Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2738) to implement the United States-Chile Free Trade Agreement, and for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2739) to implement the United States-Singapore Free Trade Agreement.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 329 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my very able colleague on the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, at this moment, we begin debate on the first two measures that will propel our Nation's economy into the 21st century and secure America's economic future. The free trade agreements with Chile and Singapore that we will be debating today are important in and of themselves. But more important, they are the first steps in completing a global economic and trade agenda that seeks to grow our economy by opening up markets overseas and establishing the United States as the leader in the international trade arena.

When Trade Promotion Authority lapsed back in 1994, the executive branch's ability to negotiate meaningful trade agreements was severely impaired. Our efforts to position the United States as the global leader in international trade were stalled. As recently as last year, there were nearly 150 regional free trade and customs agreements put into place worldwide and the United States, the greatest economic power on the face of the Earth, was party to only three of those agreements.

Mr. Speaker, we were losing market share, we were losing tariff battles, and most important, we were losing opportunities for U.S. workers and U.S. producers, opportunity to grow our economy, opportunity to increase the incomes of millions of American families and the opportunity to lead once again in the global marketplace. All of this was being lost as we went through that nearly decade long period, Mr. Speaker, when we did not have that authority in place for the executive branch.

So it was to my great satisfaction last year that we were able to enact into law a renewal of that Trade Promotion Authority. I am also pleased that the Bush administration has responded to Congressional reauthorization of the Trade Promotion Authority with great enthusiasm.

Our terrific Ambassador, U.S. Trade Representative Bob Zoellick, in particular, has been the driving force behind an ambitious and far- reaching trade agenda that will open up markets and raise standards of living both here and abroad, throughout the world. It is very clear that trade is a win-win. We will see benefits on both sides.

So, Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, the free trade agreements that we consider here today are of great importance. But I am gratified to see that many more trade agreements are on the horizon. Once we get beyond the Singapore and Chile agreements we will have a wide range of other great opportunities for U.S. workers and U.S. producers. We will soon see those benefits come to us and we will see the multilateral agreements as we proceed with Central America, South America, Africa, the Middle East and Australia.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I recognize that many in this body are opposed to some or possibly all of the free trade agreements that I have just mentioned. And I recognize, Mr. Speaker, that Congressional renewal of Trade Promotion Authority last year was very contentious

and as we all know passed by the narrowest of margins on three occasions. But I sincerely hope that today we will demonstrate our bipartisan commitment to improving the economic standing of all American workers and families by strongly supporting the two implementing measures before us.

In fact, we have just a few minutes ago had the minority leader stand in the well and talk about that commitment that the minority party has to the trade agenda, and so there will be a wonderful opportunity here to demonstrate that. The agreement, Mr. Speaker, with Singapore and Chile are perfect examples of what the benefits of free trades can and will deliver to the American people.

Now, we all recognize that Singapore has been a critical ally in Southeast Asia in the war against terrorism. It has been more welcoming to our efforts to clamp down on regional instability and global terrorism than perhaps any other Southeast Asia nation. Singapore is also an extremely important economic ally of the United States. For example, Mr. Speaker, Singapore was the 12th largest trading partner with the United States last year in terms of total trade. Now, that is not bad for a country that has a population that is about the size of a county that I represent.

Mr. Speaker, the Singapore agreement lowers barriers to trade in high technology products and services and establishes unprecedented intellectual properties protections. Intellectual properties protections are of paramount importance and very much need to be recognized.

Mr. Speaker, this agreement pays particular attention to protecting copyrights, patents and trademarks for emerging technologies and digital products, sectors where American innovation has been, continues to be, and I believe will in the future be the global leader.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there can be no doubt that by lowering and eliminating tariffs that Singapore places on American exports that we will increase job opportunities right here at home. Let me underscore that again.

Mr. Speaker, I know there is so much talk about the union influence and the union opposition about what it is we are trying to do here, but Mr. Speaker, it stands to reason that if you are opening up new markets in other parts of the world, as will be the case in Singapore and so many of these service oriented areas, telecommunications for example, there will be more union jobs created right here in the United States as these markets open.

Mr. Speaker, like the Singapore agreement, the Free Trade Agreement with Chile will increase trading opportunities abroad. Under the agreement negotiated by Ambassador Zoellick, Chile will immediately remove its 6 percent tariff that exists on more than 85 percent of American exports.

