[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 116 (Thursday, July 31, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10578-S10585]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



  (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered 
to be printed in the Record.)
 Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, tonight the Senate passed 
implementing legislation for the Chile and Singapore Free Trade 
Agreements. These FTAs are comprehensive in nature and will serve well 
the interests of the United States. But they are not without flaws. I 
want the record to reflect my concerns and, more importantly, I want to 
make clear that I believe the direction the Bush administration is 
taking in the on-going negotiations over the Central American Free 
Trade Agreement and the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas is 
unacceptable.
  Chile is an excellent candidate for a free trade agreement. It has 
one of the fastest growing economies in the world. The agreement the 
Senate has passed tonight should facilitate a general expansion of 
American exports, particularly in electronics and transportation 
equipment industries. This will create good work and good jobs here in 
America. More broadly, Chile is the first Latin American country to 
join in a free trade agreement with the United States, and that will 
allow the United States to more directly support economic and social 
reform in Latin America and will serve as a major stepping stone for 
enhanced hemispheric trade and job growth here at home.
  Singapore is also an excellent candidate. Singapore is our 12th 
largest export market. The country provides a critical link between the 
United States and South East Asia and Singapore is the second largest 
Asian investor in the United States after Japan. Although the economic 
effects of the Singapore agreement are not likely to be great, this FTA 
would add a formal economic link to our significant security 
relationship with Singapore. It is an agreement that will ultimately 
build greater trade and create jobs here in America.
  Chile and Singapore both have laudable records in financial 
regulation and transparency and have demonstrated a commitment to 
fundamental worker protections. For example, Chile has adopted several 
international labor rights conventions. The United States, by contrast, 
has adopted only two. The performance of these two countries in these 
areas, and their status as models of reform in their respective 
regions, make these trade agreements desirable. That is not to say 
these nations are not without problems or that further improvement is 
not needed. It is to make clear that these nations have made progress, 
are striving to improve, and that these agreements will only help them 
develop and enforce more advanced policies. And more importantly, these 
agreements will not put American workers at risk of unfair competition.
  But, as I have said, there are flaws with these agreements. Over the 
past decade, the treatment of labor and environmental issues in trade 
agreements has evolved both in emphasis and enforcement. NAFTA 
represents an early stage in this evolution, addressing labor and 
environmental issues in the context of the agreement, albeit in side 
accords. The United States-Jordan Free Trade Agreement was the first 
FTA to include labor provisions in the actual text of the agreement and 
to subject those provisions to the same dispute settlement procedure as 
all other elements of the agreement.
  Although the Chile and Singapore agreements should be the next step 
forward in this evolution towards strong and effectively enforced labor 
and environmental standards, they are in fact a step back. Unlike the 
United States-Jordan FTA, the only labor provision subject to dispute 
settlement is the requirement that each trading partner enforce its 
existing labor laws.
  In addition, the Bush administration, specifically the United States 
Trade Representative, included provisions in this agreement related to 
immigration policy. The result is that America will allow the temporary 
entry of more than 6,000 foreign professionals for employment. This is 
not wise economic policy in good times and it is only worse economic 
policy in our current recession. Further, it amends unrelated 
immigration law, and I believe the Bush administration has abused fast 
track authority in doing so.
  The final point I want to make this evening is, in my view, the most 
important. The Bush administration has made clear that it plans to use 
the Chile and Singapore FTAs as models or templates for future trade 
negotiations. I feel strongly that future negotiations must reflect the 
particular concerns and uniqueness of each trading partner. This seems 
obvious, but those who follow trade negotiations have warned that the 
Bush administration may claim that the standards of the Chile and 
Singapore agreements are universally applicable and, in particular, 
should apply to CAFTA and FTAA. Let me be as direct as possible: If the 
CAFTA and FTAA agreements do not include labor and environmental 
protections that are far, far stronger than the Chile and Singapore 
agreements I will oppose them as strenuously as I can.
  The administration's one-size-fits-all approach will not work. Many 
of the nations considering inclusion in CAFTA and FTAA have no or low 
standards to protect workers and the environment and enforcement is 
nonexistent in some areas. Worker and environmental protections in the 
group of six Central American countries participating in CAFTA are not 
comparable to those in Singapore and Chile, for example. Some have not 
enacted or do not enforce basic labor standards that we take for 
granted, including bans on child and forced labor, non-discrimination 
and the right of workers to associate and bargain collectively. In 
Nicaragua and Guatemala employees cannot strike against poor working 
conditions, pay and benefits without government approval. And it is 
common for workers seeking better conditions to be physically 
intimidated and abused.
  In CAFTA, the Bush administration is running a race to the bottom. 
Even basic rights, like the right to be protected from physical 
violence, are cast

[[Page S10579]]

