[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 22]
[House]
[Pages 30593-30601]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1030
    UNITED STATES-PERU TRADE PROMOTION AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 801, 
proceedings will now resume on the bill (H.R. 3688) to implement the 
United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. When proceedings were postponed on 
Wednesday, November 7, 2007, 20 minutes remained in debate.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) has 5 minutes remaining; the 
gentleman from California (Mr.

[[Page 30594]]

Herger) has 10 minutes remaining; and the gentleman from Maine (Mr. 
Michaud) has 5 minutes remaining.
  Without objection, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery) may 
resume control of time from the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) 
and, without objection, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) may 
resume control of time from the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the very distinguished 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. I want to thank my friend and colleague for 
yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution. I would 
like to thank Chairman Rangel, Chairman Levin and the minority Members 
for all of their hard work on this effort. This is not a perfect bill, 
but it is a good bill. I have always believed that our trade policy 
must be a reflection of our values.
  This legislation moves us a step forward in building a bipartisan 
trade policy. In this bill, we seek to protect the rights of workers to 
organize. We look out for the environment. When it comes to trade, we 
all live in the same House, call it the House of Peru, call it the 
House of America. What we do today with this resolution is in the best 
interests of all of us who live on this little planet, this little 
piece of real estate that we call Earth.
  I urge all of my colleagues to vote for the passage of this bill.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, as I understand it, Mr. McCrery is going to 
use their time. Mr. Michaud is going to use his 5 minutes. Mr. Rangel 
on our side is going to do the closing. I now have 4 minutes remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Madam Speaker, I am from Michigan. I have seen firsthand the 
dislocation from globalization. That's why we have been fighting for a 
new trade policy, a trade policy that shapes globalization. It shapes 
trade to expand the benefits and to address the down sides.
  Enforceable worker rights and environmental standards have been at 
the core of this struggle. Worker rights in the trade equation 
fundamentally alters the power dynamics in developing countries, just 
as it has in our own. This is important for those workers, for Peru, 
who needs a middle class, for our workers who should not compete with 
workers who are suppressed, and our businesses and their workers who 
need more middle classes to sell to.
  Let me close by saying a word about enforcement. The core labor 
standards and the environmental obligations are on a par with every 
other provision in this bill, every other. Any person can file a 
petition if there is a failure to enforce. We have the power of 
oversight, including subpoena power, if this administration fails to 
enforce.
  We have worked with Peru to bring their legal structure into 
compliance with ILO standards. There has been reference to a recent 
mining strike, and we worked with the Peru Government to change their 
rules regarding what it takes to have a strike. Also, they are working 
now to determine who is, within ILO rules, the proper authority to 
declare a strike legal or not.
  This Peru FTA is a victory. It's a breakthrough. It's a first step in 
a new trade policy. Our job is to lead, to build on that history, not 
to retreat from it.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to allow Mr. 
Levin to control 1 minute of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Louisiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LEVIN. I would yield 2 minutes to our very, very distinguished 
leader, Mr. Clyburn.
  Mr. CLYBURN. I thank the chairman for yielding to me, and I thank the 
other side for allowing me this minute.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Peru Free Trade 
Agreement. This may come as a surprise to many of my colleagues, 
because I have seldom supported our previous trade agreements that have 
come before this body.
  My reasons have been quite simple. I have considered most of the 
trade deals that have been offered to this body to be unfair to my 
constituents and many communities in my region of the country. But I 
want to thank the drafters of this legislation for bringing a bill to 
the floor that I consider to be fair. This bill addresses critical 
environmental and labor concerns that are very important to me and my 
constituents. This bill will help farmers in my district and all across 
this country compete in the global marketplace.
  Because of the size and the diversity of this body, it is not an easy 
task to bring legislation to the floor that pleases everyone. Trade 
bills are almost certain to engender disagreements among our Members.
  As I mentioned earlier, I have found many shortcomings with previous 
trade initiatives that have come before this floor. This bill, however, 
charts a new direction in trade legislation and should serve as a 
template for those of us to use in moving our trade policies in a more 
worker friendly and environmentally protective direction.
  We have come a long ways with our trade policies in recent years, and 
we may still have a long ways to go before we are able to consistently 
get trade bills that are as good as I would like.
  But it is important that this new Congress continue working to bring 
trade bills to the floor that are fair. This bill is a fair bill, and I 
encourage my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Rangel 
control the rest of our time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to allow Mr. 
Rangel, the distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, to 
allocate 2 minutes of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Louisiana?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Maine.
  Mr. MICHAUD. Madam Speaker, I am asking Members who are committed to 
a fair trade deal to vote against the Peru FTA. While I have been a 
Member of Congress for only 5 years, I have been a mill worker all my 
life. The mill I worked at in Maine shut down 3 days after I was sworn 
in as a Member of Congress. The culprit? Badly flawed trade deals.
  This lunch bucket sits proudly in my office. It symbolizes who I am, 
what I stand for. It also symbolizes what has been lost.
  Since the passage of NAFTA, our country has lost over 3 million jobs. 
When the vote on NAFTA happened, Members of Congress were promised 
NAFTA would raise the standard of living for all. They were sold a 
dream, but the dream is now a nightmare of millions of workers all 
across this country.
  The American people get it. Polling indicates that an overwhelming 
number of Americans, Republicans and Democrats, are concerned about 
exporting our jobs. They worry whether or not they will have a paycheck 
in the years to come. We have all seen the ugly face of trade 
agreements that don't live up to the promises. The debate here today is 
not whether Peru is a small country and the trade impact is small 
compared to China. The debate is when will we truly change the course 
of trade policy.
  If this was truly a good trade policy, I would be the first to 
support it. The bill's supporters claim that enhanced environmental 
standards in the FTA will preserve our natural resources. Where is the 
strong support from Sierra Club, Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth?
  The new labor provisions supposedly will improve conditions for 
workers in Peru and create jobs here at home. So why is no single labor 
union actively supporting this trade agreement? That's right, not one, 
not one labor union.

