Statement on Chile/Singapore trade treaty votes

By U.S. Congressman Earl Blumenauer

Statement on Singapore

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 sprit of cooperation, we can work to address transshipments 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.

Statement on Chile

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this today. I have enjoyed working with our colleague, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), in promoting a discussion of the benefits of this agreement with Chile. I think it is an important step in getting our balance on trade correct. And I appreciate the dialogue between my friend from New Jersey and the Chair of the Committee on Rules because I think it is important for us to get our facts straight, and I think an honest and open discussion will promote that.

The facts, from my perspective, are that the United States gives up very little in exchange for this agreement. My colleagues have heard, if they have been following the debate on the floor, the fact that the average tariff for U.S. goods is over 5.5 percent for what we send to Chile, but that the vast majority of the product that comes from Chile to the United States is duty free and the average about one-half of 1 percent.

In my community, the facts are, we have seen the impact of losing the market share that the United States used to have with Chile, lost to the other countries that Chile has in the Western Hemisphere, like Argentina, Brazil, Mexico and Canada, and the European Union where we are losing market share.

I represent Freight Liner. Perhaps the largest, most efficient truck manufacturing operation in the world is in my community. They are family wage, union jobs, paying upwards of $20 an hour or more. In the last 10 years, because we have lost market share, because we could not compete with manufacturing in Brazil and in Mexico, we have lost the truck market.

There is a potential with this agreement that we would be able to have a more advantageous situation, and actually it would make more family wage jobs in my community.

We heard talk about labor and environmental practices, and I yield to no one in my concern to make sure that we are protecting quality of life and the environment at home or around the world; but the facts are, if we look at Chile, it has strong labor and environmental standards. They are amongst the best in Latin America. It is important for us to reinforce that, and I would suggest that Chile is a good model in terms of what happens on the ground. Indeed, overall, Chile is a good model. It is an island of stability in very troubled waters in Latin America. We ought to reinforce that model by providing this trade agreement to them.

I have been troubled since I have come to this Chamber listening to some of the debate that has been more emotional than factual, where people on both sides have engaged in the debate between what some say is fair trade and some say is free trade. Well, I would like us to begin an era of honest trade debate.

We have all got our blind spots. The United States has its protections. One of the reasons why I voted against the trade promotion authority that was before us last Congress is that people wanted to draw bright partisan lines and then make a hash out of our trade policy with side agreements on citrus and textiles, and we had this egregious farm bill that really was antitrade.

I think this agreement before us is a step for us to get our balance back. It is a vote for an opportunity to deal with the merits of the agreement, not what is down the line. That is the precedent I want to establish, that we look at the agreements before us, look at the facts and vote on them, that we vote on the merits and that we start rebuilding the trust, the understanding and the dialogue in this Chamber so that we can have an honest trade debate, which is so important for the future of my community, my State and, I think, our country.


Home | About

© Oregon Labor Press Publishing Co. Inc.