Today, the United States House of Representatives is debating the Peru-United States Free Trade Agreement, known as the Peru FTA or "PUFTA." The agreement was signed by the Bush administration on April 12, 2006 and is based primarily on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). Under House rules, the agreement will be debated for three hours before a vote is held, during which time no amendments will be allowed.

Despite a so-called "compromise" reached between the Bush administration and the Democratic Party leadership to allow consideration of the agreement, there is still significant opposition to Peru FTA. The Bush administration was unable to find enough support for the passage of the bill before the 2006 mid-term elections and did not bring it up again until the "deal" with Democratic Party leaders. That "deal" includes some minimal language changes (particularly in the areas of labor and environment), but essentially leaves the most egregious portions of the agreement intact and does little to change the structural flaws of the agreement.

These flaws include procurement provisions that would threaten anti-off shoring and measures designed to promote "green" and human rights-friendly policies, agricultural provisions that remove tariffs on US imports but say nothing about US subsidies (the agricultural policies are effectively the same as NAFTA's which have devastated Mexico's agricultural sector), investment rules that would allow foreign corporations to sue to remove US environmental regulations as "barriers to trade," and limits on government services.
One of the areas that has drawn significant criticism is a provision that would empower foreign investors to demand compensation in United Nations and World Bank tribunals for government actions (i.e. laws) that undermine their expected future profits as an investor in Peru. For example, if Peru were to reverse its privatized retirement fund, Citibank could sue to seek financial compensation from the Peruvian government for lost profits. The agreement also would limit food safety measures that could be enacted in the United States, as the agreement prioritizes "access" for imports over consumer safety. Finally, there has been multiple studies suggesting that the agreement is unlikely to mandate improved labor standards in Peru and that it may actually weaken the United States' ability to enforce basic labor standards in trade agreements.

The Peru FTA has been opposed by a number of groups including the Change to Win union coalition, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters, the International Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers, and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Democratic Party presidential candidates John Edwards along with Senator Biden have opposed the Peru FTA, while Senator Obama supports it. Senator Clinton has not taken a position on the agreement. Similarly in Peru, there has been opposition to the agreement from labor groups and indigenous groups, as well as calls for a national referendum on the agreement.

Public Citizen is urging people to call their members of Congress even as the agreement is debated. In West Michigan, it is worth remembering that Representative Vernon Ehlers has supported NAFTA, CAFTA, and the WTO. The agreement has also been supported by Michigan Representative Sander Levin.