Chile and Singapore Free Trade Agreements

Mr. DURBIN. I support the Singapore and Chile Free Trade Agreements. I maintain reservations about certain sections of this agreement, but overall I believe that this Free Trade Agreement succeeds in lowering tariffs on American goods entering Chile and Singapore.

We are deciding today whether or not to allow American farmers, manufacturers, businessmen and women to trade their products, their ideas and their goods.

Expanding trade goes hand in glove with disseminating and distributing the values of America. That is why I have supported many trade agreements.

The United States-Singapore and United States-Chile Free Trade Agreements, FTA, include strong and comprehensive commitments by Singapore and Chile to open their goods, agricultural and services markets to U.S. producers. The agreements include commitments that will increase regulatory transparency and act to the benefit of U.S. workers, investors, intellectual property holders, business and consumers.

These agreements have one of the highest levels of intellectual property rights protections that we have ever had in any trade agreement with any other nation. We are concerned about the rights of those who create music, entertainment, software, and technology products, and we are concerned about manufacturers' patents.

I am particularly pleased about the benefits this agreement provides with respect to agriculture. The Chile Free Trade Agreement will eliminate tariffs on 85 percent of the U.S. exports to Chile immediately. Under the United States-Chile Free Trade Agreement, American workers, consumers, businesses, and farmers will enjoy preferential access to a small but fast-growing economy, enabling trade with no tariffs and under streamlined customs procedures.

This is good news for my home state of Illinois as over 75 percent of U.S. farm goods, including pork, beef, wheat, soybeans, feed grains, and potatoes will enter Chile duty-free within 4 years. Other duties on U.S. agriculture products will be phased out over 12 years.

In addition, an agreement was worked out with Singapore and U.S. trade negotiators on allowing chewing gum into the country. This is beneficial for Illinois because the government will only allow two brands of gum, both produced by Wrigley.

While some of the provisions in these FTAs could serve as a model for other agreements, a number of provisions clearly cannot be, nor should they be. I believe that each country or countries with whom we negotiate are unique; and while the provisions contained in the Chile and Singapore FTAs work for Chile and Singapore, they may not be appropriate for FTAs with other countries, where there may exist very different circumstances.

I have concerns that the administration may use some of the provisions contained in the agreements as models for other FTAs, such as the Central America Free Trade Agreement, CAFTA, where the conditions may make it inappropriate to do so. Specifically, with regard to the labor and environmental provisions, there are separate dispute settlement rules that place arbitrary caps on the enforcement of those provisions. Moreover, these agreements contain an "enforce your own laws" standard for dealing with labor and environmental disputes. Many of us support Chile and Singapore Free Trade Agreements not only because they have decent labor laws, but because they have the ability and willingness to enforce them.

Concerns about labor and environmental standards, however, should receive careful scrutiny on a case-by-case basis as different circumstances and situations warrant. Use of the "enforce your own law" standard is invalid as a precedent—indeed is a contradiction to the purpose of promoting enforceable core labor standards—when a country's laws clearly do not reflect international standards and when there is a history, not only of non-enforcement, but of a hostile environment towards the rights of workers to organize and bargain collectively. Using a standard in totally different circumstances will lead to totally different results.

My vote for the Chile and Singapore FTA's should not be interpreted as support for using these agreements as a model for future trade negotiations. I will evaluate all future trade agreements on their merits and their applicability to each country to ensure that core international labor rights and environmental standards are addressed in a meaningful manner. Expanded trade is important to this country and the world; but it will be beneficial to a broad range of persons in our nation and in other nations only if these trade agreements are carefully shaped to include basic standards, including the requirement that nations compete on the basis of core rights for their workers, not by suppression of these basic rights.

I support the promotion of free trade, but I join my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in expressing concern that the Administration is mandating immigration policy that is the purview of Congress. This should never happen again. The United States Trade Representative, USTR, should not be creating new immigration strategies. While I support the free trade agreements with Chile and Singapore, I want to convey to USTR that I will look long and hard at any free trade agreements that include similar immigration provisions in the future.