[[Page 30595]]

  If this so-called new model is so great, then why aren't we hearing 
from all sides of the trade debate asking us to support it? If you 
stand with the multinational corporations that seek to offshore jobs, 
then vote for it. If you stand with the Chamber of Commerce who says 
that these labor standards are unenforceable, then vote for this trade 
deal. If you stand by President Bush, who has a track record of 
listening to corporations instead of the men and women of this country, 
by all means vote for this trade deal.
  But if you stand by the working men and women of this country, I 
would encourage you, you must vote ``no.'' A ``no'' vote calls for a 
new model and a new direction on trade. A ``no'' vote means you stand 
up with the workers of northern Maine; Lorain, Ohio; Flint, Michigan; 
Galesburg, Illinois, and men and women all across this country who are 
asking, no, who are begging this Congress for a new direction on trade. 
These workers don't want more trade adjustment assistance; they want 
their job back.
  It's time to send a message that we embrace globalization so long as 
it lifts us all up. I will never forget who I am or why I am here. I 
hope my colleagues will do the same.
  I ask my colleagues today to vote ``no'' on this bad trade deal.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this free trade agreement.
  Madam Speaker, I would like to close by making several points about 
the value of our free trade agreements and the value of this agreement 
with Peru in particular.
  First, free trade agreements implemented under Trade Promotion 
Authority have been a tremendous success story in expanding U.S. 
exports and reducing the U.S. trade deficit. Let me point to a very 
telling statistic: the U.S. trade balance with the 12 countries for 
which FTAs have been implemented under TPA improved by an overwhelming 
162 percent between 2001 and 2006, going from a trade deficit to a 
trade surplus of $13.9 billion with these countries. Our free trade 
agreements work.
  Second, our free trade agreements create jobs. Let me give you an 
example. Whirlpool, a company responsible for thousands of jobs in 
places like Iowa and Ohio, estimates that once the Peru agreement is 
implemented, its sales to Peru will increase by 400 percent. Current 
high Peruvian tariffs hamstring Whirlpool's ability to supply its 
stores in Peru with U.S.-made goods. Instead, Whirlpool primarily 
supplies stores in Peru with goods made in its manufacturing facility 
in Brazil to escape those high duties. This agreement will eliminate 
Peruvian tariffs for U.S. products and will allow Whirlpool to increase 
exports of its U.S.-made products at the expense of Brazilian goods. 
That means more jobs in the United States, not Brazil.
  Here's another example: Our FTAs, including the Peru agreement, 
increase opportunities for express delivery services, both because 
there are more packages to ship and also because such U.S. services 
providers will enjoy liberalized access to their markets. UPS reports 
that for every 40 new packages that it ships per day, it must hire a 
new U.S. worker. That new worker will almost certainly be a union 
employee, as UPS is the largest employer of Teamsters.
  Third, our free trade agreements support small and medium sized 
businesses. There are over 19,000 small and medium sized U.S. 
businesses currently exporting to the three Latin countries with whom 
we have pending FTAs. Nearly 81 percent of the U.S. companies that 
exported merchandise to Peru in 2005 were small and medium-sized 
businesses. These companies, which will see reduced tariffs when they 
export goods under these agreements, are the engine of our economy and 
are powerful job creators.
  Finally, the Peru agreement will end one-way trade and will finally 
give U.S. companies equal access. Today, without agreement, Peru has 
almost complete duty-free access to the U.S. market, as it has since 
1991, when Congress gave such access through Andean preferences--and 
which this Congress extended last June with 365 Members voting in 
favor.
  For all of these reasons, in my view, if you are concerned about 
trade deficits or american jobs, you must support this agreement.
  Madam Speaker, I want to reiterate my comments from last night: I am 
delighted that Chairman Rangel and I are able to stand together today 
as partners in strong support of this agreement. If it weren't for his 
leadership, we would not be here today. I urge my colleagues to vote 
``aye.''
  At this time, Madam Speaker, for closing for our side, I would 
recognize the distinguished minority leader, the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Boehner).
  Mr. BOEHNER. Let me thank my colleague for yielding and thank him and 
the chairman of the committee and the subcommittee chairman and the 
ranking member of the Trade Subcommittee for their work on this Peru 
trade bill and the other trade bills that I hope that we will see on 
the floor soon.
  When you look at America's economy today, I think we have to 
recognize that 95 percent of the consumers in the world live outside of 
the United States.

