Peru Free Trade Agreement

Floor Speech

PERU FREE TRADE AGREEMENT -- (House of Representatives - September 17, 2007)

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow on Mr. Hare's remarks this evening and also oppose the pending Peru Free Trade Agreement, which we think is scheduled to come up on this floor in early October.

My question really is: With the United States trade deficit galloping out of control, this year it is likely to hit a trillion dollars in the red, as we continue to outsource jobs across this country. Recently, Ford Mazda in Monroe, Michigan, just north of our district, announced another 2,000 to 3,000 jobs gone. Those are not counting all the supplier jobs outsourced. So why would we be considering another NAFTA-like trade agreement here in this Congress?

The trade deficit with Mexico after NAFTA's passage has gotten worse every single year, going deeper and deeper and deeper into debt, more of our jobs outsourced to that country. Right before NAFTA's passage, there was a positive balance and they tried to make it look good to convince Congress it is getting better. Then we fell into heavy deficit every single year.

We are already in deficit with Peru. In fact, every year it has been getting worse and worse and worse with that nation. So we are even in worse shape with Peru than we were with NAFTA when that was signed. Why would we want more of the same based on that trade model?

Now, one can ask what is happening down there that we have to do this now, with the communities across this country, some of them like my own with over 8 percent unemployment, and why should we sacrifice more U.S. jobs to these flawed trade agreements.

I think I put my finger on it with Peru. There is something called the Camisea Natural Gas Project. In 2004, that country started exporting through this mega gas project exports to our country and other places in the world. Two pipelines started to deliver natural gas from the Amazon River basin at that time. One of the problems with this project is the number of spills and the environmental degradation that is occurring in that region due to this pipeline.

With America so energy dependent, rather than using our power to become energy independent here at home, we are getting ourselves involved in these trade agreements to try to bring more and import more power to this country rather than investing those dollars here. The price of that import of power is a loss of more of our jobs. That is not a trade-off this Member is willing to make.

In addition to that, the Peru Trade Agreement, as we understand it, has several really terrible provisions in it. First of all, the privatization of social security. In Peru, under their system, the agreement would allow private companies like Citibank or other U.S. investors to sue Peruvian taxpayers if Peru itself tries to reverse the partial privatization of the social security system that occurred in that country in the last decade. What a terrible, terrible provision to have for the people of Peru. We believe in the integrity of our Social Security system. Why should we impact theirs?

In addition to that, the Peru agreement as proposed would affect the access to generic medicines to people who live in a very impoverished country like Peru where over half of the people are poor. A number of nongovernmental organizations based in the United States and Latin America have confirmed that this agreement would reduce access to essential medicines by the poor population of Peru and that the agreement's provisions far exceed international standards established by the WTO. Why would we want to do that to the people of Peru?

Moving on to food safety, why would we want to harm the people of our country, because the agreement does not address serious food safety issues that currently plague our relationship with Peru. Indeed, it is one of the 20 top exporters of shrimp to the United States market, and FDA inspectors have consistently rejected seafood from Peru for numerous reasons, including filth, adulteration, misbranding, and presence of various dangerous food pathogens.

There has been poisonous swordfish, salmonella in shrimp, dangerous histamines in mahi-mahi. Shipment after shipment of dried, canned, frozen and fresh fish products from Peru have proven to be damaged. Why would we want to encourage more of that?

Let me also say one of my concerns about this Peru agreement, as with Mexico, it has no adjustment policies for the poorest of the poor. In other words, the Peru Free Trade Agreement does not take into account many farmers in Peru who are going to be displaced because, as other First World agricultural products flood in there, there are no provisions in the agreement to take care of the poor farmers who will be displaced. Why would we do this to our continent?

Mr. Speaker, there are many other reasons to oppose the Peru Free Trade Agreement which I will put in the Record and come to the floor in future days to discuss.

Source