawed NAFTA-CAFTA model, one of them being the Peru FTA we are 
currently debating.
  And we all remember what was left behind from NAFTA: the decimation 
of the U.S. manufacturing industry and the loss of high paying jobs. 
One must look no further than Galesburg to see what the future holds 
for American jobs if the Peru FTA is passed.

[[Page 30429]]

  We can also expect the Peru FTA to benefit big business, similar to 
NAFTA. If this agreement is passed, one thing is certain, the rich will 
continue to get richer at the expense of the average, hard-working 
American.
  Some who support the agreement will say that the Peru FTA is not 
NAFTA. They will say that the inclusion of labor and environmental 
standards set it apart from all former trade deals. Not so fast.
  With President Bush's poor track record of enforcing labor rights, it 
remains to be seen whether these improvements will have any affect at 
all. In fact, the President of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has said 
that he is ``encouraged by assurances that the labor provisions in the 
[Peru agreement] cannot be read to require compliance with ILO 
Conventions.'' We should be more than skeptical.
  Moreover, just today the Peruvian government declared a strike by 
national miners illegal. So much for real reform.
  In short, without the threat of enforcement, our trading partners, 
including Peru, have no incentive to uphold international labor 
standards.
  Mr. Speaker, the truth is that the proposed Peru FTA would 
replicate--and in some instances expand on--many of the most 
devastating provisions of the flawed NAFTA-CAFTA model.
  Despite ``fixes,'' the Peru FTA is nothing but a wolf in sheep's 
clothing.
  The choice is crystal clear.
  Today, Congress can choose to roll the dice when it comes to the loss 
of American jobs or we can choose to demand an agreement that bans off 
shoring.
  Today, we can choose to entrust President Bush with enforcing labor 
and environmental standards as we did with the Jordan FTA or we can 
choose to accept that these standards will likely be ignored in Peru, 
just as they are in Jordan.
  Today, we can choose to give big business another win or we can 
choose to stand with American middle class families.
  Today, Congress can choose to expand the failed NAFTA-CAFTA model to 
Peru or we can choose to pursue a new trade policy.
  I for one cannot go back to my district and explain that I voted for 
another bad trade deal that in all likelihood will result in more job 
loss.
  I cannot in good conscience face the 1600 Maytag workers who lost 
their job and tell them that I voted to continue the hemorrhaging.
  I came to Congress because I believe in fair trade that creates jobs 
and raises the standard of living for middle class families. I believe 
in keeping America competitive. But in my opinion, the Peru FTA does 
not pass the test.
  For the sake of all workers, I will be voting NO on the Peru FTA. I 
urge my colleagues to do the same.
  It is time that our trade policy starts serving the interests of 
America's working families.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, a very distinguished 
and active member of the Trade Subcommittee, Mr. Brady.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I see faces of trade myself. I 
recently did a tour of our manufacturing plants. We have over 300 of 
them in the Eighth Congressional District of Texas from steel mills to 
paper mills. I watched the workers on those lines working every day to 
produce those products. Between one-third and one-half of those 
products are made for sales overseas.
  What they find is that when they try to compete around the world, 
they aren't allowed to compete. America is so open for every product 
from every country. But when we try to sell our products and our goods, 
what we see are America need-not-apply signs all throughout this world.
  Our trade policy is to tear down those signs, to give those workers 
in my plants a chance to sell their products around the world. There is 
a principle applied to the trade that we deal with today. The principle 
is, if you or I build a better mousetrap, we should be free to sell it 
throughout the world without government interference. If someone else 
builds a better mousetrap, we should be free to buy it for our family 
or for our business, again without government interference. That 
freedom to buy, to sell and to compete our products and our skills is 
an important economic freedom.
  This trade agreement opens Peru's market, gives us the freedom to 
sell our products and goods into that country, for our agriculture 
community, for our manufacturing workers, and for our service 
community. As importantly, it reaffirms America's long-term commitment 
to both growth and prosperity here and at home in Latin America.
  This agreement is important because for the first time in a long 
time, America is speaking as one voice on trade. Republicans and 
Democrats, this Congress and the White House are speaking as one voice 
to level the playing field for our farmers and our workers around the 
world. We are going from one-way trade to two-way trade.
  These free trade agreements that we have with 14 to 15 countries are 
working. Today, they are only a small part of the world market, yet 
they buy nearly half of what my workers and America's workers export 
around the world. We are seeing growth in sales, growth in services, 
growth in products, and good-paying jobs in America.
  One of the key points today is Peru is a great trading partner and 
they have been for 16 years. They have one of the most dynamic emerging 
economies in the Americas. They have instituted democratic reforms, 
they have decreased poverty, and they have improved their labor and 
environmental standards significantly. Why would we turn our back on a 
country and a partner like Peru?
  It is time to go from a limited partnership of preferences to a full 
partnership of free trade with the country of Peru. Tonight I heard 
people say, well, the Peruvians don't support this. The workers don't 
support this.
  How arrogant. The Peruvian Congress has twice voted overwhelmingly to 
ratify this agreement. They elected a President based on his support of 
this trade agreement. Their leading lawmaker's party ran on supporting 
this agreement. How arrogant it is for us to talk about Peru when their 
own elected leaders support this agreement.
  It is important, not just about jobs for America, not just about jobs 
in Peru, it is important we remain engaged in Latin America. There is a 
reason why eight of our living Secretaries of State have implored this 
Congress to stay engaged. Now is not the time to build walls to Latin 
America. Now is the time to build bridges.
  Now is the time to continue to stay engaged as countries like Peru 
reject the influence of Hugo Chavez and embrace democracy and free 
speech and the rule of law and labor rights and human rights. They are 
doing the right thing. We ought to be reaching out and responding more 
to them.
  I will make this point. America does create jobs through trade. In 
1995, when NAFTA first took effect, our economy was less than $7 
trillion. Today it is more than $13 trillion. Back then we had 115 
million people working in America. Today we have over 140 million 
people working in America.
  Trade creates jobs, and look at the top 10 trade States whose jobs 
are dependent upon our sales: Texas, California, New York, Washington, 
Illinois, Michigan, Florida, Ohio, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, all the 
top 10 States whose jobs are directly related to exports. Then we have 
the heartland States of agriculture and the high tech States throughout 
the country, all of which depend upon us opening new markets, tearing 
down that sign, and creating jobs. This is an agreement worth our 
support.
  Mr. RANGEL. I would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar).
  Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to encourage my colleagues to 
support the Peru Trade Agreement. But first I want to thank Chairman 
Rangel for the leadership, for providing a very balanced approach to 
trade here in the United States. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  The objectives of the Peru Trade Agreement are two. One is to provide 
a substantial access for U.S. exports, and number two is to promote 
political stability in the western hemisphere and to strengthen U.S. 
national security.
  Let's look at the purpose of a free trade agreement. The purpose of a 
free trade agreement is to lower tariffs.