                              {time}  1045

  And as the U.S. economy, and certainly in certain sectors, is 
softening, the one area where our economy is doing very well are on our 
exports around the world.
  And if you look at what's happened in some recent trade agreements, 
let's point out the facts. In Jordan, since 2001, our exports have 
risen some 92 percent. If you look at Chile, a trade agreement that was 
passed, but since 2004, we've had a 151 percent increase in our exports 
to Chile. Australia, since 2005, we've had a 25 percent increase in our 
exports.
  If I look at my home State of Ohio, Ohio's export shipments in 2006 
were $37.8 billion, up 36 percent, up 36 percent since 2002, thanks in 
part to many of the trade agreements that have been signed. And what 
this means, in terms of these increased exports, to consumers around 
the world are more jobs here in the United States.
  In my own part of Ohio, Proctor and Gamble is a major employer. Right 
near my home are a number of their research and development facilities 
which have continued to expand employment, doing basic research, doing 
product research, doing marketing and doing sales efforts that support 
their sales and their development of new products all around the world, 
which means new jobs for people who live in my part of Ohio.
  I understand that there's displacement in our economy; and we ought 
to be doing everything we can to retrain and train workers for the new 
economy. But that's going to happen regardless of whether we pass this.
  When you look at this Peru Trade Agreement, in particular, we have, 
or they have open access to our market today. What this trade agreement 
does is allow us freer access to their economy, increasing our exports 
to Peru and to the rest of South America.
  I'm a big believer that trade has benefited our country in a very 
significant way. And when you look at the fact that two out of five 
jobs in America, two out of five jobs are dependent on our ability to 
export products and services elsewhere in the world, you can begin to 
understand why opening markets for our companies around the world is so 
critically important to America's future.
  So I want to congratulate my colleagues for their work on this bill 
and urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield myself such time 
that remains.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York is recognized 
for 3 minutes.
  Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, this is a very exciting, historic day for 
me. It was an opportunity to break a deadlock of lack of civility on 
the Ways and Means Committee, which I really, deeply appreciate being a 
member, as well as being Chair; to get to know Jim McCrery, not as a 
Republican, but as someone that we can have serious philosophical and 
political differences, at the same time want to do what's best for our 
constituents and our country; for Sandy Levin who is more than a Member 
of Congress, but in the marrow of his bones he understands what it is 
for working people to have opportunity to have self-esteem and to want 
to do for themselves, their community and their children; and to have a 
Speaker like Nancy Pelosi, who's prepared to think as to what's not 
best for Democrats or even the Congress, but what's

[[Page 30596]]

best for the country and to encourage people who have different views 
to come together, so that nobody from any country could say that we 
have a trade policy that's Republican or Democrat, but we have in the 
United States of America a United States trade policy.
  This is a very historic vote. It breaks the ice and opens an 
opportunity. But also it brings about a lot of candid discussion. And I 
would suggest, for any Member that has campaigned against trade, that 
said it over and over that trade is bad, or any person who's campaigned 
against NAFTA or CAFTA, or all of those things which this is not, then 
you owe it to yourself and you owe it to your constituents to vote 
against this bill, because if, in your conscience, you believe that 
things are so bad in your district, people have lost jobs, lost homes, 
lost hope, and this country has let them down and the multinationals 
have let them down and trade agreements have let them down, then your 
conscience demands that you vote ``no'' because this is what you 
believe in and this is what you should do.
  But for those people who truly believe that they come from 
communities that God has blessed them with the opportunity to grow more 
food than this Nation needs, to make more equipment than this Nation 
needs, and to know that in their towns and villages and congressional 
districts, they cannot eat and they cannot use, for those people who 
understand that exporting things means not that we're trying to help 
other countries, but we need the talents, we need the productivity, we 
need the competition, we need the workers for the Nation to survive, 
for those people like the State of New York, there are patches there 
that people have no hope for the future, and they would want to vote 
against it.
  But they'd better not talk with my mayor, because services are going 
to be a boon directly for all the people in our city.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from New York has 
expired.
  (On request of Mr. McCRERY, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Rangel was 
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. RANGEL. For those people on our farms that want to get rid of 
their surplus and sell it, for those people who really believe that 
we've got a long way to go to get the hopes of Americans up and to have 
our U.S. trade Representative, our multinationals to understand that 
it's not just a good agreement for the shareholders, but it is a good 
agreement for America, for those that believe in the Speaker and the 
minorities, that we're doing what's best, not for labor and not just 
for fund raising, but we're doing what we think is best, don't 
challenge our integrity. Vote your conscience.
