[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 23]
[Senate]
[Pages 31987-31997]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   UNITED STATES-PERU TRADE PROMOTION AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT--
                               Continued

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote that 
was scheduled for 2:15 occur at 2:30, and the 15 minutes between now 
and 2:30 be equally divided in the usual fashion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise in opposition of the Peru Trade 
Promotion Agreement. While the Peru Trade Promotion Agreement includes 
important labor and environmental provisions, I do not believe that it 
represents a large enough departure from

[[Page 31988]]

the failed NAFTA-style free trade model to merit my support.
  Instead of fast-tracking new trade agreements through Congress, we 
need to take a deep breath and assess the impact of our failed trade 
policies and take the country and our economy in a better direction.
  We should focus on fixing the problems created by NAFTA and other 
trade agreements, extending trade adjustment assistance for displaced 
workers, reinvigorating our domestic economy, and creating jobs for 
hard-working Americans.
  The inclusion of labor and environmental protections in the Peru deal 
is an important and positive development, but without an administration 
willing to enforce these provisions, the promises ring hollow.
  The Bush administration has an abysmal record when it comes to 
enforcing trade regulations, and it is not a stretch of the imagination 
to assume that their unwillingness to enforce regulations will extend 
to Peru.
  Without strong enforcement of these important labor and environmental 
provisions, they are nothing more than words on a piece of paper.
  Already we are seeing the Peruvian government backtrack on the spirit 
of the environmental provisions included in the agreement. 
International environmental groups have documented a number of recent 
actions taken by Peru's government that provide a serious cause for 
alarm.
  As an example, in September, a law was proposed to remove half a 
million acres from the Bahuaja-Sonene National Park and devote the area 
to oil and gas exploration and exploitation. The Superintendent of 
Peru's natural protected areas determined that excluding the zone from 
the national park would violate both the Peruvian Constitution and 
Peru's trade promotion agreement obligations. The whistleblower in this 
situation was immediately fired from his post.
  And in July, Peru offered concessions for oil and gas exploration and 
exploitation for over a fifth of the Peruvian Amazon rainforest despite 
a report by the national ombudsman determining that elements of this 
process were illegal
  What we are seeing with these recent developments in Peru related to 
environmental protections is that despite increased enforcement 
mechanisms in the free trade agreement for labor and for the 
environment, the NAFTA model perpetuates a ``race to the bottom'' that 
has become the unfortunate hallmark of free trade agreements.
  When trade agreements are used only as a tool to provide cheap labor 
for American companies, everyone loses. The United States can be a 
leader in the global economy if we promote fair trade that creates 
sustainable markets for American goods and services, protects the 
environment and improves wages and standards of living for American and 
foreign workers.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as chairman of the Committee on the 
Judiciary, which has jurisdiction over our Nation's intellectual 
property laws, I feel compelled to comment on the intellectual property 
chapter of the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement.
  In the Trade Promotion Authority Act of 2002, Congress instructed the 
administration to negotiate agreements with other nations that, among 
other things, reflect a standard of protection for intellectual 
property ``similar to that found in United States law.'' In many 
respects, the intellectual property chapter of the Peru Trade Promotion 
Agreement meets that goal, for it will require Peru to raise its 
standards of protection for our intellectual property.
  I am concerned, however, that some aspects of the intellectual 
property chapter prescribe the rules for protection so specifically 
that Congress will be hampered from making constructive policy changes 
in the future. The art of drafting the chapter is in raising 
intellectual property protections to a standard similar to ours, 
without limiting Congress's ability to make appropriate refinements to 
the intellectual property law in the future. The flexibility necessary 
for the proper balance is found in many provisions of the intellectual 
property chapter, for which I commend the U.S. Trade Representative. 
Other provisions, however, are too fixed and rigid, and may have the 
perverse effect of restricting the Congress's ability to make 
legitimate changes in United States law, while keeping our 
international commitments. I expect that in the future, with improved 
consultation between the Committee on the Judiciary and the Office of 
the United States Trade Representative, we can avoid these concerns.
  Our trade promotion law also instructed the administration to 
negotiate agreements that provide strong protection for new and 
emerging technologies and new methods of transmitting and distributing 
products embodying intellectual property. This, too, is an objective I 
support. Under our laws, many such new technologies and consumer 
devices rely, at least in part, on fair use and other limitations and 
exceptions to the copyright laws. Our trade agreements should promote 
similar fair use concepts, in order not to stifle the ability of 
industries relying on emerging technologies to flourish.
  Finally, a longstanding priority of mine has been the promotion of 
affordable, lifesaving medicines to address the public health problems 
afflicting many, primarily developing Nations--particularly those 
resulting from HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and other epidemics. The 
United States made such a commitment in the 2001 Doha Declaration; I 
was pleased that the U.S. Trade Representative reaffirmed this 
commitment in May and that Peru's rights to promote access to medicines 
is preserved in this agreement.
  There is much in the intellectual property chapter of this free trade 
agreement that I support. I look forward to the Judiciary Committee's 
being consulted by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative earlier, 
and more frequently, in the future, so that we can continue to improve 
on these issues.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, when voters gave Democrats control of 
Congress, they wanted a new direction on trade policy. They wanted 
trade agreements that would hold our trading partners to the same labor 
and environmental standards expected of U.S. companies. And they wanted 
trade agreements that would level the playing field for U.S. 
businesses. Democrats listened.
  I am supporting the Peru FTA because it is a new model for trade 
agreements that includes enforceable labor and environmental 
protections. For the first time, the U.S. will have the right to hold a 
trading partner accountable if labor or environmental issues become a 
problem.
  The Peru FTA benefits Wisconsin companies and workers. Wisconsin 
exports to Peru have increased from $9.3 million in 2002 to $43.5 
million in 2006. This agreement will help trade between the U.S. and 
Peru flourish and keep businesses and jobs in Wisconsin, something I 
couldn't say about several previous trade agreements. Further, the Peru 
FTA eliminates the current 10 percent tariff on U.S. goods entering 
Peru. This will remove barriers to Wisconsin exports and make Wisconsin 
businesses even more competitive.
  The Peru FTA is the first step in a new direction for trade policy 
that will enforce labor and environmental standards and help U.S. 
businesses gain access to new markets.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss H.R. 3688, the 
United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement. Washington State is 
extremely trade dependent, and this agreement will have direct impacts 
to my constituents at home, particularly farmers growing asparagus. In 
addition, I am concerned about existing labor practices for miners in 
Peru.
  The domestic asparagus industry has been economically injured by the 
Andean Trade Preference Act's, ATPA, extended duty-free status to 
imports of fresh Peruvian asparagus. There has been a 2000-percent 
increase in Peruvian asparagus imports into the U.S. since ATPA was 
enacted. The asparagus industry suffered the greatest negative impact 
from the ATPA, according to the U.S. International Trade

[[Page 31989]]