I have to scratch my head once again, Mr. Speaker, and wonder why it is again that anyone would believe that this agreement would not create an opportunity for U.S. workers, union, nonunion members, workers all the way across the board if they are going to immediately reduce their 6 percent tariff that exists on 85 percent of the products that come from U.S. workers into Chile's market.

Mr. Speaker, the remaining tariffs will phase out over the next 12 years. Conversely, most of Chile's exports to the United States are already duty free. So the fact is the world has access to the U.S. consumer markets. Chile can already get their products here. Doing anything other than supporting this measure will not help U.S. workers. The only benefit to U.S. workers will come from our breaking down those barriers that exist there. Recognizing Chile's relatively small trading relationship with the United States, some might question the need for a Free Trade Agreement at this time. In other words, people will say, why bother?

Now, Mr. Speaker, it is well worth the bother. In 1997, California exported about $490 million worth of goods to Chile. By 2001, the number had decreased by $140 million largely due to Chile's implementation of trade agreements with Brazil, Argentina, Mexico and Canada, getting into the MERCOSUR and other trading blocs. So the fact that other nations are embarking on these agreements, breaking down tariff barriers have unfortunately diminished the flow of U.S. goods into Chile. So it stands to reason now that we need to do everything we can to make sure we are part of that tariff tax reduction effort because a tariff is a tax, and we know that by cutting it we will be able to improve the opportunities for that flow of goods and services.

Mr. Speaker, as we work to get our economy back on track and we all, Democrats and Republicans alike, are committed to enhancing our economy, to improving the plight of workers in this country and creating more and more opportunities, as we work to do that, clearly establishing trade rules within the Americas and the Doha negotiations, it is important that the United States of America be the leader and not the follower. Strong votes, strong bipartisan votes in favor of the Chile and Singapore agreements will mark the first steps in ensuring that the United States reaps the benefit of free trade.

It is time for the United States to unleash our enterprising spirit and allow American entrepreneurs access to some of the fastest growing markets in the world.

Mr. Speaker, I urge strong bipartisan support for this rule and the underlying measures in order to demonstrate the commitment of this body to long-term, bold and dynamic economic growth, the development of strong economies, good governments and the rule of law abroad, which will only help in dealing with the many challenges that we face for peace and stability throughout the world.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to simply thank my colleague for his very thoughtful statement and his willingness to be supportive of this effort here. This sort of buttresses a couple of arguments I was making earlier on this union issue, and I say it specifically with the gentleman in the Chair, Mr. Speaker, because I know this is an issue that was of concern to the Chair.

One of the arguments that has been made has to do with the issue of exporting automobiles, automobiles manufactured right here in the United States of America. Under this agreement with Chile, we actually see Chile agree to an elimination of the luxury auto tax; and by eliminating that tax under this agreement in Chile, it will enhance the chance for us to see the exportation of more U.S.-manufactured automobiles into Chile's market which admittedly is a small one but is growing.

Also, there are agreements to reduce foreign duties for trucks, computers, electrical equipment, paper and construction equipment as well; and so I think that this clearly is again a great opportunity for U.S. workers.

There have been several great champions of trade on our side of the aisle and on the other side of the aisle. One of them is the great chairman of the Subcommittee on Technology and the House, my very good friend from Atlanta, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder).

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding, and I would simply say one of the reasons we have not been able to have these job opportunities is the lack of this authority that has been put into place. We now for the first time are going to have markets opening up so that the four-letter word in Ohio that is so important, J-O-B-S, will, in fact, be enhanced; and I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have the highest regard for my friend from Ohio, but I want to make a couple of brief comments about the statements he made.

First, at the outset, he talked about this being a Republican leadership effort. Yes, Republicans have provided leadership, but I think it will be very clear that strong bipartisan support, Democrats and Republicans alike, will be embracing both the Chile and the Singapore Free Trade Agreements, realizing what opportunities they will create.

At the close of the gentleman's remarks he talked about lifting standards, and I completely concur with that. I believe very passionately that the best way, the most effective way to lift standards, and I appreciate his acknowledging that those labor standards are already high in Chile, the best way to do that is for us to enhance the economic standing of those people who are seeking the opportunity to get onto the first rung of the economic ladder.

