[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 19434-19459]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    UNITED STATES-SINGAPORE FREE TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT

  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 329, I 
call up the bill (H.R. 2739) to implement the United States Singapore 
Free Trade Agreement, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of H.R. 2739 is as follows:

                               H.R. 2739

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``United 
     States-Singapore Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Purposes.
Sec. 3. Definitions.

TITLE I--APPROVAL OF, AND GENERAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO, THE AGREEMENT

Sec. 101. Approval and entry into force of the agreement.
Sec. 102. Relationship of the agreement to United States and State law.
Sec. 103. Consultation and layover provisions for, and effective date 
              of, proclaimed actions.
Sec. 104. Implementing actions in anticipation of entry into force and 
              initial regulations.
Sec. 105. Administration of dispute settlement proceedings.
Sec. 106. Arbitration of certain claims.
Sec. 107. Effective dates; effect of termination.

                      TITLE II--CUSTOMS PROVISIONS

Sec. 201. Tariff modifications.
Sec. 202. Rules of origin.
Sec. 203. Customs user fees.
Sec. 204. Disclosure of incorrect information.
Sec. 205. Enforcement relating to trade in textile and apparel goods.
Sec. 206. Regulations.

                     TITLE III--RELIEF FROM IMPORTS

Sec. 301. Definitions.

     Subtitle A--Relief From Imports Benefiting From the Agreement

Sec. 311. Commencing of action for relief.
Sec. 312. Commission action on petition.
Sec. 313. Provision of relief.
Sec. 314. Termination of relief authority.
Sec. 315. Compensation authority.
Sec. 316. Confidential business information.

           Subtitle B--Textile and Apparel Safeguard Measures

Sec. 321. Commencement of action for relief.
Sec. 322. Determination and provision of relief.
Sec. 323. Period of relief.
Sec. 324. Articles exempt from relief.
Sec. 325. Rate after termination of import relief.
Sec. 326. Termination of relief authority.
Sec. 327. Compensation authority.
Sec. 328. Business confidential information.

       Subtitle C--Cases Under Title II of the Trade Act of 1974

Sec. 331. Findings and action on goods from Singapore.

             TITLE IV--TEMPORARY ENTRY OF BUSINESS PERSONS

Sec. 401. Nonimmigrant traders and investors.
Sec. 402. Nonimmigrant professionals.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to approve and implement the Free Trade Agreement 
     between the United States and the Republic of Singapore 
     entered into under the authority of section 2103(b) of the 
     Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority Act of 2002;
       (2) to strengthen and develop economic relations between 
     the United States and Singapore for their mutual benefit;
       (3) to establish free trade between the 2 nations through 
     the reduction and elimination of barriers to trade in goods 
     and services and to investment; and
       (4) to lay the foundation for further cooperation to expand 
     and enhance the benefits of such Agreement.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Agreement.--The term ``Agreement'' means the United 
     States-Singapore Free Trade Agreement approved by Congress 
     under section 101(a).
       (2) HTS.--The term ``HTS'' means the Harmonized Tariff 
     Schedule of the United States.

TITLE I--APPROVAL OF, AND GENERAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO, THE AGREEMENT

     SEC. 101. APPROVAL AND ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THE AGREEMENT.

       (a) Approval of Agreement and Statement of Administrative 
     Action.--Pursuant to section 2105 of the Bipartisan Trade 
     Promotion Authority Act of 2002 (19 U.S.C. 3805) and section 
     151 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2191), Congress 
     approves--
       (1) the United States-Singapore Free Trade Agreement 
     entered into on May 6, 2003, with the Government of Singapore 
     and submitted to Congress on July 15, 2003; and
       (2) the statement of administrative action proposed to 
     implement the Agreement that was submitted to Congress on 
     July 15, 2003.
       (b) Conditions for Entry Into Force of the Agreement.--At 
     such time as the President determines that Singapore has 
     taken measures necessary to bring it into compliance with 
     those provisions of the Agreement that take effect on the 
     date on which the Agreement enters into force, the President 
     is authorized to exchange notes with the Government of 
     Singapore providing for the entry into force, on or after 
     January 1, 2004, of the Agreement for the United States.

     SEC. 102. RELATIONSHIP OF THE AGREEMENT TO UNITED STATES AND 
                   STATE LAW.

       (a) Relationship of Agreement to United States Law.--
       (1) United states law to prevail in conflict.--No provision 
     of the Agreement, nor the application of any such provision 
     to any person or circumstance, which is inconsistent with any 
     law of the United States shall have effect.
       (2) Construction.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed--
       (A) to amend or modify any law of the United States, or
       (B) to limit any authority conferred under any law of the 
     United States,
     unless specifically provided for in this Act.
       (b) Relationship of Agreement to State Law.--
       (1) Legal challenge.--No State law, or the application 
     thereof, may be declared invalid as to any person or 
     circumstance on the ground that the provision or application 
     is inconsistent with the Agreement, except in an action 
     brought by the United States for the purpose of declaring 
     such law or application invalid.
       (2) Definition of state law.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, the term ``State law'' includes--
       (A) any law of a political subdivision of a State; and
       (B) any State law regulating or taxing the business of 
     insurance.
       (c) Effect of Agreement With Respect to Private Remedies.--
     No person other than the United States--
       (1) shall have any cause of action or defense under the 
     Agreement or by virtue of congressional approval thereof; or
       (2) may challenge, in any action brought under any 
     provision of law, any action or inaction by any department, 
     agency, or other instrumentality of the United States, any 
     State, or any political subdivision of a State on the ground 
     that such action or inaction is inconsistent with the 
     Agreement.

     SEC. 103. CONSULTATION AND LAYOVER PROVISIONS FOR, AND 
                   EFFECTIVE DATE OF, PROCLAIMED ACTIONS.

       (a) Consultation and Layover Requirements.--If a provision 
     of this Act provides

[[Page 19435]]

     that the implementation of an action by the President by 
     proclamation is subject to the consultation and layover 
     requirements of this section, such action may be proclaimed 
     only if--
       (1) the President has obtained advice regarding the 
     proposed action from--
       (A) the appropriate advisory committees established under 
     section 135 of the Trade Act of 1974; and
       (B) the United States International Trade Commission;
       (2) the President has submitted a report to the Committee 
     on Finance of the Senate and the Committee on Ways and Means 
     of the House of Representatives that sets forth--
       (A) the action proposed to be proclaimed and the reasons 
     therefor; and
       (B) the advice obtained under paragraph (1);
       (3) a period of 60 calendar days beginning on the first day 
     on which the requirements of paragraphs (1) and (2) have been 
     met has expired; and
       (4) the President has consulted with such Committees 
     regarding the proposed action during the period referred to 
     in paragraph (3).
       (b) Effective Date of Certain Proclaimed Actions.--Any 
     action proclaimed by the President under the authority of 
     this Act that is not subject to the consultation and layover 
     provisions under subsection (a) may not take effect before 
     the 15th day after the date on which the text of the 
     proclamation is published in the Federal Register.

     SEC. 104. IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS IN ANTICIPATION OF ENTRY INTO 
                   FORCE AND INITIAL REGULATIONS.

       (a) Implementing Actions.--
       (1) Proclamation authority.--After the date of enactment of 
     this Act--
       (A) the President may proclaim such actions, and
       (B) other appropriate officers of the United States 
     Government may issue such regulations--

     as may be necessary to ensure that any provision of 
     this Act, or amendment made by this Act, that takes effect on 
     the date the Agreement enters into force is appropriately 
     implemented on such date, but no such proclamation or 
     regulation may have an effective date earlier than the date 
     of entry into force.
       (2) Waiver of 15-day restriction.--The 15-day restriction 
     in section 103(b) on the taking effect of proclaimed actions 
     is waived to the extent that the application of such 
     restriction would prevent the taking effect on the date the 
     Agreement enters into force of any action proclaimed under 
     this section.
       (b) Initial Regulations.--Initial regulations necessary or 
     appropriate to carry out the actions required by or 
     authorized under this Act or proposed in the statement of 
     administrative action submitted under section 101(a)(2) to 
     implement the Agreement shall, to the maximum extent 
     feasible, be issued within 1 year after the date of entry 
     into force of the Agreement. In the case of any implementing 
     action that takes effect on a date after the date of entry 
     into force of the Agreement, initial regulations to carry out 
     that action shall, to the maximum extent feasible, be issued 
     within 1 year after such effective date.

     SEC. 105. ADMINISTRATION OF DISPUTE SETTLEMENT PROCEEDINGS.

       (a) Establishment or Designation of Office.--The President 
     is authorized to establish or designate within the Department 
     of Commerce an office that shall be responsible for providing 
     administrative assistance to panels established under chapter 
     20 of the Agreement. Such office may not be considered to be 
     an agency for purposes of section 552 of title 5, United 
     States Code.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated for each fiscal year after fiscal year 
     2003 to the Department of Commerce such sums as may be 
     necessary for the establishment and operations of the office 
     under subsection (a) and for the payment of the United States 
     share of the expenses of panels established under chapter 20 
     of the Agreement.

     SEC. 106. ARBITRATION OF CERTAIN CLAIMS.

       (a) Submission of Certain Claims.--The United States is 
     authorized to resolve any claim against the United States 
     covered by article 15.15.1(a)(i)(C) or article 
     15.15.1(b)(i)(C) of the Agreement, pursuant to the Investor-
     State Dispute Settlement procedures set forth in section C of 
     chapter 15 of the Agreement.
       (b) Contract Clauses.--All contracts executed by any agency 
     of the United States on or after the date of entry into force 
     of the Agreement shall contain a clause specifying the law 
     that will apply to resolve any breach of contract claim.

     SEC. 107. EFFECTIVE DATES; EFFECT OF TERMINATION.

       (a) Effective Dates.--Except as provided in subsection (b), 
     the provisions of this Act and the amendments made by this 
     Act take effect on the date the Agreement enters into force.
       (b) Exceptions.--
       (1) Sections 1 through 3 and this title take effect on the 
     date of enactment of this Act.
       (2) Section 205 takes effect on the date on which the 
     textile and apparel provisions of the Agreement take effect 
     pursuant to article 5.10 of the Agreement.
       (c) Termination of the Agreement.--On the date on which the 
     Agreement ceases to be in force, the provisions of this Act 
     (other than this subsection) and the amendments made by this 
     Act shall cease to be effective.

                      TITLE II--CUSTOMS PROVISIONS

     SEC. 201. TARIFF MODIFICATIONS.

       (a) Tariff Modifications Provided for in the Agreement.--
     The President may proclaim--
       (1) such modifications or continuation of any duty,
       (2) such continuation of duty-free or excise treatment, or
       (3) such additional duties--
     as the President determines to be necessary or appropriate to 
     carry out or apply articles 2.2, 2.5, 2.6, and 2.12 and Annex 
     2B of the Agreement.
       (b) Other Tariff Modifications.--Subject to the 
     consultation and layover provisions of section 103(a), the 
     President may proclaim--
       (1) such modifications or continuation of any duty,
       (2) such modifications as the United States may agree to 
     with Singapore regarding the staging of any duty treatment 
     set forth in Annex 2B of the Agreement,
       (3) such continuation of duty-free or excise treatment, or
       (4) such additional duties--
     as the President determines to be necessary or appropriate to 
     maintain the general level of reciprocal and mutually 
     advantageous concessions with respect to Singapore provided 
     for by the Agreement.
       (c) Conversion to Ad Valorem Rates.--For purposes of 
     subsections (a) and (b), with respect to any good for which 
     the base rate in the Schedule of the United States set forth 
     in Annex 2B of the Agreement is a specific or compound rate 
     of duty, the President may substitute for the base rate an ad 
     valorem rate that the President determines to be equivalent 
     to the base rate.

     SEC. 202. RULES OF ORIGIN.

       (a) Originating Goods.--For purposes of this Act and for 
     purposes of implementing the tariff treatment provided for 
     under the Agreement, except as otherwise provided in this 
     section, a good is an originating good if--
       (1) the good is wholly obtained or produced entirely in the 
     territory of Singapore, the United States, or both;
       (2) each nonoriginating material used in the production of 
     the good--
       (A) undergoes an applicable change in tariff classification 
     set out in Annex 3A of the Agreement as a result of 
     production occurring entirely in the territory of Singapore, 
     the United States, or both; or
       (B) if no change in tariff classification is required, the 
     good otherwise satisfies the applicable requirements of such 
     Annex; or
       (3) the good itself, as imported, is listed in Annex 3B of 
     the Agreement and is imported into the territory of the 
     United States from the territory of Singapore.
       (b) De Minimis Amounts of Nonoriginating Materials.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided for in paragraphs (2) 
     and (3), a good shall be considered to be an originating good 
     if--
       (A) the value of all nonoriginating materials used in the 
     production of the good that do not undergo the required 
     change in tariff classification under Annex 3A of the 
     Agreement does not exceed 10 percent of the adjusted value of 
     the good;
       (B) if the good is subject to a regional value-content 
     requirement, the value of such nonoriginating materials is 
     taken into account in calculating the regional value-content 
     of the good; and
       (C) the good satisfies all other applicable requirements of 
     this section.
       (2) Exceptions.--Paragraph (1) does not apply to the 
     following:
       (A) A nonoriginating material provided for in chapter 4 of 
     the HTS or in subheading 1901.90 of the HTS that is used in 
     the production of a good provided for in chapter 4 of the 
     HTS.
       (B) A nonoriginating material provided for in chapter 4 of 
     the HTS or in subheading 1901.90 of the HTS that is used in 
     the production of a good provided for in heading 2105 or in 
     any of subheadings 1901.10, 1901.20, 1901.90, 2106.90, 
     2202.90, and 2309.90 of the HTS.
       (C) A nonoriginating material provided for in heading 0805, 
     or any of subheadings 2009.11.00 through 2009.39, of the HTS, 
     that is used in the production of a good provided for in any 
     of subheadings 2009.11.00 through 2009.39 or in subheading 
     2106.90 or 2202.90 of the HTS.
       (D) A nonoriginating material provided for in chapter 15 of 
     the HTS that is used in the production of a good provided for 
     in any of headings 1501.00.00 through 1508, 1512, 1514, and 
     1515 of the HTS.
       (E) A nonoriginating material provided for in heading 1701 
     of the HTS that is used in the production of a good provided 
     for in any of headings 1701 through 1703 of the HTS.
       (F) A nonoriginating material provided for in chapter 17 of 
     the HTS or heading 1805.00.00 of the HTS that is used in the 
     production of a good provided for in subheading 1806.10 of 
     the HTS.
       (G) A nonoriginating material provided for in any of 
     headings 2203 through 2208 of the HTS that is used in the 
     production of a good provided for in heading 2207 or 2208 of 
     the HTS.

[[Page 19436]]

       (H) A nonoriginating material used in the production of a 
     good provided for in any of chapters 1 through 21 of the HTS, 
     unless the nonoriginating material is provided for in a 
     different subheading than the good for which origin is being 
     determined under this section.
       (3) Goods provided for in chapters 50 through 63 of the 
     hts.--
       (A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), a 
     good provided for in any of chapters 50 through 63 of the HTS 
     that is not an originating good because certain fibers or 
     yarns used in the production of the component of the good 
     that determines the tariff classification of the good do not 
     undergo an applicable change in tariff classification set out 
     in Annex 3A of the Agreement shall be considered to be an 
     originating good if the total weight of all such fibers or 
     yarns in that component is not more than 7 percent of the 
     total weight of that component.
       (B) Certain textile or apparel goods.--
       (i) Treatment as originating good.--A textile or apparel 
     good containing elastomeric yarns in the component of the 
     good that determines the tariff classification of the good 
     shall be considered to be an originating good only if such 
     yarns are wholly formed in the territory of Singapore or the 
     United States.
       (ii) Definition of textile or apparel good.--For purposes 
     of this subparagraph, the term ``textile or apparel good'' 
     means a product listed in the Annex to the Agreement on 
     Textiles and Clothing referred to in section 101(d)(4) of the 
     Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3511(d)(4)).
       (c) Accumulation.--
       (1) Originating goods incorporated in goods of other 
     country.--Originating materials from the territory of either 
     Singapore or the United States that are used in the 
     production of a good in the territory of the other country 
     shall be considered to originate in the territory of the 
     other country.
       (2) Multiple procedures.--A good that is produced in the 
     territory of Singapore, the United States, or both, by 1 or 
     more producers is an originating good if the good satisfies 
     the requirements of subsection (a) and all other applicable 
     requirements of this section.
       (d) Regional Value-Content.--
       (1) In general.--For purposes of subsection (a)(2), the 
     regional value-content of a good referred to in Annex 3A of 
     the Agreement shall be calculated, at the choice of the 
     person claiming preferential tariff treatment for the good, 
     on the basis of the build-down method described in paragraph 
     (2) or the build-up method described in paragraph (3), unless 
     otherwise provided in Annex 3A of the Agreement.
       (2) Build-down method.--
       (A) In general.--The regional value-content of a good may 
     be calculated on the basis of the following build-down 
     method:

                                 av-vnm

                         rvc = --------  x  100

                                   av

       (B) Definitions.--For purposes of subparagraph (A):
       (i) The term ``RVC'' means the regional value-content, 
     expressed as a percentage.
       (ii) The term ``AV'' means the adjusted value.
       (iii) The term ``VNM'' means the value of nonoriginating 
     materials that are acquired and used by the producer in the 
     production of the good.
       (3) Build-up method.--
       (A) In general.--The regional value-content of a good may 
     be calculated on the basis of the following build-up method:

                                  vom

                         rvc = --------  x  100

                                   av

       (B) Definitions.--For purposes of subparagraph (A):
       (i) The term ``RVC'' means the regional value-content, 
     expressed as a percentage.
       (ii) The term ``AV'' means the adjusted value.
       (iii) The term ``VOM'' means the value of originating 
     materials that are acquired or self-produced and are used by 
     the producer in the production of the good.
       (e) Value of Materials.--
       (1) In general.--For purposes of calculating the regional 
     value-content of a good under subsection (d), and for 
     purposes of applying the de minimis rules under subsection 
     (b), the value of a material is--
       (A) in the case of a material imported by the producer of 
     the good, the adjusted value of the material;
       (B) in the case of a material acquired in the territory in 
     which the good is produced, except for a material to which 
     subparagraph (C) applies, the adjusted value of the material; 
     or
       (C) in the case of a material that is self-produced, or in 
     a case in which the relationship between the producer of the 
     good and the seller of the material influenced the price 
     actually paid or payable for the material, including a 
     material obtained without charge, the sum of--
       (i) all expenses incurred in the production of the 
     material, including general expenses; and
       (ii) an amount for profit.
       (2) Further adjustments to the value of materials.--
       (A) Originating materials.--The following expenses, if not 
     included in the value of an originating material calculated 
     under paragraph (1), may be added to the value of the 
     originating material:
       (i) The costs of freight, insurance, packing, and all other 
     costs incurred in transporting the material to the location 
     of the producer.
       (ii) Duties, taxes, and customs brokerage fees on the 
     material paid in the territory of Singapore, the United 
     States, or both, other than duties and taxes that are waived, 
     refunded, refundable, or otherwise recoverable, including 
     credit against duty or tax paid or payable.
       (iii) The cost of waste and spoilage resulting from the use 
     of the material in the production of the good, less the value 
     of renewable scrap or by-product.
       (B) Nonoriginating materials.--The following expenses, if 
     included in the value of a nonoriginating material calculated 
     under paragraph (1), may be deducted from the value of the 
     nonoriginating material:
       (i) The costs of freight, insurance, packing, and all other 
     costs incurred in transporting the material to the location 
     of the producer.
       (ii) Duties, taxes, and customs brokerage fees on the 
     material paid in the territory of Singapore, the United 
     States, or both, other than duties and taxes that are waived, 
     refunded, refundable, or otherwise recoverable, including 
     credit against duty or tax paid or payable.
       (iii) The cost of waste and spoilage resulting from the use 
     of the material in the production of the good, less the value 
     of renewable scrap or by-product.
       (iv) The cost of processing incurred in the territory of 
     Singapore or the United States in the production of the 
     nonoriginating material.
       (v) The cost of originating materials used in the 
     production of the nonoriginating material in the territory of 
     Singapore or the United States.
       (f) Accessories, Spare Parts, or Tools.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), accessories, 
     spare parts, or tools delivered with the good that form part 
     of the good's standard accessories, spare parts, or tools 
     shall--
       (A) be treated as originating goods if the good is an 
     originating good; and
       (B) be disregarded in determining whether all the 
     nonoriginating materials used in the production of the good 
     undergo an applicable change in tariff classification set out 
     in Annex 3A of the Agreement.
       (2) Conditions.--Paragraph (1) shall apply only if--
       (A) the accessories, spare parts, or tools are not invoiced 
     separately from the good;
       (B) the quantities and value of the accessories, spare 
     parts, or tools are customary for the good; and
       (C) if the good is subject to a regional value-content 
     requirement, the value of the accessories, spare parts, or 
     tools is taken into account as originating or nonoriginating 
     materials, as the case may be, in calculating the regional 
     value-content of the good.
       (g) Fungible Goods and Materials.--
       (1) In general.--
       (A) Claim for preferential treatment.--A person claiming 
     preferential tariff treatment for a good may claim that a 
     fungible good or material is originating either based on the 
     physical segregation of each fungible good or material or by 
     using an inventory management method.
       (B) Inventory management method.--In this subsection, the 
     term ``inventory management method'' means--
       (i) averaging;
       (ii) ``last-in, first-out'';
       (iii) ``first-in, first-out''; or
       (iv) any other method--

       (I) recognized in the generally accepted accounting 
     principles of the country in which the production is 
     performed (whether Singapore or the United States); or
       (II) otherwise accepted by that country.

