[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 110 (Wednesday, July 23, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H7339-H7347]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2738, UNITED STATES-CHILE FREE 
   TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT, AND H.R. 2739, UNITED STATES-
           SINGAPORE FREE TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 329 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 329

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2738) to implement 
     the United States-Chile Free Trade Agreement. The bill shall 
     be considered as read for amendment. The bill shall be 
     debatable for two hours, with one hour and forty minutes 
     equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means and twenty 
     minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. 
     Pursuant to section 151(f)(2) of the Trade Act of 1974, the 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     to final passage without intervening motion.
       Sec. 2. Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order without intervention of any point of order to consider 
     in the House the bill (H.R. 2739) to implement the United 
     States-Singapore Free Trade Agreement. The bill shall be 
     considered as read for amendment. The bill shall be debatable 
     for two hours, with one hour and forty minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Ways and Means and twenty minutes 
     equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. Pursuant 
     to section 151(f)(2) of the Trade Act of 1974, the previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final 
     passage without intervening motion.
       Sec. 3. During consideration of H.R. 2738 or H.R. 2739 
     pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of 
     the previous question, the Chair may postpone further 
     consideration of the bill to a time designated by the 
     Speaker.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to my very able colleague on the Committee on 
Rules, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield 
myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this 
resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this moment, we begin debate on the first 
two measures that will propel our Nation's economy into the 21st 
century and secure America's economic future. The free trade agreements 
with Chile and Singapore that we will be debating today are important 
in and of themselves. But more important, they are the first steps in 
completing a global economic and trade agenda that seeks to grow our 
economy by opening up markets overseas and establishing the United 
States as the leader in the international trade arena.

                              {time}  1130

  When Trade Promotion Authority lapsed back in 1994, the executive 
branch's ability to negotiate meaningful trade agreements was severely 
impaired. Our efforts to position the United States as the global 
leader in international trade were stalled. As recently as last year, 
there were nearly 150 regional free trade and customs agreements put 
into place worldwide and the United States, the greatest economic power 
on the face of the Earth, was party to only three of those agreements.
  Mr. Speaker, we were losing market share, we were losing tariff 
battles, and most important, we were losing opportunities for U.S. 
workers and U.S. producers, opportunity to grow our economy, 
opportunity to increase the incomes of millions of American families 
and the opportunity to lead once again in the global marketplace. All 
of this was being lost as we went through that nearly decade long 
period, Mr. Speaker, when we did not have that authority in place for 
the executive branch.
  So it was to my great satisfaction last year that we were able to 
enact into law a renewal of that Trade Promotion Authority. I am also 
pleased that the Bush administration has responded to Congressional 
reauthorization of the Trade Promotion Authority with great enthusiasm.
  Our terrific Ambassador, U.S. Trade Representative Bob Zoellick, in 
particular, has been the driving force behind an ambitious and far-
reaching trade agenda that will open up markets and raise standards of 
living both here and abroad, throughout the world. It is very clear 
that trade is a win-win. We will see benefits on both sides.
  So, Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, the free trade agreements 
that we consider here today are of great importance. But I am gratified 
to see that many more trade agreements are on the horizon. Once we get 
beyond the Singapore and Chile agreements we will have a wide range of 
other great opportunities for U.S. workers and U.S. producers. We will 
soon see those benefits come to us and we will see the multilateral 
agreements as we proceed with Central America, South America, Africa, 
the Middle East and Australia.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I recognize that many in this body are opposed to 
some or possibly all of the free trade agreements that I have just 
mentioned. And I recognize, Mr. Speaker, that Congressional renewal of 
Trade Promotion Authority last year was very contentious

[[Page H7340]]