Commission's analysis of the agreement. The effects of the agreement to 
Washington State's asparagus industry were dramatic.
  Prior to the ATPA, there were over 55 million pounds of asparagus 
canned in Washington State, roughly two-thirds of the industry. By 
2007, all three asparagus canners in Washington relocated to Peru. As 
asparagus production fell, I fought to provide assistance for these 
hard-working men and women whose industry had been devastated.
  To mitigate the impacts to growers, I tried to get them trade 
adjustment assistance. I have secured funding over the past several 
years to conduct research on a mechanical harvester to make this labor-
intensive crop less costly to produce. Most recently, I helped secure 
$15 million in the farm bill for a market loss assistance program for 
asparagus growers. This funding will help farmers who have continued to 
grow asparagus despite the challenges ATPA has presented. I am hopeful 
that this program will help growers continue to invest in asparagus.
  Many of our asparagus growers have turned to other crops, and this 
Peru trade bill will help them, along with many other farmers in 
Washington State. While I have serious concerns about the continued 
effects on the asparagus industry in the U.S. and in Washington State, 
overall this bill will have a positive impact for agriculture in 
Washington State.
  I would also like to note my concern about labor practices for miners 
in Peru and the unintended negative impact that this agreement may have 
on them.
  A report by the Congressional Research Service indicates that while 
Peru endorses the International Labor Organization's core labor 
standards in the PTPA, concerns remain about their compliance with and 
the enforcement of these standards. I was discouraged to learn that 
while Congress was considering the PTPA, the Peruvian Government 
stalled in its efforts to secure statutory protections for miners and 
declared it illegal for metal miners to continue striking in support of 
stronger labor laws.
  As chair of the Senate HELP Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace 
Safety and an advocate for labor rights and workplace protections, I am 
concerned that the Peruvian Government's most recent actions do not 
convey a good-faith effort to reform its labor laws. I have worked 
tirelessly to ensure that miners in our own country have the safety 
protections on the job that they deserve. In light of the tragic mine 
disasters in West Virginia, I was proud to help write and pass the 
landmark MINER's Act last year. Miners put their lives on the line 
every day to provide for their families, and we must work to ensure 
they have a respected voice at the table and that their rights are 
protected.
  While I believe this agreement will ultimately do more good than 
harm, I hope my colleagues will join me in encouraging the Peruvian 
President, Congress, and Labor Minister to fulfill their promise and 
pass much needed labor reform legislation without hesitation.
  As you may know, Washington State is the most trade dependent State 
in the Nation. From apples to potatoes to Microsoft and Boeing, we rely 
heavily on international trade. This trade agreement, when taken as a 
whole, will do more to bolster the economy of my State and the Nation, 
and thus merits support.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, in my view, the United States has pursued 
failed trade policies for the past 20 years or more. This failed trade 
policy is reflected in our record trade deficits with the world. This 
failed trade policy has led us to accept a one-way street in trade 
where we allow too many countries access to our markets without 
insisting that they give us reciprocal access to theirs.
  I have opposed trade agreements when they were in the same failed 
mold as our past trade policy, when they clearly were not requiring a 
more level playing field for U.S. manufacturers, farmers, and service 
sector employees, and when they failed to insist on basic 
internationally recognized labor and environmental standards. However, 
I have supported trade agreements that leveled the playing field and 
that did include strong and enforceable internationally recognized 
labor and environmental standards.
  I particularly commend the work of my brother, Representative Sander 
Levin, chairman of the House Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee, and 
others, for substantially improving the Peru Free Trade Agreement by 
reopening this agreement to incorporate enforceable worker rights and 
environmental standards in the body of the agreement. This is something 
Democrats have been working to include in trade agreements for over a 
decade. I agree with my brother who has characterized this 
groundbreaking achievement as, ``an historic breakthrough on trade by 
amending pending U.S. free trade agreements to incorporate a fully 
enforceable commitment that countries adopt and enforce the five basic 
international labor standards, subject to the same dispute settlement 
mechanism and remedies as other FTA obligations.''
  This breakthrough is surely of critical importance. For the first 
time in any FTA, the labor chapter requires both the United States and 
Peru to adopt and maintain domestic laws to implement the five core 
standards incorporated in the 1998 ILO Declaration on Fundamental 
Principles and Rights at Work. These include, one the right to 
organize; two, the right to bargain collectively; three, prohibitions 
on forced labor; four, protections for child labor; and five, freedom 
from employment discrimination.
  The agreement also requires for the first time that the United States 
and Peru adopt and maintain domestic laws to implement the obligations 
in the seven multilateral environmental agreements that both the United 
States and Peru are party to. All of these added obligations are 
subject to the same dispute settlement mechanism that applies to all 
other FTA obligations.
  Peru is a small economy and makes up less than 1 percent of overall 
U.S. trade, and in 2006 was only our 43rd largest export market. 
Furthermore, 98 percent of U.S. imports from Peru already enter the 
United States duty free under the Andean Trade Preferences Act and the 
General System of Preferences. The Peru FTA will at least give American 
exports a more level playing field in Peru by allowing them to enter 
Peru duty free, which is currently not the case, although Peruvian 
products already enter the U.S. duty free.
  As a rule, I do not like the idea of trade agreements coming up under 
fast-track procedures because it limits Members of Congress to an up-
or-down vote with no chance to amend or improve it. Thankfully, we did 
not extend fast- track authority. In this case, my brother, Sandy 
Levin, and others successfully amended this agreement through an 
historic bipartisan agreement which vastly improved the agreement. The 
changes that were made represent an important break with the failed and 
flawed trade policies of the past and signify a better approach to 
trade that supports American workers and protects the environment. For 
all of these reasons I will vote for the Peru Free Trade Agreement 
implementing legislation.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the Senate will soon be voting on the 
first measure to implement a trade deal since the announcement last 
spring by the administration and some Members of Congress of an 
agreement to facilitate the consideration of trade legislation.
  The centerpiece of that agreement was to be the inclusion in future 
trade agreements of meaningful labor standards. In fact, because last 
spring's announced agreement was only a set of principles, and not 
actual language, the Peru Trade Promotion Agreement bill before the 
Senate is the first opportunity to review the details of that 
agreement.
  I will touch on the new labor provisions included in the Peru 
agreement shortly, but the agreement is far more than just provisions 
overseeing labor standards. And in those areas, the

[[Page 31990]]