So I just wanted to say that I disagree with some of the conclusions that my friend might have drawn, but I think we do share the exact same goal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Tucson, Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), my very able colleague who in 1987 asked me to join him as an original cosponsor of the legislation to obliterate tariffs among Canada, the United States, and Mexico so we could have a Free Trade Agreement. We have seen, with the NAFTA, a tripling of trade from 1993 to today, and he has been a great leader on trade issues and I enjoy working with him.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. I totally agree, I totally agree with the statement my friend has just made. I believe our number one priority should be U.S. workers, U.S. producers, U.S. manufacturers. That should be our top priority, recognizing the benefits of opening up new markets for them.

Our goal here, as I mentioned earlier, is with the elimination of the luxury tax in Chile we will be able to export more U.S. manufactured automobiles into the Chile market and that is why this will be a win- win.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman once again yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me to respond quickly to one point he made.

The gentleman said how can anyone talk about the benefits of the North American Free Trade Agreement, and I would say to my friend that in 1993 trade between Mexico and the United States was roughly $83 billion. Last year, trade between Mexico and the United States was $232 billion.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield on that point, I think we have to realize that imports are very good and important for the United States of America. We have the standard of living that we do today because the world does have access to our consumer market.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding to me, and I appreciate his engaging me on this issue.

We did have a nice discussion upstairs in the Committee on Rules last night on this issue, and I was proud to underscore the fact that bringing about economic liberalizations through greater trade did in fact lead to political liberalization and to one-party rule.

My friend has raised the issue of tomatoes, and I appreciate his acknowledging the freeze and the impact that that had on the tomato industry in Florida. One of the challenges I have found, Mr. Speaker, is that there are many people who like to blame every single ailment of society on the North American Free Trade Agreement. I would argue that while I know that there have been great challenges that the tomato industry has faced in Florida, it is important for us to realize that being able to compete in the global marketplace is a priority. And I am not here in this job, and I do not believe we as policymakers should have the protection of one industry over another as a priority.

And so I believe that quite frankly it may not have been the mere existence of the North American Free Trade Agreement that created the challenges that have existed in that area. Many in agriculture have made this claim to us that it is NAFTA that created this, that NAFTA is responsible for that. It is clearly because of the fact that the world has had ready access to the U.S. consumer market.

Absolutely. I look forward to that. And we want to work very closely on that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, the point that I would like to make is a very clear one. We want to focus on middle-class jobs. We want to do everything that we can to enhance opportunities for U.S. workers in the manufacturing sector of our economy. That is why this Chile agreement will be very beneficial. Why? Under this agreement, Chile's government agrees to eliminate the auto luxury tax that exists there. What does that mean? It means that there will be enhanced opportunity for U.S. auto manufacturers and those middle-class workers that does not exist today.

If the gentleman will yield on that point, I will tell him, they can be made in Argentina today and get in there tariff free because of the agreement that exists between Chile and Argentina. All we are saying with this agreement is, let us create the potential so Detroit autoworkers will have a chance to get into that market.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), the cochair of the Chile coalition working group who has led the effort to ensure that we get this agreement to the floor today and has counted votes and worked very hard on it.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).

(Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that my friend's statement is right on target. I would like to congratulate him on a couple of points that he made. First of all, realizing that 90 percent of the world's consumers are outside of U.S. borders. What that means is that as 150 countries have embarked on these free trade agreements and we have been a party to only three of them, we have been left behind the eight ball. I know my California colleague (Mr. George Miller) was talking about workers. I see my friend from Toledo here who is about to speak. We all are focused on jobs and workers. Obviously, the agriculture sector of our economy is a critically important job creator; and I believe that, as my friend has pointed out, creating a chance to get into Chile's market along with dealing with surge safeguards so that we are not seeing a disproportionate negative impact on the United States will in fact inure to the benefit of workers here.

I thank my friend and appreciate his service as cochair along with me with the U.S.-Mexico caucus, underscoring the benefits of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding and I welcome her to this body. I know she is a new Member here. I would say that the conclusions that have been drawn I believe are totally inaccurate.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. And the case I would make is I think that Mr. Dobbs is wrong in coming to the conclusion that he has, but that is what the debate is all about.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) and ask him to yield to me.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I think the point that needs to be made is that with this agreement, we are focused. The gentleman talks about the rollback of the Jordan agreement. That was a separate agreement. This is an agreement that was struck between the leaders of Chile and the United States and the leaders of Singapore and the United States. The fact is we are enhancing living standards through greater trade, greater opportunities for that free flow of goods and services. And on those jobs that you talked about, the auto sector, I believe that by the elimination of the luxury tax in Chile we create a chance for his auto workers to have a chance there.