and as we all know passed by the narrowest of margins on three 
occasions. But I sincerely hope that today we will demonstrate our 
bipartisan commitment to improving the economic standing of all 
American workers and families by strongly supporting the two 
implementing measures before us.
  In fact, we have just a few minutes ago had the minority leader stand 
in the well and talk about that commitment that the minority party has 
to the trade agenda, and so there will be a wonderful opportunity here 
to demonstrate that. The agreement, Mr. Speaker, with Singapore and 
Chile are perfect examples of what the benefits of free trades can and 
will deliver to the American people.
  Now, we all recognize that Singapore has been a critical ally in 
Southeast Asia in the war against terrorism. It has been more welcoming 
to our efforts to clamp down on regional instability and global 
terrorism than perhaps any other Southeast Asia nation. Singapore is 
also an extremely important economic ally of the United States. For 
example, Mr. Speaker, Singapore was the 12th largest trading partner 
with the United States last year in terms of total trade. Now, that is 
not bad for a country that has a population that is about the size of a 
county that I represent.
  Mr. Speaker, the Singapore agreement lowers barriers to trade in high 
technology products and services and establishes unprecedented 
intellectual properties protections. Intellectual properties 
protections are of paramount importance and very much need to be 
recognized.
  Mr. Speaker, this agreement pays particular attention to protecting 
copyrights, patents and trademarks for emerging technologies and 
digital products, sectors where American innovation has been, continues 
to be, and I believe will in the future be the global leader.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, there can be no doubt that by lowering and 
eliminating tariffs that Singapore places on American exports that we 
will increase job opportunities right here at home. Let me underscore 
that again.
  Mr. Speaker, I know there is so much talk about the union influence 
and the union opposition about what it is we are trying to do here, but 
Mr. Speaker, it stands to reason that if you are opening up new markets 
in other parts of the world, as will be the case in Singapore and so 
many of these service oriented areas, telecommunications for example, 
there will be more union jobs created right here in the United States 
as these markets open.
  Mr. Speaker, like the Singapore agreement, the Free Trade Agreement 
with Chile will increase trading opportunities abroad. Under the 
agreement negotiated by Ambassador Zoellick, Chile will immediately 
remove its 6 percent tariff that exists on more than 85 percent of 
American exports.
  I have to scratch my head once again, Mr. Speaker, and wonder why it 
is again that anyone would believe that this agreement would not create 
an opportunity for U.S. workers, union, nonunion members, workers all 
the way across the board if they are going to immediately reduce their 
6 percent tariff that exists on 85 percent of the products that come 
from U.S. workers into Chile's market.
  Mr. Speaker, the remaining tariffs will phase out over the next 12 
years. Conversely, most of Chile's exports to the United States are 
already duty free. So the fact is the world has access to the U.S. 
consumer markets. Chile can already get their products here. Doing 
anything other than supporting this measure will not help U.S. workers. 
The only benefit to U.S. workers will come from our breaking down those 
barriers that exist there. Recognizing Chile's relatively small trading 
relationship with the United States, some might question the need for a 
Free Trade Agreement at this time. In other words, people will say, why 
bother?
  Now, Mr. Speaker, it is well worth the bother. In 1997, California 
exported about $490 million worth of goods to Chile. By 2001, the 
number had decreased by $140 million largely due to Chile's 
implementation of trade agreements with Brazil, Argentina, Mexico and 
Canada, getting into the MERCOSUR and other trading blocs. So the fact 
that other nations are embarking on these agreements, breaking down 
tariff barriers have unfortunately diminished the flow of U.S. goods 
into Chile. So it stands to reason now that we need to do everything we 
can to make sure we are part of that tariff tax reduction effort 
because a tariff is a tax, and we know that by cutting it we will be 
able to improve the opportunities for that flow of goods and services.
  Mr. Speaker, as we work to get our economy back on track and we all, 
Democrats and Republicans alike, are committed to enhancing our 
economy, to improving the plight of workers in this country and 
creating more and more opportunities, as we work to do that, clearly 
establishing trade rules within the Americas and the Doha negotiations, 
it is important that the United States of America be the leader and not 
the follower. Strong votes, strong bipartisan votes in favor of the 
Chile and Singapore agreements will mark the first steps in ensuring 
that the United States reaps the benefit of free trade.
  It is time for the United States to unleash our enterprising spirit 
and allow American entrepreneurs access to some of the fastest growing 
markets in the world.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge strong bipartisan support for this rule and the 
underlying measures in order to demonstrate the commitment of this body 
to long-term, bold and dynamic economic growth, the development of 
strong economies, good governments and the rule of law abroad, which 
will only help in dealing with the many challenges that we face for 
peace and stability throughout the world.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, of course, let me thank my very good friend, the 
distinguished and able chairman of the House Committee on Rules, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) for yielding me time.
  As the chairman well knows, he and I both share a passion for the 
types of issues which will be debated today, and while we do not always 
end up at the same place at the end of the day, I deeply appreciate his 
commitment to these issues.
  Mr. Speaker, as the chairman has already pointed out, this rule would 
allow for consideration of both the U.S.-Chile and U.S.-Singapore Free 
Trade Agreements. What the chairman did not point out, however, was 
that this rule in a very real sense is unnecessary. The Trade Promotion 
Authority bill, or Fast Track, that was passed last year by Congress 
very strictly limits the way trade bills can come to the House floor. 
By law the agreements cannot be amended. They must be debated and moved 
expeditiously and in numerous other ways restrict the normal rights 
that Members of this Chamber are normally able to exercise.
  Despite the restrictions imposed by Fast Track, the majority has 
decided to impose even more restrictive debate on these important bills 
today. In fact, few previous trade agreements have been given as little 
time to be debated as the House will have for these two measures today.
  Let me repeat for the House what I said to the gentleman from 
California (Chairman Dreier) last night. We should not be setting a 
precedent for future trade deals by limiting debate to a couple of 
hours. In the future there will be other trade agreements that will 
come to this floor with more acrimony than today's do. These should, 
indeed must be considered for more than a cursory amount of time.

                              {time}  1145

  While I do not oppose today's rule, I will in the future if the 
majority again attempts to limit debate, more so than that which is 
required by law.
  Substantively, as a member of the Congressional Oversight Group on 
Trade, I want to commend Trade Representative Robert Zoellick and his 
staff for the yeoman's work they have put forward over the past 2-plus 
years putting these agreements together. I have an acute appreciation 
for the very delicate negotiations that are needed to achieve the 
success that has brought us to this point. So, again, I congratulate 
Ambassador Zoellick and his staff.
  Let me also say that as we move forward with our new Congressional 
Oversight Group on Trade, I would like Ambassador Zoellick to continue 
to keep

[[Page H7341]]