  But this is a heck of a time to make certain that we're not known to 
be against trade. We're for trade. We're for trade that makes sense in 
terms of honesty, job creation, and what's good for each and every 
American.
  Do we have a long way to go? Yes.
  Is this a beginning? You bet your life.
  Anytime we're taking down trade barriers and countries are open to 
buy what we make in the U.S.A., it's almost unpatriotic not to let them 
do what we do best.
  But don't you challenge my integrity, and don't do it for the 
Speaker, because I won't challenge your ``no'' because you're doing 
what you think is the right thing.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend the work of my 
colleagues, Chairman Rangel and Chairman Levin, on the U.S.-Peru Free 
Trade Agreement.
  I applaud them, as well as Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer 
for achieving a new trade policy for America, workers, and the 
environment.
  This groundbreaking agreement is the first FTA to include fully-
enforceable rights for workers--an achievement that my Democratic 
colleagues and I have long sought.
  Bolstering workers' rights in Peru is not just the moral thing to do; 
it also helps to build a stable, more prosperous middle class--creating 
a larger market for U.S. goods.
  This agreement also requires Peru to abide by multilateral 
environmental accords--such as protecting Peru's rainforests from 
illegal logging.
  Most importantly, Peru may not waver from these commitments to 
workers or the environment in any way.
  Madam Speaker, I chair the New Democrats, a group of 60 pro-growth 
Members.
  We are dedicated to keeping America competitive--through lowering 
trade barriers and opening foreign markets to U.S. goods and services.
  I also come from California, where more than 1 in 5 jobs is tied to 
trade.
  I am proud to be a pro-trade Democrat in Congress, and I am proud of 
this landmark trade agreement the new Democratic majority has achieved.
  America will not remain the world's economic and innovation leader if 
we refuse to do business with the rest of the world.
  Likewise, we must equip U.S. workers with the tools to compete and 
win in a global economy, and help them through the transition, as we 
have with the expansion of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
  Finally Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to examine the strategic 
implications of this agreement.
  Deepening ties with our pro-growth allies in Latin America is key to 
security in the Western Hemisphere.
  Passage of the Peru FTA is a first step in a twenty-first century 
trade policy: It is an expansion of trade in a way that is solidly 
consistent with Democratic values.
  Again, I applaud Chairman Rangel and Chairman Levin for their 
success, and I urge my colleagues to support implementation of the Peru 
FTA.
  Ms. SOLIS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the United 
States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act (H.R. 3688), 
which would implement a trade agreement reached last year between Peru 
and the Bush Administration.
  The Peru free trade agreement (FTA) will not protect American workers 
nor will it protect workers in Peru. The Peruvian National Convention 
on Agriculture (CONVEAGRO) has estimated that approximately 1.7 million 
Peruvian farmers will be negatively affected by the agreement. Although 
efforts were made to incorporate international labor standards in the 
Peru FTA, it is unclear whether the Bush Administration will enforce 
this provision. The International Labor Organization (ILO) has stated 
that the Peruvian government needs to change labor laws to be in 
compliance with international treaties.
  Serious concerns also remain about language in the Peru FTA that does 
not eliminate the excessive North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) 
Chapter 11 foreign investor privileges. These investor privileges 
create incentives for U.S. firms to move offshore. These investor 
privileges have also been used to undermine efforts to protect the 
environment and public health. The provisions also allow foreign 
investors to bring suits before tribunals to challenge the government's 
implementation of natural resource contracts or leases, which have the 
potential to continue threatening the resources in Peru. For that 
reason, environmental organizations have expressed significant concerns 
about this trade agreement even though improvements were made to help 
stop the flow of illegally logged timber in Peru.
  The United States trade policy has resulted in a loss of at least 
three million manufacturing jobs since 1999 and a loss of nearly one 
million textile and apparel industries jobs in the last 13 years. A 
recent study by the Economic Policy Institute showed that a typical 
American working household lost more than $2,000 in wages because of 
foreign trade. Further expansion of this policy could worsen conditions 
for workers in America that is why this legislation is opposed by 
groups such as the American Federation of Labor and Congress of 
Industrial Organizations, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 
Change to Win, Service Employees International Union, UNITE HERE, the 
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Friends 
of the Earth, and the Sierra Club. I cannot vote for this legislation 
when our trade policy does not protect American workers and American 
jobs. In this new age of globalization, Congress must restore the 
economic security of working- and middle-class Americans.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement.
  According to the International Trade Administration, approximately 91 
percent of U.S. exports to Peru are manufactured products. Currently, 
all of these goods are assessed high tariffs--in some instances at 
double-digit rates. Peruvian manufacturers are not assessed any tariffs 
when selling to the U.S. market. This market-opening trade agreement 
levels the playing field for America's manufacturers by eliminating 
high tariffs on all U.S.

