Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3688) to implement the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I express my appreciation to my colleague from Sacramento for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

I have to begin by saying that as I saw my friend from Sacramento stand up, I couldn't help but think about the many years in the early 1990s that I worked very closely with her late husband, Bob Matsui, on trade agreements. We worked very closely on the North American Free Trade Agreement and a wide range of other agreements. I would just like to say that I know that he would be very proud to see his wife, Doris, here participating and working very hard on this agreement.

I also have to say that I am very pleased to see so many of my colleagues and for us to, as the gentlewoman from Sacramento just said, working in a bipartisan way on this. We have the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, my very good friend from New York (Mr. Rangel), talking to Jerry Weller from Illinois, who has been a great champion of free trade for a long period of time.

I am particularly glad to see people like the distinguished chairman of the Trade Subcommittee, Mr. Levin, with whom I have, over the past several decades actually, engaged in a rigorous discussion and exchange on a lot of trade issues. We have had a different perspective in the past.

While I am not in complete agreement with every single aspect of this, I am very proud to be joining in support of his initiative here. Of course, I see Mr. Crowley who has worked hard.

On our side sitting right here, Mr. Speaker, we have our distinguished friends from Florida, the Diaz-Balart brothers, sandwiching our great friend, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, as they have demonstrated a very strong commitment to security and economic development within this hemisphere.

So I will say that we are at this moment beginning a debate on what I truly believe is one of the most important national security issues as well as economic growth issues for the United States of America, the U.S.-Peru trade agreement.

The vote on this implementing bill has been a long time in coming, as my colleague from Sacramento said. We have pending trade agreements with three Latin American countries, Colombia and Panama, in addition to this Peru agreement. And I hope very much, Mr. Speaker, since from my perspective, and I know not everyone agrees with me, but I believe very passionately, as I know my colleagues sitting here with me on the second row agree, that these three trade agreements are very, very important and the arguments in behalf of their passage are, in fact, very, very similar. As I said, we begin today with Peru, and I believe we will pass this bill with a large bipartisan majority.

I want to again commend my great friend, Charlie Rangel, and our ranking member, Jim McCrery, with whom Mr. Rangel has worked very closely on these trade agreements. I congratulate both of them for having worked so hard on this. They have worked to restore what I believe is so critically important, and that is the bipartisan tradition of trade.

I failed to mention Mr. Neal. I do, of course, recognize my friend from Massachusetts, who is obviously working on and has got to be supportive of this since he is sitting next to the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we are now restoring this great bipartisanship when it comes to trade and I think it's a great day for this institution.

The Peru agreement is an excellent place to begin to renew that support for open trade as an institution, because the economic benefits will be largely focused on the one thing we all seem to agree on. What is the one thing that every single American agrees on when it comes to the issue of trade? That is exports.

We all agree that we want to open up new markets. I don't believe that a single one of my colleagues would consider arguing that exporting goods and services from the United States of America is a bad thing.

We're all in agreement increasing our exports to foreign markets is very positive for American workers, producers and our economy at large. And the reality is that exports are central to the issue of trade with Peru. Why? Because we have long had an open door to products coming from Peru into the United States. Congress created and extended a system of trade preferences for Peru, Colombia and other countries as well, which allows their goods to enter the U.S. market. So the U.S. consumer can have access to those tariff free. These preferences have enjoyed overwhelming bipartisan support, overwhelming bipartisan support for these preferences that allow Peruvian, Colombian, Panamanian goods and services to come into this country duty free. That's existed and, again, that has enjoyed bipartisan support.

What we need to do now is we need to make sure that we take the step, having opened up our markets to them, to make sure that we open up their markets for U.S. goods and services.

That's what all three of these agreements, Mr. Speaker, are all about. We unilaterally extended duty-free access to our market because we wanted to help create real opportunities for workers and producers in this region to enter the worldwide marketplace.

Now, these preferences have been very successful. They've boosted exports to the United States and gave workers in those countries, Colombia, Peru and Panama, they gave these workers an alternative to the drug trade and other illicit industries. They've helped to usher in a new peaceful, prosperous era for all three of these countries, Peru, Colombia and Panama, where poverty is diminishing and, as well all know, democracy is solidifying.

Now it's time to make this a reciprocal arrangement. U.S. exports, things made by Americans, our workers, should get the same treatment in their markets as Panamanian, Peruvian and Colombian workers get with access to our markets. With this Peru Free Trade Agreement, we will begin to level the playing field for American workers.

I happen to believe that comprehensive, broad-based liberalization brings about the greatest economic benefits. I know some in this body might disagree. But as I've said, we all recognize the benefits of increased exports. Having opened the door on imports, we now must give our own exports equal footing.

Those who would oppose this agreement today should recognize that they oppose nothing less than the promotion of American exports, the promotion of products made by U.S. workers.

A vote, Mr. Speaker, against the Peru Free Trade Agreement is not a vote against free trade. It is a vote against giving Americans, American workers, a fair shot.