the Members engaged and involved in the process as much as possible.
  Specifically, it would be helpful if the ambassador and his staff 
would provide to the oversight group negotiating text several weeks 
before they are brought to the House of Representatives for tabling. 
Any less does not provide Members of Congress and our staff the 
appropriate amount of time to thoroughly review the agreements and 
offer our substantive insight.
  Additionally, when members of the Congressional Oversight Group on 
Trade do offer constructive proposals, if the Trade Representative 
ultimately rebuffs those suggestions, it would be helpful to know for 
what reasons congressional insight was rejected; and I might add, 
counter to that I raised with Ambassador Zoellick, the fact that in 
Singapore and in the trade agreement that there was a defense 
component; and I think the government of Singapore is to be 
complimented by all of us for the extraordinary undertakings that they 
put forward on behalf of our United States military who make a 
substantial number of ports of call in Singapore. So I saw and pointed 
out to the ambassador the defense component; and I might add, I think 
that it was taken to heart by the ambassador and his staff in their 
negotiations.
  Finally, text of proposed trade agreements must be made public as 
soon as the notice of intent to sign is made, if not sooner. Failing 
that, it is difficult, if not impossible, for the American people to 
have meaningful input.
  Again, though, Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to be nitpicky. These 
agreements were reached in an admirable fashion by the Trade 
Representative and those working with him; and I salute him for that, 
as well as his interlocutors, in what were 2 years of difficult and 
dynamic negotiations that will affect globally the trade and will 
affect the United States in substantial ways.
  I look forward to the spirited debate which I am certain will follow.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of our time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
simply thank my colleague for his very thoughtful statement and his 
willingness to be supportive of this effort here. This sort of 
buttresses a couple of arguments I was making earlier on this union 
issue, and I say it specifically with the gentleman in the Chair, Mr. 
Speaker, because I know this is an issue that was of concern to the 
Chair.
  One of the arguments that has been made has to do with the issue of 
exporting automobiles, automobiles manufactured right here in the 
United States of America. Under this agreement with Chile, we actually 
see Chile agree to an elimination of the luxury auto tax; and by 
eliminating that tax under this agreement in Chile, it will enhance the 
chance for us to see the exportation of more U.S.-manufactured 
automobiles into Chile's market which admittedly is a small one but is 
growing.
  Also, there are agreements to reduce foreign duties for trucks, 
computers, electrical equipment, paper and construction equipment as 
well; and so I think that this clearly is again a great opportunity for 
U.S. workers.
  There have been several great champions of trade on our side of the 
aisle and on the other side of the aisle. One of them is the great 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Technology and the House, my very good 
friend from Atlanta, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder).
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Linder).
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague, the 
chairman of the Committee on Rules, for yielding me this time. I rise 
in strong support of H. Res. 329, a rule that will enable the House to 
consider two historic free trade agreements. I urge all of my 
colleagues in the House to join me in supporting this rule.
  Approval of this rule will allow the House to proceed to consider 
H.R. 2738, a U.S. free trade agreement with Chile; and H.R. 2739, a 
U.S. free trade agreement with Singapore.
  I consider it an honor to have worked with the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier), the Committee on Rules chairman, and our House 
leadership in generating the needed support for these important trade 
agreements; and I am pleased that they are being considered on the 
House floor today.
  One of the main reasons that the United States of America is a 
shining beacon on the hill for so many others is our open markets. 
These open markets help bring wider choices and lower prices for 
businesses and consumers at home and help to promote better 
relationships for the U.S. abroad. Trade also helps to build strong 
economies and assists in fighting poverty and hunger all around the 
world.
  As we continue in the fight against global terrorism, trade can and 
should be used as a tool to help spread democracy, American values, and 
stability.
  As Governor Ronald Reagan recognized in a 1974 speech: ``Constructive 
trade, the two-way exchange of goods and services, is the most 
efficient and logical way for each nation and each area of the world to 
build a stable prosperity, a prosperity based not on aid, but on 
mutually beneficial economic contacts.'' I believe that free trade is 
beneficial to both the United States and our trading partners and is a 
principal component of proliferating the principles of freedom and 
democracy worldwide.
  Trade is also particularly good for America's small businesses. Small 
business is the backbone of our Nation's economy, creating three out of 
every four new jobs and generating roughly half of the U.S. private 
gross domestic product; 97 percent of America's exporters are small 
businesses. To stay at the forefront of innovation, U.S. small 
businesses need access to foreign markets.
  The U.S.-Chile Free Trade Agreement will not only bring new market 
access for U.S. consumers and industrial products, but also new 
opportunities for our farmers and ranchers. More than 85 percent of 
trade in the areas of agriculture, construction, automobiles, 
technology, medical equipment, and paper products will be tariff-free 
immediately, with most of the remaining tariffs being phased out over 4 
years.
  Georgia, the State that I am proud to represent, has benefited 
significantly from trade with Chile. In fact, in 2001, Georgia had the 
15th most exports to Chile in the entire United States. These exports 
have and will continue to provide high-paying jobs to the citizens of 
Georgia.
  The U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement, America's first trade 
agreement in Asia, is critical because it will give U.S. professionals 
new access into the fields of financial services, telecommunications, 
advertising and engineering, to name just a few. We must act now and 
approve these free trade agreements to give U.S. exporters the chance 
to compete on a level playing field with foreign exporters.
  I believe that America must continue to strive toward expanded free 
trade and not retreat into the mistaken protectionism of the past. We 
must work to open markets, eliminate tariffs and barriers, and ensure 
that our Nation remains at the forefront of global economic success. 
The freedom to trade is a basic human liberty, and its exercise across 
political borders unites people in peaceful cooperation and mutual 
prosperity.
  In his last speech as the last British Governor of Hong Kong, Chris 
Patten spoke about trade; and he said this: If a planetary spaceship 
had come to the planet Earth in the 16th century from the muddy flats 
of teepee-strewn North America to the typhoid-driven Longmen, to the 
warring planes in Paris and landed in the Ming dynasty, they would have 
concluded in a millisecond that China would rule the world for 
centuries. She had recently discovered gun powder, the printing press. 
She had a moderate sea and a growing and rich culture, and then she 
built a wall around herself and history told a different tale.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule. We need to 
proceed to debate and immediately adopt both of the underlying 
measures.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 6 
minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), my good friend.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida for 
yielding me the time.
  Where I come from in Ohio, trade is a four-letter word, J-O-B-S. 
Unfortunately, the President, the United States Trade Representative, 
and the

[[Page H7342]]

Republican leadership do not spell very well. They ought to simply look 
around.
  Since President Bush has taken office, we have lost 3 million jobs in 
this country. We have lost 2.1 million manufacturing jobs in this 
country.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding, and I would 
simply say one of the reasons we have not been able to have these job 
opportunities is the lack of this authority that has been put into 
place. We now for the first time are going to have markets opening up 
so that the four-letter word in Ohio that is so important, J-O-B-S, 
will, in fact, be enhanced; and I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California for 
his comments.
  I think that any reasonable people, if we would simply go home and 
talk to workers, talk to people, they will say that the anxiety they 
feel so often is because of our trade policy. These 3 million jobs we 
have lost, these 2.1 million manufacturing jobs are because of an 
economic program of tax cuts where a millionaire gets a tax cut of 
$93,000 and children and their families get nothing and families making 
15 and 20 and $25,000 a year, a Bush economic program that cuts 
benefits for health care, cuts benefits for education, cuts benefits 
for veterans, and these trade agreements, trade agreement after trade 
agreement after trade agreement, have cost American jobs.
  I look around. Last Sunday, there was a rally at a Goodyear plant in 
Akron, Ohio, in my district. Goodyear has only 14 factories in the 
United States left, one of the biggest rubber companies in the world. 
Most of their plants now are overseas. We had rallies at each of these 
14 plants simultaneously, and I walked around before speaking at this 
rally, and these workers get it.
  They understand the reason their jobs have gone overseas and those 
tires are made overseas and sold back into the United States. They 
understand that the failure of our economic policy lies at the feet of 
the failure of our trade policy. They understand that NAFTA took a 
surplus with Mexico and Canada in 1993 and has turned it into a $25 
billion trade deficit. They understand that our China policy, with a 
$100 million trade surplus only a dozen years ago, $100 million with an 
``M,'' now is a $100 billion trade deficit with that country.
  President Bush, Sr., used to say that $1 billion of trade turned into 
18,000 jobs. If we have a $1 billion trade surplus, we have a net gain 
of 18,000 jobs. If we have a trade deficit of $1 billion, we have a net 
loss of 18,000 jobs. Our China policy alone has turned basically a 
neutral job situation into 1.8 million jobs lost every year just 
because of our bilateral trade situation with China, 1.8 million jobs 
every year; and most of those jobs are good paying manufacturing jobs.
  Mexico has about 400, 500,000 jobs every year, Mexico-Canada trade 
deficit. Goodyear workers understand that. Steelworkers in Ohio and 
across the country understand that. Auto workers understand that. 
People who work with their hands understand that these trade agreements 
hemorrhage jobs.
  Two years ago, even Congress understood it when we passed the Jordan 
trade agreement. The Jordan trade agreement lifted people up, did not 
pull standards down. It lifted labor standards up. It lifted 
environmental standards up. It lifted food safety standards up, but 
Congress seems to have forgotten that lesson of Jordan. Hence, today, 
we consider Chile and we consider Singapore.
  These are two agreements that do not lift standards up. They pull 
standards down. They will cost American jobs. They will weaken American 
labor standards. They will weaken America in world and environmental 
standards.
  Let me just briefly, Mr. Speaker, take two issues to show that with 
Chile, people say Chile has decent labor standards. They do today, but 
under this agreement, unlike the Jordan agreement, where the Jordan 
agreement said labor standards are determined by ILO, International 
Labor Organization, standards, with Chile, Chile under this agreement 
gets to enforce its own labor standards. They may be pretty good labor 
standards today; but if we get a majority in the Chilean government 
like the majority in this country, we will have effective pressure to 
weaken labor law, as my friends on the other side of the aisle do here.

