[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 2]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 1617]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      ANDEAN TRADE PREFERENCE ACT

                                  _____
                                 

                          HON. DONALD M. PAYNE

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                       Friday, February 11, 2011

  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, while it is my hope that the Andean Trade 
Preference Act has promoted trade between the Andean countries and the 
United States and in so doing it has acted to limit drug production, I 
and many of my colleagues remain deeply concerned over certain recent 
conduct by the Peruvian government with reference to its treatment of 
U.S. investment in Peru. I would ask that a letter my colleagues and I 
recently sent in regard to this matter be made a part of the Record. 
And I would hope our Government would work diligently to protect the 
interests of our U.S. citizens in this regard. I would hope before 
Congress is asked to extend this Act again, the Peruvian government 
will have addressed this concern so that it will not be an issue when a 
further extension is requested.

                                                 February 8, 2011.
     Hon. Hillary Clinton,
     Secretary, Department of State,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Timothy F. Geithner,
     Secretary, Department of Treasury,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Madam Secretary and Mr. Secretary: We are writing you 
     to raise a serious concern relating to the treatment of a 
     U.S.-based company by the Government of Peru. We understand 
     that this company has received disparate treatment by that 
     Government and is apparently the subject of a possible 
     expropriation. We understand that the Department of State is 
     aware of this situation and that it has already expressed its 
     concern to the Government of Peru.
       As we understand it, Doe Run Peru (``DRP''), owned by the 
     Renco Group, a U.S.-based holding company, owns a smelter in 
     Peru that has been in operation for almost 100 years, though 
     DRP has only operated the smelter since 1997. At the time 
     that DRP acquired the smelter from the Government of Peru, 
     DRP agreed to assume certain environmental upgrade costs 
     associated with the smelter, and the Government of Peru 
     assumed soil remediation costs for cleaning up the 
     surrounding community. We understand that by 2009 DRP had 
     invested $315 million in meeting the terms of the agreement, 
     and, during this same period of time, and up until this date, 
     the Government of Peru has spent nothing to fulfill its 
     obligations.
       While DRP has proposed good faith negotiations, to date the 
     Government of Peru has refused to enter such discussions. 
     Though DRP has completed eight and a half of the nine 
     environmental commitments contained in the 1997 agreement, 
     DRP has indicated its willingness to take further and 
     additional steps, but for whatever reason the Government of 
     Peru refuses to enter such negotiations.
       We urge the Treasury Department and the State Department to 
     work together on this matter as it raises very serious 
     issues, particularly since the U.S. provides major funding to 
     the Inter-American Development Bank that in turn is quite 
     active in Peru. A de facto expropriation would raise 
     questions about the appropriateness of further IDB investment 
     in Peru. We would hope that your two Departments would 
     communicate on this matter with the IDB and express the 
     concerns of this Government and the consequences that might 
     flow from an expropriation by the Government of Peru.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Donald M. Payne,
     Member of Congress.

                          ____________________