But the significance of this agreement reaches far beyond economics, as I said at the outset. Just as our system of trade preferences was rooted in foreign policy, so is this agreement; our system of trade preferences dealing with the drug problem that Mr. Rangel's been involved in for decades, and I've enjoyed working with him in that battle. Just as that is, this also is very similar in that it is dealing with a foreign policy objective of ours.

We have come to realize that one of the greatest challenges of the 21st century is the promotion and strengthening of democratic institutions throughout the globe.

This is a battle for hearts and minds. It is a struggle to ensure that liberty and the rule of law prevail over tyranny. And we heard that stated so eloquently right in this Chamber at 11 o'clock this morning when we had that spectacular speech delivered by Nicolas Sarkozy, France's new President. It is a struggle to ensure that opportunity and prosperity prevail over hopelessness that turns into extremism.

Mr. Speaker, this is a challenge that has risen in the far corners of the globe, but it also exists right here in our own backyard. Today, Latin America, as we all know, is at a crossroads. Where armed conflict, drug wars, poverty and stagnation were the norm just a few years ago, a quiet revolution of economic and political liberalization has begun to transform a continent. Slow, steady reform has put much of this hemisphere on the right path.

But there has been a resurgence in antiliberalization forces that does threaten this reform. We all know that Hugo Chavez in Venezuela is systematically dismantling the institutions of democracy and free markets in his own country and exporting his authoritarian agenda to his neighbors. We all know that all we need to do is look at his circle, his close circle of friends: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Fidel Castro, Daniel Ortega. That demonstrates the level of tyranny to which he aspires. He has already drawn Evo Morales in Bolivia and Rafael Correa in Ecuador into his orbit. Hugo Chavez and his assault on free government and free markets is a direct threat to the American ideals and the ideals, again, that were outlined so eloquently by President Sarkozy this morning, those ideals of liberty and prosperity. We want them prevailed throughout the world and we certainly want to take every step that we can to ensure that those principles of freedom and liberty and prosperity thrive right here in this hemisphere.

And yet there are bulwarks for these American ideals in the region, and Peru is a key example. Peruvian President Alan Garcia himself embodies the struggle between these two visions. He first served as President of Peru in the 1980s, governing with antiliberalization philosophy. He presided over a withering economy that offered very little hope to Peruvians. And he said to us when we, in a delegation, visited with him when we were with our great Commerce Secretary, Carlos Gutierrez, that the statist populace vision of the past has failed. At that point, Mr. Speaker, he presided over that withering economy that offers, as I said, very, very little hope to Peruvians. But unlike most of us in politics, President Garcia is today getting a second chance. Nearly two decades after his first term, he has returned to the presidency and he has learned from his mistakes. He's been a champion of this agreement and our goal of solidifying the economic and political reform that has taken place. He is part of the anti-Chavez vision for Latin America, and he is joined by other allies in reform like President Uribe in Colombia, like President Torrijos in Panama.

We have a very clear choice today, Mr. Speaker. We can strengthen the hand of Hugo Chavez, or we can strengthen the hand of the liberalizers and proponents of democracy and free markets. This is the battle for hearts and minds, and it's taking place right here in the Western Hemisphere. We know who our good friends are, and Peru, Colombia and Panama lead the pack. It's no coincidence that we embarked on trade negotiations with all three of these very important allies of ours.

I would have liked to have had a vote on each of these critical agreements today. I very much wish that we could be voting on all of them today. But I'm pleased to at least begin with Peru. And I will say again that I very much look forward to our voting, I hope just as soon as possible, on the agreements with Colombia and Panama, because the exact same arguments that I have propounded are similarly applied to Colombia and Panama, the arguments I've made for Peru. All three share the same benefits and all three pose the same risks if we fail to implement them. All three extend our trade system, our trade preference system to American workers and producers, and all three are critical to our quest to strengthen and solidify political and economic freedom throughout Latin America.

I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying trade agreement. And I urge the Democratic leadership, Mr. Speaker, to move as quickly as possible to bring forward the pending agreements with Colombia and Panama. And I urge them not to let politics undermine liberty in our hemisphere.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I'm very happy to yield 3 minutes to my good friend and hardworking colleague on the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Miami (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart), a great champion of freedom.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I'm happy to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to my very good friend from Miami (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), ranking member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I'm happy to yield 4 minutes to a very hardworking and thoughtful member of the Trade Subcommittee of Ways and Means, a great champion of economic and democratic liberalization in this hemisphere, my friend from Morris, Illinois (Mr. Weller).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to my friend from Ohio with two quick points, and, that is, we do, in fact, have tremendous opportunities for Peruvian products to come into the United States. This agreement, in fact, responds to that by opening up the Peruvian market.

The second point is that Whirlpool, which is a great company in Ohio, will see 9,000 jobs from exports to Peru with a 400 percent increase.