aside in the name of business profit. That is a policy that exploits 
not only the people of these Central American nations, but Americans as 
well. It exploits American workers who are forced to compete hopelessly 
against companies that abide by no rules whatsoever.
  Consistent with my long held views on trade, I have made the decision 
to do what I can to force a change of course in the CAFTA and FTAA 
negotiations, to ensure that those agreements enshrine, within the four 
corners of the agreement and with equal standing, specific labor and 
environmental protections that are fully enforced. I will accept no 
less. For example, fundamental labor standards like the right of 
association, the right to collectively bargain, prohibitions against 
child and forced labor, prohibitions against discrimination and other 
basic rights must be included. And these provisions must be subject to 
the same dispute settlement procedure as all other elements of the 
agreement.
  I believe that trade is good for America, for our working families 
and for the international community. A race to the bottom--trade 
without rules--the sort of trade policy the Bush administration is 
pursuing in CAFTA and FTAA is not good for America, our workers or the 
international community, and I will oppose it.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, today the Senate will vote on the 
Singapore and Chile free-trade agreements. Because I believe that these 
agreements will benefit New York and will lead to greater economic 
opportunities for New York companies, I will vote in support of these 
agreements.
  Both the Singapore and Chile free-trade agreements promise to offer 
new opportunities for United States banks, insurance, securities and 
related services. These sectors are a critical part of New York's 
economy. These agreements also include provisions that improve 
intellectual property protections and open the telecommunications 
markets in both of these nations.
  I share the concerns raised by some of my colleagues regarding the 
immigration provisions in these agreements. As my colleagues have 
pointed out, trade agreements are not the place to rewrite our 
immigration laws. I will be supporting Senator Leahy's legislation to 
deny fast-track procedures to trade agreements that include immigration 
provisions. As you know, I voted against granting Trade Promotion 
Authority to the President and I believe the inclusion of these 
immigration provisions provides an example of my concerns about 
providing the President with Trade Promotion Authority. Despite 
bipartisan concerns about these provisions, Trade Promotion Authority 
means that we are unable to fix it.
  As for the labor provisions in each agreement, the Chile and 
Singapore free trade agreements include obligations for each nation to 
enforce their own domestic labor laws. I believe that a better model 
for labor provisions is the United States-Jordan Free Trade agreement 
which included enforceable provisions to uphold International Labor 
Organizations, ILO, core labor standards. I am concerned that we appear 
to be backing away from the United States-Jordan FTA model. The labor 
provisions in the Chile and Singapore agreements should not be used as 
a model for future trade agreements.
  Despite my concerns over the immigration and labor provisions, I 
believe that, in the aggregate, New York will benefit more from having 
these agreements pass than if they failed. This vote should not be 
interpreted as a signal as to how I will vote on future trade 
agreements. Rather I will look at each agreement in its totality and 
measure the impact of each agreement on the New Yorkers that I am 
privileged to represent. Because I believe that passage of the 
Singapore and Chile free trade agreements will lead to more jobs and 
greater economic growth in industries that are an important part of New 
York's economy, I will vote in support of these agreements.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the bills before the Senate to implement 
the U.S.-Chile and U.S.-Singapore free-trade agreements are being 
considered under fast track procedures. This means debate is limited 
and amendments are not in order. Senators can only vote yes or no. I 
opposed fast track because we should not limit the ability of Congress 
to improve trade agreements which may not, as some in the past have 
not, represent the best interest of the American worker, American 
farmer, or U.S. industry.
  Although the U.S. International Trade Commission found the impact of 
a FTA with Chile and Singapore would be minimal on the U.S. economy, 
the U.S.-Chile and the U.S.-Singapore free-trade agreements are widely 
considered likely to lead to more open markets. Singapore's market is 
currently quite open with respect to consumer and industrial goods and 
imposes no tariffs on most of these products. Any remaining tariffs 
will be eliminated upon entry into force of the agreement. Chile's 
tariffs average 6 percent and they will be eliminated quickly in the 
agreement. For example, 85 percent of consumer and industrial goods 
trade becomes duty free immediately upon the entry into force of the 
U.S.-Chile FTA, with most of the remaining tariffs eliminated within 4 
years.
  Of particular interest to U.S. auto makers is Chile's commitment to 
eliminate its domestic tax of 75 percent on luxury automobiles over 4 
years. The United States also made significant gains in opening the 
service sector market in both countries.
  These agreements do have shortcomings. For instance, they lack a 
requirement to strive to achieve the core ILO labor standards that were 
contained in the U.S.-Jordan FTA, and instead only require each nation 
to enforce its own laws. They also have separate dispute settlement 
rules that place arbitrary caps on the enforceability of the labor and 
environment provisions of the agreement. This is in contrast to the 
U.S.-Jordan FTA which treated all commitments in the agreement to 
identical dispute settlement mechanisms. However, the weaker labor and 
environment commitments and enforcement is not as great a concern as 
might otherwise be the case because the laws of Chile and Singapore 
essentially reflect core internationally recognized labor rights. Such 
language would be a concern, however, if contained in future agreements 
with countries with lesser labor and environmental standards.
  Each trade agreement should be judged on its own merits. While the 
provisions for Chile and Singapore may be acceptable for Chile and 
Singapore, the language of these agreements would clearly not be 
acceptable for trade agreements with countries with weaker labor laws 
or environmental standards. The U.S.-Jordan agreement, with its 
stronger labor and environment commitments and enforcement provisions, 
is the more acceptable model for future agreements with countries with 
weaker standards.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, international trade has always been an 
important part of the American economy. For the past half century and 
more, the United States has been a leader in expanding international 
trade, opening markets around the world to our products. I believe that 
on balance the evidence shows us that trade has supported economic 
growth here in the United States, and that trade has supported good 
jobs and good wages for American workers.
  On paper, the simple, textbook logic of trade is clear--more open 
markets around the world mean more customers for our workers and 
companies, who can compete with anyone in the world. And open markets 
mean more choices and lower prices for American consumers--it makes 
their paychecks go further.
  Trade complements and reinforces the great strength of the American 
economy--its ability to seize opportunities.
  To lead the world in research, to be the first to develop new 
products and processes, we depend on our ability to move investments 
and manpower where they can do most good. Trade is the international 
face of that process, that has always been the key to the success of 
the American economy. But in the real world, where people live, things 
are not that simple.
  Economists like to tell us how well markets work--other things being 
equal. But those ``other things'' are not always equal. Because trade, 
by reinforcing the basic process of economic growth and change, 
reinforces the shift of investment and jobs. So trade contributes to 
severe disruptions, as factories shut down, people lose jobs, 
communities decline. It may well be true

[[Page S10580]]