       (2) Election of inventory method.--A person selecting an 
     inventory management method under paragraph (1) for 
     particular fungible goods or materials shall continue to use 
     that method for those fungible goods or materials throughout 
     the fiscal year of that person.
       (h) Packaging Materials and Containers for Retail Sale.--
     Packaging materials and containers in which a good is 
     packaged for retail sale, if classified with the good, shall 
     be disregarded in determining whether all the nonoriginating 
     materials used in the production of the good undergo the 
     applicable change in tariff classification set out in Annex 
     3A of the Agreement and, if the good is subject to a regional 
     value-content requirement, the value of such packaging 
     materials and containers shall be taken into account as 
     originating or nonoriginating materials, as the case may be, 
     in calculating the regional value-content of the good.
       (i) Packing Materials and Containers for Shipment.--Packing 
     materials and containers in which a good is packed for 
     shipment shall be disregarded in determining whether--
       (1) the nonoriginating materials used in the production of 
     a good undergo an applicable change in tariff classification 
     set out in Annex 3A of the Agreement; and

[[Page 19437]]

       (2) the good satisfies a regional value-content 
     requirement.
       (j) Indirect Materials.--An indirect material shall be 
     considered to be an originating material without regard to 
     where it is produced, and its value shall be the cost 
     registered in the accounting records of the producer of the 
     good.
       (k) Third Country Operations.--A good shall not be 
     considered to be an originating good by reason of having 
     undergone production that satisfies the requirements of 
     subsection (a) if, subsequent to that production, the good 
     undergoes further production or any other operation outside 
     the territories of Singapore and the United States, other 
     than unloading, reloading, or any other operation necessary 
     to preserve it in good condition or to transport the good to 
     the territory of Singapore or the United States.
       (l) Special Rule for Apparel Goods Listed in Chapter 61 or 
     62 of the HTS.--
       (1) In general.--An apparel good listed in chapter 61 or 62 
     of the HTS shall be considered to be an originating good if 
     it is both cut (or knit to shape) and sewn or otherwise 
     assembled in the territory of Singapore, the United States, 
     or both, from fabric or yarn, regardless of origin, 
     designated in the manner described in paragraph (2) as fabric 
     or yarn not available in commercial quantities in a timely 
     manner in the United States.
       (2) Designation of certain fabric and yarn.--The 
     designation referred to in paragraph (1) means a designation 
     made in a notice published in the Federal Register on or 
     before November 15, 2002, identifying apparel goods made from 
     fabric or yarn eligible for entry into the United States 
     under subheading 9819.11.24 or 9820.11.27 of the HTS. For 
     purposes of this subsection, a reference in the notice to 
     fabric or yarn formed in the United States is deemed to 
     include fabric or yarn formed in Singapore.
       (m) Application and Interpretation.--In this section:
       (1) The basis for any tariff classification is the HTS.
       (2) Any cost or value referred to in this section shall be 
     recorded and maintained in accordance with the generally 
     accepted accounting principles applicable in the territory of 
     the country in which the good is produced (whether Singapore 
     or the United States).
       (n) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Adjusted value.--The term ``adjusted value'' means the 
     value of a good determined under articles 1 through 8, 
     article 15, and the corresponding interpretative notes of the 
     Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of the General 
     Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 referred to in section 
     101(d)(8) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, except that 
     such value may be adjusted to exclude any costs, charges, or 
     expenses incurred for transportation, insurance, and related 
     services incident to the international shipment of the good 
     from the country of exportation to the place of importation.
       (2) Fungible goods and fungible materials.--The terms 
     ``fungible goods'' and ``fungible materials'' mean goods or 
     materials, as the case may be, that are interchangeable for 
     commercial purposes and the properties of which are 
     essentially identical.
       (3) Generally accepted accounting principles.--The term 
     ``generally accepted accounting principles'' means the 
     recognized consensus or substantial authoritative support in 
     the territory of Singapore or the United States, as the case 
     may be, with respect to the recording of revenues, expenses, 
     costs, and assets and liabilities, the disclosure of 
     information, and the preparation of financial statements. The 
     standards may encompass broad guidelines of general 
     application as well as detailed standards, practices, and 
     procedures.
       (4) Goods wholly obtained or produced entirely in the 
     territory of singapore, the united states, or both.--The term 
     ``goods wholly obtained or produced entirely in the territory 
     of Singapore, the United States, or both'' means--
       (A) mineral goods extracted in the territory of Singapore, 
     the United States, or both;
       (B) vegetable goods, as such goods are defined in the 
     Harmonized System, harvested in the territory of Singapore, 
     the United States, or both;
       (C) live animals born and raised in the territory of 
     Singapore, the United States, or both;
       (D) goods obtained from hunting, trapping, fishing, or 
     aquaculture conducted in the territory of Singapore, the 
     United States, or both;
       (E) goods (fish, shellfish, and other marine life) taken 
     from the sea by vessels registered or recorded with Singapore 
     or the United States and flying the flag of that country;
       (F) goods produced exclusively from products referred to in 
     subparagraph (E) on board factory ships registered or 
     recorded with Singapore or the United States and flying the 
     flag of that country;
       (G) goods taken by Singapore or the United States, or a 
     person of Singapore or the United States, from the seabed or 
     beneath the seabed outside territorial waters, if Singapore 
     or the United States has rights to exploit such seabed;
       (H) goods taken from outer space, if the goods are obtained 
     by Singapore or the United States or a person of Singapore or 
     the United States and not processed in the territory of a 
     country other than Singapore or the United States;
       (I) waste and scrap derived from--
       (i) production in the territory of Singapore, the United 
     States, or both; or
       (ii) used goods collected in the territory of Singapore, 
     the United States, or both, if such goods are fit only for 
     the recovery of raw materials;
       (J) recovered goods derived in the territory of Singapore, 
     the United States, or both, from used goods; or
       (K) goods produced in the territory of Singapore, the 
     United States, or both, exclusively--
       (i) from goods referred to in any of subparagraphs (A) 
     through (I); or
       (ii) from the derivatives of goods referred to in clause 
     (i).
       (5) Harmonized system.--The term ``Harmonized System'' 
     means the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System.
       (6) Indirect material.--The term ``indirect material'' 
     means a good used in the production, testing, or inspection 
     of a good but not physically incorporated into the good, or a 
     good used in the maintenance of buildings or the operation of 
     equipment associated with the production of a good, 
     including--
       (A) fuel and energy;
       (B) tools, dies, and molds;
       (C) spare parts and materials used in the maintenance of 
     equipment or buildings;
       (D) lubricants, greases, compounding materials, and other 
     materials used in production or used to operate equipment or 
     buildings;
       (E) gloves, glasses, footwear, clothing, safety equipment, 
     and supplies;
       (F) equipment, devices, and supplies used for testing or 
     inspecting the good;
       (G) catalysts and solvents; and
       (H) any other goods that are not incorporated into the good 
     but the use of which in the production of the good can 
     reasonably be demonstrated to be a part of that production.
       (7) Material.--The term ``material'' means a good that is 
     used in the production of another good.
       (8) Material that is self-produced.--The term ``material 
     that is self-produced'' means a material, such as a part or 
     ingredient, produced by a producer of a good and used by the 
     producer in the production of another good.
       (9) Nonoriginating material.--The term ``nonoriginating 
     material'' means a material that does not qualify as an 
     originating good under the rules set out in this section.
       (10) Preferential tariff treatment.--The term 
     ``preferential tariff treatment'' means the customs duty rate 
     that is applicable to an originating good pursuant to chapter 
     2 of the Agreement.
       (11) Producer.--The term ``producer'' means a person who 
     grows, raises, mines, harvests, fishes, traps, hunts, 
     manufactures, processes, assembles, or disassembles a good.
       (12) Production.--The term ``production'' means growing, 
     mining, harvesting, fishing, raising, trapping, hunting, 
     manufacturing, processing, assembling, or disassembling a 
     good.
       (13) Recovered goods.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``recovered goods'' means 
     materials in the form of individual parts that are the result 
     of--
       (i) the complete disassembly of used goods into individual 
     parts; and
       (ii) the cleaning, inspecting, testing, or other processing 
     of those parts as necessary for improvement to sound working 
     condition by one or more of the processes described in 
     subparagraph (B), in order for such parts to be assembled 
     with other parts, including other parts that have undergone 
     the processes described in this paragraph, in the production 
     of a remanufactured good described in Annex 3C of the 
     Agreement.
       (B) Processes.--The processes referred to in subparagraph 
     (A)(ii) are welding, flame spraying, surface machining, 
     knurling, plating, sleeving, and rewinding.
       (14) Remanufactured good.--The term ``remanufactured good'' 
     means an industrial good assembled in the territory of 
     Singapore or the United States, that is listed in Annex 3C of 
     the Agreement, and--
       (A) is entirely or partially comprised of recovered goods;
       (B) has the same life expectancy and meets the same 
     performance standards as a new good; and
       (C) enjoys the same factory warranty as such a new good.
       (15) Territory.--The term ``territory'' has the meaning 
     given that term in Annex 1A of the Agreement.
       (16) Used.--The term ``used'' means used or consumed in the 
     production of goods.
       (o) Presidential Proclamation Authority.--
       (1) In general.--The President is authorized to proclaim, 
     as part of the HTS--
       (A) the provisions set out in Annexes 3A, 3B, and 3C of the 
     Agreement; and
       (B) any additional subordinate category necessary to carry 
     out this title consistent with the Agreement.
       (2) Modifications.--
       (A) In general.--Subject to the consultation and layover 
     provisions of section 103(a), the President may proclaim 
     modifications to the provisions proclaimed under the 
     authority of paragraph (1)(A), other than--

[[Page 19438]]

       (i) the provisions of Annex 3B of the Agreement; and
       (ii) provisions of chapters 50 through 63 of the HTS, as 
     included in Annex 3A of the Agreement.
       (B) Additional proclamations.--Notwithstanding subparagraph 
     (A), and subject to the consultation and layover provisions 
     of section 103(a), the President may proclaim--
       (i) modifications to the provisions proclaimed under the 
     authority of paragraph (1)(A) that are necessary to implement 
     an agreement with Singapore pursuant to article 3.18.4(c) of 
     the Agreement; and
       (ii) before the 1st anniversary of the date of enactment of 
     this Act, modifications to correct any typographical, 
     clerical, or other nonsubstantive technical error regarding 
     the provisions of chapters 50 through 63 of the HTS, as 
     included in Annex 3A of the Agreement.

     SEC. 203. CUSTOMS USER FEES.

       Section 13031(b) of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget 
     Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c(b)) is amended by 
     inserting after paragraph (12) the following:
       ``(13) No fee may be charged under subsection (a) (9) or 
     (10) with respect to goods that qualify as originating goods 
     under section 202 of the United States-Singapore Free Trade 
     Agreement Implementation Act. Any service for which an 
     exemption from such fee is provided by reason of this 
     paragraph may not be funded with money contained in the 
     Customs User Fee Account.''.

     SEC. 204. DISCLOSURE OF INCORRECT INFORMATION.

       Section 592(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 
     1592(c)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (7) as paragraph (8); and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (6) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(7) Prior disclosure regarding claims under the united 
     states-singapore free trade agreement.--
       ``(A) An importer shall not be subject to penalties under 
     subsection (a) for making an incorrect claim that a good 
     qualifies as an originating good under section 202 of the 
     United States-Singapore Free Trade Agreement Implementation 
     Act if the importer, in accordance with regulations issued by 
     the Secretary of the Treasury, voluntarily and promptly makes 
     a corrected declaration and pays any duties owing.
       ``(B) In the regulations referred to in subparagraph (A), 
     the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to prescribe time 
     periods for making a corrected declaration and paying duties 
     owing under subparagraph (A), if such periods are not shorter 
     than 1 year following the date on which the importer makes 
     the incorrect claim that a good qualifies as an originating 
     good.''.

     SEC. 205. ENFORCEMENT RELATING TO TRADE IN TEXTILE AND 
                   APPAREL GOODS.

       (a) Denial of Permission To Conduct Site Visits.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), if the Secretary 
     of the Treasury proposes to conduct a site visit at an 
     enterprise registered under article 5.3 of the Agreement, and 
     responsible officials of the enterprise do not consent to the 
     proposed visit, the President may exclude from the customs 
     territory of the United States textile and apparel goods 
     produced or exported by that enterprise.
       (2) Termination of exclusion.--An exclusion of textile and 
     apparel goods produced or exported by an enterprise under 
     paragraph (1) shall terminate when the President determines 
     that the enterprise's production of, and capability to 
     produce, the goods are consistent with statements by the 
     enterprise that textile or apparel goods the enterprise 
     produces or has produced are originating goods or products of 
     Singapore, as the case may be.
       (b) Knowing or Willful Circumvention.--
       (1) In general.--If the President finds that an enterprise 
     of Singapore has knowingly or willfully engaged in 
     circumvention, the President may exclude from the customs 
     territory of the United States textile and apparel goods 
     produced or exported by the enterprise. An exclusion under 
     this paragraph may be imposed on the date beginning on the 
     date a finding of knowing or willful circumvention is made 
     and shall be in effect for a period not longer than the 
     applicable period described in paragraph (2).
       (2) Time periods.--
       (A) First finding.--With respect to a first finding under 
     paragraph (1), the applicable period is 6 months.
       (B) Second finding.--With respect to a second finding under 
     paragraph (1), the applicable period is 2 years.
       (C) Third and subsequent finding.--With respect to a third 
     or subsequent finding under paragraph (1), the applicable 
     period is 2 years. If, at the time of a third or subsequent 
     finding, an exclusion is in effect as a result of a previous 
     finding, the 2-year period applicable to the third or 
     subsequent finding shall begin on the day after the day on 
     which the previous exclusion terminates.
       (c) Certain Other Instances of Circumvention.--If the 
     President consults with Singapore pursuant to article 5.8 of 
     the Agreement, the consultations fail to result in a mutually 
     satisfactory solution to the matters at issue, and the 
     President presents to Singapore clear evidence of 
     circumvention under the Agreement, the President may--
       (1) deny preferential tariff treatment to the goods 
     involved in the circumvention; and
       (2) deny preferential tariff treatment, for a period not to 
     exceed 4 years from the date on which consultations pursuant 
     to article 5.8 of the Agreement conclude, to--
       (A) textile and apparel goods produced by the enterprise 
     found to have engaged in the circumvention, including any 
     successor of such enterprise; and
       (B) textile and apparel goods produced by any other entity 
     owned or operated by a principal of the enterprise, if the 
     principal also is a principal of the other entity.
       (d) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) General definitions.--The terms ``circumvention'', 
     ``preferential tariff treatment'', ``principal'', and 
     ``textile and apparel goods'' have the meanings given such 
     terms in chapter 5 of the Agreement.
       (2) Enterprise.--The term ``enterprise'' has the meaning 
     given that term in article 1.2.3 of the Agreement.

     SEC. 206. REGULATIONS.

       The Secretary of the Treasury shall prescribe such 
     regulations as may be necessary to carry out--
       (1) subsections (a) through (n) of section 202, and section 
     203;
       (2) amendments made by the sections referred to in 
     paragraph (1); and
       (3) proclamations issued under section 202(o).

                     TITLE III--RELIEF FROM IMPORTS

     SEC. 301. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the United 
     States International Trade Commission.
       (2) Singaporean article.--The term ``Singaporean article'' 
     means an article that qualifies as an originating good under 
     section 202(a) of this Act.
       (3) Singaporean textile or apparel article.--The term 
     ``Singaporean textile or apparel article'' means an article--
       (A) that is listed in the Annex to the Agreement on 
     Textiles and Clothing referred to in section 101(d)(4) of the 
     Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3511(d)(4)); and
       (B) that is a Singaporean article.

     Subtitle A--Relief From Imports Benefiting From the Agreement

     SEC. 311. COMMENCING OF ACTION FOR RELIEF.

       (a) Filing of Petition.--
       (1) In general.--A petition requesting action under this 
     subtitle for the purpose of adjusting to the obligations of 
     the United States under the Agreement may be filed with the 
     Commission by an entity, including a trade association, firm, 
     certified or recognized union, or group of workers, that is 
     representative of an industry. The Commission shall transmit 
     a copy of any petition filed under this subsection to the 
     United States Trade Representative.
       (2) Provisional relief.--An entity filing a petition under 
     this subsection may request that provisional relief be 
     provided as if the petition had been filed under section 
     202(a) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2252(a)).
       (3) Critical circumstances.--Any allegation that critical 
     circumstances exist shall be included in the petition.
       (b) Investigation and Determination.--Upon the filing of a 
     petition under subsection (a), the Commission, unless 
     subsection (d) applies, shall promptly initiate an 
     investigation to determine whether, as a result of the 
     reduction or elimination of a duty provided for under the 
     Agreement, a Singaporean article is being imported into the 
     United States in such increased quantities, in absolute terms 
     or relative to domestic production, and under such conditions 
     that imports of the Singaporean article constitute a 
     substantial cause of serious injury or threat thereof to the 
     domestic industry producing an article that is like, or 
     directly competitive with, the imported article.
       (c) Applicable Provisions.--The following provisions of 
     section 202 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2252) apply 
     with respect to any investigation initiated under subsection 
     (b):
       (1) Paragraphs (1)(B) and (3) of subsection (b).
       (2) Subsection (c).
       (3) Subsection (d).
       (4) Subsection (i).
       (d) Articles Exempt From Investigation.--No investigation 
     may be initiated under this section with respect to any 
     Singaporean article if, after the date that the Agreement 
     enters into force, import relief has been provided with 
     respect to that Singaporean article under--
       (1) this subtitle;
       (2) subtitle B;
       (3) chapter 1 of title II of the Trade Act of 1974;
       (4) article 6 of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing 
     referred to in section 101(d)(4) of the Uruguay Round 
     Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3511(d)(4)); or
       (5) article 5 of the Agreement on Agriculture referred to 
     in section 101(d)(2) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 
     U.S.C. 3511(d)(2)).

     SEC. 312. COMMISSION ACTION ON PETITION.