I am happy to yield.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you very much for maintaining order here in the House.

At this time I am very happy to yield 3 minutes to my very good friend from Miami (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart).

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield 1 minute to a very strong free trader, my friend from Mesa, Arizona (Mr. Flake).

I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege for me to rise and join my California colleague, Speaker Pelosi, in support of this rule and in support of the underlying legislation.

We began this morning here with a brilliant address delivered by the new President of France, Nicolas Sarkozy. In that speech, he talked about the need for greater economic liberalization and the move towards markets. He talked about a new day in France and the fact that he is doing everything that he possibly can to make sure that they create new opportunities for economic growth and success in that country.

Well, Mr. Speaker, we all know that the United States of America, as President Sarkozy said, is the strongest, most powerful nation in the world, economically, geopolitically and militarily. And, Mr. Speaker, this agreement is about making sure that within our hemisphere, we have an opportunity, an opportunity to open up new markets for U.S. workers.

Now, I stumbled through an exchange with my friend from Ohio when I was talking about a great Ohio company, Whirlpool. What I was trying to say is that Whirlpool has projected that they will have a 400 percent increase in their level of exports from Ohio to Peru. And what does that mean? Whirlpool projects that it will create 9,000 new jobs for workers in Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, Peru, Colombia, Panama, through trade preferences that we have joined together in a bipartisan way in granting, have had access to the U.S. consumer. This agreement is not about free trade. It is about opening up new opportunities for U.S. workers, and it is about the security of this hemisphere.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to support the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 801, I call up the bill (H.R. 3688) to implement the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this historic, indeed, piece of legislation, and soon I would ask unanimous consent that you allow me to yield the balance of this time to Mr. Levin, who may not be able to be here the remainder of the night, and then I will come back to manage the rest of the time.

But I really want to thank Speaker Pelosi for having the broad understanding that this great Nation of ours cannot afford the luxury of having a Republican or Democratic trade policy.

What makes this Nation great is that people perceive us as being a country that will speak when we have any trade agreement, and that when the Democrats took the majority, we certainly did not want a Democratic trade bill. It was so embarrassing to have foreign trade ministers talk to Republicans and talk with the Democrats and saw we're a divided Nation.

She authorized those of us to work with the administration to see whether or not we can bring something that sounded as though it was the United States Congress speaking and being directed to allow them to be the delegations and negotiators.

I can tell you that Jim McCrery played such an important role, along with Wally Herger, and of course, I can't say enough about Sandy Levin being able to work with me and the staffs for the first time in over a decade. And on this issue, as so many other issues, you could not find a difference as we found the Republican staff and the Democratic staff in working not just during the day but working at night, working with the Peruvians and even going over there with some of us, with Mr. Levin and Ms. Schwartz, went to talk with President Garcia and to see the respect and admiration they had with this great country, that they wanted to show their friendship and to have exchanges and to have us a stronger country.

I know that, politically speaking, there are some people that find it very difficult to talk about supporting trade. They made commitments to a lot of people. Therefore, they have to do what they think is best.

It's absolutely ridiculous to believe that we can create jobs without trade. If we just are able to consume everything we manufacture, all the food that we grow, and not be able to have markets abroad, then this is not the great Nation that she is or hopes ever to be. So what we are talking about now is what's good for the country. We have to admit that we have done a terrible job in not recognizing the needs of people who have lost their jobs, lost their families, lost their industry, lost their community, lost their pride.

Mr. McCrery and I, we think that we have been able to convince the administration, as we go before the Business

Roundtable and say our multinationals can't do just what's good for their shareholders, they have to do what's good for America. And if globalization and technology have hurt some of these communities and destroyed their will to want to be able to say that in this great country they have opportunities for themselves or their children, well, treat us just as good as you treat the developing countries. Bring your ideas, bring the technology and the Ways and Means Committee will provide the incentives to make certain that we can get back, and these communities may not be doing the same thing, but God knows they would be able to do something.

Here we have a bill that you don't have to be a trade specialist to know that if people are manufacturing and growing in the United States, and we are dealing with a developing country, and they are not only our friends, but they want to work with us, then we have an opportunity to tear down the trade barriers and to be able to get into their markets as they are able to get into our markets so easily.

And so there are those people that cannot vote for it, but I think that because our great Speaker and the Republican leadership allowed Mr. McCrery and I and Sandy and Wally Herger to negotiate something, it doesn't mean that every trade agreement is going to be one that everyone can agree to. What it does mean is that in every trade agreement, America's trade policy is going to be a part of it. How do you treat human beings? How do you treat child labor? How do you treat American investors? And how do you treat the environment? That's a great step forward.

I would hope, as the Speaker said, that as people are listening to who is calling in, remember the world is calling in. The world is watching how we treat friends, and people all over this country would not want us to believe that we are anti-fair trade and trade that creates jobs.