that the overall result is a more efficient, more productive, even 
wealthier nation.
  But underneath those gains are the costs of economic change, costs 
that are just as real and just as much a result of trade as the 
benefits. The costs of coping with economic change are dumped on 
workers and their families, on the communities they live in. The 
benefits of trade often go to businesses and workers in other 
industries, in other parts of the country.
  If the benefits of trade really do outweigh their costs, we should 
have the resources as a Nation to help those on the losing end, the 
ones who are paying the price so that our economy can become more 
productive. Recently, two important shifts have occurred in our trade 
negotiations. First, we are dealing with countries that more often than 
not lack the political rights and the legal structure to protect their 
workers and their environment.
  Many of these countries don't have our strong tradition of organized 
labor, fighting and winning protections for wages and working 
conditions. Many of these countries don't have the organizations or the 
laws to protect their environment. We didn't, either, as we began to 
grow into the world's strongest economy over a century ago.
  It took us time and a lot of struggle to learn those lessons.
  There are still plenty of countries out there who have not learned 
them yet, countries that do not provide those protections that can 
raise living standards, standards that they cannot yet afford. Low-wage 
competition with our workers, with our higher living standards, can 
force American companies to cut costs wherever they can--and in the 
end, that often means cutting labor. That means families without 
breadwinners, communities without jobs.
  Second, on top of the fact that we are now doing trade deals with a 
lot of countries that don't match up with us in terms of economic 
development, our trade deals now include a different, deeper level of 
integration.
  We have gone beyond lower tariffs, and into areas that implicate a 
lot more of our own domestic laws--on issues like agricultural policy, 
intellectual property, even environmental and health regulations. This 
deeper integration in the international economy touches close to bone 
in a country like ours.
  We want to be sure that we remain in control of those important 
political issues. This does not mean that we should stop trying to 
bring the benefits of markets and trade to American workers and 
consumers. But it does mean that we have to be increasingly careful 
with every new step we take in trade policy. The easy work is behind 
us.
  Each step from here on has to be taken with a much closer look at the 
balance between risks and rewards. But these trade deals before us 
today do not show that kind of care. Chile and Singapore are good 
allies of ours, and I support more cooperation and exchange among our 
economies. They are not, in their living standards and level of 
development, all that different from us. They are not themselves the 
issue here, at least not for me.
  But the trade agreements the Bush administration has negotiated with 
them are a step back from progress we have made, as recently as just a 
couple of years ago, in the Jordan Free Trade Agreement. For example, 
the Jordan agreement subjects any violation of labor protections to 
``appropriate and commensurate'' action. And there is no cap on the 
penalty that could be imposed as a result of a dispute.
  But the Chile agreement and the Singapore agreement provide recourse 
against a country only for a sustained failure to enforce its own labor 
and environmental laws. In the worst case, a country could chose to 
lower its labor and environmental protections, making it easier to 
avoid a dispute or a penalty, because it would make its own standards 
easier and cheaper to enforce. At the margin, that would put greater 
pressure on American firms to cut costs--and jobs.
  In addition, in these two agreements there is a cap of $15 million a 
year on penalties for failure to live up to labor and environmental 
protections. And those fines are simply paid by the offending country 
to itself, supposedly to strengthen its commitment to the very 
standards that they have failed to live up to. I have some experience 
with crime and punishment, Mr. President, and I can't believe that is 
going to deter much bad behavior. If $15 million is the maximum fine, 
it is an incentive to commit more than $15 million worth of violations. 
You can do the math.
  Again, Mr. President, it is not that these two nations raise a 
serious threat to American living standards. Trade with Chile and 
Singapore combined amounts to a fraction of 1 percent of our economy. 
Nor do I harbor any concerns that these countries will fail to live up 
to their end of the deal. The issue before us now is whether these 
deals--the first agreements accomplished under fast track negotiating 
authority--set an acceptable pattern for future, more extensive trade 
agreements, such as the planned Central American Free Trade Agreement 
or the Free Trade for the Americas.
  These trade agreements fail to treat labor and environmental issues 
as seriously as commercial disputes, as our trade law now requires. 
This is the first test of what this administration has done with its 
fast track trade negotiating authority. Now is the time to hold them to 
the letter and the spirit of the legislation under which we in Congress 
granted that authority to this administration. Yet another problem with 
these agreements lies in the changes in immigration law--done without 
the participation of the Judiciary Committee.

  Fast track for the specifics of trade deals is one thing; but trade 
deals should not undertake, outside of the legislative process, 
significant changes in immigration or any other policy. Thousands of 
new visas can be issued under these agreements--without any requirement 
to show specific skill shortages here in the U.S. Those immigration 
provisions usurp congressional legislative powers, and undercut jobs 
for Americans.
  I expressed concerns about the future of trade negotiations when I 
did not support granting the President fast track negotiating authority 
last year. We need the strongest protection for our workers here at 
home, the strongest protection for environmental standards abroad. And 
we need to make sure that gains from more open trade are gains that all 
Americans share. In the last decade, up until just a few years ago, we 
had a growing economy, with strong job creation and wage growth. During 
that period, we accomplished a number of very significant trade 
negotiations, including NAFTA, and China's entry into the WTO, both of 
which I supported. Today, things are very different.
  Since January of 2001 we are down 3.1 million private sector jobs, 
and still counting.
  A growing national economy, with strong investment in new sectors, 
strong employment, and growing incomes, helps to protect American 
families from job shifts that come from technological changes. So do 
strong protections for workers to organize and earn fair wages. And so 
do pensions that are safe, health care that is accessible and 
affordable. And specific protections for workers directly affected by 
trade. If those things are in place, the benefits of trade can outweigh 
the costs. But right now, we can take none of those things for granted.
  Under this administration, there is a concerted effort to erode 
pension protections, the 40-hour work week, and other core worker 
protections. Our economy is struggling through the worst drought in job 
creation since the Great Depression. To maintain our living standards, 
and to maintain political support for increased trade, our trade policy 
must first be based on strong growth and job creation at home. This 
administration has not demonstrated to me that they have a plan for 
economic growth and job creation, or a commitment to protect workers 
rights.
  Without that plan, without that commitment, and because of the flaws 
in the agreements themselves, I cannot vote for them.
  For me, Mr. President, the calculation is simple. If this 
administration can create one new job, if it can dig us out of the hole 
we are in--over 3 million jobs lost--trade deals might make more sense.
  I challenge this administration to create just one new job--just one 
more

[[Page S10581]]