                              {time}  2245

  But let's look at the current situation we're in. Right now, 
currently, 98

[[Page 30430]]

percent of the U.S. imports from Peru enter into the United States duty 
free under the most favored nation tariff rates and various preferences 
programs, including the Andean Trade Preference Act, the Generalized 
System of Preferences, GSP, and the Caribbean Basis Initiative. It is a 
one-way street where those imports come into the United States.
  Upon implementation of this Peru trade agreement, 80 percent of all 
U.S. goods entering Peru will be immediately duty free, and the 
remaining 20 percent of goods will have the tariffs removed over the 
next 10 years. So what we're doing by this trade agreement is to make 
it into fair trade, into a two-way street. It's a one-way street coming 
in the United States, and what we want to do is make it two ways so we 
can also have more exports and, therefore, make sure that we have a 
trade surplus with Peru.
  The passage of this agreement will continue to remove barriers of 
trade of the Andean region and send a clear message to other nations 
that the establishment of democratic rights, the removal of restrictive 
tariffs, and the opening of markets to free trade will net positive 
results.
  Peru is a market of almost 30 million people, and this presents 
opportunities for the U.S. businesses that they currently do not have 
at this time.
  Although comprising 7.5 percent of the global, this will open up 
trade.
  And I thank again, Mr. Speaker, the chairman for providing this 
legislation.
  Mr. HERGER. I reserve.
  Mr. MICHAUD. I reserve.
  Mr. RANGEL. How much time do I have, Mr. Speaker?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. You have a total, Mr. Rangel, of 7\1/4\ 
minutes, which means to preserve your 5 minutes for tomorrow you have 
2\1/4\ minutes left this evening.
  Mr. RANGEL. Well, I am the last speaker, so whatever they want to do 
they can do. I may have to ask my friend on the other side for a minute 
or two to close, but I may not. So why don't I reserve and see what 
happens.
  Mr. HERGER. I reserve my time to close as well on our side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. And so, as I understand this current 
situation, Mr. Rangel will use his 2\1/4\ minutes to get down to 5 
minutes. Reserve 5 minutes.
  You will close and then yield all your time back except for 10 
minutes for tomorrow.
  And it now falls to you, the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud).
  Mr. MICHAUD. So if I understand you correctly, for debate purposes 
this evening, the gentleman from New York has 2\1/4\ minutes.
  The gentleman, how much time does he have this evening?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. He has a total of 34\1/2\ minutes left, and 
take off 10 minutes, so he has 24\1/2\ minutes left this evening.
  Mr. MICHAUD. 24\1/2\ minutes.
  Do you have any additional speakers?
  Mr. HERGER. Just myself to close on our side.
  Mr. MICHAUD. Okay. Well, I would now recognize an outstanding 
freshman Member in the 110th Congress, the gentlelady from Ohio (Ms. 
Sutton), who's done a great job on trade issues. I yield her 6 minutes.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, just over 11 months ago I arrived in these 
hallowed Halls as a Congresswoman representing the people of Ohio's 
13th Congressional district.
  During my campaign, and now as a Member of Congress, I have spoken 
with workers and their families in Akron and Lorain and other 
communities throughout northeast Ohio. And let me tell you about these 
proud, hardworking people who I am so honored to represent. All they 
really want is a government that works with them, not against them. 
They want a good job that will allow them to care for their families, 
put food on the table, and help them send their children to college.
  And one of the many things that they understand very clearly is that 
our global trading system is broken, and our workers, and our 
businesses, our farmers, and our communities are being left at a 
devastating disadvantage.
  In Ohio, we have lost over 200,000 manufacturing jobs since 2001, and 
that means a lot of families are suffering. And last November, my 
constituents and the American people across this country, they cast 
their ballots seeking a new direction on trade. And that's why it is so 
important that this Congress understand the connection between what we 
do here today and the impact that will have not only on people's 
livelihoods, but on their beliefs and on their ideas about what we 
stand for.
  Mr. Speaker, people seldom look very hard for things they don't want 
to find. But Members of this esteemed body should not be so blinded by 
their yearning to support trade to not recognize the realities of its 
harmful effects on our families and communities.
  Mr. Speaker, it may be easy to say that our current trade policies 
are working when you've not talked to families in Akron, looked into 
the eyes of their children, or walked down the streets in Lorain.
  It may be easy to think that our broken system is benefiting our 
Nation's businesses when you ignore the voices of small businesses in 
Barberton and Elyria. And it may be easy to think we should continue 
down a crumbling path when you drown out the concerns of workers in 
Brunswick and Strongsville and Cuyahoga Falls.
  But I learned, as we all do when we're young, that if something is 
broken, you fix it. You really fix it. If something no longer works, 
develop a new product that fits your needs and allows you to move 
forward. That's what we need to do with our trade policies. But, 
unfortunately, that's not what is happening here.
  Mr. Speaker, the same promises that have been used over and over and 
over to justify passage of free trade agreement after free trade 
agreement are being heard here again tonight. Some are pleading that 
this is an historic breakthrough, and oh, how I wish that that were so. 
But it is not. And saying it is does not make it so.
  It's clear that our current trade policies are not working, despite 
the same past promises made. We see this in the reality of a nearly $1 
trillion trade deficit, tainted imported food and products, currency 
manipulation, illegal subsidies, offshore jobs, and devastated families 
and communities.
  Mr. Speaker, we could develop a new model that addresses these issues 
and puts American workers and businesses in a position to compete on a 
level playing field and truly raises the standard of living for those 
in other nations, but, unfortunately, the Peru FTA fails to do this. It 
locks in problems with food safety, procurement, Social Security 
privatization, among others. And most importantly, we know very clearly 
it will not be enforced.
  Just look at one of the agreement's strongest supporters, the U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce. They were very encouraged that the labor 
provisions in the bill could not be read to ``require compliance.'' And 
today, in The Washington Post, we learned from the Columbia law 
professor, Mark Barenberg, that the Peru FTA actually imposes lighter 
sanctions for labor standard violations than current trade law 
requires. Now, proponents will say that's not true. But that's what 
Columbia Law Professor Mark Barenberg says. The Peru FTA actually 
imposes lighter sanctions for labor standard violations than current 
trade law requires.
  So, Mr. Speaker, what are we going to do today for my constituents 
and those who elected us to move in a new direction on trade?
  What will be the true legacy of this historic Congress? Will it be 
our legacy to pass more harmful trade policies and trade agreements 
like the one before us? Or will it be a different course, one of 
fairness, one of justice, one that will allow our workers and business 
a truly fair playing field?
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the agreement.
  Mr. HERGER. I yield myself so much time as I may consume.
  I'd like to begin by just mentioning the last speaker, the gentlelady 
from Ohio, the Independent International Trade Commission estimates 
that Ohio's exports to Peru will grow by some 38 percent. And that 38 
percent is

