[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 112 (Friday, July 25, 2003)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1631]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      UNITED STATES-CHILE FREE TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                            HON. MAX SANDLIN

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, July 24, 2003

  Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for the 
U.S. free trade agreements (FTAs) with Chile and Singapore. I do so, 
however, with serious reservations, and appreciate this opportunity to 
explain my concerns.
  Critics of the Chile and Singapore trade agreements assert that these 
FTAs contain inadequate labor protections, and specifically note that 
they include only one labor rights provision that is enforceable 
through dispute resolution proceedings. While it is accurate that the 
Chile and Singapore agreements would subject only the ``enforce your 
own laws'' standard to dispute settlement, critics of these agreements 
are well aware that this is only the case because Chile and Singapore's 
labor laws currently exceed the International Labor Organization's 
(ILO) five core labor standards, and both countries (especially Chile) 
have strong, effective labor movements. Similarly tough labor laws and 
movements did not exist in Mexico during consideration of the North 
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and in Jordan during 
consideration of the U.S.-Jordan FTA. Consequently, NAFTA and the 
Jordan agreement needed multiple enforceable labor standards included 
in them.
  Opponents of these trade agreements fear that the Office of the U.S. 
Trade Representative (USTR) will use the Chile and Singapore agreements 
as templates for future FTAs. I strongly believe that each free trade 
agreement should be examined on its own merits, and do not believe that 
these agreements should be used as templates for future trade 
agreements. The treatment of workers varies widely from country to 
country; accordingly, the numbers of enforceable labor standards in 
future trade agreements need to change to fit the particular 
circumstances of the parties involved in each agreement.
  The USTR has indicated its intention to complete negotiations on the 
Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) by the end of this year, 
and, as both a member of the Ways and Means Committee and a member of 
the full House, I will be closely following the progress of these 
negotiations and the final terms of the agreement. Failure to include 
significant enforceable labor standards in CAFTA, which includes 
several Central American countries with disgraceful working conditions 
and histories of virtually nonexistent enforcement of labor statutes, 
will doom this agreement. I will vigorously oppose a weak Central 
American Free Trade Agreement, and will oppose any other future trade 
agreements that reward countries with poor labor conditions.
  During my time in Congress, I have worked hard with my colleagues 
from both parties to ensure that core labor standards are both 
protected and enforced. In 2002, partly in response to serious concerns 
regarding labor protections in the Trade Promotion Authority Act, I 
voted against granting fast track authority to the President. I 
believed then, and continue to believe, that fast track authority 
contains within it the potential to adversely affect American workers 
through the loss of domestic jobs in Texas and across the country.
  In general, I believe that many of our industries in Texas and the 
country at large, such as agriculture, financial services, 
telecommunications, and computers, can benefit from available and fair 
markets in other countries. Access to foreign markets for U.S. goods 
and services, however, must be balanced with a concern for domestic 
industries that are most threatened by uneven trade agreements. I have 
too often witnessed the downside of trade agreements that allow 
subsidized foreign imports to overwhelm domestic products such as steel 
and softwood lumber, which are significant sources of jobs for 
thousands of East Texans. My qualified support for the U.S.-Chile and 
U.S.-Singapore free trade agreements is based largely on my belief that 
these agreements will benefit American exports while not threatening 
domestic industries in America.
  As Congress seeks to influence future trade negotiations and 
agreements, I will continue to work with my colleagues to craft trade 
deals that are fair to American workers, working people across the 
world, and our domestic industries.

                          ____________________