job than we had in January of 2001--before it brings another trade 
agreement for our approval.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise again today to reiterate my 
concerns with the Singapore and Chile Free Trade Agreements. Let me 
remind my colleagues that my concern with these agreements is not with 
the trade provisions that they contain, but with the changes to our 
immigration laws.
  A vote in favor of these agreements is a vote against our un- and 
under-employed professional workers. A vote in favor of these 
agreements is a vote against congressional constitutional authority 
over immigration.
  Let me repeat for my colleagues the numerous problems with the 
immigration provisions in these agreements:
  Creation of entirely new categories of nonimmigrant visas for free 
trade professionals that do not mirror the requirements of our current 
H1-B program;
  No requirement that H1-B dependent employers make attestations that 
they are seeking to recruit U.S. workers, and that they are not 
displacing U.S. workers;
  No limit to the number of times that an individual is able to renew 
his or her visa, enabling the non-immigrant to remain in the United 
States on a permanent rather than temporary basis;
  Only requires that the non-immigrant have knowledge that is 
``specialized'' as opposed to the ``highly specialized'' knowledge 
demanded by the current H-1B law;
  Requires, without a numerical limit, the entry of business people 
under categories that parallel three other current visa categories;
  Requires the entry of their spouses and children so that they can 
join the foreign workers in the United States making the program even 
less of a temporary visa program;
  Requires the entry of foreign workers on L-1 visas regardless of 
whether they are nationals of Singapore or Chile so long as the 
sponsoring corporation has an office in those countries;
  Requires that the United States submit disputes about whether it 
should grant certain individuals entry to an international tribunal, 
not leaving that decision to the Department of Homeland Security.
  Finally, and in my mind, most importantly, for all my colleagues, 
these changes to our immigration law are effectively beyond the reach 
of Congress to oversee or alter.
  The Senate should be focusing today on legislation that will improve 
our education and job training services, not legislation that will 
increase the number of foreign workers in this country. We need to make 
a stand today for our professional workers and vote against these 
agreements.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the pending Free 
Trade Agreements with Singapore and Chile. Congress has a 
constitutional obligation to formulate U.S. trade policy and through 
the oversight activity of the Finance Committee, and the active 
participation of the Congressional Oversight Group, this responsibility 
is being met.
  I would like to take this opportunity to thank Chairman Grassley for 
his leadership on the Finance Committee in ensuring that Congress is 
not on the sidelines in the trade debate, even under the fast-track 
procedures by which these agreements are negotiated and considered here 
on the Floor.
  It is well known that I have opposed trade agreements in the past. I 
did so because I never felt that those agreements struck the proper 
balance between free and fair trade. Last year, I supported trade 
promotion authority for the President precisely because it did strike 
the appropriate balance, and because of this administration's 
commitment to aggressively enforce our trade laws so that American 
workers aren't undermined by unfair trade.
  The two agreements before us today have made substantial progress 
towards meeting those concerns and they come not a moment too soon, as 
the success of our economy relies more than ever on fair and freer 
trade--U.S. exports accounted for one-quarter of U.S. economic growth 
over the past decade--nearly one in six manufactured products coming 
off the assembly line goes to a foreign customer and exports support 1 
of every 5 manufacturing jobs.
  Given these facts, it is an understandable concern that the U.S. has 
been party to only three Free Trade Agreements ever, while there are 
more than 130 worldwide. Since 1995, the WTO has been notified of 90 
such agreements while the U.S. only reached one, the Jordan Free Trade 
Agreement. In contrast, the European Union has been particularly 
aggressive, having entered into 27 free trade agreements since 1990 and 
they are actively negotiating another 15.
  Why should these facts raise concerns? Because every agreement made 
without us poses a threat to American jobs. Nowhere is this better 
exemplified than in Chile which signed a free trade agreement with 
Canada, Argentina and several other nations since 1997.
  Since that time, the U.S. has lost one-quarter of Chile's import 
market, while nations entering into trade agreements more than captured 
our lost share. According to the National Association of Manufacturers, 
this resulted in the loss of more than $800 million in U.S. exports and 
100,000 job opportunities.
  In the three months since the EU-Chile agreement went into effect, 
the growth rate of EU exports has expanded 8.6 times as fast as U.S. 
exports to Chile. This represents a disturbing deterioration of the 
U.S. share of Chile's market. These numbers represent real jobs for 
U.S. manufacturers that need new markets for their goods to keep 
employees working and demonstrates the effect of the U.S. failing to 
move forward with the implementation of these market access agreements.
  One industry especially affected was U.S. paper products, which 
accounted for 30 percent of Chile's imports but has since dropped to 
only 11 percent after the trade agreements were signed. The market 
access provisions of the U.S.-Chile FTA provide for the elimination of 
tariffs on all forest products immediately upon implementation of the 
agreement, eliminating the 6 percent import tariff on U.S. paper and 
wood products.
  Chilean forest products exports, in contrast, already enjoy duty-free 
access to the U.S. market. Immediate tariff elimination will put U.S. 
suppliers on equal footing with Chilean producers and with competing 
suppliers of forest products from Canada and Mercosur countries, and 
the European Union.
  Before the Canadian-Chile FTA went into effect, U.S. paper and 
paperboard exports to Chile amounted to 156,000 metric tons, with a 
value of $99 million and represented 30 percent of Chilean imports in 
1997. However, U.S. exports were only 19,000 metric tons, with a value 
of $26 million, which represented just 8.3 percent of Chile's paper and 
paperboard imports last year. As a result of the tariff eliminations in 
this agreement, the U.S. paper industry will now be able to regain 
access to the Chilean market.
  Chilean salmon has been a controversial issue in the past, but recent 
steps taken by both the Chilean salmon industry and the Maine salmon 
industry to work jointly on promoting the value of farm-raised salmon 
has alleviated this concern. The Maine salmon industry supports this 
agreement, which is monumental considering their past differences with 
Chile. I have heard from the Maine Aquaculture Association and Maine 
salmon producers like Heritage Salmon, which support this free trade 
agreement and look forward to future opportunities in the Chilean 
market. These two former rival industries have shown a deep 
understanding of how to evolve in the era of global trade.
  Recognizing the potential effects on another industry in my state, 
USTR provided me with unequivocal assurances about its position on the 
unique concerns of rubber footwear, and New Balance has indicated to me 
that they are pleased that USTR has shown sufficient sensitivity to 
this industry in both the Chile and Singapore FTAs.
  The rubber footwear section of the agreement provides for six annual 
reductions of 5 percent, followed by three of 10 percent and a final 
one of 40 percent. This nonlinear phaseout honors Ambassador Zoellick's 
commitment to me that the unique sensitivity of the rubber footwear 
industry would be reflected in agreements negotiated under Trade 
Promotion Authority.

[[Page S10582]]