                              {time}  1200

  So Chile will see a weakening of labor and environmental law, and 
then we will see a weakening of labor and environmental standards under 
this trade agreement. If Chile had ILO labor standards, that would not 
be the case.
  The second issue is, under Jordan, we got rid of the Chapter 11 
investor state provisions, which, unfortunately, under NAFTA, allows 
corporations to sue foreign governments, shifting sovereignty from a 
democratically-elected government to corporate interests where a 
corporation can sue a government for passing a public health law or a 
food safety or an environmental law, weakening those laws that 
governments democratically attain.
  We should reject Chile and Singapore. We should go back to the Jordan 
model. We should reject Chile today, we should reject the Singapore 
agreement today, and we should go back to the Jordan model. The Jordan 
model lifts standards. It lifts people up rather than pulling people 
down. It is good for the environment, it is good for labor, it is good 
for food safety, and it is good for American values.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I 
have the highest regard for my friend from Ohio, but I want to make a 
couple of brief comments about the statements he made.
  First, at the outset, he talked about this being a Republican 
leadership effort. Yes, Republicans have provided leadership, but I 
think it will be very clear that strong bipartisan support, Democrats 
and Republicans alike, will be embracing both the Chile and the 
Singapore Free Trade Agreements, realizing what opportunities they will 
create.
  At the close of the gentleman's remarks he talked about lifting 
standards, and I completely concur with that. I believe very 
passionately that the best way, the most effective way to lift 
standards, and I appreciate his acknowledging that those labor 
standards are already high in Chile, the best way to do that is for us 
to enhance the economic standing of those people who are seeking the 
opportunity to get onto the first rung of the economic ladder.
  So I just wanted to say that I disagree with some of the conclusions 
that my friend might have drawn, but I think we do share the exact same 
goal.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Tucson, Arizona 
(Mr. Kolbe), my very able colleague who in 1987 asked me to join him as 
an original cosponsor of the legislation to obliterate tariffs among 
Canada, the United States, and Mexico so we could have a Free Trade 
Agreement. We have seen, with the NAFTA, a tripling of trade from 1993 
to today, and he has been a great leader on trade issues and I enjoy 
working with him.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time and for his kind comments, but I would have to say there has been 
no person in this House who has been a better advocate, a stronger 
advocate, a more forceful and articulate advocate of trade and the 
advantages it brings to American workers and American consumers than 
the person who just spoke, my friend, the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Dreier).
  Mr. Speaker, I do rise in support of this rule, and I rise in strong 
support of the underlying trade agreements with Chile and Singapore. I 
was delighted to see my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Hastings) saying he supports the rule as well. He spoke about some of 
the concerns he has. These concerns are ones of process, concern that 
there is not the ability to amend these bills on the floor.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, that was, of course, the debate that we had on 
Trade Promotion Authority, what we used to call Fast Track. That is not 
the issue here today. The issue here today is the substance of these 
two agreements, and the substance of these two agreements is indeed 
very good.
  This a momentous occasion in our trade policy. Passage of these two

[[Page H7343]]

