[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 116 (Thursday, July 31, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10574-S10578]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the Chile and
Singapore free-trade agreements that are currently before this body. If
these agreements were similar to earlier free-trade agreements voted on
by this body--NAFTA, Israel, Jordan--I would have absolutely no
difficulty whatsoever casting votes in favor of both. That, however, is
not the case. These agreements are not your garden-variety free-trade
agreements. In fact, these two agreements break new ground with the
inclusion of specialized immigration provisions which weaken existing
legal safeguards against U.S. employers displacing American workers
with lower wage nonimmigrant visa holders.
I thank immensely the Presiding Officer who held a very worthwhile
hearing just a day or so ago in the Judiciary Committee on one of these
visa provisions, the L-1 visa issue. I thank him immensely for giving
me an opportunity to address my concerns about some of the loopholes in
that particular agreement.
I want to draw my colleagues' attention that I have rarely, if ever,
voted
[[Page S10575]]
against a free-trade agreement. I have been a strong supporter of free
trade, but I must caution my colleagues about what is in these two
agreements that were never a part, as I understood it, of the trade
laws but rather add immigration provisions which I think go far beyond
what many of us intended to be the case.
My concern is, despite some very good provisions in both the Chile
and Singapore agreements, we are breaking new ground which I think we
will come to regret with some 30 other bilateral free-trade agreements
pending before this body that will be voted up or down without any
amendments being offered which is a result of the fast-track authority
which this body endorsed only a number of months ago.
This is but one more example of the troubling pattern of
insensitivity to the concerns of American workers that our trade
representatives not negotiate away their jobs in the name of free
trade. U.S. negotiators have, in effect, been doing so by ignoring the
labor practices and policies of our trading partners in the context of
including new trade agreements and by not addressing the linkage that
exists between foreign labor markets and the ability of American
workers to remain internationally competitive.
One year ago, the Senate voted to give the President trade promotion
authority allowing him to negotiate additional trade agreements and
limiting the Congress to an up-or-down vote on each trade agreement
without the ability to amend them.
Breaking with my normal practice with respect to such legislation, I
decided to oppose final passage of that bill. I did so because I did
not think the legislation included adequate language making it crystal
clear that a primary negotiating objective of future trade agreements
must be to ensure that as a condition of the U.S. signing such
agreements with other governments, those governments must live up to
recognized international labor organizations' standards with respect to
wages and other workers' rights.
During the so-called fast-track debate, I offered an amendment that
would have required fast-track authority to be in parity with the
Jordan standards, a trade agreement that passed 100 to 0 in this body
only a few months earlier.
I thought, with Congress poised to renew Presidential fast-track
authority, it was more important than ever that with the discretion
being granted to the President to negotiate trade agreements, an
obligation to uphold universally recognized labor standards in those
agreements be part of the deal.
Because the language included in the Jordan Trade Agreement dealt
effectively with that matter, it made perfect sense, since we had voted
100 to 0 to endorse it, to include similar language as part of future
agreements.
The administration disagreed with that approach and my amendment was
defeated. Under those circumstances, I had no choice but to vote
against final passage of the permanent trade authority legislation, and
did so with regret.
At the time of the vote, I urged the administration to take note of
the vote by someone who was normally a strong supporter of free-trade
agreements and understand it was an expression of deep concerns that
poorly crafted free-trade agreements will undermine our economy and the
prosperity of working American families.
I was amazed that the concerns expressed by the American workers
during the debate of the permanent trade authority legislation had been
so quickly confirmed with respect to the first two agreements that this
administration had sent to Congress since the FTA became law. There are
likely to be as many as 30 free-trade agreements negotiated utilizing
this extraordinary authority.
I have been a strong proponent of entering a bilateral trade
agreement with Chile for many years. I am extremely disappointed that
provisions that should not be in this agreement have been included. In
all the years the proposal for a free-trade agreement with Chile has
been discussed, there was never, ever--never--any mention of
nonimmigrant visa provisions being included as part of a final
agreement.
I recognize there are many features of the Chile and Singapore
agreements that will promote a freer flow of goods and services between
the United States and Chile and Singapore. The agreements include
comprehensive commitments by Chile and Singapore to open their
agricultural, service, and overall markets to the United States. That
is great news, indeed.
Were those the only provisions we were considering today, I would,
with enthusiasm, endorse and support these two agreements. But there
are other provisions in these agreements that my colleagues ought to
pay attention to, which have gotten very little attention at all. It is
those provisions I am concerned about because they are steps in the
wrong direction with respect to protecting American jobs in my State
and elsewhere across this country.