  Singapore represents Maine's second largest recipient of exports with 
almost $250 million in 2002, second only to our neighbor to the north. 
Most of these exports are from the strong semiconductor industry in 
Maine. I have been told by this industry in my own state that they look 
forward to the closer economic ties that will be formed under the U.S.-
Singapore FTA.
  I have also heard from The Baker Company in Sanford, ME, which is a 
manufacturer of state-of-the-art biological safety and research 
equipment whose 150 employees do everything from research and 
development, engineering, manufacturing and even sales from their 
headquarters in Sanford. The Baker Company represents just one of the 
many small manufacturers across America whose sales to Singapore will 
benefit from this agreement. Hopefully, the 135 percent growth in Maine 
exports to Singapore last year alone will continue under this FTA.
  In addition, it is my hope that these agreements will offer new 
export opportunities for Maine agriculture. I have been told by Maine 
potato farmers and the Maine Farm Bureau that they support these 
agreements. While they would have preferred a more accelerated phase-
out of some of the tariffs on agriculture exports to Chile, the 
industry hopes this agreement will allow Maine potatoes to regain some 
of their previous market-share in Chile that was lost after the Chilean 
FTA was signed with Canada.
  As a result of these two agreements before us today, many industries 
stand to benefit, including the forest and paper, rubber footwear, 
salmon, lobster, agriculture, semiconductor, precision manufacturing, 
and electronic industries of my home state. Therefore, I am optimistic 
that these two agreements, based on this administration's comprehensive 
approach to FTA's, are sure to gain strong bipartisan support.
  Under this administration, the U.S. approach to trade has greatly 
improved. However, I have several remaining concerns. While I am 
pleased by some of the steps taken by USTR to address the interests of 
small businesses, there is much more still to be done. In addition, 
while the improvements to Trade Adjustment Assistance have been 
welcome, I still believe we must address the needs of communities that 
have been negatively impacted by trade, so that retrained workers have 
new opportunities for employment.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues to address these, and 
other, concerns and to continue our efforts to promote a U.S. trade 
policy that benefits all Americans.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I want to take a few moments to comment on 
the trade legislation we are considering and our trade policy more 
generally.
  Let me start by saying that I intend to vote in favor of the 
implementing legislation for both the Singapore and Chile free-trade 
agreements. In both cases, the agreements will provide commercial 
benefits to the United States, removing barriers to the exports of our 
goods and services. Both Singapore and Chile have relatively advanced 
economies, with relatively strong environmental and labor protections, 
so the risk of American manufacturing jobs relocating to these 
countries is small. In short, Chile and Singapore are the sorts of 
partners we should be seeking out if we are going to negotiate free-
trade agreements: partners who are chosen because they can provide 
complementary commercial opportunities, not partners who are chosen 
primarily for political, not economic, reasons.
  In particular, the Chile Free-Trade Agreement will provide export 
opportunities for North Dakota agriculture. Ever since the idea of a 
Chile FTA was first broached more than a decade ago, I have insisted 
that any agreement must result in the removal of Chile's price bands 
that have served to limit our wheat exports. This FTA accomplishes that 
long-held goal. In addition, it levels the playing field with our 
leading competitor for export sales to Chile. Currently, Canadian wheat 
exports enter Chile tariff free, but U.S. exports face a 6 percent 
tariff. This agreement will eliminate the tariff disadvantage our wheat 
exports currently face and allow us to recapture Chilean export sales 
we have lost to Canada in recent years.
  I would also like to comment briefly on the sugar provisions of the 
Chile FTA. These provisions were carefully crafted to ensure that Chile 
could not import sugar to meet its domestic needs and then export its 
entire domestic production to the United States. In particular, the 
agreement provides preferential tariff access to Chilean sugar only if 
and to the extent that Chile is a net exporter of specified sugar 
products. All other Chilean sugar will be subject to MFN tariff rates. 
During the Finance Committee's informal consideration of the 
implementing legislation, I posed a number of questions to Ambassador 
Zoellick to ensure that the Senate had a full understanding of how 
these provisions work.
  However, important as these provisions are, they cannot serve as a 
model for other FTAs that the administration is negotiating or 
considering. Frankly, Chile is a tiny producer of sugar, and it is 
extremely unlikely that it will ever be a net exporter of any 
significance. But the same is not true for Australia, Central America, 
South Africa, or Thailand, all of which are being considered for FTAs. 
The Chile provisions, if they were included in these other agreements, 
would devastate our sugar industry.
  U.S. producers are highly efficient, and U.S. consumers enjoy some of 
the lowest prices in the developed world. The fact is that sugar is one 
of the most distorted commodity markets in the world, with subsidies, 
protected markets and all sorts of nontariff, nontraditional barriers 
to free trade. Unless we address these issues on a global basis and 
eliminate these distortions, I fear that these FTAs will wipe out our 
efficient sugar industry to the benefit of less efficient, highly 
subsidized producers in other countries.
  More generally, I am concerned that these FTA partners are being 
chosen primarily on the basis of political and foreign policy 
calculations rather than on the basis of potential economic benefit to 
this country. In my view, that is a profound mistake. There has been 
bipartisan agreement in the Congress that the top priority for U.S. 
trade policy should be leveling the playing field in agriculture. 
However, the administration's pursuit of these bilateral FTAs threatens 
to undermine that goal. Australia, Central America and Thailand are 
simply not going to be huge markets for U.S. agricultural goods. But 
imports of sensitive products from these countries could have a 
devastating impact on important U.S. agricultural commodities. Put 
simply, there is very little upside to these agreements for U.S. 
agriculture, and a lot of potential downside.
  Moreover, to the extent we are investing significant resources in 
negotiating these bilateral FTAs, we are diverting resources away from 
the WTO agriculture negotiations, which should be our primary focus. 
Only by addressing the market access barriers and inequities in 
domestic support on a worldwide basis can we be sure that U.S. 
agriculture will achieve the level playing field and access to growing 
markets that it needs to thrive in the 21st century.
  Finally, I share the concerns of many of my colleagues about the 
disappearance of U.S. manufacturing jobs and the hollowing out of our 
industrial base. As we look forward to trade negotiations with the low-
wage nations of Central America and Thailand, we must tailor the labor 
provisions of these agreements to fit local conditions so that we do 
not allow exploitative conditions that give these countries an unfair 
advantage over U.S. businesses.
  In conclusion, I support these agreements. They will provide modest 
economic benefits to our country. But they cannot and should not serve 
as one-size-fits-all models for future bilateral FTAs. Future 
agreements must be constructed very carefully, taking into account the 
strengths and weaknesses of our various trading partners, to ensure 
that they provide commercial benefits to U.S. agriculture, services, 
and manufacturing.
  I ask unanimous consent to print the following information in the 
Record from questions I submitted to Ambassador Zoellick.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  Ambassador Robert Zoellick Responses to Questions Submitted For the 
     Record by Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Senate Finance 
                        Committee, July 10, 2003