trade agreements is the first time in a decade we have been able to use 
what we used to call Fast Track, now called Trade Promotion Authority, 
to get agreements. It will once again mean that the United States is 
aggressively pursuing its national interest, breaking down trade 
barriers and building a world of free trade. I commend the leadership 
of the administration and the Congress, both sides of the Capitol and 
both sides of the aisle, for bringing us to this point.
  I have a special reason for feeling very emotional about the Chile 
Free Trade Agreement. Eight years ago, in 1995, just shortly after 
NAFTA went into effect, the Speaker of the House asked me to go to 
Chile and talk to them about trade. I went there and I said I had a 
good deal of confidence that then President Clinton would seek Trade 
Promotion Authority, Fast Track Authority, and Congress would give it 
to him. Of course we know that that did not happen. And it was not 
until just last year that Trade Promotion Authority was granted the 
President. Now we are finally back on track.
  There has been so many dashed hopes in Chile, so much anticipation of 
what this could mean for them, and finally we are bringing it to 
fruition. Since the launching of these negotiations it has been a 
period of great unease in Chile, of anticipation as we struggled to 
secure TPA. All of Latin America has been watching the progression of 
Trade Promotion Authority, and now this agreement with Chile. For them 
it is the litmus test to verify that the U.S. would not renege on its 
commitment to the Western Hemisphere, and today Congress fulfills that 
commitment by moving forward.
  If we are to nurture fragile democracies in the region, if we are to 
foster development, development that actually leads to sustained better 
economic conditions for people in the region, as well as for Americans 
and consumers and workers in this country, we have to lead by example. 
We have to lead by bringing free trade to the region. Chile is that 
first step. It is an agreement that is in our economic, our foreign 
policy, our national security interest.
  More than 85 percent of bilateral trade in consumer and industrial 
products will immediately become duty free upon ratification, with most 
remaining tariffs eliminated within 4 years. Chile is offering new 
access for U.S. financial service companies, telecommunications, 
express delivery services, and professional service advisers.
  For Singapore, this is the first free trade agreement with an East 
Asian country. Singapore has expressed its early and unequivocal 
support for the United States and its war on terrorism following the 
events of September 11. Their support has been unwavering since that 
time.
  And when it comes to business and commercial interests, Singapore is 
the biggest customer we have in Southeast Asia. We now have investments 
in that city state that total $23 billion, and our exports to Singapore 
are $18 billion. So there is no doubt that the Singapore Free Trade 
Agreement is in the broad U.S. national interest. It will enhance our 
mutual interest in a stable, prosperous ASEAN and East Asia.
  I believe these agreements will stand as models for other bilateral 
trade agreements and their regions and in multilateral forms. I urge my 
colleagues to support this rule and the passage of legislation 
implementing these important agreements.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Strickland).
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time. I stand today to speak for the heartland of America. My 
Congressional district runs for about 300 miles along the edge of the 
Ohio River, bordering Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Kentucky. In one 
of my counties the unemployment rate is 11.4 percent, and in the City 
of Youngstown, Ohio, the unemployment rate is 18.2 percent.
  Now, I have heard some of my colleagues express concern for those who 
live in Chile, and I am not insensitive to the needs of the folks in 
Chile, but I think our first obligation is to look after the folks 
right here in the good old USA.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STRICKLAND. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. I totally 
agree, I totally agree with the statement my friend has just made. I 
believe our number one priority should be U.S. workers, U.S. producers, 
U.S. manufacturers. That should be our top priority, recognizing the 
benefits of opening up new markets for them.
  Our goal here, as I mentioned earlier, is with the elimination of the 
luxury tax in Chile we will be able to export more U.S. manufactured 
automobiles into the Chile market and that is why this will be a win-
win.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, let us look at the 
record. We heard that same rhetoric about NAFTA. Does anyone seriously 
believe that NAFTA has been good for this country? The people that I 
represent, who are without work, do not believe that NAFTA has been 
good for this country.
  What about the WTO, this body that tries to dictate policy for those 
of us who serve in this body? We have been elected by Americans to 
represent Americans, and in these trade deals, sadly, it seems to me 
that we are taking the authority that is invested in us through the 
Constitution and the responsibilities that we have as elected 
representatives and we are giving that responsibility to an external 
international organization.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman once again yield?
  Mr. STRICKLAND. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me to 
respond quickly to one point he made.
  The gentleman said how can anyone talk about the benefits of the 
North American Free Trade Agreement, and I would say to my friend that 
in 1993 trade between Mexico and the United States was roughly $83 
billion. Last year, trade between Mexico and the United States was $232 
billion.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Reclaiming my time, please, Mr. Speaker, I will 
acknowledge that the gentleman's statistics are correct, but what has 
happened with trade between this country and Mexico? The imbalance has 
increased dramatically in their favor. I recognize that these trade 
agreements encourage trade, but what is it doing to our companies, our 
workers, our communities? Other countries are in fact benefiting, and I 
will acknowledge that, but what is happening to our communities?
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield on 
that point, I think we have to realize that imports are very good and 
important for the United States of America. We have the standard of 
living that we do today because the world does have access to our 
consumer market.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Reclaiming my time once again, Mr. Speaker, I sat in 
the living room of one of my constituents not long ago and he looked at 
the television and he said, ``Congressman, I would be willing to pay 
$50 more or $100 more for a TV if I could buy one that was manufactured 
in America by my neighbors.'' That is what is happening to us.
  Are consumers getting cheaper goods? Well, I suppose they are. At 
what cost? What is happening to this country, and I just urge my 
colleagues to look at the record and to reject these agreements. And I 
thank my colleague for the dialogue.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. May I inquire of the Speaker the time 
remaining on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simmons). The gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Hastings) has 16\1/2\ minutes remaining and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier) had 8\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume, only to add to the debate that the distinguished chairman 
was having with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).
  There are other things that happened. I voted for NAFTA, Mr. 
Chairman, and I thought when I did that it would help in many ways. I 
pointed out to the gentleman last night, and I guess we could cite a 
lot of things, but the tomato industry in Florida was destroyed 
ultimately by NAFTA, accounting for the fact that there was a freeze 
that took place roughly around

[[Page H7344]]

the same time. But the dumping is what was the death knell.
  In addition, I genuinely thought in the maquilladoras that there was 
going to be environmental improvement. I have been down there, and 
there has not been substantial environmental improvement. And I have 
talked with a significant number of people from Mexico regarding wages, 
and I do find that there are still problems with reference to their 
hourly rate.
  But I will make the point that the one good thing NAFTA did was get 
rid of one-party rule in Mexico. But one-party rule or two-party rule 
does not account for the fact that the workers are not improving.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding to me, and I 
appreciate his engaging me on this issue.
  We did have a nice discussion upstairs in the Committee on Rules last 
night on this issue, and I was proud to underscore the fact that 
bringing about economic liberalizations through greater trade did in 
fact lead to political liberalization and to one-party rule.
  My friend has raised the issue of tomatoes, and I appreciate his 
acknowledging the freeze and the impact that that had on the tomato 
industry in Florida. One of the challenges I have found, Mr. Speaker, 
is that there are many people who like to blame every single ailment of 
society on the North American Free Trade Agreement. I would argue that 
while I know that there have been great challenges that the tomato 
industry has faced in Florida, it is important for us to realize that 
being able to compete in the global marketplace is a priority. And I am 
not here in this job, and I do not believe we as policymakers should 
have the protection of one industry over another as a priority.

