[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 108 (Monday, July 21, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H7204-H7205]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   REGARDING THE U.S.-CHILE AND U.S.-SINGAPORE FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. SOLIS. Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to urge my colleagues to 
oppose the U.S.-negotiated free trade agreements between our country, 
Chile. And Singapore. Both of these agreements in my opinion represent 
a substantial backwards step from existing trade policies in terms of 
labor and environmental protections and set, to me, a dangerous 
precedent for future free trade agreements, especially as we look to 
the future and what we are going to be doing with Central American 
countries.
   Do not get me wrong. I am not opposed to trade. But I would like to 
see fair and equitable trade. Trade between countries can yield 
enormous benefits for businesses and economies and working families of 
all countries if it is done fairly. Two years ago, I voted on this 
floor to support the Jordan Free Trade Agreement, an agreement passed 
unanimously by this Congress. That agreement included fundamental labor 
and environmental standards that made it an exceptional model for 
future trade policy.
   Unfortunately, the U.S.-Chile and U.S.-Singapore free trade 
agreements negotiated by this administration fail to include many of 
the provisions that were included in the Jordan agreement that could 
have been used as a model. In fact, the agreements' enforcement 
standards are, in many respects, weaker than those in NAFTA, an 
agreement that has resulted, as Members know, in the loss of thousands 
of jobs and a larger trade deficit. Rather than backtrack on trade 
policy, we should be building upon trade policy established in the 
Jordan Free Trade Agreement.
   The Jordan Free Trade Agreement required that Jordan not only meet 
internationally recognized labor standards on child labor and the right 
to unionize but to enforce them as well. The agreements with Chile and 
Singapore fail to do this, allowing even the most rampant violations of 
core labor standards to go undisputed. The one commitment that can be 
enforced under the agreements, the commitment to abide by the country's 
own domestic labor laws, is merely subject to limited fines, a lot of 
good that is going to do, a much weaker penalty than the trade 
sanctions available for commercial disputes.
   The agreements are also troubling because they create an entirely 
new visa category which would allow employers to bring thousands of 
temporary workers into the U.S. at the expense of American jobs. The 
result would be a vast influx of foreign professionals from many low-
wage nations competing with American citizens for higher paying jobs. 
They would fill virtually any service sector job in industries such as 
finance, engineering, medicine, and law. Though the administration made 
improvements upon its original draft implementing legislation of these 
new visa programs, the implementing legislation for the new visa 
programs still falls short of existing H1-B programs. It omits 
important safeguards for ensuring that employers do not abuse temporary 
workers to undermine the domestic labor market.
   Whether you support free trade or not, we can all agree that we 
should not be allowing for the entry of thousands of temporary workers 
at the expense of jobs that can be filled by American workers, 
especially in a time of unemployment when we are at a 9-year high. In 
my own district, I repeatedly let people know that our unemployment 
rate is above 7 to 10 percent in some of the cities that I represent.
   I also urge my colleagues to oppose these agreements because they 
will not promote a cleaner and healthier global environment. While the 
Chile and Singapore free trade agreements include environmental 
provisions, so they say, the language used in many cases is ambiguous 
and provides little assurance that the environmental promises of the 
agreements will be fulfilled. The agreements fail, in my opinion, to 
include a process that would allow citizens of the countries involved 
to even file complaints about possible environmental violations. Such a 
process, as you know, is even included in the NAFTA agreements.
   Further, I am concerned that the ambiguous definition of 
environmental laws in the Chile free trade agreement leaves open the 
strong possibility that natural resources representing over 40 percent 
of Chile's exports will not be covered by the agreement's environmental 
rules. At a time when the Bush administration is negotiating trade 
agreements with countries in regions with abysmal labor and 
environmental records, we should not be approving trade agreements that 
fail to ensure protections for workers.

                              {time}  2030

  The administration has clearly stated that the Chile and Singapore 
free trade agreements will serve as a model for the Central American 
Free Trade Agreement known as CAFTA.
   The weak workers' rights provisions in the Chile and Singapore 
agreements will be disastrous if applied to future trade agreements 
with countries and regions where abuse of workers' rights has been 
egregious. A vote for them would send a signal that the weak labor and 
environmental standards in them are not acceptable. Strong labor 
provisions must be included if workers are to become real partners in 
economic progress and help develop the expanded middle class.
   This year brings the 10th anniversary of the NAFTA agreement. The 
result: Our combined trade deficit with Mexico and Canada has grown 
from $9 billion to $87 billion, and more than half

[[Page H7205]]

of the million U.S. workers have lost their jobs.
   I urge my colleagues to vote down these two agreements.

                          ____________________