[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 18953-18954]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
January 7, 2003, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis) is 
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, this morning I would like to rise to urge my 
colleagues to listen a bit about this discussion that I am going to 
enter into regarding the U.S.-Chile and U.S.-Singapore free trade 
agreements. And as one of my colleagues said, it is about jobs, J-O-B-
S.
  Mr. Speaker, understand I am not opposed to free trade. I want to 
underscore that we want to seek fair trade, and I point out the chart 
next to me because I want to talk about the high unemployment rates in 
my country, but also here in my own district. Right now the national 
percentage for unemployment is 6.4. I have communities in my district 
that have well above 10.8 percent unemployment. Many of the job losses 
have stemmed from jobs going abroad, particularly in the garment 
industry, in light manufacturing and other jobs like that.
  I want to point out that if we do move forward with the U.S.-Chile 
and U.S.-Singapore free trade agreements, we should try to enact 
legislation that would provide fair treatment of people who enter into 
this country. One of the questions I have right now is that this trade 
agreement with Chile and Singapore is not fair. What it would do is 
allow for a vast influx of foreign temporary workers from low-wage 
nations that would be competing with our communities, with people who 
are faced with not having jobs right now, who are well trained, by the 
way.
  I would like to draw Members' attention that last night as I was 
watching the news on Channel 7, they were doing a depiction of people 
who had recently lost their jobs, people who had considerable training 
and background and degrees, people in finance and technology. They are 
now working at the local hamburger stop, or in marketing positions that 
pay well below $9 an hour, or somewhere around minimum wage, $5.15.
  I think it is a disgrace that we are not doing enough to focus in on 
those individuals who we represent in our communities. I would like to 
ask this administration and the Congress to consider first investing in 
America in the jobs that we need here at home. It is great that we are 
able to help out other countries, but we have to help them become self-
empowered so they can determine their own destinies as well.
  I had a chance last year to visit Central America, and I saw what the 
power of our country could do if we were to just expand programs that 
invested in microenterprise programs that would allow women, in 
particular, low-income skilled people to begin to invest in their own 
businesses, not taking away jobs from Californians or the rest of the 
country, but investing in their own human capital and keeping those 
people there instead of bringing them to this country.
  I am not against bringing people in, but let us be fair and truthful 
what we want to do. First, we need to prioritize our own homeland, and 
that is investing here in America.
  What baffles me most is the Bush administration has negotiated 
agreements to allow for foreign temporary workers in the U.S., when 
unemployment is in some places above 10 percent. The worker rights 
provisions in the Chilean and Singapore agreements will be disastrous 
if also applied to future trade agreements, and I speak in particular 
to the Central American free

[[Page 18954]]

trade agreement which is coming shortly.
  Many of those countries do not have labor provisions for their 
workers. They would like to take away the rights of health care workers 
right now in countries like El Salvador and Guatemala, and I hear over 
and over again the problems faced by many people there who would like 
to unionize. They are harassed and intimidated. That is not right, and 
I think the American public needs to know what negotiations are going 
on between our country and others to foster trade.
  Again, I think jobs are important. I think it is very important to 
underscore that, yes, as Americans we know it is important to sustain 
other countries, but let us make sure that our principles are clear.
  Last year, I and other Members of this House voted on the Jordan Free 
Trade Agreement, which I believe was a little bit better than what we 
are seeing is going to come before this House later this week, but I 
think we have to remember one of the reasons it got a lot of support 
was we had protections for workers' rights and for the environment. 
Those two major issues are lacking in this upcoming Chile and Singapore 
agreements.
  I would underscore the need here is about jobs, jobs in America and 
making sure that we do not undercut our workforce or the workforce of 
those foreign countries, because many of them will not have the same 
protections as we as workers have in this country, and I point that out 
because we hear too often about the abuses with young children, no 
labor provisions to protect children abroad. I would ask my colleagues 
to oppose these agreements.

                          ____________________