                              {time}  1215

  And so I believe that quite frankly it may not have been the mere 
existence of the North American Free Trade Agreement that created the 
challenges that have existed in that area. Many in agriculture have 
made this claim to us that it is NAFTA that created this, that NAFTA is 
responsible for that. It is clearly because of the fact that the world 
has had ready access to the U.S. consumer market.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Most respectfully, Mr. Speaker, I would 
reclaim my time. I understand what the gentleman is saying, but I 
labored through that with agricultural interests in Florida; and I 
think that we could point significantly to the North American Free 
Trade Agreement as causative of our concern. I suggest to him that when 
CAFTA ultimately comes that he and I will have a very similar, but even 
more vigorous, debate.
  Mr. DREIER. Absolutely. I look forward to that. And we want to work 
very closely on that.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), a leader 
in this arena as well as of our caucus.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller).
  (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the most troubling part 
of this debate for me is that with the trade agreements that we have 
signed, and no one discounts the importance of trade to this country 
and to the world economy, that we continue to see that Americans 
subsidize this trade policy with the loss of their good-wage jobs.
  We are told time and again, as we were just recently this week, in 
the Wall Street Journal that those jobs are not coming back. This is 
not a question of losing your job in recession because of a slow 
economic time in manufacturing and then you get called back to your 
workplace. You are not going to get called back because your job has 
left the country. We said at the beginning of this trade debate some 15 
or 20 years ago that the low-paid jobs, the not-so-good jobs were the 
jobs that would go overseas and because of increased trade and because 
of our intellectual capacity and our ingenuity that Americans would get 
the good jobs, that the hot, heavy, dirty jobs would go overseas, the 
low-wage jobs would go overseas.
  But now what we see is that, in fact, middle-class jobs are leaving 
America to go overseas and in many instances what I am certain people 
would consider the high-wage jobs, as we were told again in the Wall 
Street Journal this week, are going overseas. $60,000-a-year software-
writing jobs, computer engineering jobs are being sent overseas where 
they can be done for $5,000 a year. It is just an economic swap. You 
simply have a job that you have here in California or Minnesota or 
Florida and you decide that this job you are paying for, as IBM did, 
you paid $60,000 for this job, you can have it done in India for 
$5,000; and that is simply an economic equation and it makes a lot of 
sense. It is just not very good for middle America.
  These trade agreements continue to be an assault on middle America. 
What I do not understand is why we insist that that be the case. 
Because I think it is clear that we can have expanded trade, we can 
open up markets, we can open up markets for American products and 
services and talent and at the same time hold onto these jobs. What we 
now see is in every industry those high-wage jobs are being traded in 
for low-wage jobs. It is true in steel. It is true in the automobile 
industry. You say, well, that is old-fashioned jobs; that is an old-
fashioned industry. No, what is old-fashioned about those industries is 
they had middle-class jobs. You could buy a house, you could buy a car, 
you could send your kid to school. That is what was old-fashioned about 
them. And even on the cutting edge of technology, in the steel industry 
or the automobile industry, they are being sent overseas, even from 
other countries. We are doing it in insurance and financial services 
and computer engineering and software-writing.
  The point is this, that the first generation of this trade agreement 
was we wanted to open up Chinese markets so we could sell into the 
Chinese market. Now what we see is the next generation of cutting-edge 
technology and cutting-edge countries not just from the United States 
but from all over the world that are going to China for the purposes of 
exporting. Those are jobs that are leaving here. Those are middle-class 
jobs. That is the assault on middle-class jobs. As long as we do not 
rise up and give workers the right to organize in other countries, then 
it is a fiction. It is a fiction that somehow we are going to protect 
American jobs.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, the point that I would like to make is a very clear one. 
We want to focus on middle-class jobs. We want to do everything that we 
can to enhance opportunities for U.S. workers in the manufacturing 
sector of our economy. That is why this Chile agreement will be very 
beneficial. Why? Under this agreement, Chile's government agrees to 
eliminate the auto luxury tax that exists there. What does that mean? 
It means that there will be enhanced opportunity for U.S. auto 
manufacturers and those middle-class workers that does not exist today.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. The question is, from what platform 
will those automobiles be made? The gentleman is suggesting that they 
are going to be made in Detroit and shipped to Chile. I am suggesting, 
no, it is more likely they are going to be made in Argentina or they 
are going to be made in Mexico or they are going to be made in Germany 
than they are going to be made in the United States. I appreciate that 
they will have access to the automobile market.
  Mr. DREIER. If the gentleman will yield on that point, I will tell 
him, they can be made in Argentina today and get in there tariff free 
because of the agreement that exists between Chile and Argentina. All 
we are saying with this agreement is, let us create the potential so 
Detroit autoworkers will have a chance to get into that market.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. If I could take back the balance of 
my time, the point is the fastest-growing

[[Page H7345]]