Mr. Speaker, the main reason is that those circumstances do not exist in Chile. It is not necessary. It is not necessary to address those issues.

That is why they do not have to be there.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

May I inquire of the Chair how much time we have remaining on each side?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), the cochair of the Singapore effort to bring about success on the floor here, my very good friend and able colleague on the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I am inclined to close the debate myself, and I hope my colleague from Toledo will stay here because I plan to close the debate and respond to some of the statements that were just made. So I have no further requests for time.

Mr. Speaker, I am entitled to close the debate here, and then I will be moving the previous question. So if the gentleman will complete his statement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim the time of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I believe we might have been on another journey if the USTR had responded to the concerns of many of us in a more constructive and readily solvable fashion. The Committee on the Judiciary stands as the monitor of the Constitution, and it is clear that the issue of commerce is designated in the Constitution. But it is also clear that in the Constitution, under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 of that document, it 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. Moreover, the Court has found that the formulation of policies pertaining to the entry of aliens and their right to remain here, as entrusted exclusively to Congress, has become as firmly embedded in the legislative and judicial tissues of our body politics as any aspect of our government. Nonetheless, the administration has negotiated a new visa program in the U.S.-Singapore-Chile FTA usurping Congress' clear and constitutional role in creating immigration law.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, we want to be friends with all of those very fine neighbors and nations across the ocean, but I believe that the USTR made a terrible mistake in implementing FTA, which many of us questioned, by delving into authority that should be left to this Congress. The USTR should not have included immigration provisions in both of these trade bills. The inclusion of immigration provisions overstepped the bounds of the USTR and usurped the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Many of us reached out to the USTR in order to analyze ways of retracting some of those negotiated provisions in the trade agreement. Through their stubbornness, they refused to meet or to agree to any of these provisions. Let me give an example.

We have about 8 million undocumented aliens in the United States. Many of us have argued vigorously that we should find a way through the Congress, legislatively, to allow those undocumented individuals who are working, who are paying taxes, to access legalization. In this trade bill, we have a perpetual unlimited visa process that will allow any of those citizens from those countries to stay in the United States forever.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I did not say 1 year, 2 years, or 3 years, I said forever, with an annual renewal. No review by this Congress at all. So rather than come in, try to establish legal permanent residency, all you have to say is that you are coming in under this particular visa provision, and each year you are allowed to renew it.

We simply asked for there to be a capping of 8 years, to at least have the ability, if we are supposed to be concerned about homeland security, securing of this Nation. We now have a gaping new hole that someone can go through to apply for this kind of visa, through certain processes, and stay in the United States forever. Forever, Mr. Speaker.

Negotiating objectives that the Congress laid out for the USTR in the Trade Act of 2002 do not include a single word on entry into the United States. That was my fear about Fast Track Authority. That is what we should be concerned about.

I understand what trade agreements are about. They are a deal. It is that simple. Plain and simple, they are deals. You sit on this side of the table, they sit on that side of the table, and you make a deal. And the dealmakers do not want anyone to oversee the deal so they can slip anything in without any ability of this Congress to oversee it.

What they have done is slipped in a perpetual visa status that no one can oversee. 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 the USTR has done in these trade agreements. The trade agreements create a new visa classification for the temporary provision of a nonprofessional that is similar in many respects to the existing H-1B nonimmigrant classification.

The new nonimmigrant visa classifications, however, would differ from the existing H-1B program in significant ways. The provisions for the new nonimmigrant visa permit allow an unlimited number of extensions in 1-year increments. This makes it possible for a foreign employee entering the company on a supposedly temporary basis at the age of 22 to remain until he or she is ready to retire at the age of 70. This is with the backdrop of 6.4 million that are unemployed and with the backdrop of companies like IBM, just reported in the newspapers, outsourcing a number of their jobs, maybe upwards of 3,000 per company, outsourcing them from the United States to places beyond its borders.

In effect, this gives American employers the option of keeping permanent workers in a temporary legal status forever and ever and ever. In contrast to the H-1B program, workers are granted a 3-year visa that can be extended only once. And maybe some of us believe there should be more flexibility, but at least there is an end time. A single 3-year extension is available, but there is an end time.

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 and undermine the domestic labor market. The implementation 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 independent employers and the additional attestation requirements that apply to them.

The problem we have here, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that we have legislation that includes boundaries beyond that of the USTR. They should not have trampled on the rights of this Congress regarding the issues of immigration, and I would argue that for that very reason this bill has an Achilles heel and should be defeated.