Some people thought I was being personal when I said don't say this trade agreement loses jobs, this is the only place that people are doing anything, growing anything, can work with people who want to do business with us. It's a great, historic opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, I do hope that people would want to be a part of this changing thing, where once again people would know that when you do business with the people of the United States, you're not doing business with Democrats because we control the House and Senate, and you're not doing business with Republicans, you're doing business with Americans who want to do the best for them, the best for this great country, to improve our quality of life. We can't do it by party, but we can do it by principle.

I thank you for this opportunity and I would ask consent to yield the balance of this time to Mr. Levin to be able to control until such time as he has to leave.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) who is not only one of the best informed members on the Ways and Means Committee on trade, but he has done a heck of a job around this country explaining why this particular free trade agreement is good for America and good for our trading partners, for 3\1/2\ minutes.

(Mr. PASCRELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I would like to yield 2 minutes to Mr. Becerra, an outstanding member of the House leadership as well as an outstanding member of the Ways and Means Committee, and I thank him for all the fine work he has done.

I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to Mr. Crowley who makes our New York State proud and makes the Ways and Means Committee proud and is a great Member of this great Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I have six speakers and it just seems to me that if other people are reserving their time, then I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz), who not only served well on the committee but was a part of the team that went to Peru with Congressman Levin to make certain that we were able to convince the President, the corporate leaders and the Congress that America was their friend and wanted to do the right things. It is with great pride that I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis), an outstanding member of the Ways and Means Committee and thank him for the support that he's given to us on all of our issues.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Member from the State of Washington (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Member from Utah (Mr. Matheson).

I yield 2 minutes to the outstanding gentlelady from Illinois (Ms. Bean).

I would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar).

How much time do I have, Mr. Speaker?

Well, I am the last speaker, so whatever they want to do they can do. I may have to ask my friend on the other side for a minute or two to close, but I may not. So why don't I reserve and see what happens.

Let me thank my friend Mr. Herger for the great work that he has done.

Mr. Speaker, as we wrap up this debate, I think that we have had tremendous success in what we have done because, regardless of which way the votes have come, isn't it wonderful, Mr. Herger, that we do have a bill on the floor, that Republicans and Democrats are discussing it, and we broke this barrier that because of party label, people could decide how we felt about something?

And I have decided that we have a bigger job to do really than just talk about trade. I really think if the multinationals and the trade ambassadors and the Congress spent more time in feeling the pain of those people who were not the beneficiaries of trade, where people who worked hard for generations and life was always better for their kids and their grandkids, and how depressing it is to see all of that lost and the multinationals not bringing that technology and that innovation to our communities and our towns so that people could get their dignity restored. We have got to do a better job. And whether it's related to trade or whether it's not, when you're out of work and you've lost your dignity, what difference does it make?

And when you hear people say that they campaigned against trade, they campaigned against the indifference of our government to care about working people. They were campaigning against the spear because how could you possibly campaign against trade? You can't campaign against trade. You can't say everything we grow and everything that we manufacture, that we don't want someone to buy it. And you can't say that America can be as stable as it is. Somebody's working. Someone's doing well. But the people who campaign against trade are communities of people who are not doing well, and this country has not done well by them.

So we have got to make an appeal to the multinationals and to our government that they have to not sell trade where it's working; they have to sell trade where it is not working. Because, realistically, no one could have campaigned against the Peruvian agreement. It hadn't been decided. And if you campaign against trade, it's not realistic. But if you campaigned against making America strong and making certain that when you stamp an agreement, you see dignity in that agreement, you see a care for the environment, a care for workers, and you see a concern for those people who are going to be disadvantaged by that agreement. And if they are disadvantaged by anything even other than the agreement, which, as Mr. McCrery said, when we were told by the United States Trade Representative and she said, Mr. Chairman, you know, a lot of people are complaining about loss of jobs. It has nothing to do with trade. And Mr. McCrery said, What difference does it make? As long as they think it is, it's going to be very difficult to sell the question of trade.

So we've got a big job to do. This is only the beginning. And after you have said no, no, no to trade, we have to make certain that those towns come back. And I am not that good at projecting what's going on, but I was telling my dear friend Joe Crowley, I bet you that those who feel the strongest against the Peruvian agreement come from communities who have had a lot of economic pain, and those people who even think it was a bad trade agreement if they were doing good, they would allow a Member to make up their mind what they want to do. And so it means that we have got a long way to go but this is truly a beginning. We now have people expressing themselves and asking more from their government to help Americans that deserve better treatment than they have been getting.

The only thing that bothered me in the debate is the whole idea that the Speaker of this House and the members, Republican and Democrats, on this committee would bring forth a bill that they thought that Americans would suffer. It's one thing to differ with the contents of the bill; it's another thing to think that we are trying to sell CAFTA or NAFTA or bills that the Speaker has constantly been against. And speaker after speaker after speaker said that realistically if you take a look at Peru, how can it do anything except help us? How can it do anything that we're going to sell to them now, notwithstanding the tariff? Imagine how much more we can sell without the tariff? And when they sell, doesn't it mean that we're making it? If they're buying food, doesn't it mean we're growing it? And doesn't it mean in the communities that have it, we'll be doing well?