group in the United States, the fastest-growing organization is 
unemployed Americans looking for jobs.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), the cochair of the Chile coalition 
working group who has led the effort to ensure that we get this 
agreement to the floor today and has counted votes and worked very hard 
on it.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and 
those kind words.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule and of the 
underlying bills, H.R. 2638 and H.R. 2639, the U.S.-Chile and the U.S.-
Singapore Free Trade Agreements. They are both outstanding agreements 
that are worthy of our support.
  We have heard a great deal of talk right here on the floor today and 
during the week from opponents of these agreements who talk about 
everything but the agreements themselves. They talk about unemployed 
Americans. They talk about damage to the environment. They talk about 
waves of immigration. There is no doubt that these problems exist. But 
there is also no doubt that these problems are not about the issue at 
hand. The issue at hand is whether to approve implementing legislation 
for two particular agreements, the U.S.-Chile and U.S.-Singapore Free 
Trade Agreements, not the NAFTA, not a CAFTA, and not an FTAA. We are 
not voting today on models for future agreements. The Trade Promotion 
Authority that Congress granted the President last year provides the 
road map for future agreements and negotiations. And future agreements 
will have to come up to Congress for future votes.
  What we are talking about today are the merits of these two 
individual agreements and the benefits they will bring to our 
businesses and our workers. So, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my 
colleagues in the hours remaining before we cast our votes to just take 
a few moments to look at the specific merits of these two agreements 
with the two key partners in Asia and Latin America. Mr. Speaker, you 
will find that they expand market access opportunities for U.S. 
manufacturers, farmers, and service providers. You will find that they 
secure extensive protection for U.S. companies' intellectual property 
rights and investment, and you will find that they provide strong labor 
and environmental protections.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the Chile and Singapore 
free trade agreements.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Chile and 
Singapore free trade agreements. The Chile Free Trade Agreement will 
eliminate tariffs on 85 percent of U.S. exports to Chile immediately. 
The Singapore Free Trade Agreement eliminates Singapore's few remaining 
tariffs to U.S. goods and locks in Singapore's tariff-free treatment of 
U.S. imports.
  Under the U.S.-Chile Free Trade Agreement, American workers, 
consumers, businesses and farmers will enjoy preferential access to a 
small, but fast-growing, economy, enabling trade with no tariffs and 
under streamlined customs procedures. Over 75 percent of U.S. farm 
goods, including pork, beef, wheat, soybeans, feed grains, and potatoes 
will enter Chile duty free within 4 years. All other duties on U.S. 
agriculture products will be phased out over 12 years. U.S. farmers' 
access to Chilean markets will be as good or better than our 
competitors' in Chile. This will help reverse the gains Canada and 
Europe achieved in market share after implementing their free trade 
agreements with Chile.
  In light of the previous debate going on, I fail to understand how we 
can contend that American workers will benefit by denying our workers 
the opportunity to compete, in this case in Chile and in Singapore, for 
the jobs which is exactly what we have been doing, because other 
countries have negotiated free trade agreements with Chile and with 
Singapore. We have denied our workers the opportunity to compete. With 
96 percent of the world's consumers living outside the United States, 
we must continually look to expanding our markets outside the United 
States and, yes, working for fair trade agreements.
  While U.S. tariffs will also be eliminated over time under the free 
trade agreement, the agreement has a provision that will help protect 
farmers and ranchers from sudden surges in imports of designated 
agricultural products from Chile. That is a key ingredient. The 
agricultural safeguard provision will apply to imports of certain 
Chilean products, including many canned fruits, frozen concentrated 
orange juice, tomato products and avocados. The safeguard is price-
based and automatic. The prices for the commodities subject to 
safeguards will be programmed into the U.S. Customs Service computers, 
which will automatically assess the tariff uplift if the import value 
of the commodity falls below the trigger. I think this is an exciting 
component of this agreement.
  Quickly on Singapore, it guarantees zero tariffs immediately on all 
U.S. goods, and the FTA ensures that Singapore cannot increase its 
duties on any U.S. product.
  In conclusion, both the Chile and Singapore free trade agreements 
provide benefits for the United States by lowering duties on exports to 
Chile and locking in duty-free treatment for U.S. goods to Singapore. 
Both agreements also include innovative provisions on transparency and 
customs facilitation that will help promote full implementation of 
these agreements and further respect for the rule of law.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support implementation of 
the Chile and Singapore free trade agreements.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that my friend's statement is 
right on target. I would like to congratulate him on a couple of points 
that he made. First of all, realizing that 90 percent of the world's 
consumers are outside of U.S. borders. What that means is that as 150 
countries have embarked on these free trade agreements and we have been 
a party to only three of them, we have been left behind the eight ball. 
I know my California colleague (Mr. George Miller) was talking about 
workers. I see my friend from Toledo here who is about to speak. We all 
are focused on jobs and workers. Obviously, the agriculture sector of 
our economy is a critically important job creator; and I believe that, 
as my friend has pointed out, creating a chance to get into Chile's 
market along with dealing with surge safeguards so that we are not 
seeing a disproportionate negative impact on the United States will in 
fact inure to the benefit of workers here.
  I thank my friend and appreciate his service as cochair along with me 
with the U.S.-Mexico caucus, underscoring the benefits of the North 
American Free Trade Agreement.
  Mr. STENHOLM. In the remaining part of the minute that the gentleman 
yielded to me so that I could yield back to him, I would return the 
compliment and also commend him for continuing to emphasize jobs, 
workers, environmental issues, which are all going to have to be more 
seriously addressed in all future agreements. We both agree on that.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it will be interesting to see 
what the California wine growers think about this measure. Maybe the 
chairman will describe that on his time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez), a new Member of Congress and a 
leader in this field.
  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition 
to the rule and to the Chile and Singapore trade agreements. I oppose 
these bills because of the inadequate labor provisions embodied in 
both. These agreements yet again point to the fact that the Bush 
administration is determined to undermine not only worker protections 
here in the United States but also abroad as well.

[[Page H7346]]

  Under the current language of these bills, only one workers' rights 
provision is enforceable through dispute settlement, the obligation 
that a country enforce its own labor laws no matter how weak these 
labor laws may be. These FTAs give each country involved the option to 
gut their current labor laws to gain a trade advantage and face no 
consequences at all.
  The FTA with Jordan proved that a trade agreement could win the 
support of labor, but to do so it needs to contain a commitment that 
each country follow the guidelines set forth in the International Labor 
Organization's core labor standards.