trade agreement with Peru comes up short. In fact, the agreement looks 
just like the provisions in other trade agreements that have been 
stamped out over the past decade and more by the NAFTA template--a 
failed model of trade that has helped ship millions of family-
supporting American jobs overseas, while too often failing to produce 
the promised enhanced standard of living for the families of our 
trading partners.
  Like those previous trade agreements based on the NAFTA model, the 
Peru agreement contains language identical to the devastating foreign 
investor rights provisions of NAFTA that undermine federal, state, and 
local protections for the environment, health, and public safety.
  Like those previous trade agreements based on the NAFTA model, the 
Peru agreement renders meaningless our longstanding common sense 
government procurement policies, including the Buy America law which 
requires that taxpayer dollars be used by the federal government to 
purchase American made goods and services when they are a reasonable 
option.
  Like those previous trade agreements based on the NAFTA model, the 
Peru agreement undercuts pro-environmental policies such as recycled 
content requirements, and undermines our ability to require imported 
food to meet our safety standards. As the consumer advocacy group 
Public Citizen has noted, the Peru trade agreement includes NAFTA 
provisions that require the United States ``to treat imported food the 
same as U.S.-produced food, even though more intensive inspection is 
needed to compensate for Peru's weak domestic regulatory system.''
  And like those previous trade agreements based on the NAFTA model, 
the Peru agreement includes NAFTA provisions that undermine the right 
to affordable medicines for poorer countries established in the World 
Trade Organization's Doha Declaration.
  With all of this NAFTA baggage included in the Peru agreement, one 
might ask if there is any reason to believe this agreement won't just 
reproduce the same disastrous results we have seen from failed trade 
policies over the past two decades.
  And that brings us to the new language included in the Peru agreement 
stemming from the deal announced last spring between a number of 
Members of Congress and the administration.
  Regrettably, and perhaps predictably, that new language does not live 
up to the billing it received at the time of the announcement. In fact, 
according to an analysis done by Professor Mark Barenberg of Columbia 
University, the new labor provisions are actually weaker than current 
law. Professor Barenberg compared the proposed new labor provisions 
with those of trade deals already in effect, and found that the Peru 
agreement undermines existing trade laws, which Barenberg states are 
already ``weak, unreliable, and inadequate to the task.''
  For example, the Barenberg report notes that under current law, ``if 
Peru fails to comply with internationally recognized labor rights, then 
the United States can impose unlimited sanctions against Peru, can 
provide benefits to Peru in any area of foreign relations, or can 
withdraw special trade benefits in whole or in part, to ensure that 
Peru comes into compliance. The U.S. can target specific sectors, 
products, or actors. The U.S. can impose sanctions or withhold benefits 
until those specified actors comply.''
  But under the U.S.-Peru agreement, ``if Peru fails to comply with the 
vague labor ``principles'' or with Peru's domestic labor law, Peru can 
choose to pay the United States only half the monetary value of the 
trade benefits that accrue to Peru as a result of the violations--
creating a cost-benefit incentive for Peru to commit violations. If 
Peru chooses this monetary penalty, then the sanction is not targeted 
on any sector or any actor. The Agreement establishes no system of 
positive benefits (carrots) to Peru for compliance.''
  The Barenberg report gives another example. Under existing law, ``if 
Peru fails to comply with internationally recognized labor rights, then 
private parties in the United States, such as workers and labor unions, 
have the right to petition the President to impose sanctions or take 
other measures against Peru to ensure compliance.''
  But, while private parties, including trade unions are allowed under 
section 301 of the Trade Act to file petitions with the President, 
alleging that a trading partner has violated a trade agreement, under 
the U.S.-Peru Agreement, private parties are given ``no right to 
directly initiate complaints against Peru for violating its obligation 
to enforce the vague labor ``principles'' or domestic labor law. Only 
the President may bring such complaints--and, in fact, the President 
has never filed a complaint under the labor-rights provisions of any 
bilateral trade agreement.''
  Here is still another example. Under existing law, ``if the President 
decides that Peru is failing to comply with internationally recognized 
labor rights, he can impose sanctions. He need not gain the approval of 
another decision-maker.''
  By contrast, under the U.S.-Peru agreement, ``if the President 
decides that Peru is failing to comply with vague labor ``principles'' 
or domestic labor law, he cannot impose sanctions. He can only file a 
complaint that may lead to international arbitration to determine 
whether Peru stands in violation. Hence, the decision to impose 
sanctions must be taken by two decision-makers, rather than one--the 
President and a panel of international arbitrators. And international 
arbitrators will apply international law, which holds that an 
obligation to adhere to the vague labor principles does not entail an 
obligation to adhere to actual labor rights, let alone adhere to any 
concrete performance measures or indicators.''
  As others have noted, Professor Barenberg's report may explain why no 
major labor, environmental, human rights, or consumer protection groups 
have endorsed the Peru agreement.
  Our trade policies of the past two decades have been disastrous. They 
have contributed to the loss of several million family-supporting jobs 
in this country. They have left communities across my State devastated, 
and I know the same is true in communities around this country.
  Our trade deficit is still out of control, as we send more and more 
of our wealth overseas, much of it in the form of factories that 
provided entire communities with decent, good-paying jobs. I hold 
listening sessions in each of Wisconsin's 72 counties every year. This 
is my 15th year holding those listening sessions, listening to tens of 
thousands of people from all over Wisconsin. I completed my 1000th of 
those sessions just about a year ago, and I can tell you that there is 
nearly universal frustration and anger with the trade policies we have 
pursued since the late 1980s. Even among those who would have called 
themselves traditional free-traders, it is increasingly obvious that 
the so-called NAFTA model of trade has been a tragic failure.
  I voted against NAFTA, GATT, and permanent most favored nation status 
for China, in great part because I felt they were bad deals for 
Wisconsin businesses and Wisconsin workers. At the time I voted against 
those agreements, I thought they would result in lost jobs for my 
State. But, as I have noted before, even as an opponent of those trade 
agreements, I had no idea just how bad things would get.
  Nor does the problem end with the loss of businesses and jobs. The 
model on which our recent trade agreements have been based 
fundamentally undermines our democratic institutions. It replaces the 
judgment of the people, as reflected in the laws and standards set 
forth by their elected representatives, with rules written by 
organizations dominated by multinational corporations. Food, 
environmental, and safety standards set by our democratic institutions 
are subject to challenge if they conflict with those approved by 
unelected international trade bureaucracies. Even laws that require the 
government to use our tax dollars to buy goods made here, rather than 
overseas, can be challenged.

[[Page 31991]]