       (a) Determination.--Not later than 120 days (180 days if 
     critical circumstances have been alleged) after the date on 
     which an investigation is initiated under section 311(b) with 
     respect to a petition, the Commission

[[Page 19439]]

     shall make the determination required under that section.
       (b) Applicable Provisions.--For purposes of this subtitle, 
     the provisions of paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of section 
     330(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1330(d) (1), (2), 
     and (3)) shall be applied with respect to determinations and 
     findings made under this section as if such determinations 
     and findings were made under section 202 of the Trade Act of 
     1974 (19 U.S.C. 2252).
       (c) Additional Finding and Recommendation if Determination 
     Affirmative.--If the determination made by the Commission 
     under subsection (a) with respect to imports of an article is 
     affirmative, or if the President may consider a determination 
     of the Commission to be an affirmative determination as 
     provided for under paragraph (1) of section 330(d) of the 
     Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1330(d)), the Commission shall 
     find, and recommend to the President in the report required 
     under subsection (d), the amount of import relief that is 
     necessary to remedy or prevent the injury found by the 
     Commission in the determination and to facilitate the efforts 
     of the domestic industry to make a positive adjustment to 
     import competition. The import relief recommended by the 
     Commission under this subsection shall be limited to the 
     relief described in section 313(c). Only those members of the 
     Commission who voted in the affirmative under subsection (a) 
     are eligible to vote on the proposed action to remedy or 
     prevent the injury found by the Commission. Members of the 
     Commission who did not vote in the affirmative may submit, in 
     the report required under subsection (d), separate views 
     regarding what action, if any, should be taken to remedy or 
     prevent the injury.
       (d) Report to President.--Not later than the date that is 
     30 days after the date on which a determination is made under 
     subsection (a) with respect to an investigation, the 
     Commission shall submit to the President a report that 
     includes--
       (1) the determination made under subsection (a) and an 
     explanation of the basis for the determination;
       (2) if the determination under subsection (a) is 
     affirmative, any findings and recommendations for import 
     relief made under subsection (c) and an explanation of the 
     basis for each recommendation; and
       (3) any dissenting or separate views by members of the 
     Commission regarding the determination and recommendation 
     referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2).
       (e) Public Notice.--Upon submitting a report to the 
     President under subsection (d), the Commission shall promptly 
     make public such report (with the exception of information 
     which the Commission determines to be confidential) and shall 
     cause a summary thereof to be published in the Federal 
     Register.

     SEC. 313. PROVISION OF RELIEF.

       (a) In General.--Not later than the date that is 30 days 
     after the date on which the President receives the report of 
     the Commission in which the Commission's determination under 
     section 312(a) is affirmative, or which contains a 
     determination under section 312(a) that the President 
     considers to be affirmative under paragraph (1) of section 
     330(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1330(d)(1)), the 
     President, subject to subsection (b), shall provide relief 
     from imports of the article that is the subject of such 
     determination to the extent that the President determines 
     necessary to remedy or prevent the injury found by the 
     Commission and to facilitate the efforts of the domestic 
     industry to make a positive adjustment to import competition.
       (b) Exception.--The President is not required to provide 
     import relief under this section if the President determines 
     that the provision of the import relief will not provide 
     greater economic and social benefits than costs.
       (c) Nature of Relief.--
       (1) In general.--The import relief (including provisional 
     relief) that the President is authorized to provide under 
     this section with respect to imports of an article is as 
     follows:
       (A) The suspension of any further reduction provided for 
     under Annex 2B of the Agreement in the duty imposed on such 
     article.
       (B) An increase in the rate of duty imposed on such article 
     to a level that does not exceed the lesser of--
       (i) the column 1 general rate of duty imposed under the HTS 
     on like articles at the time the import relief is provided; 
     or
       (ii) the column 1 general rate of duty imposed under the 
     HTS on like articles on the day before the date on which the 
     Agreement enters into force.
       (C) In the case of a duty applied on a seasonal basis to 
     such article, an increase in the rate of duty imposed on the 
     article to a level that does not exceed the lesser of--
       (i) the column 1 general rate of duty imposed under the HTS 
     on like articles for the immediately preceding corresponding 
     season; or
       (ii) the column 1 general rate of duty imposed under the 
     HTS on like articles on the day before the date on which the 
     Agreement enters into force.
       (2) Progressive liberalization.--If the period for which 
     import relief is provided under this section is greater than 
     1 year, the President shall provide for the progressive 
     liberalization (described in article 7.28 of the Agreement) 
     of such relief at regular intervals during the period of its 
     application.
       (d) Period of Relief.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the import 
     relief that the President is authorized to provide under this 
     section may not exceed 2 years.
       (2) Extension.--
       (A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (C), the 
     President, after receiving an affirmative determination from 
     the Commission under subparagraph (B), may extend the 
     effective period of any import relief provided under this 
     section if the President determines that--
       (i) the import relief continues to be necessary to prevent 
     or remedy serious injury and to facilitate adjustment; and
       (ii) there is evidence that the industry is making a 
     positive adjustment to import competition.
       (B) Action by commission.--
       (i) Upon a petition on behalf of the industry concerned, 
     filed with the Commission not earlier than the date which is 
     9 months, and not later than the date which is 6 months, 
     before the date on which any action taken under subsection 
     (a) is to terminate, the Commission shall conduct an 
     investigation to determine whether action under this section 
     continues to be necessary to remedy or prevent serious injury 
     and whether there is evidence that the industry is making a 
     positive adjustment to import competition.
       (ii) The Commission shall publish notice of the 
     commencement of any proceeding under this subparagraph in the 
     Federal Register and shall, within a reasonable time 
     thereafter, hold a public hearing at which the Commission 
     shall afford interested parties and consumers an opportunity 
     to be present, to present evidence, and to respond to the 
     presentations of other parties and consumers, and otherwise 
     to be heard.
       (iii) The Commission shall transmit to the President a 
     report on its investigation and determination under this 
     subparagraph not later than 60 days before the action under 
     subsection (a) is to terminate, unless the President 
     specifies a different date.
       (C) Period of import relief.--The effective period of any 
     import relief imposed under this section, including any 
     extensions thereof, may not, in the aggregate, exceed 4 
     years.
       (e) Rate After Termination of Import Relief.--When import 
     relief under this section is terminated with respect to an 
     article, the rate of duty on that article shall be the rate 
     that would have been in effect, but for the provision of such 
     relief, on the date the relief terminates.
       (f) Articles Exempt From Relief.--No import relief may be 
     provided under this section on any article that has been 
     subject to import relief, after the entry into force of the 
     Agreement, under--
       (1) this subtitle;
       (2) subtitle B;
       (3) chapter 1 of title II of the Trade Act of 1974;
       (4) article 6 of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing 
     referred to in section 101(d)(4) of the Uruguay Round 
     Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3511(d)(4)); or
       (5) article 5 of the Agreement on Agriculture referred to 
     in section 101(d)(2) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 
     U.S.C. 3511(d)(2)).

     SEC. 314. TERMINATION OF RELIEF AUTHORITY.

       (a) General Rule.--No import relief may be provided under 
     this subtitle after the date that is 10 years after the date 
     on which the Agreement enters into force.
       (b) Exception.--Import relief may be provided under this 
     subtitle in the case of a Singaporean article after the date 
     on which such relief would, but for this subsection, 
     terminate under subsection (a), if the President determines 
     that Singapore has consented to such relief.

     SEC. 315. COMPENSATION AUTHORITY.

       For purposes of section 123 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 
     U.S.C. 2133), any import relief provided by the President 
     under section 313 shall be treated as action taken under 
     chapter 1 of title II of such Act.

     SEC. 316. CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION.

       Section 202(a)(8) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
     2252(a)(8)) is amended in the first sentence--
       (1) by striking ``and''; and
       (2) by inserting before the period at the end ``, and title 
     III of the United States-Singapore Free Trade Agreement 
     Implementation Act''.

           Subtitle B--Textile and Apparel Safeguard Measures

      SEC. 321. COMMENCEMENT OF ACTION FOR RELIEF.

       (a) In General.--A request under this subtitle for the 
     purpose of adjusting to the obligations of the United States 
     under the Agreement may be filed with the President by an 
     interested party. Upon the filing of a request, the President 
     shall review the request to determine, from information 
     presented in the request, whether to commence consideration 
     of the request.
       (b) Publication of Request.--If the President determines 
     that the request under subsection (a) provides the 
     information necessary for the request to be considered, the

[[Page 19440]]

     President shall cause to be published in the Federal Register 
     a notice of commencement of consideration of the request, and 
     notice seeking public comments regarding the request. The 
     notice shall include the request and the dates by which 
     comments and rebuttals must be received.

     SEC. 322. DETERMINATION AND PROVISION OF RELIEF.

       (a) Determination.--
       (1) In general.--Pursuant to a request made by an 
     interested party, the President shall determine whether, as a 
     result of the reduction or elimination of a duty under the 
     Agreement, a Singaporean textile or apparel article is being 
     imported into the United States in such increased quantities, 
     in absolute terms or relative to the domestic market for that 
     article, and under such conditions that imports of the 
     article constitute a substantial cause of serious damage, or 
     actual threat thereof, to a domestic industry producing an 
     article that is like, or directly competitive with, the 
     imported article.
       (2) Serious damage.--In making a determination under 
     paragraph (1), the President--
       (A) shall examine the effect of increased imports on the 
     domestic industry, as reflected in changes in such relevant 
     economic factors as output, productivity, utilization of 
     capacity, inventories, market share, exports, wages, 
     employment, domestic prices, profits, and investment, none of 
     which is necessarily decisive; and
       (B) shall not consider changes in technology or consumer 
     preference as factors supporting a determination of serious 
     damage or actual threat thereof.
       (3) Substantial cause.--For purposes of this subsection, 
     the term ``substantial cause'' means a cause that is 
     important and not less than any other cause.
       (b) Provision of Relief.--
       (1) In general.--If a determination under subsection (a) is 
     affirmative, the President may provide relief from imports of 
     the article that is the subject of such determination, as 
     described in paragraph (2), to the extent that the President 
     determines necessary to remedy or prevent the serious damage 
     and to facilitate adjustment by the domestic industry.
       (2) Nature of relief.--The relief that the President is 
     authorized to provide under this subsection with respect to 
     imports of an article is--
       (A) the suspension of any further reduction provided for 
     under Annex 2B of the Agreement in the duty imposed on the 
     article; or
       (B) an increase in the rate of duty imposed on the article 
     to a level that does not exceed the lesser of--
       (i) the column 1 general rate of duty imposed under the HTS 
     on like articles at the time the import relief is provided; 
     or
       (ii) the column 1 general rate of duty imposed under the 
     HTS on like articles on the day before the date on which the 
     Agreement enters into force.

     SEC. 323. PERIOD OF RELIEF.

       (a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), the import 
     relief that the President is authorized to provide under 
     section 322 may not exceed 2 years.
       (b) Extension.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the President 
     may extend the effective period of any import relief provided 
     under this subtitle if the President determines that--
       (A) the import relief continues to be necessary to remedy 
     or prevent serious damage and to facilitate adjustment; and
       (B) there is evidence that the industry is making a 
     positive adjustment to import competition.
       (2) Limitation.--The effective period of any action under 
     this subtitle, including any extensions thereof, may not, in 
     the aggregate, exceed 4 years.

     SEC. 324. ARTICLES EXEMPT FROM RELIEF.

       The President may not provide import relief under this 
     subtitle with respect to any article if import relief 
     previously has been provided under this subtitle with respect 
     to that article.

     SEC. 325. RATE AFTER TERMINATION OF IMPORT RELIEF.

       When import relief under this subtitle is terminated with 
     respect to an article, the rate of duty on that article shall 
     be the rate that would have been in effect, but for the 
     provision of such relief, on the date the relief terminates.

     SEC. 326. TERMINATION OF RELIEF AUTHORITY.

       No import relief may be provided under this subtitle with 
     respect to an article after the date that is 10 years after 
     the date on which the provisions of the Agreement relating to 
     trade in textile and apparel goods take effect pursuant to 
     article 5.10 of the Agreement.

     SEC. 327. COMPENSATION AUTHORITY.

       For purposes of section 123 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 
     U.S.C. 2133), any import relief provided by the President 
     under this subtitle shall be treated as action taken under 
     chapter 1 of title II of such Act.

     SEC. 328. BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.

       The President may not release information which the 
     President considers to be confidential business information 
     unless the party submitting the confidential business 
     information had notice, at the time of submission, that such 
     information would be released by the President, or such party 
     subsequently consents to the release of the information. To 
     the extent business confidential information is provided, a 
     nonconfidential version of the information shall also be 
     provided, in which the business confidential information is 
     summarized or, if necessary, deleted.

       Subtitle C--Cases Under Title II of the Trade Act of 1974

     SEC. 331. FINDINGS AND ACTION ON GOODS FROM SINGAPORE.

       (a) Effect of Imports.--If, in any investigation initiated 
     under chapter 1 of title II of the Trade Act of 1974, the 
     Commission makes an affirmative determination (or a 
     determination which the President may treat as an affirmative 
     determination under such chapter by reason of section 330(d) 
     of the Tariff Act of 1930), the Commission shall also find 
     (and report to the President at the time such injury 
     determination is submitted to the President) whether imports 
     of the article from Singapore are a substantial cause of 
     serious injury or threat thereof.
       (b) Presidential Determination Regarding Singaporean 
     Imports.--In determining the nature and extent of action to 
     be taken under chapter 1 of title II of the Trade Act of 
     1974, the President shall determine whether imports from 
     Singapore are a substantial cause of the serious injury or 
     threat thereof found by the Commission and, if such 
     determination is in the negative, may exclude from such 
     action imports from Singapore.

             TITLE IV--TEMPORARY ENTRY OF BUSINESS PERSONS

     SEC. 401. NONIMMIGRANT TRADERS AND INVESTORS.

       Upon a basis of reciprocity secured by the Agreement, an 
     alien who is a national of Singapore (and any spouse or child 
     (as defined in section 101(b)(1) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(b)(1)) of such alien, if 
     accompanying or following to join the alien) may, if 
     otherwise eligible for a visa and if otherwise admissible 
     into the United States under the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), be considered to be classifiable 
     as a nonimmigrant under section 101(a)(15)(E) of such Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(E)) if entering solely for a purpose 
     specified in clause (i) or (ii) of such section 
     101(a)(15)(E). For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``national'' has the meaning given such term in Annex 1A of 
     the Agreement.

     SEC. 402. NONIMMIGRANT PROFESSIONALS.

       Section 214(g)(8) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1184(g)(8)) is amended--
       (1) by amending subparagraph (A) to read as follows:
       ``(8)(A) The agreements referred to in section 
     101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b1) are--
       ``(i) the United States-Chile Free Trade Agreement; and
       ``(ii) the United States-Singapore Free Trade Agreement.''; 
     and
       (2) by amending subparagraph (B)(ii) to read as follows:
       ``(ii) The annual numerical limitations described in clause 
     (i) shall not exceed--
       ``(I) 1,400 for nationals of Chile (as defined in article 
     14.9 of the United States-Chile Free Trade Agreement) for any 
     fiscal year; and
       ``(II) 5,400 for nationals of Singapore (as defined in 
     Annex 1A of the United States-Singapore Free Trade Agreement) 
     for any fiscal year.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 329, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Levin) each will control 50 minutes, and the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) each 
will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  The United States-Singapore Free Trade Agreement marks the first time 
the United States has entered an agreement with an Asian-Pacific nation 
of a free trade agreement. Because 99 percent of trade and goods with 
Singapore is already tariff free, this agreement focuses on removing 
restrictions on trade in services to the benefit of our massive 
American service sector, which accounts for around 80 percent of our 
entire economy. Singapore is the 12th largest trading partner with the 
United States already, with two-way trade approaching $40 billion last 
year. The U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement will enhance and 
strengthen this already strong trade relationship.
  Among the benefits of free trade with Singapore are new opportunities 
for U.S. service providers. U.S. negotiators secured key protections in 
a framework with minimal carve-outs. Services firms will not only enjoy 
equal treatment in crossborder supply of services but will gain the 
right to invest and to establish a local services

[[Page 19441]]

presence, which is critical to selling American services to Singapore.
  The U.S. direct foreign investment in Singapore was $27 billion last 
year. With this new free trade agreement, we will create a secure and 
predictable legal framework for U.S. investors operating in Singapore 
because it will be treated as favorably as local investors who will 
have access to meaningful dispute settlements. The U.S.-Singapore Free 
Trade Agreement contains state-of-the-art protections for American 
intellectual property, which is increasingly vital in the digital age 
and protects tens of thousands of U.S. workers and creates potential of 
tens of thousands of new American workers.
  Trade in ag products represents a net trade surplus for the United 
States. Last year American farmers exported around $260 million worth 
of food products to Singapore. By binding all of its tariffs at zero, 
Singapore will now open its markets to American ag products and create 
new opportunities for American farmers to sell our produce to a nation 
whose small size prevents it from being able to grow enough food for 
consumption by its citizens. The U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement 
will serve as the foundation for other possible free trade agreements 
in Southeast Asia. The free trade agreement establishes standards for 
trade that mirror U.S. law and sets a precedent for future agreements.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 25 of our 50 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Stark) for the purposes of yielding time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Stark) will control 25 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise once again in opposition this time to H.R. 2739, the United 
States-Singapore Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.
  It is not bad enough that we trash workers' rights in Chile. We might 
as well do two of them at once and trash any hope for workers' rights 
in Singapore.
  I am happy to note that organized labor in the United States opposes 
the Singapore, as well as the Chile, Free Trade Agreement. The 
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the AFL-CIO, the International 
Brotherhood of Boilermakers, the International Brotherhood of 
Electrical Workers, the United Auto Workers, United Steelworkers of 
America, Unite! the Needle Trades Union, and the Machinists Union have 
all informed us of their opposition to both the Singapore and Chile 
free trade agreements.
  If we are at all interested in protecting workers' rights around the 
globe, then we must oppose this piece of legislation. In Singapore in 
particular, a one-party dictatorship has consistently suppressed 
workers' rights just as they are being suppressed in Cuba, China, 
Liberia, Haiti, Pakistan, and many other areas of the world; and we are 
not doing anything about that. And we do set a standard which might 
very well be followed in Central America as we proceed into that free 
trade agreement later this year.
  This agreement fails the test for acceptable labor rights provisions 
and trade agreements most miserably, and nowhere is it near the 
standard we set in the U.S.-Jordan Free Trade Agreement. It does not 
require Singapore to adopt even the most basic ILO standards for 
workers' rights. Singapore claims to uphold the ILO core standards; yet 
our U.S. negotiators have not obligated Singapore even to its hollow 
claims. Meanwhile, workers' rights are being trampled on.
  The State Department outlines the numerous violations in its ``2002 
Human Rights Report,'' stating that ``there were no laws or regulations 
on minimum wages or unemployment compensation,'' and their report goes 
on to say that there was a prohibition on strikes by workers in the 
water, gas and electricity sectors; and for the workers that can 
strike, there were no specific laws that prohibited retaliation against 
strikers, allowing corporations to apply virtually any tactic they 
choose to break up a strike.
  I realize that the majority would like to see labor standards in this 
country returned to those conditions that we had in this country in the 
early part of the 20th century; but it is not going to work, and it is 
obscene to think that we will turn our backs on the poorest workers in 
poor nations across the globe where we are exporting jobs from our 
American workers. Even if this free trade agreement included the ILO 
core labor standards, it would be toothless. The agreement fails to 
provide the same enforcement mechanisms for labor violations as it 
provides for commercial violations; so if one disobeys the rights on 
patents or copyrights, they will be severely punished; but if they 
torture or shoot or otherwise bother workers, there is no retaliation. 
Once again, the administration chooses to relegate labor to a 
substandard class.
  Under the Singapore agreement once a determination of the labor 
violation has been made, the first course of action is a fine which is 
capped at $15 million annually, a mere slap on the wrist. The 
negotiated course of enforcement pales in comparison to the sanctions 
that are available to protect our industries. The rich in this country 
get protected by this administration. Working people around the world 
are ignored. And without binding labor rights provisions, governments 
around the world will continue to trample on workers with impunity.
  It is for this reason that I must strenuously oppose the U.S.-
Singapore Free Trade Agreement and urge my colleagues to join me.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time and 
the ability to subdivide as necessary to the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Crane), chairman of the Trade Subcommittee and one of the leading 
voices of trade in Congress.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance 
of my time to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) for the 
purpose of yielding time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. McDermott) will control the balance of the time 
allotted to the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark).
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for H.R. 2739, 
a bill which will implement the U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement 
that was concluded between the United States and Singapore in January 
of this year. The U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement is, along with 
the U.S.-Chile Free Trade Agreement, a watershed in U.S. trade policy. 
These are the first FTAs to be considered by Congress since the passage 
of the U.S.-Jordan FTA in 2001 and the first to be considered under 
Fast Track procedures established as part of last year's landmark 
bipartisan trade promotion authority since the passage of the North 
American Free Trade Agreement almost 10 years ago.
  The fact that this agreement is one of the first to be considered 
under TPA authority, however, is not only the first for the U.S.-
Singapore agreement. The U.S.-Singapore FTA, along with the U.S.-Chile 
FTA, is one of the first agreements of its kind, laying the groundwork 
and establishing high benchmarks for future trade agreements. For 
example, in the area of investment, the U.S.-Singapore FTA makes 
improvements to NAFTA chapter 11 model called for in TPA by providing 
more transparency, greater public input in the dispute resolutions 
process, and mechanisms to improve the investor-state process by 
eliminating frivolous claims.
  The agreement is also ground-
breaking in the area of intellectual property rights, providing new WTO 
plus state-of-the-art protections for U.S. patents and trade secrets 
and for digital products such as U.S. software, music, text, and 
videos. Enforcement of intellectual property rights is also enhanced 
and strengthened under this agreement.