[[Page 30431]]

in such areas as machinery equipment, chemical products, transportation 
equipment, computer and electronic equipment and plastic and rubber 
products.
  Mr. Speaker and Members, I wish to express my strong support for H.R. 
3688, the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation 
Act. The Peru TPA will eliminate or significantly reduce Peruvian 
tariffs and address other trade barriers to U.S. goods. That Peru TPA 
also is an important means to promote democracy and stability in Peru 
and will further strengthen our relations with this strong partner of 
ours.
  Today, nearly 6 months after reaching the May 10 bipartisan trade 
deal, we consider the Peru TPA on the House floor. I'm pleased for our 
farmers, ranchers, businesses, workers and consumers that this long-
promised day is now a reality.
  The Peru TPA will provide significant reciprocal market access 
benefits for these constituent groups. The International Trade 
Commission estimates that the Peru TPA will increase U.S. exports to 
Peru by $1.1 billion. But U.S. imports from Peru will only increase by 
less than half that, or $439 million.
  The ITC also estimates that the Peru TPA will add $2.1 billion per 
year to the U.S. gross domestic product. According to the Office of the 
U.S. Trade Representative, the Peru TPA's many benefits include the 
following: 80 percent of U.S. exports of consumer and industrial goods 
will be duty free immediately, and all remaining tariffs eliminated 
within 10 years.
  More than two-thirds of U.S. farm exports to Peru will become duty 
free immediately, including beef, wheat, soybeans, tree nuts, such as 
almonds, and various fruits and vegetables, such as peaches.
  U.S. services firms will have substantial market access across Peru's 
service sectors, with very few exceptions. Almost all U.S. exports of 
information technology products will be duty free immediately, and 
there will be important protections for U.S. investors, intellectual 
property rights, worker rights and environment.
  In my home State of California, the Peru TPA will offer tremendous 
market opportunities for our exporters. In 2006, California's farmers 
and businesses exported roughly 180 million in goods to Peru, including 
computers and electronic machinery, metal products and agricultural 
products. The elimination of tariffs and other trade barriers will help 
support the nearly 20 percent of manufacturing jobs and roughly 135,000 
agricultural-related jobs in California alone that depend on exports.
  The Peru TPA will also lead to a more substantial and reciprocal 
trading relationship between Peru and the United States. The current 
Andean trade preferences given by the United States to Peru have been 
important to its economic development and stability, but they provide 
little benefit to the U.S. exporters.
  Today, for example, 97 percent of Peru's exports to the United States 
are already duty free. But only 2.8 percent of Peru's tariff lines are 
duty free for U.S. exporters.