So let me thank the minority and let me thank the majority. It's been a great debate. Let's get on and say that this Peruvian bill is just the beginning of the cooperation we should expect.

Thank you, Mr. Herger. And thank you, the majority.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and thank her for her excellent work as a member of the Rules Committee in managing this important rule to the House.

Mr. Speaker, I know that this is a difficult issue for Members to decide upon because it goes right to the heart of family life in America. It's about the job security, the economic security, the health security of America's families. And the issue of trade has been one that has been controversial, and frankly, I have largely been more on the other side of it than I am tonight.

I rise in support of the Peru Trade Agreement, and I want to tell my colleagues why. They will have to make up their own minds. But I want to take the opportunity to talk about it in the context of the last, say, 20 years. That is how long I have been in Congress.

For most of that time, I have fought with a Democratic President and a Republic an President, starting with President Bush 41, Father Bush, and throughout the Clinton administration on the issue of China trade. I saw it clearly as a threat to the economic security of America's working families. I could see the patterns that were developing there. But all along, those powers that be always said, no, this is the enlightened course.

At the time, when we started this debate on China, which was right after the massacre in Tiananmen Square, the trade deficit between the U.S. and China, the trade deficit we suffered, was around $5 billion a year. $5 billion a year. It sounded like all the money in the world to us at the time, $5 billion a year. How much leverage could we have to open China's markets? To stop them violating our intellectual property? To have them free the prisoners arrested in Tiananmen Square? To have them stop proliferating weapons of mass destruction? We fought so much leverage.

But Washington, D.C. was very much influenced by the Government of the People's Republic of China. And so all of the powers that be told us, if only we went down the path that they were recommending, that markets would be open to us, that political reform would come, all of these things, China would stop proliferating weapons of mass destruction to places like Iran and Pakistan, to name a few.

What happened was none of the above. But strictly on the issue of trade, say, 17, 18, years ago, a trade deficit of about $5 billion a year. Stick with us, they told us, and great things would happen in this relationship. Oh, they did. For China. The trade deficit now with China is approximately $5 billion a week. A week. It went from $5 billion a year to $5 billion a week. And all of the economic consequences that go with it, and all of the inferiority of product, threatening the food safety, the medicine safety, the toy safety in our country. That's what the sophisticated people told us that we should do was to go along the course that we have. The violation of intellectual property. That piracy is legendary. Of course, nothing has changed except we are now in about a $250 billion deficit to China.

I bring that up because many of us in this room fought that fight. We invested a lot into it. And we were always cast aside as Luddites and unsophisticated people and Stone Age and didn't understand. But we do understand that the American workers paid a price for that. The markets didn't open to our products. Even with WTO that didn't happen. And, again, the deficit speaks for itself.

So I say from that level of passion and familiarity with the issue and being in the fight for a long time, that when I saw an opportunity for us to have labor and environmental standards as a core part of our trade agreements, it marked a drastic difference from what even a Democratic President was willing to give on that score, even a Democratic President. We couldn't get that in the Clinton administration.

So I want to commend Mr. Rangel and Mr. Levin, the two chairmen, for the excellent work that they did. I tell you the China story just as a background as to how difficult it was before. No matter what the evidence, no matter how clear it was, others saw it differently, and they saw it wrong.

So here we are today trying to make some distinctions, trying to make some distinctions about trade agreements that are better than others. I don't think any of them are perfect on either end. And so my reason for supporting this is, as a leader in the Democratic Party, is I certainly believe that part of the legacy of our great party is the legacy of John F. Kennedy who said that free trade was a part of who we are as a country and that international trade would be good for our economy. But we want not only free trade, we want fair trade.

We are going to be Uncle Sam instead of ``Uncle Sap'' in these trade relationships. It had to be fair. It had to be right for our workers.

As I say, this opportunity came along in a bipartisan way to say that unless labor and environmental standards were part of a trade agreement, it couldn't even be considered. It didn't mean it would be considered, but that was the threshold that all of these agreements had to cross. And then they would be judged on their individual merits in terms of the agreement between our two countries.

Recognizing the fear and apprehension and uncertainty that exists in many families and homes across America because of their jobs going overseas, the businesses closing, their communities having a downturn, can't sell their home, all the consequences that go with that, the chairman put forth legislation that passed the House last week, which I hope that the President

of the United States will sign. I think it is essential, essential, if we are going to accomplish anything on trade, on immigration or anything else, that people know that we share the concerns that they have and that we are doing something about it. So the trade adjustment in terms of training and opportunity and health care and all of those things was very, very important.