[[Page 19442]]

  I am also pleased that Singapore, as part of this agreement, has 
agreed both to permit the importation of certain chewing gums into 
Singapore and to allow some chewing gums with therapeutic value to be 
sold without a prescription in Singapore pharmacies. This issue may 
seem small to us, but it is a big step for them, demonstrating 
Singapore's commitment to the FTA and its willingness to strengthen its 
strong trade and economic relationship with the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that this agreement is a win-win agreement for 
both the United States and Singapore. I urge my colleagues to support 
the bill and to support the further opening of trade between the United 
States and Singapore.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  It tickles me to sit here and listen to these Members talk about 
agriculture and opening markets with a subsidized product; and if those 
of us from the Midwest talk about subsidizing steel, we are called 
Neanderthals. So I just hope everyone understands the duplicity that is 
going on here.
  We all want trade. We all want to trade with other countries. We all 
recognize the comparative advantage that certain countries have, and we 
want to help them lift the standards.

                              {time}  1245

  The question we have is why do we put commercial standards at such a 
high level, and we are taking down the environmental and the labor 
standards that we have agreed to in the last agreement we had with 
Jordan?
  Now, there is a great example from 1994 after we delinked with China 
human rights from most favorable nation status. In 1995 there were some 
property rights that were in question. McDonald's had a lease problem. 
Mickey Mouse had an intellectual property and royalties problem, and 
the United States Government threatened a $1 billion trade sanction to 
protect Mickey Mouse.
  Now, give me a break. But we do not have enough energy and commitment 
to protect the environmental and the workplace rights that we have 
established over the last century in this country?
  Now we are saying that this is also going to create jobs, when the 
NAFTA agreement that we agreed to has already lost us 3 million jobs. I 
was in college in 1992, 1993, 1994; and I remember the NAFTA debate and 
how the United States Government was going to be a country club. 
Everyone was going to have a great high-tech job, nobody had to use 
their hands, we would be able to have flex-time at work, and it was 
going to be a great society.
  Now we are finding out that IBM and other firms are sending 3 million 
high-tech software jobs, computer-design jobs to India, and we wonder 
why there is not a recovery in this country. The investments, the 
capital, are going to countries that we are doing trade deals with that 
have low environmental standards and low labor standards.
  It is time to start protecting the jobs here in this country and to 
start exporting our ideals that we have in this country.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dooley).
  Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
both the Chilean and the Singapore free trade agreements. I want to 
compliment Ambassador Zoelick, as well as the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Levin), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Thomas), and others who played such an important 
role in ensuring that these agreements are advancing the interests of 
the U.S. businesses as well as the people they employ.
  In the passage of these measures, we are really reaping the benefits 
that result from the passage of Trade Promotion Authority last year, 
which gave the United States the ability to maximize its leadership 
internationally, to ensuring that we can advance a policy of economic 
engagement that will create additional opportunities for the citizens 
of this country, and at the same time ensuring that we can facilitate 
and accelerate the development of economies throughout the world, and, 
in this case, Chile and Singapore.
  These agreements are important because of the enhanced market access 
that they provide to U.S. farmers as well as many other products that 
are produced in the United States.
  These agreements are also important because they help to strengthen 
the partnership with the United States and Singapore that ensure that 
we have a platform in that region of the world that allows us to expand 
further opportunities. The same case can be made with Chile. With the 
agreement we have negotiated with Chile, we are once again 
demonstrating that the United States has a commitment to be a good 
partner with our friends in South America.
  This is going to be important, both in Singapore and Chile, so that 
we can advance our interests in terms of regional and multilateral 
trade agreements. We want to continue to build upon these agreements 
and see progress in the Doha Round of the WTO in order to once again 
ensure that we can benefit the entire international economy by seeing 
greater levels of market access.
  I am also pleased that we have been able to distinguish that we have 
to have different approaches in how we advance the issues of labor and 
the environment and different agreements with different countries. I 
think the way that we have advanced the issue of ensuring enforcement 
of domestic labor laws in Chile is appropriate, that we understand that 
we can invest in the ability and capacity of the government of Chile to 
enforce their labor laws. That is going to be an important tool in 
terms of seeing advancement in labor conditions there. We always hold 
out the tool and the enforcement mechanism of sanctions if we do not 
see progress.
  I think this is an excellent way to achieve the objectives that we 
all share and seeing the ability of the policy of economic engagement 
and trade to provide the ability to see greater progress in the 
improvement of environmental conditions.
  Once again, in closing, both the Singapore agreement and the Chilean 
agreement are very important to the economic welfare of the citizens of 
the United States and will certainly strengthen the partnership of the 
United States in two very important regions of the world, in South 
America as well as Asia.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Strickland).
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, as we debate in this Chamber today, I 
believe a vast majority of the American people are angry. And why are 
they angry? They are angry because over the last 3 years, since 
President Bush came into office, this country has lost approximately 3 
million jobs.
  I believe the people in this country are skeptical. Why are they 
skeptical? Because there is a disconnect between what so many of us say 
and what we do, a disconnect between rhetoric and reality. We talk 
about how these trade deals will result in additional exports and 
conveniently forget to talk about the imports that will flood our 
markets as a result of what we do in this Chamber.
  The American people are puzzled. They are puzzled because they think 
we are United States Representatives, that our first obligation ought 
to be to the American people, to the American worker, the American 
company, the American community; and yet we hear so much talk about 
what this will do to help the citizens of Singapore or Chile.
  Well, you know, I am concerned about those citizens; but our first 
obligation is right here at home. This agreement will result in jobs 
being sent

[[Page 19443]]

out of the country and workers being brought into the country. Under 
this agreement, 5,400 workers from Singapore can come into this country 
every year, every year, with a visa that will be forever renewable. 
That means that in 10 years we can have 54,000 people from Singapore 
here in our country taking jobs that ought to be held by American 
citizens, by the people we are obligated to be representing.
  I do not know what it is going to take to cause this Congress to come 
to its senses. Vote ``no'' on this unwise trade deal.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Michigan 
(Mr. Levin) for his leadership on these issues.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to speak both to the Chile and Singapore Free 
Trade Agreements. With regard to Chile, this is going to level the 
trade playing field for U.S. companies and workers. Chile's uniform 
tariff of 6 percent will be immediately removed for more than 85 
percent of all U.S. exports, and the remaining tariff is going to be 
phased out. By contrast, 65 percent, two-thirds of Chile's exports to 
the United States are already duty free, and there is an average of 
one-half of one percent tariff on those goods that face any duty.
  But the problem with Chile has been that, while the U.S. has spent 
years debating Trade Promotion Authority, Chile has been busy striking 
free trade deals with Canada, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, and the 
European Union. Because of these agreements, the U.S., which was once 
the dominant market for Chile's foreign trade, has seen its share of 
the Chilean market drop by one-third since 1997, and its bilateral 
trade agreement has reversed from surplus to deficit.
  Equally important, this is going to promote broader U.S. foreign 
policy goals in the Americas. Because Chile is one of the most stable, 
transparent and wealthy South American nations, it boasts impressive 
labor and environmental standards. We are also going to have the 
opportunity to further exercise our world leadership role by actively 
promoting democracy, civil rules of law, and human rights.
  With regard to Singapore, again, this should be a no-brainer for the 
Congress. Singapore is our 11th largest trading partner. It is renowned 
for its world-class infrastructure and very well-educated workforce. In 
my congressional district, for example, and there are many such 
suburban technology-oriented districts like mine across the country, it 
is going to have a very significant positive impact for the high-tech 
community.
  High-technology trade between the United States and Singapore 
represents about half of the total two-way trade. In 2002, the U.S. 
exported nearly $6 billion in high-tech goods to Singapore.
  The technology sector is the largest merchandise exporter in the 
United States, and that is the sector that is going to benefit most 
from the free trade agreement with Singapore.
  With respect to intellectual property rights, the U.S.-Singapore Free 
Trade Agreement contains protections to ensure that a rich, diverse, 
and competitive marketplace will be maintained throughout Asia. 
Singapore is our key gateway to the rest of Asia; so it is very 
important that they are going to grant our inventors, our writers, our 
artists, our business people strong enforceable property rights over 
the fruits of their creations.
  It establishes standards of protection that are consistent with U.S. 
law and requires that those protections be effectively enforced. Each 
party has to protect copyrights, trademarks, and patents against the 
illegal manufacture, import and export of pirated goods. It is terribly 
important. This is the right thing in promoting long-term economic 
growth for the United States and for Singapore and for this entire 
region of the world.
  So both with respect to Chile and Singapore, these are major 
advancements. This is the right thing to do for our economy, and for 
our foreign policy and I trust that these agreements are going to pass 
overwhelmingly.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), our distinguished chairman of 
the Committee on Ways and Means, for a colloquy with our other 
distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English).
  Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. THOMAS. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, as we have studied this treaty, and as I have talked to 
people in northwestern Pennsylvania who have had an interest in the 
results of this trade agreement, I have heard concerns regarding the 
so-called integrated sourcing initiative. Is it true that this 
provision can be used to openly transship products from China to the 
United States duty free?
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the short answer can be 
quickly dealt with, but I think a longer one is necessary for people to 
fully appreciate.
  The integrated sourcing initiative, or the ISI, the products on this 
list currently have no duty or restrictions when they enter the United 
States, regardless of where they come from or what country they pass 
through. The Singapore agreement identifies these goods and deems them 
to be of Singaporean origin for certain carefully delineated, limited 
purposes when they do move through Singapore for the administrative 
convenience of businesses and our own Customs Service. However, they 
are still considered of third-country origin for purposes of applying 
the global safeguard.
  Many people are alarmed by, I think, the word ``transshipment,'' 
because they think it would be an illegal movement or smuggling of 
goods. But that is simply not true here. These are legal goods that 
under current law can enter the U.S. without restriction. In this case, 
the Chinese goods on the ISI list could come directly to the United 
States without duty or restriction currently. So what difference does 
it make if it goes through Singapore or any number of other countries 
along the way?
  I have heard concerns from Members about the nature and impact of 
this provision. As a result, I think it is prudent to ask the 
International Trade Commission to monitor Singapore trade in certain 
ISI goods and associated downstream products. If there is a significant 
change in the level of trade, the commission then will be asked to 
investigate further and report to us.
  Frankly, I do not anticipate significant changes in trade in these 
goods as a result of the ISI provisions, but I do not think it does any 
harm to monitor it either. This provision makes it marginally easier on 
businesses, but I do not believe enough to change trade flows very 
much. But I want to underscore, notwithstanding that, I think it is 
prudent to monitor.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, that is most reassuring.
  On another point, if the gentleman will continue to yield, reading 
the proposal that is before us, can the administration add products to 
the ISI list as it sees fit without congressional approval and 
oversight?
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, in the measure before us 
the very short and direct answer is ``no.'' Whatever may have occurred 
in the process of developing this legislation or whatever was a desired 
result really is the past.
  The measure in front of us says the list that is in this bill is the 
list, period. If Congress wants to address it, if Congress wants to 
expand or shrink the list, that is within the congressional 
prerogative. No other group, administration or otherwise, can change 
the list. Of course, the administration could be offering a proposal to 
Congress to consider, but it will be Congress' decision to modify the 
list that is in front of us in this bill.
  Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will again yield, I want 
to

[[Page 19444]]

thank the chairman for clarifying these points. Let me say that having 
participated in the process of vetting these two treaties, I believe 
they have been examined with a fine degree of concern, particularly for 
their impact on the manufacturing and agricultural sectors.
  I feel very strongly that what we have here is the best kind of 
treaty that we can have to expand our economy, open up markets, and 
allow for trade on a very fair and balanced basis, with transparency 
and provisions that are very clearly enforceable.
  So I want to thank the gentleman for his comments and add my voice to 
the long list of those who are urging that these two agreements be 
passed to create opportunities, to create good-paying American jobs, 
and to promote healthy trade relationships with two of our better 
trading partners.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I want to make it perfectly clear that 
although that list of items is contained in this bill, which is being 
handled under the trade promotion authority, the so-called fast track 
with no amendments, if the administration or a Member introduced a 
piece of legislation which was to expand or contract that list, it 
would not be handled under the trade promotion structure; it would be 
handled as an ordinary piece of legislation, open to amendment and 
modification.
  Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I recognize that as a very important 
parting shot, because that provides, I think, a greater level of 
protection and transparency by requiring any changes go through 
congressional oversight and the full legislative process.
  I thank the gentleman for his points of clarification.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his continued 
interest in these very important pieces of legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes and 15 seconds to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a distinguished colleague of mine 
on the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to question these agreements, 
reluctant in support, not because my interest in expanding 
international commerce has waned over the years, but reluctant because 
of this Administration's consistent refusal to support a balanced, 
bipartisan trade policy.
  Like most of its foreign policy, the Administration's guiding 
principle is not moderation, but arrogance. It pursues go-it-alone, 
one-on-one trade deals like these instead of reforming the structure 
that would promote more multilateral world trade.
  These agreements perhaps represent a perfect fit for this 
Administration, whose approach toward environmental protection and 
worker rights ranges from conscious indifference to open hostility, an 
Administration that apparently views a few attacks on health and safety 
laws by a foreign multinational investor trading partner as more of a 
help than a hindrance.
  All the hullabaloo that we heard this morning about these agreements 
is more symbolic than it is real. The economic impact of these 
agreements is minuscule: less than one-hundredth percent of our gross 
domestic product for Singapore and less than five-hundredths for Chile. 
Not much to crow about for an Administration whose trade policy has 
followed rather crooked twists and turns.
  Its enthusiasm for giant subsidies to giant agribusiness corporations 
impedes and distorts our efforts to expand world commerce. It cannot 
even permit trading catfish without demanding that the catfish be 
called something other than ``catfish.''
  And, of course, this very day, efforts are under way to deny seniors 
in America the right to reimport FDA-approved prescriptions from 
Canada.
  Against this backdrop of protection for its buddies, this bill 
represents the crowning achievement of this Administration in trade, 
free trade with the important, but tiny, island of Singapore. I am not 
willing to say ``no'' to this modest achievement, but we should 
recognize that it speaks more of failure than of success.
  As a model for the future, the provisions on investor protection, on 
workers' rights, on environmental protection are a complete failure. 
Those provisions are not the result of hard-fought negotiations. In the 
case of Singapore, for example, that country was willing to accept most 
anything the United States tendered on these issues. And the 
Administration requested just as little as possible to justify a 
pseudo-claim that it cared about these issues.
  As a precedent, these agreements deserve just as little respect as 
this Administration has now shown toward the stronger, but still very 
flawed, U.S.-Jordan Free Trade Agreement.
  Freeing markets is very important, but so is freeing children from 
sweatshops. In contrast with its willingness to protect catfish 
farmers, the Administration is indifferent to the lakes in which those 
fish swim. These agreements do not guarantee that governments have the 
right to prevent a public nuisance like pollution of our air or water 
without paying compensation. The Administration is willing to protect 
special interests from foreign lumber competition, but not the forests 
that our families enjoy and the wilderness areas that are so important 
to our global future.
  Countries should have the right to insist that electric utilities 
include devices that reduce air pollution, the right to limit roads 
into forests, and insist on replanting as a condition to investment. 
Expanding the investor-state language in these agreements to 
derivatives, stocks, and bonds raises questions about future demands 
for post-Enron-type accountability that may well reduce a corporate 
insider's short-term return on investment, even though the reform 
increases the security of the public as a whole over the long term. 
There is a great danger that these agreements will be misconstrued to 
facilitate challenges to all of these.
  Bipartisan support for more international trade has been greatly 
weakened by this Administration's consistent indifference to 
meaningfully opening up trade to public participation. More is required 
than allowing a few hand-picked industry representatives with national 
security clearances in the back door to review documents. When key 
decisions are being made behind closed doors, shielded from the press, 
the public, and watchdog organizations like the Sierra Club, we all 
lose.
  Reacting to its defeat in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit 
recently, to force disclosure, the U.S. Trade Representative 
audaciously began classifying documents, and the Administration issued 
an Executive Order blocking the public's right to know about what was 
happening on trade--hardly ``free and open trade'' when it is closed to 
the people of America, even though our trading partners know what 
secrets are under way.
  How trade affects our water, our food and working families should not 
be a trade secret. America's most important export--democracy--is 
weakened by ``star chamber'' trade policies.
  It is possible to promote more world trade, economic growth, and 
opportunity without undermining our environment and facilitating child 
labor, but only by pursuing a different course. Open government is not 
inconsistent with opening markets. It is the only path that will 
ultimately lead to our achieving that goal.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Linder). It is now in order under the 
rule to move to the Committee on the Judiciary's 20 minutes. It is my 
understanding the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) will control 10 
minutes for the majority, and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee) will control 10 minutes for the minority.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. King), a valued member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of both resolutions, H.R. 2738 and 
H.R. 2739, the Chilean and Singapore Free Trade Agreements.

[[Page 19445]]

  The U.S.-Singapore and -Chile agreements will help a wide range of 
U.S. businesses, including manufacturers, service providers and farmers 
to get back into the game on international trade. This Free Trade 
Agreement also raises the bar for the Free Trade Area of the Americas. 
Implementing the Free Trade Agreement with Chile, the leading economic 
reformer in Latin America, sends a message to other countries taking 
part in the Free Trade Agreement negotiations that the U.S. is prepared 
to improve trade relations with countries that stay on the path of 
economic reform, free markets, and democracy.
  U.S. agriculture needs trade agreements in order to obtain the global 
market access necessary to expand sales and farm incomes. Since 96 
percent of the world's population resides outside the United States, 
access to foreign markets is essential for the continued growth and 
viability of U.S. agriculture. Bilateral agreements such as the 
Singapore and the Chile Free Trade Agreements are essential, because 
they provide benefits immediately. They help the U.S. keep pace with 
global competitors who currently have better access than U.S. exporters 
due to existing preferential trade agreements. This agreement is 
comprehensive, calling for an eventual duty-free, quota-free access for 
all products.
  I would point out that Adam Smith wrote this in about 1776, that ``if 
you can buy it cheaper than you can make it, you ought to buy it; if 
you can make it cheaper than you can buy it, you ought to make it.'' 
That is what this is about, this Free Trade Agreement.
  The Free Trade Agreement for Singapore works to guarantee access for 
U.S. firms into Singapore's industries, such as express delivery, legal 
services, financial services, and communications.
  Congress, not the U.S. Trade Representative, has plenary power over 
immigration. I firmly believe that immigration policy does not belong 
in free trade agreements.
  I thank the U.S. Trade Representative for working with the Committee 
on the Judiciary to address some of our bipartisan concerns about the 
Chile and Singapore agreements. As a member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary, I offered amendments to help fix problematic immigration 
provisions in the Chile and Singapore trade agreements. I particularly 
appreciate the cooperation and promise of Ambassador Zoellick that 
immigration provisions will not be included in future trade agreements.
  Many Members have supported trade promotion authority in the past. 
However, if the U.S. Trade Representative includes immigration 
provisions in future trade agreements, support for extensions of this 
authority and of the free trade agreements themselves will be 
jeopardized. The outcry here in Congress shows that the U.S. Trade 
Representative cannot garner the necessary support for any future trade 
agreements containing immigration provisions.
  The message is clear: Immigration provisions will not be tolerated in 
future trade agreements; that is the province of the United States 
Congress, according to our United States Constitution.
  We must step forward and fulfill our constitutional obligations here. 
We have done so from the Committee on the Judiciary. I will continue 
observing these trade agreements as they are negotiated and carried 
out.
  I do appreciate the cooperation of the Trade Representative and also 
of our chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), who 
has led the battle on this issue, and I intend to be part of that team. 
But I will vote in support of this trade agreement.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I claim the 10 minutes on 
behalf of the Committee on the Judiciary Democrats, and on behalf of 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), and I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me, since we have done two, this is 
the second trade bill, acknowledge the hard work of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Michigan 
(Ranking Member Conyers) on one of the key elements of dissension in 
this legislation, and that, of course, is the fact of immigration 
policy on a trade bill.
  We are familiar with the concept of legislating on appropriations 
bills. Many of our colleagues and many of us, might I say, attempt on 
many occasions to try and find ways to instruct this Congress as it 
relates to appropriations bills in terms of policy; and we suggest that 
there is a nexus in spending money and policy.
  Well, frankly, the nexus that the USTR has tried to create between a 
trade bill and immigration policy is a bogus one and inappropriate. 
Might I cite for my colleagues again, Mr. Speaker, the constitutional 
clause that under article I, section 8, clause 4 of the Constitution 
provides that Congress shall have the power to establish a uniform rule 
of naturalization. The Supreme Court has long found that this provision 
of the Constitution grants Congress plenary power over immigration 
policies.