                              {time}  2300

  The Peru TPA will level this uneven playing field. Given the 
importance of the Peru TPA as well as the pending free trade agreements 
with Panama and Colombia, I was pleased to participate in a recent 
bipartisan fact-finding trip to the region led by U.S. Commerce 
Secretary Carlos Gutierrez. This trip underscored to me that the Peru 
TPA will move our economic relationship to a new level and help make us 
even closer strategic allies.
  I want to close by reminding my colleagues that our work is not done 
today. The May 10 bipartisan trade deal was designed to pave the way 
for a new bipartisan approach to trade policy and consideration of all 
four pending FTAs, not just the Peru TPA. In fact, the May 10 deal 
amended all four pending FTAs, not just the Peru TPA. I urge the 
majority to now act on the commitments made with the May 10 deal and 
move the three pending free trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and 
Korea.
  We must not let this unique moment pass us by, especially when the 
E.U., China, and other countries are strengthening their trade ties in 
Latin America and Asia and threaten to pull ahead.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to my good 
friend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). I want to thank the 
chairman, Mr. Rangel, for your strong work and your leadership along 
with Chairman Levin of the Trade Subcommittee and the Democrat members 
on your side for working to have this bill come through the Ways and 
Means Committee with a unanimous ``aye'' vote. I commend you and for 
your many years of working in this area of fair trade.
  With that, with the addition of the 3 minutes I yield, I yield back 
my time for this evening.
  Mr. RANGEL. Let me thank my friend Mr. Herger for the great work that 
he has done.
  Mr. Speaker, as we wrap up this debate, I think that we have had 
tremendous success in what we have done because, regardless of which 
way the votes have come, isn't it wonderful, Mr. Herger, that we do 
have a bill on the floor, that Republicans and Democrats are discussing 
it, and we broke this barrier that because of party label, people could 
decide how we felt about something?
  And I have decided that we have a bigger job to do really than just 
talk about trade. I really think if the multinationals and the trade 
ambassadors and the Congress spent more time in feeling the pain of 
those people who were not the beneficiaries of trade, where people who 
worked hard for generations and life was always better for their kids 
and their grandkids, and how depressing it is to see all of that lost 
and the multinationals not bringing that technology and that innovation 
to our communities and our towns so that people could get their dignity 
restored. We have got to do a better job. And whether it's related to 
trade or whether it's not, when you're out of work and you've lost your 
dignity, what difference does it make?
  And when you hear people say that they campaigned against trade, they 
campaigned against the indifference of our government to care about 
working people. They were campaigning against the spear because how 
could you possibly campaign against trade? You can't campaign against 
trade. You can't say everything we grow and everything that we 
manufacture, that we don't want someone to buy it. And you can't say 
that America can be as stable as it is. Somebody's working. Someone's 
doing well. But the people who campaign against trade are communities 
of people who are not doing well, and this country has not done well by 
them.
  So we have got to make an appeal to the multinationals and to our 
government that they have to not sell trade where it's working; they 
have to sell trade where it is not working. Because, realistically, no 
one could have campaigned against the Peruvian agreement. It hadn't 
been decided. And if you campaign against trade, it's not realistic. 
But if you campaigned against making America strong and making certain 
that when you stamp an agreement, you see dignity in that agreement, 
you see a care for the environment, a care for workers, and you see a 
concern for those people who are going to be disadvantaged by that 
agreement. And if they are disadvantaged by anything even other than 
the agreement, which, as Mr. McCrery said, when we were told by the 
United States Trade Representative and she said, Mr. Chairman, you 
know, a lot of people are complaining about loss of jobs. It has 
nothing to do with trade. And Mr. McCrery said, What difference does it 
make? As long as they think it is, it's going to be very difficult to 
sell the question of trade.
  So we've got a big job to do. This is only the beginning. And after 
you have said no, no, no to trade, we have to make certain that those 
towns come back. And I am not that good at projecting what's going on, 
but I was telling my dear friend Joe Crowley, I bet you that those who 
feel the strongest

[[Page 30432]]

against the Peruvian agreement come from communities who have had a lot 
of economic pain, and those people who even think it was a bad trade 
agreement if they were doing good, they would allow a Member to make up 
their mind what they want to do. And so it means that we have got a 
long way to go but this is truly a beginning. We now have people 
expressing themselves and asking more from their government to help 
Americans that deserve better treatment than they have been getting.
  The only thing that bothered me in the debate is the whole idea that 
the Speaker of this House and the members, Republican and Democrats, on 
this committee would bring forth a bill that they thought that 
Americans would suffer. It's one thing to differ with the contents of 
the bill; it's another thing to think that we are trying to sell CAFTA 
or NAFTA or bills that the Speaker has constantly been against. And 
speaker after speaker after speaker said that realistically if you take 
a look at Peru, how can it do anything except help us? How can it do 
anything that we're going to sell to them now, notwithstanding the 
tariff? Imagine how much more we can sell without the tariff? And when 
they sell, doesn't it mean that we're making it? If they're buying 
food, doesn't it mean we're growing it? And doesn't it mean in the 
communities that have it, we'll be doing well?
  So let me thank the minority and let me thank the majority. It's been 
a great debate. Let's get on and say that this Peruvian bill is just 
the beginning of the cooperation we should expect.
  Thank you, Mr. Herger. And thank you, the majority.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maine now has the 
opportunity to utilize the rest of his time tonight. He has 6\3/4\ 
minutes remaining this evening.
  The gentleman is recognized.
  Mr. MICHAUD. I thank the Speaker.
  I urge my colleagues to listen to their conscience and constituents 
by voting against this bill.
  I worked at Great Northern Paper Company for over 28 years. My father 
worked there for 43. My grandfather before him for 40. Three days after 
I got sworn in as a Member of Congress, the very mill I worked at 
decided to close its doors because of trade.
  Trade is not just a policy. It's a face, a name, a job, a family. The 
debate is, when will we change the course of trade policy so it can 
benefit the American economy, the American workers, the American 
families? When will we finally change our direction on trade and adopt 
a policy that makes sense for America?
  A ``no'' vote on Peru means we want a new direction in trade. A 
``no'' vote means we are sick of watching our jobs go overseas. A 
``no'' vote means we reject imports made by child and slave labor.
  Supporters of this trade agreement claim that strong labor and 
environmental protections are included. Then why does labor not support 
this bill? Why do the environmental groups not support this bill? And 
why does the President of the United States Chamber of Commerce support 
this bill? He made it very clear that the labor provisions are 
unenforceable. Those are his words.
  This agreement is still based upon the same flawed NAFTA-CAFTA model. 
The proponents like to say it's not. But if you look at the investment 
chapter, the core investment chapter language, there are very little 
changes in that chapter in the core investment.
  Now is the time for Congress to take a step back and consider what 
policies on trade is the best option, not the quickest one or the 
easiest one or the most politically expedient one.
  In 2006, the American electorate voted overwhelmingly for Congress to 
move in a new direction. This is a golden opportunity to create a new 
policy, one that will help our workers achieve their highest potential, 
one that will protect our environment, one that will increase the 
standards of living for all countries involved.
  Earlier this year, the Peruvian labor leaders had sent a letter to 
the Democratic leadership, and it gets to the point that Congressman 
Kucinich made earlier, urging Congress to reject this bad trade deal. 
They said if we have to accept it, make one change for us, and that has 
to do with privatization of Social Security. I would like to quote from 
that letter:
  ``By rejecting the Peru FTA, the United States Congress and the 
Democratic Party in particular can show the world that they can 
advocate in not only words but deeds.''
  We have failed when it deals with the issue of globalization that was 
talked about earlier. We have failed to put on the President's desk the 
currency manipulation legislation. We have failed to put on the 
President's desk the value-added tax that we heard earlier this 
evening. We have failed to put on the President's desk legislation that 
will eliminate the tax haven. We have not made the USTR enforce these 
labor agreements.
  The American people were not fooled about NAFTA. We heard a lot of 
the discussions during the NAFTA debate this evening about Peru. Over 3 
million jobs have been lost because of NAFTA. Illegal immigration has 
increased partly because of NAFTA.
  The American people will not be fooled about this trade deal. They 
will understand over time what this trade deal will mean to America.
  It's important for this Democratic Congress to start looking at trade 
in a different light, to make sure that we have a trade policy that is 
fair, not only in words but in actions.
  And that's why labor does not support this. That's why a lot of the 
environmental groups do not support this. But that is why the U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce supports this trade deal, because it's good for the 
large multinational corporations.
  Right now, with this Democratic Congress, we have a chance to embrace 
globalization and make it work, to make it work for America, not 
against America.