  We cannot live in isolation. We are in a global economy, and it makes 
good sense to have reasonable trade agreements with those who want to 
trade with us--trade agreements that have broad-based support and that 
will provide broad-based economic benefits to all sectors of our 
economy and the economies of our trading partners. That is not what we 
have now, and we shouldn't pass another bill to implement one of these 
flawed agreements until we can straighten out the twisted trade model 
that has done so much damage to the personal economies of thousands of 
families across the country.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the U.S.-Peru Free 
Trade Agreement, FTA. As my colleagues are aware, I am a strong 
proponent of free trade, having voted for every trade agreement that 
has been negotiated during my 31 years in this body.
  Despite that fact, I have concerns over some recent changes to the 
Peruvian agreement and, more specifically, the deal that was struck 
between the administration and the congressional Democrats on May 10. 
Specifically, the changes to the intellectual property rights, IPR, and 
labor chapters of this agreement will, I believe, become more relevant 
when we as a nation begin to negotiate future free-trade agreements 
with deserving nations.
  It is my sincere hope that I am wrong and that we will not in the 
near future face serious challenges to our national labor laws as a 
result of this agreement. Unfortunately, we will not have to wait, 
however, to realize the devastating effects that the new trade deal 
will have on our IPR concerns.
  The labor chapter of the U.S.-Peru Free Trade Agreement could put 
U.S. Federal and State labor laws at significant risk. Several 
provisions of the labor chapter of the U.S.-Peru trade agreement create 
an unacceptable risk that the United States will be required to change 
important provisions of U.S. Federal and state labor law or be subject 
to trade sanctions. Given that the purpose of the May 10 agreement was 
to ensure that Peru adopted strong labor provisions, not the United 
States, Congress's implementation of this agreement should provide an 
explicit safe harbor for U.S. labor law.
  Peru FTA requirement to adopt ``fundamental labor rights'' puts 
right-to-work, freedom of association and other major U.S. labor 
provisions at significant risk. Article 17.2 of the Peru FTA requires 
both Peru and the United States to ``adopt and maintain in its statutes 
and regulations, and practices there under, the following rights as 
stated in the International Labor Organization ILO Declaration on 
Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its Follow-up (1998) (ILO 
Declaration) where it affects trade between the countries. These rights 
are freedom of association, recognition of collective bargaining, 
elimination of forced/compulsory labor, effective abolition of child 
labor, prohibition of worst forms of child labor, and elimination of 
employment discrimination.
  The Peru FTA does not provide any definition of these fundamental 
rights, leaving the interpretation of what constitutes ``freedom of 
association'' or ``collective bargaining'' to a dispute settlement 
panel appointed by the U.S. and Peruvian Governments.
  Given the agreement's reference to the ILO declaration, it is widely 
expected that such a dispute settlement panel would in fact look at and 
rely at least partially on the standards of the relevant ILO core 
conventions associated with these rights, much as the ILO does each 
year in its followup reports required by the ILO declaration. The 
recent push by House Democrats to have Peru enact very detailed changes 
to its treatment of--contract laborers as part of its implementation of 
the agreement an issue not specifically addressed in the Peru FTA--
confirms the wide range of issues subject to this chapter.
  The United States, which has only ratified two of the eight ILO core 
conventions, faces substantial risk that a panel will find that U.S. 
labor law violates the Peru FTA, requiring the U.S. to change its law 
or face trade sanctions. Key U.S. laws subject to that risk include:
  State right-to-work rules, which standard labor market analysis and 
several other countries, such as Canada, find imposes an improper 
restraint on the ability of workers to bargain collectively or to 
strike, as nonunion workers have the authority to vote on whether to 
strike;
  U.S. prohibitions on the admission to unions of persons connected 
with the Communist Party or the Klu Klux Klan given that ILO standards 
require the admission of all applicants;
  U.S. prohibitions in the National Labor Relations Act, NLRA, on the 
inclusion of supervisors in union, which is required by ILO 
conventions;
  Exclusive bargaining rights provided under the NLRA, which are in 
conflict with ILO standards requiring minority unions be allowed to 
function;
  Various Federal and State laws that place reasonable and balanced 
limits on the right to strike, which are in conflict with the ILO 
conventions' prohibition on virtually all restrictions on the right to 
strike;
  U.S. laws permitting the permanent replacement of striking workers, 
which the ILO has indicated may pose a risk to the effective 
enforcement of the right of collective bargaining when it occurs on an 
extensive basis;
  Fair Labor Standards Act minimum age of 14 and state laws where there 
are no minimum ages for children working in agriculture contravenes the 
ILO minimum age convention; and
  Lack of equal remuneration or comparable worth rules.
  The Peru FTA is likely to require State labor law changes as well. By 
requiring the adoption of these rights at the Federal level, the Peru 
FTA in combination with the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause, 
Article VI, section 2, is also expected to require any changes made at 
the Federal level to preempt conflicting State law. As a result, State 
right-to-work rules or lower minimum age standards would face 
significant risk of being overturned by dispute settlement panels.
  The Peru FTA requires parties to promote migrant worker rights. Annex 
17.6 requires the United States and Peru to engage in a wide range of 
capacity building work. While much of it could be useful, its 
obligation to promote migrant rights, without regard to the legal 
status of a migrant, creates a troubling requirement that the United 
States would be promoting rights for illegal immigrants at odds with 
Congress's direction. For years, I have been a steadfast supporter of 
fair intellectual property laws that are appropriately enforced. The 
Constitution itself provides for the creation of intellectual property, 
and it has been the process used by brilliant U.S. innovators to 
develop, market, and sale groundbreaking new products for years. In the 
sea of red trade deficits we have faced for so many years now, IP and 
the innovative U.S. products that use its protection have been one of 
the few areas where the U.S. has a trade surplus.
  Traditionally, trade agreements have strengthened American innovation 
abroad. However, with the newly renegotiated text found within the 
U.S.-Peru FTA's IPR chapter, we see that we have walked back from the 
rigorous IPR protections found in previous agreements in favor of 
weakened provisions. These changes mainly affect one of America's most 
productive industries, that of pharmaceuticals.
  The U.S.-Peru FTA weakens IP protection in three ways:
  First, the agreement does away with patent linkage. Linkage requires 
a country, before it approves a generic medicine for sale, to ensure 
that the brand-name medicine is no longer under patent. Without 
linkage, governments can help facilitate patent infringement. Linkage 
doesn't hinder access to medicines, and it is not about compulsory 
licensing. It is about protection of basic patent rights. The proposed 
changes replace this simple enforcement procedure with a complex one. I 
don't see what that accomplishes.
  Second, the changes shorten the period of data exclusivity for 
innovative medicines, authorizing a shorter period than we require here 
in the United

[[Page 31992]]