                              {time}  1315

  Statutory law and legislative law suggests the same.
  Now, let me say that I am a friend of Singapore, as well as a friend 
of Chile, and believe that we should create and enhance friendships. We 
are an equal trading partner with Singapore. But I also believe we have 
not established the necessity for Fast Track Authorization, which from 
my perspective again violates some of the authority of Congress.
  The commerce clause, or commerce, is adjudged by the Constitution so 
it is a power constitutionally provided for and should be respected. 
But the question is are we adhering to the Constitution by protecting 
the interests of the American people? Do we have a clause in this trade 
bill that requires employers to attest that they cannot find anyone to 
do the job, that they are now providing a visa, both in Chile and 
Singapore, for those individuals to come to the United States? Are they 
attesting to the fact that they need to have this visa perpetual, no 
end to it?
  The H1-B visas had an end, a 3-year term; and it could be renewed. We 
were not even allowed to put a cap, nor were we allowed to direct the 
visa fees that would come from these perpetual visas to be able to help 
bring down the overload of the costs of processing visas throughout the 
world.
  So what happens? Medical institutions are penalized, like the Texas 
Medical Center, because they cannot get their researchers here to do 
good work, researchers from around the world because of the clogging of 
the system. Who else is hurt? People's lives are lost. Why? Because 
those who are patients of American doctors who are trying to come back 
for treatment are backlogged because we cannot get visas because of the 
backlogged system. But yet the U.S. Trade Representative would not even 
tolerate that kind of discussion. Further, the U.S. Trade 
Representative staff, thereby him, would not even engage in 
negotiations around these very issues that might have made this 
palatable.
  As I close, Mr. Speaker, let me simply say that we can see jobs 
leaving now. IBM, Microsoft, Oracle sending 3 million jobs overseas as 
we speak. There is a 6.4 million unemployment. It may be rising. This 
is not an appropriate time, even with our friends, to suggest that we 
should have Fast Track Authority and overlook the economic crisis that 
is in the United States today.
  I close by simply saying that the real angst of this bill is for us 
to accept the abdication, if you will, of congressional power on 
immigration laws. I will not do so, and on behalf of the American 
people I will not do so.
  I will begin by saying that I value the trade relations that the 
United States has with Singapore. Singapore is America's largest 
trading partner in Southeast Asia with two-way trade of $31 billion and 
a United States bilateral merchandise trade surplus in 2002 of $1.4 
billion. Singapore is the 11th largest export market for the United 
States with $16.2 billion in merchandise exports in 2002. It is the 
16th largest source for goods imported into the United States with 
$14.8 billion in 2002. The

[[Page 19446]]

United States is Singapore's second largest trading partner. I support 
trade with Singapore.
  My concern is with the details of the trade agreement. The U.S. Trade 
Representative (USTR) should not have included immigration provisions 
in the Singapore Free Trade Agreement. The negotiating objectives that 
Congress laid out for the USTR in Trade Protection Act of 2002 (TPA) do 
not include a single work on temporary entry into the United States. 
There is no specific authority in the TPA to negotiate new visa 
categories or to impose new requirements on our temporary entry system, 
yet that is exactly what USTR has done in the Singapore Free Trade 
Agreement.
  The inclusion of immigration provisions overstepped the bounds of the 
USTR and usurped the jurisdiction of the Congress. Article I, section 
8, clause 4 of the Constitution provides that Congress shall have the 
power to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization. The Supreme Court 
has long found that this provision of the Constitution grants Congress 
plenary power over immigration policy. The Court has found that the 
formulation of policies [pertain to the entry of aliens and their 
rights to remain here] is entrusted exclusively to Congress has become 
firmly embedded in the legislation and judicial tissues of our body 
politics as any aspect of our government. Nonetheless, the 
Administration has negotiated a new visa program in the Singapore Free 
Trade Agreement; usurping Congress' clear constitutional role in 
creating immigration law.
  The Singapore Free Trade Agreement creates a new visa classification 
for the temporary admission of nonimmigrant professionals that is 
similar in many respects to the existing H-1B nonimmigrant 
classification. The new nonimmigrant visa classification, however, 
would differ from the existing H-1B program in significant ways.
  The provisions for the new nonimmigrant visa permit an unlimited 
number of extensions in 1-year increments. This makes it possible for a 
foreign employee entering the country on a supposedly temporary basis 
at the age of 22 to remain until he is ready to retire at the age of 
70. In effect, this gives American employers the option of keeping 
permanent workers in a temporary legal status. In contract, under the 
H-1B program, workers are granted a three-year visa that can be 
extended only once. A single three-year extension is available.
  The Labor Certification Attestation is one of the few safeguards we 
have in our H-1B system for ensuring that employers do not abuse 
temporary workers to undermine the domestic labor market. The 
implementing legislation contains some, but not all, of the attestation 
requirements that apply in our H-1B program.
  The implementing legislation completely omits the category of H-1B 
dependent employers and the additional attestation requirements that 
apply to them. H-1B dependent employers are required to attest that new 
entrants will not displace American workers and demonstrate that they 
have tried to recruit American workers. The implementing legislation 
should have a similar provision.
  In addition, the H-1B program authorizes the Secretary of Labor to 
initiate her own investigations and enforcement proceedings based on 
credible information that an employer is violating the rules of the H-
1B program. No such authority is granted to the Secretary in the 
Singapore agreement's implementing legislation.
  The Singapore Free Trade Agreement requires permanent changes to our 
immigration system, but for now these changes are limited to two 
countries. Unfortunately, we may see these programs expanded to dozens 
of additional countries in future Free Trade Agreements. The 
administration is currently negotiating additional Free Trade 
Agreements with Australia, Morocco, five countries in Southern Africa, 
five countries in Central America, and the 34 countries of the Western 
Hemisphere.
  Immigration policy is a sensitive, political matter. Changes in 
immigration law traditionally have been the result of intense, open 
negotiations between workers, employers, immigration advocates, and 
Members of Congress. These issues simple do not belong in fast-tracked 
trade agreements negotiated by executive agencies. Because the 
legislation is being fast-tracked, Congress does not have the power to 
amend it. We have to vote on it as written with no power to make any 
changes.
  If amendments had been permitted, I would have offered one to put a 
limit on renewals. My amendment would have permitted no more than 8 
one-year renewals of the nonimmigrant status. That would have permitted 
a 9-year period, which would be 50 percent longer than is allowed for 
employees who are here with H-1B status.
  I also would have offered an amendment that would have used part of 
the fees generated by the new visa classification for accelerating the 
processing of nonimmigrant visas by the State Department's consulate 
offices. Delays in processing nonimmigrant visas are causing difficulty 
to people coming to the United States for medical treatment, to do 
important research, or for any of a number of other urgent reasons.
  I urge you to vote against the U.S.-Singapore Trade Agreement 
Implementation Act, H.R. 2739.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Stearns).
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Singapore Free 
Trade Agreement. As many of my colleagues know, I support free trade. I 
believe it must be fair trade. I voted in the past for some of these 
agreements, but this one I think is very good with Singapore and Chile.
  The free trade agreements under consideration today represent a 
significant step towards the goal of open and nondiscriminatory 
international markets for services and e-commerce. The agreements 
contain commitments from both Singapore and Chile for substantial 
market access across nearly all of their service sector including 
banking, insurance, telecommunication, computer and related services, 
energy, direct selling, tourism, professional services, and even 
express delivery services.
  This is a significant departure from trade agreements in the past, as 
all our service sectors are open and the few exceptions are 
memorialized in what is called a ``negative list.'' Moreover, the 
market access and nondiscrimination commitment are bolstered by strong 
and detailed regulatory transparency requirements, a first in trade 
agreements. Regulatory transparency is very important to many service 
industries as they are subject to government regulation. Lack of such 
transparency and regulatory uncertainty are nontariff barriers that 
impede trade and services.
  The Chile and Singapore agreements, in my mind, provide for 
commitments that have been missing in past agreements. In the area of 
services, the commitments are regarding telecommunications, 
intellectual property protection, and in electronic commerce and 
digital products. We have what I see as fair and nondiscriminatory 
treatment with regard to both cross-border trade in services and the 
right to invest in and establish local services.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention that Singapore has been 
a staunch ally with the United States on our war on terrorism. In 
December 2001, Singapore authorities were successful in foiling a 
potential terrorist attack on Western targets by an organization linked 
to al Qaeda. And today Singapore civilian police are working with us in 
Iraq to train the new Iraqi police force. In fact, within this first 
week, Singapore police trained 90 new recruits to assist in bringing 
and maintaining security and order to the Iraqi people.
  Mr. Speaker, we already have a strong partnership with Singapore, and 
the agreement before us will further strengthen that partnership while 
providing excellent opportunities for U.S. businesses.
  I rise in support of the Singapore Free Trade Agreement. As many of 
my colleagues know, while I support free trade, I believe it must be 
fair trade. I have voted, in the past, against those trade agreements 
that I felt were detrimental to our agriculture, textile, and 
manufacturing base and I stand behind those previous votes.
  Though international trade is increasingly becoming an important 
component of our domestic economy, we must remain concerned with the 
consequences of some of these agreements. In a recent article, I spoke 
to the fact that over the past decade, the trade deficit of the United 
States has steadily risen. In 2002, the trade imbalance reached an all-
time high of $435 billion--a $100 billion increase over the 2001 
deficit.
  Having said that, one area of trade in which the U.S. is, in fact, 
benefiting is the trade in services. America ran a record high surplus 
in services of $69.8 billion in 2001, although that surplus shrank to 
$44.7 billion in 2002. Another bright spot in our balance of trade 
calculus is the steadily increasing international e-commerce, which 
holds particular promise for

[[Page 19447]]

U.S. companies. The Information Technology Industry Council projected 
that between 1999 and 2003 the market for electronically distributed 
software alone will grow from $0.5 billion to $15 billion.
  The importance of the service industries to the U.S. economy today 
cannot be overstated. The U.S. economy is a service economy where 
better than \2/3\ of our GDP is composed of services output. Just over 
\3/4\ of our employment base is provided by the service industries. 
There is also little argument that many aspects of our Nation's 
economic life are now, to varying degrees, substantially reliant on e-
commerce. Recent data shows that e-commerce growth is even outpacing 
the rosy predictions of the ``dot-com bubble'' period. In 1999, 
Forester Research Inc. estimated that U.S. e-commerce between 
businesses would reach a staggering $1.3 trillion by 2003. Today, 
Forester Research estimates that networked business-to-business 
transactions stand at $2.4 trillion.
  Thus, the service industries and e-commerce are not only key 
components of our domestic economy, but increasingly trade in services 
and electronic commerce are becoming growth areas where U.S. firms have 
a comparative advantage, given open and non-discriminatory access to 
other markets.
  The FTAs under consideration today, as I noted, represent a 
significant step forward towards the goal of open and non-
discriminatory international markets for services and e-commerce. The 
Agreements contain commitments from both Singapore and Chile for 
substantial market access across nearly all their services sectors: 
including banking, insurance, telecommunications, computer and related 
services, energy, direct selling, tourism, professional services and 
even express delivery services. This is a significant departure from 
trade agreements in the past, as all service sectors are opened up and 
the few exceptions are memorialized in what is called a ``negative 
list.'' Moreover, the market access and non-discrimination commitments 
are bolstered by strong and detailed regulatory transparency 
requirements, a first in trade agreements. Regulatory transparency is 
very important to many service industries as they are subject to 
government regulation. Lack of such transparency and regulatory 
uncertainty are non-tariff barriers that impede trade in services.
  In addition, the Agreements include significant commitments 
establishing that the principle of non-discrimination applies to 
products delivered electronically and prohibiting the levying of 
customs duties on digital products. Furthermore, the Agreements affirm 
that commitments made relating to services also extend to the 
provisioning of such services via electronic delivery.
  The Chile and Singapore Agreements, in my mind, provide for 
commitments that have been missing in past agreements. In the area of 
services, the commitments regarding telecommunications, intellectual 
property protection, and in electronic commerce and digital products, 
we have what I see as fair and non-discriminatory treatment with 
respect to both cross-border trade in services and the right to invest 
in and establish local services.
  Finally, I would like to mention that Singapore has been a staunch 
ally with the U.S. in our war on terrorism. In December 2001, Singapore 
authorities were successful in foiling a potential terrorist attack on 
western targets by an organization linked to Al-Qaeda. And today, 
Singapore civilian police are working with us in Iraq to train the new 
Iraq police force. In fact, within their first week, Singapore police 
trained 90 new recruits to assist in bringing and maintaining security 
and order to the Iraqi people.
  We already have a strong partnership with Singapore and the agreement 
before us will further strengthen that partnership while providing 
excellent opportunities for U.S. businesses.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), a member of 
the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my colleagues, concerned 
Americans, and unions that represent the hard-working people of America 
in opposition to the U.S.-Chile and U.S.-Singapore Free Trade 
Agreements.
  Like many of my colleagues who stand in opposition today, I long for 
a trade agreement that I can support because I really believe in the 
essential nature of global trade. But I am sick of seeing one after 
another of these agreements that come before us actually hurting U.S. 
working men and women; and that is why they are opposed by unions like 
the Teamsters; the AFL/CIO; the Brotherhood of Boilermakers; electrical 
workers; auto workers; steel workers; UNITE!, of which I am a proud 
member; and the Machinists Union.
  I want to just list four of the many reasons that I am opposed to 
these trade agreements. They set a dangerous precedent for the Central 
American Free Trade Agreement, CAFTA, and the free trade agreement of 
the Americas. If passed, these agreements will put the United States on 
record as being indifferent to the gross violations of human labor 
rights that we know occur every day in Central America.
  Two, these trade agreements would not only result in job losses here 
at home but would do nothing to ensure workplace standards and 
environmental protections elsewhere. Under the agreements, Chile and 
Singapore would be allowed to set labor and environmental laws below 
international standards in order to attract investment.
  Three, under the Chile and Singapore trade agreements, corporations 
in Chile and Singapore would have the right to challenge environmental, 
health, labor and other public interest measures in this country on the 
grounds that these protections infringe on their profits. But perhaps 
most offensive of all to me is that for the first time these agreements 
will allow for U.S. companies to exploit foreign workers here in the 
United States. Corporations will no longer have to go overseas to do 
that. They can do it here.
  The agreements create new immigration provisions that allow U.S. 
corporations to import foreign workers to the U.S. to do blue and white 
collar jobs here in this country, but do not include prevailing wage 
requirements and other critical labor rights guarantees. Vote ``no.''
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Colorado Mr. (Tancredo).
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time, especially for his very gracious allowing me to speak in 
opposition to this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, the fact is people keep getting up and saying that we 
are concerned about immigration provisions in the bill. We have talked 
to the Trade Representative. They have responded to our issues; and, in 
fact, the Committee on the Judiciary will act to change one part of 
this bill that pertained to immigration provisions, but there are still 
several parts in this bill that are completely unacceptable, and that 
should never be in there because they are immigration provisions. It 
allows for L-1's, an unlimited number of L-1's. Okay. What happens when 
we actually begin to deal with the violation of the L-1 category that 
is now rampant?
  We will be unable to deal with it in terms of Chile and Singapore 
because it is in the trade agreement that it will not be changed. It 
cannot be modified. So that is an immigration proposal that is still in 
this bill. H1-B category visas, what we are saying is that they can be 
annually renewed as opposed to the present system that requires some 
degree of attention being paid to renewal. But, as a matter of fact, 
that is even being ignored significantly. So if we tried to ever reform 
these categories, if we try to remove them, they will be there forever 
for these two countries because they are in the trade agreement. And 
that is the problem with integrating trade agreements and immigration 
proposals. I am against the two proposals for that reason.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on both 
sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Linder). The gentlewoman from Texas has 
4\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) has 3 
minutes remaining.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. Carson).
  Ms. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding me time and for allowing me to address the House on the Chile 
and Singapore trade agreements, which, in my opinion, represent another 
attack on American working families. But this

[[Page 19448]]

administration and people in this House do not understand the 
abominable effect that trade agreements have on the working people of 
our country. Neither agreement contains basic labor standards to 
protect workers' rights, freedom of association, freedom to bargain 
collectively, freedom from child labor, freedom from forced labor, 
freedom from discrimination. These agreements contain no labor law 
enforcement mechanism.
  Let me further explain why I am opposed to this bill. Indiana working 
families and manufacturers simply cannot afford any more trade 
agreements. I find it unconscionable that the manufacturing industry, 
Indiana's gift to the American economy in more prosperous times, 
suffers the indignity of unfair competition from unfair trade 
agreements negotiated by our own government.
  U.S. manufacturing job losses from August 2001 to 2002 numbered 
606,000. Indiana lost 16,200 manufacturing jobs in the same period of 
time; 45,000 manufacturing jobs lost in November 2002. Unemployment in 
this country, Mr. Speaker, is 3.6 million.
  Since NAFTA was enacted 10 years ago, there has been the loss of more 
than 100,000 jobs in Indiana, all attributed to NAFTA. Trade agreements 
undermine Indiana's businesses, working families, decent wages, and 
strong environmental protections that Americans have fought so hard 
for.
  I would urge defeat of this measure.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I support the strong intellectual property protections 
contained in both the Chile and the Singapore trade agreements. These 
agreements will boost U.S. trade in open markets in both countries. 
They also set a standard for the protections that should be included in 
future trade agreements.
  In today's global economy, it is becoming increasingly easier for 
criminals to steal intellectual property. Whether this theft takes the 
form of pirated music, stolen software, or counterfeited trademarks, it 
has a severe impact on our industries and on our economy. Intellectual 
property is one of our Nation's major assets. The United States is a 
consistent leader in manufacturing high-tech and the creative 
industries. Strong intellectual property protections both in our law 
and in our trade agreements are important to ensure our economy 
continues to flourish.
  The intellectual property found in our country is a result of the 
American creativity. When properly commercialized, these works lead to 
jobs, profits, and a better quality of life for all Americans. These 
agreements will enlist international cooperation that respects and 
protects our intellectual property.
  The strong protections in these agreements set a good precedent for 
future free trade agreements, such as those with Australia and Central 
America.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support both the Chile and 
Singapore free trade agreements.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains, please?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) 
has 3 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) has 1\1/
2\ minutes remaining.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire if the gentleman 
has any additional speakers.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me close by acknowledging the positive aspect of 
trades bills. They are deals and they help enhance relationships 
between our friends, and they create vehicles for trade. We recognize 
that.