I would predict there are Members of this body who are unaware that
these agreements will allow as many as 1,500 nonimmigrant visa holders
from Chile and 5,400 from Singapore to be hired each year by U.S.
employers, without those employers first having made a good-faith
effort to fill the vacancies with American workers. These agreements
will make it easy for U.S. employers to employ temporary workers from
those two countries with little or no oversight by the Department of
Labor. Moreover, once enacted into law, these provisions will have the
effect of undermining the intent of our nonimmigrant visa programs--
namely, that they be temporary in nature--by allowing Chilean and
Singaporean visa holders to renew their visas for an indefinite period
of time.
These provisions are not in the interest of hard-working Americans
who currently find themselves out of work or in fear that they will
find themselves unemployed at a moment's notice.
With the unemployment rate at 6.4 percent, and more than 9 million
people in this country unemployed, I think we have a responsibility to
enact policies that will bring about more job opportunities for U.S.
workers instead of making it easier for additional workers to lose
their jobs to lower-wage nonimmigrant visa holders.
The U.S. Trade Representative has not demonstrated, in my view, the
inclusion of these provisions as central to the effectiveness of these
agreements. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that laws
governing the H-1B and L-1 visa programs pose barriers to trade or
undermine our ability to meet our obligations in these trade
agreements. I will never understand why the Bush administration used
the opportunity of these trade agreements to actually weaken the laws
with respect to those two programs, and doing so statutorily.
At the very time we are debating these pending agreements, critics of
our existing H-1B and L-1 programs are crying foul. The root of their
concerns is that current law contains insufficient safeguards against
the misuse of those programs in ways that cause American workers to be
displaced from their jobs. Yet the language in the bills before us
today is even weaker than existing laws in these areas.
Last week I introduced S. 1452, the U.S. Jobs Protection Act. This
bill increases the monitoring and enforcement authorities of the
Department of Labor over the H-1B and L-1 visa programs, and closes
loopholes in these programs to prevent unintended U.S. job losses.
These agreements would prevent those reforms from being extended to H-
1B and L-1 visa holders from Chile and Singapore. That is unacceptable,
and ought to be to many of my colleagues.
I am extremely concerned unless those of us in this body speak out
against the inclusion of these immigration provisions in the pending
agreements, the administration will happily include similar language in
the other remaining bilateral agreements that will come before this
body, including the Central American free-trade agreement that is
currently being negotiated. That would be a terrible mistake. In the
best of circumstances, the CAFT agreement is going to have difficulty
being approved next year. It will be dead on arrival, in my judgment,
if the administration overreaches again in this area.
Mr. President, I regret the administration has chosen to overstep its
authority in negotiating these agreements with Chile and Singapore. I
strongly believe that trade--fair trade--creates new opportunities for
America's manufacturers and our
[[Page S10576]]
workers. But as a Member of this body, I cannot support a bill that
disregards the needs of American workers, allows immigrant legislation,
migration legislation to be included so blatantly in a free-trade
agreement, as we try to secure decent-paying jobs and keep our
unemployment rates down, and offer Americans an opportunity.
It is hard enough to convince them that free-trade agreements are in
the best interest of the American economy and for the creation of jobs,
but when you give away, each year, under these two agreements, more
than 8,000 jobs in this country, without ever having to face anything
at all, that is wrong.
If we do not speak up tonight about it, believe me, as I stand here
before you, you are going to see these provisions included in all of
the remaining 30 bilateral agreements, and that would be a mistake, in
my view.
In a perfect world, I would hope these agreements could be withdrawn
and resubmitted to the Senate without the inclusion of these
immigration provisions. However, that is unlikely to happen, obviously.
For that reason, I am left with no choice but to cast my vote--with
deep regrets, with deep regrets--in favor of protecting, as I must,
American working families, who are under tremendous pressure and strain
today, and against the implementing legislation before us.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator withhold his suggestion?
Mr. DODD. Withdrawn.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have long supported initiatives to
expand foreign markets for American goods. Trade liberalizing
agreements with other countries, if negotiated correctly, can benefit
American farmers, ranchers and manufacturers. Likewise, strengthening
economic ties with these countries can advance our foreign policy
interests. The agreements pending before us today, the Chilean and
Singaporean Free Trade Agreements, fit both of these criteria, and I
intend to support them both.