States. This change is not only unfair to U.S. innovators but devalues 
the incentive for launching new drugs in developing countries. Here is 
why. In developing countries, it is often difficult to enforce patent 
rights. But data protection is effective and relatively easy to 
administer. It often provides the only real protection 
biopharmaceutical companies have when they invest significant resources 
to launch new products. You take away the protection and you take away 
the incentive to launch. It is hard enough to get companies to launch 
medicines quickly in these countries because the markets are so small. 
If you shrink data protection, you effectively shrink the market even 
further.
  Finally, the new template no longer requires countries to add time to 
patent terms for pharmaceuticals to make up for undue delays in 
marketing approval or patent grant. We require patent restoration here 
in the United States, so why not abroad? Because, critics argue, patent 
terms are long enough as they are. But without patent term restoration, 
we actually go the other direction. Without patent term restoration, 
the effective patent term could actually shrink significantly.
  From what I understand, the Democrats insisted on the changes to the 
IPR chapter in order to grant greater access to medicines for 
developing nations. What is ironic to me is that these changes will do 
just the opposite.
  All of these changes were ostensibly part of an effort to promote 
access to medicines to poor people. A noble goal. But what is so absurd 
about this is that the changes may actually have the opposite effect 
and harm U.S. competitiveness in the process.
  Why would we backtrack on IPR? Some may say that we are rich enough 
so that we can afford to give away the fruits of our ingenuity. But 
that is like saying we are rich enough to voluntarily close down our 
factories so that our competitors can have a chance. We don't have that 
luxury.
  Some say backtracking on IPR is necessary to help the poor and sick. 
That, too, is wrong. IPR is all about incentives. If you protect IPR, 
then people will have a stronger incentive to develop new and 
innovative products and bring them to market faster. If you don't 
protect IPR, then those incentives are greatly diminished. Here is what 
we might expect with weak IPR protection:
  There would be less incentive to launch products early in developing 
countries. Innovative companies would have less reason to show up when 
their technology could immediately be copied and sold by others who 
made no contribution to the R&D.
  If there were fewer brand-name launches, there would be fewer 
generics. As brand-name medicines go off patent, generic medicine 
companies can rely on the safety approvals and market secured by the 
research-based companies, making more generics available to more 
people. Without the brand-name company securing the safety approvals 
and creating the market, fewer generics can enter the marketplace, and 
fewer people will get the medicines they need.
  As a result, the poor would not have access to the newest and most 
effective medicines.
  It is easy and convenient to use IPR as a scapegoat for poor health 
care systems. The reality is that access to medicines is helped, not 
hindered, by strong IPR protections. Problems in access to medicines 
are most often due to other factors, such as poor infrastructure, 
taxes, tariffs, an ineffective health care system, and different 
government funding priorities. By pointing at IPR, we divert attention 
from these much more critical problems. In sum, the changes we have 
foisted upon Peru are harmful not only to U.S. interests, but also to 
the very interests they purport to serve.
  I applaud the USTR and her staff on their hard work in negotiating 
this agreement, especially in the area of intellectual property rights. 
However, I know there are several Senators in this body who represent 
States that contain numerous innovative companies that benefit from 
strong intellectual property laws and enforcement. While the overall 
agreement strengthens American IPR, it does so in a way that is not as 
vigorous as agreements in the past.
  Millions of jobs across the country depend on these laws.
  I know firsthand that many countries around the world would like 
nothing more than to see the U.S. intellectual property laws and 
enforcement diminished. Why? Because they want to exploit us.
  They want to be able to steal our inventions.
  They want to be able to ripoff our best and brightest ideas. They 
want our taxpayers to fund billions of dollars of extremely important 
research and then take it from us for free.
  I have been assured by the administration that the issues that I have 
raised today will never become a problem for the United States. While I 
am confident that my concerns remain valid, I am unwilling to stand in 
the way of the President's trade agenda. The Peruvian trade agreement 
will provide needed trade benefits to many Utah businesses that 
exported $7.7 million worth of goods in 2006, not to mention the 
overall benefit of the agreement to the U.S. economy as a whole.
  Therefore, I will reluctantly vote for the U.S.-Peru FTA before us 
today. However, I will not give up on improving future trade agreements 
in the critical areas of labor and intellectual property rights.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I have never opposed a free trade agreement, 
FTA, although I have sometimes had reservations or concerns about 
different elements of the agreements.
  I believe free trade encourages economic growth, improves living 
standards by making a wider variety of goods and services available at 
more affordable prices, and creates good-paying jobs. In fact, exports 
from the U.S. account for more than 10 percent of our annual gross 
domestic product and one in six manufacturing jobs are related to 
exported products.
  I also understand that the benefits of trade accrue not only to 
Americans, but also to workers in other countries; but this is also to 
our benefit. The more free trade encourages economic growth and job 
creation around the world, the more demand there will be for high-value 
American products and services. Trade fosters closer economic relations 
with other countries and those economic ties generally lead to improved 
political relations, which benefits our national security.
  For these reasons, I have been a strong, consistent, and vocal 
supporter of free trade. And for these reasons, I take my vote against 
the Peru FTA today extremely seriously. I have decided to oppose the 
Peru FTA not because I have any quarrel with Peru or because I am in 
any way opposed to expanding our bilateral trade relations with Peru. 
In fact, I strongly support the original Peru FTA.
  My opposition to the Peru FTA is rooted entirely in the agreement 
reached by the U.S. Trade Representative, USTR, with Members of the 
other body in May of this year. That agreement forced the U.S. to 
renegotiate the Peru, Panama, and Colombia FTAs to add new requirements 
for labor and environmental protections and weakened traditional trade 
agreement protections for certain U.S. intellectual property, IP, 
related to pharmaceutical products.
  I am concerned about the labor and environment provisions, but I am 
simply puzzled by the intellectual property changes. I am not sure what 
my colleagues hoped to gain by weakening standard protections for U.S. 
intellectual property through this trade agreement. I see no reason why 
U.S. legislators would want to weaken the ordinary protections that are 
normally accorded to pharmaceutical intellectual property in our 
bilateral trade agreements. Peru did not, in the course of 
negotiations, ask us to weaken the IP requirements. Peru was perfectly 
willing to abide by the greater protections of the original FTA.
  If the goal of these changes was to provide better access to 
lifesaving medicines in Peru, I worry that their effect could have the 
exact opposite result. Countries with weaker IP protections will have a 
difficult time encouraging U.S. companies to do business

[[Page 31993]]

there. Respect for private property--including intellectual property--
is essential to encouraging innovation. Without assurances that new and 
creative products and services will not be stolen by unscrupulous 
competitors or forcibly devalued by governments, there is a reduced 
incentive to take the economic risks that are necessary to achieve 
groundbreaking inventions.
  And why should we expect that those who want to weaken protections 
for U.S.-owned intellectual property will stop at pharmaceuticals? Are 
computers, movies, music, and other products that involve valuable U.S. 
intellectual property next? U.S. intellectual property is one of our 
most valuable exports; it is not in the national interest of the United 
States to unilaterally weaken protections for it.
  I would like to share some statistics that underscore my concern for 
protecting U.S. intellectual property. First, IP-related industries 
provide some of the highest quality jobs in the U.S. According to some 
studies, IP-related jobs pay as much as 40 to 50 percent more than jobs 
that are not dependent upon intellectual property. That means that 
devaluing U.S. intellectual property will hurt U.S. workers. Further, 
economists estimate that over 50 percent of U.S. exports depend upon 
intellectual property protection of some sort, up from below 10 percent 
50 years ago. My colleagues know that theft of U.S. intellectual 
property is rampant overseas, costing U.S. companies many billions of 
dollars annually and costing the U.S. economy high-paying jobs. We 
should use FTAs to enhance protection for U.S. intellectual property, 
not weaken it.
  Finally, I want to explain to my colleagues that I made my concerns 
known to the USTR on several occasions. When I first began hearing that 
the USTR might renegotiate the various Latin American FTAs to secure 
support in the other body, I made sure the USTR knew of my strong 
concerns about weakening IP protections. As the discussions progressed, 
six members of the Finance Committee wrote a letter to the USTR in May 
of this year outlining our very serious concerns with all of the areas 
under renegotiation: labor, environment, and intellectual property. 
Finally, when the USTR, Ambassador Schwab, came to meet with members of 
the Finance Committee this fall I again expressed my concerns about 
weakening the standard protections that had been traditionally accorded 
to IP in our other FTAs. Because the administration apparently made no 
attempt to address our concerns or to assure us that other actions 
could be taken to enhance protections for valuable U.S. intellectual 
property, I am compelled to oppose the Peru FTA.
  I urge my colleagues to give additional thought to whether it is wise 
to unilaterally weaken the intellectual property protections we 
normally include in FTAs. These provisions better not be included in 
future FTAs or I will work for their defeat.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to support the legislation 
to implement the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement. The 
agreement promises to significantly strengthen our commercial and 
noncommercial ties with Peru and represents a new era for U.S. free 
trade agreements.
  This agreement will significantly increase our goods trade balance 
with Peru. As a result of U.S. unilateral preference programs, about 98 
percent of imports from Peru presently benefit from duty-free 
treatment. The agreement will move beyond one-way preferences to 
reciprocal commitments. Immediately, 80 percent of the consumer and 
industrial products our firms export to Peru will be duty free; 
remaining Peruvian tariffs will phase out over 10 years. The 
International Trade Commission estimates that, upon the agreement's 
full implementation, U.S. exports to Peru will increase by $1.1 
billion, while U.S. imports from Peru will increase by $439 million. 
Exporters across our country depend on world markets. In my home State 
of Connecticut, this agreement will open an important new market for 
our manufactures of transportation equipment, machinery, and 
electronics, among other products.
  The gains are likely to be even more significant for America's 
service industries. Take, for instance, the insurance industry, which 
has played a vital role in Connecticut's economy. The agreement will 
enable U.S. insurance companies to establish a presence in Peru while 
ensuring strong regulatory transparency, including license approval 
within 120 days. Similarly, Connecticut's vibrant financial services 
industry stands to benefit from the agreement's robust financial 
services chapter. Among other benefits, the chapter's provisions will 
enable U.S. asset managers to provide cross-border portfolio management 
services, even without establishing a physical presence in Peru.
  But the agreement's implications transcend commercial boundaries. It 
will strengthen our alliance with Peru, a key ally in Latin America, 
contribute significantly to Peru's economic development, and extend our 
commitment to transparency and rule of law in Latin America.
  The most recent free trade agreement this Chamber considered was with 
Oman in 2006. Consistent with my longstanding record of supporting 
trade as good for America's economy, and economic development in Arab 
and Muslim countries as important for peace in the world, I voted in 
favor of legislation to implement the Oman FTA. But during 
consideration, I voiced my concerns about the Oman FTA's labor 
provisions, announcing in this Chamber that: ``I will not continue to 
support future free trade agreements unless the Administration becomes 
serious about negotiating labor and other improvements. . . .'' By 
including basic worker rights recognized by the International Labor 
Organization, with full enforceability equal to all other provisions, I 
am satisfied that the Peru FTA addresses my concerns.
  The inclusion of strong labor provisions, as well as unprecedented 
inclusion of multilateral environmental agreements, means this 
agreement's significance will extend beyond Peru. Indeed, this FTA 
represents a strong standard for our future bilateral free trade 
agreements. I applaud House Ways and Means Chairman Rangel and House 
Trade Subcommittee Chairman Levin for achieving consensus with the 
administration to address these key issues.
  I have high hopes for expanding our trading relationship with Peru 
and for continuing to responsibly open markets across national borders. 
And I look forward to working with my Senate colleagues to enact 
legislation implementing FTAs that the administration has already 
signed with Colombia and Korea.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I strongly support H.R. 3688, the United 
States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act, PTPA.
  The agreement before this Chamber today stands as another important 
milestone in the development of our relationship with Peru. The pending 
trade bill will help level the commercial playing field and solidify a 
genuine bilateral partnership based on free and fair trade that 
benefits not only Peruvians, but also U.S. workers and businesses. 
Ratification will also demonstrate to the people of Peru that we stand 
by them as an important democratic ally in a strategically vital region 
of the world.
  As it currently stands, 98 percent of goods imported from Peru 
already enter the United States duty-free. If this agreement is passed 
and fully implemented, 80 percent of U.S. exports of consumer and 
industrial goods and over two-thirds of agricultural exports will gain 
duty-free access to the Peruvian market of some 29 million citizens. 
The agreement also contains provisions that address intellectual 
property rights, electronic commerce, customs and trade facilitation, 
and these provisions will reduce barriers on investment. The U.S. 
currently exports nearly $2 billion in goods to Peru, a figure certain 
to grow as a result of increased access to this vibrant South American 
market.
  While the economic benefits we will enjoy as a result of passing the 
PTPA are important, we must not ignore the