                              {time}  1330

  There are also constitutional duties that we have in this body, and 
let it be very clear, this trade bill implodes the constitutional 
responsibility of this Congress, and that is to create immigration 
policies. My greatest respect to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman 
Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Michigan (Ranking Member Conyers) 
for claiming jurisdiction on behalf of the Committee on the Judiciary, 
but that jurisdiction did not prevail to the extent that we crafted or 
carved out bad immigration policy.
  What do we have, Mr. Speaker? One, we have an unending visa that, in 
essence, gives citizenship to an individual over others who are 
standing in line here in the United States. It gives citizenship to 
those who are here undocumented, working, paying taxes and have been 
begging to get in line to get their citizenship. It allows an 
individual to have perpetual citizenship by way of a visa with no 
capping whatsoever.
  In this climate of terrorism and the war against terrorism and the 
responsibilities of the Homeland Security Department, what protection 
do we have to prevent individuals not purposely from utilizing and 
abusing this visa process?
  Additionally, in the backdrop of Microsoft and IBM and Oracle sending 
jobs overseas and high unemployment, we are providing this trade bill 
under fast track authority. Would it not have been more appropriate if 
we had been able to negotiate in the backdrop of the economic crisis?
  This bill does not require employers to attest to the fact that they 
need this employee because they do not have American workers. It does 
not revenue track the visa fees so we can use it to assist our visa 
officers across the ocean to be able to bring in the researchers, 
scientific personnel that we really need and, as well, to be able to 
help those patients who are in line suffering from cancer and other 
diseases who cannot get here for treatment.
  This bill is a bad bill because it should not and cannot pass 
constitutional muster. This fast track authority is a problem in and of 
itself, but the United States Trade Representative has chosen to, in 
essence, enhance the constitutional problems and highlight why fast 
track is bad because all they are doing is doing a deal. They are not 
concerned about the responsibilities of this Congress or the 
obligations to the American people.
  I wish the trade representative had been responsive because I believe 
that Singapore and Chile have great opportunities for us to do trade in 
a reasonable way that protects labor rights and the environment, and 
that we actually have a negotiated deal that impacts positively on the 
American people and the American workforce. Since this bill does not do 
that and it violates the Constitution, I ask my colleagues to vote 
against it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Linder). All time for the Committee on 
the Judiciary portion has expired.
  It is now in order to return to the Committee on Ways and Means 
portion with the time of the majority controlled by the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Crane) and the time of the minority controlled by the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) and the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to our distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman).
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for recognizing me. 
This is a very positive day on the floor of the House. I commend the 
chairman and his staff for getting us to this point, as well as 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle and the U.S. Trade 
Representative.
  These are the first two agreements we have been able to take up under 
so-called fast track authority, trade promotion authority, for the last 
decade, and particularly the U.S.-Singapore trade agreement has a 
number of aspects which are very positive for us. This, of course, is a 
milestone for us. It is the first agreement we have had with an Asian-
Pacific nation. It is also an agreement that is in our interests. Two-
way trade is now approaching $40 billion with Singapore and making them 
our 12th largest trading partner. This agreement will enhance that 
trade and strengthen it.

[[Page 19449]]

  Ninety-nine percent of the trade in goods with Singapore is already 
tariff free, so it really is not about goods; it is more about 
services. And that is great for us because we have a massive service 
economy in this country. In fact, I am told that our service sector now 
accounts for about 80 percent of our gross domestic product. So by 
opening up those markets to services, it helps the United States 
tremendously.
  U.S. direct investment in Singapore was $27 billion in 2001. This 
will also create a more predictable and secure legal framework for U.S. 
investors because they now will be treated as if they were local 
investors and have access to better dispute settlement mechanisms.
  We also live in an advanced technological age, Mr. Speaker, and to 
keep jobs in the United States, we must depend on that. We must have 
higher technology in order to increase productivity and efficiency and 
keep jobs here. This agreement is good in that regard, too, because it 
has state-of-the-art protection for U.S. intellectual property, which 
is increasingly important in a digital age.
  Finally, trade in agriculture is important to us. We have a net 
surplus, of course, in agriculture trade. In 2002, we exported around 
$259 million worth of food products to Singapore. By binding all of 
those tariffs at zero, it helps us, it helps our farmers, it helps open 
up those markets to our products and, therefore, creates jobs here in 
the United States.
  Overall, again I think this is a good day for us in that we are 
moving forward with positive agreements. In the Singapore case, I think 
there are lots of benefits to the United States. I strongly urge my 
colleagues to support this good, bipartisan trade agreement.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).
  Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, it has been about a year since this Congress 
voted to give the President fast track authority, and now we are seeing 
the first fruits of that effort, and I must say that for the democratic 
process and for our constitutional government and for the American 
workers, this is bitter fruit indeed.
  It is sadly ironic that a half a world away we have about a quarter 
of a million American sons and daughters who are fighting and dying 
every day to remove a hostile regime both in Iraq and in Afghanistan 
with the hope and the purpose of bringing democratic rights, individual 
rights, human rights to the people in those countries. Yet here we are 
today with an agreement in which the U.S. Trade Representative has the 
ability to serve the same purpose with the stroke of a pen, and yet the 
U.S. Trade Representative has chosen not to do that. We have fumbled an 
opportunity to strike a blow for democracy in these agreements.
  We should remember that our trade policy is an essential tool of 
democracy, and arguably the United States Trade Representative could 
have accomplished much on our behalf in these agreements, and I think 
Congress needs to get back into the process.
  I think it is instructive that these agreements are very specific, 
very meaningful, very clearly defined when parties or countries violate 
the commercial terms of this agreement. However, when labor protections 
are denied and human rights are denied, the agreements are either 
silent or vague and unenforceable.
  One would think that an administration that has ridden herd on the 
worst job creation performance of any President in this country since 
Herbert Hoover, one would think that that President would be reluctant 
to bring in tens of thousands of foreign workers into this country. One 
would think that with the jobs lost, 1.3 million jobs lost in the past 
2 years, that this administration would be hesitant about adopting this 
type of agreement.
  It is shameful indeed that this administration has not, and I ask my 
colleagues to vote ``no'' on both the Chile and Singapore trade 
agreements.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson), my distinguished colleague on Ways and 
Means.
  Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the U.S.-Singapore 
FTA, and I urge my colleagues to vote for it.
  This is one of the first agreements negotiated under the trade 
promotion authority or under the old term ``fast track authority.'' 
Many of us were concerned that the efforts we made to get labor and 
environmental guidance in this fast track authority would not be heeded 
or heeded sufficiently by the administration. I am relieved to know 
that this is not the case, that this agreement does address, in the way 
that was intended by this Congress when we passed it, the important 
issue of labor and environmental concerns, but it also gets to the 
heart of so many other concerns that I think are most important to our 
economy.
  The U.S.-Singapore FTA is a thorough, comprehensive agreement. It 
will remove Singaporean restrictions through the importation of a broad 
range of products and a broad range of services and a broad range of 
sectors as different as information technology, engineering, 
environmental services, legal and financial services.
  Singapore is already the United States 11th biggest trading partner, 
with bilateral trade of nearly $40 billion. It has one of the world's 
most open and dynamic economies. Its port is one of the world's most 
efficient. Over 1,300 U.S. companies are now doing business in 
Singapore; some 300 of those have made Singapore their Southeast Asian 
regional business headquarters, it is such a vibrant area for it.
  The U.S.-Singapore FTA will serve as a catalyst, I think, for broader 
U.S. economic engagement in Southeast Asia. It will also celebrate the 
progress of a multilateral trade agenda that our country has there.
  Singapore has been a stalwart ally of the United States and the war 
on terrorism. It has worked very closely with us on container security 
and other important trade initiatives. It is a solid agreement that 
deserves our strong support, deserves bipartisan support, and I urge my 
colleagues to vote for it today.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to our distinguished 
colleague from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time, and I want to commend him and the members of the Committee on 
Ways and Means for bringing forward these two free trade agreements 
with Chile and with Singapore and to commend our U.S. Trade 
Representative, Ambassador Zoellick, for the outstanding work that he 
has done to get us here.
  I think I look on this as a very singular accomplishment for the 
United States. I remember back a few years ago traveling to Chile 
shortly after the adoption of the NAFTA agreement and its 
implementation. I went at the behest of the then-Speaker of the House 
Mr. Gingrich to talk about trade, and there was so much anticipation 
and so much excitement about the possibility of a free trade agreement; 
and I felt confident at that time that we would have what we then 
called fast track authority and now trade promotion authority for the 
President so these agreements could be negotiated quickly.
  Of course, as we know now, it was not to be, and it has only been in 
the last year that the President has had this authority. But today, we 
are seeing for the first time in a decade agreements brought to the 
floor of the House of Representatives that have been negotiated using 
this authority of the President.
  Today, for the first time, we are seeing the beginning of what I 
believe will be a very robust period of American trade agreements that 
will begin to open markets for America around the world and begin to 
open markets in the United States for other countries as well, to make 
it possible for other countries to have access to our markets, to make 
it possible for our consumers to have more choices, to make it possible 
for American workers to

[[Page 19450]]

have jobs that can allow for the export of manufactured goods and the 
export of services as well. That is what these agreements are all 
about. They are about enhancing the lives of people not only in this 
country, but around the world.
  The Singapore Free Trade Agreement is one that is especially 
important, I think, to the United States because it marks the first 
free trade agreement we have with an East Asian country. Ninety-nine 
percent of all the trade of goods in Singapore is already tariff free, 
and so this agreement helps us by removing some restrictions on some of 
the other things we have not had open yet, and that is mostly service.
  Singapore, like the United States, even more than the United States, 
is a tremendously service-oriented economy. There is not a lot of 
manufacturing, as we know, in Singapore. It is about trading, and it is 
about services; and opening up that economy to those kinds of services 
is extraordinarily important. Eighty percent of our GDP depends on 
those kinds of services.
  Singapore, despite its tiny size, is the 12th largest trading partner 
of the United States. It has a two-way trade in goods and services of 
nearly $40 billion, and this free trade agreement will enhance and 
strengthen this trade relationship.
  I have already mentioned that there are new opportunities for U.S. 
service providers. U.S. negotiators in this agreement secured key 
protections in a framework and had minimal carve-outs, that is, the 
other side reserved only very small things from the application of the 
free trade agreement.
  Our investment in Singapore was over $27 billion last year. This will 
create a predictable legal framework that U.S. investors can operate in 
in Singapore to be sure that they are being treated as favorably as 
local investors; and they will also have access to meaningful dispute 
settlements.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the very important aspects of this is to have 
dispute settlements so that when we do have disagreements in our trade, 
whether it is at services or manufacturing, we can settle these 
agreements in a fashion that allows trade to move forward. We know all 
too well what happens when we do not have that kind of opportunity.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that this agreement is in the best interests 
of the United States and of Singapore and of the world, and I urge its 
adoption.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, could the Chair kindly tell us the amount 
of time left for each of us?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
McDermott) has 14 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Crane) has 32\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Levin) has 11\1/4\ minutes remaining.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maine (Mr. Michaud).
  Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, the Singapore and Chile agreements are wrong for labor 
standards, they are wrong on the environment, they are wrong on the 
economy, and they are wrong for the American people.
  I have been a mill worker at Great Northern Paper Company for over 30 
years. I have had firsthand experience with the devastation of the so-
called free trade agreements on the U.S. economy. I know what they 
really mean to the working people of this country. Almost no one else 
in this Chamber can claim that experience. These kinds of agreements 
are bad for the working American people.
  NAFTA has been nothing but a disaster in my State of Maine, costing 
over 24,000 manufacturing jobs alone since NAFTA came into effect. As a 
matter of fact, in some parts of my district, the unemployment rate is 
over 38 percent. Working people do not want the programs or handouts 
that we have created because of trade agreements, they want to keep 
their jobs.
  No, I do not oppose all free trade agreements categorically; but they 
must be truly free, and they must be truly fair for our workers. 
Singapore and Chile are neither.
  Mr. Speaker, the problem with these agreements is made far worse by 
the Trade Promotion Authority which shuts out the people's voice and 
even prevents Members of Congress from holding negotiators responsible 
for harmful and misguided policies. That is why today I am introducing 
a bill to repeal Trade Promotion Authority.
  If the people had a voice in how these agreements are reached and we 
could amend sections of these agreements that are lacking, then we 
might have fair and free trade agreements. In fact, we might not even 
need this debate today.
  So I urge my colleagues to stand up for the working Americans who 
sent us here to fight for them, and I urge my colleagues to vote 
against both agreements.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise in support of this. I represent one of the richest 
agricultural areas in our Nation in northern California, the northern 
Sacramento Valley, just north of Sacramento. This agreement will be 
very, very helpful to our agricultural commodities.
  Singapore imports virtually all of their food products. Trade and 
agricultural products represent a net trade surplus for the United 
States. In 2002, American farmers exported around $259 million worth of 
food products to Singapore. By binding all of its tariffs at zero, 
Singapore will open its markets to American agricultural products and 
create new opportunities for American farmers to sell their produce to 
a nation whose small size prevents it from being able to grow enough 
food for consumption by its citizens.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, I feel that this would be very beneficial for our 
country, for their country, in general; and I urge support of this.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for 
yielding me this time, and I rise to oppose H.R. 2739, which would 
implement the United States-Singapore Free Trade Agreement.
  I am especially opposed to the intellectual property rights 
provisions contained in chapter 16 of this agreement because they could 
restrict the access of the people of Singapore to affordable medicines 
for HIV/AIDS and other diseases. The agreement delays the introduction 
of generic competition and extends patent terms, thus extending the 
length of time during which people in Singapore would be required to 
pay monopoly prices for medicines.
  The agreement also restricts Singapore's use of compulsory licensing 
and parallel importation mechanisms that allow governments to override 
patents in order to protect public health. If the United States-
Singapore Free Trade Agreement becomes a template for negotiations with 
other developing countries, people throughout the developing world will 
find it harder to gain access to affordable medicines.
  Currently, access to medicines is severely limited in developing 
countries because developing countries cannot afford to purchase 
medicines at the prices charged by the multinational pharmaceutical 
companies. More than 40 million people are living with HIV/AIDS 
worldwide, and over 95 percent of them live in developing countries. 
Yet many of the medicines that treat people with HIV/AIDS here in the 
United States are unavailable in most developing countries. Patients in 
developing countries with other diseases, such as heart disease, 
diabetes, and cancer, also lack access to lifesaving medicines.
  The Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health 
affirmed the rights of developing countries to take measures to protect 
public health and promote access to medicines. This declaration was 
adopted by the World Trade Organization at the Fourth Ministerial 
Conference at Doha, Qatar, on November 14, 2001. The Fast Track bill 
passed by Congress last year specifically directs the President to 
negotiate

[[Page 19451]]

trade agreements that are consistent with the provisions of the Doha 
Declaration.
  We cannot trust this administration to negotiate free trade 
agreements with developing countries when the administration ignores 
the explicit instructions of Congress in the Fast Track bill to respect 
the Doha Declaration and allow developing countries to take appropriate 
measures to protect public health.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rights of developing countries to 
promote access to affordable medicines by opposing the U.S.-Singapore 
Free Trade Agreement.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Baca).
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for 
yielding me this time, and I stand in opposition to the Singapore-Chile 
Free Trade Agreement.
  Mr. Speaker, this agreement will do nothing to promote fair trade and 
nothing to help working families in this Nation. We need to create jobs 
here in the United States. We have seen the damage and what has 
happened when Congress passes free trade agreements. We have lost over 
3 million jobs since NAFTA came into existence. In California alone, we 
have lost over 80,000 jobs. We currently have an unemployment rate 
right now of 6.4 percent. A 6.4 percent unemployment rate right now. 
Hispanics have an 8.4 percent unemployment rate. African Americans have 
an 11.8 percent rate. We need to create jobs here in the United States, 
not somewhere else. We cannot let this happen to us again.
  The Chile and Singapore trade agreements will hurt American 
manufacturing jobs here in the United States. At one time we used to be 
proud to go into our stores and buy American products that said ``Made 
in America.'' We are not seeing that anymore. What happens when those 
products are not made and manufactured here in the United States? We 
lose revenue right here in the United States. What happens to Social 
Security? What happens to Medicare? It affects the kinds of income that 
we need in the future when we look at the services that we have to 
provide if we are going to some other country.
  We continue to give exporters in foreign countries an opportunity to 
build there but not to create the jobs here in the United States. We 
need to protect working families right here in the United States. We 
need to create jobs right here. Our families need to put food on their 
tables. They must not fear that they are going to lose their jobs to 
some foreign country.
  The agreements are an insult to workers' rights. This agreement will 
change immigration rules, which have no place in trade agreements. The 
Singapore agreement will label and import raw materials from countries 
like China and assemble them and import them into America duty free.
  We must not let this become the future example of free trade. We must 
stand together and fight against unfair and unsafe agreements that hurt 
American workers.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield 3 minutes to the 
very distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me this time, and I rise in strong support of the Singapore trade 
agreement.
  As we debate trade agreements, it is terribly important that we try 
to work off the same set of facts, even though we will disagree on the 
interpretation of those facts and, ultimately, opinions. But this is a 
solid trade agreement.
  It is important not to overstate the impact of this agreement. While 
this agreement is terribly important to Singapore, our relationship 
with Singapore is terribly important, this trade agreement and its 
implementation will not have a dramatic impact on the United States in 
terms of imports or exports. But it is an important stepping stone for 
the future.
  It is increasingly clear that the Far East, Asia, is a very important 
part of our future in terms of national security, in terms of our 
political relationships, in terms of the world economy. The situation 
in North Korea underscores the need for us to be developing friendships 
with countries with whom we have much in common. Singapore is a 
democratic society. This is a model we should be holding up throughout 
the world of a country that has values they have implemented in a 
manner that makes them compatible with us and a model that we would 
hold up to other countries.
  Singapore has a middle class. This is a critical ingredient to having 
a level playing field in terms of the rights that we guarantee and 
sometimes take for granted with respect to our workers and protection 
of our environment and natural resources here. This agreement achieves 
a level parity in that regard, because Singapore has adopted forward 
laws on both labor and environment. We need to hold that up as a model 
as well.
  We would be mistaken, though, if we were to conclude that our work is 
finished once this trade agreement has been adopted. Because as has 
been mentioned by some of the speakers in opposition to this bill, 
there will be parts of the country, there will be sectors of our 
economy in which people will face increased competition, whether it is 
in the Singapore trade agreement or others we have debated or will 
debate on the floor of Congress. And it is critically important we 
recognize that ultimately this is about equipping our workers with the 
tools they need to compete in an increasingly competitive global 
economy.
  Now, that means that as we begin to debate spending in this Congress 
in the weeks ahead, to support the States that are struggling to 
continue job training programs, strong community college, State 
university educations, even Head Start programs, we must be terribly 
mindful that if we do not fulfill our responsibility to equip our 
workers with the tools they need to do their jobs, the global economy 
ultimately will not work for them, it will work against them.
  So let us adopt this trade agreement today; but let us fulfill our 
ultimate responsibility, which is to make sure the people we are here 
to represent have the tools they need to compete in this increasingly 
competitive global economy.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Wu).
  Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the U.S.-Chile Free 
Trade Agreement and in opposition to the U.S.-Singapore Free Trade 
Agreement.
  I believe in vibrant trade, and I believe in vibrant democracy. It 
has often been referred on this floor today that the U.S.-Singapore 
Free Trade Agreement is the first free trade agreement signed with any 
Asian nation. And I must point out that instead of selecting vibrant 
democracies, such as South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, or India, this 
administration has negotiated a free trade agreement with a single-
party authoritarian state.
  I think that by choosing this course, we are, in effect, endorsing 
our competing model for this next century. That is, in the last century 
the competition of ideas in the world was between our ideals of free 
markets and free societies versus fascism or communism. In this next 
century, the competition is between our ideals of a free market and a 
free society versus a free market coupled with a one-party 
authoritarian state, such as exists in the city-state of Singapore.

