[Pages H7489-H7513]
From the Congressional Record Online through the 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 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--

[[Page H7490]]

(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.
(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

[[Page H7491]]

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 = -------- 100

vom

rvc = -------- 100

(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
(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

[[Page H7492]]

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--
(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

[[Page H7493]]

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 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

[[Page H7494]]

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
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.

[[Page H7495]]

(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 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.

[[Page H7496]]

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
American, 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 our 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 groundbreaking 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.
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 would be
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, this is a great example from 1994 after we delinked with China
human rights from commercial interests. 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

[[Page H7497]]

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 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 is sending 3 million high-tech
software jobs, computer-design jobs to India, so is Microsoft, so is
Oracle, 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 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

[[Page H7498]]

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 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.

[[Page H7499]]

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.
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

[[Page H7500]]

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 created 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
word.
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? Peoples 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 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

[[Page H7501]]

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 asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
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 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 over stated. 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 is 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

[[Page H7502]]

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 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

[[Page H7503]]

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.
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

[[Page H7504]]

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 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

[[Page H7505]]

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 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 any more. 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 trades 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

[[Page H7506]]

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 asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
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
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
lasws 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

[[Page H7507]]

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 chlorofluorocarbons. 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 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

[[Page H7508]]

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
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.

[[Page H7509]]

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 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

[[Page H7510]]

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.
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.

[[Page H7511]]

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 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

[[Page H7512]]

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)

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)

[[Page H7513]]

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 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

[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.''

____________________