[[Page 31994]]

political benefits as well. Peru stands as a shining example of the 
potential for democracy and open markets in South America. Following 
free and fair elections in 2006, Peru's economy continues to grow at an 
impressive rate of 8 percent annually, and its poverty rate has been on 
the decline since 2001. It is also important to recognize the 
assistance the Peruvian government has provided the United States in 
combating drug trafficking, countering regional security threats, and 
providing for our energy needs. Implementation of this agreement will 
lead to greater prosperity and development for the Peruvian people, 
helping to strengthen their nation and our relationship with them.
  I have long advocated for economic freedom and open markets. Free 
trade has long served to promote economic growth, generate jobs, raise 
wages and lower prices for American workers and consumers. I believe in 
the ingenuity and resilience of the American worker and am not afraid 
of their ability to compete successfully in the global marketplace. 
America is home to the best and the brightest, and should have the 
opportunity to play a significant role in an increasingly globalized 
marketplace. By passing this agreement, we will reaffirm our commitment 
to nations that share our interest in open markets, economic freedom, 
and democracy.
  I urge my colleagues to support swift passage of this important 
agreement.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I would like to briefly address H.R. 
3688, the Peru Trade Promotion Act. While this agreement stands to 
provide significant benefits to our country's agricultural industry, it 
comes with unfortunate consequences for our country's asparagus 
growers. My home State of Washington is one of the top asparagus 
producing States in the country. However, since the passage of the 
Andean Trade Preferences Act, Washington has lost 21,000 of its 30,000 
acres dedicated to asparagus and all three of Washington's asparagus 
canning facilities have now moved to Peru. This is the reason that I 
worked so hard to include a $15 million Market Loss Program dedicated 
to asparagus growers in the Senate's version of the 2007 farm bill. 
This program will support domestic asparagus producers, helping them 
plant and harvest more efficiently and remain competitive in the 
international market. In the past 17 years, the $200 million Washington 
asparagus industry has been reduced to a $75 million industry. To say 
that I am concerned about this trade agreement's effect on Washington's 
asparagus farmers would be an understatement. I implore the Senate, as 
it continues negotiations on the farm bill to support these hard 
working individuals remain competitive in our international economy.
  With that said, the Peru Trade Promotion Act stands to significantly 
benefit the majority of farmers both in Washington and throughout our 
Nation. Under this agreement, Washington businesses will increase their 
exports to Peru by an estimated 45-62 percent and will immediately 
eliminate significant tariffs on many key goods. For example, 
Washington leads the Nation in potato exports and the current tariffs, 
now reaching up to 25 percent, will be eliminated immediately on most 
potato products. Washington's wheat farmers, whose exports are 
currently valued at over $314 million, will benefit greatly by the 
elimination of the 17-percent tariff on wheat. Washington's third 
largest industry, beef, has much to gain from the elimination of the 
25-percent duty on beef. Dairy, our second largest farm industry will 
benefit from the elimination of a tariff system that has reached as 
high as 68 percent for dairy products being exported to Peru. Perhaps 
the most significant impact for Washington, however, will be for our 
fruit growers. Washington ranks as the second largest fruit exporter in 
the Nation, bringing in $833 million for the State. Duties on fruit 
exported to Peru are currently 25 percent and would be immediately 
eliminated under the PTPA--a huge win for Washington and its fruit 
growers. Peru is a new growth market for Washington's fruit industry 
and the elimination of these tariffs will make our fruit much more 
competitive in the export market.
  Given the significant benefits the vast majority of farmers in my 
State stand to reap from the Peru Trade Promotion Act, I will vote in 
favor of it, despite my grave concern for its effect on our asparagus 
industry. As PTPA is implemented, I will continue to fight to support 
asparagus growers through the Market Loss Program included in the 
Senate farm bill or any other means available to me and I strongly urge 
this body to do the same. The PTPA will benefit many, but it is up to 
us to assist those whose livelihoods are affected in the process of its 
implementation.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my support and will 
vote for the Peru Free Trade Agreement.
  On November 18, 2003, the administration formally notified Congress 
of its intent to initiate negotiations for a Free Trade Agreement, FTA, 
with Peru. The United States and Peru announced a bilateral deal on an 
FTA on December 7, 2005, after resolving certain agriculture and 
intellectual property rights issues, as was signed April 12, 2006. The 
Peruvian Congress approved FTA legislation on June 28, 2006 by a vote 
of 79-14. Legislation to implement the Peru FTA was submitted by 
President Bush on September 27, 2007 and this legislation was approved 
by the Senate Finance Committee by voice vote on October 4. On October 
31, the House Ways and Means Committee approved implementing 
legislation (H.R. 3688) by a vote of 39-0. The full House voted to 
approve the Peru FTA by a vote of 285-132 on November 9, 2007.
  U.S. trade with Peru has doubled over the past 3 years, reaching $8.8 
billion in 2006. More than 5,000 U.S. companies export their products 
to Peru, and over 80 percent of these are small and medium-sized 
companies that stand to benefit significantly from U.S.-Peru Trade 
Promotion Agreement, PTPA. According to the American Farm Bureau 
Federation, after full implementation of the agreement, U.S. 
agricultural exports to Peru will increase by more than $700 million 
per year.
  According to the Department of Commerce-International Trade 
Administration, when the agreement enters into force, U.S. farmers and 
ranchers will also become much more competitive by benefiting from 
immediate duty-free treatment of 90 percent of current U.S. 
agricultural exports. Key U.S. agriculture exports such as cotton, 
wheat soybeans, high-quality beef, apples, pears, peaches, cherries, 
and almonds will be duty free upon entry into force of the Agreement. 
Peru will phase out all other agricultural tariffs within 17 years.
  According to the United States Department of Agriculture, USDA, 
exports of farm products boost Colorado's farm prices and income. Such 
exports support about 10,100 Colorado jobs, both on and off the farm in 
food processing, storage, and transportation. Agricultural exports 
amounted to $852 million and made an important contribution to 
Colorado's farm cash receipts in 2006 that totaled nearly $5.6 billion. 
The State of Colorado depends on world markets and exported shipments 
of merchandise to 197 foreign destinations in 2006 totaling $8.0 
billion. This is an increase of 44 percent over the 2002 level of $5.5 
billion.
  The USDA further states that as a leading source of farm cash 
receipts at nearly $3.3 billion, Colorado's ranchers and beef industry 
benefit from exports in a number of ways. For instance, Peru will 
immediately eliminate the 25 percent duties on the beef products of 
most importance to the U.S. beef industry--Prime and choice cuts. Peru 
will provide immediate duty-free access for U.S. exports of standard 
quality beef through the establishment of an 800 ton tariff-rate quota.
  The dairy industry in Colorado is the second largest source of state 
farm cash receipts. Our dairy producers will benefit immensely from the 
PTPA. Peru will immediately eliminate its system of variable levies 
facing U.S. exporters. Also, Peru will immediately eliminate tariffs on 
whey. And, all Peruvian duties on dairy products will be eliminated 
within 17 years, with duties