       1. Chile Sugar Provisions. Ambassador Zoellick, as you well 
     know, the details of

[[Page S10583]]

     trade agreements are critically important. I want to have on 
     the record an understanding of how the sugar provisions in 
     the Chile agreement work, so I have a series of questions on 
     this issue.
       First, my general understanding is that this agreement 
     gives Chile preferential access to the US sugar market, but 
     only if and to the extent that Chile has a net trade surplus 
     in sugar. Is that correct?
       More specifically, my understanding is that the agreement 
     defines a net trade surplus in sugar as total exports of 
     sugar, sugar containing products and high fructose corn 
     sweetener minus total imports of these products, except that 
     Chilean imports of HFCS from the US don't count. Is that 
     correct?
       Third, my understanding is that unless Chile has a net 
     trade surplus in sugar, Chile will not get any preferential 
     access under the agreement, and not just during the 12 year 
     phase in, but in perpetuity. Is that correct?
       Fourth, my understanding is that if Chile does have a net 
     trade surplus in sugar, the agreement gives Chile up to 2000 
     tons of duty free access immediately, gradually increasing to 
     up to 3258 tons in year 11 of the agreement. Is that correct?
       Fifth, to the extent that Chile's net trade surplus is less 
     than the TRQ limit, my understanding is that Chile's duty 
     free access would be limited to the amount of its trade 
     surplus in sugar. Is that correct?
       Sixth, my understanding is that the agreement gradually 
     reduces the over quota duty to 0 over the 12 year phase in 
     period. Is that correct?
       Seventh, my understanding is that this preferential over 
     quota duty rate would be limited by the amount of Chile's net 
     trade surplus, and any imports above this would be subject to 
     the MFN rate. Is that correct?
       Finally, after the end of the 12-year transition period, my 
     understanding is that Chile's duty free access to the US 
     would be limited to the amount of its net trade surplus in 
     sugar. Is that correct?
       Response: With respect to trade is sugar and sugar-
     containing products (SCPs), we are pleased that we were able 
     to reach agreement with Chile on provisions to address our 
     industry's concern that the FTA not operate as a vehicle for 
     the transshipment of sugar produced in third countries. 
     Accordingly, each side agreed that its access to the other's 
     market under the agreement will be limited to the amount 
     of its net trade surplus in specified products.
       Your understanding of these provisions is correct. To 
     summarize:
       During the transition period, Chile's duty-free access for 
     specified sugar products and SCPs will be limited to the 
     lesser of the specified in-quota quantity or the amount of 
     Chile's net trade surplus. Chile's net trade surplus will be 
     based on the difference between Chile's imports and exports 
     of sugar. SCPs, and high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), not 
     including imports of HFCS from the United States.
       During the transition period, if Chile's net trade surplus 
     exceeds the specified in-quota quantity, then a declining 
     over-quota tariff will be applied on the amount by which the 
     net trade surplus exceeds the specified in-quotas quantity.
       After the transition period, Chile's duty-free access will 
     be limited to the amount of its net trade surplus.
       During and after the transition period, any imports in 
     excess of Chile's net trade surplus would be subject to our 
     prevailing normal trade relations/most-favored-nation tariff 
     rate.
       Implications for Other FTAs. Ambassador Zoellick, I would 
     also like to raise a concern I have regarding the implication 
     of these sugar provisions for the other FTAs that are being 
     negotiated. Frankly, Chile is a tiny producer of sugar, and 
     it is extremely unlikely that it will ever be a net exporter 
     of any significance. But the same is not true of Australia, 
     Central America, South Africa, or Thailand, all of which are 
     being considered for FTAs. The Chile provisions, if they were 
     included in these other agreements, would devastate our sugar 
     industry.
       U.S. producers are highly efficient, and U.S. consumers 
     enjoy some of the lowest prices in the developed world. The 
     fact is that sugar is one of the most distorted commodity 
     markets in the world, with subsidies, protected markets and 
     all sorts of non-tariff, non-traditional barriers to free 
     trade. Unless we address these issues on a global basis and 
     eliminate these distortions, I fear that these FTAs will wipe 
     out our efficient sugar industry to the benefit of less 
     efficient, highly subsidized producers in other countries. 
     Can you assure me that you do not intend to just take the 
     Chile provisions and apply them to these other countries but 
     will instead look to some other approach that takes into 
     account the amounts of sugar these countries are capable of 
     exporting into our country?
       Response: As reflected in the outcome of the Chile 
     negotiations, we are sensitive to our industry's concerns. We 
     recognize that each negotiating partner has a different 
     capacity for trade in sugar, and we will continue to consult 
     with our industry and Congress as we move forward in our 
     other negotiations. We also remain strongly committed to 
     addressing global distortions that affect sugar trade in the 
     WTO negotiations, and we will continue to consult closely 
     with Congress and the sugar industry on these issues.

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, as the world's largest trading Nation, 
trade is key to the long-term economic growth of the United States. 
Nearly, 26 percent of the United States' gross domestic product is 
directly tied to trade activity. One in three acres is planted for 
export to other nations and mare than four out of ten products 
manufactured in the United States are exported.
  The United States needs to foster strong trading relationships to 
create opportunities for domestic businesses and entrepreneurs. As 
chairman of the Subcommittee on International Trade, I heard from 
manufacturers, ranchers, and financial service companies on the 
importance of opening new markets to U.S. goods and services. The 
agreements we are considering today represent two opportunities we 
cannot afford to let pass by.
  Since 1997, exports from the United to Chile have fallen from 24 
percent to just under 17 percent. Exports from countries with trade 
agreements with Chile have risen during the same time period from 25 
percent to 34 percent. Manufacturers and farmers in the United States 
have already lost one-third of the Chilean import market to countries 
with trade agreements with Chile. The National Association of 
Manufacturers estimates that the current lack of a trade agreement with 
Chile costs exporters, $800 million per year in lost sales, affecting 
10,000 jobs in the United States. We must act now to reverse this 
trend.
  Upon passage of the Chile agreement, more than 85 percent of consumer 
and industrial products will immediately become duty-free, with most 
remaining tariffs eliminated within 4 years. More than three-quarters 
of farm goods from the United States will enter Chile tariff free 
within 4 years with all tariffs phased out within 12 years.
  The Singapore trade agreement will provide similar benefits to United 
States businesses. Singapore is America's twelfth largest trading 
partner, with annual two-way trade of goods and services of more than 
$30 billion. After the agreement goes into effect, all exports from the 
United States to Singapore will enjoy zero tariffs. The agreement will 
also guarantee fair and non-discriminatory treatment and greater market 
access for United States firms into Singapore's financial and services 
industry.
  Expansion of trade opportunities for businesses and industry in the 
United States is good for our Nation. These agreements create new 
access opportunities for goods and services from the United States. 
They are good for our ranchers and farmers, and I support passage of 
the United States-Singapore, and the United States-Chile trade 
legislation.
  Mr. DURBIN. I support the Singapore and Chile Free Trade Agreements. 
I maintain reservations about certain sections of this agreement, but 
overall I believe that this Free Trade Agreement succeeds in lowering 
tariffs on American goods entering Chile and Singapore.
  We are deciding today whether or not to allow American farmers, 
manufacturers, businessmen and women to trade their products, their 
ideas and their goods.
  Expanding trade goes hand in glove with disseminating and 
distributing the values of America. That is why I have supported many 
trade agreements.
  The United States-Singapore and United States-Chile Free Trade 
Agreements, FTA, include strong and comprehensive commitments by 
Singapore and Chile to open their goods, agricultural and services 
markets to U.S. producers. The agreements include commitments that will 
increase regulatory transparency and act to the benefit of U.S. 
workers, investors, intellectual property holders, business and 
consumers.
  These agreements have one of the highest levels of intellectual 
property rights protections that we have ever had in any trade 
agreement with any other nation. We are concerned about the rights of 
those who create music, entertainment, software, and technology 
products, and we are concerned about manufacturers' patents.
  I am particularly pleased about the benefits this agreement provides 
with respect to agriculture. The Chile Free Trade Agreement will 
eliminate tariffs on 85 percent of the U.S. exports to Chile 
immediately. Under the United States-Chile Free Trade Agreement, 
American workers, consumers, businesses, and farmers will enjoy 
preferential access to a small but fast-