                              {time}  2315

  As you heard earlier this evening from several of my colleagues who 
are opposed to this trade deal, it's about human faces. These 
individuals are just not numbers; they're human beings. And we, as a 
Congress, particularly a Democratic Congress, have to stand up for the 
individuals who cannot stand up for themselves.
  This is a bad trade deal for America, and it is a bad trade deal for 
this Congress.
  So, I implore my colleagues to vote against this trade deal tomorrow. 
I encourage you to continue to try to work with the Ways and Means 
Committee so we can come up with a new trade model that will actually 
work for America.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the time and rise 
in support of H.R. 3688, the U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement. Peru 
has been a longstanding ally in the region with the war against illegal 
narcotics and has committed to opening its markets and providing 
American businesses, farmers, ranchers and workers the opportunity to 
establish economical ties in that country.
  Because of globalization and the benefits of growing business, 
cultural, and technological connectivity, Peru has become one of the 
fastest growing economies in Latin America with an 8 percent GDP growth 
in 2006. Our two-way trade with Peru has doubled over the last three 
years reaching $8.8 billion in 2006, with U.S. exports reaching $2.9 
billion. However, because of the most-favored nation tariff rates and 
the various preference programs, including the Andean Trade Preference 
Act and the Generalized System of Preferences, 98 percent of Peru's 
exports enter the U.S. duty free.
  While Peru's number one source of imports comes from the United 
States, U.S. products are subject to tariffs as high as 20 percent. 
With this agreement, the playing field will even out for U.S. 
businesses and move us from a one sided agreement to a full 
partnership. Once this agreement enters into force, 80 percent of U.S. 
consumer and industrial products will enter Peru duty free, while 
remaining tariffs phase out over ten years.
  Like our past free trade agreements, Peru will prove to be beneficial 
to the U.S. economy. In the last 3 years, we have entered into several 
Free Trade Agreements with Chile, Singapore, Australia, Morocco, 
Bahrain, Oman, and several Central American nations and the Dominican 
Republic under CAFTA. And the results of these agreements have

[[Page 30433]]