[[Page 31995]]

on some dairy products eliminated earlier.
  The corn producers are Colorado's fourth largest source of farm cash 
receipts. Colorado corn producers will benefit under the PTPA by 
eliminating its system of variable levies facing U.S. exporters. Under 
the current system, tariffs can be as high as the WTO ceiling of 68 
percent on some corn products. Moreover, all currently applied duties 
on crude corn oil will be phased out over 5 years; and on white corn 
and other corn products within 10 years.
  The pork producers are Colorado's seventh largest source of farm cash 
receipts. Peru will phase out all duties, which are currently as high 
as 25 percent, on fresh, chilled, and frozen pork within 5 years.
  There are other markets that Colorado will benefit from as this 
agreement becomes a reality. The elimination of Peruvian tariffs on 
products such as computer and electronic products, machine 
manufacturers and chemical manufacturers will provide a competitive 
boost to Colorado companies.
  This historic agreement will provide a level playing field for 
American workers and farmers, ensuring that the United States gets the 
full benefit of trade with this dynamic market. In the early 1990s, the 
United States unilaterally opened its market to Peru, and nearly 
everything imported from Peru enters the U.S. market duty free. 
However, when Americans sell their goods to Peru, they face average 
tariffs of 11 percent for manufactured goods and 16 percent for 
agricultural goods. PTPA is meant to correct this unfair trade 
imbalance by eliminating nearly all tariffs on U.S. exports to Peru 
within a few years. The U.S. International Trade Commission estimates 
this agreement will add $1.1 billion to U.S. exports and $2.1 billion 
to U.S. GDP. U.S. farmers and ranchers must continue to find a way to 
stay competitive in today's world market.
  I urge my colleagues to join me today in supporting passage of the 
United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Senate will finish consideration of the 
U.S.-Peru Free Trade Agreement today, with a vote this afternoon. 
Before getting into the merits of the FTA, I wanted to take a moment to 
discuss a broader issue. It is very unfortunate that the Bush 
administration's only policy towards Latin America has been to 
negotiate free trade agreements.
  I just returned from leading a bipartisan delegation to Latin America 
and last year I headed a similar delegation to different Latin American 
countries, including Peru. What we heard repeatedly there in almost 
every country we visited was that the Bush administration had neglected 
the region.
  And, in fact, they are right. We have cut development assistance, 
eliminated programs, and repeatedly overlooked our neighbors to the 
south. In the place of a robust and comprehensive policy of engagement, 
exchange, aid, and a variety of trade tools, we have a simplistic, 
singular policy of free trade agreements.
  The Bush administration's narrow approach has been harmful in many 
ways. We have left a vacuum of diplomacy and engagement in many areas, 
which has allowed unconstructive forces space to expand influence. And 
our free trade strategy has been very divisive in many of the 
countries--a foreign policy that divides rather than unites.
  I support engagement with Latin America; I strongly support being a 
better neighbor, but I do not support this narrow policy tool that the 
Bush administration has fixated on.
  The Peru Free Trade Agreement is the first agreement that 
incorporates the new provisions on labor rights, the environment, and 
access to medicines from the May 10 agreement with Speaker Pelosi, 
Congressmen Rangel and Levin, and Chairman Baucus.
  These changes are significant. For the first time ever a trade 
agreement will include an enforceable obligation for each country to 
respect core, internationally recognized labor standards. I hope that 
this new provision will have a dramatic impact over time.
  If they are faithfully enforced, they can help to reduce inequality 
and establish broader middle classes in the developing countries with 
which we have free trade agreements. I applaud these and other changes 
that were part of that May 10 agreement.
  While the May 10 agreement is very important, I have generally 
opposed free trade agreements for several reasons.
  First and foremost, I think that for many years now, U.S. trade 
policy has been one dimensional--we have had one agreement after 
another, yet so many other aspects of economic policy have been 
absolutely neglected.
  While we have approved new FTAs with 12 different countries since 
2001, we still do not have an adequate trade adjustment assistance 
program. Studies show that those workers who lose their job due to 
trade on average see a substantial cut in wages in their next job. We 
need to do a better job of ensuring that these workers do not get left 
behind before we move forward with more and more agreements.
  While we have approved all of those new FTAs, the Bush administration 
has absolutely fallen down on the job when it comes to enforcement of 
trade agreements. The Clinton administration brought on average 11 
cases per year against foreign trade barriers at the WTO. The Bush 
administration has brought only a few more than 11 cases total over the 
last 7 years. The Clinton administration was very aggressive in using 
other tools of trade policy to fight against unfair trade and 
unjustifiable trade barriers. The Bush administration has taken 
numerous measures to weaken U.S. fair trade laws. The Bush 
administration has been impotent in responding to China's currency 
manipulation. The continued inaction on this critical issue has led to 
a situation that could destabilize global financial markets and 
economic prospects. While the May 10 agreement includes important new 
labor provisions, the Bush administration has repeatedly demonstrated 
that it will not enforce them.
  It is hard for me to see how I can go home and tell my constituents 
that I want to support more and more trade agreements when the present 
administration has refused to aggressively support U.S. rights under 
our current trade agreements.
  Finally, I remain concerned that U.S. free trade agreements have hurt 
many American workers and unwittingly caused problems in some of our 
free trade partners. The U.S. has lost about 3 million manufacturing 
jobs since 2001. Many of these jobs have gone overseas, replaced by 
imports from low-wage countries.
  These lost jobs are offset by lower prices, no doubt. But a lost job 
has a more profound impact than our statistics account for. A lost job 
means a strain on a family. Large concentrations of lost jobs mean 
strains on communities and local and State governments.
  Also, as we saw in Mexico after NAFTA, these FTAs can be harmful to 
communities in our trading partners. More than a million Mexican 
farmers lost their land and livelihood after NAFTA. NAFTA was supposed 
to end illegal immigration to the U.S.; instead by pushing poor rural 
farmers off their land, it helped cause an explosion of illegal 
immigration.
  So I recognize that this FTA reflects major improvements from the 
previous model. But, I still see many holes in U.S. trade policy that 
need to be filled. So, reluctantly, I oppose the agreement.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and the 
time during the quorum call be equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 3 minutes on each side.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