That was done in the context of other things to address the needs of America's working families. Hopefully we can pass SCHIP to get 10 million children to have their health insurance, pass legislation to make college more affordable, raise the minimum wage, have an Innovation Agenda that says if we are going to compete in the world, we must innovate. We can't just complain about trade, we must innovate. And that innovation begins in the classroom, and it takes us right back to our college affordability, our initiatives of K-12, early childhood education and the rest.

So I think we have to certainly be concerned about the impact of trade. It is self-evident and it is a challenge for us. But we cannot turn our backs on it. And I absolutely refuse to have the Democratic Party be viewed, and I say this to my Republican colleagues, I know you don't want to be viewed, but I have a responsibility also to my Democratic colleagues, I don't want this party to be viewed as an antitrade party.

So, let's make some distinctions. Take every trade agreement on its own merit. The Peru Free Trade Agreement rises to the level of acceptance. I am not saying it is perfect. It rises to the level of acceptance. Labor and environmental principles are in the core of the bill. Other changes we wanted to see were made by the Parliament in Peru. They passed the laws or they made the changes we said they needed to have.

So if you are ever going to support any trade agreement, I would think this would be the easiest one to do. Other trade agreements have other obstacles that have to be dealt with. I don't think we should shut the door on anything, because that gives nobody any motivation to make any change in what we would like to see as a free flow of goods to and from these countries.

It is frustrating, and I respect everything that has been said by my colleagues in this debate. I think it is all legitimate. Some, like Marcy Kaptur, have been in this fight for a long time. Working families in America have no greater champion to advocate for the best possible outcome for them.

But, again, viewing in the context of we want to have an economy that is fairer, that we have a progressive economic agenda where many more people participate in the economic success of our country, that is why we raised the minimum wage and make college more affordable, et cetera, and that is why we are promoting our Innovation Agenda for energy security and reversing global warming, so we can create many more jobs, so America's farmers can fuel America's energy independence, where we will send our energy dollars to the Midwest and not to the Middle East. This is a bigger picture than the Peru Free Trade Agreement.

The Peru Free Trade Agreement is not a big deal in terms of trade agreements, but it is an important step into saying we can make distinctions about trade relationships that are grossly unfair to the American worker, greatly oppressive to the workers in their own countries and are not making people freer. And to those that are in furtherance of growing our own economy while helping to lift other economies in the world, I think in this case the Peru Free Trade Agreement goes in that direction.

So, that is why, my colleagues, I am supporting this. It may seem to be a departure to some of you from where I have been on other trade agreements. But it is a marked difference, a marked difference from where we were before, whether it was President Bush I, whether it was President Clinton, and where we are now.

Those many who have been on one side or the other of this all say it is an amazing accomplishment to have gotten that done. And for that, whatever the outcome of this vote is, for that I want to once again pay tribute to Chairman Rangel and Chairman Levin, chairman of the subcommittee, for the great leadership and the work they did. I just want you to know why I was supporting this bill.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I think tonight on three occasions or maybe four, we have heard, we need to put a face on trade. I encourage all the Members, here is the face. It is the face of a refrigerator in Galesburg, Illinois, manufactured by 1,600 machinists, signed on the last day before their jobs were exported to Sonora, Mexico, thanks to a trade agreement that didn't work.

This, my colleagues, is the face of people. This trade deal, while I commend the framework of it, puts the sheriff, as we have been hearing, the President of the United States, in charge of it. I sit on the Education and Labor Committee of the House. We have had three mine disasters. The President won't do a single thing to protect our miners. He won't sign the Employee Free Choice Act to give people a right to collective bargain for it. He will not stand up for America's workers. He has had to be sued by our own government for one OSHA standard.

Tonight we stand here ready to give this President oversight on this trade deal. I have been told, well, we'll just subpoena him. We're trying that. We're trying that with the legal counsel for this President and Josh Bolten. We'll see how far that gets us.

I take offense, to be honest with you, when people say you won't vote for any trade deal if you can't vote for this one. Let me say I'll vote for every trade deal, as long as it's fair, as long as it works for American workers, as well as the people that we seek to trade with.

How much longer are we going to continue to do this? Fifty-four percent of Republicans polled don't support this agreement. Almost 70 percent of Democrats don't support it, and 60 percent of Americans don't.

I ran on this issue. I am the product of a person whose dad lost their home, not because he did anything wrong, but because he lost his job. He made me promise two things, take care of your sisters and your mother, this is shortly before he died, and do not, whatever you do, Phil, for a living, do not allow this to happen to another family.

I may only be in this Chamber for one term. I don't know. I ran on this issue. I stand on this issue. I'm proud of my voting record with this Democratic Caucus. I take a back seat to no one in party loyalty. But my first loyalty comes to the people who signed this refrigerator. I have no loyalty to the President of the United States when he has no loyalty to the people whose jobs he outsourced.

I tried to get an amendment before the Rules Committee that would say if you can get a free trade agreement, fine, but let's get the safety net for workers, one this Chamber passed that Mr. Rangel worked so hard on, whom I give him a ton of credit for.