I will begin by saying that I value the trade relations that the United States has with Chile. Although Chile was only our 36th largest trading partner in goods in 2002 (with $2.6 billion in exports and $3.8 billion in imports), Chile has one of the fastest growing economies in the world. Its sound economic policies are reflected in its investment grade market ratings, unique in South America. Over the past 15-20 years, Chile has established a thriving democracy, a free market society and an open economy built on trade. I support trade with Chile.

My concern is with the details of the trade agreement. The U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) should not have included immigration provisions in the Chile Free Trade Agreement. The negotiating objectives that Congress laid out for the USTR in the Trade Protection Act of 2002 (TPA) do not include a single word 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 Chile 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 [pertaining to the entry of aliens and their right to remain here] is entrusted exclusively to Congress has become as firmly embedded in the legislative and judicial tissues of our body politics as any aspect of our government. Nonetheless, the Administration has negotiated a new visa program in the Chile Free Trade Agreement; usurping Congress' clear constitutional role in creating immigration law.

The Chile 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 contrast, under the H-1B program, workers are granted a 3-year visa that can be extended only once. A singe 3-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 Chile Free Trade Agreement's implementing legislation.

The Chile 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 dozen 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 simply do not belong in fast-tracked trade agreements negotiated by executive agencies. Because the legislation is being fast-tracked, Congress does not have the power to amend it. We have to vote on it as written with no power to make any changes.

If amendments had been permitted, I would have offered one to put a limit on renewals. My amendment would have permitted no more than eight 1-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.-Chile Trade Agreement Implementation Act, H.R. 2738.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Speaker how much time we have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Let me conclude by simply saying this. This legislation again has trampled on the constitutional rights delineated for this Congress as it relates to immigration policies. This bill does not even have the provision that says that you need to attest that there are no American workers that can do this job before you give this perpetual visa.

When we tried to get a revenue stream for the visa fees in order to unclog the backlog of visas in our consul offices around the world, for researchers and people who need medical care, we could not even get that established. The USTR has trampled on our rights.

Fast track should not undermine the Constitution. This is a bad trade bill, a bad precedent, and if this Congress does not stand up to its right to protect the American people, who will?

I ask my colleagues to vote against this. They need to go back to the drawing boards, back to the deal-making, and if need be, you need to have Congress sit at this table so that you do not trample on our rights and begin to

put in immigration policies that discriminate against hard-working immigrants who are here in this country seeking legal status, who cannot seek legal status because of our policies, yet you can be overseas, staying overseas, look up, get a visa and never leave this country.

If we are concerned about security, if we are concerned about homeland security, if we are concerned about protecting ourselves against terrorism, what a big, gaping hole.

This is a bad trade bill. I ask my colleagues to vote against it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this agreement for better trade between the U.S. and Chile and, following this, U.S. and Singapore. I appreciate the leadership of the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Crane) in opening these new markets for American companies.

There is a principle involved in every piece of legislation we deal with. The principle in trade is this: If, as Americans, we build a better mouse trap, we ought to be able to sell it anywhere in the world without discrimination. If someone else builds a better mouse trap, we ought to be able to buy it for our families and for our businesses.

This type of free trade is important to America if we look at the most important thing, jobs. It is important to us because now every one of every three new jobs we are creating in America comes from international trade. No one sells more than our country outside. No one buys more than our country inside. And one out of every three acres that our farmers plant are for sale overseas, so it is important that these markets are open to companies and our farmers.

This is important in our State as well. It is important to Texas already. Just Chile's trade is responsible for almost 180,000 new jobs in Texas. That is enough new Texas workers to fill the Astrodome three times over. We have not even yet begun to scratch the surface of what new jobs we can create through free trade; and as the State which is the largest exporter, in other words, no one sells more, ships more overseas than our State, this is real jobs for our communities. These are real jobs for our families.

But let me state that, though we have not scratched the surface, other countries are not waiting for us to get our act together. They are already reaching agreements so that their companies can sell on level playing fields. We need to make sure American companies have a fair shake.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, does it matter in all these discussions if we have a trade agreement with Chile or not? Would it matter if this bill simply went away? The answer is, if you care about American jobs, yes, it very much matters.