proven to be beneficial to the U.S. economy, businesses, and workers 
alike.
  Three years after the U.S.-Chile FTA entered into force, our exports 
more than doubled reaching nearly $7 billion last year. Likewise, our 
exports to Singapore nearly quintupled over the first three years also 
reaching $7 billion. In 2006, one year after implementing the CAFTA-DR 
FTA, the United States exported $19.6 billion worth of goods, up 16% 
from the previous year. In 2005, almost 4,000 companies exported goods 
from Virginia of which 82 percent were small and medium-sized 
enterprises (SMEs), with fewer than 500 employees.
  But free trade agreements are more then just buying or selling 
products. They are also about adhering to sets of rules such as respect 
for intellectual property rights and with this agreement enforcement of 
international labor and environmental protections.
  A free trade agreement with Peru will establish greater protection 
for Intellectual Property rights, a growing concern for U.S. businesses 
and a particular concern for the N. VA technology community. It is 
estimated that intellectual property piracy costs the U.S. economy 
between $200 and $250 billion per year in lost sales and is responsible 
for the loss of 750,000 jobs. This agreement will improve standards for 
defending intellectual property by including state-of-the-art 
protections for digital products such as U.S. software, music, text, 
and video.
  Peru is the first free trade agreement that includes fully 
enforceable commitments to adopt and maintain fundamental labor rights 
as stated in the International Labor Organization's Declaration on 
Fundamental Principles and Rights at work. This agreement will also 
include critical provisions emphasizing our commitment to our 
environmental values by addressing the impacts of illegal logging and 
establishing specific and enforceable requirements to prevent the trade 
in illegally sourced timber.
  Finally, this agreement will emphasize U.S. support for a country 
that values democracy, economic freedom and growth. Trade with Peru 
will continue to significantly increase opportunities for economic 
growth and help Peru further develop and modernize its economy. 
Recently, Peru has experienced a decline in their poverty rate from 
54.3 percent in 2001 to 49.5 percent in 2006.
  As a friend of trade and of Peru, it is essential we continue to 
cultivate this partnership so our two nations can continue to prosper 
and be competitive in this growing global economy. I ask my colleagues 
to vote ``yes'' for the U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to a Peru Free Trade 
Agreement that is neither free nor fair. Much like the North American 
and Central American Free Trade Agreements, this agreement will hurt 
both working families and the environment.
  Building on the Bush Administration's framework for CAFTA, it 
promotes the offshoring of high-wage American manufacturing jobs by 
removing many of the risks firms face when relocating to Peru in 
pursuit of cheap labor.
  Much like NAFTA, it enables foreign companies to challenge--in 
foreign courts--American laws that protect occupational health, safety, 
and the environment. Already, NAFTA signatories have paid more than $35 
million to corporations that have through this provision attacked bans 
on the use of toxic chemicals, limits on tobacco production and 
marketing, and regulations on deforestation.
  In one case that hit particularly close to home, a foreign firm 
challenged
  California's ban on the use of polluting gasoline additive MTBE. As a 
result, American taxpayers were forced to pay more than $3 million in 
legal fees before the case was eventually dismissed on technical 
grounds.
  This agreement also undercuts Congress' authority to ensure American 
tax dollars are spent to create jobs in America by enabling President 
Bush to waive existing `Buy America' policies. And it enables foreign 
firms to challenge American procurement policies designed to promote 
recycling and renewable energy.
  That's why numerous American labor, environmental, consumer, faith, 
family farm, and development groups oppose this agreement. Both of 
Peru's labor federations, its major indigenous people's organization, 
and a prominent Archbishop in the country oppose this agreement as 
well.
  To be fair, this agreement does significantly improve upon the flawed 
framework provided of the North American and Central American Free 
Trade Agreements. For new labor and environmental protections that were 
absent from prior trade deals, I want to thank and recognize the hard 
work of my colleagues on the Ways and Means Committee.
  Making measured alterations to the rules of the same old game, 
however, is the wrong approach. Rather than improve on President Bush's 
trade agreements at the margins, Democrats can and should set the terms 
of the President's negotiating authority in a way that honors our 
commitment to America's workers and the environment.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I believe in free and fair trade. Trade 
creates jobs in the United States and helps build our relationships 
with countries around the world.
  But not all trade agreements are created equal.
  That is why I evaluate trade agreements on a case-by-case basis. I 
voted against NAFTA in the face of enormous pressure from my own party, 
and against CAFTA because I felt it suffered from the same flaws as 
NAFTA. I stand by those votes and believe that subsequent events have 
proven them to be sound.
  But on carefully reading the Peru FTA is worth supporting.
  This FTA makes real strides in protecting workers and the 
environment, and the key is that core ILO standards and adherence to 
multilateral environmental agreements are enforceable obligations. For 
example, this means that Peru cannot violate the Convention on Marine 
Pollution or allow employers to use temporary contractors to substitute 
for striking workers. If it does, the United States can bring a case 
against Peru, and just like the other provisions of the agreement, the 
case could end with Peru being subjected to sanctions. This gives these 
provisions real teeth.
  Chairman Rangel has secured the protections many in my party have 
demanded. I urge us to take ``yes'' for an answer.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, agricultural trade is critical to the state 
of Missouri. Exports of farm products boost Missouri's farm prices and 
farm income. Such exports support about 17,900 Show-Me State jobs both 
on and off the farm in food processing, storage, and transportation. In 
2006, Missouri agricultural exports amounted to $1.4 billion and made 
an important contribution to Missouri's farm cash receipts that totaled 
$5.6 billion that year.
  The U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement would provide increased 
market access to Missouri's agricultural exports by making agricultural 
trade a two-way street. Currently, 98 percent of Peru's agricultural 
exports benefit from tariff-free access to the U.S. market. On the 
other hand, most U.S. farm and food exports to Peru are subject to high 
tariffs and other non-tariff restrictions.
  Current tariffs on U.S. agricultural goods exported to Peru average 
18 percent. As a result of this agreement, duties on more than 2/3 of 
these goods, such as prime and choice cuts of beef, soybeans, soybean 
meal, crude soybean oil, cotton, and wheat would be eliminated 
immediately. Duties on pork, dairy, corn, and beef varieties would be 
phased out over a period of time.
  Because the U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement is so beneficial to 
American agriculture, it has been endorsed by four former Secretaries 
of Agriculture--John Block, Bob Bergland, Dan Glickman, and Clayton 
Yeutter.
  Additionally, eight former Secretaries of State have endorsed the 
U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement because it is in the national 
security interest of the United States to maintain and build strong 
economic alliances with our Latin American neighbors. These former 
Secretaries include Colin Powell, Madeleine Albright, Warren 
Christopher, Lawrence Eagleburger, James Baker, George Shultz, 
Alexander Haig, and Henry Kissinger.
  Over the past twenty years, Peru has transformed from bloody civil 
unrest to a democratic nation with freely elected leaders who are 
embracing reform and strengthening the rule of law. In that time, trade 
has fueled Peru's economic expansion and helped to increase per capita 
income levels. Peru has been a strong U.S. ally in our efforts to 
eradicate narcotics trafficking and to combat terrorism in the Western 
Hemisphere.
  Because this agreement will benefit Missouri agriculture and 
strengthen our friendship with Peru, I am pleased to support the U.S.-
Peru Trade Promotion Agreement and hope it will be quickly approved and 
signed into law.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, it is with great frustration 
that I must speak out in opposition to the US-Peru Trade Promotion 
Agreement.
  I am a strong supporter of fair trade and have voted to support every 
trade agreement during my time in Congress. The benefits of these 
agreements are clear. They lower barriers and open new markets for 
Central Washington farmers, and they create new opportunities for 
manufacturers and producers in Washington state and across the nation. 
Given a chance to compete fairly and our farmers will lead the world in 
exporting high-quality fruits and vegetables.
  That is why I deeply regret the totally unfair provisions in this 
Peru agreement relating to

[[Page 30434]]