The agreement with Singapore, our twelfth largest trading partner, is
the first such FTA with an Asian nation. Singapore is a long-standing
ally in this vitally important region and has worked closely with the
United States in the war against terrorism. Currently, for instance,
Singapore is building an aircraft carrier pier at its port, the largest
in the world, specifically for U.S. vessels.
Under this agreement, Singapore will eliminate duties on all U.S.
products and broadly open its service sector across a wide range of
industries. These and other commitments, such as strong protection of
intellectual property rights, will benefit American investors and
exporters.
With regard to Chile, I am pleased that after years of much
anticipation this agreement is finally complete. Chile has stood out as
one of South America's economic leaders for some time, and this
agreement will serve to solidify our support for its continued
progress. Today, Chile has free trade arrangements with Canada, Mexico,
and the European Union. This United States-Chile Free Trade Agreement
will provide important parity for American exporters. This is very
important for wheat growers who have lost substantial market share as a
result of the Chile-Canada trade agreement. Our agreement should
provide an opportunity to re-gain those exports.
The issue that has concerned me most is what will the impact be on
our beef producers. The impact is more complex than the clear advantage
for wheat farmers. Chile potentially is a consumer market for beef.
Chile is a substantial importer of beef and the U.S. produces the
finest beef in the world. The agreement takes important steps to open
the Chilean beef market to U.S. producers, many of whom are from my
home State of South Dakota.
My concern and that of many South Dakota farmers is that beef born
and raised in Argentina will be sent to Chile for slaughter and be
labeled as Chilean beef under the existing rules of origin law that
only requires the product to be slaughtered in a country. After careful
examination, it is my expectation, however, that the administration
will prevent such transhipment for other countries in the region and
protect our own farmers and ranchers from injurious imports from
abroad.
Therefore, I believe that on balance the U.S. Chilean agreement is
good for our beef producers. The agreement is good for our other
exporters and it advances our foreign policy interests and I support
it.
I support the agreements before the Senate today and will vote for
their passage. I do want to take this opportunity, however, to raise my
strong concern about a possible trade agreement with Australia.
Australia has long been one of America's staunchest allies. Our
shared commitment to freedom and democracy is the foundation of a
relationship that has grown even stronger since September 11. Indeed,
Australia was among the first countries to offer its support in the
wake of terrorist attacks on our country last year. Australia is an
important American ally and one who we can and should work with closely
within the WTO multilateral negotiations.
I am, however, deeply concerned about the effect that a potential
free trade agreement with Australia could have on our own beef, lamb
and wool producers.
Australia is increasingly involved in grain feedlots for cattle.
Grain feed beef more directly compete with U.S. beef in the higher end
beef market because of its higher quality. Australian farmers receive
the benefit of a state trading enterprise, the Australian Wheat Board,
which manages the supply of all grain in that country, and thus
influences the price of grain. Ranchers in Australia receive
assistance, not only from the wheat board, but also receive various
other subsidies.
Australia is the world's largest beef exporter and with fewer people
than cows, the country is not a significant import market. Finally,
Australian live cattle are increasingly being exported. In fact USDA
projects that over 900,000 head will be exported in 2003 using, among
other means, huge ocean-going ships that can deliver up to 25,000 head
per vessel. As a potential FTA with Australia progresses, I am hopeful
that we will be able to address these very real concerns. Without some
remedy, I will not be able to support the agreement.
With regard to lamb, there are not U.S. tariffs on lamb today.
Currently one-third of our domestic lamb consumption is imported lamb
and we are Australia's biggest export market for lamb. The U.S.
currently takes in 20 percent of all of the lamb Australia produces.
However, Australia's prices are well below our market, and rather than
work to develop new markets, most often they come into our best
markets, and underprice our domestic producers. In fact, I am told that
they have even compensated supermarkets in the U.S. with advertising
budgets on the condition that they sell only imported products.
With regard to wool, we need to protect the existing tariffs.
Australia has a record of vastly over-producing for the market and
negatively impacting our domestic prices. The current tariffs are
important to keep in place. As a potential FTA with Australia
progresses, I am hopeful that we will be able to address these very
real concerns. Without some acceptable remedy, I will not be able to
support the agreement.
A year ago, we worked on a bipartisan basis to pass Trade Promotion
Authority. This law was employed to pass the two trade agreements
before us. The administration is to be commended for the successful
conclusion of these agreements and again I will support both.