[[Page S10584]]

growing economy, enabling trade with no tariffs and under streamlined 
customs procedures.
  This is good news for my home state of Illinois as 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. Other duties on 
U.S. agriculture products will be phased out over 12 years.
  In addition, an agreement was worked out with Singapore and U.S. 
trade negotiators on allowing chewing gum into the country. This is 
beneficial for Illinois because the government will only allow two 
brands of gum, both produced by Wrigley.
  While some of the provisions in these FTAs could serve as a model for 
other agreements, a number of provisions clearly cannot be, nor should 
they be. I believe that each country or countries with whom we 
negotiate are unique; and while the provisions contained in the Chile 
and Singapore FTAs work for Chile and Singapore, they may not be 
appropriate for FTAs with other countries, where there may exist very 
different circumstances.
  I have concerns that the administration may use some of the 
provisions contained in the agreements as models for other FTAs, such 
as the Central America Free Trade Agreement, CAFTA, where the 
conditions may make it inappropriate to do so. Specifically, with 
regard to the labor and environmental provisions, there are separate 
dispute settlement rules that place arbitrary caps on the enforcement 
of those provisions. Moreover, these agreements contain an ``enforce 
your own laws'' standard for dealing with labor and environmental 
disputes. Many of us support Chile and Singapore Free Trade Agreements 
not only because they have decent labor laws, but because they have the 
ability and willingness to enforce them.
  Concerns about labor and environmental standards, however, should 
receive careful scrutiny on a case-by-case basis as different 
circumstances and situations warrant. Use of the ``enforce your own 
law'' standard is invalid as a precedent--indeed is a contradiction to 
the purpose of promoting enforceable core labor standards--when a 
country's laws clearly do not reflect international standards and when 
there is a history, not only of non-enforcement, but of a hostile 
environment towards the rights of workers to organize and bargain 
collectively. Using a standard in totally different circumstances will 
lead to totally different results.
  My vote for the Chile and Singapore FTA's should not be interpreted 
as support for using these agreements as a model for future trade 
negotiations. I will evaluate all future trade agreements on their 
merits and their applicability to each country to ensure that core 
international labor rights and environmental standards are addressed in 
a meaningful manner. Expanded trade is important to this country and 
the world; but it will be beneficial to a broad range of persons in our 
nation and in other nations only if these trade agreements are 
carefully shaped to include basic standards, including the requirement 
that nations compete on the basis of core rights for their workers, not 
by suppression of these basic rights.
  I support the promotion of free trade, but I join my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle in expressing concern that the Administration 
is mandating immigration policy that is the purview of Congress. This 
should never happen again. The United States Trade Representative, 
USTR, should not be creating new immigration strategies. While I 
support the free trade agreements with Chile and Singapore, I want to 
convey to USTR that I will look long and hard at any free trade 
agreements that include similar immigration provisions in the future.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will vote in favor of the Free Trade 
Agreements with Chile and Singapore because the benefits of the 
intellectual property and anti-piracy provisions in these agreements 
outweigh the valid concerns that have been raised about the inclusion 
of immigration provisions.
  At the outset, let me begin by expressing my disappointment that the 
administration short-circuited the proper consideration process for 
these implementing bills through its decision to transmit them to 
Congress 2 days before the Judiciary Committee's scheduled debate, and 
before responding to written questions from this committee's members. 
To be fair, the administration did eventually respond to these 
questions. Of course, as the responses themselves pointed out, ``the 
implementing bill cannot be modified after its introduction.''
  The administration apparently views the Judiciary Committee simply as 
an obstacle to be overcome as quickly as possible, and not as a source 
for possible improvements to its legislative proposals. As a result of 
the administration's undue haste--and the Judiciary Committee's failure 
to begin consideration of these measures early enough to guarantee that 
it could have meaningful input--we were deprived of the opportunity to 
propose changes in the implementing legislation. Instead, we were 
required to conduct an up-or-down vote on final passage of these 
implementing bills only 2 days after their introduction.
  I share the concerns expressed by Senators Feinstein, Lindsey Graham, 
and Sessions that the U.S. Trade Representative should not be in the 
business of amending domestic immigration laws, as these treaties do. 
The decision to include immigration provisions was not only 
unauthorized by Congress but also unnecessary to achieve the 
administration's stated goals. Congress has already created the H-1B 
program, which allows foreign workers with specialized skills to work 
in the United States. That program was established after a lengthy 
process of public hearings, debate, and negotiation. If the 
administration feels that program needs to be changed, or a new visa 
category created, it should have sought to do so through the ordinary 
legislative process.
  This matter is of particular concern because these agreements are 
widely viewed as the template for future trade agreements, many of 
which are being negotiated as we speak. I hope that the administration 
has gotten the message from members on both sides of the aisle and both 
chambers that Congress does not intend to delegate its power over our 
immigration system to the executive branch. I for one believe that we 
should do more than express our concerns and hope that they are heeded. 
As a result, I have introduced the Congressional Responsibility for 
Immigration Act, a bill to prevent the use of fast-track procedures for 
trade agreements that include immigration provisions.
  On the whole, however, I support these agreements because they 
recognize that intellectual property, and our response to international 
piracy in particular, is an integral part of any trade structure. The 
United States is the world's leading creator and exporter of 
intellectual property. That means we are also the world's leading 
target for piracy of copyrighted works. New technology has made piracy 
cheap and easy, and everything from music to films to books is 
susceptible to this kind of theft. At the same time, the advent of new 
technologies means that international distribution of copyrighted works 
is increasingly viable, and necessary, if the U.S. intellectual 
property industry is to continue to thrive.
  These agreements go a long way to harmonize the intellectual property 
laws of Singapore and Chile with those of the United States. They make 
IP systems in each country more transparent, uniform and predictable. 
This is a significant benefit to U.S. industries that depend on 
transparency and predictability in order to be able to protect their 
rights in these countries. The agreements also call on the countries to 
recognize and uphold the rights of authors to control the electronic 
dissemination of their works, and to protect the encryption technology 
that safeguards such electronic dissemination. This too is important, 
because more and more intellectual property is being distributed 
electronically. If intellectual property holders cannot securely 
distribute their works in electronic form, a major source of revenue is 
lost, and American creativity is hampered.
  Intellectual property is increasingly an international business, one 
that needs an international approach to many of its problems. Despite 
my concerns about the immigration provisions in these agreements, I 
will support their passage because they improve

