"No" on Peru

"NO'' ON PERU -- (House of Representatives - November 05, 2007)

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) is recognized for 5 minutes.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, this week the new Congress, the Democratic Congress, will consider its first bilateral trade agreement during this session: the Bush-negotiated free trade agreement with Peru. This week, this Democratic Congress has an opportunity, an opportunity to prove that we are different from previous Congresses. We have an opportunity to demonstrate we have heard from America's voters who are fed up with job losses, trade deficits, and race-to-the-bottom wages for our middle class.

The American people expect us to reflect their concerns. Yet this bill is merely another godchild of NAFTA.

What is the public telling us? In a March 2007 poll by the Wall Street Journal/NBC before the recent scandals involving tainted food and toy imports, 54 percent of Democratic voters said free trade agreements have hurt the United States compared with 21 percent who said they have helped.

Then the Wall Street Journal in an October 4 front-page article stated that by a poll they had done, by a nearly 2 to 1 margin, Republican voters believe free trade is bad for the U.S. economy, a shift in opinion that mirrors Democratic views and suggests trade deals could face high hurdles under a new President.

And then a Democratic pollster found that 67 percent, two-thirds, of Americans believe unfair trade agreements are making it harder for Americans to keep good jobs. Thus, defeating the Peru free trade agreement isn't just about politics. It is about what Democrats stand for in terms of policy.

Why should we defeat this bill? We should defeat the free trade agreement that the Bush administration negotiated on behalf of Peru first to protect America's farmers and America's workers. With a $3 billion trade deficit with Peru already, we have lost knit-wear jobs, we have lost agricultural jobs in onions and asparagus, and the list grows longer. We will only lose more jobs as we did with NAFTA unless you fix the innards of the agreements to stem the outsourcing in the first place.

We should defeat the Peru trade agreement to stand up for the 3 million soon-to-be displaced Peruvian small farmers who will fall victim to the flood of cheap South American imports that will come from adjoining countries because there are no readjustment provisions in the measure, just as there were no readjustment provisions under NAFTA and 2 million Mexican farmers got displaced, many of them fleeing to our country. Where are those 3 million Peruvian farmers supposed to go with no transition provisions in the agreement?

We should defeat the Peru agreement because it does not contain support ``Buy America'' policies in it. We should defeat the Peru trade agreement because we know the Bush administration cannot be trusted to enforce it. They haven't balanced any trade agreement. There are no accounts that are positive in these trade agreements that have been signed. In fact, this country this year will rack up close to a $1 trillion trade deficit with the world. The American people are saying stop, fix what is wrong before you do anything more.

Why would we adopt an agreement that will ruin the rain forest and put indigenous peoples at risk? Why would we do that to the Third World when we see demonstrations against the United States already all over Latin America. Wouldn't you think we would stand up for safe foods and safe imports? We know salmonella and other tainted foods are coming our way from Peru because so much of the seafood comes in here. Why don't we fix the inspection procedures before we adopt another free trade agreement that is not free in the end?

Why won't we adopt trade agreements that would ensure that Peruvians will still have access to medicines they need, despite the demands of a large pharmaceutical company? Why don't we stand up for the average person in these agreements?

Why would we support an agreement that is going to cause such hollowing out of Peruvian agriculture that they're going to have to displace that production with increasing coca production and illegal drugs? Why would we support an agreement like that?

We have to stop the perpetuation of the NAFTA model that leaves poverty and imbalance in its wake while failing to fulfill any promises of benefits to the middle class in either country.

Mr. Speaker, the New Direction Congress must take a new direction on trade, and I urge my colleagues to reject the Bush NAFTA expansion to Peru and support a new trade model that puts the peoples of the Americas first.

Source