asparagus. This agreement forces our American asparagus growers to pay 
the price for a failed anti-drug effort in South America that has 
actually resulted in more cocaine production.
  The Peru Trade Promotion Agreement is preceded by the Andean Trade 
Preferences Act of 1991. This Act was a unilateral granting of access 
to American markets for the Andean countries of South America. Its 
purpose was to allow legal manufacturing and farm exports into our 
country in an effort to fight and reduce drug production and shipments 
from these countries. It has been an abysmal failure. Since this one-
way trade system was put in place, cocaine production in the Andean 
countries is actually higher now than when the agreement was put in 
place.
  However, since the Andean Act was enacted, imports of fresh asparagus 
from Peru went from 4 million pounds a year to over 87 million pounds 
in 2006. That's a 2000 percent increase! This flood of US-subsidized 
foreign imports cut asparagus production in Washington state from $200 
million in 1990 to approximately $75 million today. American growers 
were given no transition period. No time to adjust. No consideration 
whatsoever.
  Corporations have closed asparagus processing facilities in the 
United States, only to reopen them in Peru.
  What our government's policies have done is magically create an 
industry in a foreign country under the flawed logic that Peruvians 
would grow asparagus instead of cocaine--when the two crops are grown 
in two totally different regions of that country.
  When the United States and Peru completed negotiations on this 
agreement in December of 2005, I expressed my disappointment with the 
trade deal and the treatment of asparagus. This was after months of 
meeting with and encouraging American negotiators to fix it.
  I regret that in the almost two years since then, the attention of 
the Administration to addressing the injustice wrong done to domestic 
asparagus growers has been non-existent. It's been up to those few of 
us in Congress, both Representatives and Senators, who represent 
asparagus producers to work together to try and bring some degree of 
fairness.
  We are making progress and there is movement in the right direction, 
but we are still a long ways from it becoming reality. I hope we are 
successful in our efforts and I would welcome the attention and 
assistance of the Administration.
  American asparagus growers deserve better than to be ignored and 
placed at a competitive disadvantage by their own government. Until 
fair treatment and assistance to American asparagus growers is a 
reality, I am unable to support this agreement.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
3688, the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement, and urge my 
colleagues to support this important legislation.
  I would like to thank Chairman Rangel and Subcommittee Chairman Levin 
for their hard work on the U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement. Through 
their leadership, for the first time in U.S. trade policy, the trade 
agreement we are considering today incorporates internationally 
recognized labor and environmental standards and other key priorities. 
This was a major achievement and I am pleased that this new Congress 
has pushed forward a trade policy that will expand and shape trade in 
ways that spread the benefits of globalization here and abroad by 
raising standards. Congress is resuming its proper role as an active 
and full participant in the development of U.S. trade policy.
  Under these circumstances, a new approach to trade policy--one that 
better reflects American values and spreads the benefits of 
globalization broadly--is especially critical. This is the kind of 
approach that we have long espoused and will begin to implement with 
the Peru FTA. Once enacted into law, this FTA will lock in these gains 
and give us a basis to build on in the future.
  Central among the changes to our current trade policy is a new 
bipartisan commitment to the inclusion of a fully enforceable 
commitment that countries adopt and enforce the five basic 
international labor standards in all future trade agreements. This 
includes the freedom of association; right to collective bargaining; 
elimination of forced and compulsory labor; abolition of child labor; 
and elimination of employment discrimination.
  I think it is particularly important to note the importance of what 
we have established with this trade agreement by way of a labor 
template. The Peru FTA includes basic worker rights, because workers 
must be a key part of the trade equation. Accordingly, for the first 
time in any U.S. free trade agreement, the Peru FTA includes 
protections for the basic rights of workers in its core text. It also 
prohibits Peru from lowering its labor standards in the future. It also 
makes these labor obligations subject to the same dispute settlement 
processes and remedies as all other provisions in the FTA. If Peru 
fails to enforce fundamental labor rights, or fails to enforce its 
labor laws, the U.S. Government can sue Peru for not complying with the 
Agreement. These are the real labor standards that are applied by the 
International Labor Organization (ILO)--the exact standards we have 
sought for more than a decade. Notably, Peru has already changed its 
legal framework to comply with the FTA.
  I urge my colleagues in joining me in voting ``yes'' for the U.S.-
Peru Trade Promotion Agreement.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3688, the 
United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation, better known as the U.S.-Peru TPA, has 
gone through an extensive and thorough legislative process that has 
been years in the making. For the first time, we have before us today a 
trade bill that contains legally binding worker rights and human rights 
provisions that have never before been a meaningful part of free trade 
legislation. This is a tremendous victory for American workers and a 
tremendous accomplishment of the Democratic Leadership of this 
Congress.
  The U.S.-Peru TPA will guarantee that legally binding and enforceable 
labor and environmental standards be incorporated into this trade 
policy. This is a landmark piece of legislation for this reason alone.
  Beyond the worker right provisions this bill is good for the people 
of Peru. In a region that for years has been plagued with the influence 
of the drug trade and political upheavals. A strong trade agreement 
with an economic ally such as the United States will help bring 
stability to this area through economic growth, increased job 
availability, and greater educational opportunities.
  This trade agreement will also be a boon for the American worker. 
Currently U.S. agricultural imports to Peru face an average tariff of 
18 percent. The U.S.-Peru TPA will eliminate all tariffs on U.S. 
agricultural and food products entering the Peruvian market and 
significantly reduce tariffs on exported goods manufactured and 
exported from the U.S. Market.
  For my home state of North Carolina, this means significant increases 
in the exports from our $2 billion dollar pork industry, as well as our 
poultry industry, which ranks in the top five in the Nation. This 
legislation will also result in an increase in the exports of the goods 
produced in the technology and manufacturing industry in and around the 
Research Triangle Park of North Carolina.
  Mr. Speaker, this trade agreement is a good and carefully crafted 
piece of legislation and I urge my colleagues to support this bill and 
vote ``yes'' on H.R. 3688.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3688, 
the ``United States-Peru Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.'' I 
believe the agreement contains a number of important benefits for the 
people of both the United States and Peru.
  The agreement will provide each country immediate duty-free access 
for most industrial, agricultural and consumer goods. Remaining tariffs 
will be phased out gradually. This will bring an improved commercial 
relationship between our countries that will benefit a number of 
sectors in the U.S. economy, including high technology, machinery and 
agriculture.
  The U.S.-Peru Free Trade Agreement will improve market access for 
information technology goods and service providers. Exports of U.S. 
products like computers and communications equipment to Peru will 
receive duty-free treatment. This will benefit Colorado because it will 
expand markets for our companies, which in 2006 sold more than $4 
billion in computers and electronic products worldwide, accounting for 
51 percent of the state's total international exports.
  Passage of this agreement will also help small businesses in 
Colorado. More than 85 percent of the companies that export goods from 
our state have fewer than 500 employees. Adoption of this agreement is 
critical for these small firms that rely on foreign markets and need 
additional international market access to grow.
  While expanding markets for businesses and farmers is critical, it 
must to be done in a manner that is responsible in the treatment and 
protection of workers and the environment. This agreement includes 
important provisions to assure this will occur.
  President of the AFL-CIO John Sweeney's comments on the agreement are 
instructive: ``The new provisions on workers' rights and the 
environment represent significant progress in crucial areas that we 
have fought together to achieve for many years.''