                              {time}  1400

  The Singapore Free Trade Agreement will pass. Even without that 
agreement, 99 percent of trade is without tariffs. But I ask at least 
some Members of this Chamber to stand with me today and show that there 
is a distinction between the Chilean and Singaporean Free Trade 
Agreements because when you are asked, what is the difference, since 
these agreements are so similar, what is the difference and why did you 
vote for one and not the other, the answer is, we should have free

[[Page 19452]]

trade with free people and we should use our economic leverage to 
enhance democracy in this next century.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Singapore is not the same as Chile. Each negotiation has to be taken 
on its own. In Singapore, there was a provision relating to the 
integrated sourcing initiative, and we were concerned about that. We on 
the Democratic side initiated efforts to make sure that there could not 
be use of that provision so that it was misused, so that Singapore 
would become a vehicle for essentially evasion of the rules. Working 
together, we were able to very much address, I think, the most major 
problem, and that is any addition of components or products unless 
there was the approval of this Congress in the same course as with any 
other piece of legislation.
  In both cases, there were immigration provisions. They were of major 
concern to us. Again, we on the Democratic side initiated a discussion 
of these concerns, and we worked on a bipartisan basis within the 
Committee on Ways and Means and between the Committee on Ways and Means 
and the Committee on the Judiciary. As a result, virtually all of these 
concerns have been, in my judgment, essentially addressed with the 
additional proviso, which the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) has indicated, and that is a warning to the USTR that 
Chile and Singapore, in terms of immigration provisions, should not be 
a template, should not be a model in the future for any agreement.
  The same is true of core labor standards. Here I want to be very 
clear. Jordan is Jordan. Singapore is Singapore. Chile is Chile. The 
agreement as to Jordan was satisfactory. It was, however, changed to 
some extent by the administration through an exchange of letters. We 
voted for it anyway, despite the exchange of letters, with some 
hesitation because Jordan, in fact, has core labor standards in their 
laws and enforces them. Chile does also. In its own way, so does 
Singapore.
  I do not think the Jordan or the Singapore or Chile agreements would 
be satisfactory as applied to Central America and the conditions for 
workers in those countries. They are suppressed, and to apply even 
Jordan to Central America would be a serious mistake because the 
provisions regarding enforcement of core labor standards by Jordan talk 
about striving to ensure. That may be okay for a country that has them; 
it is unsatisfactory for most countries in Central America that simply 
do not have, in laws or in practice, core labor standards.
  So, in my judgment, the best way to approach these trade agreements 
is to take them on the terrain that exists and is likely to exist. In 
that respect, I am going to vote for these two agreements, as many of 
my colleagues will, but I think for almost all of us on this side, 
whether we vote ``yes'' or ``no,'' there is a similar message to USTR 
and, that is, do not consider these agreements as a model or a template 
for Central America or FTAA. If you do so, you are likely to jeopardize 
an important agreement, CAFTA, you will not bring about the benefits 
that these Central American countries need, and you will have the 
strong opposition not only of the workers of America but virtually 
everybody on this side of the aisle.
  Under those circumstances, I close, urging the Democrats to vote 
``yes.'' However we vote, I hope the stated message is clear to this 
administration and, indeed, to everybody who is concerned.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Washington 
is recognized for 5\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, as you listen to my colleague from 
Michigan and me, you will hear us say many of the same things. You kind 
of wonder, why does one vote ``yes'' and one vote ``no''?
  I have been on the Committee on Ways and Means since 1991. I have 
been involved in all the labor agreements in the last 12 years. Today, 
we are voting on the first two agreements negotiated by the new Trade 
Representative. Most of the provisions in the two agreements do not 
really require Chile, Singapore or the United States to do much more 
than they have already agreed to do in the World Trade Organization. In 
fact, the service sector portions of the Singapore agreement simply 
restate commitments made in the WTO General Agreement on Trade and 
Services.
  I have deep concerns about these two agreements because they are 
indicative of the Bush administration's poor approach to trade policy. 
The primary mission of the United States Trade Representative is to 
open up foreign markets to create economic growth and raise living 
standards. The agreements brought here today by the President and the 
ones that he is currently pursuing with Morocco and Bahrain, for 
example, will do little to provide economic gains for the United 
States. In fact, the entire economy of Singapore and Chile combined 
does not even equal Japan's service sector.
  Furthermore, considering that the size of Russia's economy is equal 
to 15 countries with which we are now negotiating free trade 
agreements, the limited resources at USTR would be perhaps better put 
in focusing on Russia's accession to WTO, not a free trade agreement 
with Namibia.
  The criterion that the Bush administration employs to determine which 
countries to pursue trade agreements with is dubious at best. It is 
apparent that our Trade Representative is basing his decisions almost 
exclusively on geopolitical rather than economic criteria. I believe 
that Secretary Powell's agency is the appropriate one to conduct our 
foreign policy, not the Trade Representative.
  America's best exports are the democratic values that we hold dear. 
While capitalism and open markets may boost trade flows, democratic 
values must always be a centerpiece of U.S. trade. I supported the 
U.S.-Jordan Free Trade Agreement because it incorporated labor and 
environmental issues. This was a profound development, because it 
symbolized the acknowledgment that we need to approach international 
trade in a more holistic manner. While the Chile and Singapore 
agreements incorporate labor and environment, they treat these issues 
as inferior to commercial interests, as illustrated by the inadequate 
dispute settlement process. This is a step backward from where we were 
with the Jordan agreement.
  Singapore, for instance, is a hub for illegal timber, illegal 
wildlife and restricted pollutants like chloro-
fluorocarbons. The Environmental Investigation Agency reports that 
Singapore is, quote, ``a major center of illegal trade in endangered 
wildlife including poached elephant ivory, tiger bone, parrots and 
other species.'' The same agency reports that Singapore is central to 
the regional Asian black market trade in chlorofluorocarbons, even 
though international trade in CFCs is strictly limited by the Montreal 
Protocol on Ozone Depleting Substances.
  The USTR had an opportunity to change Singapore's course of illegal 
environmental trafficking with this agreement. Unfortunately, they 
decided to turn a blind eye to these illegal and harmful environmental 
practices on behalf of free and unbridled trade. It is now up to 
Congress to stand up for the environment and say ``no.''
  I mentioned in earlier remarks how disappointed I was over the 
clandestine, undemocratic process that the Trade Representative has 
gone about, negotiating these agreements. Mr. Zoellick simply does not 
seem to trust those whom he claims to represent.
  I am voting ``no,'' and I encourage my fellow Democrats and 
Republicans, vote ``no'' on these agreements because I do not agree 
with the process or the spirit in which these agreements were 
negotiated. And I am voting ``no'' because of the trade policies that 
these agreements symbolize.
  Although I expect these agreements will pass, the Bush administration 
had better take to heart the concerns of the Congress, of industry and 
of civil society as it continues to pursue this trade liberalization. 
They will not always have easy little ones like Chile

[[Page 19453]]

and Singapore, and I do not think in the administration they yet 
understand the depth of concern that this Congress has about the 
environment and about labor. They continue to think if we just put some 
fuzzy words in there that kind of feel soft and warm, that maybe that 
will get it by. There is coming a time when that will not.
  They have seen the evidences already, and they are going to find it 
in the Doha Round. People are saying, how can the United States talk 
about liberalizing farm commodities and then pass out of the Congress 
$160 billion in trade subsidies to farmers? Where is the fairness? How 
are you going to keep doing that to the world? I think the Trade 
Representative had better listen.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement marks the first time the 
United States has entered into an FTA with an Asia-Pacific nation. 
Also, our agreement with Chile marks the first time that we have 
entered into a free trade agreement with a South America nation. Those 
will serve as precedents for further, ongoing negotiations and 
agreements, I am sure.
  Because 99 percent of trade and goods with Singapore is already 
tariff-free, this agreement focuses on removing restrictions on trade 
and services to the benefit of our massive service sector, which 
accounts for around 80 percent of our GDP. Singapore is the 12th 
largest trading partner with the United States, with two-way trade 
approaching $40 billion last year. The U.S.-Singapore FTA will enhance 
and strengthen this trade relationship.
  These agreements reflect bipartisan consensus in TPA on labor and the 
environment. Some Members seek to reopen that consensus, but the law 
does not support them. The gentleman from Michigan is right: Singapore 
is not the model for future agreements nor is Chile. Trade Promotion 
Authority is the model and the law. These agreements embody that law 
and contain strong, enforceable labor and environment provisions.
  The U.S.-Singapore FTA will serve as the foundation for other 
possible FTAs in Southeast Asia just as our Chilean agreement will do 
the same in South America. The FTA establishes standards for trade that 
mirror U.S. law and sets a precedent for future agreements.
  I urge my colleagues to join in collegial, bipartisan support for 
these important trade bills that serve our interest as well as our 
trading partners' interests.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, initially, I had significant 
reservations about the trade agreement with Singapore. The Integrated 
Sourcing Initiative was too open-ended and Singaporean enforcement of 
environmental laws regarding commerce in endangered species was not as 
rigorous as it could be.
  However, a willingness to compromise and address these concerns makes 
me optimistic about future trade between the United States and 
Singapore. The progress I have seen regarding the tightening of the 
Integrated Sourcing Initiative encourages me. The implementing language 
that we are voting on today makes it clear that ISI expansion can only 
occur by express approval of Congress and can only apply to products 
that are already approved to enter the U.S. tariff-free.
  Regarding the transshipment of endangered species and illegal timber, 
I was buoyed by the Memorandum of Intent in Environmental Matters 
signed between the U.S. and Singapore last month. The statement 
directly addresses endangered species conservation and the intent to 
work regionally in Asia on best practices and capacity building. I am 
confident that by continuing in this spirit of cooperation, we can work 
to address transshipment of this contraband that is devastating to 
critical ecosystems.
  The legislative process has, in fact, worked, and appropriate actions 
are being taken to answer critics. I hope that we are able to bring 
this atmosphere of discussion and debate to upcoming free trade 
agreements, thus ensuring that each is tailored to the specific needs 
and opportunities that we may encounter with future partners.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Chile 
and Singapore free trade agreements.
  We have lost three million jobs in this country over the last two and 
one half years. Unemployment is at a ten year high. Our trade deficit 
is $500 billion per year, and hits a new high every month. Our 
manufacturing base is in tatters, and our workers are crying out for 
help. Yet the bills we are voting on today only add insult to the 
injuries our workers have already suffered.
  It there any question that because of the lack of labor and 
environmental protections in these agreements, they will cost American 
jobs, increase poverty overseas, and pose grave harms to our 
environment? Does any one not realize that these agreements do nothing 
but foster a race to the bottom where American workers are forced to 
compete with what ever foreign workers will accept the lowest wage?
  If you read these bills closely you will see there is no language 
which will protect our jobs or our environment. There is nothing in the 
legislation which requires compliance with internationally recognized 
core workers' rights under the International Labor Organization. And 
there is nothing to insure that foreign manufacturers face the same 
environmental standards that our own companies and workers face.
  Even worse, the agreements allow thousands of workers to come into 
this country every year from Singapore and Chile who will take even 
more jobs from American workers. Unlike workers from almost every other 
country in the world, these foreign workers will be able to stay here 
indefinitely, and their employers will not be forced to comply with all 
of the temporary worker rules we have in place.
  We should never use our immigration laws as a bargaining chip to 
negotiate bade trade deals. We shouldn't have offered visas to Mexico 
and Canada as part of NAFTA, we shouldn't have given 6,000 visas to 
Chile and Singapore as part of these trade deals, and we shouldn't 
trade American jobs as part of the Central American Free Trade 
Agreement.
  Chairman Sensenbrenner and I were able to work together to make the 
best we could out of a bad situation. We made sure that the new visas, 
and any visas which extend beyond six years, counted against the 
overall temporary worker cap. And we made sure the employers paid $1000 
fees for each temporary worker that would be used to pay for training 
Americans. These are useful and important improvements.
  But at the end of the day, we are still left with a bad trade deal 
that harms our workers and damages our communities. I urge a ``no'' 
vote.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of both the Chile and the 
Singapore Free Trade Agreements.
  Free trade and expanding global markets for U.S. goods and services 
are critical tools to spur our faltering economy.
  The Chile and Singapore free trade agreements open new markets in 
Latin America and Asia, important regions in the midst of economic 
development.
  The Chile Free Trade Agreement immediately drops tariffs on 85 
percent of all U.S. exports, providing a penalty-free entry for almost 
all American products into an untapped market. We must seize this 
opportunity.
  The Singapore Free Trade Agreement is especially critical since it's 
the first trade agreement we've negotiated with an Asian country.
  I recognize that through trade we export more than just U.S. goods 
and services. We are in fact exporting our domestic standards for 
protecting our environment and workforce.
  I have strong concerns about how this Administration has diminished 
the domestic environmental and labor standards they inherited.
  But I also believe that we must move forward to open global markets 
and I think these trade agreements set a solid precedent for doing just 
that.
  I'm encouraged that both Chile and Singapore have a history of 
protecting the environment and that their labor laws are based on the 
International Labor Organization's core principles.
  It's critical that future trade deals enhance these important 
standards.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting these important trade 
agreements.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Singapore 
bilateral trade agreement.
  Singapore is a valued U.S. ally and a supporter in the war on 
terrorism. While Singapore is a good friend and a responsible world 
citizen I am voting for this agreement because it is a good deal for my 
constituents.
  The bilateral trade deal allows increased access to a number of 
important markets such as financial services, telecom and technology.
  Much of our country's exports are now products of intellectual 
capital. From movies and records produced in New York City's arts 
community, to software developed by city programmers, protecting 
intellectual property is an elemental key to future trade agreements.
  Accordingly, I am pleased that this agreement contains strong 
intellectual property protections. With the U.S. trade deficit at more

[[Page 19454]]

than $500 billion annually it is notable that the U.S. has a $2.7 
billion trade surplus with Singapore.
  Today the House is also considering the bilateral trade agreement 
with Chile which I support for similar reasons including the fact that 
Chile has reached trade agreements with Europe and other U.S. 
competitors. As a result, the U.S. has lost one third of its Chilean 
market share since 1997.
  One other reason I am talking about both these agreements together is 
there is one provision in each that I oppose and that I do not want to 
see as a precedent in future agreements.
  The trade agreements contain investor-state dispute settlement 
procedures that determine how U.S. investors can win damages if Chile 
or Singapore violate the ``free transfer'' provisions in each 
agreement. As Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Domestic and 
International Monetary Policy, Trade and Technology, I was part of a 
hearing on this issue and have worked closely with Financial Services 
Ranking Member Barney Frank on it.
  Effectively, these provisions allow U.S. investors to seek damages in 
the event that Chile or Singapore take measures to limit capital flight 
in the event of a reoccurrence of an Asian financial crisis-like 
calamity.
  While Chile and Singapore are unlikely to need to impose capital 
controls, many economists have expressed the concern that the 
Administration will insist on these provisions as a template in future 
trade negotiations with less stable countries.
  Such a policy could lead to a situation where wealthy U.S. 
bondholders have legal claims against a country that has imposed 
capital controls while all other investors face losses and where the 
country's own people are suffering through an economic collapse.
  This special status for U.S. investors sends the wrong message about 
promoting free trade and could increase anti-American feelings.
  I will support these agreements but urge the Administration and 
Treasury not to include the capital control provisions in future 
agreements.
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the U.S.-Singapore Free 
Trade Agreement. It is a comprehensive trade agreement that will 
provide greater market access for businesses, enhance protection and 
enforcement of intellectual property rights, and expand investment 
opportunities in both countries.
  While Singapore is the United States' 11th largest trading partner 
with two-way trade in goods and services of over $38 billion, their 
importance cannot be measured in trade alone. Singapore's strategic 
location makes it an attractive regional hub for many U.S. 
multinational businesses to export in Asia. This trade agreement is not 
only about expanding market access, but also ensuring that U.S. 
businesses remain strategically competitive among APEC countries and 
the Asia Pacific region.
  The U.S.-Singapore FTA will certainly benefit those of us from the 
Pacific Northwest. As you are aware, Washington is the most trade 
dependent state in the nation, with nearly one in three jobs related to 
trade. In 2000, 80 percent of Washington State's $103 billion worth of 
trade were with APEC countries.
  Let me give a few examples why the U.S.-Singapore FTA is important.
  For the 25,000 Boeing workers I represent, this FTA means keeping the 
aircraft industry viable in our community. Nearly 90 percent of 
Singapore Airlines fleet is Boeing aircrafts, making the airline one of 
Boeing's key customers in the Asia Pacific region and the world. Over 
the years, Singapore Airlines has added approximately $20-$25 billion 
to our economy.
  For our high tech firms, this FTA means strengthening intellectual 
property standards. I represent Microsoft's corporate campus and the 
software industry loses $12 billion annually due to counterfeiting and 
piracy. In this FTA, the Singaporean government will implement tough 
penalties against piracy and counterfeiting.
  For our ports, increasing the volume of trade in Asia Pacific region 
will create high-wage jobs that would otherwise not have existed. The 
Ports of Seattle and Tacoma handle approximately seven percent of all 
U.S. export and 6 percent of all imports. Without a doubt, expanded 
trade with Singapore will make our ports more critical and valuable to 
the U.S. economy.
  These are just some of the benefits of this FTA. More significant 
than the statistics and dollar value of goods traded, the U.S.-
Singapore FTA reflects a continued commitment by President Bush, 
Ambassador Zoellick, and Congress to reduce global trade barriers. This 
FTA is a reminder to other nations in the region that they need to join 
us in furthering trade liberalization.
  Vote for this bill to implement the U.S.-Singapore Free Trade 
Agreement.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to announce my support for 
H.R. 2739, legislation implementing a free trade agreement with 
Singapore.
  This agreement represents a historic first for the United States as 
it will be the first FTA we sign with an Asian nation. The Asian-
Pacific region represents approximately 50 percent of the world's 
population, and we must work aggressively to open up new markets in 
this region to remain competitive in the world marketplace. The 
Singapore FTA is an important first step in that regard.
  Our high-tech industry stands to gain new opportunities with this 
agreement. Last year the U.S. exported nearly six billion dollar's 
worth of high-tech goods to Singapore. The high-tech sector is the 
largest merchandise exporter in the United States, and this agreement 
will help build on that success.
  Unlike other trade agreements, this Agreement guarantees zero tariffs 
on all U.S. products imported by Singapore immediately upon 
ratification. This means companies do not have to wait years to realize 
the benefits of trade with Singapore.
  As America's twelfth largest trading partner and export market, 
Singapore possesses a world-class infrastructure, a well-educated 
workforce, and growing middle-class. This Agreement will allow the 
United States to compete effectively in this vibrant market and 
demonstrate to the rest of Asia the benefits of fair free trade.
  While this is an acceptable agreement for a nation as economically 
advanced and sophisticated as Singapore, I want to make it perfectly 
clear to the Administration that the Singapore Free Trade Agreement, 
and the Chile Agreement, are not sufficient models for future trade 
agreements.
  Currently, the Administration is negotiating a Free Trade Agreement 
of the Americas, a Central American Free Trade Agreement, and several 
other FTAs with a variety of nations. As the Administration's first 
attempts to negotiate a free trade agreement, I believe Singapore and 
Chile deserve support. However, future agreements will prove to be much 
more difficult tests of the Administration.
  I support fair trade. However, on future FTAs, the Administration 
will need to do a better job with regard to market access, sanitary and 
phystosanitary issues, labor and environmental standards, and 
intellectual property protection. I look forward to continuing to work 
with the Administration and my colleagues in Congress on all of these 
important issues.
  I ask my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the U.S.-Singapore 
Free Trade Agreement (FTA). While I maintain reservations about certain 
sections of this agreement, overall I believe that this FTA will 
benefit Wisconsin and the United States.
  As our nation leads the world into the 21st century, we should not 
shy from opportunities to guide and expand global trade. Singapore is a 
model of successful, pro-trade economic growth in a region still 
seeking to establish stable economies. Our enhanced engagement with 
Singapore, symbolized in the free trade agreement, is a necessary 
commitment to stability and economic prosperity in Asia, while at the 
same time serving to expand American export opportunities.
  The U.S.-Singapore FTA builds upon an already strong trade 
relationship with mutually low tariffs. While over $16 billion in 
American imports in 2002, Singapore is the 11th largest export market 
for the U.S. This includes over 120,000 manufactured goods exported to 
Singapore from Wisconsin with a total value of $102 million, including 
$42.6 million in industry machinery.
  Some of the most important benefits to U.S. workers in this agreement 
will be realized by addressing issues of growing concern for 
international trade in the 21st century. Today's trade environment is 
constantly changing, with non-tariff trade issues impacting all aspects 
of our economy and law. Through numerous rounds of negotiation over 3 
years, negotiators were able to reach agreements on very complicated 
and important issues including state-of-the-art intellectual property 
protections, e-commerce, market access, and government procurement. 
Further, this agreement increases government transparency and 
regulatory reform necessary to protect American businesses and women.
  As I mentioned earlier, I do have concerns with this agreement, but 
on its merits, I believe the FTA with Singapore addresses a number of 
important issues and will benefit the American economy. It also serves 
to demonstrate to other Asian nations the high standards demanded by 
the U.S. when engaging in trade relationship.
  As with the Chile Agreement, controversy remains on a few very 
important aspects of