The National Association of Manufacturers estimates that the lack of an

agreement between America and Chile causes our companies to lose more than $1 billion in sales each year to other countries. For example, when Chile reached free trade agreements with Europe, sales to Europe automatically increased. In fact, it expanded by 30 percent in the year just ending in February, while our increased sales to Chile were negligible at best. We did not have an agreement. Our sales faltered. Germany had an agreement, and their sales grew by almost 50 percent. France had an agreement with Chile. They grew by 41 percent.

We have to ask ourselves, if these free trade agreements are so bad, why do other countries pursue them so much, and why do immediately they begin selling more of their products to Chile, and why do they start creating more jobs in their countries?

We are paying a price in America for not having a free trade agreement; and, frankly, in this economy we cannot stand to lose even one American job or lose the prospect of creating more American jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), who has played a leading role in expanding markets around the world for American companies.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. What kind of partner will we have in free trade with Chile? The answer is, America will have a wonderful partner in trade.

Chile has one of the fastest growing economies in the entire world. Over the last two decades, Chile has established a vigorous democracy, an open democracy, a thriving and open economy built on trade and a free market society. These are American values that we treasure. These are values that Chile embraces. The American-Chile Free Trade Agreement will help Chile continue its impressive record of growth, of development and in alleviating poverty in Chile; it will help spur progress in the Free Trade Area of the Americas; and importantly, I think it will send a positive message throughout the world by demonstrating that America will work in true partnership with those who are committed to free markets.

Free trade opens markets, it opens minds, it fosters democracy, it fosters labor rights and environmental protections. This free trade agreement represents those values, American values that we ought to be embracing.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

In conclusion, what does this trade agreement mean for America and for American workers? Our answer is, a lot for our future. In this agreement there will be new opportunities for workers, especially those in manufacturing-type companies, because much of the tariffs will be immediately taken away for consumer and industrial products.

It means that our products will be more competitive. That is important if you are a worker in a company that sells construction equipment, automobiles and automobile parts, computers and other information technology products, or if you work for a company that sells medical equipment and paper products.

This agreement is important for U.S. farmers and ranchers because most of the farm goods will be tariff-free within 4 years. That is important if you are selling pork in America, pork and pork products, beef and beef products, soybeans and meal, durum wheat, feed grains, potatoes and processed foods, these are jobs for your industry.

This provides access to the fast-growing services market in Chile. That is important if you work for a U.S. bank, for a U.S. insurance company, for an American telecommunications firm. If you work in a U.S. securities firm or an express delivery company, if you are a professional in that area, these are new opportunities for sales for your company and for yourself.

This is a trade agreement for the Digital Age. So it is important for workers who work in U.S. software, which is a growing part of our economy, in the music world, in the video and text world, these are record protections for our patents, for the work that American workers and inventions that we have created.

This is important for U.S. investors with strong protections and a secure, predictable legal framework for those of us who will invest in Chile. It is important if you are a company who wants to sell to the Chilean government because it creates ground-breaking anticorruption measures and guarantees that we have a fair and transparent process to sell our goods and services to a big range of Chilean government entities, including airports and seaports.

Finally, these are strong protections for labor and environment. Both governments commit to enforce their domestic labor and environmental laws. There is an innovative enforcement mechanism that includes monetary assessments to make sure that commercial, labor and environmental obligations are met. These cooperative projects will help protect wildlife, reduce environmental hazards and promote internationally recognized labor rights.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, if we do not pass this trade agreement, we will pass over a billion dollars worth of sales that we could have with Chile each year, a billion dollars that will create a lot of U.S. jobs and save a lot of U.S. workers in America.

The time is now for a free trade agreement between U.S. and Chile, a time for new American jobs, for new American growth, for our economic future.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, of course, let me thank my very good friend, the distinguished and able chairman of the House Committee on Rules, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) for yielding me time.

As the chairman well knows, he and I both share a passion for the types of issues which will be debated today, and while we do not always end up at the same place at the end of the day, I deeply appreciate his commitment to these issues.

Mr. Speaker, as the chairman has already pointed out, this rule would allow for consideration of both the U.S.-Chile and U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreements. What the chairman did not point out, however, was that this rule in a very real sense is unnecessary. The Trade Promotion Authority bill, or Fast Track, that was passed last year by Congress very strictly limits the way trade bills can come to the House floor. By law the agreements cannot be amended. They must be debated and moved expeditiously and in numerous other ways restrict the normal rights that Members of this Chamber are normally able to exercise.

Despite the restrictions imposed by Fast Track, the majority has decided to impose even more restrictive debate on these important bills today. In fact, few previous trade agreements have been given as little time to be debated as the House will have for these two measures today.