Let me tell you what happens. The next day he says he's going to veto it. He won't insure 10 million children, he won't sign a safety net for workers, and we are going to pass tomorrow a trade agreement and expect this President to enforce it. Let me ask you all tonight not to be looking at us as though we are naysayers. We're not.

I would love to put my card in tomorrow and hit the green button, but I will not, because if I do, I will not come to back to this Chamber. I don't deserve to come back to this Chamber.

I ran to support these people. I have heard the term ``protectionism'' used this evening. If all of us, Democrats, Republicans, left, center and right are not going to stand up for the very people who sent us here, who are we going to stand up for? What are we as Members of Congress?

I ask you, tomorrow is a very big day. I guess I'm voting ``no.'' I don't guess, and I told two people today, I do so proudly. I wish I didn't have to. But I will remember Dave Bedard, who has been unemployed now after two wage concessions, no health care, a wife who has cancer.

One Member who is supporting this deal told me that I should go back to Dave Bedard. And when I said, what should I say to him, that Member said, You should talk about currency manipulation with him.

I should need a football helmet. He's going to punch me in the nose if I try.

Vote ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Peru Free Trade Agreement and the implementing legislation before us today.

Mr. Speaker, my fight against the Peru FTA is a personal one. Districts like mine represent the very worst of unfair trade--jobs lost, economies devastated, and lives shattered. In 2004, the Galesburg Maytag Refrigeration plant relocated to Sonora, Mexico, leaving behind 1,600 unemployed workers--all innocent victims of bad trade policies.

On their last day, all the workers who were laid off signed the final refrigerator to roll off the assembly line. The inscription on the fridge reads, ``The last top mount refrigerator produced in Galesburg, Illinois with pride by the members of IAM Local 2063, September 14, 2004.'' Although devastated, the pride and spirit of these workers remained strong--a testament to the incredible workers we have in this country.

This year marks the 5th anniversary of Maytag's announcement that it would be closing its Galesburg plant. Five years later, the city of Galesburg is still recovering from the loss of Maytag and many of the workers are still unemployed.

Unfortunately, the economic nightmare Galesburg has endured is not unique. NAFTA outsourced a total of 1 million U.S. jobs nationwide with casualties in every state.

Mr. Speaker, unfair trade is not just a Midwest issue, it is a national crisis.

Weary of more bad trade deals, last November voters swept fair trade Democrats into office--sending a clear mandate for a new direction on trade.

And yet here we are. Voting on another one-sided, so called ``free trade'' agreement crafted by the Bush administration under fast track authority.

President Bush's use of fast track has been nothing but a blatant abuse of power. It has allowed him to force through 4 trade deals built on the flawed NAFTA-CAFTA model, one of them being the Peru FTA we are currently debating.

And we all remember what was left behind from NAFTA: the decimation of the U.S. manufacturing industry and the loss of high paying jobs. One must look no further than Galesburg to see what the future holds for American jobs if the Peru FTA is passed.

We can also expect the Peru FTA to benefit big business, similar to NAFTA. If this agreement is passed, one thing is certain, the rich will continue to get richer at the expense of the average, hard-working American.

Some who support the agreement will say that the Peru FTA is not NAFTA. They will say that the inclusion of labor and environmental standards set it apart from all former trade deals. Not so fast.

With President Bush's poor track record of enforcing labor rights, it remains to be seen

whether these improvements will have any affect at all. In fact, the President of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has said that he is ``encouraged by assurances that the labor provisions in the [Peru agreement] cannot be read to require compliance with ILO Conventions.'' We should be more than skeptical.

Moreover, just today the Peruvian government declared a strike by national miners illegal. So much for real reform.

In short, without the threat of enforcement, our trading partners, including Peru, have no incentive to uphold international labor standards.

Mr. Speaker, the truth is that the proposed Peru FTA would replicate--and in some instances expand on--many of the most devastating provisions of the flawed NAFTA-CAFTA model.

Despite ``fixes,'' the Peru FTA is nothing but a wolf in sheep's clothing.

The choice is crystal clear.

Today, Congress can choose to roll the dice when it comes to the loss of American jobs or we can choose to demand an agreement that bans off shoring.

Today, we can choose to entrust President Bush with enforcing labor and environmental standards as we did with the Jordan FTA or we can choose to accept that these standards will likely be ignored in Peru, just as they are in Jordan.

Today, we can choose to give big business another win or we can choose to stand with American middle class families.

Today, Congress can choose to expand the failed NAFTA-CAFTA model to Peru or we can choose to pursue a new trade policy.

I for one cannot go back to my district and explain that I voted for another bad trade deal that in all likelihood will result in more job loss.

I cannot in good conscience face the 1600 Maytag workers who lost their job and tell them that I voted to continue the hemorrhaging.

I came to Congress because I believe in fair trade that creates jobs and raises the standard of living for middle class families. I believe in keeping America competitive. But in my opinion, the Peru FTA does not pass the test.