[[Page 31996]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise late in the debate because I know 
it is an important issue, and I find myself wanting to say to the 
people of Peru that this Senator who comes from the State of New 
Mexico, where almost half our people speak Spanish--a commonality 
between our two countries--would expect that I show the appropriate 
concern for the people whom this treaty will benefit. That is why I am 
here. It is entirely proper that the United States show more concern 
and more consideration and have more relationships of mutual benefit 
with the countries of Central and South America, without a doubt.
  I would like to have a few words from this Senator spread on the 
record to show that with what I have said, I concur. With this treaty, 
be it not the best because those who look at it from the standpoint of 
the best find fault here and there, it is as good as we are going to 
get and we ought to approve it. My vote will show up in favor, and that 
will be because I understand it. I understand what it means, and I am 
for the principles and the expected effect of this treaty.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask for the yeas and nays on the vote previously 
scheduled.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on the third reading of the bill.
  The bill was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass?
  The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from Connecticut 
(Mr. Dodd), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily 
absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Delaware (Mr. Biden) would vote ``nay.''
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 77, nays 18, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 413 Leg.]

                                YEAS--77

     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Wyden

                                NAYS--18

     Akaka
     Boxer
     Brown
     Byrd
     Casey
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Harkin
     Klobuchar
     Kyl
     Leahy
     McCaskill
     Reed
     Reid
     Sanders
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Whitehouse

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Biden
     Clinton
     Dodd
     McCain
     Obama
  The bill (H.R. 3688) was passed.
  Mr. CARDIN. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, with today's passage of the United 
States- Peru Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act, we have 
taken a long-overdue step to strengthen our relationship with Peru, a 
close friend and important ally in Latin America. This agreement will 
result in new economic opportunities for U.S. farmers, manufacturers, 
and service providers, and I am pleased that the Senate has finally 
voted in favor of its implementation.
  None of this would have been possible without the leadership of two 
of our United States Trade Representatives, Susan Schwab and her 
predecessor, Rob Portman. I want to thank Ambassador Portman for his 
hard work at the negotiating table that resulted in a solid agreement 
that will level the playing field for U.S. producers and exporters. 
And, I want to thank Ambassador Schwab for her dedication and 
perseverance that culminated in the May 10 bipartisan trade compromise, 
which set the stage for today's successful vote. Also meriting special 
mention for their tireless efforts are the Assistant United States 
Trade Representative for the Americas, Everett Eissenstat, and his 
predecessor, Regina Vargo.
  Here in the Senate, I want to begin by thanking the chairman of the 
Finance Committee, Senator Max Baucus. He is a true leader on trade and 
on the committee. And he is supported by a strong staff. That starts 
with the Democratic staff director on the Finance Committee, Russ 
Sullivan, and the deputy staff director, Bill Dauster, who were 
critical to the process. I also want to thank his chief international 
trade counsel, Demetrios Marantis, as well as the other members of the 
Democratic trade staff, Amber Cottle, Janis Lazda, Chelsea Thomas, 
Darci Vetter, and Hun Quach, and two individuals serving on detail to 
Senator Baucus, Russ Ugone and Ayesha Khanna.
  Of course, I am grateful for the outstanding effort of my staff as 
well. First, my chief counsel and staff director, Kolan Davis, merits 
special mention. His legislative expertise has been instrumental in 
moving countless bills and this is no exception. I also want to thank 
my chief international trade counsel, Stephen Schaefer, as well as 
David Johanson, David Ross, and Claudia Bridgeford Poteet. And, I want 
to thank John Kalitka, who is on detail to my office from the U.S. 
Department of Commerce.
  Finally, I want to thank Polly Craighill and Margaret Roth-Warren of 
the Office of the Senate Legislative Counsel for their hard work on 
this legislation. As always, Polly's patience and expertise have been 
invaluable in producing a top-notch bill. Margaret is a relatively 
recent addition to the office and already she is proving herself a very 
strong asset to our legislative team.
  Today's vote is long overdue. The May 10 compromise was expected to 
pave the way for quick consideration of all four of our pending free 
trade agreements, as well as the renewal of trade promotion authority. 
That hasn't happened as quickly as I would have liked. Still, today's 
vote is a critical first step, and I hope we can use this vote to build 
momentum toward implementing the next agreement in line, which is our 
trade agreement with Colombia. We should move the Colombia trade 
agreement as soon as possible, and I will work hard toward that outcome 
in the 110th Congress.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today the Senate voted to approve H.R. 
3688, the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation 
Act. In July of 2006, I opposed this agreement when it came before the 
Senate Finance Committee because it lacked enforceable labor 
standards--standards that Peru's President Alejandro Toledo indicated a 
willingness to support. What a difference a year makes. As a result of 
a landmark bipartisan agreement reached in May of this year, and for 
the first time ever in a free trade agreement, our agreement with Peru 
encompasses meaningful and enforceable labor and environmental 
protections.
  The labor chapter of the agreement requires both the United States 
and Peru to adopt and maintain domestic

[[Page 31997]]

laws to implement the five core standards incorporated in the 1998 ILO 
Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work: (1) the right 
to organize; (2) the right to bargain collectively; (3) prohibitions on 
forced labor; (4) protections for child labor; and (5) freedom from 
employment discrimination. The environmental chapter requires both the 
United States and Peru to adopt and maintain domestic laws to implement 
the obligations in seven multilateral environmental agreements to which 
both the United States and Peru are parties. I have long championed the 
inclusion of enforceable labor and environmental standards in free 
trade agreements, and I supported the agreement today because of these 
chapters. It is imperative that our trading partners be held to high 
labor and environmental standards, and I would not stand in support of 
this agreement had these provisions not been included.
  The Peru Free Trade Agreement is a landmark achievement that makes 
these provisions fully enforceable--subjecting these provisions to the 
same dispute resolution system that applies to the commercial 
provisions of the agreement. I urge the President, along with the 
office of the U.S. Trade Representative, to hold Peru's government 
accountable to these provisions. By ensuring that these standards are 
fully enforced, the President can solidify this agreement with Peru as 
a model for dealing with future trading partners.

                          ____________________