[[Page 30597]]

manufactured goods within 10 years. Eighty percent of Peruvian tariffs 
on consumer and industrial goods would be eliminated immediately upon 
this agreement coming into force.
  To put the cost of these tariffs into perspective, a Caterpillar off-
highway truck made in Illinois used for mining exported to Peru costs 
the end-user an additional $100,000 because of the tariffs. This 
agreement eliminates this duty immediately. Because Peru does not have 
a free trade agreement with Japan, H.R. 3688 gives a competitive 
advantage to Caterpillar over its global competitors such as Komatsu of 
Japan. The northern Illinois district I am proud to represent has many 
suppliers to Caterpillar, many of them small manufacturers, selling 
about $150 million worth of product each year. Having an agreement like 
this insures the long-term viability of the manufacturing jobs at these 
firms that may not even know that their product they make eventually 
finds its way to export markets like Peru.
  Madam Speaker, this agreement will greatly benefit other 
manufacturers of Illinois as well. In 2001, Illinois machinery 
manufacturers exported $65.8 million worth of goods to Peru. In 2006, 
that number more than tripled to $198.2 million. Our manufacturers were 
able to do this in spite of the high tariffs. Imagine what they will be 
able to do when these tariffs are removed! The independent 
International Trade Commission estimates that U.S. exports to Peru will 
increase by $1.1 billion once this agreement is fully implemented. We 
have seen examples of other market opening agreements that resulted in 
increasing U.S. exports. Since the adoption of the market-opening 
agreement with Chile in 2004, U.S. exports to Chile leapt by 33 percent 
in 2004, 43 percent in 2005, and 38 percent in 2006! Our trade 
agreement with Australia also helped boost U.S. exports ``down under'' 
by 25 percent in just two years.
  I urge my colleagues to support America's manufacturers by voting 
``yes'' for this agreement.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, today, I rise against H.R. 3688, the 
United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act. 
Southeast Michigan has lost tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs due 
to unfair free trade agreements such as NAFTA and CAFTA. Unfortunately, 
H.R. 3688 follows in the steps of these lopsided trade deals.
  Advocates of today's legislation will insist that there are strong 
labor and environmental standards. However, members of the Peruvian 
Congress were working to pass a robust General Labor Law and now it 
will be tabled for a substantially weaker labor law issued by President 
Garcia. Furthermore, given President Bush's track record on lack of 
enforcement of current U.S. law, I cannot be persuaded that many of the 
labor provisions will be enforced. Unbalanced trade has led to a race 
to the bottom which has lowered job quality and wages for U.S. workers 
and H.R. 3688 will further encourage this push for cheap labor.
  This bill is also bad for Peruvians. More than three million 
Peruvians may lose their jobs from U.S. exports and may drive many 
rural farmers into the illegal cocoa trade. H.R. 3688 will limit 
Peruvian access to health care. Specifically, by approving this free 
trade agreement, drug companies will obtain five years of data 
exclusivity, or monopoly rights for pharmaceutical manufacturers in 
both countries, which will increase the price of medicine, delay the 
entry of new drugs, and restrict competition in this market. As a 
result, millions of Peruvians will be at risk of losing life saving 
drugs. Furthermore, if Peru chooses to replace its current private 
Social Security system with its previous public system, then this bill 
may open the door to allow private foreign investors to file suit at 
international tribunals.
  Madam Speaker, a recent poll indicated that the majority of Americans 
oppose the concept of free trade. It is no surprise that dozens of 
labor, environment, human rights, and religious organizations have 
opposed this bill because it is bad for both the United States and 
Peru. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.
  Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I rise in 
opposition to the U.S.-Peru Free Trade Agreement.
  I oppose this bill because I come from a part of our country that has 
seen all the drawbacks of free trade without any of the supposed 
benefits. I oppose this bill on behalf of the countless Americans who 
spent years of their lives working in a steel mill or manufacturing 
plant whose lives were uprooted in the wake of NAFTA and CAFTA.
  I represent the 8th District of Pennsylvania. My State has been one 
of the hardest hit by free trade agreements and the unfair trade 
practices of nations, such as China, that don't play by the rules. 
Bucks County was hit hard. Manufacturing jobs used to number in the 
tens of thousands, but by 2005, they had fallen nearly 35 percent. This 
devastation included major employers like US Steel, Jones Apparel, and 
Rohm and Haas--companies that now employ a fraction of what they once 
did. Each one of those lost jobs represents a worker and his or her 
family whose lives were turned upside down by so called ``free trade.'' 
Madam Speaker, free trade is not free if it costs American workers 
their jobs.
  I believe that when everyone plays by the rules, American workers 
will beat out foreign competition every time. Unfortunately, not every 
nation plays by the rules and even worse, the Bush administration has 
done nothing to protect American workers from unfair competition. In 
fact, the President has gone out of his way to sign free trade 
agreements, like CAFTA, that harm American working men and women.
  Madam Speaker, it is for that reason that I must oppose this bill. 
While this agreement paid heed to labor, health and environmental 
concerns for the first time in years, we need to back up words with 
action. Supporters of this bill are saying all of the right things and 
I am glad that these concerns were taken into account. However, when 
the livelihoods of American families are at stake, words simply aren't 
good enough. We need concrete action and this bill offers us no 
guarantees.
  We are debating this bill under ``fast-track'' rules. That means that 
the Congress gets no say in the details of the agreement and that we 
simply must trust that the President is going to do right by American 
workers. This President has broken his word over and over again 
throughout his time in office and we cannot trust him again. We have 
seen the Bush administration repeatedly putting the interests of the 
few ahead of the needs of the many.
  For example, if we had the ability to amend this trade agreement, I 
would fight to include the provisions of a bill I have introduced that 
would require national security reviews of trade deals before we agree 
to them. My bill, The Trade-Related American National Security 
Enhancement and Accountability, TRANSEA, Act also would allow for the 
suspension of existing trade agreements if the safety, health, and 
welfare of Americans are in doubt. I think these provisions would have 
made a vast improvement to the Peru Free Trade Agreement, but 
unfortunately because of fast track rules, we are prohibited from even 
trying to offer changes to make the bill better for American workers.
  Madam Speaker, I am not an anti-trade crusader. Certainly, if trade 
is done the right way, with attention paid to labor, environmental and 
health standards, then it can benefit everybody from workers to 
business owners, both in the United States and other parts of the 
world. Unfortunately, with President Bush's disastrous record, we 
cannot trust him, to enforce the agreement in a way that will be fair 
to American working men and women. It is for these reasons, Madam 
Speaker, that I oppose this trade agreement.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, it is time that America work for 
America's workers, farmers and families. The Peru Free Trade Agreement 
is a step in the right direction. It marks the first time in history 
that a FTA has incorporated labor and environmental provisions.
  This is a major step forward because it signals that the pursuit of 
trade is not an end, but a means to help raise living standards and 
provide opportunity. I represent a trade dependent city and yet my 
constituents are leery of FTAs because they fear that American workers 
have been left behind.
  Today, we are at a crossroads. We can continue down the path we have 
been on and keep pursing freer trade knowing that many Americans are 
falling through a domestic safety net built 70 years ago, or we can 
pursue policies that respond to a new century.
  Last week the House made a good start by adopting legislation to 
reform the Unemployment Insurance program and update the Trade 
Adjustment Assistance program. We must do more. Health care that is 
tied to employment is insecure.
  Education benefits that aren't available to working adults do not 
meet the needs of the modern workforce. Our trade agreements need to be 
smarter, too. We know that supporting core worker rights--human 
rights--is central to enabling workers to benefit fully from their 
labor.
  We know that the tools of public policy need flexibility to ensure 
access in areas like affordable prescription drugs. We know that the 
Earth's environment isn't yours or mine, it's ours.
  Chief Si'ahl, the inspired leader of the Duwamish and Suquamish 
Tribes, for whom my City of Seattle is named, said it best.
  A century ago, this great tribal chief said: ``We did not weave the 
web of life. We are

[[Page 30598]]