For the sake of all workers, I will be voting NO on the Peru FTA. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

It is time that our trade policy starts serving the interests of America's working families.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 801 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the Record.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 801 provides for consideration of H.R. 3688, the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act, under the closed rule required by the fast track law. The rule provides for a total of 3 hours of debate, equally divided by proponents and opponents of the underlying bill.

I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying legislation, H.R. 3688, the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act. I want to congratulate Chairman Rangel, Chairman Levin and members of the Ways and Means Committee on bringing this trade agreement before us today.

Mr. Speaker, last week we passed legislation to help strengthen our current trade adjustment assistance program to protect American workers. Our country faces increased pressure as a result of globalization, and we must continue to reaffirm our commitment to the American workforce. It is evident that we need to change our current trade strategy.

At the same time, we must also acknowledge the positive impact that international trade has had on our economy. International trade currently accounts for a quarter of our gross domestic product.

Competition has proven to spur innovation and create new jobs. In my home State of California, we know that our IT companies need exports of semiconductor chips. Our farmers need the markets of Europe, Asia and Latin America. And our entertainment industry, financial services and telecom companies need to sell their services to grow and create jobs.

But it also affects industry in America. We know that, and that is why we have a balanced approach to our trade agreements.

Mr. Speaker, the trade agreement before us today is part of the broad context in which we should consider trade policy. It will establish an important precedent for how we craft future trade agreements.

Under the new Democratic Congress, free trade agreements must provide strong labor and environmental protections. They are essential to promoting healthy workplaces and competition for American employees and around the world.

Congress must consider each agreement on its merits. In some cases, these agreements will meet increased access for American producers and service providers. In other cases, these agreements could mean more competition and would significantly impact our workers and communities.

I understand that many of my colleagues have strong views on trade, but one thing we can all agree on and be proud of is the fact that our leadership worked vigorously to ensure that democratic principles were included in the Peru agreement.

In previous free trade agreements, these principles were noticeably absent. The initial Peru Free Trade Agreement draft reflected the ``business as usual'' approach that this administration has based its trade policies on. Democratic leadership went to Peru, met with the Peruvian president and prominent members of its Congress and developed a new free trade agreement, one that includes the strongest labor and environmental chapters in any of the world's over 300 bilateral free trade agreements.

It is not CAFTA. This is the first free trade agreement of its kind. It is a new free trade agreement, one that incorporates fully enforceable internationally recognized labor standards; that also promotes international environmental standards, including combating illegal logging, protecting the ozone layer, and our oceans; and an agreement that will provide Peruvians with lifesaving medicines. All three provisions are unprecedented in any free trade agreement and all three are core democratic principles that we should all be proud of.

This agreement is also about leveling the playing field for U.S. companies to compete in the Peruvian market. The Andean Trade Preference Act passed in 1991 and expanded in 2001 allowed Peruvian companies to benefit from duty-free trade with the United States. Meanwhile, U.S. goods exported to Peru continued to face tariffs as high as 12 percent.

The agreement before us today will give U.S. businesses immediate, duty-free access for more than 80 percent of U.S. consumer and industrial goods. This agreement will also allow us to forge a closer alliance and relationship with one of our southern neighbors. It is no secret that other countries are investing heavily in that part of the world. This agreement will send a strong message to our southern neighbors that the United States is here to help promote openness in their government and their economy.

In closing, I urge my colleagues to look at each free trade agreement based on its merits. It is easy to promote or oppose free trade unequivocally and not look at the facts of each agreement. I am confident that this agreement will benefit our Nation, benefit our workers, and benefit our businesses. This agreement will serve as a model free trade agreement for years to come.

Once again, I want to congratulate Mr. Rangel and Mr. Levin for their hard work.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter).

Mr. Speaker it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, my friend (Mr. Rangel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas who serves on the Ways and Means Committee (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to my new colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to one of the key brokers of this agreement, the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the Speaker of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the U.S.-Peru Free Trade Agreement represents a new kind of policy, a new generation of free trade agreements. Since World War II, our international trade policy has been driven by a broad commitment to expanding economic opportunity for Americans. Producers from across the country must have access to international markets to stay competitive in an increasingly global economy.

However, we must carefully construct each agreement in a way that is fair, sound and beneficial to all countries involved. The administration's initial agreement with Peru was none of the above. I am proud that our leadership took an unprecedented and hands-on approach to ensure that this particular agreement incorporated the values and principles of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, this agreement is different than previous agreements. The labor and environmental protections in this agreement are stronger than any other previous free trade agreement. As our Nation's trade policy moves forward, I urge our colleagues to consider each potential free trade agreement on its merits. We cannot dwell on past flawed agreements. We must look toward the future with full confidence in our companies and in our workers and say that American products can compete with anyone, anywhere, at any time.

Mr. Speaker, we must lead by example, and I commend Mr. Rangel and Mr. Levin for the diligent work on this agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.