                              {time}  1230

  The trade agreements before us today are a gigantic step backwards 
and are vehemently opposed by labor groups. Why in our current economic 
situation are we putting American workers at risk? Is it not enough 
that the unemployment rate has skyrocketed to 6.4 percent? Is it not 
enough that the Bush administration has presided over the loss of 3 
million private sector jobs, has failed to raise the minimum wage, 
allowing millions of older workers to lose half of their private 
pension benefits, and has denied unemployment benefits to millions of 
workers who exhausted their Federal unemployment workers benefits? One 
would think so but apparently that is not the case.
  My other concern is that these FTAs create new immigration policy in 
the context of a free trade agreement. This is a step into unchartered 
territory. The fact is there is no specific authority in the Trade Act 
of 2002 to negotiate new visa categories or impose new requirements on 
the current temporary entry system, but that is exactly what has been 
done in the negotiations of these two agreements. I urge my colleagues 
to vote no on both agreements.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. I yield to the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding and I welcome 
her to this body. I know she is a new Member here. I would say that the 
conclusions that have been drawn I believe are totally inaccurate.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), a new Member of Congress and a leader 
in this arena.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time to 
talk about this very important issue, and I rise against the rule as 
well.
  The issue of agricultural products came up a little earlier. The 
products that we are going to get into Chile are going to be subsidized 
products from our government and in turn preventing a lot of the 
African countries from being able to trade also and being able to 
compete on an international market.
  We all understand comparative advantage and I think we all understand 
the concept of free trade and I do not want to say for one second that 
I am not for trade. I think trade is a good thing. But what I cannot 
understand is why we would have this Jordan agreement which would have 
us able to enforce environmental standards and labor standards with the 
same capacity as commercial standards. We are rolling back these 
provisions in this agreement. And as much as we want to export our 
products, we want to export the ideals. And regardless of what party we 
belong to, we agree that in the last century in this country we made 
great strides in human progress with the labor movement, with the 
environmental movement, with the raising of living standards in this 
country, and I think we are getting away from that.
  I would like to share with the gentleman from California, and I have 
enormous respect for him and his staff, an article by Lou Dobbs in 
which, talking about free trade, he said, ``The proof is in the 
numbers: The U.S. account deficit, the broadest measure of transactions 
with other nations, swelled to $503 billion in 2002. That is not the 
way it was supposed to work. Increased global trade was supposed to 
lead to better jobs and higher standards of living by opening markets 
around the world for U.S. goods. Now some people, myself included, are 
rethinking the belief that free trade benefits all nations.''
  I think it is inaccurate to say that we think that somehow these 
manufacturing jobs are going to move back into northeast Ohio or go 
back to Detroit.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. And the case 
I would make is I think that Mr. Dobbs is wrong in coming to the 
conclusion that he has, but that is what the debate is all about.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think it shows a 
trend, though, to the gentleman from California, that there are many 
people who bought into the program in the early 1990s who are no longer 
agreeing with it.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Ryan) and ask him to yield to me.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I think the point that needs to be made is that with this agreement, 
we are focused. The gentleman talks about the rollback of the Jordan 
agreement. That was a separate agreement. This is an agreement that was 
struck between the leaders of Chile and the United States and the 
leaders of Singapore and the United States. The fact is we are 
enhancing living standards through greater trade, greater opportunities 
for that free flow of goods and services. And on those jobs that you 
talked about, the auto sector, I believe that by the elimination of the 
luxury tax in Chile we create a chance for his auto workers to have a 
chance there.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time because it is 
running out, there is no way we can say with a straight face that it 
does not pass the snicker test to think manufacturing jobs are going to 
come back into Ohio or anywhere in the industrial Midwest because we 
signed this agreement. If we are so committed to the labor standards, 
why are we rolling back the five principled stances of the 
International Labor Organization which were in the Jordan agreement? 
This is prohibition of slavery, nondiscrimination of employment, child 
labor, freedom of association. We are taking that out.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the main reason is that those circumstances 
do not exist in Chile. It is not necessary. It is not necessary to 
address those issues.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Then why not put them in?
  Mr. DREIER. That is why they do not have to be there.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Members will address their remarks to 
the Chair.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would urge the Chair, since 
the gentleman from California has more time, if he is inclined to yield 
time on his side.
  Mr. DREIER. May I inquire of the Chair how much time we have 
remaining on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) 
has 4 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) 
has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Sessions), the cochair of the Singapore effort to bring 
about success on the floor here, my very good friend and able colleague 
on the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules, for yielding me this 
time.
  Also, he and the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) are heading 
up this great effort from the Republican side to make sure that we work 
with the administration on this important effort for free trade 
agreements.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this Singapore effort because 
I believe it is in the best interest of America. It is in the best 
interest of Singapore. These are two great nations who

[[Page H7347]]

not only work with each other but have so much in common. This free 
trade agreement is going to do things which will help both countries, 
most specifically as it deals with intellectual property and the way we 
deal with each other to resolve disputes.
  Singapore is going to adopt as a result of this free trade agreement 
laws which are the same or similar to the United States so that our 
companies, people who do business back and forth, have an opportunity 
to look at the same type of legal system in the resolution of disputes.
  As was noted on June 10, Tom Lipscomb wrote in the Wall Street 
Journal: ``Entertainment content is now [America's] largest export, and 
information is the basis of more than half of gross domestic product'' 
of America. We need to make sure intellectual property, we need to make 
sure that the content that is a valuable asset of United States of 
America has an opportunity to have a free and open day in court 
wherever we sell these intellectual property possessions that the 
United States has.
  Singapore is a good friend of America. We are going to find that as 
we work through free trade agreements that this will become the gold 
standard as we deal with other places all around the globe.
  I support the free trade agreement with Singapore. I thank the 
gentleman from California for his expert leadership and his vision in 
making sure that with our President that we have friends all around the 
globe that enjoy the same opportunities that we do in America.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, to close the debate on our 
side, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), 
whose district I had the good fortune of visiting and could see 
firsthand some of the pain of previous free trade agreements.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time and for the opportunity to urge my colleagues to vote no on this 
rule which restricts debate today to 2 hours, as has happened on every 
so-called free trade agreement that has come before this body in the 
last 20 years. Restricted time means no opportunity to really take a 
look at what has happened.
  Many of us have served here long enough to know that the NAFTA idea 
of trade does not work. The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), my 
good friend, you told me when you voted for NAFTA back in 1993 it would 
create jobs. In fact, it has done exactly the opposite. We have 
historic trade deficits with Mexico, this year alone close to $50 
billion.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. KAPTUR. I am sorry, I will not yield. You have only given me 2 
minutes under your limited rule, as millions of people in this country 
lose their jobs and lose their futures. There is so much suffering we 
can lay to your hands as one of those who voted for NAFTA in 1993. I 
want you to meet the people who have lost their jobs all over this 
country, over 3 million people just in the last 3 years alone.
  Look at NAFTA and these trade deficits. You told us in 1993 that this 
template for trade, which you now want to extend to Singapore and to 
Chile, would work, that it would give us jobs. It has been just the 
reverse. Our jobs have been cashed out, and Mexico has turned into an 
export platform to the United States, and the wages of Mexico's people 
have been cut by half. By half! You have hurt people in both countries 
due to those who voted for NAFTA. So we now have lost jobs and growing 
trade deficits. You told us our trade accounts would be better. We now 
have half a trillion dollars of trade debt in this country. One million 
lost jobs alone this year are related to that half a trillion in 
deficit and every year in the last 10 years, deeper and deeper deficit, 
more lost jobs. Your plan is not working. We have trade deficits, not 
surpluses, and we have job losses not jobs created. In my home 
community of Toledo, unemployment now is 10 percent. Every year it gets 
worse and the Fed has invented a new term, ``jobless recovery.'' What 
is that?
  And, finally, on China after PNTR, we experienced huge trade deficits 
with more lost jobs. Your record is indefensible. Vote no on this 
Singapore and Chile expansion of the NAFTA trade template. It has not 
worked before, and it surely will not work now.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am inclined to close the debate myself, 
and I hope my colleague from Toledo will stay here because I plan to 
close the debate and respond to some of the statements that were just 
made. So I have no further requests for time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am entitled to close the debate here, and 
then I will be moving the previous question. So if the gentleman will 
complete his statement.

                          ____________________