[[Page 19455]]

any trade agreement--those dealing with labor and environment. While 
these provisions are some of the most difficult to find agreement on 
with potential trade partners, I, along with many in Congress, believe 
bilateral trade agreements can serve to raise labor and environmental 
standards in developing nations an must be included in FTA's.
  While the labor provisions in this agreement differ from those in the 
Jordan agreement, the labor language of this bill, requiring Singapore 
to enforce its labor laws or be subject to penalty, is acceptable 
because there is wide agreement that Singapore's labor laws are 
consistent with high International Labor Organization standards and are 
systematically enforced. In addition, there is wide agreement that, 
while possible, it is very unlikely that Singapore would regress and 
lower labor standards to entice trade.
  I, along with many members, also remain concerned with the inclusion 
of immigration policy in a fast tracked trade bill. While the U.S. 
Trade Representative (USTR) argues that the temporary worker provisions 
can be an aspect of services trade, I believe that Congress must 
thoroughly debate any changes to immigration policy. These objections 
were strongly conveyed by my colleagues and me to the USTR, and as a 
result, the implementing language before us includes language placing 
certain H1-B visa restrictions and caps on the temporary worker 
provisions in this agreement that were previously excluded.
  One of the most confusing aspects of this agreement relates to the 
Integrated Sourcing Initiative (IS). I, along with many members, had 
serious reservations about this ambiguous provision as originally 
drafted and raised these concerns with the USTR. The implementing bill 
before us, however, includes language virtually nullifying the 
transshipment concerns with the original draft. Under this bill, the 
ISI only applies to the limited number of information and medical 
technology products already allowed to enter the United States duty 
free under the WTO's Information Technology Agreement. And, contrary to 
the original draft, this list of eligible products cannot be expanded 
without congressional approval. In order for a third party to take 
advantage of the ISI, the eligible product would have to first be 
shipped to the U.S. from the country of origin, then to Singapore, and 
then back to the United States. Given these restrictions, there is wide 
agreement that the ISI will not pose a threat to American workers.
  Trade agreements cannot be one-size-fits-all, and this comprehensive 
bilateral agreement conforms to the characteristics of Singapore and 
the United States. With an open and developed economy grounded in 
market-based principles, a strong and growing middle class, and laws 
respecting human rights, Singapore, like Chile, is a model trading 
partner. It is in the strategic interest, and economic interest to 
engage Singapore and complete this bilateral free trade agreement. I 
urge my colleagues to support this agreement.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, both the U.S.-Chile and U.S.-
Singapore Free Trade Agreements include several important provisions 
within the purview of the Judiciary Committee. Both agreements contain 
competition clauses that ensure antitrust laws are applied in a 
neutral, transparent, nondiscriminatory manner while safeguarding basic 
procedural rights. The agreements also contain robust intellectual 
property protections, requiring the governments of Chile and Singapore 
to take affirmative steps to eradicate the piracy of trademarks, 
patents, satellite television signals, and other forms of intellectual 
property. These intellectual property provisions are widely supported 
and are likely to serve as a model for future Free Trade Agreements. 
The intellectual property and antitrust provisions required no 
substantive changes to U.S. law.
  For the last several years, I have vocally and repeatedly expressed 
concern about substantive changes to U.S. law contained in free trade 
agreements. Before passage of Trade Promotion Authority, immigration 
provisions were included in earlier free trade agreements such as 
NAFTA, without formal consultation with Congress. This regrettable 
practice created precedent for subsequent trade agreements, and 
immigration provisions were included in both the Chile and Singapore 
Free Trade Agreements before the elevated consultation requirements 
created by Trade Promotion Authority were enacted last year.
  Mr. Speaker, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution gives 
Congress plenary authority over matters pertaining to immigration and 
naturalization. During the Judiciary Committee's ``mock markup'' of 
this legislation, I, Ranking Member Conyers, and several Members of the 
Committee spoke with a united bipartisan voice and declared that 
immigration provisions in future free trade agreements will not receive 
the support of the Judiciary Committee.
  Following the markup, I and Ranking Member Conyers transmitted a 
letter to the United States Trade Representative that reaffirmed 
Congress' exclusive constitutional mandate to consider immigration law. 
An additional letter by other Members of the Committee and several 
Members of Congress echoing this bipartisan commitment was also sent to 
the Trade Representative.
  Mr. Speaker, the Judiciary Committee's July 10th pre-introduction 
markup of this legislation was a ``mock markup'' in name only. At the 
markup, the Committee reported several substantive amendments to this 
legislation which were incorporated into the legislation we consider 
today.
  First, while the draft implementing legislation created a separate 
visa category for skilled workers from Chile and Singapore, the 
Judiciary Committee amended the Immigration and Nationality Act to 
ensure that these visas--6,800 in total--are now deducted from the 
national H-1B cap at the time they are issued and when they are renewed 
after five or more prior extensions.
  The Committee also reported an amendment to ensure that every second 
extension of temporary status for citizens of Chile and Singapore be 
accompanied by a new employer attestation to ensure that an employer 
updates the prevailing wage determination after each second application 
for extension. In addition, the Committee approved an amendment that 
requires an employer to pay a fee equal to that charged to an employer 
petitioning for H-1B visa status whenever a temporary entry visa is 
granted and after every second extension of that status.
  Finally, H.R. 2738 and H.R. 2739 now explicitly state that an 
employer generally cannot sponsor an alien for an E, L, or H-1B1 visa 
if there is any labor dispute occurring in the occupational 
classification at the place of employment, regardless of whether the 
labor dispute is classified as a strike or lockout. In this regard, 
Title IV of both bills provides greater worker protection than that 
presently contained in the H-1B program.
  The Committee's commitment to ensuring that its amendments were 
incorporated into the introduced bills we consider today dramatically 
enhanced the quality of the legislation and recaptured a crucial 
prerogative of Congress. It is my hope and expectation that the 
Judiciary Committee's clarion call over the last two weeks that 
immigration provisions be excluded from future trade agreements will be 
clearly received by this--and future--Administrations. Given the 
leadership of Ambassador Zoellick, his proven commitment to working 
with Congress on a cooperative and constructive basis that fully 
respects the constitutional prerogatives of this body, and the 
dedication and professionalism of his staff, I have great confidence 
that the will of Congress will not be ignored.
  Mr. Speaker, reducing barriers to U.S. exports is crucial to 
restoring America's economic vibrancy. U.S. products containing 
intellectual property continue to lead America's exports, and it is 
incumbent upon this body to ensure that foreign governments stamp out 
the rampant piracy that costs America several billion dollars a year.
  Strong safeguards in these agreements will ensure that the 
governments of Chile and Singapore create criminal sanctions to punish 
intellectual property theft with the seriousiness and severity that it 
demands. In addition, the antitrust provisions will ensure that these 
governments do not rely on the increasingly common foreign practice of 
manipulating antitrust laws to discriminate against United States 
businesses.
  Mr. Speaker, the Chile and Singapore Free Trade Agreements contain 
critical market-opening provisions which will expand commercial 
opportunities for America's farmers and dairy producers, and ensure 
that the United States continues to lead the world in exports. These 
agreements also advance America's broader strategic interests by 
liberalizing trade with two key economic allies which serve as regional 
models for neighboring countries.
  For the reasons I've outlined, I urge my colleagues to support this 
legislation.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation 
to implement free trade agreements that have been negotiated with Chile 
and Singapore. These agreements are an important step in restoring our 
international competitiveness, stimulating our economy and promoting 
long-term economic growth.
  The Administration's first two negotiated agreements since receiving 
trade promotion authority in 2002 will benefit businesses in 
Connecticut, which exported $279 million worth of goods to Singapore 
and $59 million worth of goods to Chile in 2000. More broadly, these 
agreements provide an excellent framework for creating larger free 
trade areas.

[[Page 19456]]

  Chile could be a model for creating a Central American Free Trade 
Agreement, and even more broadly, a Free Trade Area of the Americas. 
The country is an ideal partner in South America because, unlike many 
other nations in the region, it has stabilized and restructured its 
economy, lifting price controls, deregulating labor markets, and 
privatizing state enterprises.
  The United States is Chile's largest single-country trading partner, 
accounting for 20 percent of Chilean exports and 15 percent of imports 
in 2002. Chile is the United States' 34th largest export destination 
and 36th largest import contributor, but because Chile already has free 
trade agreements with other countries, including Canada, an agreement 
with Chile is critical to reduce the relatively high tariffs U.S. 
businesses face compared to these countries, and allow them to compete.
  Singapore is a much larger trading partner for the United States. It 
is our 11th largest export market, with $16.2 billion in goods, and the 
16th largest source for imports, with $14.8 billion. The United States 
is Singapore's second-largest trading partner, after Malaysia and 
before even Japan. Both countries already have relatively open trade 
with very low tariffs, if any at all, so the implementation of this 
agreement should not create a significant imbalance of any sort.
  Southeast Asia generally has been a poor partner in trade, with 
average tariffs near 30 percent, and I have serious concerns about 
these nations' respect for intellectual property (IP) rights, but this 
agreement is a step in the right direction. The agreement allows U.S. 
companies to receive monetary compensation in cases where IP rights 
have been violated, and establishes tough penalties under Singapore law 
for IP violators.
  In my judgment, trade can have a positive effect on social reforms 
and environmental protections by facilitating economic development and 
creating both the income and the institutional structures to address 
those issues.
  Since 1994, when trade promotion authority expired, the United States 
has been steadily losing its status as the leader of free trade. We 
can't afford to let this decline continue. Passing trade promotion 
authority was like setting up a ladder that gives us the ability to get 
back to the top, and passing these two free trade agreements takes the 
first steps up that ladder. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2738 
and H.R. 2739.
  Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of both H.R. 2738 and H.R. 
2739, the U.S.-Chile and U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreements, 
respectively.
  Globalization is here to stay. With markets now linked globally by 
computers, satellite communications, and advanced transportation 
networks, international trade and investment will play an increasing 
role in American prosperity. We cannot, as a nation, afford to retreat 
from a proactive strategy of trade expansion that takes advantage of 
our position as the world's most prosperous and dynamic economy.
  I have great faith in American workers. They are the best in the 
world. And, I'm convinced they can compete with workers from any other 
country.
  Trade liberalization is also an important tool towards developing 
responsible global relations. It is a tool, as the preamble of the GATT 
states, for ``raising standards of living, ensuring full employment, 
developing the full use of the resources of the world and expanding the 
production and exchange of goods.'' Indeed, open markets are an 
important engine of economic growth, which can expand opportunities, 
raise living standards, and affect social change. Perhaps most 
importantly, however, trade liberalization provides our nation with an 
additional diplomatic tool and a forum within which our nation may deal 
with international disputes and/or coalition building. Trade's national 
security component cannot be understated.
  The Chile and Singapore Free Trade Agreements include strong and 
comprehensive commitments from both of these nations to open their 
goods, agricultural and service markets to U.S. producers. These 
agreements include commitments that will increase regulatory 
transparency and act to the benefit of U.S. workers, investors, 
intellectual property holders, businesses and consumers.
  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. As a general rule, 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.
  Indeed, concerns have been raised that the Administration may sue 
some of their 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 
enforceability of those provisions. Moreover, these agreements that 
contain an ``enforce your own laws' standard for dealing with labor and 
environmental disputes. In the context of Chile and Singapore, I have 
limited concerns about this standard since both of these countries' 
laws essentially reflect internationally recognized core labor rights. 
How they are applied does vary in the two countries, reflecting the 
different general characteristics of the two nations; however, there is 
little practical concern that these countries will backtrack.
  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.
  As such, my vote for the Chile and Singapore FTAs should not be 
interpreted as support for using these agreements as boilerplate models 
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.
  The Singapore and Chile FTAs meet these standards and I urge my 
colleagues to support these two important initiatives.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2739, the 
United States-Singapore Free Trade Implementation Act. A free trade 
agreement with Singapore allows U.S. industries access to America's 
12th largest trading partner--a partner that represents roughly $40 
billion in two-way trade of goods and services.
  H.R. 2739 provides direct market access for American industries and 
workers. With the implementation of this bill, Singapore will 
immediately eliminate tariffs on all goods from the United States.
  The agreement before us is also critical to U.S. investors. Direct 
foreign investment in Singapore was more then $27 billion in 2001. This 
agreement ensures U.S. investors will receive the same fair treatment 
as investors from Singapore.
  Mr. Speaker, I salute Ambassador Robert Zoellick and his team for 
successfully negotiating the agreement before us today. I urge adoption 
of H.R. 2739.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to 
H.R. 2738 and H.R. 2739, the U.S.-Chile FTA Implementation Act and the 
U.S.-Singapore FTA Implementation Act, respectively. It is unfortunate 
that I find myself in this position because I want to support trade 
agreements because I believe they can have a positive effect on our 
economy. However, they only can have a positive effect if they are 
negotiated properly. They only can have a positive effect if they have 
strong labor, environmental, and consumer protections. Unfortunately, 
these two bills before us, and the underlying Free Trade Agreements, 
are woefully inadequate in these regards.
  Unlike the U.S.-Jordan FTA, which passed unanimously in the 107th 
Congress, these FTAs--the first signed by the Administration since 
passage of Trade Promotion Authority--will set a dangerous precedent 
for future agreements, including the Central American FTA and the Free 
Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA).
  Unlike the U.S.-Jordan FTA, which provided workers with enforceable 
protections based on the core International Labor Organizations 
workers' rights--freedom of associations; the right to bargain 
collectively; prohibitions on child labor, forced labor and employment 
discrimination, these FTAs give scant attention to these important 
issues. The ONLY reference to workers' rights is a provision stating 
that each party ``shall not fail to effectively enforce its labor 
laws,'' no matter how inadequate they may be. There is no parity 
between our strong

[[Page 19457]]

labor laws here in the United States and the weak protections in 
Singapore or Chile.
  As predicted during the TPA debate during the 107th Congress, these 
trade agreements are bad environmental policy--and now, we have no 
change to amend them. Contrary to the claims of the FTA supporters, the 
provisions on investment in the Chile and Singapore FTAs do not meet 
the requirements of the Trade Act of 2002 that foreign investors should 
receive ``no greater substantive rights'' than U.S. citizens under U.S. 
law. What this means is that foreign investors will be granted broad 
rights under international law that do not exist under U.S. law. For 
example, many companies have aggressively used NAFTA's Chapter 11 
authority to undermine our strong environmental protections. This 
continues with the Chile and Singapore FTAs where foreign investors can 
bring suit against our laws to prevent pollution because they may claim 
a right to be compensated. This is just one example. Applied broadly, 
these two FTAs have investment language that could cause serious harm 
to the environment and the public interest.
  The Chile and Singapore FTAs also undermine U.S. immigration policy. 
Specifically, they loosen policies regarding temporary entry to 
workers. Some claim the H1-B visa issue has been addressed. However, 
this is far from true. While the implementing legislation claims to 
``fix'' the problem by limiting the damage by applying SOME elements of 
the H1-B, these provisions are NOT legally binding because the 
agreements in the actual trade agreement has been violated by these 
``fixes'' and will be eliminated in the pacts' dispute resolution 
systems. Furthermore, the Chile FTA has an unprecedented requirement 
that the U.S. provide ``written justification'' to any person denied a 
visa.
  The Singapore FTA contains Integrated Sourcing Initiative (ISI)/
Transshipment permissions. Last year's Fast Track, or Trade Promotion 
Authority contained no authority to negotiate such deals. Yet, the U.S. 
Trade Representative has this deal in the FTA, and the so-called 
``fix'' largely replicates existing terms in the World Trade 
Organization Information Technology Agreement, for which even the 
Clinton Administration--as pro-free trade as any--never sought 
congressional approval.
  Also, these FTAs could have very negative affects on the health care 
system. They will impede the access to life-saving medicines by 
extending patents beyond the 20-year limit required by the Trade-
Related Aspects of Intellection Property Rights (TRIPS); they will 
require a 5-year waiting period before governments can provide generic 
drug producers test data, thereby delaying affordable medicines; they 
also will permit major pharmaceutical companies to block the production 
of generic medicines. Also, the Singapore FTA reduces tobacco tariffs 
to ZERO, which actually will encourage more dumping of U.S. tobacco 
products in Singapore. Finally, these FTAs will open the door to 
further privatization and deregulation of vital human services 
including health care professionals, and the provisions for public 
control of water and sanitation services. Amazingly, these FTAs will 
leave the U.S. open to challenges from foreign private corporations and 
the subsidiaries to compete for these public sector services. This is 
just plain wrong.
  Finally, some have claimed to have ``fixed'' this legislation with a 
``mock mark-up'' in the Ways & Means Committee. I'm not quite certain 
what a ``mock'' mark-up is, but most believe it hasn't done anything. 
Specifically, some who support this implementing legislation say we 
have two choices: one, we can block this legislation to send a message 
to the Administration that they need to do a better job of negotiating 
FTAs that have real environmental and labor protections. Or, two, we 
can approve this implementing legislation, and then send a message to 
the White House to do a better job the next time. I, for one, am not 
willing to take that risk--the risk that this White House and this USTR 
will actually listen to Congress. That is one of the reasons I voted 
against TPA in the first place. Sadly, many of my concerns and reason 
for voting no have come to fruition in these first two negotiations.
  I want to support free trade because I know it has the potential to 
help American workers and consumers. In fact, I have supported trade 
agreements previously, including the U.S.-Jordan FTA. Unfortunately, 
however, I cannot find many positive developments in either the U.S.-
Chile Free Trade Agreement or the U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreements. 
Reluctantly, Mr. Speaker, I will vote NO on H.R. 2738 and on H.R. 2739. 
I urge my colleagues to do likewise.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 329, the bill is considered read for 
amendment and the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on engrossment 
and third reading will be followed by 5-minute votes on any other 
questions on which record votes may be ordered in series on the pending 
business.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 309, 
nays 114, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 430]

                               YEAS--309

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballance
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bell
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeGette
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Janklow
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Majette
     Maloney
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neal (MA)
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wilson (NM)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

[[Page 19458]]



                               NAYS--114

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Costello
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Doyle
     Engel
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Goode
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lynch
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Peterson (MN)
     Rahall
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Scott (GA)
     Sherman
     Solis
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (MS)
     Towns
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Berkley
     Bishop (UT)
     Gephardt
     Goss
     Hinchey
     Kilpatrick
     Manzullo
     Pastor
     Pelosi
     Spratt
     Sullivan


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson) (during the vote). Members are 
advised that 2 minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1436

  Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri, Mr. DEUTSCH and Mr. ROTHMAN changed their 
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Ms. DeGETTE, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas and Messrs. EMANUEL, 
CASE and JEFFERSON changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


               Motion to Reconsider Offered by Mr. Levin

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to reconsider the vote by 
which engrossment and third reading was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Levin moves to reconsider the vote by which engrossment 
     and third reading was ordered.


                  Motion to Table Offered by Mr. Crane

  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay on the table the motion to 
reconsider.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) to lay on the table the motion to 
reconsider the vote by which the bill was ordered engrossed and read a 
third time.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 269, 
noes 153, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 431]

                               AYES--269

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cooper
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Janklow
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schrock
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--153

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doyle
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     John
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Peterson (MN)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Bartlett (MD)
     Berkley
     Bishop (UT)
     DeLay
     Gephardt
     Goss
     Kilpatrick
     Pastor
     Pelosi
     Sullivan
     Turner (TX)
     Wu

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. RENZI changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion to table the motion to reconsider engrossment and third 
reading was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I entered the Chamber in the last rollcall vote 
prior

[[Page 19459]]

to this one, attempting to vote by electronic device, when the 
electronic device would not take my vote. I approached the table and 
attempted to submit a vote on that motion and my attempt to vote was 
not accepted.
  Had my vote been accepted, I would have voted ``no'' on that 
resolution.
  So the bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the passage 
of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 172, 
noes 155, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 432]

                               AYES--272

     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Ballance
     Ballenger
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Cole
     Collins
     Cooper
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Tom
     DeGette
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Greenwood
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hooley (OR)
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Janklow
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Majette
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neal (MA)
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watson
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--155

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Bell
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Engel
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lynch
     Markey
     Marshall
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Mollohan
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Norwood
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Payne
     Peterson (MN)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rodriguez
     Rohrabacher
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Slaughter
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt
     Wexler
     Wilson (SC)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Berkley
     Bishop (UT)
     Goss
     Gutknecht
     Miller, George
     Pastor
     Sullivan


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson) (during the vote). Members are 
reminded there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1454

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 432, 
which was the passage of the Singapore Trade Agreement, I inadvertently 
missed that vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

                          ____________________