However, it is clear that support for trade liberalization is fragile
both in the Congress and around the country. I urge the administration
to work with us and to take steps to build greater consensus and to
avoid taking steps that undermine that consensus:
Trade Promotion Authority is a delegation of the Congress's
authority. The administration jeopardizes future such delegations if it
oversteps its bounds. This Congress did not vote last year to delegate
the authority to make immigration policy. The administration must avoid
such over reaching in the future.
I continue to have concerns about how rules of origin are applied.
The Bush administration should insist on a strict standard for
designating the country of origin of both live cattle
[[Page S10577]]
and beef. At a minimum, the ``born in country'' standard should be
adhered to. Although I would certainly prefer that we work with our
trading partners to obtain a ``born, raised, and slaughtered'' standard
for designating the country-of-origin of beef. This latter standard
reflects the current country of origin law in place in the United
States. This tighter standard is advocated by the major farm
organizations in our country in addition to cattle ranchers and
consumer groups who all believe this is a better definition.
Last year, we put top priority on helping those Americans who are on
the losing side of trade. The administration made an agreement with us,
but to date the administration has not honored that agreement. TAA for
Farmers was supposed to be operational 6 months ago, yet has still not
gotten off the ground. The Health Tax Credit was to be made available
and advanceable this month, yet only 22 States have made the
appropriate steps. More importantly, a number of technical corrections
to the program have been stalled in Congress and the administration has
not helped advance them. These technical corrections are essential to
ensuring that the targeted workers, which we agreed on, receive their
much-needed health benefits. The wage insurance program for older
workers has remained completely dormant and the administration has
taken no steps to implement this program.
Since the beginning of 2001, more than two million manufacturing jobs
have been lost. I strongly urge the administration to join with us and
let's use the replacement of the FSC regime as an opportunity to
promote U.S. manufacturing jobs.
We must recognize that there is no ``one-size-fits-all'' approach to
dealing with labor and environmental standards in other countries.
While I applaud the provisions included in these agreements, they
should not, I repeat, should not, be perceived as some sort of template
for future negotiations. The conditions of countries in Central America
are significantly different than those in Chile or Singapore and should
be treated as such.
We need to have strong enforcement of our trade laws. Currently, for
example, the United States International Trade Commission is reviewing
the section 201 tariffs in place against injurious imports of steel. So
far, the temporary restrictions have provided some mills the time
needed to make modest steps towards recovery. Repealing these measures
now, however, would greatly undercut this moderate success, and I
therefore urge the President to maintain these safeguards for the full
three years.
Finally, today is a good day for relations between the United States
and our friends and partners in Singapore and Chile. By strengthening
our economic ties, we have benefitted the people of all our countries
and encouraged a mutually supportive partnership that will benefit all
aspects of our bilateral relationships.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I support swift passage of the U.S.-Chile
and U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement Implementation Acts, S. 1416
and S. 1417, respectively. These are the first in what I hope will be a
long list of trade agreement implementation bills necessary to enact
trade deals negotiated and signed by the President under the authority
granted him by Congress last year.
Stemming from the Trade Act of 2002, which included Trade Promotion
Authority (TPA), agreements such as the two before us are helping to
reestablish U.S. credibility in the area of trade. The President and
his administration are now able to more freely negotiate, encouraging
countries once reluctant to begin trade negotiations with the U.S. to
come to the table. The U.S.-Chile Free Trade Agreement and the U.S.-
Singapore Free Trade Agreement are prime examples of the United States'
commitment to free and open trade. I hope they provide a launching pad
for new trade agreements with key partners in every region of the
world.
Our staunchest allies and most important trading partners have had
reason to doubt our dedication to the free trade principles we have
long advocated as a driving force of prosperity and stability. A series
of short-sighted, protectionist actions in recent years has jeopardized
our relationships with our most important trading partners. That makes
enactment of these bilateral free trade agreements even more important.
These agreements may not have a dramatic economic impact in the
United States, but they are sure to yield benefits to American
consumers and businesses. Enactment of agreements such as those before
us help us regain our credibility and leadership in championing free-
trade principles around the world. I hope they set a precedent for more
aggressive liberalization of our trade with other nations in Asia,
Latin America, Africa, Europe, and the Middle East.
I commend Ambassador Zoellick for his efforts to bring these free
trade agreements to fruition, as well as for his commitment to
exhaustive consultations with Congress. Our agreement with Chile is one
more step towards our goal of a Free Trade Area of the Americas, on
which we all hope to see greater progress. Our agreement with
Singapore, a key ally in the war on terror, will hopefully help propel
future trade liberalization in Southeast Asia, one of the world's most
dynamic regions.