[[Page S10585]]

international cooperation on intellectual property issues.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today the Senate takes up legislation to 
implement important free trade agreements with Chile and Singapore. 
Through the tireless efforts of President Bush's forward-looking Trade 
Representative Robert Zoellick, the U.S. has signed trade pacts that 
will strengthen relations with two of our best friends worldwide: Chile 
and Singapore. Congress ought to do our part so the people of all three 
nations can realize the benefits of these agreements. I commend 
President Bush and Ambassador Zoellick their hard work in negotiating 
these agreements, and for upholding the principle that economic 
engagement worldwide works for the betterment of all the world's 
people.
  Like most of our friends and neighbors throughout the world, the 
United States faces serious economic challenges, particularly as we 
strive to work our way out of a period of recession and growing budget 
deficits. One means, and certainly not the only one, of strengthening 
our own economy while lifting others around the world, is to lower 
trade barriers and open markets. The promotion of free trade has 
characterized economic relations among the nations of the world during 
recent years. Our competitors in Europe, Asia and Latin America have 
sealed deals on about one hundred and thirty preferential trade 
compacts, some within our own hemisphere.
  Yet the U.S. is party to only three of these agreements--NAFTA and 
respective free trade agreements with Israel and Jordan. I was 
astounded to learn that the European Union now exports more to South 
America than the United States. Congress would do the American people 
an injustice if we allowed the U.S. to continue to be left behind as 
the force of free trade go on benefiting others around the world.
  Free trade, rather than imposing U.S. values and robbing peoples of 
their culture, creates new economic opportunities and helps raise the 
standard of living for millions of people. Our experience with NAFTA, 
for example, shows how profoundly this agreement has boosted exports 
and created jobs. Indeed, U.S. merchandise exports to Mexico were up 
almost 170 percent in NAFTA's first eight years, well above the overall 
U.S. increase. For Mexico, the news is also positive, as the NAFTA-
related export boom was responsible for more than half the 3.5 million 
jobs created there since 1995.
  Free trade is also a successful poverty reduction tool. Consider 
this: since 1987, 140 million people in the trade-dependent economies 
of East Asia have been removed from he ranks of abject poverty. On the 
other hand, economically isolated South Asia and much of Africa 
experienced an increase in poverty during the 1990s.

  But the economic potential of regional and bilateral free trade 
agreements tell only part of the story. It is my view that 
strengthening economic bonds between the U.S. and developing nations 
will concurrently strengthen and encourage the forces of political 
reform as well.
  The experience of Mexico is illustrative. Most observers give at 
least some credit to NAFTA for encouraging Mexico's political maturity, 
which saw the peaceful replacement of a political party that had a 70-
year lock on that nation's presidency. Future free trade initiatives in 
Asia, Latin America and the Middle East could encourage the kind of 
dramatic political gains that, in recent decades, have transformed many 
of the world's nations from authoritarian regimes into functioning 
democracies.
  Trade in goods and services between Chile and the U.S. is growing and 
today amounts to more than $8 billion. Under this FTA with Chile, more 
than 85 percent of bilateral trade in consumer and industrial products 
becomes tariff-free immediately, with most remaining tariffs eliminated 
within four years. Enactment of this agreement will improve an already 
strong U.S. relationship with a nation that has overcome a legacy of 
political division. Chile's military coup and resulting dictatorship in 
the 1970s and 1980s has today been replaced by a functioning, outward-
looking democracy. And it is not surprising that Chile's commitment to 
free trade has taken place concurrently with its political 
reconciliation and growth.
  The Singapore free trade agreement is the first U.S. FTA with an 
Asian nation and could spur future similar initiatives in that 
important region of the world. It will strengthen an already strong 
economic relationship with America's 12th largest trading partner by 
guaranteeing zero tariffs immediately on all U.S. goods entering 
Singapore. The $40 billion in two-way trade in goods and services 
between the U.S. and Singapore will surely increase through this FTA.
  And both of these agreements do far more than simply encourage 
additional free trade. Like our free trade agreement with Jordan, these 
agreements with Chile and Singapore include strong provisions related 
to labor and the environment. Under them, all three countries agree to: 
One, support International Labor Organization (ILO) core labor 
standards and internationally recognized worker's rights and, two, 
effectively enforce their own labor laws in the trade-related matters. 
Penalties for violations are $15 million annually, with failure to pay 
leading potentially to suspension of benefits.
  These agreements also do not forget the need to ensure protection of 
the environment. Under them, parties are to ensure that their domestic 
environmental laws provide for high levels of environmental protection 
and are effectively enforced. Parties must also strive to continue to 
improve their environmental laws. Finally, the agreements make clear 
that it is inappropriate to weaken or reduce domestic environmental 
protections in order to encourage trade or investment. These 
environmental provisions are not just words: they are obligations 
enforced through each agreement's dispute settlement procedures.
  Approval of these two FTAs today is an important early step in 
implementing a bold free-trade agenda. Other such agreements with a 
great many other nations are either being negotiated or are under 
consideration. I am hopeful that today's strong vote in Congress will 
encourage increased U.S. economic engagement and bring about additional 
market-opening, job-creating free trade agreements. I urge all of my 
colleagues to support this much needed legislation.

                          ____________________