Let me repeat for the House what I said to the gentleman from California (Chairman Dreier) last night. We should not be setting a precedent for future trade deals by limiting debate to a couple of hours. In the future there will be other trade agreements that will come to this floor with more acrimony than today's do. These should, indeed must be considered for more than a cursory amount of time.

While I do not oppose today's rule, I will in the future if the majority again attempts to limit debate, more so than that which is required by law.

Substantively, as a member of the Congressional Oversight Group on Trade, I want to commend Trade Representative Robert Zoellick and his staff for the yeoman's work they have put forward over the past 2-plus years putting these agreements together. I have an acute appreciation for the very delicate negotiations that are needed to achieve the success that has brought us to this point. So, again, I congratulate Ambassador Zoellick and his staff.

Let me also say that as we move forward with our new Congressional Oversight Group on Trade, I would like Ambassador Zoellick to continue to keep

the Members engaged and involved in the process as much as possible.

Specifically, it would be helpful if the ambassador and his staff would provide to the oversight group negotiating text several weeks before they are brought to the House of Representatives for tabling. Any less does not provide Members of Congress and our staff the appropriate amount of time to thoroughly review the agreements and offer our substantive insight.

Additionally, when members of the Congressional Oversight Group on Trade do offer constructive proposals, if the Trade Representative ultimately rebuffs those suggestions, it would be helpful to know for what reasons congressional insight was rejected; and I might add, counter to that I raised with Ambassador Zoellick, the fact that in Singapore and in the trade agreement that there was a defense component; and I think the government of Singapore is to be complimented by all of us for the extraordinary undertakings that they put forward on behalf of our United States military who make a substantial number of ports of call in Singapore. So I saw and pointed out to the ambassador the defense component; and I might add, I think that it was taken to heart by the ambassador and his staff in their negotiations.

Finally, text of proposed trade agreements must be made public as soon as the notice of intent to sign is made, if not sooner. Failing that, it is difficult, if not impossible, for the American people to have meaningful input.

Again, though, Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to be nitpicky. These agreements were reached in an admirable fashion by the Trade Representative and those working with him; and I salute him for that, as well as his interlocutors, in what were 2 years of difficult and dynamic negotiations that will affect globally the trade and will affect the United States in substantial ways.

I look forward to the spirited debate which I am certain will follow.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).

May I inquire of the Speaker the time remaining on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, only to add to the debate that the distinguished chairman was having with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).

There are other things that happened. I voted for NAFTA, Mr. Chairman, and I thought when I did that it would help in many ways. I pointed out to the gentleman last night, and I guess we could cite a lot of things, but the tomato industry in Florida was destroyed ultimately by NAFTA, accounting for the fact that there was a freeze that took place roughly around

the same time. But the dumping is what was the death knell.

In addition, I genuinely thought in the maquilladoras that there was going to be environmental improvement. I have been down there, and there has not been substantial environmental improvement. And I have talked with a significant number of people from Mexico regarding wages, and I do find that there are still problems with reference to their hourly rate.

But I will make the point that the one good thing NAFTA did was get rid of one-party rule in Mexico. But one-party rule or two-party rule does not account for the fact that the workers are not improving.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Most respectfully, Mr. Speaker, I would reclaim my time. I understand what the gentleman is saying, but I labored through that with agricultural interests in Florida; and I think that we could point significantly to the North American Free Trade Agreement as causative of our concern. I suggest to him that when CAFTA ultimately comes that he and I will have a very similar, but even more vigorous, debate.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), a leader in this arena as well as of our caucus.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).

Mr. Speaker, it will be interesting to see what the California wine growers think about this measure. Maybe the chairman will describe that on his time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez), a new Member of Congress and a leader in this field.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), a new Member of Congress and a leader in this arena.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge the Chair, since the gentleman from California has more time, if he is inclined to yield time on his side.

Mr. Speaker, to close the debate on our side, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), whose district I had the good fortune of visiting and could see firsthand some of the pain of previous free trade agreements.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, let me just be sure of the procedure here so that we are clear. I want to be sure that all the Members who want to speak on both sides of this have a chance to do so. I think the way we worked this out, the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) would go next, and after the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) will go, and then I will go.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 25 minutes to my distinguished colleague from California (Mr. Stark).