As it stands now, Singapore is our 12th largest trading partner, and
our largest trading partner in the strategic region of Southeast Asia.
This agreement would eliminate many barriers to trade and investment,
and improve market access and opportunities for U.S. goods and
services. In addition, this agreement would provide regulatory reforms
and transparency, two key components in establishing the strong ties
and trust necessary for trade.
Implementation of the negotiated agreement with Chile would place us
on an equal footing with the European Union and Canada, which already
enjoy their own FTAs with Chile. Despite having to play market access
catch-up, our farmers and ranchers will enjoy duty-free access to
Chile's markets within 12 years; and computer and other information
technology products, medical equipment, and other goods will gain
immediate duty-free access.
Throughout the negotiating process, environmental and labor matters
received considerable scrutiny. The FTAs address these concerns through
provisions laid out in both agreements that call for Singapore and
Chile to provide a high level of environmental protection, and require
each nation to endeavor to improve upon their laws where necessary.
Each nation is to reaffirm its obligations as part of the International
Labor Organization and strive to make sure its laws reflect the labor
principles therein.
These negotiations and the agreements they have produced are a good
start towards accomplishing Congress' purpose for passing the Trade Act
last year: an aggressive agenda to liberalize trade with key partners,
producing comprehensive agreements which reduce barriers to trade,
providing tangible benefits to American consumers and businesses, and
reestablishing our credibility and leadership in championing free trade
principles around the world.
I am, however, concerned that immigration provisions contained in
these trade bills set a bad precedent. Although I support the spirit of
these provisions, I strongly believe that changes to U.S. immigration
policy should be thoroughly debated in Congress and such modifications
do not belong in trade agreements negotiated between our government and
other nations. I discourage their inclusion in future trade agreements.
Overall, these are fine examples of what Congress intended when we
passed TPA. I hope we will soon see action on free trade agreements
that are currently being negotiated with Australia, Central America,
Morocco, Southern Africa, and others in the not too distant future. I
also would like to see the Administration take concrete steps to
liberalize trade in the greater Middle East, in effect operationalizing
the President's call for a free trade area there within a decade.
Finally, I hope that the administration, with Congress's support, can
make significant progress in the next round of global trade talks this
fall. Global trade liberalization through the World Trade Organization
is the most effective and efficient way to bring down barriers to
trade, the best way to open the markets of key trading partners in
Europe and Asia, and to enforce
[[Page S10578]]
free trade principles. The conclusion of economically meaningful
bilateral trade agreements, coupled with an aggressive campaign for
global trade liberalization, will reestablish our credibility and
leadership on free trade and energize the American and global
economies. America and the world will be better off as a result.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, a year ago, with the support of American
agriculture, Congress approved legislation granting trade promotion
authority to President George W. Bush. The President has demonstrated a
strong commitment to expanding the American economy by actively
engaging in an aggressive trade strategy. This strategy includes
negotiations with Chile and Singapore, regional efforts with the Free
Trade Area of the Americas, and the Central American Free Trade
Agreement talks, and with the World Trade Organization.
Congress has had unprecedented access and consultation with
negotiators, resulting in agreements without hidden compromises or
concessions. Public hearings in the Senate and the House have enabled
agricultural groups and others who have a stake in these negotiations
to make their views and interests known.
Both the Chile and Singapore agreements passed the other body last
week by a substantial margin. It is now time for the Senate to approve
the agreements.
The U.S./Chile agreement provides important new opportunities for
America's farmers and ranchers. Chile is a market of more than 15
million people with an open and progressive economy. Both the European
Union and Canada already have free trade agreements with Chile.
Our negotiators were successful in their efforts to eliminate duties
on more than three-quarters of American agricultural products within
the first 4 years. The agreements also contain a safeguard provision
which will help prevent surges in trade volumes. To discourage the use
of nontariff barriers, a sanitary and phytosanitary working group will
ensure that standards of inspection and food are based on sound
science.
The U.S./Singapore agreement has the positive effects of freer and
fairer trade and they make this agreement worthy of support as well.
Singapore has become our 11th largest trading partner and provides the
U.S. services sector with fair and immediate increase in market access.
I urge my colleagues to vote for both the Chile and Singapore free-
trade agreements.
____________________