merely a strand in it. Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves.''
  My support for the Peru Free Trade Agreement is for this particular 
FTA, in part because of the progress we've achieved in incorporating 
labor and environmental standards, and health concerns.
  I will continue to consider each FTA on its merits, and in its own 
context.
  I will be paying close attention to the Administration and its 
commitment to Americans through TAA and healthcare for the children of 
working families.
  In the end trade is about people and the jargon--FTA and TAA--had 
better produce SBA--Standing by Americans.
  The research is clear; this FTA will increase American exports in key 
goods that come from my State, including: IT products, wheat, apples, 
pears, peaches and cherries. And this agreement will be good for Peru, 
too. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't vote for it.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
Peru Free Trade Agreement.
  While I applaud the efforts to improve worker rights in the Peru FTA, 
the protections in the agreement fall short of addressing the concerns 
of workers that have been adversely affected by the passage of the 
North American Free Trade Agreement, the Central American Free Trade 
Agreement, and other recent FTAs.
  The absence of clear, enforceable labor standards as detailed by the 
International Labor Organization, ILO, in the Peru FTA make this an 
agreement I cannot support. These include prohibitions of child labor 
and guaranteeing the right of workers in Peru to form independent labor 
unions.
  The Peru FTA and the passage of Trade Adjustment Assistance, TAA, 
last week does not represent the kind of comprehensive policy that 
workers need to ensure that our globalization policies not only benefit 
multinational corporations, but workers as well.
  I am not opposed to free trade agreements as long as they are fair 
trade agreements that benefit and protect workers in both countries, 
however, I have long opposed free trade agreements with countries with 
significantly lower standards of living, and fewer labor protections 
than we have here in the U.S.
  I am proud to represent one of the most blue-collar districts in the 
country. The workers in our district benefit from the labor laws on the 
books in the U.S, and while our labor laws could certainly be 
strengthened, they ensure that our blue-collar workers receive a living 
wage and make up a thriving middle class in this country.
  I have no doubts whatsoever about the skills and productivity of 
American workers, but the significant differences in the standard of 
living puts the American worker--and American products--at a 
competitive disadvantage, one that this country should not allow to be 
exploited through a free trade agreement.
  U.S. trade policy over the last decade has resulted in the loss of 
millions of jobs and has led to 5 consecutive years with record setting 
trade deficits.
  I am concerned this trade agreement does not go far enough to address 
the issues that caused these problems, and I urge my colleagues to join 
me in opposing H.R. 3688.
  Mr. REICHERT. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Peru 
Trade Promotion Agreement. We must continue to open markets to 
encourage American companies to innovate and compete with their global 
counterparts. This grows our economy and creates jobs.
  I am proud to represent a district in Washington State that 
integrates our Nation's leading technology innovators with a vibrant 
and highly productive small business community. Opening new global 
markets gives them incentives to improve their products, produce more 
goods, and employ more American workers. I have seen these job-creating 
effects firsthand, with trade accounting for 1 out of every 3 jobs in 
my State.
  The Peru Trade Promotion Agreement will level the playing field and 
increase market access for American and Peruvian companies. It will 
grow our Nation's economy by more than $2 billion.
  I hope that the passage of this agreement finally advances our 
broader trade agenda in Congress. I am disappointed that it has taken 
more than 5 months since the bipartisan deal reached in May--and over 1 
year since the Peru Free Trade Agreement was signed--for this measure 
to finally come to the floor.
  We cannot allow important pending agreements with Colombia, Panama, 
and Korea to languish as the Peru measure did. I urge my colleagues in 
the majority to stop the delays and pass these free trade agreements. 
Let's advance the trade measures needed to grow our economy, create 
jobs, and improve our relations with global partners.
  Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, as Americans we do not live 
in isolation. We live in a world that has been transformed over the 
past half century through America's political, security and economic 
leadership. Globalization is a reality that has created both 
opportunities and challenges, but overall more people on this planet 
are living better, healthier and more secure lives today than at 
anytime in human history.
  Global economic engagement is a reality that every American 
encounters every day in our offices or when we shop in any department 
or grocery store. Trade is essential for a strong, vibrant American 
economy and to sustain and create the jobs that keep America working. 
Yet, not all trade agreements are the same or beneficial in my opinion. 
In fact, most trade agreements that have come before this House in my 7 
years in Congress, such as CAFTA, have been harmful because they have 
ignored key provisions for workers' rights, the environment and 
necessary safeguards for American workers.
  Peru is a nation of 28 million people--one-tenth the size of the 
United States. It is a South American nation that faces the challenges 
of extreme poverty, narco-trafficking and an inequitable distribution 
of income. Peru is searching for economic opportunities that will lift 
its people and keep its citizens working. It is my hope that the United 
States will partner with Peru in this effort.
  The cost of entering into a trade agreement with the United States is 
no longer about limitless access to our market without regard for 
workers' rights or the environment in the exporting nation. That 
premise has vanished with the new Democratic majority. With new 
Democratic leadership in Congress priorities have changed and the U.S.-
Peru Free Trade Agreement is a positive example of how Democrats are 
shaping the trade debate to address real concerns. I support this 
agreement because we need strong, positive political and economic 
relations with partners like Peru. We also need trade agreements that 
reflect the priorities of the American people, such as a respect for 
workers' rights and the environment.
  This agreement, because of the determination of Democratic 
leadership, especially Chairman Rangel and Chairman Levin, delivers a 
fully enforceable commitment that Peru will adopt, maintain and enforce 
core labor laws and practice the five basic international labor 
standards, as set forth by the International Labor Organization's (ILO) 
Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. These 
principals include: the freedom of association; the effective 
recognition of the right to collective bargaining; eliminating all 
forms of forced or compulsory labor; the effective abolition of child 
labor; and, the elimination of discrimination in employment. 
Furthermore, there is a binding, fully enforceable commitment 
prohibiting the lowering of labor standards. As a result, the 
Government of Peru has taken clear action to implement ILO standards 
which must be recognized as a significant step forward and a direct 
consequence of a Democratic agenda that values workers' rights. The 
labor situation in Peru is far from perfect, but these positive steps 
would not be taking place without Democrats demanding change in order 
for this FTA to move forward.
  On the environment, for the first time in a U.S. free trade 
agreement, we will have recourse to enforce the environmental 
commitments our trading partner has made. Beyond merely preventing Peru 
from scaling back their environmental protections, this agreement 
contains enforceable provisions that will require significant 
improvements in their environmental policies. For instance, it requires 
that they crack down on the illegal logging of endangered species that 
we know is going on today. Without this trade agreement's provisions, 
this illegal logging will only continue unabated.
  Since 1991, we have granted 98 percent of Peruvian exports free 
access to United States markets. In 2006, Peru's exports to the United 
States totaled $5.8 billion, mostly gold, copper, copper ore and 
petroleum products. The U.S. exports to Peru totaled $2.9 billion. To 
put the United States-Peru trade relationship into perspective: our 
neighbor to the north, Canada, has a population of 32 million people, 
four million more than Peru, and they exported $302 billion worth of 
goods to the United States in 2006.
  Since Peru already has almost unlimited access to the U.S. market, 
this agreement largely grants U.S. interests, manufacturers and 
agricultural products expanded access to the Peruvian market. Under the 
agreement, 80 percent of United States exports of consumer and 
industrial goods will immediately enter Peru duty-free. The duties on 
an additional 7 percent of products would be phased out within 5 years 
and the remainder eliminated in 10 years. Furthermore, two-thirds of 
our agricultural exports would immediately receive duty