[[Page 30435]]

  The inclusion of labor standards in the agreement's main text will 
ensure that Peru will adopt, maintain, and enforce its own laws 
regarding the freedom of association, the right to collectively 
bargain, as well as the elimination of forced or child labor.
  I am pleased the agreement provides a fully enforceable commitment 
that the U.S. and Peru will adopt, implement, and enforce in their 
environmental laws and practices obligations under major multilateral 
environmental agreements, including the Convention on International 
Trade in Endangered Species and the Montreal Protocol on Ozone 
Depleting Substances.
  I commend Peruvian President Alan Garcia for the work the Peruvian 
government has done to modify domestic law to honor the commitments in 
this agreement. I urge the Administration and the United States Trade 
Representative (USTR) to ensure these obligations are honored. It is 
important that the United States takes step to ensure our trading 
partners provide workers with basic labor rights. By including such 
requirements we dedicate ourselves to this goal.
  I am encouraged that the USTR and the Bush Administration have worked 
to resolve concerns raised by members of Congress along with outside 
groups and organizations in the course of this agreement negotiation. 
It is my hope the same kind of consideration can be given to issues of 
concern in future trade agreements.
  While this agreement is largely about enhancing the exchange of goods 
and services, it is also about enhancing our relationship with an ally 
and democratic partner in Peru. Expanding the commercial relationship 
between the U.S. and Peru can help expand support in combating illegal 
immigration, narcotics trafficking and countering regional terror 
groups.
  I welcome the beginning of a new chapter in our commercial 
partnership with Peru and urge the U.S.-Peru Free Trade Agreement be 
passed.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support 
for the U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement. This Agreement has a 
positive and significant impact on small business. More than 50,000 
companies exported goods from California since 2005. This trade 
agreement is an important element which contributes to the growth of 
the California and American economy.
  While the positive aspects of trade far outweigh the negatives, 
Congress must be firmly committed to help minimize any harmful effects 
that may come from greater trade. Since 2000, southern California has 
seen a 40 percent increase in container traffic on roads and rails, 
which is causing serious transportation problems for both business and 
constituents in my district. Congress must take a closer look at 
infrastructure as it relates to trade. There are many barriers to 
trade, but transportation infrastructure should not be one of them.
  This Agreement will also level the playing field of trade with Peru. 
Under the current trade preferences in place 99 percent of Peru's 
imports enjoy duty-free access to the U.S. In contrast, only 2 percent 
of U.S. agricultural products enjoy duty-free access to the Peruvian 
market. Once the Agreement enters into force, 90 percent of the current 
trade in U.S. agricultural products will enjoy duty-free access while 
the remaining products will be gradually phased out. California's 
exports have grown over 183 percent since the ratification of the U.S.-
Chile Free Trade Agreement and I fully expect the U.S.-Peru Agreement 
to bring similar success to the California economy.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the U.S.-Peru Free 
Trade Agreement. This has not been an easy decision. This is not an 
ideal agreement. But it contains significant improvements negotiated by 
the Democratic leadership. And because of these changes the agreement 
represents a critical step toward a more progressive trade policy that 
raises standards for labor, the environment, and public health.
  Under the Bush Administration, U.S. trade policy has gone from bad to 
worse. Instead of using trade agreements to raise standards of living, 
the U.S. Trade Representative has approached negotiations putting 
corporations ahead of consumers and profits ahead of people.
  In recent agreements with Central America, Morocco, and others, labor 
standards an environmental rules have been made expendable and 
unenforceable on paper and in practice. Trade provisions aggressively 
pursued on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry have sought to delay 
generic competition in developing countries where the absence of 
affordable medicine can mean the difference between life and death.
  Initially, the Peru FTA was no different. However, this spring the 
Democratic congressional leadership successfully negotiated substantial 
improvements to the agreement.
  On the medicines issue, specifically, the revised FTA restores much 
of the flexibility needed to safeguard generic competition and protect 
public health. For example, patent extensions are no longer mandatory 
in the event of regulatory delays. The agreement directs patent 
disputes to be resolved through the court system, instead of forcing 
regulatory agencies to link marketing approval to the status of a 
drug's patent. Language was also added to make clear that the FTA does 
not and should not prevent Peru from taking measures to protect public 
health.
  The Peru FTA is not perfect. There is a provision that delays the 
availability of generics for up to 5 years after a new drug is 
approved, even in the absence of a patent. USTR maintains that this 
``data exclusivity'' provision is supposed to mirror a provision in 
U.S. law intended to incentivize research by allowing drug companies to 
recoup the costs associated with producing the clinical test data 
necessary for drug approval. But Peru is not a mirror image of the 
United States. It is a small developing market where the profitability 
for drug makers is minimal and the impact on a large population of poor 
and uninsured patients could be severe.
  The revised Peru FTA does make clear that Peru can override this 
five-year restriction if public health needs demand it. Additionally, 
the new FTA has a mechanism for generic medicines to become available 
in Peru no later than they are available in the United States. However 
even with these key exceptions, I believe data exclusivity is a clear 
example of how further changes are necessary in our negotiations with 
developing countries.
  Another area that needs reevaluation is the ``investor-state'' 
provisions that permit private investors to use trade tribunals to 
bypass regular legal channels in challenging government actions and 
regulations. While there have been some improvements to make the 
tribunals more transparent, greater reform is necessary to prevent 
abusive and unfair efforts by investors to undermine environment, 
health, safety and other laws and regulations. I would also like to see 
further progress to use trade agreements to strengthen adherence to 
core labor standards.
  The bottom line is that overall the improvements to the Peru FTA are 
a real achievement. Today, we can finally put a stop to the Bush 
Administration's ``one size fits all'' approach to trade negotiations. 
While it will take more than a revised Peru FTA to overhaul our trade 
policy in broader ways, this trade agreement is an important first step 
in the right direction. For that reason I will support it today.
  Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Snyder). All time has expired for debate 
this evening on this bill.
  Pursuant to section 2 of House Resolution 801, further proceedings on 
the bill will be postponed.

                          ____________________