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Clearly, the Chile and Singapore Free Trade Agreements have many strong provisions, including comprehensive commitments by Chile and Singapore to open their goods, agricultural and services markets. This will be beneficial to American businesses, workers and farmers, commitments that will increase regulatory transparency and act to the benefit of U.S. investors, intellectual property holders, businesses, workers and consumers.

So what is the major source of controversy, especially since the economic impact of the two agreements combined will account for less than one-

quarter of 1 percent of U.S. GDP? I believe that it is mainly the potential and the existing inappropriate use by this administration of provisions in these agreements as models for other agreements.

For example, the Singapore FTA includes an integrated sourcing initiative. As first drafted, ISI would have allowed in listed instances components from any country in the world imported directly into Singapore to be treated as Singapore content, i.e., Singapore as a proxy for other nations not signatory to the FTA. This local content feature has been restricted through amendments to the agreement and by this legislation at our instigation, making it difficult to use as a practical matter. And, importantly, Democrats took the initiative to prevent any expansion of the ISI list without congressional approval. These efforts should send a clear message: Do not negotiate a similar provision in any future FTA.

Second, both agreements contain provisions relating to the temporary entry of nationals which required the creation of a new H1B visa program for workers from these countries. We were able through the implementing legislation on a bipartisan basis to significantly tighten these provisions. As a result, they are not now, in my judgment, a sufficient reason to vote against these agreements. But in this day and age of heavy loss of American jobs, the changes insisted on by this House must send a clear message to the administration not to negotiate immigration provisions in future FTAs, especially where the number of such visas involved would be larger without the active involvement of Congress.

Third, both agreements contain separate dispute settlement rules that place arbitrary caps on the enforcement of the labor and environmental provisions. This is a mistaken approach, the difficulties of which would only be magnified if used as a precedent for future FTAs involving very different circumstances.

Fourth, while substantial progress was made in the critical area of investment, these agreements should not be a model for all future FTAs. Additional steps should be included in future trade negotiations to ensure fully that foreign investors have no greater rights than U.S. citizens have under U.S. law.

Fifth, of great concern about these agreements is the actual use by USTR in the ongoing Central American negotiations of the ``enforce your own laws'' standard in the Singapore and Chile FTAs relating to basic labor standards. The laws of Chile and Singapore incorporate five internationally recognized core labor standards, prohibition against child labor, forced labor, discrimination, and, vitally, the right to associate and bargain collectively; and they basically enforce them, though there are cultural differences in their doing so.

In clear contrast to Chile and Singapore, the laws of most Central American countries irrefutably do not embody these five standards and the inadequate laws that exist are poorly enforced. Indeed, there is a pervasive antiworker-rights culture that prevents workers from getting a livable piece of the economic pie and climbing the economic ladder to the middle class.

So use of an ``enforce your own law standard'' where opposite conditions exist is a contradiction that would lead to contradictory results.

Central America does not need to suppress its workers to compete. To say that it does, whether with neighbors or with China, is untrue, and such an argument only gives ammunition to those who say that expanded trade, indeed globalization, inevitably leads to helping the rich and continuing to exploit the poor.

CAFTA is the real test and provides a real opportunity to shape expanded trade so that it leads to a leveling up, not a leveling down, with FTAA following next. So there is not a race to the bottom. So people in developing nations, as is basically true now in Chile and Singapore, can move up the ladder. So it is clear to workers in our Nation that when they compete, it is not with workers in other nations suppressed of their basic rights to associate and bargain together to get a decent piece of the economic action.

There are two ways to respond to this situation.

One is to acknowledge the many positives in these agreements, voting a green light while making very clear a red light against misapplication of Chile and Singapore to CAFTA, FTAA, and other future agreements where the conditions are very different. Different conditions, different agreements. Or, to vote ``no.''

My judgment is that the message is more clear, the distinctions between different situations remain starker and less blurred, and efforts to make these distinctions more likely to succeed with a ``yes'' vote in the manner described above. Either way, there must be a similar message: Do not negotiate an agreement with Central American nations on the assumption that conditions are like those in Chile or Singapore when they are not.

We oppose such efforts. They would not lead to the breakthroughs that Central American or FTA nations need in access to U.S. markets. They would result, in my judgment, in the eventual defeat of CAFTA. And they would throw away an opportunity, a major opportunity for those Central American nations and others, and for ours, and an opportunity to move U.S. trade policy forward, with the broad base of support necessary for a healthy future for expanded trade.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), my distinguished colleague on the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz).

(Mr. ORTIZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).

(Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), a colleague on the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).