[[Page 30599]]

free access, including products like high quality beef, wheat, soybeans 
and processed food products.
  What we have before us today is an opportunity to set a new standard 
for America's trade policy. An opportunity to change the template we 
will use for future trade agreements away from the flawed policies of 
the past and towards fair trade, labor protections for all workers, and 
responsible environmental practices around the globe.
  I want to commend the leadership of the House for their determination 
to demand high standards and a solid trade agreement unlike any we have 
seen during the previous 6 years of the Bush administration.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the United 
States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act.
  I support this agreement because it's a good deal for American 
businesses. Most Peruvian goods and services already enter the United 
States duty-free, yet American businesses face significant barriers to 
Peruvian markets. This agreement creates a two-way street.
  This agreement is important economically, but it is equally important 
from a foreign policy perspective. This agreement means a great deal to 
the Peruvian people and government, and will be an important tool to 
blunt the anti-American rhetoric of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. 
Mr. Chavez envisions himself the heir to Fidel Castro, and has tried to 
turn all of Central and South America against the United States. 
Fortunately, his recent efforts to influence Peruvian elections were 
rejected.
  Moreover, this agreement sends a clear signal we appreciate the 
friendship of the Peruvian people and look forward to a long, 
prosperous relationship with them.
  Although I am pleased we are considering this free trade agreement, 
it is regrettable it will not soon be followed by FTAs for South Korea, 
Colombia, and Panama. Our annual trade with Peru currently stands at $5 
billion. We do $11 billion per year in trade with Colombia and $55 
billion per year with South Korea. Failure to enact FTAs with them 
would represent lost opportunities.
  Colombia is our staunchest ally in South America. In Colombian 
President Uribe, we have a friend willing to stand up not only to 
Chavez but to the narco-terrorists, corrupt army officers, right-wing 
paramilitaries, and left-wing guerillas. In short, he's done what we've 
asked him to do, yet we continue to contrive reasons to keep a free 
trade agreement for Colombia off the floor. Certain members of this 
body are all too ready to point out the lack of friends the United 
States has in the world today. In Colombia, we have one, but the 
Democratic leadership insists on poking them in the eye.
  Global trade is blamed for a great many ills. As my colleague Mr. 
Flake noted earlier in the debate, it is far easier to focus on the 
shuttered storefront than on the benefits of a given trade agreement. 
Indeed, it takes courage to overcome the inclination to insulate 
ourselves, and it may seem counterintuitive to many Americans who pride 
themselves on self-reliance. But it is the right thing to do.
  We live in a global economy. We in Washington should embrace this 
reality. Businesses of all sizes, not just giant corporations, already 
do so. In a column last year, author Thomas Friedman told of a small 
business owner in Nebraska who makes insulated concrete forms for 
buildings. With the help of machinery imported from South Korea, he now 
can make the forms at construction sites, which removes the need to 
ship them to end users. His main customer is in Kuwait.
  Madam Speaker, these are the multinationals of the future. Without 
aggressive trade promotion by our government, these stories will 
continue to unfold, but American businesses won't be part of the tale.
  Remember, the United States accounts for only 4 percent of the 
world's customers. Information technology, the cornerstone of my 
district's economy, accounts for more than $250 billion in exports per 
year, or 25 percent of U.S. exports. Workers in this industry have 
suffered as certain jobs have moved overseas, yet it would be a mistake 
to base our trade policies on that half of the equation. To reject free 
trade agreements and embrace protectionist policies is to invite other 
countries to do the same.
  Madam Speaker, to remain strong is to open our doors to trade and 
competition. We can build walls, but they won't make the problem go 
away. They'll only hide it, allow it to fester and ultimately weaken 
all of us.
  I urge my colleagues to engage the global economy. Pass free trade 
agreements--for Peru, Panama, Colombia, South Korea, and rise to the 
challenge ahead of us.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition 
to H.R. 3688, the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement 
Implementation Act, introduced by my distinguished colleague from 
Maryland, Representative Hoyer. This piece of legislation amends the 
antiquated Trade Agreements Act of 1979, and while it represents an 
attempt to incorporate workers' rights and environmental concerns into 
trade legislation, I believe that it does not contain strong enough 
guarantees against labor violations and other human rights abuses. 
Madam Speaker, we cannot ignore the gross violations of labor rights 
allowed to persist by the Peruvian government or the loss of American 
jobs this legislation might entail.
  The nation of Peru has made many strides forward in recent history. 
It has begun to move down the path of democracy, fighting off state-
sponsored socialism, seen some government accountability to the 
judiciary, and entered into the global economy.
  However, Peru has a long way still to come. Peru has yet to adopt and 
apply the 1998 International Labor Organization's Declaration of 
Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, an obligation that serves as 
a condition for the current legislation. While this is a step in the 
right direction, it is more advisory than binding, requiring FTA 
nations to ``refer only'' to ILO Declarations, and will be incredibly 
difficult to enforce.
  The Free Trade Agreement we are considering today calls on the 
Peruvian government to apply greater labor rights and environmental 
standards in order for the agreement to persist. Peru must adopt, 
maintain, and enforce laws relating to labor rights that meet ILO 
standards as stated in the ILO 1998 Declaration. This is a step 
forward, but to make it truly significant, the United States must adopt 
some sort of accountability mechanism in order to ensure compliance on 
the part of the Peruvian government. Until such accountability exists, 
I do not believe we should be approving this agreement.
  The Peru FTA agreement further obligates the government of Peru to 
implement and enforce various environmental multilateral agreements to 
which Peru is already a part. This too has the potential to lead to a 
precarious situation. Peru is already a party to the mentioned 
multilateral environmental agreements and has failed to apply or 
enforce their obligations outlined therein, why would they change now? 
We must create incentives for our trade partners to comply with 
international labor and environmental standards, and I fear there is 
much more to do in the case of Peru.
  The United States-Peru trade agreement as it stands today allows 
Peruvian products tariff free entry into the United States while 
products from the United States are taxed upon their entry to Peru. 
This trade practice has been deeply detrimental to American workers who 
are consistently undercut by cheaper, tax-free, foreign labor, 
services, and products. Under the proposed the Peru FTA, products and 
services from the United States will no longer be muddled by the 
protections policies of the past, with 80 percent of goods being 
allowed tax-free entry into the Peruvian market immediately, with the 
remaining 20 percent gaining free entry over time. While this may prove 
beneficial to corporations within the United States, we must be careful 
that this trade policy does not benefit the wealthy few at the cost of 
both American and Peruvian workers.
  A great deal of Americans worry about the effect this legislation 
will have on their job security. It is important to note that the Peru 
FTA does not pose a significant threat to American jobs, with trade 
from Peru not consisting of a heavy intensity and consequently not 
having any significant impact on the American economy. I acknowledge 
that we are engaged in a global economy and am eager to move forward in 
free trade agreements with nations throughout the world, however, I 
cannot overlook the threats this legislation poses. Since the era that 
began with the NAFTA agreement, over 3 million manufacturing jobs have 
been lost and while the Peruvian economy may not be large enough to 
have a ``significant'' impact upon the United States, I fear that the 
impact it will have will be enough to further harm the American worker 
who has already suffered a decrease in job security and wages. The 
American people elected this Congress to change the trajectory that the 
United States was on, and this legislation is more of the same foreign 
investment and procurement policy that the majority of American 
rejected after the inception of NAFTA and CAFTA.
  This bill provides security in the sense that it gives United States 
the authority to administrate dispute settlement proceedings, arbitrate 
certain claims made against the United States, and enact specific 
tariff modifications. This bill does not hold the Peruvian government 
accountable, the United States' authority to arbitrate disputes and 
claims made against the

[[Page 30600]]

United States will not be sufficient to ensure the protection of the 
Peruvian and American workers that this legislation will harm. The 
ability to protect American companies does not equate to meaningful 
security to the parties involved.
  I applaud the efforts made by this legislation in ensuring worker 
rights within Peru, however, I believe it falls short of being 
comprehensive in a number of areas. Issues of worker rights abroad have 
been endemic within the United States since the signing of the North 
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) as reports emerge of the horrific 
conditions of workers within the countries with whom we engage in 
trade. Urging Peru to ``refer'' to ILO standards will not ensure that 
American trade policy is not meant merely to benefit the few 
multinational corporations and rather protects all our partners in 
today's globalized economy, including foreign laborers. The Peruvian 
people have been working hard to restore social justice and labor 
rights after the ruthless dictatorship of Former President Fujimori. We 
must be cautious not to undermine any organic social justice movements 
within Peru that has spent the last 6 years trying to get their 
Congress to pass the General Labor Law.
  Beyond my concerns with this piece of legislation itself is a further 
concern about the intentions of this Administration. I do not believe 
we can trust the Bush Administration to enforce the labor and 
environmental provisions of this or any other FTA. We are not in a 
position to enter into any new FTA's at this time, I believe we must 
ensure the security of American economic lives before we rush into any 
new agreements. Furthermore, only yesterday, Peru's Labor Ministry 
declared a national mining sector strike as illegal.
  This strike, headed by Peru's National Federation of Mining, 
Metallurgy, and Steel Workers, began Monday and was aimed at 7 
pressuring the government to pass legislation ensuring increase rights 
and benefits of miners. Peru's Labor Ministry responded by ``ordering 
them back to work'' and declaring their strike illegal. No concessions 
have been made by the government and miners face being fired should 
they not return to work by the end of the week. This is not a 
government we can trust to uphold labor rights.
  The world is now immersed in a globalized economy. We cannot go back 
in time, nor do we want to. We must work with what we are given now. 
The U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement is an important first attempt, 
however, we must continue to work to ensure that labor rights are 
universally acknowledged and environmental standards systemically 
upheld on a larger scale than this legislation entails. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in opposing this legislation, and to call for 
still more to be done.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 801, the bill is considered read and the 
previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MICHAUD. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 285, 
nays 132, not voting 16, as follows:

                            [Roll No. 1060]

                               YEAS--285

     Ackerman
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Castle
     Castor
     Chabot
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeGette
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hastert
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Hill
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Jordan
     Keller
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lynch
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McHenry
     McKeon
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mitchell
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Ortiz
     Pascrell
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--132

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Berkley
     Bishop (UT)
     Boucher
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Burgess
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Chandler
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Ellison
     Filner
     Goode
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Jones (NC)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Markey
     Marshall
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Peterson (MN)
     Rahall
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Taylor
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tsongas
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Waters
     Watson
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Boren
     Braley (IA)
     Buyer
     Carson
     Cubin
     Giffords
     Hunter
     Jindal
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Miller (FL)
     Moore (WI)
     Oberstar
     Poe
     Rothman


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there 
are 2 minutes remaining on this vote.

                              {time}  1119

  Mr. PALLONE and Mr. CONYERS changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''

[[Page 30601]]


  Mr. MARCHANT and Mr. YOUNG of Alaska changed their vote from ``nay'' 
to ``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 1060 I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  Stated against:
  Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, earlier today I narrowly missed 
the vote on rollcall No. 1060. Had my vote been recorded, I would have 
voted ``nay.''

                          ____________________